Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Yigal:

On 11/11/07, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>  Dear Karl,
>  You wrote:
>
> > Unless the kings did not travel the main route to Damascus, they would
> > have travelled to the east of the Sea of Galilee to avoid the
> > mountainous areas. The later tribal area was in the mountainous area.
>
> I assume that you've looked at a map. East of the sea of Galille is what we
> now call the Golan Hights and Mount Hermon, much more mountainous than the
> Galillee to the west. The Jordan Valley, right past Dan, is the only logical
> route.
>
I have looked at several maps, and the main inland north south route
to Damascus listed on the maps is to the east of the Jordan valley,
also east of the Golan Heights and Mount Hermon, on the "Transjordan
Highlands", the route listed on the maps as the "King's Highway". (The
other main north south route was on the coastal plain, well to the
west.) There were two main connectors to the King's Highway from the
Jordan Valley, both to the south of the Sea of Galilee. There is a
branch from the coastal highway to Damascus that crosses the Jordan
between Lake Hula and the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, still
some distance from the tribal territory of Dan and it too travels east
of the Golan Heights and Mount Hermon.

If I were those five kings bringing my armies laden with loot and
captives leaving the southern end of the Jordan Valley at Sodom
heading towards Damascus, would I slog my way up a river flood plain,
having to ford the meanders of the river several times, or would I
skedaddle ASAP up to the relatively easy to traverse nearby highlands
and then travel north? What would you do?

> >> The rest of your claim rests upon the assumption that Genesis was written
> >> by
> >> "one of Abraham's sons, and the audience Jacob and his sons".
> >
> > Please be more careful, that is not what I wrote.
> >
> Yes it is. That's why it's in quote marks. I copied it right from your
> previous post. If it's not what you intended, then please clarify.
>
You are taking that quote out of context. The context was referring to
the life of Abraham, not to the whole of the book of Genesis. The book
of Genesis is split up into several parts, of which the life of
Abraham was just a relatively small part of the whole. Further, the
context of the message was to one event in that life. What is outside
that quote as you wrote it is your claim, not mine. Putting my quote
into your context is something that I did not claim.

> > Did you read what I wrote, not only in the last message, but in
> > earlier ones as well?
>
> Yes I did, but again, please clarify.
>
I think I already did a couple of messages ago and even there was just
a repeat of what I have said before, do you need to have me repeat
myself yet one more time?
>
> Yigal Levin
>
The bottom line is that it is unlikely that kings with their armies
travelled either through or even near the territory that later was
taken over by the tribe of Dan. Therefore. the probability is that
"Dan" mentioned in the life of Abraham is likely a different place.

Karl W. Randolph.