The Amalekites are destroyed again and again and again.....

That's laughable, and demonstrates a remarkably shallow understanding about what constitutes a theory in the realm of "science or [sic!] physics".[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 01-26-2004]

Points 1-5 describe the legend found in the Bible. With regards to the origin of the Amalekites it is as worthy of trust as the claim that the name "Britain" is derived from that of the Trojan refugee "Brutus", who supposedly settled there.
[
Added in edit]
On checking I find that point 4 is NOT in the Bible - it appears to be a misreading of Genesis 36:15-16, missing the fact that the seven children listed are identified as "the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau".
There is no son of Esau named Amalek - only a grandson, the child of Eliphaz and Timna.(It is notable that the "Hittites" are described as Canaanites - and cannot be the historical people currently called "Hittites"_6 A is laughable. A legend is still a legend no matter how detailed it is.
6 B is irrelevant since there is no reason to assume that there are two peoples referred to by the same name (imagine how confusing that would be !). At the least there would be some distinction made, to indiate which of the two tribes were meant. But there is not.But most importantly perhaps you can tell me why you choose to rely on that particular site ? It is written by someone who appears to be pro-Arab and anti-Jewish, but with no particular qualifications or expertise. Other than prejudice.Just one sample :
"The cult calling themselves Jews are only a racist cult of Europeans who are descendants of the Babelites"
Do you REALLY agree with this ? Do you even think that it makes sense ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-26-2004]

In Message #31, Buzsaw offers the following:"The Amalekites existed long before (Esau's grandson, Amalek), so the Amalekites were not named after Abraham's grandson."My question was exactly whom the Amalekites catelogued in Canaan at the time of Abraham were named after, Buz. If not Esau's grandson, then whom?Buz, you should have access to biblical geneologies that give the answer. Simply saying that there must've been "some other Amalek" after whom this group is named is not sufficient to offset the probability that this cateloguing of Amalekites was retrofitted into the Abraham narrative much later by bible editors.Buzsaw's Message #31 also offers the following contradictory information:* "Esau's son is Elphaz, his daughter in law is Timna and the grandson of Esau is Amalek."* "Esau was the son of Isaac and Rachel. His concubine Timna."Wait a minute, let me get this straight, Esau and his son, Elphaz shared a concubine named Timna in violation of the Laws of Moses?More confusion from Buz:*"Esau's son is Elphaz, his daughter in law is Timna and the grandson of Esau is Amalek."*"The son of Esau was probably given the name Amalek after one of his ancestors on his mother's side of the family."So, is Amalek Esau's son or grandson? Of course, I know you will have trouble determining direct paternity since Esau and Elphaz shared beds with the concubine Timna according to your information.Yet more confusion found in Message #31:*"The Amalekites existed long before the grandson (Amalek) so the Amalekites were not named after Abraham's grandson."*"Amalek was a grandson of Esau, son of Issaac, son of Abraham."Buz, seems once we figure out whether Esau or Elphaz impregnated Timna, we then can figure out whether Amalek is Abraham's great grandson or great great grandson; but in any case, Amalek cannot be Abraham's grandson, since Amalek's father is not Yitzak.Well, anyway, Buz, my original question was "who are these Amalekites catelogued as living in Abraham's Canaan as opposed to the Amalekites of Genesis who apparently were named after Abraham's great great grandson, and were living in Sinai according to the Genesis narrative?"Once we settle that issue, we can move on to whether "Arabs" are descended from Ishmael, as they frequently claim, or Esau, as your reference site apparently claims, too.But of course, if you keep referring to pro-Arab, anti-Jewish sites for your information, you probably will be citing a lot more information from pro-Palestinian sources that would have us believe that every legit resident of Palestine is Arabic "seed of Abraham", and that the "seed of Yitzak" was totally dispersed from Canaan long ago, never to have returned.Peace.GENESIS

Thanks Brian.I was hoping I wouldn't have to actually debate that issue with you, of all people. I'm glad we're on the same page.db

Hello again Abshalom,Perhaps this was said to bait the old saw, but if not, I would like to put my two cents in here. I am not familiar with this particular case but it was apparently a problem in those days, what with all the pretty women in the house!We know, for example, that Reuben "lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel [Reuben's father] heard of it." (Genesis 35:22)Moses came much later, of course, and his sex laws condemned pretty much all of the ancestors, even his own parents (his father was his mother's nephew).My question, for anyone who cares to comment, is this: How can it be said that the law of Moses is the law of God; And at the same time say that the law of God was in force from the beginning of the universe; And at the same time say that there were righteous people living before Moses (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah) who violated pretty much every tenet of Moses' law?db

In this case it looks as if nothing happened - there only seems to be one Amalek. The other is the result of Buzsaw misreading Genesis 36.There are two mentions of Amalek in Genesis 36:
Genesis 36:12 states that Amalek was the son of Eliphaz by his concubine Timna.Genesis 36:15-16 also lists Amalek as a son of EliphazI suppose that there is a way to read Genesis 36:15-16 as referring to a different Amalek - at least as it appears in the English translations I have looked at, but it is worse than Eliphaz sharing a concubine with his father. As I said Eliphaz is the father in both verses, but 36:16 could be read as meaning that Adah is the mother. That would mean that Eliphaz had seven sons by his own mother. Even worse 36:17 would then imply that Esau's son Reuel had four sons by HIS mother.I don't believe that either reading is correct. But for amusement I note that the NIV "changes" 36:16 and 17 to read "grandsons" instead of "sons" so maybe Buzsaw will insist that the Bible really does say that Eliphaz and Reuel had children by their respective mothers.

Brian writes:

quote:

---

In my reply to Berberry, I wasn't taking the Hebrew into consideration...

---

For the record, nor was I. Part of my point was that if God had intended that his book should be received as absolute truth for all time he certainly would have seen that translations were free of error. Therefore the reading of the original Hebrew shouldn't matter, at least so far as inerrancy is concerned. Besides, according to the fundies I know the King James version itself is inerrant.From this it should follow that the word 'utterly' is the correct word in any biblical context in which it is used. I still maintain that that word is absolute; it is free of any ambiguity. If you have an etymology of the word showing that it's meaning was more elastic in the 17th century I would be interested to see it.I am not as well-versed as most of you seem to be on the finer points of this debate, but I do know a little about the English language. The information I have shows the meaning of 'utterly' to be 'completely and entirely', not 'more or less entirely'.

Well, since we still seem to be stuck on this issue of utter destruction, maybe one of you utmost authorities on the inerrant biblical context of "utterly destroyed" can clue me in on who is who in this biblical passage of utter destruction:
______________________________________________________________________Deuteronomy, Chapter 4:
[26] I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you are going over the Jordan to possess; you will not live long upon it, but will be utterly destroyed.
[27] And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.
[28] And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
[29] But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
[30] When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice,
[31] for the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not fail you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers which he swore to them.
______________________________________________________________________I'd actually like to hear an explanation of the meaning or context of "utter destruction" in that passage from a variety of viewpoints.Peace.

Who's gona be your Judas to come after me? Brian? He hates me enough for that role.

Amalek is the type of evil, the same old shit that hits a person over and over.Evil is hard to put down - that is the message. It is supposed to make a person see their need for God and His power to get the job done.

It's not laughable at all. I did not say historical data is in the realm of science. I said the detail given here (typical of the whole Old Testament) gives it credence to the point of what science would require for their field. There's just too much historical detail in all these Biblical accounts to sweep under the rug, especially when enough of them are verifiable so as to give credence to the ones not yet documented by parallel history or archeology.

The law of Moses is the law of God because God is the Author of it.It is called Moses law to differentiate from any other law or event.Certain sects of Jewish theologians believe Moses law existed eternally prior to even the worlds being formed.The New Testament says Moses law was "added" because sin already existed. This makes sense and explains your next question/point of those who before the law of Moses violated much of its commandments.Galatians says the purpose of Moses law was to act like a mirror; that when a person gazes into it, they should become frightened for failing to live up to its standards, which is intended to make a person see their need for the gospel.Yes, the ancients violated Moses law, but Galatians says that 430 years prior to the giving of that law, God instituted the Abrahamic covenant of righteousness by faith, which if understood says God will remove the jurisdiction of the requirements of Moses law IF a person commits themself to relating to God by faith.

Sorry Buz, I hadn't planned that far ahead. Thought we could skip all the cloak and dagger stuff and get right to the nails and spear part.

Dear Willow. This sounds like circular reasoning. If it is God's law, then why call it Moses' law? Calling it God's law would certainly, "differentiate from any other law or event" while calling it Moses' law makes it sound earthly and Jewish. So why were the ancestors unaware of it? Why did thousands of years pass before the law was given to Moses? Added to God's law? This would nullify the idea that the law of Moses "existed eternally." Yes? And sin existed from the beginning. My point regarding those who broke the law of Moses (before it was given) is that they did so with impunity. There was NO condemnation of their acts. Even Moses' parents gave birth to him in violation of Mosaic law; but NOT, apparently, in violation of God's law. Civil codes have a way of doing that. Especially when there are death penalties attached to many of the statutes. If I understand this correctly, you are saying that: Nearly 500 years before the law of Moses was instituted, God provided a loop-hole whereby the guilty might escape punishment?Which brings up another question.If the Abrahamic covenant (of righteousness by faith) was instituted before Mosaic law and removed its jursdiction ...
... and the Messianic covenant (of righteousness by faith) was instituted after Mosaic law and supercedes it ...
... then what is the point of introducing this apparently deficient and troublesome law in the first place?db

Hi PaulK,I think you intended this message for someone else. And he is probably anxiously watching for that email notification which will never come; unless, of course, you go back and reply to his message again. No need to repeat the whole message. Just say hello and point him, or her, to your numbered response.Happy debating!db