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

The place to look is the appendices of The Return of the King, especially appendix A. There is really no comparison between the level of detail in the history Tolkien created and the level of detail in the histories of the Old Testament. Tolkien's is much greater.I should also point out that I don't understand your rejection of the Sumerian Kings list as a source that is as thorough as the genealogies in the Bible.First Chronicles has a longer list of names, I think, but if you're offering genealogies as proof of the historicity of a work, there's a big difference between the arguments for the historicity of Genesis and the arguments for the historicity of the books of Kings and Chronicles. Genesis' genealogies aren't near as thorough as the Sumerian king list linked earlier.Also, I, for one, would not assume that the Iliad and Odyssey has less genealogy than the Bible. I haven't read them, so I can't say, but it does not seem like common sense to me to just assume they have less. It seems odd to me to make such an assumption.Either way, can someone tell me what the point was without making me read 135 posts? If the Bible is historically accurate in all respects, because of genealogies, then doesn't that prove that the Amalekites are indeed destroyed again and again and again (which is, after all, the topic of this thread)? And surely that's not Buz's point.

Hi, TL. Maybe we can dialog a spell.
We're not talking detail perse, but frequency and quantity of historical geneological data.Do you have a link where the geneological detail of THE RETURN OF THE KING is given? Geneological detail is only a part of history, but all historical data is not geneological. That is an important factor in the debate at hand. 1. Amalek was a grandson of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.
2. Esau took wives of the Caananites, one of which was Adah, daughter of Elon, the Hittite from the land of Caanan.
3. Esau's first born son was Chief Elphaz by this wife Adah, the Caananitish Hittite.
4. Chief Elphaz, son of Esau had a concubine named Timna who bore to him seven chief sons, the last of whom was Chief Amalek. (See Genesis 36 for this detail)
5. In Genesis 14 the Amalekites are mentioned about a hundred and 20 years prior to this Amalek, grandson of Esau, so possibly he was named after an ancestor on his mothers side since his mother Timna, concubine of Elphaz, Esau's eldest son was likely a Caananite.6. So the Amalekites who were to be utterly destroyed could have been either the original Amalekites of Genesis 14 or a subsequent people/nation who emerged out of this Chief Amalek, grandson of Esau.[/qs]I forgot who, but someone along the way posted a link on the Sumarian king list with some geneology. I responded to that, noting that much in the link was not geneological detail, but lists of namesA list of kings may be historical but not considered as geneological data unless the geneological data concerning the kings is given.Please note that this debate is not about only kings, but geneological data on all people of the book. Only part of the geneological data in the Bible pertains to kings.Are you fully aware of the high frequency and great amount of geneological detail of Biblical people there is in the Bible, particularly the OT? I don't have any figures, but having read the book for over 50 years, I know there's a lot. It's frequent and though many texts are not long the are many. Most people mentioned in the OT have some geneological reference connected with them, and I think this point is important. Not only that, but often the record is so complete that the dots can be connected from all these short lists to compile longer lists such as the geneological lists of Jesus.This is how the 6000 years becomes the determined age of man by Biblical literalists such as I. The geneologies are so complete that they go all the way back to Adam.

Paul you are correct. That's been some time ago, and I recall now that the reason for that I believe is that Brian is arguing that fiction also used some geneology. However, I still maintain that since much data in Biblical history is verifyable, comparing what is intended to be fiction is not a fair comparison to that which claims to be true history and has a resonable amount of history in it.It's much like science. There's a lot of unproven in physics and science. They work on the unknowns by the knowns. You people don't want to give that priviledge to creos though. You throw out the baby with the water.The rest of your post is meanspirited bunk and I have no comment on it.

Well it's become cleaer that the entire issue is a red herring. The details does nothing to support the accuracy of the account. And for all your talk of verifiable genealogical data you have not produced any verification of any genealogy in Genesis.It's not like science because a scientist would actually have to provide the explanation and support his claims.And my post was not "mean-spirited" - unlike your attacks on others. in this thread. And it is not bunk - as is proven by the fact that you STILL do not support your claims, thus violating the forum rules again. And yet you continue to post showing that it is not lack of time that prevents you supporting your claims. Indeed if you did lack the time then you should never have revived the thread. Especially not with an attempt to claim victory when you had yet to support your assertions.

LIES!! LIES!! LIES!! Just because YOU do not consider all my responses in this thread adequate support for my claims DOES NOT MEAN I'M BREAKING FORUM RULES. IF THAT'S THE CASE, EVERY LAST SOUL IN EvC IS BREAKING FORUM RULES INCLUDING YOU, BUSTER BROWN!!

The post I am replying to is an insane rant even by Buz's standards, to the point where I suspect that it is a forgery.If it is genuine Buz' I suggest you actaully answer my questions going back to BEFORE your revival of this thread and explain :1) The basis for your claim that the detail in the genealogy in Genesis 36 is not paralleled in other sources. Saying it is "obvious" or producing alleged parallels like the Liberty University "argument" are NOT valid support since the first is false and you have not shown that there IS any parallel.2) WHY this detail indicates that the Genesis 36 genealogy is historically accurate. No you have NEVER answered that.3) Explain WHY, if the multiple exterminatiosn refer to different people why the verses DEALING with the exterminations do NOT distinguishAnd while you're actually ANSWERING questions then you can produce this alleged "verification" of the genealogies, too.And if you want to say that I am lying and that you have produced answers lets see the post numbers or links. So we can all see who is lying.

