Inerrant Lie #27

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

How many times have you heard someone say, "Jesus of Nazareth was either God- in- the- flesh or a raging lunatic!"? This ultimatum, whether it applies to Jesus of Nazareth or not, applies more acutely (and appropriately) to Moses. Jesus of Nazareth commanded the spirits and apostles that worshipped him as “the Holy One of God” (and other appellations of such like) to observe silence. The number of times Moses says, “I am the LORD,” on the other hand, is staggering.

Back in the early nineties, when the alphabet- soup of federal agencies surrounded the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX: CNN had an analyst [or maybe it was Janet Reno herself] on- air talking about David Koresh (the pastor of the Branch Davidians). They played audio of Koresh reading a passage of Moses as proof of how evil Koresh was, saying he clearly had a messiah complex and might be the Antichrist. They represented the audio they played as Koresh's own words, which they clearly were not; but what does this say about Moses, whose words they actually were?

One such passage is to be found in Deuteronomy 11. Beginning in verse 13, Moses says: "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day… 14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season… 15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full." This is a staggering claim for a man to have made so many thousands of years ago.

These days, the U.S. Air Force has Operational Weather Squadrons which manipulate weather conditions in the theater of conflict to assure maximum advantage to U.S. troops in- theater. Nonetheless, even now, preachers insist, “Only God can control the weather.” Why do they believe Moses, when they revile and scorn as lunatic any contemporary who speaks as Moses did?

Back in the fall of 2015, I attended church on a Saturday evening at a church in Santa Clarita, CA, which is in Los Angeles County. California had suffered from drought for seven years or so, at this time; and, for some reason, the head pastor of the church I visited that Saturday evening chose that moment to lead his congregation in a prayer service begging God to bring relief from the persistent drought– before he commenced the message he delivered that evening.

The substance of that particular pastor's prayer that evening about the drought concentrated on his adamant, repetitive assertion that only God could do anything about the weather. I used to live in Sclarita (as Santa Clarita is referred to by the “locals”) in the 1990’s, and even then it was obvious someone was engaged in weather modification exercises to anyone who chanced to look up at the sky over that valley on any given day. Chemtrails abounded with regularity. Everyone noticed and commented on them in conversation about town. It was no secret.

At any rate, when the aforementioned head pastor was done laying on the floor wriggling like a worm and pleading to be heard and obeyed by God concerning the drought, there was a moment taken for “prophetic testimony,” in which the congregation was encouraged to share anything they felt the LORD was impressing upon their hearts regarding the subject of the drought. We waited for an uncomfortably long time, until one old man finally made his way up front to the microphone to say, “God will provide a solution to this problem.”

I suspect churches all over the L.A. Basin were exercising their prayer- prerogative in precisely this same manner, that particular weekend. On the following Monday morning, one of the things which caught the eye of many of those who perused the L.A. Times newspaper was a public notice announcing that NOAA had filed for and received permits to engage in weather modification exercises in the skies over L.A. County over the course of the winter immediately following. That may be the first year (2015) in which meteorologists assigned names to particularly dangerous winter storms.

One of my acquaintances in Santa Clarita was killed by “Lucifer,” that winter. I think it's all- but certain that, that Saturday and Sunday, all the pastors in the L.A. metropolis were doing the same thing that pastor did that Saturday evening when I visited his church: praying God end the drought; and praying so exactly as that pastor had done: forcefully and repetitively declaring only God could do anything about the weather. I think the pastors of L.A. already had the scoop on NOAA’s plans for weather modification before that weekend began. Perhaps they didn't know NOAA would obtain permits, that year. They had never bothered with permits in previous years. Moses would have been proud.

At any rate, whether or not Moses could make it rain, and even whether Moses is the LORD is beside the point. The point is that weather modification was not a science, much less a given, in Moses' day; and Moses most likely lied every time he said “I am the LORD,” regardless of whether he did so at the LORD’s behest. Either that, or the scribe who wrote, “[the LORD] buried [Moses] in a valley in the land of Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day [Deuteronomy 34:6]” lied. No man can literally bury himself; and if Moses were the LORD: why would he?

Inerrant Lie #25

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

There are a number of dualities in the doctrine of the 'Holy Bible' which go unnoticed generally by those “theologians” who claim the Bible is “the word of God.” One of these dualities consists in the manner in which the Bible claims responsibility for “transgression” against the law is assigned by the LORD (a.k.a “God”; “the Lord”; “that God”; “the LORD God”; “the Lord GOD”; “the LORD”; “the most high God, possessor”; etc.).

Another of the dualities which pervade the doctrine of the 'Holy Bible' concerns what the canon claims the proper response of the individual in regard to the perception of “sin” in one's own life should be. There are two schools- of- thought;– each propounded in biblical scripture as the only school- of- thought in the respective matter–: in both of these dualities. This makes four “minds” on two matters from what is purportedly “one” God.

The anonymous writer of Hebrews likewise opposes himself numerous times in the thirteen chapters he contributed to the canon. In doing so, he manages to succinctly betray some of the inconsistencies of the Doctrine as a whole, at times. Jesus of Nazareth might conceivably describe the book of Hebrews as the ruminant savor of the essence of leaven, “hid in three measures till the whole was leavened.”

In Hebrews 8:7, the anonymous author shares his (presumably) learned assessment of the law of Moses in comparison to “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” ‘Anonymous' writes, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." This is as much as to say, because “that first covenant” was faulty, a second was made.

While it may be true “that first covenant” was faulty: fault in “that first covenant” indicts the entire canon of ‘Holy Bible’ scripture, including, immediately, the next two verses in Hebrews (and He who purportedly wrote it all), as altogether unreliable: inasmuch as “that first covenant” (the law of Moses) is a substantial part of the canon– as is “the second” covenant the anonymous writer of Hebrews compares repeatedly to “that first” in his thirteen- chapter contribution to the canon. (There was another ‘first covenant’ made: with Cain– after he murdered his brother Abel– in Genesis 4.)

[This word, “that first covenant,” is a misnomer or anachronism: in light of all the covenants attributed to one- variant- or- another of “the LORD” in the ’Holy Bible’. What about the covenant with Noah, sealed (Genesis 9:13) in the sky? The LORD’s covenant (made perhaps with ‘Himselves’, in Genesis 11:7) to confound the tongues at Babel; His “covenant of the day” (if He has one); His “covenant of the night;” and many others also obviously pre- date the covenant the anonymous writer of Hebrews refers to as “that first covenant.” This is to say nothing of the covenants with Abram (called “Abraham”), Isaac, and Jacob (called “Israel”): upon which Moses' “first covenant” (as the writer of Hebrews refers to it) is predicated.]

In light of the fact that “the second” covenant, mentioned in Hebrews 8:7, is sealed in human sacrifice; which is murder; which is sin: is the doctrinal and doctrinaire presumption that “the second” covenant [“JESUS”] “taketh away the sin of the world [John 1:29]”-- as opposed to fulfilling the sin of the world [2 Corinthians 5:21]– ironical; or subtle? Either way, it places the beginning of the current “Church Age” in the fourth chapter of the first book of the ‘Holy Bible'; there to be discovered in a conversation which can only be described as sorcery, inasmuch as it takes place between the- children- of- Adam- and- Eve and the LORD to whom Adam- and- Eve were already dead [Genesis 2:17] before their children were born. 

