evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom

quote:

---

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.

---

i'd like to point out that edom, according to the bible, was a kingdom LONG before israel. the earliest mention of edom as a country is in genesis 32, and the earliest confirmation that they have kings is in genesis 36:

quote:

---

Gen 36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

---

it's a little hard to tell specifically when this is, because it goes through a long un-dated genealogy first. but it's clear that these kings are before israel had a king.

---

if i recall correctly (and i may not), most hold that david was about 10th century bc.12th century bc would be closer to the time of the exodus, and i suspect that the bible is placing edom even before that, though i can't actually do the math without the numbers.just pointing that edom pops up as a kingdom in genesis, and is probably before the exodus, so there might be a little further to go. again, not to familiar here, just trying to forward some information i thought might be pertinant.

---

that doesn't follow. we're not given a timeframe for the edomite kings in genesis, just that they are descended from esau (edom), and a number of generations. i think you fill this number of generations to be smaller than the number of generations between jacob (esau's brother) and exodus, and that would make edom older than the timeframe in the above article, according to the bible.i'll count them if you want. i just, well, i really hate genealogies. israel comes from abraham, so, no they did not. we don't get anyone called israel until jacob -- esau's brother. so the kingdoms of edom and israel are brother kingdoms, but according to genesis, edom had kings first. right, it's several generations after esau, but i don't think it's enough generations to bring it contemporary to the exodus. i'll go count, and come back.

---

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. 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. where? what, you think — and — are unrelated words? or, for that matter, their english equivalents, "king" and "kingdom?" 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.

---

tisk tisk, brian. abscence of evidence ≠ evidence of abscence.we can, say, for instance, when a particular settlement started (abouts), but seeing how far down the layers go, archaeologically. but it's hard to say that there was no settlement anywhere in the entire region -- maybe we just haven't found it. of course. but that's hardly proof of the bible.

---

2.5 million? no. of course it is, but it's still a logical fallacy. i'm not very good at devil's advocate arguments, am i? ah well, i tried.

---