OUR
FATHER'S
WORD
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
unto my path."
Psalm 119:105
________________________________________________________________________________
Genesis
A Message For The End Time
by
Jim Lisenby
________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 14
Abram
Rescues Lot
In chapter 13 Abram and Lot separated
their considerable
households so that there would be enough grazing for their large
herds and flocks of livestock. Some time has passed since then
and they are
all now settled in
their chosen locations, Abram near Hebron in the plain of Mamre and
Lot in Sodom, but they are about to become unsettled. The dogs of
war are on the prowl.
Gen. 14:1
And 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;
Amraphel king of Shinar
here is
interesting because he is thought by some scholars to be the great
Babylonian king Hammurabi
of
yore. He and his famous Code of Hammurabi
would be a good short study
for you do on the side. Actually, no one knows if Hammurabi
himself was responsible for this code of laws, but he got credit for it
nonetheless.
Consider the following comment taken from my Compton's Interactive
Encyclopedia under the search term Hammurabi:
"In a small room in the
Louvre museum in Paris, France, stands a black diorite stela, or
column. On it is inscribed in Akkadian, a Semitic language, the Code of
Hammurabi. This collection of laws has been ascribed to the reign of
Hammurabi, the sixth and best-known king of Babylon's First
dynasty."
---------------------------------------------------------
From
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1998 The Learning Company,
Inc.
A little research and reading on your part will give you a general idea
of this code of law, and it will also give you
some insight into why men
behaved the way they did in that area in those days.
Including Abraham and Lot, and Isaac a little later on, and Jacob, and
Jacob's sons and their children, and so on. They all were
generally abiding
by the laws contained in the so-called Code of Hammurabi
to one extent or the other, whether they knew it or not. It was
basically the law of the land in Mesopotamia, and perhaps throughout
the entire area where the offspring of Noah had migrated and
settled. And, because more than 99% of the
people were
illiterate (my
guesstimate) it
would have been passed on and taught orally from generation to
generation.
Now, let me emphasize that those folks in Abraham's day did not know of
any specific group of laws called the Code of Hammurabi.
The black diorite stele above was given that title by modern scholars
after it was discovered because they placed its
origin to approximately the time of Hammurabi.
But it may actually have come from an earlier time. It would be
very interesting to know whether this code of law was put together and
instituted soon after the Noachian deluge, or to be more
specific, at the same time when Noah and his offspring assembled
themselves and divided the land in the days of Peleg. My gut
feeling is that
it was, but it may have been amended considerably by the time of
Hammurabi and Abraham. I say that because, if my memory serves me
correctly from the time that I read through that code of law years ago,
it seemed to favor the rich and powerful in many ways while the poor
and the common folk got the harshest penalties. If so, not much
has changed, has it?
One important principle within the so-called Code of Hammurabi
is well known today in the legal community. It is called lex talionis the
law of retaliation
or, put in biblical language, the famous eye for an eye
principle found in the Law of Moses. And, that is not the only
component in the Mosaic Law similar to one in the Code of
Hammurabi. There are other similarities as well.
Interesting!
One item of interest is incarceration, or more correctly, the lack
thereof. It is not mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi or in the
law of
Moses. There was retaliation, and restoration or repayment
including
penalties to the injured parties but
no payment to the authorities or to the government like today (i.e., fines, court costs, legal fees, etc). There were
beatings for certain offenses and, of course, the death penalty was
administered for other serious sins. But, it is very interesting
to notice that there were no prisons to cruelly hold people in an
inhuman environment like there are today. Imprisonment was not an
option. The concept of incarcerating persons for extended periods
of time in penal institutions likely came to us via the Roman Empire.
When you look at it rightly, there is no real benefit to society in
the imprisonment of its citizens, and to me it is tantamount to
cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, it creates and
promotes perverse thinking and behavior among the inmates, and to a
lesser extent perhaps, even among the prison guards. Further, it
is
very costly to maintain prison systems, and unfortunately, in America
it has become a growth industry for the state, for the legal
community as a whole, for political hacks
and their cronies, and for corporations engaging in the penal or
corrections business.
One troubling statistic for me as an American is that there are more
people incarcerated in the United States than in any other country on
earth. In my country there are well over 2,000,000 people
imprisoned (that we know of). Astounding! What a
contradiction to the term "freedom" that we are so proud of and hear so
much mentioned today. In the land of the "free and the brave" at
this time, more people have had their freedom taken away by
imprisonment than in any
other country in the world. Hmmmm???
That could not be true if we had stuck to the principles in the law
given by God to Moses at Sinai. Prisons as they exist today would
not be. Perhaps we need to reconsider our legal and penal
practices and make changes.
Now, getting back to Genesis 14:1. In this verse Amraphel is said
to be king of Shinar, which
covered a large part of what is
Iraq and Kuwait today around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It
was essentially what was later called Mesopotamia by historians, and it
was also called Babylonia
because Babylon was the principal and dominant city. Ellasar was a
city in the southeast portion of that same area. Elam is
referring to a group of people descended from one of Shem's sons,
but the area where they predominately lived was also called Elam.
The word nations
in
the last clause likely means multiple tribes,
perhaps nomads of unknown identity who were under the aegis of the
warlord Tidal.
Gen. 14:2
That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with
Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of
Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
The last two clauses of this
verse are not clearly translated. Someone called Zoar may have
been the
king of Bela,
but maybe not. Zoar was also
the
name by which the city was called at a later time, and it literally
means insignificant.
Bela literally means destruction, but it
was not destroyed in the impending disaster like the other four cities
partly because Lot begged God to spare it. More
on God sparing Bela later in Genesis when we cover the disaster which
befell
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and the surrounding area.
Gen. 14:3
All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim,
which is the salt sea.
The vale of Siddim, where these five cities were,
was a valley then fed by
the Jordan river and possibly some other streams, and
it was fertile and lush for grazing. That is why Lot chose to
live there. Today, it is mostly covered by the Dead Sea which the
writer calls here the salt sea. Siddim
could possibly be a variant of Sodom.
Gen. 14:4
Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the
thirteenth year they rebelled.
Chedorlaomer was the king of Elam,
so it can be deduced from this verse that the
Elamites (descendants of Elam, a son of Shem) were a dominant
people
in the area. It is interesting that the
subjugated people rebelled in the thirteenth year
because some of those who dabble in biblical numbers associate thirteen with
rebellion. Related to this,
can you name a modern country which
originally was comprised of thirteen
colonies that rebelled against their tyrannical king not long
ago?
Of course, even today the number thirteen is considered by many to be
an unlucky number to be avoided, a truly bad number as it were.
Some buildings don't have a thirteenth floor, and people try to be more
careful on spooky Friday the 13th. An interesting superstition
that may very well have its roots in the Bible.
If you are interested in biblical mathematics try the book by the same
name, Biblical
Mathetics by Ed Vallowe, published by Faith Printing
Company, Taylors, SC 29687.
Why were these people in the vale of Siddim under subjugation to a
people from around Babylonia (modern Iraq) which was a land hundreds of
miles away? There could be several reasons but two come to mind
that would be of supreme importance. Sustenance and survival.
Again I ask, as I did in earlier chapters what
really happened that caused the tower of Babel to fall and the
people of the area to be dispersed so suddenly? It had to be a
natural disaster so severe that it changed the environment, certainly
temporarily, perhaps permanently. Was the famine in Canaan that
caused Abraham to go into Egypt a result of it? Who knows, but it
is certainly possible. A disaster like that, of biblical
proportions as we say, would certainly disrupt the agriculture and the
production of food. The people who stayed in the area following
the disaster would be subjected to famine, perhaps severe famine.
The acquisition of food would become of paramount importance immediately,
thereby causing armies
to forage abroad for it.
