Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Amalekites!

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: wattswestmaas <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Amalekites!
  • Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:47:15 +0100

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/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page