Skip to main content

Who Is Esau: False Arguments

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

Given the historical and spiritual significance of the Bible, Kevin has devoted himself to studies through prayer and discernment.


Note: Though I am quoting the Apocrypha, I am not approving them (nor disproving them) as being canon to the scripture. I am simply quoting them because the arguments used for these false doctrines use them.

Welcome. Today we are going to disprove the idea that Esau was white in an effort to disprove the Hebrew Israelites. I must note that not all of them believe Esau was white. But the majority of them do.

  1. The Fatness of the Earth (Genesis 27 39
  2. Meat (Hebrews 12 16)
  3. Red and Hairy (Genesis 25 25)
  4. The Cunning Hunter (Genesis 25 27)
  5. Esau's Wives (Genesis 36 1-3)
  6. Mount Seir (Genesis 36 8)
  7. Dukes of Edom (Genesis 36 15 and 1 Chronicles 1 51)
  8. Was Esau Leprous? (Exodus 4 6) and Is Gehazi the Progenitor of the White Race? (2 Kings 5)? And Was Cain a Leper (Genesis 4 15)?
  9. Canaanite Lepers (Leviticus 14 34)
  10. Esau Was Made Bare (Jeremiah 49 10)
  11. Eagle and the Nest Among The Stars (Obadiah 1 4)
  12. The Border of Wickedness (Malachi 1 4)
  13. Esau Is the End of the World (2 Esdras 6 9)
  14. Are the Edomites and Japhites Now the Same People? (Jasher 90 8-9)
  15. Who Built Petra?
  16. Who Are the Caucasians?
  17. Edomite Goddess Statue
  18. Conclusion

The Fatness of the Earth (Genesis 27 39


Here's the problem. Genesis 27 39. If the fatness of the earth promised to Esau is the whole earth like some believers say, where does that leave Jacob's inheritance? Many people falsely assume that Esau was promised the whole world. We come to two conclusions

  • The "fatness of the earth" doesn't mean all of the Earth, but some good parts of it. The 12 Tribes were promised a very specific allotment of land, not the entire world.
  • In most of the translations, we see it says he would not get the fertility of the earth and dew of heaven. That would make sense given that his promise is meant to be inferior to Jacob.



Another argument a lot of people use is Hebrews 12 16. They think this is saying that Esau ate red meat. "See, the white man loves that red meat." They conveniently remember how Genesis says the food was called red pottage, and combine it with this to call it red animal flesh.

Genesis 1 29 says the Most High gave us every herb and fruit, for MEAT. Meat? Why does he call it meat? Doesn't meat only mean flesh? No. The Biblical definition of meat means food. In 2 Samuel 12 3 it says this lamb, symbolizing Uriah, ate meat, but we know that lambs are herbivores. When translated, the word meat is path, a fragment, bit, or morsel used in some verses such as Genesis 18 5 which was talking about bread. Meat, in the Old Testament, can be used to refer to food in general, animals or not. How can I prove that this is the same case for Hebrews 12 16? Look up Hebrews 12 16 with the Strong's Concordance and define the word meat. You get 1035. brósis, which means eating, or food. If we do the same thing in Genesis 1 29 we get 402. oklah, which means food or eating. So now we have established that meat in scripture can mean basically any part of the food groups. So what was this "meat" that Esau sold his birthright for?


Genesis 25 34 tells us what it was. Bread and pottage of LENTILS. It was red lentil pottage. A lentil is a vegetable. And there is no mention of animal flesh. "There could have been red flesh in the pottage." Red pottage is not called red pottage because you have the option to include meat in it. It is called so because of the red lentils in it. And as we will see in a moment, red or ruddy can also refer to a brownish color.

Red and Hairy (Genesis 25 25)

Red heifer.

Red heifer.

Esau is described as red. But it doesn't exactly mean red like blood. Red soil, red heifer, these things are a dark ruddy brown color. Let's prove this. Genesis 25 25 says he came out red and hairy. "White men are red and hairy". It means he had hair. He came out hairy all over. It does not mean hairy like a white person. Plus white people are not always born with hair.