The vale of Siddim was a reasonably short distance to the west of
Babylonia and was a lush and very productive area. That
would be reason enough for it to become a target for a hungry army to
invade. They would force the conquered people to engage in heavy
agriculture from which produce could be taken back to their
suffering people on a
continual basis. Make sense? I hope so.
So much of history, and things being what they are even today, are the
result of people being motivated and driven by need, especially need
created by adverse weather phenomena or warfare.
In our day now, wars and invasions are fought for the acquisition of
oil and other natural resources, perhaps in that day it was something
as basic as food and outright survival. Babylonia, the land of
Shinar, and the area where the Elamites lived, possibly were rendered
temporarily unproductive as a result of what happened at Babel, whereas
the vale of Siddim was green and
very
productive. It could have been a source of vital sustenance for
the
people of Babylonia and they subjegated it for that reason.
Now, having said all that, let's ask the question what
precipitated the rebellion among the cities in the greater area
surrounding Sodom and Gommorah and the vale of Siddim? And
who was it that rebelled precisely?
There could be several factors because we really don't what conditions
the subjegation by the Elamites created in the area. Nobody likes
to be dominated but there could be more talk to it than that. One
big factor could have been the hybrid giants that lived in the
area beside and among the offspring of Noah. As a
matter of fact, I am confident that they were. Notice the
following verses.
Gen. 14:5
And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the
kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim,
and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,
So, ol' king Ched, king of the Elamites, sings
the blues to his allies concerning the rebellious insurgency and
rallies them to
his cause. But notice who they attack and take out first.
The coalition attacked
the Rephaim, the Zuzim, and the Emim first, with overwhelming
force. Hidden
within this verse is some important information with
regards to the reason of the impending utter destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah
and the surrounding area, not by four Babylonian kings, but by Almighty
God Himself. That hidden information is concerning the true
identity of
the inhabitants of
the land
that were
attacked by this coalition of kings.
The following definitions are taken from my Logos 2 Enhanced
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon:
7497 raphaÕ {
raw-faw’} or raphah {
raw-faw’}
1)
giants, Rephaim
1a)
old race of giants
2104 Zuwziym {
zoo-zeem’}
Zuzim =
“roving
creatures”
1)
an ancient people of uncertain origin, perhaps,
inhabitants of ancient Ammon east of the Jordan
368
ÕEymiym
{ ay-meem’}
Emims =
“terrors”
1)
ancient inhabitants of Moab
Enhanced
Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems,
Inc.) 1995.
Actually, these could be thought of as monsters
because
they certainly were that. Where did they come from?
Essentially the same place as the giants mentioned
in chapter 6, the
gibbor, the
nephilim, before the flood of
Noah. They were the mixed offspring of fallen angels and
humans. Gen. 6:4 reveals that rebellious angels came before the
flood of
Noah, and
also
after that. Once
again, here in the region surrounding Sodom and Gomorrah, the people
had received them, mixed with them contrary to God's law against
adultery and hybridization, and produced legions of illegitimate,
rebellious, dominating, giant blivits. I believe Nimrod was of
such.
Dumb and dumber!
The
resultant
effects of crossbreeding are seen in these bastardized people called Rephaim,
Zuzim, and Emims.
As stated above, the Bible records that there were giants
in the land before the flood,
and also
after the flood. I feel very confident that the Noachian
flood, a planned act of God, was brought on primarily by the offspring
of Adam
crossbreeding with fallen
angels, and the impending utter destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah,
and the surrounding area, will be chiefly for the same reason.
More on that later when we cover the catastrophe.
In any case, I am certain that these unnatural
giants played a big part of the rebellion that was being put down by
the Babylonian alliance. The Babylonian coalition knew that and
they hit them first and they hit them hard.
Gen.
14:6 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan,
which is by the wilderness.
