From Newsgroup: alt.paranormal


So the Old Testament of the bible is fake.

Here's one of the very funky results of this
fraud:

Someone on Tumblr (NOT me) raised the subject
of 1 Kings. Wait. Before getting to my translation
issue, let be quote the passage:

: "The word of the Lord came to him [Elijah the
: Tishbite], saying, 'Go forth from here and
: turn eastward, and hide yourself by the Wadi
: Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. You
: shall drink from the wadi, and I have commanded
: the ravens to feed you there"... The ravens
: brought him bread and meat in the morning, and
: bread and meet in the evening, and he drank
: from the wadi. - 1 Kings 17 2-4, 6.

In his post he goes on to talk about the ravens,
their imagery, what they represent (even quoting
Poe's "Raven" at one point). But...

But my question isn't regarding his commentary
though, it's regarding the translation of
"Ravens." Nearly everyone readily admits that
it's an uneasy fit, this "unclean" animal is
actually denounced as an "Abomination" in
modern translations of Leviticus, So, it seems
heavily unlikely that God would choose them
as his servants, that they would be God's
personal messengers who service & save a
biblical Prophet. It don't make too much sense.

"Ravens" in 1 Kings is a highly problematic
match, and the most popular alternative is
"Arabs." Well, "Arab Merchants" specifically.
But why not "Arabs"? The Nabataeans were
unsettled people. They disdained permanent
settlements. They also fiercely defended
their desert nomad heritage INCLUDING the
time honored tradition of hospitality. What
is the legend of "Sodom & Gomorrah" but a
morality tale denouncing the settled culture
and promoting the Arab (Nabataean) lifestyle?
The settled/city people are depicted as
lecherous while Lot, our Arab, is a "Righteous"
man who would cast his own daughters to the
mob in order to protect his guests.

There is a "Refutation" (of sorts) for
translating 1 Kings as "Arabs" instead of
"Ravens." It's not very compelling though.
Most arguments are based on the severe
BACKDATING of the biblical tales. They
claim that there were no "Arab" (merchants)
in the Levant at that time. But, like I
said, this is all based on a backdating of
the bible. But...

We know that 2 Kings, for example, could
not possibly have been written before the
very end of the 4th century BC(E). The
bible has it's King Amaziah battling the
Edomites in the (early) 8th century BC(E),
when the whole thing is nothing more than
a (very) thinly veiled retelling of
Antigonus' attack on the Nabataeans more
than 400 hundred years later. So if we
have absolute/positive proof that 2 Kings
is backdated by more than 400 years, why
should we assume that 1 King is a literally
true telling of 9th century events?

Oh. Another objection to the "Arabs"
translation is achieved only by tacking
on "Merchants" and insisting that this
couldn't be true. The solution seems
simple enough, stop insisting on tacking
on the word "Merchants." There. All your
discomfort is gone.

The Nababaeans are the match to the "Hebrews"
of the bible, and these would be the Arab
merchants -- traders.

The apparently practiced circumcision, had
an oral tradition, had a tradition of NOT
depicting their god... the lifestyle of
the "Hebrews"...

They were influenced ("Corrupted") by
Hellenistic culture, eventually. Some of
there religious beliefs were written down,
for example, They left some religious
predictions and if you look at Petra,
despite retaining the tradition of living
in tents, they carved monumental tombs!

Well. They hired people to carve them.

There are no other matches to the biblical
"Hebrews."

Nor of the Ravens-turned-Arabs.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2