“He was a murderer from the beginning [John 8;44c].”

In Genesis 4, we're told Eve’s “man from the LORD [Genesis 3:1],” “Cain, who was of that wicked one… slew his brother [1 John 3:12];” and got “busted” by the LORD. There is no indication, in the text of Genesis 4 (or the canon, perhaps) that Cain ever regretted (much less repented- of) murdering his brother. It is however recorded Cain pitied himself: before- and- after the devotional [Leviticus 27:29] “sacrifice” of his twin brother Abel.

For his whining self- pity (or was it for the service wherewith he served the LORD in ‘sacrificing’ his brother?), the LORD rewards Cain with an insurance covenant, saying: “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him [Genesis 4:15].” Subsequently, Cain’s great- great- great- grandson, (Lamech) turns Cain's insurance covenant into a religion.

Genesis 4:23 & 24 reads: ‘23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold [seven… seventy and seven: 777, the favorite number of all Christians].” From here, the race is on to be “[The] mighty hunter before the LORD [Genesis 10:9]” to murder the sacrifice- to- end- all- sacrifices: (presumably) Jesus Christ; “...then began men to call upon the name of the LORD [Genesis 4:26].” In Genesis 22, an Abrahamic covenant based on human sacrifice is recorded.

In Genesis 22, “Abraham” (Abram) is instructed by “that God” to offer his son, Isaac, as a “burnt offering” to the LORD. It is noteworthy and strange that, while “Abraham” (Abram) argued and supplicated for Sodom to be spared, he nonetheless wordlessly complies with this murderous conspiracy against his own son. “The angel of the LORD” disallows “Abraham” (Abram) to follow through in murdering his own son– but nevertheless rewards Abe's willingness to comply.

“15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice [Genesis 22:15 - 18].” Obviously, encouraging and rewarding infanticide does nothing to dissuade it's practice.

[It's worth noting here, in light of Revelation 14, that when Isaac asked Abe “where is the lamb for a burnt offering [Genesis 22:7]?” as they twain made their way up mount Moriah that day: “Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering [Genesis 22:8].” Saint John the Divine seems to confirm Abe’s prognostication, in Revelation 14. Revelation 14:9 - 12 reads: “9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall… be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night... 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”]

After Abe- and- Isaac's adventure on mount Moriah, child sacrifice (perhaps predictably) becomes an– if not The– Abrahamic Family Tradition. In the book of Exodus, Moses lets slip a number of evidences that point to the assumptive fact that, if the children of Israel ever were in Egypt, they practiced a child- sacrificing religion before Egypt; in Egypt; and after- exodus- from Egypt: in light of the Doctrine generally.

In Exodus 16– on that day in which manna first allegedly fell from the sky to feed the children of Israel during their wilderness sojourn– Moses tells us the Israelites had a “Testimony”: before Moses ever went up the mountain to receive the oracles, much less came down and broke the oracles “under the mount.” The narrative of Exodus 16 tells us Moses (presumably at the LORD’s behest) had Aaron capture some of the manna in a pot, to be kept for posterity. The only overt mention of this mysterious “Testimony” in the canon is in Moses' record of the collection of the witness- manna.

“33 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. 34 As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept [Exodus 16:33 & 34].” The fact that, in these two verses, “the LORD” is synonymous with the mysterious, otherwise- nondescript “Testimony,” clearly indicates not only that a religious tradition was extant in the Hebraic culture before “that first covenant” (which was sealed in the testimony of the oracles Moses broke under the mount); but also that the LORD was presumably amenable to this mysterious religious observance which preceded Moses and the oracles. This “Testimony” resided, it would seem, in the tabernacle of Molech.

This mysterious “Testimony” is never again overtly mentioned in the ‘Holy Bible'; but the anonymous writer of Hebrews may allude to it when he writes of: “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and… the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh [That's what oracles do.] better things than that of Abel [Hebrews 12:24].” It seems, at any rate, that the religious tradition practiced by the children of Israel at the time of their exodus from Egypt was sacramentalized in child sacrifice.

The prophet Amos, in speaking for “the LORD,” writes: “25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? 26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves [Amos 5:25 & 26].” “Moloch” is a shibboleth for Molech, a child- eating- derivative of Baal: “the abomination of the children of Ammon.” [This passage from Amos is quoted in the New Testament by the martyr Stephen, in Acts chapter 7.]

.In Leviticus 20, “the LORD” tells Moses: “2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name [Leviticus 20:2 & 3].” This doesn't mean child sacrifice was not practiced under “that first covenant,” however.

Leviticus 27:29 indicates what might be a prominent, pervasive, ever- practiced, never- spoken- of- except- to- blame- it- on- someone- else statute of Moses' law. The fact that this statute exists is chilling. The presumptive ‘fact’ that “the law and the prophets” culminate in the “Gospel” of murdering (“Christ”) Jesus of Nazareth is absolutely horrifying, considering Leviticus 27:29 (beginning with verse 28): “28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.” There is at least one such “devotion” (as prescribed in Leviticus 27:29) recorded in the ‘Holy Bible'.

In the times of the judges, a Gileadite named Jephthah (who was the judge of “the people” for an indeterminate period of time) is recorded making “a singular vow” dedicating “whatsoever [came] forth of the doors of [his] house to meet [him], when [he returned] in peace from [war with] the children of Ammon” to the LORD, “a burnt offering [Judges 11:31].”

Upon his victorious return from the battle, “[Jephthah’s] daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances.” After allowing her two months to “bewail her virginity,” Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed:” a virgin burnt like a witch– faggots under her–; on the LORD’s altar.

Another evidence of the Hebrews' “former- of- all”- religion comes from Moses' conversation with the LORD in the mount prior to receiving the oracles. Before he was told by the LORD to “...anoint [Aaron and his sons], and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto [the LORD] in the priest's office [Exodus 28:41]”-- much less having done so (which is recorded in Leviticus 8)-- Moses records the LORD telling him: “And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them [Exodus 19:22],” in the directions the LORD provided Moses in preparing for His fire- on- the- mountain delivery of the ten commandments.

Whose priests were these? Aaron and his sons hadn't yet been sanctified and anointed to serve as priests. The Levites hadn't yet been set aside for service to Aaron and his sons. Like their pre- extant religion: the identities of these priests is a “mystery.” Nonetheless, the text of Exodus 12:2 - 4 may allude to the extant institution of what Roman Catholics refer to catechetically as “the Domestic Church”-- in which the head of a given household is the priest thereof– in the Hebrews' Goshen conclave.

Preparatory to the sacrifice of the inaugural Passover observance, the LORD tells Moses: “2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.” Inasmuch as the killing of the “holy” sacrifices was the peculiar occupation of the Aaronic priesthood under Moses' law, this passage from Exodus 12 seems to indicate the heads- of- households were the “priests” alluded to in Exodus 19:22.

[It is worth noting, here, that the only church which takes precedence to “Holy Mother Church” in ‘The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church’ is the Domestic Church, which is defined as each family by itself. It is likewise noteworthy that the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church lays claim to Levitical lineage of a spiritual nature or manner for its authority to perform the sacrifices of the Eucharist.]

