THE BIBLE RETOLD 21

How many people have read of the ages of Abraham and Sarah and wondered at her being desired by all these Kings? Why would they have wanted a woman of her age? Unless she was not ageing as we do today? It is obvious that she was still young and beautiful at that time, as Abraham is worried about her before they meet the kings. And the fact that he can claim brotherhood to such a young looking woman and not as her father is another clue that these two were still showing the genetic residue of the long lived sons of Noah and of Adam. Which may be why he was chosen by their Gods to be the leader of this new nation of people. One of the strangest things about the Hebrews is the color of their skin. Were they really dark skinned people? Or were they light and fair haired? Did they take after their ancester Noah or from his wife�s side of the family?

(note; in view of the fact that some writers are claiming that the Northern races as well as the British, Irish, and Scots are the lost tribes of Israel, this doesn't seem so far fetched after all.)

There is also the fact that Sarah gave birth at such a late date. And that Abraham was still sexually active at his late age is further proof that he was living longer than normal and retaining body functions that go with youth. When we look at the graphs of the age groups he is retaining that of the upper group. Staying young longer, breeding later. There is the possibility that the scene with the angels is one where either they are impregnating her or they are using artificial insemination. There is another explaination, and that is; they knew that since she was not ageing like the others, she had not reached her sexual maturity. In other words not at breeding age. When did this take place?

Because of the false information at the creation of the Bible we are all out in the time of the creation of the Hebrews, and the site of the events. Nor do these people know of the changes in names of the different countries since the time of the events. This makes sense if they were from the descendents of the last invaders of Babylon, who came from the area of Chaldea. But there is another reason why they might have been willing to let everyone think these events took place in the present day Egypt.

Abraham is put forth as this ageing man wandering around Palastine with a flock of sheep. That is misleading. He is not ageing as the others are. He is a warrior tribesman who engages in many battles, and wins them. He has ammassed wealth from his habit of lying to the kings he runs across, when he lets them take his wife as a concubine. Or wife. The behaviour of these kings is a little strange when you consider that we have no mention at this point about any religion or belief or rules about mans behaviour. Yet these men are worried about their innocent behaviour and not his lying behaviour? The fact that there is already a priest called Melchazedic implies that there is a thriving religion already in place, with rules and regulations and a structured priest-hood.(According to Z.Sitchen,the gods(Annunaki)were the ones who started the whole thing about being worshipped by the Adamic race. These are not real gods but aliens.)

When Abram is ordered to change his name and start a new dynasty and follow a new �God�, (Leader�?), he is given no rules at this stage of the game. At this point he is only the preserver of information. As such he has become invincable.

There can be no doubt now in the minds of men of intelligence that the story of Lot is one, not of a mysterious God lurking in the heavens, but of an advanced peoples interferring with our world.

If you do not understand that, then you will have to admit to a world at that time that had advanced far enough to have developed airial warfare of emmense proportions.

Why do I say that? Because if you believe that a God of creation that is capable of killing the creatures HE created, because they were doing the things he made them capable of doing, then there is no rhyme or reason to our existance. If he didn�t want us capable of making love in so many different ways then he should have created us to procreate as the animals do. On cue at specific times of the year, and only then. Or admit that we are not the 'man' of the 1st creation.

Only one piece of evidence has been found to corroborate the story of Abraham. That is a small statue of a ram caught in a bush, found in the tombs at Ur dug up by Whoolley. This is part of the story of Abraham willing to sacrifice his son to this new God of his. And I find it strange that no one is asking why this was found in Ur. I will tell you why further on.

It is now time to deal with some anomolies of the story of Abraham. After making an alter in the land of �Palestine?� he is in dire straits from a famine so he goes to "Egypt" where the famine is not occurring. Yet the same chapter, 13:10 describes the neighboring land of Jordan as a veritable garden, and well watered. But even before this there is the anomoly of Abraham going south from Egypt back to the place of the Alter. You cannot go south from Egypt and end up in Palastine. Am I nit picking? Not really. If as I suspect, the story of Abraham is dated farther back than is allowed then the land of Egypt was not even named that, at that time. The first name of present day Egypt was Tamera. Not until during or after the time of the Hyksos was it called Egypt.

However, there was another land called Egypt that sat on another river and emptied into another Red Sea, and called its Kings � Pharoh�s�, and brother and sister married each other, and its people were sheepherders and they kept flocks of sheep. (A thing that was not normal to the present Nile Valley in that time.) That land was also known as UR of the Chaldeas. The river was the Uphrates. The other sea was the Persian Gulf. It was also the land where Abram came from. And wasn't Palestine the land of milk and honey? Or was he EVER in Palestine? The fact that today it is called Palastine doesn't mean a thing as a lot of the history of this land has been altered by time and men who have a vested interest in those alterations.

But how could we be so far off the track about the land where he was seeking help from famine? We are out in our directions mostly and because of the end result of the Exodus. In order to correct this we must go to a bit of Geography. Most maps of the world are set to the North Pole. However that is the Magnetic North Pole. True north is a bit offset from the Magnetic North Pole. This is the reason for the stars path being off kilter from due east and west. When you look at a map that is oriented to Magnetic North,then Palestine is due east from the Nile Delta. And Ur is situated south east of Lebanon, the ancient land of Hiram. If Abraham was describing a world that he had not seen on a map, he could only give directions according to the rising and setting sun. Knowing that its true path pointed the way North. That placed the entrance to the Nile valley west and what was ancient Ur, south of him. Depending of course on where he was. There is also the problem of two opposing directions in 13:3 where he goes south to Bethal and then continues on in 12:9 where he is going south into Egypt. But in 13:1 he leaves Egypt and goes south back to Bethal! At no time does he use the terms east or west. So if there was a change in the directions of east and west due to a flip of the earth it is not recorded here. Only the direction south. And Ur is south of Haran and Babylon. The doorway to Egypt is West of the area of his journey's.

It is obvious that directions and places are not as they are today. Or that people who are not familiar with the story can make mistakes. Or that places and names had changed due to time and events. Which also shows that the story was recorded at a later time or altered to bring it up to date. Or a simple mistake was made by ignorance by others than the real Hebrew. And one must never forget that present day politics can color the way Archaeologists of the 19th century read things.

A great deal of the action takes place around Damascus and south and east of this area. At one time this was a place that was well watered. When you have huge flocks of sheep they need grass. Not dessert slopes. They need water. Not arid plains. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to go to the Nile Valley with sheep. It is not sheep grazing land. They would die in that heat.

If Abraham was going into the old Egypt of Ur, he would know the ways and the language. It is a land where there would not be a drought. It would be well watered. That land would be Ur. He would not go to a land he was unfamiliar with, with his precious flocks.

Anciant history points to the land of Bahrain and the Northern part of Arabia as a land of Vegetable farming. It was the supplier of groceries for the land of Mesopotamia. It was called Dilman. This may have been because the soil was still mud in that area from the flood. In fact the whole Arabian peninsula was a soil rich land until the exodus. During the Exodus great damage was done to the entire area of Arabia.

Which also points to why the great city of Ur was built with mud bricks. They had mud. Egypt had sand and rocks. Unless you count the Nile Delta. And would the Pharoh�s have been stupid enough to use the precious soil for bricks? In a land that constantly flooded? Would they have held up under those kinds of conditions?

It is my contention that Abraham was not in the Palastine of today when He sacrificed to his God. That he was somewhere North of there.. And that he went down into the the anciant land of UR(Egypt).

The Story of Joseph is a wonderful story. It has everything. Rags to riches. A hero saving a country from starvation. And to top it off, he gets to rub his brothers' noses in it, so to speak.

Now think about this: It was wonderful enough that the Hebrews did remember it! It was part of their records. Now I ask, why was it not a part of the records or history of the Egypt of the Nile? And I answer; because it was the record of the history of the Egypt of Ur. And Ur was destroyed by the events of the Exodus!

It is pitiful to watch Archaeologists trying to create a history that doesn�t exist and has never existed. They cannot remain blind to the truth forever.
If we face the truth about Ur being the site of Egypt of Moses time, then we must face the changed reality of the Exodus. Oh, yes! It happened all right; but in a totally different area than allowed. A lot of the problems with the Hebrews in �Egypt� become solved when we make Ur the site of the story of Joseph. A story like that would have been recorded on stele�s by the King who went through it. But everything was destroyed in Ur. And remember, Ur was the land that developed grain! And cattle, and was and still is a land of sheep. I cannot see Abraham with his huge flocks in Palastine.

There is also that language problem. It is solved if they were living in Ur from the time of Joseph as they all spoke the same language. They would then not have picked up any "Egyptian" words at all. Nor vice versa.

From the land of Babylon to the tip of the Arabian peninsula it was a garden. It had lakes, rivers, trees, springs, cities, villages, farms, orchards, people. It all dissappeared. Why? How? When? Those facts are known to the Archaeologists but they have no answer. There were two causes of the loss and devistation of this land. This is the land that Moses and his vast army laid waste. After they crossed over from Persia to Bahrain during the Exodus, they roamed this entire area. Their livestock ate all the grass and they ate all the food. And since they didn�t stay to replant and restock it all died. The events of the Exodus and Moses destroyed all the cities and the land.

I have this visualization problem with an army of Hebrew slaves leaving the Nile river valley with all their goods and animals. This country was spread out over a long river system. Where were these slaves supposed to be living? Just in the so-called city of Rameses? You mean there were no slaves in any other cities? And if there were slaves up and down the Nile Valley, why no mention of them being brought together for the Exodus? The entire story suggests they were centralized in one city or nearly. That fits Ur more than it fits the Nile. If they lived in the Egypt of the Nile valley then surely they were scattered up and down the length of the river. They had supposedly been there for 400 years before they became slaves. For the length of that 400 years they were free men, who could move around as they liked. Science is telling me they never left one area!

Unlike the Nile Valley, Chaldea was spread out on either side of the Euphrates and cities were close.

I have another problem. Genetics! This vast army of Hebrews began as a family of brothers and thier wives (and concubines). That�s a lot of inbreeding I would say. They must have been taking outside women for wives. Don�t you agree? Well, if that�s the case, in all that time the Hebrews never picked up a word of Egyptian, or any other language except Aramaien, which of course is from Chaldea or Ur.

Nor did they pick up any new idea�s in pottery design or weaving. Not even from their outside wives. Unless of course they were getting wives and ideas from the place they originally came from = Ur.
So! If they come from Ur as I claim, then they would be more or less pure Chaldean. We wouldn�t know , because there are no survivors from Ur evidently. No group of people left Ur claiming descendancy from the city! A very strange fact indeed! Or did they? Where the remnants of the lords of UR, who were left behind by the Pharoh, the Hykso's?? They were called "Sheepherd Kings" and were shown on walls as carrying sheepherds crooks and wearing sheepskins. The largest sheep herds in the middle east were in Ur. Even today the largest herds anywhere are still in that area.

The only reason people don�t mention their place of origin is if it has a cloud hanging over it. To claim you come from a city that a God had destroyed would not make you welcome in those days.

How many people were in Moses� train? You can breed a lot of people in 400 yrs! In 70 yrs my two Grandparents left over 300 descendants. That�s not counting spouses.

These men were allowed concubines as well as wives. And being slaves didn�t stop them from 200 more years of breeding. When historians today try to reduce the numbers down, it is because they have come to realize that the area they claim for the walkabout is not very large. There is no way it could support a huge army of people for two weeks, let alone 40 years. Especially with all their livestock. They would eat the land bare and drink it dry. And I would not even mention the fact of the waste products of the men and animals. As you can see we do not have a lot of answers but we have ended up with a lot of questions.

So lets compare the two stories. Ur or the Nile. There is no history of the Hebrew in Ur because it was destroyed utterly. And forgotten. There is no history of the Hebrew in Egypt which is a land that recorded everything. The brownypoints racked up by the Pharoh who hired Joseph would have called for a really big memorial for saving them from starvation. But there is nothing.
Any city that had been visited by a God in anger and destroyed would have been wiped from the face of the earth. No one would live there. Ur was wiped from the memory of man. Which is truly strange for such a large city that sat on the crossroads of trade with the orient. No Egyptian city has been found that was taboo. There is only one mention of UR in all of history. In the Bible!
If the slaves left the city area of Ur and fled to the north side of the persian Gulf hoping to dissappear into the rich pasture lands of the foothills they would have had quite a bit of time to reach the point opposite the finger of land that almost bridges the gulf.The Pharoh would not have been in a hurry to follow. How far can a huge cavalcade of people and carts and animals travel in a day. Hollywoods version of events to the contrary, he would have taken his time to collect a vast army to help him round up all the slaves. Giving Moses time to get to opposite that point. A vast army rich with gold and silver and gems on their horses and carts has never been dredged up where the historians claim is the site of the crossing. Not even when they dredged for the Suez canal. But no one has ever dredged or dived in the Persian Gulf for the Pharoh's army!

As for the Hykso's, those mysterious "Sheppard kings" who invaded the Nile valley many years after the exodus, why not look to the last remnants of Ur, who had no home, no land, no city. Maybe they were the ones to move to the Nile valley and take with them the name of 'Egypt'and called themselves 'Pharoh's'.

There is one other thing. How many times do you think babies get put in baskets and shoved down a river? And how many of those babies get found by a royal princess and raised as her son? Well the same story is on one of the clay tablets from Ur. And the only other one is in the book that the Hebrews wrote. There has never been found a similar story in the records of Egypt.

I have one last question about the Hebrews that entered Palastine. If as Velikovsky claims, we were going through a planetary crises, and people were scared for their lives, how did they manage to arrive at the Jordan without one person over 40 as they claim? How do you get 41yr olds to die on cue? Or was there another method for how they survived the long years? How long can men go on living on 'manna'? Did they become cannibals? Did they kill all the people who knew their real history? Only those who were born on the trail were allowed to enter Palastine. That means that no one over the age of 40 crossed the Jordon into Palastine. I find that strange! No one seems to ever mention that fact. In fact the church steers away from it. Were they all dead?

There is also another strange event that took place. At one point in time the Hebrew aided Egypt of the Nile by helping them get rid of overlords who were making life hard for them. After 400 years of slavery by a land called Egypt do you really think these people would have assisted them out of their own slavery? Around the same time they had expressed great concern over an invading arming that was coming at them from the North East?

Last but not least is the mystery of the remark in the Bible during the time of the crossing; it mentions that the Pharoh's army and his "CHARIOT'S", were destroyed at the time of the crossing by a huge wave of water! Egypt did not have Chariots at the time of Moses! But Ur and the area of the Euphrates had Chariots! And war horses! They were introduced to Egypt at the time of the Philistines according to the Archaeologists! And that is long after the Exodus.

---

Created © and Maintained by: Nina

Last modified on October 23,2005

*** Childrens Poetry *** Humour Poetry *** Adult Poetry ***
*** Articles *** Short Stories *** Books *** Cartoons *** Home ***

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws