Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Jim,

you've just completely contradicted to yourself (in Karl's words the mother
of all logical fallicies). You base your discussion by saying that the
phrase 'that is' indicates contemporary names for the same place and then
conclude by saying we would better translate as 'the valley of tilled fields
that is near a salt sea'. i.e. not the same place!

There really is no two ways about it Jim. The Valley of Siddim and the Salt
Sea are the exact same historical place with proper names indicating an
unambiguous single location. Don't you find more than just a little
coincidental that the Salt Sea has bitumen floating on it and no bitumen
pits in the immediate vicinity?

In you are to insist that the Salt Sea is the Valley of Siddim then that's
one whopping great valley mate with an awful lot of bitumen pits missing.

James Christian

On 5 May 2010 16:23, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  James Christian:
>
>
>
> You wrote:  “[N]one of the places you describe seem to have undergone such 
> a massive environmental change that the author felt the need to state that 
> in those days the valley of Siddim was full of pits of bitumen (as opposed 
> to a Salt Sea).”
>
>
>
> The problem is your misunderstanding of the Hebrew word HW).  HW) means 
> “that is”.  HW) does not mean “being the former name of a place that is now 
> called”.  And HW) does not mean “being the former place, which has now been 
> divinely destroyed by YHWH, and pursuant to massive environmental change, 
> in its stead there is now”.  No, HW) means “that is”.  In English, we may 
> have to supply an implied preposition, but the basic meaning will still be 
> “that is”.
>
>
>
> Let’s start with Genesis 14: 7 again, which references “En-Mishpat HW) 
> QD$”.  That does not mean that En-Mishpat was the former name of a place 
> that is now called QD$.  No, that means that En-Mishpat and QD$ are 
> contemporary, alternative names for the same place.  Today, I might say:  
> “And then they returned and came to the “Facing-the-Radiance-of Mt.-Hermon” 
> kibbutz, that is, Qadesh (of Upper Galilee).”  That is the  e-x-a-c-t  
> modern equivalent of the first half of Genesis 14: 7.  Note that HW) means 
> “that is”, and is not talking about an old name or old place that has now 
> been replaced by a new name or a new geographical reality.
>
>
>
> Genesis 14: 3 refers to the contending parties as coming to, for their big, 
> final battle, “the valley of tilled fields HW) sea the salt”.  Depending on 
> the context, the phrase “sea the salt” could refer either to the 
> Mediterranean Sea or the Dead Sea, both of which are salt seas.  The 
> Hebrews called people who sailed the Mediterranean Sea “salts” (Ezekiel 27: 
> 29;  Jonah 1: 5), so we know that the Hebrews thought of the Mediterranean 
> Sea as being a salt sea.
>
>
>
> Critical to the issue at hand here is that there are two different “valleys 
> of tilled fields” referenced at Genesis 14: 1-11.  The second half of 
> Genesis 14: 7 references military actions in the fertile Beqa Valley, which 
> is a classic “valley of tilled fields”.  The Amorites and Hasi/XCCN TMR 
> were in the Beqa Valley.
>
>
>
> But the big final battle of the “four kings against five” was fought in a 
> different “valley of tilled fields” -- the Orontes River Valley, in western 
> Syria.  We know from 19th century A.D. European travellers’ accounts that 
> the Orontes River Valley was the breadbasket of northern Syria, so it is 
> (like the Beqa Valley) a classic “valley of tilled fields”.  (By sharp 
> contrast, the Jordan River Valley is not a “valley of tilled fields”, as 
> the land in the Jordan River Valley is generally too poor for farming.)  At 
> Genesis 14: 3, the Hebrew author wants to clarify which “valley of tilled 
> fields” he is talking about, since Genesis 14: 1-11 will in fact talk about 
> two different “valleys of tilled fields”.  So he adds the clarifying phrase 
> “HW) sea the salt”.  That makes it clear that he is talking about the 
> “valley of tilled fields” that is very close to a salt sea, being the 
> Orontes River Valley, which is very close to the Mediterranean Sea.  The 
> other “valley of tilled” fields referenced at Genesis 14: 1-11, by 
> contrast, is nowhere close to any salt sea, as the Beqa Valley is not close 
> to either the Dead Sea or the Mediterranean Sea.
>
>
>
> Chapter 14 of Genesis is not referring to any “massive environmental 
> change”.  HW) does not mean “being the former place, but which now, 
> pursuant to a massive environmental change, is no longer, and instead we 
> now see at that locale”.  Rather, HW) at Genesis 14: 3 means “that is”.  In 
> English, it helps to supply the implied preposition “near”, so that HW) 
> means:  “that is (near)”.
>
>
>
> At Genesis 14: 7, HW) is clarifying that En-Mishpat is an alternate, 
> contemporary name for QD$.  At Genesis 14: 3, HW) is clarifying that the 
> “valley of tilled fields” that is being referenced is the one “that is 
> (near)” a salt sea.  In both cases, HW) means “that is”.  In the second 
> case, in English it helps to supply an implied preposition, “near”, but the 
> meaning is still basically “that is”.  At Genesis 14: 3, HW) is clarifying 
> which of two “valleys of tilled fields” is being referenced.  It’s the salt 
> the sea valley of tilled fields.  That is, it’s the valley of fields which 
> is near a salt sea.  The Orontes River runs parallel to, is very close to, 
> and empties into, the Mediterranean Sea, which the Hebrews thought of as 
> being a salt sea.  By contrast, the Beqa Valley is not close to any salt 
> sea.  So to clarify that the Orontes River Valley, not the Beqa Valley, is 
> the “valley of tilled fields” that is being referenced at Genesis 4: 3, the 
> text uses HW):  the “valley of tilled fields that is salt the sea”, or in 
> better English, the “valley of tilled fields that is near a salt sea”.
>
>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
>