The Strong's Concordance describes the word red as ruddy. The word for this is admon, which came from adom, which means to be red. But let's check something out. Numbers 19 1-10 talk about sacrificing a red heifer. Is it blood red, or a ruddy brown color? I looked up images of red heifers and the only blood red heifer was in a drawing, so it is not credible. And let's get back to the lentils. When Esau asked for the red pottage, his name was changed to Edom. So the redness of the lentils and the redness of Esau are related. Are the red lentils from before a blood red, or a brown color?

So from what we have gathered, and given the relation to the color "red" we saw earlier, we can confirm that this was most likely in regards to Esau's hair, or that Jacob and Esau only had a slight difference in skin color. But if the latter is true, it is not so different as compared to a white person and a black person. I have even heard some of them say, "Esau means wasted away. That means his skin has no melanin." That's just adding to it. Esau means "hairy" The name of Edom, "red", was also given to him from his conduct in connection with the red lentil "pottage" for which he sold his birthright (Genesis 25 30 and 31).

A lot of them will say, "Then how did white people become white?" Variations in skin color are a result of adaptations to an environment and the diet of the people living there. (Modern Human Diversity - Skin Color) I've also heard the excuse, "If that's the case then why are Eskimos dark-skinned?" Here is a link that covers the question. But to summarize it for you it has to do with diet and UV exposure.

This is further debunked when we look at the relation between Adam and admoni, the word used to describe Esau as red. Most of them say that Esau being described as red is describing white people, who show their blood through their skin, but then they will say that this word does not mean that when it is used to describe other people. Adom, which is related to Adam and admoni, means "red". The same also goes for King David in 1 Samuel 16 12 and 17 42, Solomon in Song of Solomon 5 10, and the Israelites in Lamentations 4 7. They are also described as red, or ruddy with the same root word.

By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning "ground" (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means "red". Each of these words have the common meaning of "red". Dam is the "red" blood, adamah is the "red" ground, edom is the color "red" and adam is the "red" man.

Scroll to Continue

There is one other connection between "adam" and "adamah" as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that "the adam" was formed out of the "adamah".

In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one's character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins.

— Biblical Word of the Month - Dor By: Jeff A. Benner


I have also seen these two women being presented as evidence for the idea that Isaac and Rebecca had one white child and one black child. They have gone viral on the internet because these two are actually twins. According to Hebrew Israelites, only black people can give birth to different skin tones and these girls are proof that Esau could have been white. There are some problems with this claim. In the video below (at 0:17) you'll notice that they have a white father and their mother has black and white ancestry which is why one of them is white.

The Cunning Hunter (Genesis 25 27)


"Who likes to hunt? Whites." It just means Esau was a skilled hunter. I also hear them argue that this is true because a lot of whites like to hunt for sport rather than food. By this same logic, all people descendant of Jacob should be dwelling in tents. Just because a patriarchal ancestor liked to do something does not mean that all of their descendants will do the same thing.

Esau's Wives (Genesis 36 1-3)


Let's say that the previous verses we went over were saying his skin was red like a so-called white person. We have one problem. According to the Hebrew Israelites, everyone else was black, including the Hamites and the other Semites. How can one white man make a bunch of white people if Esau married other blacks? Read Genesis 36. He married Hamitic and Semitic women, all of which are not white (though I do not confirm that they were black).

Robert De Niro with his two sons, Aaron and Julian.

Robert De Niro with his two sons, Aaron and Julian.

Let's say that the previous verses we went over were saying his skin was red like a so-called white person. We have one problem. According to Hebrew Israelites, everyone else was black, includng the Hamites and the other Semites. How can one white man make a bunch of white people if Esau married other blacks? Read Genesis 28 and onward. He married Hamitic and Semitic women, all of which are not white (though I do not confirm that they were black). If you look at mixed people the majority of them still have black features no matter how light their skin is. How can one white man have babies with a dark-skinned woman, and all of a sudden all of his children become the palest people on Earth? So if Esau was white and his wives were dark, the odds are that a majority of his descendants would not come out as being white especially if you believe everyone else was dark. Some people say that they became white by inbreeding, but scripture never says that all or a good majority of Esau's children committed incest. And if Esau is the first white man (or at least the first one of this age as they falsely also believe Cain was cursed with being white, Genesis 4 15), who would his descendants be marrying if they believe everyone else was black? They would have been marryidark-skinnedned people, which would eventually cancel out most if not all traces of being white in appearance. Even if any of his children did come out white, generations down the line they would be dark skinned due to them being the minority.


And a lot of them also say he was albino and passed it on. But yet they also say Esau was described as red and Jacob's color was not described because he looked like everyone else. But wait, we aren't told what color Esau's children are. So why say they all became white when they would say this logic is faulty if we use it on Jacob? That is hypocritical. Also, albinism is not always passed on. So even if Esau was an albino, that doesn't mean his children would be. We can prove this when we research what causes albinism.

Albinism is inherited. It's not contagious — you can't "catch" it from someone else. People are born with albinism because they inherit an albinism gene or genes from their parents.

In the most common forms of oculocutaneous albinism, both parents must carry the albinism gene for a child to be born with the condition. Even if both parents carry the gene, the chance of each of their children being born with albinism is one in four.

— Albinism, 2014,

Mount Seir (Genesis 36 8)


"Where do we get the name Caucasian from? The Caucus Mountains, where it is said white people dwelt. And scripture says Edom dwelled in Mount Seir, further proving that these cave dwelling Edomites are the so-called white man."

The Caucus Mountains are in Eurasia, the combined continental landmass of Europe and Asia. They are 2107.7 km apart, meaning the distance between the two is 1309.664 miles

We must also remember that this is ancient times. Caves were used by everyone for shelter and housing when needed. White people are also not the only people who dwelt in mountains.

Dukes of Edom (Genesis 36 15 and 1 Chronicles 1 51)


In the KJV we read in Genesis 36 15 and 1 Chronicles 1 51 that Edom had dukes. "The people in England have dukes so that proves that they are white." But let's look into this. The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance tells us what this word is. 441. alluwph: captain, duke, chief, friend. governor, guide, ox. This word is also used throughout the KJV without the use of the word duke. And if you read 1 Maccabees 10: 65-71, you see someone not of Edom being specifically called a duke. And here is something interesting regarding the term duke at the time that the 1611 KJV was written.

Moreover, at the time the King James Version was made the word "duke" was not used as a title in England: the term had the same general force as dux, the word employed in the Vulgate.

— Topical Bible, Duke,

The word duke did not even mean any sort of royalty at the time this translation was made, so these words cannot be connected. Dux is a Latin word that means leader. Until the 3rd century, dux was not a formal expression of rank within the Roman military or administrative hierarchy. (Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Harvard University Press, 1993), pg. 191)

Was Esau Leprous? (Exodus 4 6) and Is Gehazi the Progenitor of the White Race? (2 Kings 5) and Was Cain a Leper?


Because Exodus 4 6 says that Moses's skin became white from leprosy, they associate it with what we call white skin today. But leprosy in the Bible does not give the appearance of being Caucasian. Leviticus lists a few more symptoms of the disease.

  • a rising, a scab, or bright spot and the hair in the plague is turned white (Leviticus 13 2)
  • an inflammation (18-28); (4) on the head or chin (29-37)

None of these are mentioned in Esau's case. Even though in Miriam's case these are not mentioned (Numbers 12 20), we are clearly told that this is leprosy. Esau is not mentioned as being a leper, so him being red does not automatically mean he is a leper. And even if white skin was leprosy, white patches can appear on both white people and people of color as seen in the images below.


His hand was leprous as snow.—The worst form of leprosy was called by the Greeks λεύκη, “the white disease.” When it is fully developed, the whole skin appears glossy white, and every hair is “white like wool” (Celsus, De Re Medica, v. 28, § 12). This form is said to be absolutely incurable. It was probably from the fact of Moses exhibiting a leprous hand that the Egyptians called the Israelites “the lepers,” as related by Manetho (ap. Joseph. contra Ap. i. 26), Chæremon (ibid., i. 32),

— Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

While we are talking about leprosy, I wanted to touch upon something; Gehazi is not the progenitor of the white race as some of them have said. This mainly comes from the ones who believe that Israelites are black and can only be black, and whenever the mainstream groups use this they teach that they were originally black but can be found in multiple colors, yet they do not try to say Gehazi was the progenitor of the white race, which is ironic since most of the time they will look at a white person and automatically judge them as being Edom before any background check, and even then they only go by their father, and not their father's father and so on. In 2 Kings 5, Gehazi, Elisha's servant, falsely claims that Elisha wanted the gift from Namaan that he had refused earlier in the chapter, but he hides it. Namaan, who was cured of leprosy earlier on, does so. When Elisha figures out what Gehazi did he curses him and his descendants to be leprous. First off, even if white skin was leprosy, how does that prove that Gehazi is the progenitor if there are multiple people who have leprosy in scripture? And secondly where is the proof that Gehazi gave birth to the Europeans other than this similarity? Where is the scriptural or historical evidence showing immigration from Israel to the European countries and having children there? And finally, even though scripture does not state his ancestry, he is Elisha's servant so it is possible he was an Israelite. Wouldn't that mean that there are white people who might be Israelites? That seems to be the opposite of what most of the proponents of this theory are trying to prove since they teach that Israel can only be black people and that everyone else is another race entirely.

In Genesis 4 15 it says Cain was given a mark. After God expels him from his home for murdering his brother, he says the punishment is too big for him because he would be killed by other people in the world. God puts a mark upon him which repays whoever kills him than whoever killed him would be cursed sevenfold. Nowhere in scripture are we told what this mark was or what it looked like if it was even a visible mark at all. Some Hebrew Israelites claim Cain became white/leprous, and some go further to say that Esau is the reincarnation of Cain. But as this article will prove according to the Bible leprosy has nothing to do with having a naturally white skin color. Also even if reincarnation was in the Bible there is no scripture saying Cain came back as Esau. Even if Cain's mark was leprosy, by that logic we could say Gehazi was his reincarnation. I can understand how some people might think Elijah was literally reincarnated as John the Baptist due to misunderstanding prophecy, but nowhere in scripture does it say Cain would come back as Esau. If Esau was going to be as prevalent as the Hebrew Israelites say he would be in prophecy then surely the scripture would say so. The only similary between the two is the hatred for their brother, and even then that has happened multiple times in scripture.

This seems to be in response to the erroneous idea that Cain's mark was black skin, which is taught by racist Christians such as Christian Identity. And unfortunately it is also taught by some so called Torah observants which does nothing more than give true Torah believers a bad name.

Canaanite Lepers (Leviticus 14 34)

Note: I am not confirming that albinism is leprosy. This picture is used just to address the argument they use.

Note: I am not confirming that albinism is leprosy. This picture is used just to address the argument they use.

Another argument is that Esau or his descendants married Canaanites and that the Canaanites are white because they were leprous (or albino according to some of their interpretations). But let's go over that. Noah cursed Canaan. With what? Servitude. And Canaan is meant to be a possession of the 12 Tribes. They read Leviticus 14: 34 as saying leprosy was in the whole land of Canaan. So they put these verses together to say that all of the Canaanites are leprous, as in white. But read on. Leviticus 14: 33-44. You see that it is an individual house itself, not the whole land. It refers to a singular house, not the land of Canaan. It also never said that this referred solely to the land of Canaan. While it mentions Canaan, this was a law so it doesn't solely refer to this place. This was for the land that they owned no matter what it was.

And it also mentions that leprosy in the walls is green or red. So we see that this stuff grows on walls, comes in green or red, and was hazardous enough to make people flee the house. It isn't leprosy of the skin. It's mold. Mildew. Mold comes in red and green and can be very dangerous. And to further prove this point, it says the HOUSE was shut up seven days. Not a person. Verse 40 says that if the mold is not gone within seven days, the STONES in the wall are to be taken out and cast out of the city. So if this was about leprosy of the skin, why are they taking parts of the wall out? Shouldn't they be casting a person away? And verse 41 and onward talk about scraping the house and replacing the stones. It's mold.


Esau Was Made Bare (Jeremiah 49 10)


"See there? It says he made Esau bare. That means he made Esau white by stripping him off his black color." While I don't think all "Esau is white" arguers use this, this is a common argument I have been receiving as of late. You need to read the whole section of Jeremiah 49 as it relates to Esau. The scriptures concerning Esau/Edom in Jeremiah 49 are verses 7-22. When you read through it we see specific locations being mentioned again. Teman, Dedan, Bozrah, and Edom. If you read the verses before verse 10 you will notice that it is about a prophecy of destruction on this land. Verse 13 shows us that when it says that Bozrah became "a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes." Bozrah was the capital city of Edom. Bozrah means "sheepfold" and was a pastoral city in Edom southeast of the Dead Sea. The prophets Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah predicted Bozrah's destruction.

