Page 87 - BV20

The Amalekites of the Bible! 87

The chil dren of Is rael left Egypt a few weeks, or per haps only days be fore the in va sion of
the Hyksos. They could not avoid meet ing these Hyksos com ing up from Ara bia, and ac tu ally did
meet them at Rephidim in Midian just be fore they reached the Moun tain of YEHOVAH God.

Were the Is ra el ites at all aware that Egypt was about to un dergo “an other plague” -- that of
the Hyksos dom i na tion -- when they sighted the Amalekite army (400,000 war riors ac cord ing to
He brew tra di tion) in the desert? Prob a bly not. How ever, later, dur ing the time of the Judges, the Is -
ra el ites were con stantly be ing at tacked and ha rassed by the Amalekites, and must have surely
known Egypt was un der the con trol of the shep herd-kings and their co horts.

Notice, now, Psalm 78:

When He [God] worked His signs in Egypt, and His won ders in the field of Zoan; turned
their rivers into blood, and their streams, that they could not drink. He sent swarms of flies
among them, which de voured them, and frogs, which de stroyed them. He also gave their
crops to the cat er pil lar, and their la bor to the lo cust. He de stroyed their vines with hail, and
their syc a more trees with frost. He also gave up their cat tle to the hail, and their flocks to fi -
ery light en ing. He cast on them the fierce ness of His an ger, wrath, in dig na tion, and trou ble,
BY SENDING ANGELS OF DESTRUCTION AMONG THEM. -- Verses 43-49.

This psalm shows that im me di ately af ter the ten plagues, God sent ANOTHER “PLAGUE”
-- the “ANGELS OF DESTRUCTION (in some ver sions, EVIL ANGELS) -- AMONG THEM.”
What does this mean? Who or what were these “an gels of de struc tion”? There is no plague in the
book of Ex o dus car ried out by “an gels of de struc tion”; and there is no ex pres sion like this to be
found any where else in the Bi ble. Is it pos si ble the text could be CORRUPT? No tice what Im man -
uel Velikovsky dis cov ered:

“Sending of evil an gels [some ver sions of the Bi ble, ”an gels of de struc tion") is (pre sum -
ably) MISHLAKHAT MALAKHEI-ROIM. The ONLY DIFFERENCE in spell ing is one
si lent let ter, ALEPH, in the first case. It would thus seem that the sec ond read ing is the
ORIGINAL.

The first read ing is not only UNUSUAL HEBREW, but it is also CONTRARY to the gram -
mat i cal struc ture of the lan guage. If ROIM (“EVIL,” plu ral) were used as an ad jec tive here,
the pre ced ing word could not take a short ened form; ROIM must there fore be a noun. But if
ROIM were a noun, it would be in the sin gu lar and not in the plu ral; and fi nally, the cor rect
plu ral of “evil” is not roim, but RAOTH. “Evil an gels” in CORRECT HEBREW would be
MALAKHIM ROIM; “an gels of evils” MALAKHEI RAOTH. NOT ONLY THE SENSE
BUT THE GRAMMATICAL FORM AS WELL SPEAKS FOR THE READING,
“INVASION OF KING-SHEPHERDS.” When the ed i tor or copy ist of the sen tence could
not find sense in “king-shep herds,” he changed the words to “evil an gels” with out suf fi cient
gram mat i cal change. -- Ages in Chaos, pps.69-70.

Psalm 78:49 must therefore read:

The Berean Voice