|
Author
|
Topic: evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 1 of 91 (321006)
06-13-2006 1:35 AM
|
|
|
Today, the Edomites are again in the thick of combat ” of the scholarly kind. The conflict is heated and protracted, as is often the case with issues related to the reliability of the Bible as history. Chronology is at the crux of the debate. Exactly when did the nomadic tribes of Edom become an organized society with the might to threaten Israel? Were David and Solomon really kings of a state with growing power in the 10th century B.C.? Had writers of the Bible magnified the stature of the two societies at such an early time in history? An international team of archaeologists has recorded radiocarbon dates that they say show the tribes of Edom may have indeed come together in a cohesive society as early as the 12th century B.C., certainly by the 10th. The evidence was found in the ruins of a large copper-processing center and fortress at Khirbat en-Nahas, in the lowlands of what was Edom and is now part of Jordan. In a Ruined Copper Works, Evidence That Bolsters a Doubted Biblical Tale - The New York Times Edited by randman, : better or not?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Not "Coffee House" type material - Sending this to "Proposed New Topics"
It was meant as a Coffee House thread talking about something I read in the news, not as a dissertation. I changed the title. Why not promote it? You think the NYTs is misreporting this as a major development in this field? If so, promote it and make that comment.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by Admin, posted 06-15-2006 9:08 AM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 7 of 91 (322702)
06-17-2006 7:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
06-15-2006 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: Not "Coffee House" type material - Sending this to "Proposed New Topics"
OK, let's go with the Bible accuracy forum. The problem with asking for more input is that I think the article contains sufficient info on it's own. Obviously, I believe the Bible is correct. The folks arguing that Edom was not an organized nation believe otherwise. That's the issue. This is not an area I am fully informed on so I really cannot give a whole lot more details than that as I haven't studied the details of the positions prior to this discovery. I have been aware of them, but in my experience the critical positions in Bible history have often been advanced with very little substance to back it and franklly have been rather boring as a result (admittedly the other side has been advanced as well without a lot of scientific evidence for it but just based on the Bible). But I do think it's worth discussion and that's what the forum is for, right? Edited by randman, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Admin, posted 06-15-2006 9:08 AM | | Admin has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: edom, in genesis
So when do you think the Bible states Israel had a king? When was Saul's reign?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: edom, in genesis
Well, David was the age of Jonathan, Saul's son, correct. So the time periods correspond well with the Bible. In terms of Genesis, I'd have to look at the references but one might say Israel existed as a tribe way back in Aberaham's time, but still was not a nation. So we would have to look at the language. Edom comes from the descendants of Esau, right? So considering that, it is hard to see how Genesis dates Edom but so far back.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: edom, in genesis
2 different things First, you seemed to be disputing Edom was a kingdom when Israel was in the Bible. Are you backing off that? Second, you bring up Genesis without quotes. Provide the details, but this is a separate issue as to when Genesis implies Edom was a kingdom. Moses in one place is referred to as a king or ruling as a king as well, though generally not considered so and usually not considered so. The real issue is when did Edom become a kingdom, not whether someone was a king over them. In other words, when did the nation-state begin as oppossed to the tribe.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 18 of 91 (323902)
06-20-2006 1:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
06-20-2006 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: edom, in genesis
However, it was shown beyond all doubt that there was no Kingdom of Edom (or Moab) before the 13th century BCE.
Really? You don't really believe that, do you? Nothing has been shown at all to contravene the Bible here. Why make such a statement? There is a belief among certain people that Edom was not a kingdom, but we can look at kingdoms and nations from very recent history and still not see a lot of evidence for them other than historical accounts. Take the Apache nation. Without historical accounts and without photos, it would be difficult to say a separate nation/kingdom existed, but it did. We might find Indian sites, but we would have a difficult time determining if they were a separate nation with their own language, etc,....or not, if we did not have some historical accounts to rely on.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Brian, posted 06-20-2006 12:57 PM | | Brian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by Brian, posted 06-20-2006 2:02 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 21 of 91 (324090)
06-20-2006 7:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Brian
06-20-2006 2:02 PM
|
|
Re: edom, in genesis
The apache analogy is invalid and irrelevant because there is evidence of settlements You think 1000 years from now, we will be able to see any evidence of Apache settlements and be able to distinguish them, say, from Navaho settlements? The more nomadic the people, the less likely there will be a lot of evidence for them. Are you claiming no one lived in the area during that period?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Brian, posted 06-20-2006 2:02 PM | | Brian has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2006 8:20 PM | | randman has not replied | | | Message 24 by Brian, posted 06-21-2006 6:59 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2