First, you seemed to be disputing Edom was a kingdom when Israel was in the Bible. Are you backing off that?
what? no. i think you misunderstood. edom was a kingdom before israel was a kingdom. but they are not mutually exclusive. edom was a kingdom WHILE israel was a kingdom as well.
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.
i quoted the one reference that refers to edom as a kingdom well before the date provided in the article. all i'm trying to do is say that there's still a ways to go.
Moses in one place is referred to as a king or ruling as a king as well,
where?
The real issue is when did Edom become a kingdom, not whether someone was a king over them.
what, you think
— and
— are unrelated words? or, for that matter, their english equivalents, "king" and "kingdom?"
In other words, when did the nation-state begin as oppossed to the tribe.
i would say having a king counts. but, um, i checked the genealogy, and it doesn't matter. esau's genealogy goes no deeper than grandchildren. it seems there was a group already in edom, the family of a guy name seir. esau goes and lives on a mount seir (relation?), and one of esau's sons knocks up seir's daughter.
and then the kings just suddenly appear in the text, with no relation. there are eight generations. i don't know what this means. it seems that there were edomite kings... when edom got there. can anyone make sense of this? i just graphed out genesis 36, and i can't figure it out.