Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A poster (Daniel O. McClellan) made a claim in another of my threads >> https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...-word-god.html in post #142 which I felt deserved to be refuted in a new thread. The claim, which is one of liberal scholarship, imagines there to be a conflation of two different texts in the Genesis 37:18-36 passage based on the false idea that there is a contradiction in the passage. There is not.
The topic of this thread is limited strictly to this passage as I don't intend to spend a great deal of time with this thread refuting supposed contradiction after supposed contradiction.
Here is what he posted:
I think you might be surprised how far we actually come to that original. Additionally--and here's the part that some find hard to understand--the closer we get, the more and more it seems there may not have been a single original. Many texts seem to be based on the conflation of two or more independent versions of an event or situation. I pointed this out in another thread, but the story of Joseph's sale into Egypt is a good example. Here's what I posted:
Quote:
Quote:
The story of Joseph's sale into Egypt (Gen 37:18-36) shows these features [indications of textual seams identified from known conflations of texts, such as the Diatessaron, portions of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls, and the epic of Gilgamesh]. There are several doublets: two decisions to kill Joseph, two plans to throw him into a pit, two arguments to save him, two passing tribes. These doublets lead to several breaks, but the divergences are the most striking. In vv. 25 and 27 it is Ishmaelites passing by, but in v. 28 it is suddenly Midianites. The Midianites draw Joseph from the pit and sell him to Ishmaelites, who then take him into Egypt. V. 36, however, says the Midianites where the ones who sold Joseph to Potiphar while in Egypt. There is simply no way to reconcile the conflict here. The verb "they lifted" in v. 28 can refer to no one but the Midianites. There is a clear and demonstrable divergence, or contradiction. When all these considerations are taken together, we see two entire narratives have been spliced together. They can be rather simply excised from the consolidation, giving us two complete and self-contained versions of the story:
Version 1:
Quote:
They said to one another, Here comes that dreamer. Come, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits, then we can say, A savage beast devoured him. We shall see what comes of his dreams. When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he was wearing. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels bearing gum, balm, and ladanum to be taken to Egypt. Then Judah said to his brothers, What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers agreed. They sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites, who brought Joseph to Egypt. Then they took Joseph's tunic, slaughtered a kid, and dipped the tunic in the blood. They had the ornamented tunic taken to their father, and they said, We found this. Please examine it. Is it your son's tunic or not? He recognized it, and said, My son's tunic! A savage beast devoured him! Joseph was torn by a beast! Jacob rent his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, and observed mourning for his son many days. All his sons and daughters sought to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted, saying, No, I will go down mourning for my son in Sheol. Thus his father bewailed him.
Version 2:
Quote:
They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him. But when Reuben heard it, he tried to save him from them. He said, Let us not take his life. And Reuben went on, Shed no blood! Cast him into that pit out in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves--intending to save him from them and restore him to his father. They took him and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty, there was no water in it. Then they saw down to a meal. When Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph up out of the pit. When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he rent his clothes. Returning to his brothers, he said, The boy is gone! Now what am I to do? The Midianites, meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh and his chief steward.
Not a word had to be altered, deleted, or added to come up with two complete and internally consistent narratives. There is simply no question that two different traditions were combined into one at some point, which led to the contradictions and the doublets.
Daniel, you believe there to be an irreconcilable conflict here. But there is no conflict at all. The Midianites were so closely interelated with the Ishmaelites that they were referred to both as Midianites and Ishmaelites.
This can be seen in Judges 8:22-24 where the Midianites are called Ishmaelites.
Judges 8:22 Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, both you and your son, also your son's son, for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian."23] But Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you." 24] Yet Gideon said to them, "I would request of you, that each of you give me an earring from his spoil." (For they had gold earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.)
The men of Israel had defeated the Midianites and had taken spoil (plunder) from them. Part of the spoil were gold earrings which the Midianites wore because they were Ishmaelites. The inspired writer of the book of Judges referred to the Midianites as Ishmaelites.