Again, Moses (perhaps accidentally) alludes to that religious tradition which pre- dated him and his law when he records removing “the Tabernacle of the congregation” to a spot “afar off from the camp [Exodus 33:7].” [This is obviously not the LORD's sanctuary, which was placed in the center of the camp, surrounded by the Levites, with the tribal camps “far off about the tabernacle of the congregation” -Numbers 2:2]

The first overt mention of this already- extant “Tabernacle” in the canon follows no less than fifteen referrals (by the LORD) to the proposed, future “sanctuary” of the LORD as “the tabernacle of the congregation.” Ironically, it also occasions Moses' application of the name given (by the LORD) to the LORD’s “sanctuary” to this already- extant “Tabernacle.”

The first mention of the term “tabernacle” in the ‘Holy Bible' likewise seems duplicitous. In Exodus 25:9 (beginning with verse 8), “the LORD” says to Moses, “8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.” In light of the fact that the “Tabernacle of the congregation” already existed, this statement from the LORD implies the “pattern” for the LORD’s “sanctuary” and “the instruments thereof” (which the writer of Hebrews refers to as “the patterns of things in the heavens”) was what Amos referred to as “the tabernacle of your Moloch”: a place to butcher humans. It would seem even the situation of the LORD’s sanctuary within the camp was borrowed from the already- extant “Tabernacle,” in light of the Tabernacle’s removal outside the camp, recorded in Exodus 33:7 (above).

From this point on (that is to say, from the very first mention of the word tabernacle in the canon), it becomes impossible to tell which of the two tabernacles is indicated in any mention of “the tabernacle of the congregation” in the canon; and terms such as “tabernacle of witness” and “tabernacle of the testimony” further obscure the issue unto oblivion. Likewise, it's never clear what differences (if any) exist between that original religious tradition and the one Moses inaugurated. In many particulars, it actually seems the LORD adapted the Hebrews' extant religious tradition to His own use. Or did the LORD simply change names?

The name Baal means “the Lord.” If “the LORD” is Baal (or Moloch) playing “Wizard of Oz” from behind a curtain (or vail), this would explain why Amos writes, “... we may not make mention of the name of the LORD [Amos 6:10]”: if the context of the LORD’s warning to Moses and “the people” to “make no mention of the name of other gods, neither [to] let it be heard out of [their] mouth [Exodus 23:13]” is understood to be a renunciation by the LORD of the name by which He was formerly known. Perhaps the ‘Holy Bible' is what it reads as: a top- secret Baalite operation, under- cover- of- another.

The problem that arises with acceptance of the covenant made through Moses as faulty is the confusion- inherent- in- making- a- second- covenant with a “God” who can't get it right the “first” time. Appropriately, the anonymous author who claims “that first covenant” was faulty (Hebrews 8:7) provides his own evidences to this effect elsewhere in his own scriptural contribution, if no one else does in their own. For instance, in the tenth chapter of Hebrews, two statements are made which cast the practice of Mosaic law in a carnival light of bloody- vanities- of- vanity.

Hebrews 10:11 reads, “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:” making the lion’s share of Moses' law– the offering of sacrifices for sin– a “vanity of vanities.” Hebrews 10:4 says, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” If– as a solution– blood sacrifice is “not possible”: what kind of “God” requires it as the solution it can never be? Is the offering of “the blood of bulls and of goats” meant as an overture: the intent of which is to ‘inspire’ the children of Israel (through blood- drunkenness) to continue in the already- extant practice of sacrificing another, presumably ‘more efficacious,’ sort of blood?

What will provide The Solution which it is “not possible” for “the blood of bulls and of goats” to provide? the blood of “devotional” human sacrifice? The anonymous writer of Hebrews seems to imply as much when he writes such things as: “13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ… [Hebrews 9:13 & 14]?”

Of the three remedies mentioned, in verse 13 of Hebrews 9 (blood of bulls; blood of goats; ashes of heifer): only one was ever intended to purify the flesh– and it wasn't blood. That which is blood in Hebrews 9:13 is unable to do what it was prescribed to do, according to what this same anonymous writer unequivocally asserts in Hebrews 10:4 & 11. Such confusion “as God” describes a lying wonder. Why make any covenant with such a “God”?

The “sweet psalmist of Israel,” David the son of Jesse, (referred to repeatedly as “the prophet” in New Testament scriptures which quote his “sweet” psalms as The Prophecy of the New Covenant ubiquitously) wrote in terms amenable with those of the anonymous writer of Hebrews' (in the above citations from chapter ten) concerning the vanity of sacrifice- and- burnt- offering.

In the “sweet” psalm (which he allegedly wrote, “when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after [David] had gone in to Bath- Sheba"), David writes, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering [Psalms 51:16].” These two statements concerning sacrifice and burnt offering come from The King of the Jews, presumably at a moment when the consequences of “sin” [a human ‘sacrifice’ named Uriah; and the prophetic, connubial “comfort” David afforded Uriah’s widow, before the ‘devotion’ of her husband upon the altar of the LORD (1 Chronicles 29:23)] weigh with a certain weight upon his mind: and David's cogitations (like those from Hebrews 10 above) indicate the practice of Moses' law is a “vanity of vanities,” inasmuch as the LORD delights not in that which He desires not. Sacrifice and burnt offering are a heaviness to HIM [Hebrews 12:29], according to The King of the Jews.

In chapter eight, the writer of Hebrews figleafs the fooled- me- twice brain- fart of verse seven in the next five verses, citing “the second” covenant (mentioned in verse 7) as the fulfillment of a prophecy from Jeremiah (31:31 - 34) concerning a promised “new covenant.” Hebrews 8:8 & 9 reads:”8 For finding fault with [the people], he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9… because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” 

[The anonymous writer of Hebrews' citation (Hebrews 8:8c - 12) of Jeremiah's prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31 - 34) is mostly a direct quote, the exceptions being: the final word of verse nine, starting at “because…”; and verse 12, which is (like the tail- end of verse 9) a leap- of- imagination from a standing- start on Jeremiah's text. He also quotes a portion of this prophecy from Jeremiah (verses 33 & 34) in Hebrews 10:16 & 17; and it is likewise not a direct quote. (Most of Jeremiah's text is in fact omitted in the text of the latter reference.)]

The LORD’s fingering of “the people” as faulty in Hebrews 8:8 (and Jeremiah 31:32) obviously contradicts the anonymous author of Hebrews’ statement, in verse seven, to the effect that the fault of “that first covenant” was found in the covenant itself. Either the author of Hebrews' assertion of 8:7 that “that first covenant” was faulty (which he supports by putting his own words in the mouth of Jeremiah's LORD) is a lie; or the LORD lied when He put the blame on the people; or both. Maybe Jeremiah's prophecy itself is a lie. Be that as it may: It is worth noting the manner in which the author of Hebrews puts words in the mouth of Jeremiah's LORD (the “author” of “that first covenant”) in supporting his own allegation of fault in “that first covenant.”

“Because…” in verse 9 of Hebrews eight signals the beginning of a personal “insight,” (which the anonymous author of Hebrews credits “the LORD” for) with which the writer of Hebrews figleafs some of, and replaces the rest of, Jeremiah's text to the end of verse 9 (the end of verse 32, in Jeremiah 31); and refers to the allegation of fault levyed against “that first covenant,” in verse seven of Hebrews 8. “That first covenant” was faulty, “because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord,” according to the words the author of Hebrews puts in the mouth of Jeremiah's LORD.

The caveat is that-- while there are clear answers in the ‘Holy Bible' as to who the LORD holds responsible for a given individual’s transgressions; and what the proper response of an individual should be to the perception of “sin” in one's own life (these being the most prominent and pervasive themes in both covenants alliterated in Hebrews): there is no integrity in the Bible’s prescribed remedies to these dilemmas. This is so because both covenants are a diversion from the truth. [For the truth: see Genesis 1:26 - 31.]

While it may be the case that– as per Moses' law– “almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [Hebrews 9:22],” it is no less true that “the LORD” told Ezekiel and other of the prophets: “When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed [which is to say, repents], and doeth that which is lawful and right [which is the same thing], he shall save his soul alive [Ezekiel 18:27].” This is as much as to say, the only reason for sacrifice of any kind is an inability to repent. Goodbye, Jesus Christ and Moses. So much for the proper response of the individual to guilt- awareness.

As to whom the LORD holds responsible for a given individual’s transgressions, again the ‘Holy Bible' is of a double mind. While “the LORD” allegedly said “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth… of them that hate me [Exodus 20:5c & d, et. al.]”: it is also at least as true that Moses said “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin [Deuteronomy 24:16]." [This latter citation from Deuteronomy is later cited, in 2 Kings 14:22, and attributed there to “the LORD.”]

To this latter statement from Moses, Ezekiel says “the LORD” agrees: alleging “the LORD” essentially quoted Moses' pronunciation of Deuteronomy 24:16 in paraphrase, saying “2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb… The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb… 4 Behold, all souls are mine… the soul that sinneth, it shall die [Ezekiel 18:2 - 4].”

It is said Jesus of Nazareth was called “Christ” because he was anointed by God to “rule all nations with a rod of iron [Revelation 12:5, et. al.]”: but the truth is John Baptist and “the people” anointed Jesus of Nazareth; and that as a “gift [Leviticus 17:11 & John 3:16b]” of the altar-- as per the formalities of Moses' law– when Johnny B said of Jesus of Nazareth, “...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world [John 1:29].” John Baptist was, after all, a priest by virtue of birthright; the only son of “a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: [whose] wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth [Luke 1:5].”

Furthermore, Saint Matthew (in his gospel) says of Johnny B– who baptized Jesus of Nazareth– that “Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan… were baptized of [John] in Jordan, confessing their sins [Matthew 3:5 & 6].” While Saint Luke says of John Baptist that his conspiracy to anoint the altar of the LORD with the blood of Jesus of Nazareth included “the people [Luke 3:10]” generally; publicans (Luke 3:12); “and the soldiers likewise [Luke 3:14].” And Saint Mark says of Johnny B, “...all men counted John [Baptist], that he was a prophet indeed [Mark 11:32].”

Therefore– by the authority vested in Johnny B as a priest of “the LORD”–: when John Baptist fingered his cousin, Jesus of Nazareth, as “the Lamb of God”, this pronunciation was in effect the anointing of the offering for sin, “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” as prescribed by Moses in his law concerning the offering of sin offerings for individuals and the congregation (Leviticus 4:15, et. al.).

Conversely, when “Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan… were baptized of [John] in Jordan, confessing their sins [Matthew 3:5 & 6]”: this was tantamount to “Aaron… [laying] both his hands upon the head of the [scapegoat], and [confessing] over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head [Jesus, in this case] of the goat [John the Baptist] [Leviticus 16:21].”

The fact that Jesus of Nazareth's identification by John Baptist as the offering for all sin betrays the endemic, priestly corruption and perversion of the laws of Nature and Moses' law in John Baptist and his Levitical forebears is seemingly never mentioned, to date, by any of the presbytery who, like the anonymous author of Hebrews, unanimously believe the sacrifice of Jesus efficacious to take away the sin of the world. This corruption is, however, immediately apparent in several particulars.

For one: Jesus of Nazareth (whom John Baptist called “the Lamb of God”) was, by all accounts (including his own), of male sex. That is to say, Jesus was a man at the time of his “passion.” This is contradictory to Moses' law concerning sin offerings. Moses wrote, “And if he bring a lamb [i.e.: instead of a bullock or a kid of the goats] for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish [Leviticus 4:32].” This is as much as to say that– if “the Lamb of God” were a human– the cannibals who offered the sacrifice would have better chosen (as per Moses' faulty “first covenant”) the Blessed Virgin rather than her Immaculate Conception, the “Son of Man,” Jesus of Nazareth.

Also (as stated above): the mortal victimization of innocent human beings is itself a sin. Only a pervert would consider murder a remission of sin and not rather “the great transgression [Psalms 19:13]” of presuming upon the life and inheritance of another human being. Sin under pretense of goodly intent is nonetheless sin. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Again: though Jesus of Nazareth is “called the Son of God [Luke 1:35],” by perverts such as the apostles, the angel Gabriel said of Jesus, “32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David [see Psalm 89:38 & 39]: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end [Luke 1:32 & 33].” Stated simply, this means Jesus of Nazareth is the son of David; and his kingdom is forever the house of Jacob. All other claims– including Jesus' own claim to be “the Son of Man”-- are, at best, pretense.

Even were Jesus of Nazareth (as he himself claims) “the Son of Man”; a beastly “Lamb” as John Baptist and his subscribers claim; “the Son of God [Matthew 8:29, et. al.]” as is generally believed by the apostles and their proselytes; and (wonder of wonders) not an “abomination of desolation [Matthew 24:15, et. al.]” as a holy sacrifice: this would still not “take away the sin of the world,” as John Baptist claimed, without the nature of the “taking- away” operation being one of wilfull, voluntary self- damnation by those so taken away. For, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers [Deuteronomy 24:16]”; and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die [Ezekiel 18:4].”

“For every man shall bear his own burden [Galatians 6:5].”

The ‘Holy Bible' is patently double- minded (i.e. schizophrenic) in it's treatment of these two subjects of investigation, et. al: 1) who the party is who is ultimately responsible for a given individual's transgressions; and 2) what the proper reaction of a given individual should be in response to the perception of “sin” in one's own life. The lies written in the selected passage from Hebrews 8 are symptomatic of the duplicitous dualities expressed in respect of these two points of legal doctrine in the canon generally. The symptom (Hebrews 8, in this case) betrays the causative disease.

The implication expressed in Hebrews (et. al.) is that the culmination of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31 - 34-- and all other prophetic promises in the Old Testament canon-- is fulfilled by the cold- blooded murder of Jesus of Nazareth (presumably as an accidental holy sacrament) “by how much also [Jesus] is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises [Hebrews 8:6].”

The problem with this point of view is that the murder of Jesus of Nazareth is really the same old “religious” abomination birthed in Genesis 2, practiced by the sons of Adam in Genesis 4, and regurgitated as something new in the gospels; though it remains what it always was: murder for the sake of subverting the dominion given [Genesis 1:28] to the sons of God.

“This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance [Matthew 21:38, et. al.].”

Inerrant Lie #24

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The apostle “Paul,” (Saul of Tarsus) in his pastoral epistle to Titus, makes a strange statement for a Jew to make, considering Jews believe “the LORD” to be God. By his own admission, in verse 2 of chapter 1, “Paul” writes this epistle: "In the hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." 

In contrast to “Paul's” pastoral declaration to Titus concerning God's presumed limitations (“God… cannot lie”), Jesus of Nazareth purportedly puts no such restrictions on the power or the works of “God.” In verse 26 of the nineteenth chapter of his “Gospel,” the apostle Matthew alleges Jesus said, "with God all things are possible."

The difficulty of grasping anything the ‘Holy Bible' says on the subject of “God” is one never knows whom a given writer refers to “as God,” as it were. Not to mention: one never knows if the scribe who wrote a thing knew who a given speaker (Jesus of Nazareth, for instance) referred to when they spoke of “God.” Whenever the subject of “God” is brought up in “the Doctrine,” it is good counsel to keep the serpent’s riddle in mind: “Yea, hath God said?”

The rub here is that many passages of the 'Holy Bible' clearly declare “the LORD (who obviously– in “light” of the Doctrine– thinks He is God)” does lie. The LORD of the 'Holy Bible' clearly believes He is the only good; and the mutton of His pasture vehemently “Amen!” Him every time He says so. The sheeple of His sanctuary clearly believe the LORD innocent of all guile– even when they read in His ‘Holy Bible' the lies He taught His prophets to pass- on in His “name [Revelation 13:17].”

One of these is found in the first book of Samuel (the Levite prophet, judge, and priest- supplanter of Israel), in the sixteenth chapter. In the first verse of the chapter, the LORD tells Samuel to go to Bethlehem and anoint a new king– while Saul sits as king, having been so anointed as king by Samuel at the LORD’s insistence. When Samuel raises fear- based objection to the mission, the LORD tells him, “Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD [1 Samuel 16:2].”

But Samuel wasn't going to Bethlehem (sister- city to “Gibeah of Saul”) to sacrifice a heifer. Nor was Samuel being sent to Bethlehem to sacrifice a heifer by the Seditonist sending and counseling him to so say and do. Samuel went to Bethlehem with the express, rebellious intent to anoint a new king: in subversion of a current king whom the LORD himself chose to be king. The ways the LORD teaches lies are not always so “direct.”

In Exodus 32:10, the LORD says to Moses, "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against [the children of Israel], and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Thus (according to Moses) the LORD demanded Moses' permission twice in this one, limp- wristed command. Does God require man's permission for anything? Is it not an overt lie for “the LORD” to say He is God while overtly cowing to a man?

In Numbers 14:34, Moses records the LORD saying, "ye shall know my breach of promise;" thus promising to break an earlier promise. In American jurisprudence, this is referred to as, "setting precedent by breaking precedent." In other words: it's divorce. You can't pull on that string without unraveling all "the fine linen [which] is the righteousness of saints [Revelation 19:8c]."

In Genesis 22-- where New Testament writers say soteriology began, "that God,”-- "the angel of the LORD"-- rubber- stamps Abram’s [who was called “Abraham”] desire to murder children (his betters) in sacrifice to “God.” The apostle James says this predilection toward infanticide “justified [James 2:21]” Abram (called “Abraham”); and the apostle “Paul” calls “[Abram]... the father of us all [Romans 4:16].” What kind of “father” prefers murdering his own children at another's insistence above taking responsibility for his own mistakes? [“Abraham” argued for Sodom.]

This is nothing less than seditious false witness against God by the LORD “as God [2 Thessalonians 2:4, et. al.],” who allegedly made the man "not good [Genesis 2:18]," to begin with; and whom, presumably, “Paul” says “cannot lie.” From whom– if not “the LORD [God]”-- did Eve get the false impression it was God (who gave all the trees in the garden to man for food [Genesis 1:29]) who said “Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden [Genesis 3:1, et. al.]?”

In relative terms: If the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) had understood who- and- what God is: perhaps one could say “Paul” told the truth in the second verse of his epistle to Titus. If this were so, however, Jesus of Nazareth would have told a lie when he said “with God all things are possible [Matthew 19:26].” The set of “all things” (to speak in Jesus' mathematical terms) includes lying, after all. Lying is a thing. As it stands, perhaps both Jesus and “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) lied; and just perhaps they both did so knowingly.

Inerrant Lie #23

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The Jews challenged the authority of Jesus of Nazareth with a lie they were taught by Moses to believe, saying to Jesus: "What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, [Moses] gave them bread from heaven to eat [John 6:30 & 31]."

The scripture cited (as “written,” above) by the Jews, in their challenge to Jesus' authority, was penned by Moses, and is found in Exodus. "And Moses said… Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt [Exodus 16:32]." Jesus' response to the Jewry’s challenge is, "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven... [John 6:32e]." Clearly someone lied, somewhere.

Either Moses lied when he said, “I have fed you in the wilderness,” or Jesus of Nazareth lied, when he said, “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven,” or there simply was no manna, and Exodus 16:32 is legendary fable.

It seems far more likely there was no “bread from heaven”-- no sojourn in the wilderness– than to suppose manna from heaven could be the product of Moses' beneficence. Even if Jesus of Nazareth was delusional in believing the exodus narrative: Moses certainly was deluded when he claimed proprietorship of “bread from heaven.”

Inerrant Lie #22

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The anonymous writer of Hebrews, in expounding upon the “greatness” of Melchisedec, writes: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For [Levi] was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him [Hebrews 7:9 & 10]." And as I may so say, sperm swimmers have no loins; much less loins- of- loins- of- Levi. Levi was most certainly not in Abe's loins, at any time. Isaac was a swimmer in Abe's loins. Later, Jacob was a swimmer in Isaac's loins. Even later, Levi was a swimmer in Jacob's loins.

To say Levi was swimming in Abe's loins the day Abe met Melchisedec is to call Jacob's loins Abe's loins. [This reeks of penis- envy.] If a man's loins are not his own, but rather belong to his ancestors and descendants: both Abe's and Melchisec's loins are really Adam's loins, aren't they? Thus, Adam paid homage to himself, what time Abe paid tithes to Melchisedec, by the reasoning of Hebrews' anonymous author. Did Melchisedec's and Abraham's loins “greet each other with an holy kiss?” They met in Sodom [Genesis 14].

This begs the question: Why does no one-- in the scriptures or otherwise-- praise the greatness of Esau, of whom Jacob said, "I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God [Genesis 33:10f & g]," the same day Levi paid tithes and homage to Esau in person– not simply as a swimmer, swimming in a swimmer, swimming in a swimmer, swimming in a patriarch. If the writer of Hebrews' yardstick on Melchisedec’s greatness is valid: Esau must be God.

Inerrant Lie #21

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Moses' and Aaron's (and most likely Miriam's) pedigrees are way- more counterfeit than Barry Obama's birth certificate could dream of being. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (according to the scriptural account supplied by Moses) were of the line of Levi through Kohath, Levi's second of three sons. According to Genesis 46:11 ["And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari."], Kohath and his younger brother Merari were already born when Jacob packed the family on the carts sent to him by Joseph and moved to Egypt.

The man, Amram, whom Moses alleges his father to be, is recorded by Moses in Exodus 6:18 to have been Kohath's first son. This Kohath lived a total of 133 years. "And the sons of Kohath; Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel: and the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred thirty and three years [Exodus 6:18].”

It may safely be assumed Kohath was at least two years old at the time of the move to Egypt, inasmuch as his younger brother was already born when they moved. This allows (by subtraction: [133 years (the entire lifespan of Kohath) minus two years (Kohath’s earliest age upon entry into Egypt)] perhaps as many as 131 years for Kohath to have begotten his sons in Egypt.

However, being as Amram was Kohath’s firstborn of four sons, it's safe enough to assume Amram would have been born at least six years before Kohath's youngest son was born. This, in turn, indicates the very latest date at which Moses' father, Amram, could have been born would have been (131- minus- 6 equals) 125 years into the Egyptian sojourn.

According to Exodus 6:20, Amram lived a total of 137 years. This means that, if Kohath begat Amram (125 years into the Egyptian sojourn) at 131 years old– the latest possible date– and Amram begat Moses the very last year of his life, Moses would have been born (125 + 137 equals) 262 years into the sojourn in Egypt, at the very latest.

Exodus 12:41 says unequivocally, “it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years [total sojourn (verse 40, ibid.)], even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” 430 years (sojourn) minus 262 years (the latest year of sojourn in which Amram would have been able to beget Moses) leaves 168- years- before- the- exodus as the latest possible date at which Moses could have been born, if he were (as he himself alleges) Amram's youngest son.

Exodus 6:20 sheds light on Amram’s wife (Moses', Aaron's, and Miriam’s alleged mother) in a ‘coloring’ fashion. "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years [Exodus 6:20]." Thus, Amram allegedly married his own aunt: the daughter of Levi; sister of Kohath.

Inasmuch as his wife was a generation older than himself, Amram most likely begat all his children before he was fifty. Jochebed would have been in a hurry to bear children, even if Amram wasn't. Nonetheless, even if Amram begat Moses the last year of his life, Moses would be closer to two- hundred than to one- hundred years of age, at the time of the exodus.

We know, from Exodus 12:41, that the sojourn in Egypt was exactly 430 years in duration. And we know that Moses was, by his own account, eighty years old when the children of Israel departed from Egypt, inasmuch as “Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died [Deuteronomy 34:7]” after forty years wandering in the wilderness (120- minus- 40 equals 80).

But if 80 (Moses' age, in years, at exodus) is added to 262 (the absolutely latest year of the Egyptian sojourn in which Moses could have possibly been begotten of Amram), the sum is 342: meaning the pedigree given (by Moses) for Moses and Aaron is impossible by no less than 88 years (342 + 88 equals 430), and most likely much more than this-- well over a hundred years, almost certainly (considering Jochebed was likely substantially older than Amram). 

Miriam's age is never mentioned by Moses, but again: she would have been close to– or exceeding– two- hundred years old at exodus, if she were Amram and Jochebed’s daughter. Whose children were Moses, Aaron, and Miriam?

Inerrant Lie #20

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The writer of Hebrews tells on himself a number of times. His description of "Melchisedec, king of Salem" is one such. In chapter 7, verse 3, the anonymous author of Hebrews describes Melchisedec as being "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God..."

Though this may be somewhat gratuitous, it may nonetheless bear mentioning that, according to the writer of Hebrews: “Our Father which art in heaven" is not Melchisedec's father. He has no father.

Likewise, though even Adam has a mother-- being born of the womb of the Earth-- Melchisedec has no mother, according to Hebrews. He's a motherless bastard.

Considering where “Abraham” (Abram) crossed Melchisedec's path (in company with Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of the Salt Valley -Genesis 14), it's perhaps understandable and self- explanatory as to why Melchisedec had no descendants. Sodomy engenders sorcery, not children. The writer of Hebrews’ assertion that Melchisedec had no descendants means Melchisedec couldn't be God– who already had many sons “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy [Job 38:7];” though Jesus of Nazareth was not yet begotten.

The lie in question comes about when 'Anonymous' says of Melchisedec that, though he had "neither beginning of days, nor end of life," he was nonetheless "made.” While it remains to be seen how many of the things created have an "end of life," absolutely everything "made" has a "beginning of days." Was Melchisedec a figment of his own imagination, or someone else's?

Inerrant Lie #19

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Moses, in making record of the events which transpired in service to the LORD at “the mount of God” (post- exodus) commits a faux pas in describing the reaction of the people to the apocalypse of the ten commandments. "And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off [Exodus 20:18]." This is perhaps trivial, and may ultimately not be a lie so much as a cover- up. However, even a small lie-- if it is a lie-- is a lie. As such, it bears scrutiny.

The lie here is an obvious one: no one sees “thunderings” or “the noise of the trumpet.” These are audible signatures, and are therefore heard-- not seen. This much is simple and unrefutable, prima facie.

As to how this lie may in fact be true: There is a 'seeing' which engages all the senses. As 1 Samuel 9:9 informs: "Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer." Thus, even that which some hear is counted as “vision.”

For the Hebrews to see “thunderings“ and “noise,” however, implies reception of the ten commandments was a “visionary experience” shared among the people generally. In no other way I can think of could hearing be seeing. There is another apocalyptic revelation recorded in the Holy Bible.

In the book of Revelation, the apostle John is treated to a "Come up hither" in which he sees “a throne… in heaven.” John describes the vision thus: "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God [Revelation 4:5]."

Thus, the ”thunderings” and ”voices” which John's “vision” perceived are possibly the same caucophony which filled the seeing of the people what time they “saw” thunderings and the noise of the trumpet. Moses does not, however, record the giving- and- receiving of the ten commandments as in any way mystical or visionary. There is a threat of immediate death (made by “the LORD”)-- to the people– recorded by Moses in both of his accounts of the event.

The caucophony which the people in the wilderness “saw” was of “thunderings” and “the noise of the trumpet.” The caucophony which greeted Saint John the Divine (in the vision he recorded in Revelation 4) was of “thunderings” and “voices.” In both of these visions– assuming they are both visionary experiences, and Exodus 20:18 isn't a lie– “thunderings” are common to both. Where the people see “the noise of the trumpet” Johnny Divine hears “voices;” which isn't as strange as it sounds. It may be the same thing.

Johnny Divine's Revelation begins with “...a great voice, as of a trumpet [Revelation 1:10],” Therefore “the noise of the trumpet” in Exodus could be the “voices” of Revelation 4:5, if John were wont to hear voices as trumpets; or even by transubstantiation. But if Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 describe– to any degree– a shared, common visionary experience: that much of the ‘ten- commandments’ narrative is (or seems to be) altogether lacking in all accounts of it in both testaments.

The anonymous writer of Hebrews, for instance, in describing the same scene Moses captured in Exodus 20:18, makes mention that “the mount… might be touched [Hebrews 12: 18 & 19].” Moses himself characterizes the encounter as a face- to- face between the LORD and the people, saying, “The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire [Deuteronomy 5:4].” The mountain wasn't visionary. “The mount” was Death. Exodus 20:18 reads like a Freudian slip wherein Moses tells on himself by telling a lie he never meant to let slip.

Inerrant Lie #18

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The unknown writer of Hebrews writes: "Though [Jesus of Nazareth] were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered [crucifixion being one such]; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey [Hebrews 5:8 & 9]."

In Hebrews 4:15, the same anonymous author writes of Jesus of Nazareth that he "...was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." If this latter word (which precedes the former, in situ) were true, Jesus wasn't learning obedience (as is asserted in Hebrews 5:8); but rather teaching the same; and Hebrews 5:8 is a lie.

The writer of Hebrews also alleges the suffering (Crucifixion included) inflicted on Jesus was instrumental in making Jesus perfect. Was anyone “made perfect (Hebrews 5:9)” by the things Jesus suffered? Isaiah wrote (presumably of Jesus’ sufferings before Jesus was born), “...with his stripes we are healed [Isaiah 53:5].” But where's the healing when those whose suffering is inflicted on another think the one being afflicted with their own suffering is the one responsible for learning something from the corrective experience?

The apostle Luke says Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children [Luke 23:28]” on the day of his crucifixion. Is that the voice of salvation?

Inerrant Lie #17

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The writer of Hebrews, in euphemizing the cold- blooded murder of Jesus of Nazareth, states: "For it became [God], for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation [Jesus] perfect through sufferings [Hebrews 2:10]." This is perhaps the ”strong delusion” referred to by the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) in the second chapter of his second epistle to the Thessalonians.

Consider this: John 1:1 - 14 states unequivocally that Jesus of Nazareth is “the Word of God.” How could the Word of God ever be imperfect? and why would cursing His own Word perfect either Him, His Word, or His word?

Moses wrote, "for he that is hanged [on a cross, in this case] is accursed of God [Deuteronomy 21:23c]," which “Paul” cites, in his epistle to the Galatians (3:13) as proof that the law and “Christ [Jesus]” are both curses from the same “God.” Why would he who "magnified [His] word above all [His] name" (Psalms 138:2c) need to curse His Word (His “only begotten son”) to perfect that which He who is, presumably, perfect had already esteemed at least as perfect as Himself– if He were perfect?

The truth is, we don't have to look any further than the book of Hebrews, itself, to find the fallacy of Hebrews 2:10. In Hebrews 13:8, the writer of Hebrews definitively opposes his own declaration of 2:10, when he writes, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." For this to be true, in light of 2:10, Jesus of Nazareth would necessarily be eternally- perfected- by- suffering- eternally: like the devils in the lake of fire (which, of course, would render all prevalent wisdom in respect of the entire canon of [Holy Bible] scripture naught- but- delusion); otherwise, Jesus' “perfection” is not bound in any way to temporal qualification, and Hebrews 2:10 is a lie.

Ironically, Jesus- in- the- lake- of- fire- forever isn't as far- fetched an idea as that which prevailing theological wisdom would make of it. Revelation 14 seems to indicate Jesus (referred to as, “the Lamb of God” by his worshippers); his followers; and all their “holy angels” are present in eternal, “fire and brimstone” torment.

“Saint John, the Divine” wrote: “9 And the third angel [of seven] followed [the two preceding] saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name [Revelation 14:9 - 11].” Inasmuch as lambs are beasts, doesn't the above seem to indicate “the Lamb” is “the beast”; or “his image”; or “the mark of his name?” Don't Christians “do all in [the mark or sign of] Jesus' precious name?”

If “the Lamb” isn't “the [accursed] beast” or “his [accursed] image” or “the [accursed] mark of his name”: why is “the Lamb” present in eternal torment of fire and brimstone? Why are “the holy angels” there? Verse 9 of Revelation 14 says the eternal torment “the Lamb” and “the holy angels” are present in (in verse 10) are reserved for the accursed beast and his accursed image and all who worship them and receive “the [accursed] mark of his name”; and this is underscored and punctuated by the text of verse 11.

In Revelation 13, “the beast,” “his image,” and “the mark of his name” are illucidated as the basic tenets of a global government; economy; and religion: all- in- one. The defining characteristics of said church- of- the- beast are worship of the beast’s image and acceptance of “the mark of his name.”

Inasmuch as Jesus of Nazareth purportedly said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do [Matthew 23:2 & 3(a & b)]”: the “token upon [the] hand, and… frontlets between [the] eyes [Exodus 13:16, et. al.]” synonymous with Moses' law could be “the mark of the beast” written of by Johnny Divine in Revelation; and the Spirt- seal written of by “Paul” in his epistle to the Ephesians (1:13). Jesus and his global church answer to “the beast” and his global church in several other particulars.

Revelation 13 says, essentially, the global church of the beast thinks they're the only ones who got religion right: all others “should be killed [v. 15]” for getting it wrong. This is precisely the esteem with which Jews and Christians alike regard themselves. God will kill all others (whether they worship anyone or anything else; or they worship not) in eternal torment of fire and brimstone, they say.

Like the church of the beast, Jesus' global church believes in worship of an image which speaks (Revelation 13:15): the “Word of God”. They worship Jesus, “Who [is] the brightness of [“God's”] glory, and the express image of [“God's”] person [Hebrews 1:3(a & b)],” and speaks “God's” words to them.

According to Christians, Jesus' death on the cross is “[(just)] cause that as many as would not worship [Jesus Christ] should be killed [Revelation 13:15c].” As proof of this life- and- death authority (allegedly vested in the worship of Jesus of Nazareth), the global church of Jesus (as the church of the beast, in Revelation 13) cites his (and the prophets’) miracles (13:14); which makes one narrative of two, inasmuch as the signs attributed to the beast, the image of the beast, and the first beast of Revelation 13 are already fulfilled in the lives and ministries of Jesus and the prophets– before Revelation 13 was written by Johnny Divine.

If Jesus is the image of the beast written of in Revelation, Hebrews 2:10 and 13:8 could both be true, subsequent to 2 Thessalonians 2:11 & 12; but that would change the meaning of “salvation” in Hebrews 2:10 [“... the captain of their salvation…”] to perdition: through the “strong delusion” of 2 Thessalonians.

Since when is perdition salvation? Likewise and however: since when is murder atonement for sin; and not itself sin? Obviously, “the faith of Jesus Christ,” [“here,” in eternal torment of fire and brimstone (in Revelation 14:12)] is a “strong delusion” which runs contrary to the truth. As such, Hebrews 2:10 and 13:8 might be true- to- the- delusion, without being true.

“11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion [“JESUS”], that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness [such as murdering innocent victims (2 Thessalonians 2:11 & 12)].”

Inerrant Lie #16

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

In his second pastoral epistle to Timothy, Paul writes: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works [2 Timothy 3:16 & 17]." This is, undoubtedly, the most- often- cited source material used to back the so- called "infallibility doctrine" or "Chicago Statement” concerning scripture. It is also a lie.

According to Jesus of Nazareth, not all scripture is inspired by God. Some scripture is inspired by the hardness of men’s hearts, Sweet Jesus says. For instance; Moses wrote: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house [Deuteronomy 24:1]." Of this scripture, Jesus said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so [Matthew 19:8]." Hardness in the heart of a man is not divine inspiration.

