kwrandolph at email.com
Tue Aug 10 01:04:47 EDT 2004
You should mention a fourth possibility, that this is a historical record, that the Amalekites mentioned in Genesis 14:7 were one of the many groups who were not mentioned in the original 70 nations, but still an early recognized people. After all, were all the other peoples mentioned in verses one through six among the original 70 nations?
And yet a fifth possibility, that this was a place name, that the Amalekite people were a later development.
(I havent checked these out yet, but these are possibilities.)
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Dear Chris,
> Let's leave the apologies aside. We're all learning here.
> Your question was "WHY say this [the field of the Amalekite] and not refer
> DIRECTLY to whoever was defeated in that particular land? Surely that would
> be the same as if I said: "and Hitler invaded the lands of the Jutes, angles
> and saxons"????
> There are three possible answers:
> 1. The author of Genesis 14 did not really know who lived there in Abraham's
> time - which brings the historicity of the whole section into question.
> 2. The author of Genesis 14 did not really care who lived there in Abraham's
> time - remember, the Bible is not a work of history, but one of theology.
> 3. The author of Genesis 14 purposely used "Amalekites" to make a point -
> what point I do not know.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew