Biblically Compatible Archaeology and Geography

  by   Damien F. Mackey     When Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim,   these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea).   [Genesis 14:1-3]     Introduction   So far in this series I have - after having rejected a long-held view that equated the biblical “Amraphel” with the famous Hammurabi:   Amraphel King of Shinar” Was Not King Hammurabi   http://www.academia.edu/9626715/_Amraphel_King_of_Shinar_Was_Not_King_Hammurab   been able, in:   Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham   http://www.academia.edu/9615175/Narmer_a_Contemporary_of_Patriarch_Abraham   and in:   Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham. Pa

Taken from: http://adamzertal.co.il/articles/adam_zertal/HEFER.pdf ARUBBOTH, HEPHER AND THE THIRD SOLOMONIC DISTRICT   Adam Zertal   Dpt. of Archaeology, Haifa University   Pp. 4-5   ….   The Jewish presence in northern Manasseh … is well-attested in the book of Judith of the Apocrypha …. The geographical background of the book, with the valley of Dothan in northern Manasseh as the focus of the events (Jdt 3:9-10) suits well the possible location of the third Solomonic district, with long continuity of the pattern of settlement (Zertal 1989, ). Moore (1985, 47) underestimates the geographical value of the text, stating, as an evidence against the historicity of the text: ‘For instance, of the eight Israelite places named in 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely Kona, Belmaim, Choba, Aesore and the valley of Salem’. But it seems that the reason for this is the simple fact that the territory has never been surveyed before, nor any candidates for these

      For Part One, see: https://www.academia.edu/9615175/Narmer_a_Contemporary_of_Patriarch_Abraham Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham     by   Damien F. Mackey     …. what makes most intriguing a possible collision of … Menes with a Shinarian potentate … is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin … had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920 , pp. 89-98).   Introduction In Part One I had concluded that there were “several powerful forces in the land at the time of Abra[ha]m: namely, “Pharaoh [of Egypt]” ([Genesis]12:15); “Amraphel king of Shinar” (14:1); and “Abimelech king of Gerar” (20:2)”.   And I asked: “Could any one of these have been Narmer?” But I then noted that I had already concluded in articles that “Pharaoh” and “Abimelech” were one and the same ruler. So the question really became whether

by   Damien F. Mackey   “It came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations, that they 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) ... In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him” (Genesis 14:1-5 NKJV)     Introduction   The debate over whether Amraphel was Hammurabi continues to this day. For thus we read at ( http://www.3amthoughts.com/article/people-and-places/amraphel-and-hammurabi ):   AMRAPHEL SAME AS HAMMURABI? Many scholars believe Amraphel, the leader of the alliance that fought against Abraham, was none other than Hammurabi: •    Easton’s Bible Dictionary states, “It is now found that Amraphel (or Ammirapaltu) is the Khammu-rabi whose name appears on recently-discovered monuments.” (“Amraphel” Easton's Bible Dictionary) •    The New

by Damien F. Mackey         Thanks to the important revision of Dr. John Osgood, in “The Times of Abraham”, the Sothically mis-dated monarch, Narmer (c. 3100 BC, though conventional dates vary) can now be established archaeologically during the lifetime of Abraham (c. 1870 BC).       Introduction   Whilst it is a big thing (many would say, foolish) to suggest that the conventional Egyptian chronology can be out of kilter with real history by more than a millennium, such a claim would not cause great surprise amongst such revisionist historians who are aware of the vastly over-inflated results of the Sothic dating method. See e.g. my:   The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited   http://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited   And, in the case of Narmer, Dr. Osgood has been able to establish with some precision how this ruler’s stratigraphical