>>>>> 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,   
   >>   
   >>> They are not denounced as an abomination in Leviticus, what it states is   
   >>> that they are unclean so they are not kosher to eat.   
   >>   
   >> Hmmm... unclean...   
   >   
   >Camels, horses, and dogs are unclean, they are not considered abominations.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> In the bible, unlike   
   >>> today in literature the raven is quite favorably viewed.   
   >>   
   >> "Unclean" is favorable?   
   >>   
   >> No. I stand with those who note that it makes far more   
   >> sense to read it as "Arabs" instead of "Ravens."   
   >   
   >Genesis 8:7   
   >To test whether the water subsided, Noah released a raven   
   >   
   >"and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the   
   >earth."   
   >   
   >does not sound like an Arab to me could do this, what did he have a long   
   >range helicopter.   
      
   One fact refutes this "arab" theory, the languages had not yet seperated at   
   the babel event in Genesus.   
      
   "Arab" is a language, the Abraham event thought to indicate the start of   
   what were to become "arabs" as residents of arabia had yet to happen also.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)