Gen. chapter 18 starts with the sudden terse, open ended, statement
וירא אליו יהוה באלני ממרא והוא ישב פתח האהל כחם היום
NIV: "The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day."
A divine manifestation, foretelling, I think, of an impending doom.
Then, indeed, suddenly he sees
והנה שלשה אנשים נצבים עליו
three man standing erect נצבים over him; apparently men of authority, possibly some grandees, even the king of SDOM himself with an armed entourage.
Then the verb וירא 'he saw, he recognized' is repeated. Abraham recognizes them and receives them accordingly.
Then suddenly, out of context, we hear, without specifics, about the wickedness of the city of SDOM. What is suddenly, at this moment of history, so uniquely bad about this forlorn city in the wilderness, at the edge of the dead sea, to attract God's undivided attention? Was God going over all the cities of the entire world one by one, performing a statistical analysis of the ratio of righteous over wicked in order to decide which one should be annihilated and which one should be spared? And why was Abraham called to intercede in this bizarre business of meting justice to the deviants?
Was it because the strongmen of SDOM, the שלשה אנשים heard about the beauty of SARAH, and came to forcibly and badly annoy her?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “Then suddenly, out of context, we hear, without specifics, about the wickedness of the city of SDOM. What is suddenly, at this moment of history, so uniquely bad about this forlorn city in the wilderness, at the edge of the dead sea, to attract God's undivided attention? Was God going over all the cities of the entire world one by one, performing a statistical analysis of the ratio of righteous over wicked in order to decide which one should be annihilated and which one should be spared? And why was Abraham called to intercede in this bizarre business of meting justice to the deviants? Was it because the strongmen of SDOM, the שלשה אנשים heard about the beauty of SARAH, and came to forcibly and badly annoy her?”
1. Sarah has nothing to do with it, because Sarah is no longer beautiful at that point:
“11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” Genesis 18: 11-12
2. Nor is Sodom located “at the edge of the dead sea”. Chapter 13 of Genesis tells us that Sodom is part of “Jordan”, that Lot can “see” Sodom from a mountaintop near Bethel (which is likely Baal Hazor), and that Lot goes “east” from Bethel (to the Jordan River) to stake his claim to the part of Canaan in which Sodom is located. The traditional locations of Sodom south or southwest of the Dead Sea fail all of those tests. Sodom, rather, is the Harod River Valley region, being the lushest, wealthiest and most attractive part of Canaan -- the breadbasket of east-central Canaan, and also lying on an important trade route as well. That was the place to go for Lot to live the soft city life. From Baal Hazor, one can see Mt. Gilboa, which is the southeast corner of the Harod River Valley Region/the district of Sodom. The Harod River flows east into the Jordan River, so the “well-watered” district of Sodom is part of “Jordan”. And the logical way to claim the Greater Jordan River Valley was for Lot to walk straight “east” from Bethel and dip his foot into the Jordan River.
3. There are no “deviants” at Sodom (and no sex is involved at all). Rather, what YHWH is concerned about is the following political situation in the Harod River Valley region in Year 13 (with “Year 13” being expressly referenced at Genesis 14: 4). The leading city in the Harod River Valley region/the district of Sodom was Shunem/Salem/Solem. In Year 13, pharaoh Akhenaten confiscated the fine fields around Shunem/Salem at firesale prices and declared them to be his own private estate. Then to add injury to insult, Akhenaten ordered the nobles who lived in the Harod River Valley to tend Akhenaten’s fields at Shunem/Salem for free, using corvee labor, as service owed to pharaoh. These outrages made both the townspeople and the rest of the people of the district of Sodom livid with rage at Akhenaten, and they refused to cultivate his fields. Only the outsider Hurrian princeling Biridiya, who lived well west of the Harod River Valley at Megiddo, was willing to provide corvee labor to tend Akhenaten’s private estate fields at Shunem/Shunama/Salem/Solem:
“Say to the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord and my Sun: Message of Biridiya, the loyal servant of the king. …In fact, only I am cultivating…in Shunama, and only I am furnishing corvee workers. But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in Shunama, and they do not furnish corvee workers. Only I…(by myself) furnish corvee workers.” Amarna Letter EA 365.
Now we see why a-l-l the people of the district of Sodom (i) were outraged by pharaoh Akhenaten’s actions regarding Shunem/Salem, and (ii) suspected that Lot’s two mysterious guests were likely Akhenaten’s representatives, who had been sent to assess the tense situation:
Genesis 19: 4, International Standard Version (ISV): “4 Before they could lie down, all the men of Sodom and its outskirts, both young and old, surrounded the house.”
Or to “clarify” the KJV wording, using brackets as follows [clarified KJV]: “But before they lay down, the men of the city [of Salem/Shunem,], [indeed] even the men of [the entire district of] Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.”
4. Lot’s Ambiguous Role in the City of Shunem/Salem in the District of Sodom Potentially Imperiled Abraham’s Hope that Pharaoh Akhenaten Would Save the First Hebrews from Evil Yapaxu
Lot, who appears to be the richest man in Shunem/Salem, and who lives in a fortified house there, must have played a middleman role in getting the landowners of fine land near Shunem/Salem to cede their fields to Akhenaten at firesale prices. (Joseph later plays a somewhat similar role in Egypt at Genesis 47: 19-21. Note that “Year 13” is referenced indirectly at Genesis 47: 9 by Jacob being age 13 tenfold shanah.) The townspeople resented Lot for raking in handsome pharaonic commissions off of their misfortune. Then the last straw was when Akhenaten insisted that his fields be tended for free with corvee labor.
