From: SolomonW@citi.com   
      
   On 01 Sep 2018 18:01:01 GMT, reader wrote:   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
      
   Arabs during the flood makes not sense to the Biblical writer.   
      
   >   
   > "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.   
      
   I would go further to the biblical writer, I am not sure what we call Arabs   
   are descendants of Ishmael for one point they are in the wrong area.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)