Who meets with Abraham & Melchizedek?

[post]

Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountains.
(Genesis 14:10)​

the kings of Sodom & Gomorrah fell in the Valley of Siddim.

some of your translations have 'some fell' but 'some' is not in the text.
it was presumptiously added to scripture because someone thought what is literally written didn't make sense.

'the remainder fled to the mountains' -- who is 'the remainder' ?
well with the kings of Sodom & Gomorrah are of course, their armies, and three other kings:

And the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out and joined together in battle in the Valley of Siddim
(Genesis 14:8)​

so we have two choices for who is 'the remainder' - soldiers, and/or the kings of Admah, Zeboiim & Bela ((which is Zoar, where Lot later fled)).

more information on who remained is here:

Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they were allies with Abram.
(Genesis 14:13)​

so, i take it, someone who escaped is friends with Mamre and/or Eshcol and/or Aner.

 

[post]

but here is the first amazing question:
Genesis 14:10 literally tells us the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah were slain in Siddim.

so who is this?

And the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley),
after his return from the smiting of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him.
(Genesis 14:17)​

he was smitten in Siddim, but returned
he sits with Abram and a Theophany, trying to tempt Abram with goods, seeking the people.
Abram refuses him, refusing to possess anything belonging to him

what is this a picture of?

 

[bbyrd009]

but here is the first amazing question:
Genesis 14:10 literally tells us the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah were slain in Siddim

does it? i did a quick scan, admittedly, but i didnt get that from the verse

 

[post]

does it? i did a quick scan, admittedly, but i didnt get that from the verse

"the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there"

 

[bbyrd009]

"the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there"

i suggest that a king might "fall there" while still being personally fine; iow it was his army, perhaps, that "fell there?" i say this bc obviously "the rest fled to the hills" suggests a less literal approach

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; fell there, and the remainder fled to the mountains.
(Genesis 14:10)​

the kings of Sodom & Gomorrah fell in the Valley of Siddim.

some of your translations have 'some fell' but 'some' is not in the text.
it was presumptiously added to scripture because someone thought what is literally written didn't make sense.

'the remainder fled to the mountains' -- who is 'the remainder' ?
well with the kings of Sodom & Gomorrah are of course, their armies, and three other kings:

And the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) went out and joined together in battle in the Valley of Siddim
(Genesis 14:8)​

so we have two choices for who is 'the remainder' - soldiers, and/or the kings of Admah, Zeboiim & Bela ((which is Zoar, where Lot later fled)).

more information on who remained is here:

Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they were allies with Abram.
(Genesis 14:13)​

so, i take it, someone who escaped is friends with Mamre and/or Eshcol and/or Aner.

Off the top of my head, the new king appointed after the death of the old king. In all probability one of his sons.

 

[amigo de christo]

"the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there"

But not THE KING of sodom . Even lambs are called kings and priests .
Your digging into this too much .

 

[amigo de christo]

Off the top of my head, the new king appointed after the death of the old king. In all probability one of his sons.

HIGHLY LIKELY .

 

[post]

But not THE KING of sodom . Even lambs are called kings and priests .
Your digging into this too much .

it does actually literally say that both the king of Sodom & the king of Gomorrah "fell there"

it does not say 'some of them'
it does not say 'were defeated'
it does not say 'their men'


it says, the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fell there

querida, this is witten by the Holy Spirit.
not whatever English translation -- both the Hebrew & the LXX sure make it sound like they died.
is the consensus that God is bad at literature?
God is a bad communicator?
what's the alternative?

 

[post]

is Melchizedek the pre-incarnate Christ?

because if He is, then we have Abram sitting down to bread and wine between Christ and 'someone called king of the archetype of an evil place, whose human king had just fallen'

that is at least the typology of this event - if not in fact also the reality.

if you only accept Melchizadek as a type & shadow of Christ, then who is 'the leader of the godless' a shadow of?
those two are easy. but who is Abram portraying?

why does 'king over the abominable place' want only the people, not the 'things' from Abram?
what does 'ruler of the wicked' typically do with/to people?

 

[bbyrd009]

the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fell there

and they that remained fled to the mountain, frustrating a too-literal reading, it seems

 

[post]

and they that remained fled to the mountain, frustrating a too-literal reading, it seems

not at all dude. 'they that remained' is not referring to the same people as 'the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fell'
it's clearly not, because it is written right beside describing some that fell.
'remained' = 'did not fall'

read the chapter. it's 5 kings vs. 4 other kings, each with armies.
2 people, 2 particular kings, are specifically said to have fallen.

so there's a lot of 'they that remained' to choose from without trying to introduce a contradiction because you are not comfortable with 'the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fell' being literally true as it is written.

 

[bbyrd009]

not at all dude. 'they that remained' is not referring to the same people as 'the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fell'
it's clearly not, because it is written right beside describing some that fell.
'remained' = 'did not fall'

read the chapter. it's 5 kings vs. 4 other kings, each with armies.
2 people, 2 particular kings, are specifically said to have fallen.

so there's a lot of 'they that remained' to choose from without trying to introduce a contradiction because you are not comfortable with 'the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fell' being literally true as it is written.

i would say that you seem to have chosen a particular translation to live and die on? but the preponderance of translations pretty much clarifies the passage, Genesis 14:10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some men fell into the pits, but the survivors fled to the hill country. which link contains all of the pop ones, besides that one

 

[post]

i would say that you seem to have chosen a particular translation to live and die on? but the preponderance of translations pretty much clarifies the passage, Genesis 14:10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of tar pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some men fell into the pits, but the survivors fled to the hill country. which link contains all of the pop ones, besides that one

those translations do not reflect the truth of the text. they have added to the text what some person who could not understand the text thought should be in the text.

i am not a 'kjv-ist' or anything like that; it only takes a few minutes of research to discover that there is no such word as 'some of them' or 'some men' in the Hebrew. the Hebrew says very clearly "they fell" and the context clearly indicates who "they" is.

i mentioned this in the OP.

in order to properly understand scripture we need to look to scripture itself, rather than to what some human added to it because that human thought scripture didn't make sense the way it was plainly written.

 

[post]

i would say that you seem to have chosen a particular translation to live and die on?

believe me bro i looked into this before i started a thread on it.

• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah flee, and fall there
  • YLT
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there
  • WEB
• the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah fled, and they fell there
  • NHEB
• When the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, they fell into them
  • NET
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah flee, and fall there
  • LSV
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there
  • JPS Tanakh
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there
  • ERV
• the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrha turned their backs and were overthrown there
  • Douay-Rheims
• the king of Sodom fled and the king of Gomorrha, and they fell in there
  • Brenton Septuiagint
• the Kings of Sadom fled and the King of Amora and they fell there
  • Aramaic in Plain English
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there
  • ASV
• as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, they fell into them
  • AMP
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell into them
  • NASB
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled; fell there
  • NKJV
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there
  • KJV
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there
  • GNV
• the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there
  • Darby
• the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah turned the(ir) backs, and felled down there
  • Wycliffe

basically the only English versions that do not read this way are paraphrase.
((i.e. like 'the message' or 'good news' or some other rot that isn't even the Bible, it's someone's opinion of what the Bible ought to say, or in the best case some semi-literal translation that took liberties with this particular text))
every literal version says the kings of Sodom & of Gomorrah fell there, in the valley.

the Hebrew says what it says, and the LXX says it the same way -- those 2 kings fled; those 2 kings fell in the valley. the word for 'fall' here is the general word for something falling, but in the context of war in the scripture it always means they were slain.

which is amazing, if we take the Bible for what it actually says.
but even if you don't, i'd like to talk about the typology of the meeting with Melchizedek and who else was present

Lot & his wife, for example.. were undoubtadly there, even if they did not sit at the table.
when Melchizedek brought bread and wine, how much do you imagine he brought? just enough for him and Abram? like, one loaf, one small jug?

 

[bbyrd009]

those translations do not reflect the truth of the text. they have added to the text what some person who could not understand the text thought should be in the text.

i am not a 'kjv-ist' or anything like that; it only takes a few minutes of research to discover that there is no such word as 'some of them' or 'some men' in the Hebrew. the Hebrew says very clearly "they fell" and the context clearly indicates who "they" is.

i mentioned this in the OP.

in order to properly understand scripture we need to look to scripture itself, rather than to what some human added to it because that human thought scripture didn't make sense the way it was plainly written.

im all for that, if it leads to a salient point, sure

when Melchizedek brought bread and wine, how much do you imagine he brought? just enough for him and Abram? like, one loaf, one small jug?

my guess would be that bread and wine in that context are allegory, dunno though

 

[post]

im all for that, if it leads to a salient point, sure
my guess would be that bread and wine in that context are allegory, dunno though

yay!

so, i think bread and wine are both real and allegorical.

but whether 'actually Him' or **only** an allegory of Him, i think it's clear that we have at least a picture of Abram sitting between Christ & Satan, and Christ providing bread & wine.
so there is a corelation with 'the last supper' here

also we have the Satan-type offering Abram riches in exchange for people ((living souls)), riches that don't even belong to the Satan-type anyway because Abram & his Amonite friends have conquered everyone remaining in the field of battle, when they arrived. by right of conquest they are Abrams; in truth they are all God's.
so we also have a testing-of-Christ-in-the-wilderness corelation here

does that make sense?

 

[post]

it's my belief that the scripture records literally true events that are pictures & testimony of the deity, person & work of Christ.
as such studying the OT searching always for how it testifies of Christ, while also accepting it as accurate histories of real events, and identifying where Christ in the NT does the things the OT foreshadow in all these types/pictures, helps us both to understand why the things in the OT are in the OT and what Christ is doing in the NT.

so understanding Genesis 14 for example will help us understand the last supper and the testing in the wilderness, and vice-versa. they are linked, and those links are not accidental, but God's purpose in giving us scripture: so we may know Him, because knowing Him is eternal life ((John 17:3))

 

[bbyrd009]

yay!

so, i think bread and wine are both real and allegorical.

but whether 'actually Him' or **only** an allegory of Him, i think it's clear that we have at least a picture of Abram sitting between Christ & Satan, and Christ providing bread & wine.
so there is a corelation with 'the last supper' here

also we have the Satan-type offering Abram riches in exchange for people ((living souls)), riches that don't even belong to the Satan-type anyway because Abram & his Amonite friends have conquered everyone remaining in the field of battle, when they arrived. by right of conquest they are Abrams; in truth they are all God's.
so we also have a testing-of-Christ-in-the-wilderness corelation here

does that make sense?

i would say yes