Historically, Akhenaten’s impolitic actions at Salem/Shunem led to an overt revolt against Egyptian presence in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13: the small Egyptian garrison at Beth Shean was burnt to the ground, and the fields Biridiya has been tending at Salem/Shunem in the district of Sodom/the Harod River Valley were likely set on fire as well. Labaya of Shechem (Biblical “Hamor”) then takes over the district of Sodom and declares it, along with the Dothan Valley and Shechem, to be an independent state, not subject to Egypt in any way. As Labaya’s sons later put it, Labaya “deported the evil ones” (Amarna Letter EA 250), that is, Labaya drove out of the Harod River Valley any of the few people (like Biridiya) who had supported Akhenaten’s actions. All this happened in Year 13. That was also the time of Labaya’s unsuccessful assault on Megiddo, and finally the assassination of Labaya (Biblical “Hamor”) under very peculiar circumstances, as duly reported in chapter 34 of Genesis.
The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was terribly worried that the ambiguous involvement of Abraham’s close relative Lot in these messy affairs at Sodom might cause pharaoh Akhenaten to refuse to help the first Hebrews, who in Year 13 were threatened by evil Yapaxu in the Ayalon Valley. Moreover, Abraham was in covenant relationship with Milk-i-ilu [Biblical “Mamre”] the Amorite. Milk-i-ilu’s Hurrian father-in-law Tagi (Biblical “Aner”), with whom Abraham becomes a confederate in chapter 14 of Genesis, and who lived at Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah west of the Harod River Valley, was in cahoots with Labaya regarding many of these unsettling matters. So chapter 19 of Genesis needs to condemn all the people of the district of Sodom who had violently revolted against pharaoh Akhenaten, including portraying Tagi’s Gomorrah as being divinely burnt to the ground. Lot also is criticized for being involved in these unfortunate matters, yet it is emphasized that only Lot behaves properly toward his two mysterious guests, who on one level symbolize Akhenaten’s representatives who were sent to assess the tense situation in the district of Sodom/the Harod River Valley region.
In a word, chapter 19 of Genesis shows that Abraham and the first Hebrews completely disavow the rebellion against pharaonic rule in the Jezreel Valley that historically happened in Year 13, even though both Abraham’s confederate Tagi (Biblical “Aner” at Genesis 14: 24) at Gomorrah was involved with it, and Abraham’s close relative Lot at Salem/Shunem in the district of Sodom was involved, after a fashion, with it.
The first Hebrews wanted pharaoh Akhenaten to recall evil Yapaxu from the Ayalon Valley in Year 13. So the first Hebrews couldn’t dare be seen as supporting, or even as failing to actively decry, the violent revolt against Akhenaten’s rule in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13.
The point of the odd bargaining process between YHWH and Abraham at Genesis 18: 22-33 is to emphasize that Lot (the only relative of Abraham who was mixed up with this) was virtually the only man in the district of Sodom who did not actively support the violent revolt against Akhenaten’s rule in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13. As per usual in the Patriarchal narratives, this whole sequence makes perfect sense on all levels, but if and only if it is viewed from the historical perspective of Year 13.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “Then suddenly, out of context, we hear, without specifics, about the wickedness of the city of SDOM. What is suddenly, at this moment of history, so uniquely bad about this forlorn city in the wilderness, at the edge of the dead sea, to attract God's undivided attention? Was God going over all the cities of the entire world one by one, performing a statistical analysis of the ratio of righteous over wicked in order to decide which one should be annihilated and which one should be spared? And why was Abraham called to intercede in this bizarre business of meting justice to the deviants? Was it because the strongmen of SDOM, the שלשה אנשים heard about the beauty of SARAH, and came to forcibly and badly annoy her?”
1. Sarah has nothing to do with it, because Sarah is no longer beautiful at that point:
“11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” Genesis 18: 11-12
2. Nor is Sodom located “at the edge of the dead sea”. Chapter 13 of Genesis tells us that Sodom is part of “Jordan”, that Lot can “see” Sodom from a mountaintop near Bethel (which is likely Baal Hazor), and that Lot goes “east” from Bethel (to the Jordan River) to stake his claim to the part of Canaan in which Sodom is located. The traditional locations of Sodom south or southwest of the Dead Sea fail all of those tests. Sodom, rather, is the Harod River Valley region, being the lushest, wealthiest and most attractive part of Canaan -- the breadbasket of east-central Canaan, and also lying on an important trade route as well. That was the place to go for Lot to live the soft city life. From Baal Hazor, one can see Mt. Gilboa, which is the southeast corner of the Harod River Valley Region/the district of Sodom. The Harod River flows east into the Jordan River, so the “well-watered” district of Sodom is part of “Jordan”. And the logical way to claim the Greater Jordan River Valley was for Lot to walk straight “east” from Bethel and dip his foot into the Jordan River.
3. There are no “deviants” at Sodom (and no sex is involved at all). Rather, what YHWH is concerned about is the following political situation in the Harod River Valley region in Year 13 (with “Year 13” being expressly referenced at Genesis 14: 4). The leading city in the Harod River Valley region/the district of Sodom was Shunem/Salem/Solem. In Year 13, pharaoh Akhenaten confiscated the fine fields around Shunem/Salem at firesale prices and declared them to be his own private estate. Then to add injury to insult, Akhenaten ordered the nobles who lived in the Harod River Valley to tend Akhenaten’s fields at Shunem/Salem for free, using corvee labor, as service owed to pharaoh. These outrages made both the townspeople and the rest of the people of the district of Sodom livid with rage at Akhenaten, and they refused to cultivate his fields. Only the outsider Hurrian princeling Biridiya, who lived well west of the Harod River Valley at Megiddo, was willing to provide corvee labor to tend Akhenaten’s private estate fields at Shunem/Shunama/Salem/Solem:
“Say to the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord and my Sun: Message of Biridiya, the loyal servant of the king. …In fact, only I am cultivating…in Shunama, and only I am furnishing corvee workers. But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in Shunama, and they do not furnish corvee workers. Only I…(by myself) furnish corvee workers.” Amarna Letter EA 365.
