WI: An United Canaan

robertp6165 · Mar 11, 2005

Leo Caesius said:
That is true, but my point is that the Bible is very explicit in indicating that there were five cities in the Valley of Siddim, all but one of which were destroyed, and that the Valley of Siddim is today the Salt Sea (aka the Dead Sea). You seem to have misunderstood me; I didn't say that the Dead Sea didn't exist before that time and then suddenly appeared, I was merely stating that, according to the text, what used to be the Valley of Siddim (or "Valley of Broad Plains") is now occupied by the Dead Sea (or, to be precise, the southern part of it). In any case, whether this happened at the time that the cities were destroyed or shortly afterwards ("shortly" from the perspective of geological epochs, as it must have happened between the destruction of the city and the composition of the account), my dilemma is that I need to somehow prevent this from happening and prevent the Valley of Siddim from being submerged, or else deal with the problem in some other creative fashion.

I still think you are extrapolating something that is not there. You may be right that the Valley of Siddim was covered by the Dead Sea, although the Bible passage could also be interpreted as meaning the Valley of Siddim was "at the Dead Sea" or "by the Dead Sea." From Smith's Bible Dictionary ...

Siddim
(field, plain), The vale of, a place named only in one passage of Genesis— (Genesis 14:3,8,10) It was one of that class of valleys which the Hebrews designated by the word emek . This term appears to have been assigned to a broad, flattish tract, sometimes of considerable width, enclosed on each side by a definite range of hills. It has so far a suitable spot for the combat between the four and five kings, ver. 8; but it contained a multitude of bitumen-pits sufficient materially to affect the issue of the battle. In this valley the kings of the five allied cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Bela seem to, have awaited the approach of the invaders. It is therefore probable that it was in the neighborhood of the “plain or circle of Jordan” in which those cities stood. If we could venture, as some have done, to interpret the latter clause of ver. 3 “which is near,” or “which is at, or by, the Salt Sea,” then we might agree with Dr. Robinson and others in identifying the valley of Siddim with the enclosed plain which intervenes between the south end of the lake and the range of heights which terminate the Ghor and commence the Wady Arabah . But the original of the passage seems to imply that the Salt Sea covers the actual space formerly occupied by the vale of Siddim.

However, even assuming that the Valley of Siddim is in fact now covered by the Dead Sea, or part of it, you are still extrapolating yourself a problem which doesn't really exist, as the Bible doesn't say that Sodom and the other cities were located in the Valley of Siddim. The Valley of Siddim is mentioned 3 times, as follows...

Genesis Chapter 14, Verses 1-3: In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, these kings made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). And all these joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea).

Genesis Chapter 14, Verse 8: Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out, and they joined battle in the Valley of Siddim.

Genesis, Chapter 14, Verse 10: Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them, and the rest fled to the hill country.

So when the Valley of Siddim is mentioned, it is as the place where the armies gathered for battle. Nowhere does it say the cities themselves were located in the Valley of Siddim. So even if we accept your interpretation that the level of the Dead Sea later rose and covered the Valley of Siddim, we still don't have any reason to believe that Sodom and the other cities were covered by the Dead Sea.

So you really don't have a dilemma, either way. Now get to work and write this timeline. I want to read it!

Leo Caesius · Mar 11, 2005

robertp6165 said:
I still think you are extrapolating something that is not there. You may be right that the Valley of Siddim was covered by the Dead Sea, although the Bible passage could also be interpreted as meaning the Valley of Siddim was "at the Dead Sea" or "by the Dead Sea."

Well, FWIW, the original Hebrew reads kol-elleh chavru el-emeq haśśidim [PAUSE] hu yom hammelach which means "all of these joined forces (this same root is used today for the word "comrade" in Hebrew) at the Valley of Śiddim (or "valley of the (broad) plains"), meaning the Sea of Salt." Hu (the 3rd m.s. pronoun) literally means "he" (hu is "he," hi is "she" - shades of Abbot and Costello!) but it is most frequently used in this sense to mean a parenthetical statement, i.e. "that is; meaning; i.e." and so on. I think Smith's the one reading something extra into this passage.

However, now that I'm looking at the original text, I see that you are right that there is no particular reason to assume that Sodom or the other cities are in the Valley of Śiddim. In fact, there's ample reason to assume that they were somewhere else. They're called the Cities of the "Plain," which I originally assumed (reasonably enough IMHO) to be the same as the "plain" suggested by the name Śiddim, but I've just checked and seen that the word they actually use is kikkar, which is a completely different type of plain (it means a kind of circular area or district). So, I'll just assume that the were elsewhere and start from there. I want to see the Interference TL through to its conclusion and then I'll finish this up.

robertp6165 · Mar 12, 2005

Leo Caesius said:
Well, FWIW, the original Hebrew reads kol-elleh chavru el-emeq haśśidim [PAUSE] hu yom hammelach which means "all of these joined forces (this same root is used today for the word "comrade" in Hebrew) at the Valley of Śiddim (or "valley of the (broad) plains"), meaning the Sea of Salt." Hu (the 3rd m.s. pronoun) literally means "he" (hu is "he," hi is "she" - shades of Abbot and Costello!) but it is most frequently used in this sense to mean a parenthetical statement, i.e. "that is; meaning; i.e." and so on. I think Smith's the one reading something extra into this passage.