It is not clear who these Horites were, but their
name is said to mean "cave dwellers". It is entirely possible
that they were some of Canaan's descendants, but that is not
proven conclusively. It is also very possible that there were
giants among them like those
mentioned above. If they dwelt in Mount Seir by the wilderness,
then it is probable that at least some of them dwelled in the caves in
the ancient city of Petra which is located in that area. Do some
research on Petra if you are not familiar with it, because it is
an interesting place. I seem to recall from past studies that
some scholars mentioned Petra was occupied by
giants at some time. Maybe, maybe not, but these Horites were
definitely on
the planned war agenda of the Babylonian alliance of kings.
I know that the Babylonian kings were primarily
putting down a
rebellion in the area surrounding the vale of Siddim, but I have to
wonder if that was their only objective. These Babylonian kings
were descendants of Noah. Did they realize that these giants
needed to be eradicated before God brought another disaster on
them? Shem, a righteous man, was still alive, as were many of the
patriarchs mentioned in the generations of Noah. Some scholars
believe that Shem went after Nimrod and killed him, and many, if not
most, of these Babylonians were Shem's offspring. So I ask
the question
is it possible that Shem had something to do with the
agenda of these kings, either directly or indirectly? If you will
remember from chapter 10, his son Asshur built cities in the area and
was the father of the Assyrians.
Gen.
10:11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh,
and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
The
Assyrians were destined to play a very important role in the history
and direction of Israel, as well as with the other nations of the
Middle East.
Gen. 14:7
And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is
Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the
Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.
Here is another case where some biblical scoffers
may take a shot at the veracity of the Bible. The Amalekites were
the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau who was not yet born when
these Babylonian kings were attacking the area. But it is not a
problem when you consider that the scribe, or Moses, or whoever wrote
the verse, perhaps lived hundreds and hundreds of years later. He
is not saying here that Amalekites were being smitten, but the people
that lived in the area that he knew in his day as the land of the
Amalekites, they were the ones being hit whoever they were. The
Amorites are another story. The Amorites that dwelt in
Hazezontamar (probably the more familiar Engedi) were being given an
attitude adjustment as it were.
Gen. 14:8
And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of
Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king
of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the
vale of Siddim;
They did what the Bible sometimes calls setting the battle in
array. They lined up opposite each other in some fashion,
and at the sound of a trumpet or other signal device, they moved
quickly toward each other and fought. It was really a stupid way
of carrying out a battle, but it persisted for millenia until very
recently.
Gen. 14:9
With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king
of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar;
four kings with five.
Gen.
14:10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits;
and the
kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that
remained fled to the mountain.
The words was
full of are not in the MSS. It was added by the
translators for the sake of clarity. What did these slimepits
(tar pits) have to do with the ongoing battle,
and its outcome? Evidently, the armies of the kings of Sodom and
Gomorrah were being overrun by the Babylonians and they turned and ran
in a frantically blind panic. Right into the tar pits that filled
the land. The words was full of slimepits means
exactly what it says. The tar pits were numerous and side by side. In other
words they were virtually unavoidable in places. Some
of the tar pits were also undoubtedly hidden by vegetation and other
objects, while
in other cases those in front of the stampede would have been pushed by
the press of the crowd behind them into the pits. Those who fell
into the tar pits became frozen in time forever after they were trapped
and wrapped up by the tar. It is also possible that the people
who lived in the area never bothered to mark the tar pits so that they
could be easily seen and possibly avoided.
Why did the Babylonians not get trapped in the tar pits like the
Sodomites? Because
they were always behind the fleeing armies and could see what was
happening ahead of them. It is also possible that they did not
bother to pursue those who fled. Maybe those who fled were
fleeing when none pursued.
Gen. 14:11
And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and
all their victuals, and went their way.
These four Babylonian kings soundly defeated the
forces of those who lived in and around the vale of Siddim, and of
course they
took booty, but notice especially that they took all their victuals, or
foodstuff. There were several reasons for doing so.
1)
To punish the rebels severely by creating famine amongst them, 2)
to feed their armies, 3) but also to take precious provisions
back to their lands and hungry people. Any or all of these
reasons are possible.
Remember, I suggested above that one possible reason for the
Babylonian subjugation of the people in the vale of Siddim was that
they could provide necessary food and sustenance
for them and their homeland. The vale of Siddim was very
productive agriculturally but perhaps not Babylonia at that particular
time. I also suggested that the reason that that portion of the
"fertile crescent" was not so productive was the possible lingering
effects of
whatever destroyed Babel and the famous tower, or ziggurat, that
was there. Whatever method God used there had to be His version
of "shock and
awe".
Gen. 14:12
And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in
Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
Why they took Lot is not explained, but you
should consider the fact that he was one of them originally. It
was only a few years ago that he and Abraham had departed Babylonia.
I believe that Lot was very smart like his venerable uncle
Abraham. If
Abraham actually had done the things attributed to him in other
writings, then he had to be famous, or perhaps infamous depending on
your point of view, but certainly well known. Lot was a major
member of their family and so also was probably at least known by
some. In other words, he may have been recognized by some of the
commanders of the invading Babylonian armies.
Additionally, he probably was valuable to them, an asset that could be
used to promote production and prosperity back in their lands. He
obviously was already very successful with regards to that in the vale
of Siddim. So, I think they were going to take him back home with
them and use him to better their situation. Otherwise they simply
would have killed him.
There is one other less likely consideration. They may have
resented his departure from Babylonia, that would also include
Abraham, and regarded them as a traitors or criminals. In which
case they may have been taking him back for prosecution and possible
execution as an example to others. Who knows, it is only
speculation, but in any case one thing is very obvious
they did take him with them when they left the area for whatever
reason.
Gen. 14:13
And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram
the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of
Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
News about the invasion by the Babylonians
probably spread like wildfire across the general area, so Abraham was
aware of what was happening
in the vale of Siddim and the surrounding territory. He likely
had already formed this confederation with his neighbors in case
they were attacked.
Gen. 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken
captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three
hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Whether this means that Abraham had 318 servants,
or the whole confederation was 318 men is not clear, but either way it
was a very small army to go against a much larger and superior
force. Maybe the armaments that Abraham provided here were
WMD's
you
know, "weapons of
mass destruction". Like bows and arrows, spears, clubs,
swords,
and knives. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that).
Gen. 14:15
And he divided himself against them, he and his
servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which
is on the left hand of Damascus.
Abraham attacked at night when the Babylonians
were not alert or even suspecting an attack. Very
intelligent. He did not stupidly set the battle in array and join
battle with the opposing forces as the nine kings mentioned above
did. He fought guerrilla warfare and was on them before they knew
it. They were probably relaxed and sleeping confidently because
they had essentially already subdued everyone in the general area or so
they thought. Big mistake! Guess they just didn't have
enough intel
working
for them, and they didn't know Abraham's character and resolve.
Gen. 14:16
And he brought back all the goods, and also brought
again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the
people.
Lot of course was not Abraham's brother, he was
his brother's son, his nephew. It was a common practice for
invading armies to kill the men and keep the women and children, and
their reasons for sparing the women and children were generally not
altruistic. They were essentially used as slaves and for sex by
the
soldiers. Unfortunately that still continues to this day in one
form or the other.
Gen. 14:17
And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his
return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were
with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale.
This verse seems to say that Abraham and his
little army
had been able to kill all the Babylonian kings, and that would
include Amraphel who may have been better known by the name
Hammurabi. And, look at the king of Sodom. He stayed close
to home while Abraham went after his nephew Lot and the others.
He fled in battle and later sat at home while an outsider salvaged his
people and goods.
Now we come to something truly remarkable, and
possibly suspect.
Melchizedek
Gen. 14:18
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and
wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
This verse and the two
following it are some of the most interesting and perplexing words in
the entire
Bible.
Why are they here? It is an enigma, three verses inserted here in
the
narrative of Abraham returning after the fight with the
Babylonian kings concerning someone whom nobody can truly explain
satisfactorily.
These verses were definitely a later insertion in the text
here to show, or create, a relationship between
Abraham and a very mysterious priest-king. Who is this
Melchizedek? He is identified as the king of Salem wherever that
was. Many scholars think Salem was Jerusalem but to me that is
suspect because in those days it was known as Jebus. And, he is
called the priest of the Most High God. Interesting! And,
he brought out bread and wine. What for? Abraham didn't
necessarily need food, he had plenty of that
with him. So many unanswered questions in this verse and
next two following.
There is some disagreement about the name
Melchizedek.
Some say it means "my king is Sedek". Others say it means "king
of the zedek" or"king of the righteous", or "king of the just".
Still others say it means "Sedeq is [my] king". The author of
Hebrews called him the "king of righteousness" in Heb. 7:2.
He was thought to be Shem by some Jewish scholars, and Jesus Christ by
some Christian scholars. And there are other opinions as to who
he was, but to me, none are conclusive. I even read somewhere
that he was Noah's brother who was supernaturally born and had a very
distinctive appearance. Whaaaat???
I typed Melchizedek
in the search window of my browser and the first item that came up
said: Looking for Melchizedek, find it at eBay. Another
said that I could buy him at Amazon.com. Hmmm?
Gen. 14:19
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the
most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
This so-called priest-king is shown as having the
power and authority to bless Abraham,
and did.
Gen. 14:20
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered
thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Again, there are so many questions within these
three verses. Why were the Babylonian kings said to be the enemy
of
Abraham specifically? Since when? And the last sentence of
this verse. Who gave what to whom here? It is generally
agreed that Abraham
gave this king of Salem a tenth of all,
and not vice versa.
Presumably that means a tenth of the goods that he had recovered in
his battle with the Babylonian kings. That is
another mystery when you understand how and why God set up the
tithing system for the Levites and the Aaronic priesthood about 400
years hence. It was for their support and it was needful in their
case.
But, why would this Melchizedek need to receive tithing support from
anyone? Or, if it was the other way around, why would Abraham
need to receive tithing support from this Melchizedek?
I have searched, as have others throughout time since these verses were
written, for a satisfactory
explanation of who this Melchizedek, king of Salem, and priest of the
Most High God was here in Genesis. Out of all of the treatises
that I have read, none are conclusive are therefore not
satisfactory. Like I said, so many questions!
There is all sorts of commentary by scholars and others concerning
these three verses, and some say that they were a later addition to
the original text. I think that is probably the case, with
confidence. It is pretty obvious that they interrupt the story of
Abraham returning from the battle with the kings of Babylonia while
returning Lot to his home in Sodom. Like I said before, this
Melchisedek is a real enigma. Work with it and email me if you
can shed some light on him. But, for now, I consider these
verses to be highly questionable and a great mystery.
Now, let's continue with the story of Abraham
returning Lot to Sodom.
Gen.
14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the
persons, and take the goods to thyself.
Gen.
14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up
mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and
earth,
Gen.
14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to a
shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest
thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
Gen.
14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the
portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let
them take their portion.
Abraham obviously wanted nothing to do with this king
of Sodom. He evidently had a very low opinion of him. His
purpose in pursuing the Babylonians kings was not so much for the sake
of the
king of Sodom and the other kings and people associated with him, but
to
rescue his nephew Lot, and those that were his.
There is more to Lot and this Sodom thing which we will get to in the
coming chapters. It is all very interesting.
God bless with
understanding
of His word.
Home
/ General
Bible Studies /
Revelation
Bible Studies / Genesis Bible
Studies
email:
ourfathersword@yahoo.com
www.ourfathersword.org
Copyright ©
2006 by Jim
Lisenby. All Rights Reserved