Now we see why a-l-l the people of the district of Sodom (i) were outraged by pharaoh Akhenaten’s actions regarding Shunem/Salem, and (ii) suspected that Lot’s two mysterious guests were likely Akhenaten’s representatives, who had been sent to assess the tense situation:
Genesis 19: 4, International Standard Version (ISV): “4 Before they could lie down, all the men of Sodom and its outskirts, both young and old, surrounded the house.”
Or to “clarify” the KJV wording, using brackets as follows [clarified KJV]: “But before they lay down, the men of the city [of Salem/Shunem,], [indeed] even the men of [the entire district of] Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.”
4. Lot’s Ambiguous Role in the City of Shunem/Salem in the District of Sodom Potentially Imperiled Abraham’s Hope that Pharaoh Akhenaten Would Save the First Hebrews from Evil Yapaxu
Lot, who appears to be the richest man in Shunem/Salem, and who lives in a fortified house there, must have played a middleman role in getting the landowners of fine land near Shunem/Salem to cede their fields to Akhenaten at firesale prices. (Joseph later plays a somewhat similar role in Egypt at Genesis 47: 19-21. Note that “Year 13” is referenced indirectly at Genesis 47: 9 by Jacob being age 13 tenfold shanah.) The townspeople resented Lot for raking in handsome pharaonic commissions off of their misfortune. Then the last straw was when Akhenaten insisted that his fields be tended for free with corvee labor.
Historically, Akhenaten’s impolitic actions at Salem/Shunem led to an overt revolt against Egyptian presence in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13: the small Egyptian garrison at Beth Shean was burnt to the ground, and the fields Biridiya has been tending at Salem/Shunem in the district of Sodom/the Harod River Valley were likely set on fire as well. Labaya of Shechem (Biblical “Hamor”) then takes over the district of Sodom and declares it, along with the Dothan Valley and Shechem, to be an independent state, not subject to Egypt in any way. As Labaya’s sons later put it, Labaya “deported the evil ones” (Amarna Letter EA 250), that is, Labaya drove out of the Harod River Valley any of the few people (like Biridiya) who had supported Akhenaten’s actions. All this happened in Year 13. That was also the time of Labaya’s unsuccessful assault on Megiddo, and finally the assassination of Labaya (Biblical “Hamor”) under very peculiar circumstances, as duly reported in chapter 34 of Genesis.
The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives was terribly worried that the ambiguous involvement of Abraham’s close relative Lot in these messy affairs at Sodom might cause pharaoh Akhenaten to refuse to help the first Hebrews, who in Year 13 were threatened by evil Yapaxu in the Ayalon Valley. Moreover, Abraham was in covenant relationship with Milk-i-ilu [Biblical “Mamre”] the Amorite. Milk-i-ilu’s Hurrian father-in-law Tagi (Biblical “Aner”), with whom Abraham becomes a confederate in chapter 14 of Genesis, and who lived at Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah west of the Harod River Valley, was in cahoots with Labaya regarding many of these unsettling matters. So chapter 19 of Genesis needs to condemn all the people of the district of Sodom who had violently revolted against pharaoh Akhenaten, including portraying Tagi’s Gomorrah as being divinely burnt to the ground. Lot also is criticized for being involved in these unfortunate matters, yet it is emphasized that only Lot behaves properly toward his two mysterious guests, who on one level symbolize Akhenaten’s representatives who were sent to assess the tense situation in the district of Sodom/the Harod River Valley region.
In a word, chapter 19 of Genesis shows that Abraham and the first Hebrews completely disavow the rebellion against pharaonic rule in the Jezreel Valley that historically happened in Year 13, even though both Abraham’s confederate Tagi (Biblical “Aner” at Genesis 14: 24) at Gomorrah was involved with it, and Abraham’s close relative Lot at Salem/Shunem in the district of Sodom was involved, after a fashion, with it.
The first Hebrews wanted pharaoh Akhenaten to recall evil Yapaxu from the Ayalon Valley in Year 13. So the first Hebrews couldn’t dare be seen as supporting, or even as failing to actively decry, the violent revolt against Akhenaten’s rule in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13.
The point of the odd bargaining process between YHWH and Abraham at Genesis 18: 22-33 is to emphasize that Lot (the only relative of Abraham who was mixed up with this) was virtually the only man in the district of Sodom who did not actively support the violent revolt against Akhenaten’s rule in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13. As per usual in the Patriarchal narratives, this whole sequence makes perfect sense on all levels, but if and only if it is viewed from the historical perspective of Year 13.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
SteveMiller
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
- Location: Detroit, MI, USA
- Contact:
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Isaac,
It is not any mystery. verses 17-21 say why God was concerned about Sodom and why He wanted to consult His friend, Abraham.
The 3 men are the Lord and 2 angels, v1, v2, v16, v22; 19:1.
It is not any mystery. verses 17-21 say why God was concerned about Sodom and why He wanted to consult His friend, Abraham.
The 3 men are the Lord and 2 angels, v1, v2, v16, v22; 19:1.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Jim says
Sarah has nothing to do with it, because Sarah is no longer beautiful at that point
Says I
In Gen. 20:2 we read: ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי הוא וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה NIV: "and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her." Why did Abraham have to say that Sarah is his sister, and where did Abimelek take her, to the royal nursing home?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
"
Sarah has nothing to do with it, because Sarah is no longer beautiful at that point
Says I
In Gen. 20:2 we read: ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי הוא וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה NIV: "and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her." Why did Abraham have to say that Sarah is his sister, and where did Abimelek take her, to the royal nursing home?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
"
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Steve Miller:
You wrote: “It is not any mystery. verses 17-21 say why God was concerned about Sodom and why He wanted to consult His friend, Abraham.”
But the verses at Genesis 18: 20-21 in fact do not say what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was:
“20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”
The traditional explanation of the sin of Sodom is utterly senseless: the claim that all the men of Sodom were predatory homosexual rapists:
“…the ‘men’ of Sodom, whose manliness is expressed in the universal impulse to homosexual gang rape”. Robert Alter, “Genesis” (1996), p. 85.
That makes no sense on any level. If the men of Sodom were like that, then why had Lot bought a fine house in Sodom, and why did he have his two oldest daughters marry men of Sodom? And why did Lot try to talk his sons-in-law into leaving Sodom that night? Nothing about that traditional explanation makes any sense at all.
No, the only way that a-l-l the men of Sodom -- not only the townspeople of the city of Shunem/Salem itself where Lot lived, but also all the men in the entire district of Sodom -- could be so hostile to Lot’s two mysterious guests is as follows. The townspeople suspected that Lot’s two mysterious guests were representatives of pharaoh Akhenaten, who had been sent to see if the entire district of Sodom had indeed decided to revolt against Egyptian presence in the Jezreel Valley. That was indeed the case, as no one in Sodom was willing to provide free corvee labor to tend the fields near Shunem/Salem which Akhenaten had recently confiscated at firesale prices to become pharaoh’s private estate in Sodom:
“But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in Shunama, and they do not furnish corvee workers. Only I…(by myself) [an outsider from Megiddo] furnish corvee workers.” Amarna Letter EA 365.
The sons of Labaya [Biblical “Hamor”] later said what their father had done regarding anyone who supported the idea of Akhenaten having fields as his own private estate in the district of Sodom:
“[O]ur father…attacked Shunama…and deported the evil ones….” Amarna Letter EA 250.
The people of Sodom don’t want to have sex with Lot’s two mysterious guests, for heaven’s sake. No, they want to boot them out of Sodom unceremoniously, to let them know that they are taking their own fields back, they will not give free corvee labor to Akhenaten, and indeed they will no longer tolerate any Egyptian presence at all in the Harod River Valley region (the district of Sodom).
The reason why the first Hebrews were concerned about this violent revolt against Egyptian rule up north in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13 was because at that time the first Hebrews were trying to get Akhenaten to remove evil Yapaxu as the new ruler of the Ayalon Valley, who threatened to drive the first Hebrews from where they had been sojourning. Moreover, (i) a confederate of Abraham, namely Tagi (Biblical “Aner”) was the ruler of Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr and was involved with Labaya and the troubles in the Jezreel Valley, and (ii) a close relative of Abraham, namely his nephew Lot, had been the middleman in getting the people of Sodom to cede their fields at firesale prices to Akhenaten, and now Lot could easily get blamed by both sides as that deal went sour big-time.
So chapters 18-19 of Genesis need to show that the first Hebrews totally opposed the violent revolt against Egyptian rule in the Jezreel Valley that historically happened in Year 13. That is why Sodom and Gomorrah and other un-named “cities of the kikkar” (in particular Beth Shean, a small Egyptian garrison that was burnt to the ground in Year 13) are portrayed as being divinely punished with fire.
One key here is to focus on the critical fact that a-l-l the men of the district of Sodom, not just a few sexual predators, were super-hostile to Lot’s two mysterious guests:
“But before they lay down, the men of the city [of Salem/Shunem,], [indeed] even the men of [the entire district of] Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” Genesis 19: 4
In Year 13, every man in the district of Sodom hated pharaoh Akhenaten for having confiscated their fields at firesale prices, and for then having added insult to injury by insisting that they should provide free corvee labor to tend Akhenaten’s private estate fields. Those outrages are what led to part of Salem/Shunem and all of Beth Shean historically being burnt to the ground in Year 13, and why Salem/Shunem and the district of Sodom welcomed Labaya/Hamor as their new strongman ruler, while refusing to have anything whatsoever to do with Egypt any more -- including any two representatives that pharaoh Akhenaten might send to check up on the matter.
The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives (in a Year 13 context) is truly breathtaking.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “It is not any mystery. verses 17-21 say why God was concerned about Sodom and why He wanted to consult His friend, Abraham.”
But the verses at Genesis 18: 20-21 in fact do not say what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was:
“20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”
The traditional explanation of the sin of Sodom is utterly senseless: the claim that all the men of Sodom were predatory homosexual rapists:
“…the ‘men’ of Sodom, whose manliness is expressed in the universal impulse to homosexual gang rape”. Robert Alter, “Genesis” (1996), p. 85.
That makes no sense on any level. If the men of Sodom were like that, then why had Lot bought a fine house in Sodom, and why did he have his two oldest daughters marry men of Sodom? And why did Lot try to talk his sons-in-law into leaving Sodom that night? Nothing about that traditional explanation makes any sense at all.
No, the only way that a-l-l the men of Sodom -- not only the townspeople of the city of Shunem/Salem itself where Lot lived, but also all the men in the entire district of Sodom -- could be so hostile to Lot’s two mysterious guests is as follows. The townspeople suspected that Lot’s two mysterious guests were representatives of pharaoh Akhenaten, who had been sent to see if the entire district of Sodom had indeed decided to revolt against Egyptian presence in the Jezreel Valley. That was indeed the case, as no one in Sodom was willing to provide free corvee labor to tend the fields near Shunem/Salem which Akhenaten had recently confiscated at firesale prices to become pharaoh’s private estate in Sodom:
“But consider the mayors that are near me. They do not act as I do. They do not cultivate in Shunama, and they do not furnish corvee workers. Only I…(by myself) [an outsider from Megiddo] furnish corvee workers.” Amarna Letter EA 365.
The sons of Labaya [Biblical “Hamor”] later said what their father had done regarding anyone who supported the idea of Akhenaten having fields as his own private estate in the district of Sodom:
“[O]ur father…attacked Shunama…and deported the evil ones….” Amarna Letter EA 250.
The people of Sodom don’t want to have sex with Lot’s two mysterious guests, for heaven’s sake. No, they want to boot them out of Sodom unceremoniously, to let them know that they are taking their own fields back, they will not give free corvee labor to Akhenaten, and indeed they will no longer tolerate any Egyptian presence at all in the Harod River Valley region (the district of Sodom).
The reason why the first Hebrews were concerned about this violent revolt against Egyptian rule up north in the Jezreel Valley in Year 13 was because at that time the first Hebrews were trying to get Akhenaten to remove evil Yapaxu as the new ruler of the Ayalon Valley, who threatened to drive the first Hebrews from where they had been sojourning. Moreover, (i) a confederate of Abraham, namely Tagi (Biblical “Aner”) was the ruler of Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr and was involved with Labaya and the troubles in the Jezreel Valley, and (ii) a close relative of Abraham, namely his nephew Lot, had been the middleman in getting the people of Sodom to cede their fields at firesale prices to Akhenaten, and now Lot could easily get blamed by both sides as that deal went sour big-time.
So chapters 18-19 of Genesis need to show that the first Hebrews totally opposed the violent revolt against Egyptian rule in the Jezreel Valley that historically happened in Year 13. That is why Sodom and Gomorrah and other un-named “cities of the kikkar” (in particular Beth Shean, a small Egyptian garrison that was burnt to the ground in Year 13) are portrayed as being divinely punished with fire.
One key here is to focus on the critical fact that a-l-l the men of the district of Sodom, not just a few sexual predators, were super-hostile to Lot’s two mysterious guests:
“But before they lay down, the men of the city [of Salem/Shunem,], [indeed] even the men of [the entire district of] Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” Genesis 19: 4
In Year 13, every man in the district of Sodom hated pharaoh Akhenaten for having confiscated their fields at firesale prices, and for then having added insult to injury by insisting that they should provide free corvee labor to tend Akhenaten’s private estate fields. Those outrages are what led to part of Salem/Shunem and all of Beth Shean historically being burnt to the ground in Year 13, and why Salem/Shunem and the district of Sodom welcomed Labaya/Hamor as their new strongman ruler, while refusing to have anything whatsoever to do with Egypt any more -- including any two representatives that pharaoh Akhenaten might send to check up on the matter.
The p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives (in a Year 13 context) is truly breathtaking.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “In Gen. 20:2 we read: ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי הוא וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה NIV: "and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her." Why did Abraham have to say that Sarah is his sister, and where did Abimelek take her, to the royal nursing home?”
Neither Pharaoh in chapter 12 of Genesis, when Sarah is age 32½ years in 12-month years, nor Abimelek in chapter 20 of Genesis, when Sarah is age 45 years in 12-month years [with all stated ages of humans being set forth in the Patriarchal narratives in terms of “the turn of the year”, where shanah in that case effectively is a 6-month “year”], has any sexual attraction to Sarah. Sarah is beyond the age of normal childbearing and as such no longer will attract lascivious attention.
Rather, both Pharaoh and Abimelek view Abraham as being a prophet, who might possibly be able to utter a fertility prayer that would allow each ruler to solve his fertility problem: his inability, like Abraham, to sire a son by his original main wife #1 to be his proper heir. [Pharaoh is Akhenaten, whose Queen, Nefertiti, bore him only daughters.]
Abraham proves his bona fides as a prophet by boldly pledging Sarah to each ruler, with Sarah to be returned to Abraham if and only if a divine sign appears that shows that God has taken note of the rulers’ fertility problems and is working on it. Then Abraham will get Sarah back (regardless of whether the ruler actually sires a son by his original main wife #1). The risk is not that Sarah might get ravished by either ruler. Old Sarah will not get ravished. But the risk is that if no divine sign is forthcoming, then the ruler may not return Sarah to Abraham, and indeed perhaps Abraham would be thrown in jail as well. So there is a big-time risk, but it has nothing to do with the possibility of Sarah being ravished.
In both cases, a divine sign comes through on a timely basis, as in each case the women of the palace are temporarily unable to have relations with the ruler. That is implied at Genesis 12: 17, and then made explicit at Genesis 20: 18. Likewise, what each ruler wanted from Abraham is finally made explicit at Genesis 20: 17 -- a fertility prayer:
“So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.”
The primary reason why Abraham says that Sarah is his “sister” is so that the ruler would have an excuse, in the eyes of the ruler’s people, for taking Sarah into the ruler’s household as a high-class pledge. It would not be proper to take a man’s wife as such a pledge, but it would be fine to take a man’s sister. In fact, each ruler knew the whole situation, and knew that Sarah was Abraham’s wife. Indeed, each ruler is relying on that, because each ruler knows that Abraham wants exactly what the ruler wants: to sire a son as his proper heir by his original main wife #1. That can only happen for Abraham if Abraham obtains a divine sign for the ruler that God has taken note of the ruler’s fertility problem, because only then will Abraham get Sarah back, and as we all know, there’s finally a happy ending for Abraham and Sarah as to childbirth.
Secondarily, Sarah being Abraham’s half-sister reflects a Hurrian custom of Amarna Age vintage. There is no west Semitic name like “Sarai” attested in the entirety of the ancient world, where -ai is allegedly an archaic feminine ending for a human female. Rather, Sarah’s birth name, sRY, is a Hurrian name. “sarri” is a common word in Hurrian that means “beautiful”. Nozadze, “Vocabulary of the Hurrian Language”, p. 290. The name is Sa[r]-ri-ya, meaning “the divine is beautiful”, and that Hurrian name is rendered in Hebrew defective spelling as sRY.
Both of Sarah’s parents were ethnic Hurrians. Pursuant to a well-documented Hurrian custom, Sarah’s parents gave Sarriya to Terah (but not to Terah’s wife) by adoption, so that Sarah was Terah’s adopted daughter (not his blood daughter). By a written contract, Terah paid Sarah’s parents a modest sum for the adoption, and promised to find Sarah a suitable husband to marry, which if things went well would be expected to be Terah’s son Abraham. That’s what happened. So Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister by adoption only, and is no blood relation to Abraham at all. Because of that Hurrian custom, Hurrian men often married a woman who technically was their “sister”, meaning that the man’s father had adopted the female for the precise purpose of having her become, in due course, his daughter-in-law. That’s why Genesis 11: 31 refers to Sarriya as being Terah’s “daughter-in-law”, not as Terah’s daughter, because Terah always thought of Sarriya as being his (future) daughter-in-law, and never really thought of her as being a daughter (though she was Terah’s adopted daughter).
At no point is either Abraham or Sarah worried about Sarah getting ravished by any man. Nor is Abraham a cad, hiding behind his wife’s skirts as it were by claiming she is his sister. No, old Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister by adoption. Abraham says that Sarah is his “sister” so that each of the two rulers (Pharaoh and Abimelek) will have a legitimate excuse, in the eyes of the ruler’s people, to take such sister into his household as a pledge, where taking a man’s wife into one’s household as a pledge would not be proper.
In fact, all three men have one thing on their minds: wanting to sire a son as a proper heir by their original main wife #1. No one wants to ravish old Sarah. But all three men desperately do want a proper male heir by their original main wife #1. The two rulers hope that the prophet Abraham will utter a fertility prayer that may do the trick.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “In Gen. 20:2 we read: ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי הוא וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה NIV: "and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her." Why did Abraham have to say that Sarah is his sister, and where did Abimelek take her, to the royal nursing home?”
Neither Pharaoh in chapter 12 of Genesis, when Sarah is age 32½ years in 12-month years, nor Abimelek in chapter 20 of Genesis, when Sarah is age 45 years in 12-month years [with all stated ages of humans being set forth in the Patriarchal narratives in terms of “the turn of the year”, where shanah in that case effectively is a 6-month “year”], has any sexual attraction to Sarah. Sarah is beyond the age of normal childbearing and as such no longer will attract lascivious attention.
Rather, both Pharaoh and Abimelek view Abraham as being a prophet, who might possibly be able to utter a fertility prayer that would allow each ruler to solve his fertility problem: his inability, like Abraham, to sire a son by his original main wife #1 to be his proper heir. [Pharaoh is Akhenaten, whose Queen, Nefertiti, bore him only daughters.]
Abraham proves his bona fides as a prophet by boldly pledging Sarah to each ruler, with Sarah to be returned to Abraham if and only if a divine sign appears that shows that God has taken note of the rulers’ fertility problems and is working on it. Then Abraham will get Sarah back (regardless of whether the ruler actually sires a son by his original main wife #1). The risk is not that Sarah might get ravished by either ruler. Old Sarah will not get ravished. But the risk is that if no divine sign is forthcoming, then the ruler may not return Sarah to Abraham, and indeed perhaps Abraham would be thrown in jail as well. So there is a big-time risk, but it has nothing to do with the possibility of Sarah being ravished.
In both cases, a divine sign comes through on a timely basis, as in each case the women of the palace are temporarily unable to have relations with the ruler. That is implied at Genesis 12: 17, and then made explicit at Genesis 20: 18. Likewise, what each ruler wanted from Abraham is finally made explicit at Genesis 20: 17 -- a fertility prayer:
“So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.”
The primary reason why Abraham says that Sarah is his “sister” is so that the ruler would have an excuse, in the eyes of the ruler’s people, for taking Sarah into the ruler’s household as a high-class pledge. It would not be proper to take a man’s wife as such a pledge, but it would be fine to take a man’s sister. In fact, each ruler knew the whole situation, and knew that Sarah was Abraham’s wife. Indeed, each ruler is relying on that, because each ruler knows that Abraham wants exactly what the ruler wants: to sire a son as his proper heir by his original main wife #1. That can only happen for Abraham if Abraham obtains a divine sign for the ruler that God has taken note of the ruler’s fertility problem, because only then will Abraham get Sarah back, and as we all know, there’s finally a happy ending for Abraham and Sarah as to childbirth.
Secondarily, Sarah being Abraham’s half-sister reflects a Hurrian custom of Amarna Age vintage. There is no west Semitic name like “Sarai” attested in the entirety of the ancient world, where -ai is allegedly an archaic feminine ending for a human female. Rather, Sarah’s birth name, sRY, is a Hurrian name. “sarri” is a common word in Hurrian that means “beautiful”. Nozadze, “Vocabulary of the Hurrian Language”, p. 290. The name is Sa[r]-ri-ya, meaning “the divine is beautiful”, and that Hurrian name is rendered in Hebrew defective spelling as sRY.
Both of Sarah’s parents were ethnic Hurrians. Pursuant to a well-documented Hurrian custom, Sarah’s parents gave Sarriya to Terah (but not to Terah’s wife) by adoption, so that Sarah was Terah’s adopted daughter (not his blood daughter). By a written contract, Terah paid Sarah’s parents a modest sum for the adoption, and promised to find Sarah a suitable husband to marry, which if things went well would be expected to be Terah’s son Abraham. That’s what happened. So Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister by adoption only, and is no blood relation to Abraham at all. Because of that Hurrian custom, Hurrian men often married a woman who technically was their “sister”, meaning that the man’s father had adopted the female for the precise purpose of having her become, in due course, his daughter-in-law. That’s why Genesis 11: 31 refers to Sarriya as being Terah’s “daughter-in-law”, not as Terah’s daughter, because Terah always thought of Sarriya as being his (future) daughter-in-law, and never really thought of her as being a daughter (though she was Terah’s adopted daughter).
At no point is either Abraham or Sarah worried about Sarah getting ravished by any man. Nor is Abraham a cad, hiding behind his wife’s skirts as it were by claiming she is his sister. No, old Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister by adoption. Abraham says that Sarah is his “sister” so that each of the two rulers (Pharaoh and Abimelek) will have a legitimate excuse, in the eyes of the ruler’s people, to take such sister into his household as a pledge, where taking a man’s wife into one’s household as a pledge would not be proper.
In fact, all three men have one thing on their minds: wanting to sire a son as a proper heir by their original main wife #1. No one wants to ravish old Sarah. But all three men desperately do want a proper male heir by their original main wife #1. The two rulers hope that the prophet Abraham will utter a fertility prayer that may do the trick.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Steve says
He wanted to consult His friend, Abraham.
Says I
It appears to me that this is more about Abraham consulting his own conscience. After the "visit" by the Sodomites, and possibly after discovering that his wife is pregnant, Abraham decides to drop on them an atomic bomb. He was helpless against the Egyptians and against the Philistines, but he could take total care (with the possible help of allies) of the arrogant petty "king" of dusty Sodom; but he was concerned about the collateral damage.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
He wanted to consult His friend, Abraham.
Says I
It appears to me that this is more about Abraham consulting his own conscience. After the "visit" by the Sodomites, and possibly after discovering that his wife is pregnant, Abraham decides to drop on them an atomic bomb. He was helpless against the Egyptians and against the Philistines, but he could take total care (with the possible help of allies) of the arrogant petty "king" of dusty Sodom; but he was concerned about the collateral damage.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Jim Stinehart
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Isaac Fried:
You wrote: “After the ‘visit’ by the Sodomites, and possibly after discovering that his wife is pregnant, Abraham decides to drop on them an atomic bomb.”
Isaac, my man, there was no “atomic bomb” in the ancient world. But there were perfect conditions for a fiery conflagration at Sodom.
1. Start with the driest, most drought-prone climate in Canaan’s long history. That’s the Late Bronze Age in general, and Year 13 in particular.
2. Now add a scorching east wind that comes into the northern Jordan River Valley from the northern Arabian Desert. (You can consider it YHWH’s divine breath, if you like.)
3. That east wind then picks up some serious sulphur/brimstone from the famous sulphur hot springs on the southwest edge of the Sea of Galilee.
4. Now conditions are just right for a sulphur-laden fire (fire and brimstone) to burn Beth Shean to the ground, as an un-named “city of the kikkar of the Jordan”, in Year 13.
5. As the fire gains in fury and continues to head west (driven by the east wind), the district of Sodom -- the Harod River Valley region -- is next. Shunem/Salem/Solem, as the leading city of the district of Sodom, and/or its fields, are consumed by fire in Year 13.
6. Yet the fire keeps on going, being driven west by that scorching east wind, until it gets all the way to Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah, about 12 miles or so west of the Harod River Valley/Sodom. (Note that Genesis 19: 24 lists Sodom first, before Gomorrah, so we know the fire is moving west, driven by a scorching east wind from the northern Arabian Desert.)
7. Abraham goes back up to Baal Hazor (where he and Lot had been in chapter 13 of Genesis when they separated), looks out toward Mt. Gilboa to the north, and what does he see?
“27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD. 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain [kikkar (of the Jordan)], and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.” Genesis 19: 27-28
There’s no “atomic bomb”. Fiery infernos are often reported in the Amarna Letters, as there are many, many reports of cities in Syro-Canaan being on fire. Within a season or two, the fields come back, and cities can be re-built. In fact, in the generation of Abraham’s grandson, Jacob decides to sojourn near the city of “Shalem”/Salem/Solem/Shunem, in the district of Sodom, per Genesis 33: 18, not far from where Lot had lived in his fine, fortified house. Lot’s purely rhetorical offer that his youngest daughter, about age 10, could be had by the crowd then unfortunately comes true, after a fashion, in that same geographical locale, for Jacob’s daughter Dinah, age 10.
There was no “atomic bomb” at Sodom. In fact, the district of Sodom was back to normal by the time Abraham’s grandson Jacob comes by that same locale. Later Biblical authors imagined that Sodom had been permanently destroyed, and university scholars top that by claiming that Sodom’s destruction is allegedly portrayed in the Bible as causing the southern half of the Dead Sea to form, but there’s not a grain of truth to those non-historical ideas. Chapter 19 of Genesis says nary a word about water or flooding, so why do university scholars insist that the southern half of the Dead Sea is allegedly portrayed in chapter 19 of Genesis as owing its existence to Sodom’s fiery destruction? Not. The text says nothing of the kind, and university scholars should drop that fantastic, non-historical idea, which is not supported by anything that is said in the text of the Patriarchal narratives.
If we pay close attention to what the last 40 chapters of Genesis actually say, the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives will come shining through. But if you let university scholars claim that chapter 19 of Genesis allegedly portrays the southern half of the Dead Sea as being formed from Sodom’s fiery destruction -- which is 100% false on all levels, in particular having not one whit of textual support in the Patriarchal narratives -- then university scholars thereby import a fairy tale atmosphere to the deadly serious, historically accurate Patriarchal narratives.
Isaac Fried, there was no “atomic bomb” in the ancient world. But there was a scorching east wind from the northern Arabian Desert in the driest climate in Canaan’s long history, and hot sulphur springs southwest of the Sea of Galilee, and Beth Shean is verified by non-biblical sources as being burnt to the ground in or about Year 13, and Salem/Solem/Shunem and/or its fields (in the district of Sodom) likely were consumed by fire as well in Year 13; and though we have no non-biblical evidence to confirm it, it would not be surprising if that great sulphur-laden fire made it all the way west to Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr west of the Harod River Valley. It all makes historical sense in the context of Year 13, provided that we must jettison university scholars ad-libbing fairy tale elements to what the Biblical text actually says.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
You wrote: “After the ‘visit’ by the Sodomites, and possibly after discovering that his wife is pregnant, Abraham decides to drop on them an atomic bomb.”
Isaac, my man, there was no “atomic bomb” in the ancient world. But there were perfect conditions for a fiery conflagration at Sodom.
1. Start with the driest, most drought-prone climate in Canaan’s long history. That’s the Late Bronze Age in general, and Year 13 in particular.
2. Now add a scorching east wind that comes into the northern Jordan River Valley from the northern Arabian Desert. (You can consider it YHWH’s divine breath, if you like.)
3. That east wind then picks up some serious sulphur/brimstone from the famous sulphur hot springs on the southwest edge of the Sea of Galilee.
4. Now conditions are just right for a sulphur-laden fire (fire and brimstone) to burn Beth Shean to the ground, as an un-named “city of the kikkar of the Jordan”, in Year 13.
5. As the fire gains in fury and continues to head west (driven by the east wind), the district of Sodom -- the Harod River Valley region -- is next. Shunem/Salem/Solem, as the leading city of the district of Sodom, and/or its fields, are consumed by fire in Year 13.
6. Yet the fire keeps on going, being driven west by that scorching east wind, until it gets all the way to Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah, about 12 miles or so west of the Harod River Valley/Sodom. (Note that Genesis 19: 24 lists Sodom first, before Gomorrah, so we know the fire is moving west, driven by a scorching east wind from the northern Arabian Desert.)
7. Abraham goes back up to Baal Hazor (where he and Lot had been in chapter 13 of Genesis when they separated), looks out toward Mt. Gilboa to the north, and what does he see?
“27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD. 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain [kikkar (of the Jordan)], and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.” Genesis 19: 27-28
There’s no “atomic bomb”. Fiery infernos are often reported in the Amarna Letters, as there are many, many reports of cities in Syro-Canaan being on fire. Within a season or two, the fields come back, and cities can be re-built. In fact, in the generation of Abraham’s grandson, Jacob decides to sojourn near the city of “Shalem”/Salem/Solem/Shunem, in the district of Sodom, per Genesis 33: 18, not far from where Lot had lived in his fine, fortified house. Lot’s purely rhetorical offer that his youngest daughter, about age 10, could be had by the crowd then unfortunately comes true, after a fashion, in that same geographical locale, for Jacob’s daughter Dinah, age 10.
There was no “atomic bomb” at Sodom. In fact, the district of Sodom was back to normal by the time Abraham’s grandson Jacob comes by that same locale. Later Biblical authors imagined that Sodom had been permanently destroyed, and university scholars top that by claiming that Sodom’s destruction is allegedly portrayed in the Bible as causing the southern half of the Dead Sea to form, but there’s not a grain of truth to those non-historical ideas. Chapter 19 of Genesis says nary a word about water or flooding, so why do university scholars insist that the southern half of the Dead Sea is allegedly portrayed in chapter 19 of Genesis as owing its existence to Sodom’s fiery destruction? Not. The text says nothing of the kind, and university scholars should drop that fantastic, non-historical idea, which is not supported by anything that is said in the text of the Patriarchal narratives.
If we pay close attention to what the last 40 chapters of Genesis actually say, the p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives will come shining through. But if you let university scholars claim that chapter 19 of Genesis allegedly portrays the southern half of the Dead Sea as being formed from Sodom’s fiery destruction -- which is 100% false on all levels, in particular having not one whit of textual support in the Patriarchal narratives -- then university scholars thereby import a fairy tale atmosphere to the deadly serious, historically accurate Patriarchal narratives.
Isaac Fried, there was no “atomic bomb” in the ancient world. But there was a scorching east wind from the northern Arabian Desert in the driest climate in Canaan’s long history, and hot sulphur springs southwest of the Sea of Galilee, and Beth Shean is verified by non-biblical sources as being burnt to the ground in or about Year 13, and Salem/Solem/Shunem and/or its fields (in the district of Sodom) likely were consumed by fire as well in Year 13; and though we have no non-biblical evidence to confirm it, it would not be surprising if that great sulphur-laden fire made it all the way west to Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr west of the Harod River Valley. It all makes historical sense in the context of Year 13, provided that we must jettison university scholars ad-libbing fairy tale elements to what the Biblical text actually says.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Concerning the living conditions in SDOM, apparently LOT lived among its inhabitants in peace and tranquillity, free of any molestation --- he, his wife, his daughters and his sons-in-law. So the question remains as to who cried there to God so piteously, and why.
Of course, before destroying the place Abraham sent emissaries to warn LOT to leave town.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Of course, before destroying the place Abraham sent emissaries to warn LOT to leave town.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
-
Isaac Fried
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
Re: What brought about the destruction of סדום SDOM
Steve says
The 3 men are the Lord and 2 angels.
Says I
It is very very difficult for me to accept the idea of the Lord, having washed His feet, reclining comfortably under a shady tree in Abrahams backyard, savoring delectables right out of Sarah's kitchen.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
The 3 men are the Lord and 2 angels.
Says I
It is very very difficult for me to accept the idea of the Lord, having washed His feet, reclining comfortably under a shady tree in Abrahams backyard, savoring delectables right out of Sarah's kitchen.
Isaac Fried, Boston University