So we can tell that this is not about his skin color being taken away. And as the picture to the right shows, this land was not in America or any other European country. It's in modern-day Saudi Arabia. It is about this land itself, not about Esau or his children becoming white.

Eagle and the Nest Among the Stars (Obadiah 1 4)


"'Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle' - (or, thy nest) The eagle builds its nest in places nearly inaccessible to man. The Edomites were a race of eagles. It is not the language of poetry or exaggeration; but is poetic, because so true. "And though thou set thy nest in the stars." This is men's language, strange as it is. 'I shall touch the stars with my crown;' 'I shall strike the stars with my lofty crown;' 'since I have touched heaven with my lance."

— Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Thou exalt thyself] There is no need to supply the word “thyself,” as is done by A.V. and others (“though thou wentest as high as the eagle.” Ewald). “Thy nest” is the subject of both clauses. The words as they stand give a perfectly clear sense in English, as in Hebrew: though thou exaltest as the eagle, and though among the stars thou settest thy nest. Comp. Numbers 24:21, Habakkuk 2:9.

— Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Obadiah 1 4 and Jeremiah 49 16 also mentions how Edom is like the eagle. "America uses the symbol of the eagle." It doesn't say that Esau uses the symbol of the eagle. It said he exalts himself like an eagle. Eagles fly high in the air. So Edom is high minded, prideful. And it comes down and ambushes its prey. This is a characteristic, not a blatant symbol on a flag or other item of importance to that country. Proof of that is in Job 39. Plus America is not the only country with an eagle on it. Look that up. There's a long history of other places using eagles as symbols. Including non-European nations. And if you read Ezekiel 7 1-17 you can see more eagle symbolism.


When we look up the word "earth" used in this verse, we get 776. erets. It does not always mean earth like the planet. It can also mean land. It does not refer to one singular country from the other side of the globe like the United States. Daniel 4 22 references this verse in regards to the Babylonian captivity. Geographically Nebuchadnezzar did have this dominion. This was not saying that a nation with the symbol of an eagle would come for them. It says they are as swift as the eagle. Habbakuk 1 6-8 also describes the Chaldeans (The ruling Babylonians) as such. In verse 8 it says, "Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat."


Obadiah 1 4 says Esau made his nest among the stars. "See that? The white man landed on the moon." .When we read the other translations, it is saying EVEN IF the Edomites were to set their nest in the stars, they would be brought down as a lot of translations are accepting that. This would be further emphasizing the Most High's anger with them.

and though thou set thy nest among the stars; even higher than the eagle's; an hyperbolical expression, supposing that which never was or can be done; yet, if it was possible, would not secure from danger: or should their castles and fortresses be built upon the top of the highest mountains, which seem to reach the heavens, and be among the stars:

— Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Border of Wickedness (Malachi 1 4)


They use this to say that Esau would be the most wicked people. But they ignore the full context.

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

— Verse 3

See? It says his heritage was destroyed. Edom inherrited the land of Esau, and those places, even though they try to rebuild it, would be thrown down.

Esau Is the End of the World (2 Esdras 6 9)


I am not affirming that this book is canon or not. But there is still a misconception.

  • "For Esau is the end of the world, and Jacob is the beginning of it that followeth.”

"See? It just said that Esau is going to be ruling at the end of the world and he is ruling now." They believe the prophecy of Revelations to be about the modern day, where they will be set up above all nations after white people are defeated. To understand the correct context, you must read it from the beginning of the chapter.

  1. "And he said unto me, In the beginning, when the earth was made, before the borders of the world stood, or ever the winds blew,"
  2. "Before it thundered and lightened, or ever the foundations of paradise were laid,"
  3. "Before the fair flowers were seen, or ever the moveable powers were established before the innumerable multitude of angels were gathered together,"
  4. "Or ever the heights of the air were lifted up, before the measures of the firmament were named, or ever the chimneys in Sion were hot,"
  5. "And ere the present years were sought out, and or ever the inventions of them that now sin were turned, before they were sealed that have gathered faith for a treasure:"
  6. "Then did I consider these things, and they all were made through me alone, and through none other: by me also they shall be ended, and by none other."
  7. "Then answered I and said, What shall be the parting asunder of the times? or when shall be the end of the first, and the beginning of it that followeth?"
  8. "And he said unto me, From Abraham unto Isaac, when Jacob and Esau were born of him, Jacob's hand held first the heel of Esau."
  9. "For Esau is the end of the world, and Jacob is the beginning of it that followeth."

sau is the end of the age. This was symbolic, not literal.So Esdras is asking, " What shall be the parting asunder of the times? or when shall be the end of the first and the beginning of it that followeth?" We are dealing with periods of time in this passage. Esau is the end of the world. This is a symbolic meaning. Read verse 8 again. Esau is the end. And what did he say in verse 7? Times. Not kingdoms. Esau is the end of the age. This was symbolic, not literal. We can prove this by looking in the RSVA version. "9 For Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows. " A similar occurrence is in Isaiah 45 17. "But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end." But the word "world" here is olam, which means long duration, antiquity, futurity.

Are the Edomites and Japhites Now the Same People? Jasher 90 8-9


And the children of Chittim ruled over Edom, and Edom became under the hand of the children of Chittim and became one kingdom from that day.

And from that time they could no more lift up their heads, and their kingdom became one with the children of Chittim (Kittim, a descendant of Japheth).

— Jasher 90 8-9

"See? It says they all mixed together. All of Japheth was whited out." We see one mistake in this argument. It says they became one kingdom. It never said they all mixed together. Now could there have been some mixing? Possibly, but not on this large of a scale. They became one kingdom, meaning all of them were under one ruler(s). For example, America is one country. All Americans have to obey its laws. Are all Americans related? No. They all have different backgrounds unless you count our ancestor Noah.

When Israel split into two kingdoms, was it because they were of different nationalities? No. It was because of indifference. By this logic, kingdom means becoming the exact same people through mixing. But not only do they share a common ancestor (Jacob), in this case they were called two different kingdoms because they were split.

Who Built Petra?

The U.S Capitol Building

The U.S Capitol Building

It is well known that the United States has a lot of influence from Greco-Roman archaeology, especially in the higher ups. One could make the connection between this and the ruins in Petra, which was the land of the Edomites. But the Edomites did not build those monuments. We will be reading the Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization by George Livingston Robertson.


  • "Shortly after Jerusalem's fall and Judah's exile to Babylon in 586 B.C., the Edomites migrated, for some reason, from their particular home in Mt. Sier to southern Judah and the adjacent portions of the Negeb, and from that time onward they were known as Idumeans."

  • "Their migration was apparently due to the northern movement of the desert Arabs known as the Nabateans, who suddenly emerged out of the wilds of Central Arabia, until at some time during the sixth century B.C., they succeeded in expelling the sons of Esau from their mountain fastnesses, and took possession of the rock-city of Petra."

So the Edomites were kicked out of Petra in the 6th century B.C. The Nabateans inhabited that place. Remember this.

Pages 370-371

  • "The coming of the Romans into Palestine during the first century B.C. greatly changed the complexion of the country. Not only did they take full possession of Palestine proper,"
  • "they eventually took Petra and reduced the whole territory formerly known as Edom to the status of a Roman province."

So the Edomites were kicked out of Petra in the 6th century B.C. The Nabateans inhabited that place. Now in the 1st century the Romans have taken over.

"The Monuments of Petra" Page 79

  • "Today all of these splendidly carved tombs and temples are marred, and in the process of decay. The slow but persistent effects of natural erosion has been accelerated by reckless Oriental iconoclasm (that's people from the East who painted over things), until every sepulcher has been completely emptied, and not even an inscription remains to identify the dead. It is accordingly impossible to date Petra's monuments with any precision. We can only guess from the different types of architecture (Remember this. They can date it from the different types of architecture.) and a few other hints that are left at hand that probably the great majority of them belong to the period 200 B.C.-200 A.D."

We read earlier that the Edomites were kicked out of Petra in the 6th century B.C. But a majority of Petra's architecture was done at a completely different time period.