However, now that I'm looking at the original text, I see that you are right that there is no particular reason to assume that Sodom or the other cities are in the Valley of Śiddim. In fact, there's ample reason to assume that they were somewhere else. They're called the Cities of the "Plain," which I originally assumed (reasonably enough IMHO) to be the same as the "plain" suggested by the name Śiddim, but I've just checked and seen that the word they actually use is kikkar, which is a completely different type of plain (it means a kind of circular area or district). So, I'll just assume that the were elsewhere and start from there. I want to see the Interference TL through to its conclusion and then I'll finish this up.

Well, I look forward to reading it when you finish it. It sounds like it ought to be interesting. Glad I could help make your life a bit simpler.

MerryPrankster · Mar 12, 2005

I read in a "Poplular Mechanics" that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah could have been caused by something I vaguely remember being called "liquefication." The ground on which the cities were built could have turned to mud or something, and a release of natural gas could have caused a firestorm when ignited by torches or something.

Historico · May 13, 2005

So, Leo how is the Timeline coming along?

Straha · May 13, 2005

another thing to consider: Without being in such a centrally located area as OTL's isreal Judaism probably remains a minor faith.

Othniel · May 13, 2005

They came from Ur. The Hebrews were decendants of Shem, while the Canaanites are descendants of Ham.

Adamanteus · May 13, 2005

Historico said:
Well if the Hebrews were one of the Canaanites, why couldn't the others make up an sort of Leauge of Confederation against them?

As has already been pointed out, no one knows the true circumstances of how the Hebrews established their nation. The Bible is very suspect because many of its claims of conquest have been refuted with archeology. For all we know, there were no wars of unification at all.

The Saint · May 14, 2005

The Bible's logic is that the Israelites, the best of the blessed seed of Shem should take over the land of the worst of the accursed seed of Ham, Canaan. The Canaanite servant was circumcised and was meant to lead a blessed enlightened existence under his new Semitic masters, being bound by some of the commandments.

After the confusion of languages at Babel, the only two nations that retained the original language of mankind, Hebrew, were the Canaanites & Israelites, so there were no lingo problems when the latter took over!

(Mixing wool & linen in the same garment is not a capital offence, "only" lashes, & applies to Israelites only)!

MerryPrankster · May 14, 2005

There is something in the Bible about how the Israelites (descendants of Abraham) would not get the Promised Land until "the sin of the Amorites reaches its full measure" or something to that effect.

Basically the Hebrews weren't going to get in until the Canaanite culture got so corrupt it would be worthy of annihilation or explusion--mass child sacrifice, abandonment of elders to starve, the case where Amalekite soldiers trailed behind the Hebrews killing the elderly and disabled who couldn't move as fast, etc.

Had this sort of thing not happened, the Children of Israel might have never entered the land.

On the matter of the curse of Ham and the curse of Canaan, I was under the impression that the curse was not imposed by God--Noah was hungover and wishing bad things to happen to Ham and his progeny for embarassing him.

The Saint · May 14, 2005

And the Israelites didn't even want to enter Canaan! "1 That night all the people of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. 2 All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, "If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this desert! 3 Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn't it be better for us to go back to Egypt?" 4 And they said to each other, "We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt!" (Numbers 14).

As to Noah's curse on Canaan, as can be seen from Isaac's blessings to Jacob & Esau, Balaam's attempt to curse the Israelites, Elisha and the bears etc, the Bible's considers some men to be on such a spiritual level, that God will uphold the utterances of their mouths, for good or bad, even if they are in error.

MerryPrankster · May 14, 2005

The Saint said:
And the Israelites didn't even want to enter Canaan! "1 That night all the people of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. 2 All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, "If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this desert! 3 Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn't it be better for us to go back to Egypt?" 4 And they said to each other, "We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt!" (Numbers 14).

As to Noah's curse on Canaan, as can be seen from Isaac's blessings to Jacob & Esau, Balaam's attempt to curse the Israelites, Elisha and the bears etc, the Bible's considers some men to be on such a spiritual level, that God will uphold the utterances of their mouths, for good or bad, even if they are in error.

I was under the impression Balaam persuaded the Israelities to sleep with Moabite women and participate in Moabite idolatry, thus causing God to get angry and cause trouble. I am under the impression that initially God wanted Balaam to bless Israel, and though Balaam tried to curse them, God wouldn't let him.

"God will uphold the utterances of their mouths, for good or bad, even if they are in error." That would put these people in the driver's seat, not God. Something tells me that's not particularly Biblical.

In the case of Elisha and the bears, God was protecting Elisha from the Biblical equivalent of a street gang. The Hebrew wording is often used to indicate teenagers/young adults.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040307.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

If the bears killed only 42, there must have been a lot more.

Historico · Jun 16, 2005

So, Leo...I know how you said you wanted to wait to you finish with your TL before Posting on it? Can you give us an update on the TL we been waiting for 3 months?