Sorry, no link. I imagine it's copyrighted material. You can sit and look at the appendix at any library or bookstore, especially now that the movie has been out.

It is genuine.AdminBrian.

Hey, I have to stand up for Tolkien and say that he considered himself a staunch Christian and would never have elevated his books to the level of the Bible. I don't think anyone else here is doing that, either.I have read the Illiad and the Odyssey, and they don't contain the amount of genealogical material the Bible does. However, genealogies are important parts of the historical and religious literature of many cultures.Oral cultures frequently maintain genealogies that go back hundreds of years. This link has some good background on genealogies throughout history, and an interesting quote from the Apostle Paul. http://www.familychronicle.com/HistoryOfGenealogy.htmlThere are also documented genealogies, such as that of the Japanese emperor, which go back thousands of years. I seem to remember, in his case, that it was about 2000 years, and that the genealogy was maintained to prove his right to the throne and his divinity.
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/3953/Other, non-Christian, religious texts, like the Vedas of Hinduism, have extensive genealogies.Come to think of it, I've even seen a genealogy of the British Royal family that goes back to the Caesars. It was long, and parts of it were historically verifiable, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on the accuracy of the first 600 years or so.Nope, if I were going to defend the Bible, I wouldn't use the genealogies to do it, as many cultures contemporary to the Hebrews used extensive genealogies to legitimize rulers and prove land rights.Regardless of my religious beliefs, what I am trying to say here is mere abundance of certain types of largely unverifiable information in a text does not give that text legitimacy or make the information it contains more likely to be true. If that were the case, no texts would be truer than those constructed by the US Federal government.

See Paul, this's how you lie and spin. My claim was that the Bible has more geneological data in it than any other literary book. Lie/spin. I simply said the amount of geneological data in the Bible lends support to it's authenticity since it would be rather senseless to go to all the trouble of putting it in for no reason. As in all literature, not everything has detailed explanation. Nonsense item.Paul, please get over dictating to me what I am to spend my time responding to and hammering with rules when I, like you and everyone have the right to decide for myself what is worth my time and what is not. It isn't that I don't have some time, but it is limited and I don't care using it all up on a lot of your stuff, much of which is nonsense and yada, imo. Let the moderators do the moderating. That's what they're for.{edited by AdminTL to fix quote box}[This message has been edited by AdminTL, 03-02-2004]

Hi Debby. We're talking literary books here, not government documents and so forth and I'm simply saying these lend support to the credence of the Bible. As a Christian, do you agree to that?

So TL, I take it you really don't know either.

Sorry to be slow with my response, but I want to make sure I understand the point that is under debate before I answer your question, buzsaw. Please be patient with me and let me know whether I understand your point correctly.Your point:Because you cannot see any reason the writers of the Bible would invent extensive genealogies, the extensiveness of Biblical genealogies "support the credence of the Bible".If that is your point, the phrase "support the credence of the Bible" can be read in two ways:1. That the extensiveness of Biblical genealogies constitute a "letter of credence" for the Bible.2. That the extensiveness of Biblical genealogies would lead one to place credence in the Bible.Since these two interpretations of "support the credence of the Bible" mean very different things, and the differences are important, could you please tell me which of these two you mean?thanks again for your patience, buzsaw!

OK, so your particular point is the volume of genealogical data. YOu could have said that without accusing me of lying.And you still have no support for your claim nor do you point to a post where you did. SO we now know that you were lying.On point 2 you accuse me of writing what yo call a "lie'spin" yet you do not even contradict what I said. So I was telling the truth and you were lying. Moreover you ignore the alternative explanations I have put forward, so that your assertion here HAS been answered.3) I never asked for a DETAILED explanation, I only pointed out that it is entirely reasonable to expect the distinction to be made IF your assertion were true. Yet none is made. You have yet to provide significant evidence that there even were two different peoples, both called "Amelekites" at the relevant time.4) I did not try to dictates how you spent youtr time. What I did point out was that your claim that you did not have the time was false. You had time to revive the thread and to try to claim victory when in fact you had NOT supported your claims made earlier on. It was entirely open to you to leave the thread alone - but you had to pretend that you had "won" and THEN to pretend that the reason you refused to actually make your case was that you didn't have time. If you had time to pretend to have won, you had time to actually support your assertions instead. So you were lying again.And let me note just again that I put the moderators on notice because I suspected that your post was a forgerey designed to make you look even worse than you really were. I was looking after YOUR interests.And we know damn well the reaon why you ignore my posts - its because you've lost to me often enough that you have to lie and call my posts "spin" or "yada" when you can't answer them.

To the contrary. He claimed that they were the history of Middle Earth. Did you know that, throughout the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien claims that he's simply translating from Frodo Baggin's Red Book? We assume that it's simply a literary device, but he never really comes out and says that the Lord of the Rings is his own invention. I'm sure you could find somebody. Why would it matter what people claim, though? You probably only saw the Eldarin genealogies - the elves. There's at least three other races with fleshed-out genealogies, so multiply by four.What's your criteria, by the way, for "equaling the Bible?" Tolkien's genealogies cover both male and female, so for completeness, they exceed the Bible, in my book.