was Michael -- Re: deuteronomy (Peter)

Raymond de Hoop rdehoop at keyaccess.nl
Mon Mar 12 07:01:11 EST 2001


Peter,

At 12-03-2001 12:23 Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk at sil.org> wrote:
> But let's look at Genesis 49:16. Since when does k- imply pretence, that
> Dan was not really a tribe but only a pseudo-tribe? Against this there are
> other of parts of Genesis which make it clear that Dan was a son of Jacob
> and the ancestor of an Israelite tribe. See 30:6, 35:25, 46:23, and many
> other places in the HB.

The problem is here, whether you want to read the accounts in Genesis to be
historical reports, or as accounts which explain later historical
developments and/or situations.

Regards,
Raymond




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list