Analyse this!
Gen 36:31 And these [are] the 'Queens' that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any 'Queen' over the children of Israel.
That Israel later had or never had queens does not render that verse any different.
Indeed it does! The ”Queen’ ruling over the children of Israel is a time hook. It is telling the reader that the Edomite Kings ruled BEFORE there was Israelite ”queens, if there had been no Israelite ”queens’ then the verse is pointless, because the reader would say ”what’s the point of mentioning that it was before an Israelite queen when there has never been an Israelite queen! (of course there has been lots of Israelite queens)
This verse is quite clearly an anachronism, it was written after the establishment of the Israelite monarchy or it would make no sense.
It just means there were queens in Edom but, pointedly different, none in Israel.
Yes there were none in Israel at the time there were kings in Edom, but 400 years later there would be kings in Israel. This is the whole point, how does the author know that there were Kings in Edom BEFORE there were kings of Israel if he didn’t know that there has been a king in Israel? The author is clearly saying that before Israel had a king there were Kings in Edom, so the author had to know that there had been a king in Israel for this passage to make sense.
What if there had never been a King of Israel, the mention of before there was an Israelite king is pointless, there has to have been a King of Israel to make the time reference useful.
It does NOT say 'before the period of kings in Israel'; the before connects only with the period signified by the sole qualifying clause in the verse; it acts as 'when' edom did have kings.
So, when Edom had kings this was before Israel had kings, how did the author know that Israel was going to have kings? This is what is being said. Edom had Kings, Israel had kings, Edom had Kings before Israel, the author must have known that Israel had kings. It is simple. Israel must have had kings if Edom had them BEFORE Israel. if israel never had a king then how could Edom have had kings before Israel did?
Its less safe to use a christian view of the OT, as per your link.
Whose view should I use then, A Jewish one? It is immaterial anyway, it is obvious what the verse is saying.
The retreat to Moses knowing of future kings is not relevent here - it is out of context and in contradiction of the entire passage which is about the generations of Edom - not Israel.
Of course it is relevant, the whole discussion is about how the author knew that Israel would have a monarchy, it is central to the issue.
There is no reference to future kings; the 'before' relates to Edom, not the future of Israel.
The ”before’ relates to the situation BEFORE the Israelite monarchy, it is a time reference to an event that happened before Saul became the first king.
The names I mentioned relates to 1000s of names given, which are authentic to their period, but which you run away from with another deflection:
Yet of these ”thousands of names’ you are the only one who seems to have these, and I have pointed out before that there are real problems with the names in the Book of Exodus, but you ignore these with your usual fingers in ears stuff.
Hell for an historical book it sure leaves out a lot of information that one would expect to find in an historical account.
you are thus looking for what you can misconscrue while avoiding all else.
You haven’t provided anything substantial though, just some links to amateur fundy websites that have no critical research going on.
Moses' lineage is given, including the names of both parents and the tribe they come from.
So what? Do you think it is impossible for someone to invent a lineage?
And as I said, Moses’ name is incomplete, another fact that doesn’t seem to bother you.
Dates are pervasive in the OT verses and paragraphs, and they are entirely synced (intergrated).
Well not really, if you look at the list of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah they are a real mess, but this is another thread.
You keep stating how wonderfully accurate the Bible is, and you even have the naivety to claim that historians and archaeologists use the bible to date near eastern discoveries, yet you cannot provide a single date worth discussing, not a single one, so it looks as if your Bible is not that impressive at all.
That is why these names and dates, spaning 3000 years, could not be recalled later.
This makes no sense.
Try it!
I have, but you clearly haven’t.
The Tel Dal find also vindicates the date of David's reign, in the OT, and the follow-up kings: another co-incidence?
It isn’t a coincidence because everything you claim for the tel dan Stele is incorrect.
You do appear to have a extremely nave view of what archaeology is and it methods, the Tel Dan stele is still being debated, and as far as David goes, this may or may not be a reference to him.
Ever wonder why an empire as huge as the Bible says David’s was is completely invisible in the archaeological record?
Even if the Tel Dan Stele is a reference to david’s dynasty, it is meagre support for the bible narratives about him. One mention in an Aramaic Stele written a couple of hundred years after David was supposed to have reigned is not that impressive.
I would suggest that you dig a bit deeper into the tel Dan discussion because it is far more complex than you seem to think.
Even the way that Biran went about announcing this find is shocking for an archaeologist, to stick the fragments together and publish before anyone else had seen the fragments or reviewed his conclusions was a disgrace, and more than one scholar has highlighted Biran’s unprofessional approach here, and more than one scholar thinks the fragments do not even belong together.
Personally, I would say that the first unambiguous reference from archaeological sources for Israel would be the mention of King Omri in the Moabite Stone.
Brian
Edited by Brian, : added some text
™ Version 4.2