Seems Is Seams, Phonetically

The king's translators, in service to their monarch, added many 'helps' to the original text of the 'Holy Bible' which, at first blush, seem gratuitous. (What is meant to be indicated by "gratuitous," here, is that state of existence which is without purpose except to encumber that to which it is applied.) These 'gratuities', however, tend– upon further review– to subtly alter the spirit of the text in rather substantial ways. Here are two examples of this sort, from two things Sarah said, found in Genesis 21.

Genesis 21 records the birth of he- who- was- (allegedly-) Abraham's second son– Sarah's only child– Isaac: after Sarah was "taken [Genesis 20:3]" by Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar. "6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned [Genesis 21:6 - 8]."

If the 'discretion' of the translators is removed from Genesis 21:6 - 8, the meaning– seemingly– changes not; nor does their absence render the statement incomplete according to the dictates of the English language. Read it again without the 'helps': "6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh; all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the day that Isaac was weaned [Genesis 21:6 - 8]." The only thing which changes, prima facie, absent the translators' 'corrections', is the number of words in the text and the length of time required to read it.

However, there is a subtle division between Sarah and Abraham which– if not altogether expressed– is, at least, implied in the manner in which Sarah speaks, here. Never do the words "we," "us," "our," "ours," etc. occur in these verses. Sarah speaks here only of Abraham and herself severally: as if they aren't both involved in the production of Sarah's only son, Isaac. The only word in these three verses which brings the married couple together is added by the translators: "him" in verse 7.

This is, perhaps, an uncomfortable proposition: but without the embellishments of the king's translators, the text makes more sense, doctrinally, to yours truly. The words "God hath made me to laugh," in verse 6, evoke a scene from chapter 18 of Genesis.

In chapter 18, the LORD tells Abraham, "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son [Genesis 18:10b - e]." At this declaration, "Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also [Genesis 18:12]?" This seems to imply a platonic marriage between Abe and Sarah. "Sarah should have given children suck," if they'd had a real marriage, shouldn't she?

Perhaps Abe was busier procreating property through his many female servants than would allow of him having sex with his own wife. "Who would have said unto Abraham [is "of all people!" implied here]?" Perhaps Sarah was more sister than spouse [Genesis 20:12], in Abe's esteem. Certainly– in light of the numerous children he had through his "concubine," Keturah [Genesis 25:1 & 2], after Sarah's death– Abe's geriatric impotence, alluded to by Sarah (in Genesis 18:10) is only a delusion imposed upon Sarah by Abraham's behavior. So, if Abe and Sarah "knew" each other, in the biblical sense of the term: why did Sarah not conceive until after Abimelech took her?

To be sure, the text of Genesis 20 states explicitly that God "suffered [Abimelech] not to touch her [Genesis 20:6e]" what time Abimelech "took Sarah [Genesis 20:2]." But the Bible is chock- full of contradictions and lies. Could Abimelech have 'known' Sarah without 'touching' her? Did he 'take' her when he "took" her? The original text of Sarah's quotations in Genesis seems to indicate that the latter is, at least, possible: if not altogether true.

Likewise, two verses later in Genesis 21, the translators add a word which is utterly unnecessary, except to subvert the meaning of the text. In verse 10, Moses (with the translators' 'help') writes: "Wherefore [Sarah ] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and [your firstborn] son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac [Genesis 21:10]."

The addition of "even" to the text underscores in it a legal and political reality which goes without saying, in light of the Doctrine generally. However, this one little word manages also to subvert the legal, political value it underscores in Sarah's statement: inasmuch as (being Abe's firstborn son) Ishmael should have been entitled to a double portion of the inheritance; which is in no wise even– especially when it is inherited. At first blush, however, the content of the verse seems not to suffer from the addition of this one, little, four- letter word; and likewise to be nothing amiss without it. It even seems gratuitous.