Talk:Battle of Siddim

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

The contents of the Valley of Siddim page were merged into Battle of Siddim on 04 June 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history.

This article was created as per the discussion on the page Chedorlaomer.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not odd to anyone or the mass populace of the internet to note that this article favors strictly Jewish and Catholic favoring of Haumrabi with AmarPal? Google up other sources than Wikipedia or those they favor and you will see that mistranslations, and text damage, directs these people to who they favor. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While doing research on the character of Melchizedek, the king of Salem, I found an unusual interpretation which asserts that Melchizedek and Jesus are the same person. Now, since Melchizedek is often believed to have fought at the Vale of Siddim, this view would practically lead us to think that Jesus himself fought in that battle. ADM (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was born 1,600 years after the Battle of Siddim tho? EytanMelech (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another character which would deserve special research is the identity of the king of Sodom. Some have interpreted Genesis 18 as being a dialogue between Abraham and three kings : the king of Sichem, the king of Salem and the king of Sodom. A popular intrepretation of this passage is that the kings were none other than the Holy Trinity, that is, the One God in Christianity. Now, if the king of Salem is Jesus-Melchizedek, then a likely candidate for the title of ruler of Sodom could be figure of Enoch-Metatron, who is sometimes considered to be the Holy Ghost. ADM (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you compare the King of Sodom to the Holy Ghost? Especially after Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone from Yahweh for there detestable sins! Jasonasosa (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Upon hearing this, Abraham assembled a force of 318 people and pursued Chedorlaomer's forces, finally engaging them in battle near Damascus, where Abraham was victorious."

318 people only? Wow!--80.141.192.17 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the whole story of Genesis Chapter 14, you will find that the Elamite forces under Chedorlaomer had already been fighting non stop especially down in the Valley of Siddim where terrain itself was deadly. This means that those forces were already battleworn and treking back north will take a toll on any soldier. Abram's 318 were fresh and ready so the trek wouldn't be as much for them, plus there equipment may have been lighter compared to elamite armory. Also, the battle worn unit under Chedorlaomer may not have been very large when they were engaged by Abram... including the fact that Abram and his 318 did a night raid surprise attack. They didn't even know what hit them, hell, they didn't even know they were being pursued. And don't forget... Yahweh was on Abram's side. Jasonasosa (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 14:13 states that "Mamre the Amorite, and his brothers Eshcol and Aner were Abram's allies." This infers that at least part of the 318 warriors belonged to Mamre and his brothers, fighting under Abram's command. As for the low number (by modern standards) it should be noted the time period in which this battle is speculated to have occurred (the mid-to-late Bronze Age). A time before horses were in use, when men traveled everywhere on foot, and before the existence of professionally trained armies. Lorzu (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a section discussing the improbability of Mesopotamian (Elamite) control over part or all of the Canaanite region, including the Jordan Valley, during the periods mentioned. Accepted history does not allow for any Mesopotamian incurrsions into the region until the early Iron Age. In fact, it is known that throughout the Bronze Age period, Egypt was the only dominant empire in the region of Canaan, which calls into question the historicity of the Battle of Siddim. Lorzu (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because the article its totaly wrong! The dated the battle in the times of Hammurabi. But after study of Sitchin and other sources its clear, that king of Elam Kedor-Laomer (Kudur-Langhamar in origins) reigned cca 2000+/-50 BC. The king of Sinear Amrafel, its then Uruk III. dynasty king Amar-Sin cca 2000-1990 BC. Then the dated Abram on 20 century BC korelated with dates in Bible. Now we have battle of Siddim dated betwen years 2000-1990 BC, destroing Sodoma and Gomora some years after the war, archeological evidenc of destroing some cities near Dead sea in 1950-1850 BC and destroing Sumerian civilizations near year 1950 BC. Last lugal Ibbi-Sín from UrIII. 1982-1957 and after that attack from Elam and Subartu. The lament for Urim. The perfect question its. What destroyed cities Sodom, Gomorah and Sumerians civilization in Ur III. dynastion betwen 2000-1950 BC? Bynk--195.91.4.68 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Siddim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718123231/http://www.wwuheiser.com/Kitchen.pdf to http://www.wwuheiser.com/Kitchen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead presented that the battle of Siddim as if it were a known historical occurence, so I've added two sentences on scholarly views of the historicity of these kinds of stories in Genesis. At this point, mainstream scholarship tends not to take events occurring in Genesis as reflecting actual historical events in the way they are described in Genesis, so I added a note on the current consensus view of the historicity of Genesis.Alephb (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]