Kingdom of Edom

Michael Ruark

Edom (“red”) was an ancient kingdom that stretched across areas in the south of present-day Jordan and Israel. Edom and the Edomites appear in several written sources relating to the late Bronze Age and to the Iron Age in the Levant, including the list of the Egyptian pharaoh Seti I from c. 1215 BC as well as in the chronicle of a campaign by Ramesses III (r. 1186–1155 BC), and the Hebrew Bible….
__________________________________________
__________________________________________

---

---

Qos — a significant deity in the pantheon of the Edomites, representing a key aspect of their polytheistic beliefs. As a god associated with various elements of life, Qos played a vital role in the spiritual and cultural practices of the Edomite people. Qos is often associated with war and protection, serving as a guardian deity for the Edomites. His role as a warrior god reflects the martial culture of the Edomites, who frequently faced conflicts with neighboring tribes and kingdoms.

Qos was also considered a mountain god, which is significant given the geographical landscape of Edom. The Edomites inhabited rugged terrains, and mountains were often seen as sacred spaces where deities resided. This connection to the mountains symbolized strength and stability. Worship of Qos likely involved various rituals, including sacrifices and offerings. These acts were intended to appease the deity and seek his favor in matters of war, agriculture, and daily life.

Archaeological evidence suggests that the Edomites built shrines and possibly temples dedicated to Qos. These sites would have served as focal points for communal worship and religious gatherings. The worship of Qos reflects the broader context of ancient Near Eastern religions, where deities often shared attributes and functions. The Edomites, like many other cultures, adapted their religious practices based on interactions with neighboring peoples, including the Israelites and Moabites.

The 2nd Sinai commandment the Torah revelation acknowledges that other Gods live. The theology surrounding Qos illustrates the complexity of Edomite religious beliefs and their connection to the natural world and societal needs. Understanding Qos and his significance provides insight into the cultural identity of the Edomites and their interactions with surrounding civilizations.

Edomites and their interactions with neighboring cultures – complex and should not be oversimplified, like as Michael Ruark has perverted in his text quoted above. The Edomites according to many biblical historians – a joke because the T’NaCH does not teach history – an ancient Semitic people who inhabited the region south of the Dead Sea, primarily in southern Jordan. Their history, intertwined with that of neighboring groups, including the Israelites, Moabites, and Nabateans. The Edomites controlled key trade routes that connected the Arabian Peninsula with the Mediterranean. This strategic position allowed them to engage in commerce with various civilizations, including the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and later the Romans. The strategic importance of these trade routes bears emphasis. These critical trade routes connect Africa with Europe and Asia. Herein explains why the Romans and the British made control of these trade routes the “Crown Jewel” of their respective World Empires. The Edomites have a famous reputation, known for their rock-cut architecture, particularly in the city of Petra, which later became a major Nabatean city. This architectural style influenced subsequent cultures and remains a significant tourist attraction today.

The Edomites practiced a polytheistic religion, worshipping deities, such as Qos, introduced above. Their religious practices and beliefs influenced neighboring cultures, contributing to the region’s spiritual landscape. The Edomites historically known for their mining activities, particularly in copper and other minerals. This resource extraction played a crucial role in their economy and provided materials for trade.

Over time, the Edomite civilization descended unto decay chaos and anarchy. Better organized civilizations then absorbed and assimilated Edomite cultures and customs into their larger, better organized empires, such as the Nabateans and later the Romans. This integration/assimilation facilitated the continuation of their cultural and economic contributions within a broader imperial context. Their contributions to trade, architecture, and cultural exchange highlight the interconnectedness of ancient societies and the importance of understanding these relationships in the broader historical narrative.

Determination of scholarship research vis-a-vis the authors rubbish narishkeit of Michael Ruark, simply requires a tad of research. Recommend The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE” edited by Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew. This handbook provides a broad overview of archaeological findings across the Levant, including Edom, and situates them within the larger context of ancient Near Eastern history. It includes contributions from various scholars who are experts in their respective fields, ensuring a well-rounded and scholarly approach to the subject matter. It underwent serious scholastic rigorous academic scrutiny, enhancing its good name credibility.

This source, it seems to me, particularly valuable for understanding the Edomites within the broader archaeological and historical framework of the region. Thomas E. Levy, an archaeologist known for his work in the southern Levant, particularly in Edom. Margreet L. Steiner, mentioned above, edited the “Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant.” His scholarship has contributed to the understanding of the cultural and historical context of Edom and its neighbors.

This blog paper, by stark contrast, contains several claims about the Edomites that reflect a biased or oversimplified view of their history and interactions with other groups. The Edomites simply not a monolithic group; their society – diverse in terms of social structure, culture, and interactions. Archaeological evidence indicates that Edomite society included various clans and tribes, each with its own customs and practices. This diversity historically reflected in the different archaeological sites and artifacts found in Edom, which strongly supports the theory that this civilization existed as a complex society with varying degrees of interaction with neighboring cultures.

While scholarly debate flourishes about the nature of Edomite conversion, especially among Xtians who base their “opinions” solely upon secondary or tertiary sources, essential actual scholarship recognizes, that the conversion forced conversion of Esau to Judaism, a minor non biblical reference. The Hasmonean dynasty’s forced conversion represented an exceptionally complex process influenced by various factors, including political alliances, cultural exchanges, and individual choices. Many Edomites may have embraced Judaism for personal, social, or economic reasons, reflecting the fluidity of cultural identity in the ancient world.

Edomite history in point of fact, characterized by its resilience and adaptation. After the fall of their kingdom, Edomites migrated and integrated into surrounding societies, including Judah. The fall of the 10 Tribe kingdom of Israel to the Assyrian empire likewise witnessed mass assimilation. Their ability to adapt to changing political landscapes demonstrates the complexity of their identity and the shared histories with neighboring groups. Simply crucial to challenge stereotypes and generalizations about the Edomites and related groups. The Edomites do not compare to Moavites. The latter qualify merely as adversaries of the Israelites; the society of Edom reflects a complex society with their own traditions, beliefs, and contributions to the region’s history. Emphasizing their individuality and complexity generally helps to combat oversimplified narratives.

Throughout history, various groups have faced displacement, conflict, and cultural change. The Jews the only civilization which experienced repeated g’lut/exile and following 2000+ years which witnessed the bankruptcy of the Xtian and Muslim civilizations, did the Jewish people raise our dead civilization from the grave and begin our National self determination to restore the Torah Constitutional Republic built around Sanhedrin lateral common law courts with the mandate to establish law through ‘Legislative Review’ of all Governmental statute laws. By acknowledging the shared human experiences of struggle, adaptation, and resilience, we can promote empathy and understanding among different cultural and ethnic groups. By recognizing the diversity within Edomite society, challenging stereotypes, and fostering discussions that highlight shared histories and commonalities, we can promote a more nuanced understanding of the Edomites and their interactions with other groups, most especially with the Jewish people. This approach encourages empathy and appreciation for the rich tapestry of human experiences that transcend cultural and historical differences.

The article 2nd article written by Mike Ruark, it similarly presents a narrative that attempts to outline the differences and historical context between Judaism and Samaritanism. However, it contains several inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and potentially biased interpretations that warrant a critical examination. Literal vs. Allegorical Interpretation: The claim that Samaritans believe in a literal interpretation of the Torah while Jews interpret it allegorically represents a gross distortion and perverted oversimplification. Both groups have diverse interpretations of their respective texts, and Jewish tradition, obviously does not limit itself to the Written Five Books of the Torah, as does the Samaritan tradition. The kabbalah known as Pardes, defines the various methods of interpretation which interpret Torah law as examined through prophetic mussar and halachic precedents.

The Samaritans rejected Torah law as a common law legal system. Their rejection of T’NaCH common law goes hand-in-glove with their equal rejection of Talmudic common law. Michael Ruark your complete and total ignorances of PARDES Oral Torah kabbalah places you squarely within the camp of the Samaritans.

Your shallow perverted article suggests a linear progression of conflict between Jews and Samaritans without adequately addressing the complexities of their historical interactions. The relationship has been influenced by various political, social, and religious factors over centuries, and the narrative presented lacks nuance.

Phrases like “the vast majority of the nine tribes’ members were captivated and carried away abroad” can be seen as pejorative. The language used throughout the article often implies a negative connotation towards the Samaritans, which may not reflect an objective historical perspective. Your shallow researched article mentions conflicts such as the Samaritan Revolt of 740 CE but does not provide sufficient context or detail about the causes and consequences of these events. This lack of depth can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of the relationships between the two groups.

Your absurd declaration that “Samaritans generally do not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel” is vague and lacks supporting evidence. It is essential to clarify that views within the Samaritan community may vary, and not all Samaritans hold the same political opinions. Your pathetic attempt to promote conflict between Jews and the tiny sect of surviving Samaritans merits nothing but utter derision and contempt. Your use of pejorative terms – utterly disgusting.

While your poorly written article makes feeble attempts to outline the distinctions between Judaism and Samaritanism, it clearly falls short in providing a fair and accurate representation of the historical interactions as codified within the Talmud. Your propaganda non-nuanced slander over-simplifies inherent complexities of both peoples traditions. Your vain hostility openly apparent, you would do better to strive to foster & improve a better understanding and dialogue between the two groups, instead of rabble rouse.