Ramases, was [b-hebrew] Amalekites!

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Tue Aug 10 01:46:18 EDT 2004


Rameses in Genesis 47 is a place name, probably not referring to a city, not a personal name. Who says that a place had to be named after a pharaoh?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>

> 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
> >said:
> >"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 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/england/rom_roman_invasion.shtml. 
> 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 Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list