Zoar

[mva1985]

Because they were wicked and the folks of his previous city tried to take his house by force.

Now I am curious as to whether you acknowledge the statements of the Bible and two ancient historians that say that Zoar was not destroyed.

This actually goes back to another thread were we were all discussing the Books of Moses.

Do you think it would make any difference in the order that he wrote them? Not the order they are arranged in the Bible.

 

[tall73]

This actually goes back to another thread were we were all discussing the Books of Moses.

Do you think it would make any difference in the order that he wrote them? Not the order they are arranged in the Bible.

The account of Moses in Deut. is talking about the land at the time they entered in. That was long after the time of Lot.

Therefore the account of Lot I think it is safe to say happened in Lot's time.

The account in Deuteronomy happened in Moses' time.


Are you proposing that he was afraid that God would destroy it when God had just said he would not, and took the trouble to spare Lot in the first place?

 

[tall73]

This actually goes back to another thread were we were all discussing the Books of Moses.

Do you think it would make any difference in the order that he wrote them? Not the order they are arranged in the Bible.

Isa 15:5 My heart shall cry out for Moab; his fugitives shall flee unto Zoar, an heifer of three years old: for by the mounting up of Luhith with weeping shall they go it up; for in the way of Horonaim they shall raise up a cry of destruction.

Isaiah also makes reference to it. And it cannot possibly be referencing a time before Lot's time because he speaks of the Moabites who were not even conceived until the story after the destruction of Sodom, by Lot himself, and his daughters.

 

[mva1985]

I have no doubt that God did not destroy Zoar at the time He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot wanted to escape to a city close by. But soon afterwards Lot went into the mountains, and you know the story there.

So after Lot left Zoar would it not be possible for God to destroy it?

And wasn't Jericho repopulated after it was destroyed?

 

[tall73]

By Trust and Obey's request we will have to wait until after Sabbath to answer that.

 

[tall73]

I have no doubt that God did not destroy Zoar at the time He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot wanted to escape to a city close by. But soon afterwards Lot went into the mountains, and you know the story there.

So after Lot left Zoar would it not be possible for God to destroy it?

And wasn't Jericho repopulated after it was destroyed?

A. All things are possible with God. But that does not prove God did so. God said He would spare the city. Nor do the Scriptures make any reference to its destruction, and that seems unusual when such a point was made of the other cities, and it still was in the vicinity of Abraham and Lot.

B. The ancient historians say it remained to this day. They say it was spared. The other Bible texts mention it as existing later on. On the other hand Josephus describes the bordering area of Sodom which was even then loathsome, and had Zoar been obliterated, it too would have been so described.

C. Jericho, Jerusalem, and many other cities were re-inhabited. However, in those cases destruction was generally due to a foreign party invading. Either the defenders won out and re-built or the invaders took over and inhabited it. There would be no invaders here. Nor would there be any survivors. Who would have an interest in coming to Zoar to rebuild and inhabit?

D. In addition to C above you have another factor, the blasted condition of those cities which were destroyed. Why would an uninvolved party come to a wasteland with no natural resources, under the blight of total destruction, to rebuild when they could go elsewhere?

E. Add to C and D above that anyone coming there to rebuild would be restoring and taking on the name of a city that was so cursed by God as to be totally destroyed. That would be quite a risk, and for what gain?

The city was said to be there since that time by historians, was said to be spared, and was mentioned in the Bible after the fact. God said He would spare it. It certainly seems that He did.

 

[NightEternal]

Night--you have just proven what I have known about you for a LONG time--you deny truth even when it hits you between the eyes.

I'll not 'try again' because any thinking person would have been convinced by now that Tall's argument is moot.

It is YOU Night who refuses to see the truth and yet you falsely accuse us of that all the time. Now the world sees.

Give it a rest already. You have not presented anything even remotely convincing, let alone truth in any EGW thread we have had.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Ok Tall--you are totally not getting this. So allow me to try to help you.

If you notice that the bible tells us that at the time of the destruction of the 'cities of the plain', Zoar's name was BELA, not Zoar. It is called Zoar in the account, written many years later for CLARITY so that the reader can understand what cities are being referenced. Go to this site for an explanation of how this was done many times throughout the writing of the bible. Here is an example of the similarity of the point I am trying to make here..http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inerrancy_grisan ti.html
Several scholars argue that this mention of Dan is indeed Mosaic. Wood points to a city named Dan-jaan, mentioned in 2 Sam 24:6, which he locates in Gilead. 17 Archer points out that the place name "Dan" appears as early as the second Egyptian dynasty 18 (which ended ca. 2700 bc). 19 Three facts argue against the Mosaic authorship of this place name. In the first place, the presence of a place name in ancient Egyptian literature does not demonstrate that the name Dan in Genesis 14 is Mosaic. It simply indicates that the place name of Dan was attested in pre-Mosaic times. Secondly, simply because a city named Dan existed in David's day does not mean that it existed in Abraham's time. Finally, the precise location of this Dan-jaan is unknown. A number of scholars equate it with Israelite Dan, located at the northern extremity of Israel's boundaries.

