peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Aug 9 06:47:15 EDT 2004
On 08/08/2004 18:54, wattswestmaas wrote:
>Now for the rest........As far as Zoar is concerned the scripture leaves us
>with no doubt that this is a FUTURE name by the words "the same is Zoar" so
>that is cleared up. Dan is mentioned and from the context obviouly refers
>to that territory which is OBVIOUSLY not dan's yet, everyone would know that
>right! The country of the Amalekites seems not to be so clear. And this is
>ONLY a question OK, WHY say this and not refer DIRECTLY to whoever was
>defeated in that particular land? Surely that would be the same as if I
>"and Hitler invaded the lands of the Jutes, angles and saxons"????
Well, he never did. :-) But no, the anachronism is the other way round,
more like "The Romans in England ... For nearly 400 years England was
occupied by the forces of the Roman Empire" which I found at
It must be true if the BBC says so!
And there are certainly unsignalled anachronisms in Genesis, e.g. the
mention of Rameses in 47:11 although I don't think anyone dates Joseph
contemporary with or later than Rameses I.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew