You rule over the surging sea;when its waves mount up, you still them.You crushed Rahab like one of the slain;with your strong arm you scattered your enemies. (Psalm 89:9-10)Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength,O arm of the Lord;awake, as in days gone by,as in generations of old.Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces,who pierced that monster through?was it not you who dried up the sea,the waters of the great deep,who made a road in the depths of the seaso that the redeemed might cross over? (Isaiah 51:9-10)From these references, it seems clear that the word
Rahab
is a reference to Egypt; furthermore, itappears that it is used in Job to refer to the Israelites exodus from Egypt. Therefore, the book of Job hadto have been written sometime after that event.Psalm 87 was written by the sons of Korah, dating the Psalm to the time of David or Solomon,according to 1 Chronicles 6:22, 31-46. Psalm 89 was written by Ethen the Ezrahite, who lived close to thetime of Solomon, too, since Solomon is favorably compared to him in 1 Kings 4:31. Isaiah lived manyyears after Solomon. Therefore, an educated date for the time of authorship of the book of Job wouldseem to place it sometime between the time of David and Isaiah.But what about the time frame of Job himself? Since the words about Egypt and the exodus are putin his mouth, a time during the patriarchs is completely ruled out. However, if we compare Job's behavior,in serving as priest to his house, with the time of the Judges, we find definite parallels, because then, too,sacrifice was not exclusively the work of priests in a central tabernacle or temple (see for instance Judges2:5, 6:25- 27, 11:31, and 13:19-21; see also 1 Samuel 6:14 and 11:15).
The ancient Targums, which are Hebrew books translated into the more recent Aramaic, translatethe word RAHAB as Egypt. (See the Targum of Isaiah)
The intention of this document is to show obvious "truths" connecting theangels and demons of the bible, with the modern day anomalies known as"Aliens," and their craft. That the bible
DOES
speak about these anomalies,and will be shown to be shockingly true. I shall remain for the most partwithin the confines of the 1611 English version of the King James Bible, andStrong's Greek and Hebrew concordance, even though I don't subscribe tothe "King James Only" club. I know, that
ALL
the translations that we haveare rooted back to the
SAME
sources. The difference between our modernday versions of the bible is in the choice of adjectives used in the descriptionof words from the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean),and outright blatant "liberties" taken by the translators. The reality is,
ALL
of our versions have translating errors that have distorted
CORRECT
biblicalinterpretations of many areas of scripture. One of the reasons for this is dueto linguistic barriers (our English language is considerably smaller than theGreek and Hebrew, with limited word definition in comparison). This hascaused a great deal of confusion in specific areas of interpretation. The King James is not really any better than the other versions (there's some 6000
ADDED
words, plus numerous translating errors and interpretation libertiestaken), but it does
NOT
step on the
DEITY
of Jesus Christ like most othertranslations. The fact of the matter is, man
HAS
had his grubby mitts on the