The word Zoar means, small and insignificant. Archeologists in the 1920’s found that Zoar had the typical square walls of a fairly new city; and no apparent urban sprawl as is common when a city is old. I read one author who believes that Bela was not hit with the fire and brimstone, but was destroyed when the Dead Sea flooded it at one point. It seems there is a mystery surrounding Bela/Zoar from the scriptures down to our own time.

 

[tall73]

Ok Tall--you are totally not getting this. So allow me to try to help you.

If you notice that the bible tells us that at the time of the destruction of the 'cities of the plain', Zoar's name was BELA, not Zoar. It is called Zoar in the account, written many years later for CLARITY so that the reader can understand what cities are being referenced. Go to this site for an explanation of how this was done many times throughout the writing of the bible. Here is an example of the similarity of the point I am trying to make here..http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inerrancy_grisan ti.html
Several scholars argue that this mention of Dan is indeed Mosaic. Wood points to a city named Dan-jaan, mentioned in 2 Sam 24:6, which he locates in Gilead. 17 Archer points out that the place name "Dan" appears as early as the second Egyptian dynasty 18 (which ended ca. 2700 bc). 19 Three facts argue against the Mosaic authorship of this place name. In the first place, the presence of a place name in ancient Egyptian literature does not demonstrate that the name Dan in Genesis 14 is Mosaic. It simply indicates that the place name of Dan was attested in pre-Mosaic times. Secondly, simply because a city named Dan existed in David's day does not mean that it existed in Abraham's time. Finally, the precise location of this Dan-jaan is unknown. A number of scholars equate it with Israelite Dan, located at the northern extremity of Israel's boundaries.

The word Zoar means, small and insignificant. Archeologists in the 1920’s found that Zoar had the typical square walls of a fairly new city; and no apparent urban sprawl as is common when a city is old. I read one author who believes that Bela was not hit with the fire and brimstone, but was destroyed when the Dead Sea flooded it at one point. It seems there is a mystery surrounding Bela/Zoar from the scriptures down to our own time.

A. I am aware of them using later names at times as a reference. But that would hardly help your case. Moses equated the city there with the one in his day, indicating they were the same. Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that it was later called Zoar due to its being small and insignificant. But the Bible itself says it was small when Abraham wanted to go to it.. So it was not just insignificant because of destruction because that hadn't happened yet.

Gen 19:20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

B. You earlier suggested it was called Bela due to its destruction. But records from the Ebla tablets show that it was named Bela before the destruction of Sodom.

C. While you cited your reference for the argument about Dan, you did not for the others. Feel free to cite the authors you mention and their source so we can examine it. However, since the city was around through the time of the crusaders was mentioned in Moses' time, in Isaiah's time, and in the first century, I think it is pretty clear that the city itself was old. You need to distinguish when this destruction of walls might have happened by quoting the source, etc. Josephus says the city was there to their day, mentioning no destruction.

 

[tall73]

Ok Tall--you are totally not getting this. So allow me to try to help you.

If you notice that the bible tells us that at the time of the destruction of the 'cities of the plain', Zoar's name was BELA, not Zoar. It is called Zoar in the account, written many years later for CLARITY so that the reader can understand what cities are being referenced. Go to this site for an explanation of how this was done many times throughout the writing of the bible. Here is an example of the similarity of the point I am trying to make here..http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inerrancy_grisan ti.html
Several scholars argue that this mention of Dan is indeed Mosaic. Wood points to a city named Dan-jaan, mentioned in 2 Sam 24:6, which he locates in Gilead. 17 Archer points out that the place name "Dan" appears as early as the second Egyptian dynasty 18 (which ended ca. 2700 bc). 19 Three facts argue against the Mosaic authorship of this place name. In the first place, the presence of a place name in ancient Egyptian literature does not demonstrate that the name Dan in Genesis 14 is Mosaic. It simply indicates that the place name of Dan was attested in pre-Mosaic times. Secondly, simply because a city named Dan existed in David's day does not mean that it existed in Abraham's time. Finally, the precise location of this Dan-jaan is unknown. A number of scholars equate it with Israelite Dan, located at the northern extremity of Israel's boundaries.

The word Zoar means, small and insignificant. Archeologists in the 1920’s found that Zoar had the typical square walls of a fairly new city; and no apparent urban sprawl as is common when a city is old. I read one author who believes that Bela was not hit with the fire and brimstone, but was destroyed when the Dead Sea flooded it at one point. It seems there is a mystery surrounding Bela/Zoar from the scriptures down to our own time.

Still waiting for you to quote your sources.