The Ishmaelites were descendants of Ishmael who was born to Abraham by Hagar. Ishmael had to separate from Abraham and go across the Jordan. God prospered him, and after several generations the Ishmaelites had grown to a large enough group where they became involved with trade.
The Midianites were also descendants of Abraham by Keturah who Abraham married after Sarah died (Gen. 25:1). And one of Keturah's sons was Midian.
So Midian was a half-brother to Isaac, and Midian was also a half brother to Ishmael.
Their lines were apparently intermarrying with the result that the terms Midianites and Ishmaelites were beginning to be used interchangeably. And so in writing of this, Moses used the terms interchangeably.
Whether there were two caravans traveling together, one of Ishmaelites and another of Midianites, or whether there was one caravan consisting of both Ishmalites and Midianites, or whether the caravan consisted of Midianites only, there is no contradiction in the passage. When the Midianite traders passed by, the brothers sold Joseph to them. Joseph himself said that it was the brothers who had sold him --Genesis 45:4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Please come closer to me." And they came closer. And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.
Apparently Reuben had gone off somewhere and was not present when the other brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites, as Genesis 37:29 shows that when Reuben returned to the cistern he was surprised to find that Joseph wasn't there.
There is no conflict in this passage, no contradiction, no separate traditions conflated together, and no error - no errancy.
Daniel, you believe there to be an irreconcilable conflict here. But there is no conflict at all. The Midianites were so closely interelated with the Ishmaelites that they were referred to both as Midianites and Ishmaelites.
And this is simply not true. It is a commonly appealed to apologetic rationalization for this text, but it has no basis whatsoever in anything even closely related to fact. As the poster shows below, the supposed justification for this rationalization comes from an egregious misunderstanding of Judg 8:22-24, where the author refers metonymically to a military coalition of eastern tribes as "Midian," only to refer to those warriors wearing earrings later as Ishmaelites. This moves from the broader designation to a more specific one. These would have either been actual ethnic Ishmaelites among the broader Midianite group, or the term could refer to a practice firmly associated with Ishmaelites. Naive and outdated apologists suggest that this means the two groups were so closely related that their gentilic designations were interchangeable. That's simply not true at all, and there is no example of any such practice taking place in the Hebrew Bible. While it is possible "Midianite" may be understood in Judges to refer to the broader ethnic group, with "Ishmaelite" referring to a specific subset of that broader group (a subset wearing earrings), this does not at all indicate interchangeability. Imagine I travel to Germany and refer to a German as a "European." That works, but I cannot then travel to France and call a native a German. All Ishmaelites may be Midianites, but not all Midianites were Ishmaelites.
Additionally, when we have both groups mentioned in a single pericope, their gentilic designations are absolutely never going to be arbitrarily swapped. In Gen 37:28 we have a group identified as Midianites selling Joseph to a distinct group identified as Ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites then take Joseph to Egypt. The author here makes a point of distinguishing between the two groups. That is a fact. He distinguishes between them intentionally. He does not say two groups of Ishmaelites or two groups of Midianites. He specifically identifies one groups as Midianite and a separate group as Ishmaelite. It would be like referring to a meeting between Germans and Europeans. No one on this planet would assume this meant two groups of Germans. It would mean a group of Germans and some other ethnicity within the broader European designation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the author to then arbitrarily refer to the Ishmaelites as Midianites. He intentionally distinguished the two groups before, and the designations he used are still perfectly available to use again. There is simply no reason on earth or in heaven for him to switch designations. It confuses the two groups, it is arbitrary, and it is absolutely nowhere done. Judges 8 is does not confuse the two groups. It speaks broadly of a series of tribes, even explicitly stating that the coalition was made up of "The Midianites, the Amalekites and all the other eastern peoples" (Judg 7:12), and then speaks specifically about a subset identified with a particular practice. That is not at all analogous with an arbitrary and anomalous swapping of identities in a text that initially distinguished between the two.
Is it possible that the author would make that arbitrary change? I suppose it is within the realm of possibility, but it is nowhere near the realm of plausibility. It simply makes no sense, it betrays every standard of narrativity and composition, and it confuses the reader. It absolutely and undeniable makes far, far, far more sense that these were two stories woven together. We have many other examples within this story of bizarre and confusing doublets. For instance, they decide to kill him, and then two verses later they decide to kill him. Reuben convinces the brothers not to kill him, and then a few verses later there is a new decision not to kill him. How did these Midianites sneak in while the brothers see the Ishmaelites and decide to sell Joseph to them? Somehow the Midianites snuck in unseen and plucked him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites without Joseph's brothers knowing? None of this makes any sense at all. The text is a bizarre, confusing, and unique composition if we demand it be understood as unified. There is simply no reason at all to prefer this conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
This can be seen in Judges 8:22-24 where the Midianites are called Ishmaelites.
Judges 8:22 Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, both you and your son, also your son's son, for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian."23] But Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you." 24] Yet Gideon said to them, "I would request of you, that each of you give me an earring from his spoil." (For they had gold earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.)
The men of Israel had defeated the Midianites and had taken spoil (plunder) from them. Part of the spoil were gold earrings which the Midianites wore because they were Ishmaelites. The inspired writer of the book of Judges referred to the Midianites as Ishmaelites.
No, that's not what it means, and even if it were, the author would not have distinguished between the two in Gen 37. He would have used one gentilic. Even if he did, for some ridiculous reason, use the two different designations for two groups from the same ethnicity, he would not have just arbitrarily switched those designations he applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The Ishmaelites were descendants of Ishmael who was born to Abraham by Hagar. Ishmael had to separate from Abraham and go across the Jordan. God prospered him, and after several generations the Ishmaelites had grown to a large enough group where they became involved with trade.
The Midianites were also descendants of Abraham by Keturah who Abraham married after Sarah died (Gen. 25:1). And one of Keturah's sons was Midian.
So Midian was a half-brother to Isaac, and Midian was also a half brother to Ishmael.
Their lines were apparently intermarrying with the result that the terms Midianites and Ishmaelites were beginning to be used interchangeably. And so in writing of this, Moses used the terms interchangeably.
Apparently? Those are pretty big assumptions to draw from the fact that Judges 8 refers to a large coalition by the term "Midian," and then refers to one group within it as "Ishmaelites." There's no evidence whatsoever that these two groups were intermarrying, and there's no evidence whatsoever that two cultures intermarrying would result in the names of both cultures remaining, but being used interchangeably. The assumptions necessary for this rationalization to work result in the most ludicrous and anomalous follow up assumptions. Also, if we take a look at the archaeological evidence (as many actual scholars have done) we get the following conclusions:
Quote:
Midianites and Ishmaelites had nothing to do with each other in terms of their way of life, the geographical areas they occupied, or the time at which they flourished.
Ernst A. Knauf, "Midianites and Ishmaelites," in Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Whether there were two caravans traveling together, one of Ishmaelites and another of Midianites, or whether there was one caravan consisting of both Ishmalites and Midianites, or whether the caravan consisted of Midianites only, there is no contradiction in the passage. When the Midianite traders passed by, the brothers sold Joseph to them.
No, the text says the Midianites took him out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites. The brothers only saw the Ishmaelite party. Did the Ishmaelites race them back to the pit, drag him out, and sell them to themselves and run off before the brothers get back to the pit? The Ishmaelites were mentioned as the ones who took Joseph down to Egypt, so the groups were distinct, and they were not traveling together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Joseph himself said that it was the brothers who had sold him --Genesis 45:4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Please come closer to me." And they came closer. And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.
But the text quite clearly says that the Midianites took him from the pit, sold him to the Ishmaelites, who then went to Egypt and sold him. Even if they were the same general groups, the brothers absolutely did not sell him into Egypt. The text makes that explicit. Looks like you've got another contradiction. Oops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Apparently Reuben had gone off somewhere and was not present when the other brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites, as Genesis 37:29 shows that when Reuben returned to the cistern he was surprised to find that Joseph wasn't there.
Then why did he have to run back to his brothers and tell them Joseph wasn't there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
There is no conflict in this passage, no contradiction, no separate traditions conflated together, and no error - no errancy.
I suggest you actually allow for the option that there is a contradiction. You'd be amazed how much easier it is for things to make sense when you don't presuppose a bunch of ridiculous dogmas. Hitching your wagon to these ludicrous and pseudo-academic conclusions only shows that you care more about dogmatism than about evidence, and you will believe anything, no matter how asinine, in order to stick with that dogmatism.
Last edited by Daniel O. McClellan; 01-10-2013 at 09:42 PM..
the midianites and the ishmaelites lived so far apart that it seems likely to me that the caravan was traveling from one to the other
The land of the Midianites was located south of Edom and to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The Ishmaelites settled from Havilah to Shur in Northern Arabia, east of Egypt (Genesis 25:18).
Judges 8:22-26 refers to the Midianites as Ishmaelites, Since Midian and Ishmael were half brothers it should be no surprise that the terms were interchangeable. As well, there was probably intermarriage and interaction between the two.
Excerpt:
Just as the tribes of Israel regularly intermarried, and were interrelated in many ways, going to war together etc, so it is natural to assume that the members of the tribes from the other sons of Abraham would intermarry, and be very much interrelated, in particular, in Joseph's day, who was the great grandson of Abraham, i.e. only 3 generations away from Abraham, when these tribes were not very large yet. In particular, verse 28 seems to show the clearest that the two words are basically used as synonyms. For several examples how similar situations are reality in our times, see below. Bible Commentary: Ishmaelites or Midianites?
The caravan in Gen. 37:25 was traveling from Gilead and going to Egypt.
The land of the Midianites was located south of Edom and to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The Ishmaelites settled from Havilah to Shur in Northern Arabia, east of Egypt (Genesis 25:18).
Yes, and Havilah is mentioned in Gen 2:11 as the land that the river Pison, flowing out of the garden of Eden, encompasses. Where, pray tell, is this mythological land?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Judges 8:22-26 refers to the Midianites as Ishmaelites,
No, it refers to Ishmaelites among Midianites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Since Midian and Ishmael were half brothers it should be no surprise that the terms were interchangeable.
The terms are not interchangeable, and Judges 8 does not even begin to suggest that they are. This notion of "interchangeability" is pure and utter fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
As well, there was probably intermarriage and interaction between the two.
As I have shown, there's simply no evidence for any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Excerpt:
Just as the tribes of Israel regularly intermarried, and were interrelated in many ways, going to war together etc, so it is natural to assume that the members of the tribes from the other sons of Abraham would intermarry,
Except for the fact that Israel was perceived in the Hebrew Bible as, ideally, a single nation. The other sons of Abraham were all defined as their own nations. According to your reading, we should just as much expect Israel to be intermarrying with the Edomites, the Ishmaelites, the Midianites, and everyone else descended from Abraham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
and be very much interrelated, in particular, in Joseph's day, who was the great grandson of Abraham, i.e. only 3 generations away from Abraham, when these tribes were not very large yet. In particular, verse 28 seems to show the clearest that the two words are basically used as synonyms.
And your website produces a completely fictional version of Gen 37:28:
Quote:
So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled
Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels
of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt.
The Hebrew does not have "his brothers," it has "they,' meaning the Midianites, the antecedent and the only subject to which the verb can possibly have reference.
The caravan in Gen. 37:25 was traveling from Gilead and going to Egypt.
That could conceivably the author's idea of Ishmaelite territory, but certainly not Midianite territory (which is why the Midianite caravan is not mentioned as traveling from Giliead).
Yes, and Havilah is mentioned in Gen 2:11 as the land that the river Pison, flowing out of the garden of Eden, encompasses. Where, pray tell, is this mythological land?
Since there was a great flood those places don't exist anymore....pray tell.
And this is simply not true. It is a commonly appealed to apologetic rationalization for this text, but it has no basis whatsoever in anything even closely related to fact. As the poster shows below, the supposed justification for this rationalization comes from an egregious misunderstanding of Judg 8:22-24, where the author refers metonymically to a military coalition of eastern tribes as "Midian," only to refer to those warriors wearing earrings later as Ishmaelites. This moves from the broader designation to a more specific one. These would have either been actual ethnic Ishmaelites among the broader Midianite group, or the term could refer to a practice firmly associated with Ishmaelites. Naive and outdated apologists suggest that this means the two groups were so closely related that their gentilic designations were interchangeable. That's simply not true at all, and there is no example of any such practice taking place in the Hebrew Bible. While it is possible "Midianite" may be understood in Judges to refer to the broader ethnic group, with "Ishmaelite" referring to a specific subset of that broader group (a subset wearing earrings), this does not at all indicate interchangeability. Imagine I travel to Germany and refer to a German as a "European." That works, but I cannot then travel to France and call a native a German. All Ishmaelites may be Midianites, but not all Midianites were Ishmaelites.
Additionally, when we have both groups mentioned in a single pericope, their gentilic designations are absolutely never going to be arbitrarily swapped. In Gen 37:28 we have a group identified as Midianites selling Joseph to a distinct group identified as Ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites then take Joseph to Egypt. The author here makes a point of distinguishing between the two groups. That is a fact. He distinguishes between them intentionally. He does not say two groups of Ishmaelites or two groups of Midianites. He specifically identifies one groups as Midianite and a separate group as Ishmaelite. It would be like referring to a meeting between Germans and Europeans. No one on this planet would assume this meant two groups of Germans. It would mean a group of Germans and some other ethnicity within the broader European designation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the author to then arbitrarily refer to the Ishmaelites as Midianites. He intentionally distinguished the two groups before, and the designations he used are still perfectly available to use again. There is simply no reason on earth or in heaven for him to switch designations. It confuses the two groups, it is arbitrary, and it is absolutely nowhere done. Judges 8 is does not confuse the two groups. It speaks broadly of a series of tribes, even explicitly stating that the coalition was made up of "The Midianites, the Amalekites and all the other eastern peoples" (Judg 7:12), and then speaks specifically about a subset identified with a particular practice. That is not at all analogous with an arbitrary and anomalous swapping of identities in a text that initially distinguished between the two.
Is it possible that the author would make that arbitrary change? I suppose it is within the realm of possibility, but it is nowhere near the realm of plausibility. It simply makes no sense, it betrays every standard of narrativity and composition, and it confuses the reader. It absolutely and undeniable makes far, far, far more sense that these were two stories woven together. We have many other examples within this story of bizarre and confusing doublets. For instance, they decide to kill him, and then two verses later they decide to kill him. Reuben convinces the brothers not to kill him, and then a few verses later there is a new decision not to kill him. How did these Midianites sneak in while the brothers see the Ishmaelites and decide to sell Joseph to them? Somehow the Midianites snuck in unseen and plucked him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites without Joseph's brothers knowing? None of this makes any sense at all. The text is a bizarre, confusing, and unique composition if we demand it be understood as unified. There is simply no reason at all to prefer this conclusion.
No, that's not what it means, and even if it were, the author would not have distinguished between the two in Gen 37. He would have used one gentilic. Even if he did, for some ridiculous reason, use the two different designations for two groups from the same ethnicity, he would not have just arbitrarily switched those designations he applied.
Apparently? Those are pretty big assumptions to draw from the fact that Judges 8 refers to a large coalition by the term "Midian," and then refers to one group within it as "Ishmaelites." There's no evidence whatsoever that these two groups were intermarrying, and there's no evidence whatsoever that two cultures intermarrying would result in the names of both cultures remaining, but being used interchangeably. The assumptions necessary for this rationalization to work result in the most ludicrous and anomalous follow up assumptions. Also, if we take a look at the archaeological evidence (as many actual scholars have done) we get the following conclusions:
No, the text says the Midianites took him out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites. The brothers only saw the Ishmaelite party. Did the Ishmaelites race them back to the pit, drag him out, and sell them to themselves and run off before the brothers get back to the pit? The Ishmaelites were mentioned as the ones who took Joseph down to Egypt, so the groups were distinct, and they were not traveling together.
But the text quite clearly says that the Midianites took him from the pit, sold him to the Ishmaelites, who then went to Egypt and sold him. Even if they were the same general groups, the brothers absolutely did not sell him into Egypt. The text makes that explicit. Looks like you've got another contradiction. Oops.
Then why did he have to run back to his brothers and tell them Joseph wasn't there?
I suggest you actually allow for the option that there is a contradiction. You'd be amazed how much easier it is for things to make sense when you don't presuppose a bunch of ridiculous dogmas. Hitching your wagon to these ludicrous and pseudo-academic conclusions only shows that you care more about dogmatism than about evidence, and you will believe anything, no matter how asinine, in order to stick with that dogmatism.
No Daniel. You can not dismiss it as the suggestions of 'Naive and outdated apologists' as you are trying to do. It is clear that the Midianites were also referred to as Ishmaelites. In Judges 8:22-26 the Midianites are clearly called Ishmaelites.
It is also clear that Ismael and Midian were half brothers. And if there was intermarriage between the two peoples, then it is perfectly reasonable that the terms Midianites and Ishmaelites would be interchangeable.
This statement you made, 'There's no evidence whatsoever that these two groups were intermarrying...' is an argument from silence and therefore no argument at all.
Your claim of 'outdated apologetics' is shown to be false by the fact that the Bible Knowledge Commentary states the following...
37:25-28. Judah then prompted his brothers to sell Joseph to passing Ishmaelites on their way from Gilead. . . to Egypt. Ishmaelites were descendants of Abraham by Hagar (16:15) and the Midianites (37:28) descended from Abraham by his concubine Keturah (25:2). The term Ishmaelites became a general designation for desert tribes, so that Midianite traders were also known as Ishmaelites. Joseph was treated harshly by his brothers; but being sold for 20 shekels (8 ounces of silver) and taken to Egypt, he was preserved alive. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary, p. 88]
The text does not say that the Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. It says that 'they' with reference to the brothers pulled Joseph out of the pit. Joseph himself said that it was the brothers who sold him to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 45:4). It was the brothers who pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, a term by which the Midianites were also called.
And who are you to say that Moses would not use the terms interchangeably in the same passage? And notice that you used the term 'author' instead of Moses, because liberal scholarship believes in the Documentary Hypothesis. You talk about ludicrous and anomalous follow up assumptions, but do not see how ridiculous the assumtions of liberal scholars are.
I already explained why Reuben was surprised to not find Josepth in the pit.
You will not believe that it was Joseph's brothers who sold him to the Ishmaelites even though Joseph himself said that they did. And the reason you won't believe it is because you do not believe the Bible.
Yes, and Havilah is mentioned in Gen 2:11 as the land that the river Pison, flowing out of the garden of Eden, encompasses. Where, pray tell, is this mythological land?
No, it refers to Ishmaelites among Midianites.
The terms are not interchangeable, and Judges 8 does not even begin to suggest that they are. This notion of "interchangeability" is pure and utter fiction.
As I have shown, there's simply no evidence for any such thing.
Except for the fact that Israel was perceived in the Hebrew Bible as, ideally, a single nation. The other sons of Abraham were all defined as their own nations. According to your reading, we should just as much expect Israel to be intermarrying with the Edomites, the Ishmaelites, the Midianites, and everyone else descended from Abraham.
And your website produces a completely fictional version of Gen 37:28:
The Hebrew does not have "his brothers," it has "they,' meaning the Midianites, the antecedent and the only subject to which the verb can possibly have reference.
That could conceivably the author's idea of Ishmaelite territory, but certainly not Midianite territory (which is why the Midianite caravan is not mentioned as traveling from Giliead).
You've already been refuted. And to use your own expression against you, 'You can bark 'Na uh' as much as you want to'. It doesn't change anything. Conservative scholarship disagrees with you. So I'll just address your last statement.
Genesis 25:18 tells you where the Ismaelite's settled.
I clearly stated the following...
'The land of the Midianites was located south of Edom and to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The Ishmaelites settled from Havilah to Shur, east of Egypt (Genesis 25:18).' This was in Northern Arabia.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-11-2013 at 12:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