Moses isn't the only one whose perceived infallabillity Jesus blew to smithereens with his ‘God- gun’ of “dark sayings.” Speaking of all the patriarchs and their children, Jesus said, "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers… [John 10:8]." I guess they're just like Jesus and his father that way.

Inerrant Lie #15

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The apostle Luke records the ‘conversion’ of the apostle Paul, as it occurred on the road to Damascus, in Acts 9. Of this encounter, it is recorded: "And the men which journeyed with [Paul] stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man [Acts 9:7]."

Years later, Paul recounts this same encounter on the road to Damascus for the benefit of the Jews at Jerusalem. This recount of the matter is likewise recorded by the apostle Luke in the book of Acts. In Acts 22:9, Luke records Paul the apostle telling the Jews, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

It's arguable whether or not there was any "man" for Paul's companions to see, as per Acts 9:7. After all, Paul himself was blinded by the light of the one who spoke with him on the road to Damascus. Therefore the vision of Paul's companions in Acts 22:9 could well be– as Paul's was– their blindness in Acts 9:7.

Hearing, however, is not seeing. While one may be blinded by what one sees; and likewise deafened by what one hears; still hearing is more of an all- or- nothing proposition, inasmuch as the report that deafens is certainly heard: while the light that blinds obscures its own source from the view of those so blinded by it's brilliance. Therefore, the hearing of Paul's companions in Acts 9 cannot be equated with their deafness in Acts 22 without a corresponding loss of integrity: either in the manuscript; in its author; in its translation; in the One some credit for every word written in it; in the perceived veracity of those who claim the absolute integrity of the document; in the subject matter covered therein; or even in all of the above.

Is the hearing of-- or deafness to-- the words of “the word of God” a small matter? If so: why should anyone, including Paul and Luke, have invested fortunes and hazarded life- and- limb bringing the hearing thereof to the otherwise uninitiated? Either way: even a small lie is a lie.

Inerrant Lie #14

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

In Acts chapter 7, Stephen ["a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost" -Acts 6:5] says of Abraham: "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell [Acts 7:4]." This does not agree with Moses' account, recorded in Genesis.

Genesis 11:26 says, "Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram [a.k.a. Abraham], Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot." Accordingly, it is 'understood' that Abram was Terah's firstborn, inasmuch as Abram is first mentioned.

Verse 32 of Genesis 11 says, "the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran [a.k.a. "Charran," above]." Genesis 12:4 goes on to say, "Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran."

It's simple math: Terah begat Abram when he was seventy years old; Abram left his father Terah's household at the not- so- tender age of seventy- five years. Seventy plus seventy- five makes Terah one- hundred forty- five years old at Abe's departure for Canaan: sixty years shy of Terah's passing at two- hundred five years of age. Like it or not, either Moses or Stephen lied about what time of Abraham's life he finally left his father Terah’s household… if they both didn't.

Inerrant Lie #13

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The rockers Slipknot (in their song, ‘Snuff,’) say "angels lie to keep control [or is it "cunt- roll?" “cunt- troll," perhaps?]." The anonymous writer of Hebrews likewise implies angels lie, saying: "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast... [Hebrews 2:2a]."

“The apostle Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) volunteers indictments against angels' lies in more than one of his epistles. To the Colossians, “Paul” writes, "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels... [Colossians 2:18a]," while, to the Corinthians, he warns of false apostles, saying: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light [2 Corinthians 11:14]." To the Galatians, “Paul” writes, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [Galatians 1:8].”

Whether or not it's a true statement that “angels lie” might depend on what the one speaking or writing the statement calls an “angel.” In the canon of the 'Holy Bible', it certainly seems scribes lie to keep their kings enthroned: and that more often and more resolutely than angels lie to keep scribes confused.

Luke says the angel "Gabriel" told the Blessed Virgin, (of the child which she should bear): "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David [Luke 1:32]." Laying aside the obvious red- herring, "his father David,": Let's take a look at the business- end of "the throne" in question.

1 Chronicles 29:23 says of Davey's throne: "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father..." meaning: either Gabriel lied [i.e. David's throne is “the throne of the LORD”; not David's throne]; or David (”the King of the Jews”) and his scribe presumed (or, “took a big, steaming shit,” in contemporary jargon) upon someone else's throne in telling the above lie from First Chronicles.

According to Gabriel (and the canon generally): it is the scribe of First Chronicles (and his king) who lied about David's throne. This presumption upon the throne of the LORD is implied by Gabriel’s word that “JESUS,” the “son of David,” shall be called “the Son of the Highest.” In fact, only in 1 Chronicles 29:23 is Davey's throne referred to as “the throne of the LORD.” It is, however, recorded generally in the scriptures that Davey preferred to be referred to by the following simile: “as an angel of God” (i.e. the LORD).

Psalm 89 says, in effect, that what the angel Gabriel indicated (in the things he told the Blessed Virgin) was that Jesus’ throne (i.e. “the throne of his father David”) is one of infamous shame; not of glory or honor. More to the point, perhaps, Psalm 89 says particularly, “Thou hast made [David's] glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground… thou hast covered him with shame. Selah [Psalms 89:44 & 45].”

In light of Psalm 89: how– besides by presumption– could the throne David and his son Solomon sat on be “the throne of the LORD,” as the scribe of First Chronicles calls it? If it were, the LORD would have cast His own throne down, according to the psalmist who wrote Psalm 89. That would mean the LORD abhorred His own throne what time He put David in it: something which is contrary to the entire canon.

Inerrant Lie #12

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

In Philippians 2:6, the apostle Paul writes of Jesus of Nazareth that he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This is a lie. Besides being a regurgitation of a deadly accusation laid on Jesus (by the Jews) during his alleged earthly ministry: it is also contrary to Paul's own testimony elsewhere.

In his gospel, John the Divine records, "the Jews sought the more to kill [Jesus], because he... said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God [John 5:18]." In verse 41 of John's eighth chapter, we find the significance of this little word "also" in the preceding citation: "Then said [the Jews] to him, we be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Thus, it was the Jews who, by their own barometer, made themselves equal with God.

Later, when they finally 'believed in' Jesus, the disciples (Jews themselves) made Jesus of Nazareth equal with God. "And Thomas answered and said [of Jesus], My Lord and my God [John 20:28]."

It is again recorded in John's gospel specifically (as in all gospels generally) that Jesus certainly did not consider himself equal with God. In John 14:28, it is written Jesus said to his disciples, "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." This indicates subjection; not equality.

If Jesus of Nazareth were– in his own esteem of himself– equal with God, his passion would have been (in his own esteem of it) a collaboration or cooperation with God; not obedience to God; and there would have been no reason for him to say, "...nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt [Matthew 26:39b et. al.]." Therefore, it is a lie to say (as Paul, in Philippians 2:6) that Jesus "thought it not robbery [for himself; much less anyone else] to be equal with God."

Paul himself makes Jesus of Nazareth out as delusional (in light of Philippians 2:6) when he writes, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, (15:27): “For [God] hath put all things under [Jesus’] feet. But when [David (Psalms 8:6)] saith, all things are put under [Jesus], it is manifest that [God] is excepted, which did put all things under [Jesus].” Furthermore, Paul goes on to say, “And when all things shall be subdued unto [God], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto [God] that put all things under him, that God may be all in all [1 Corinthians 15:28].” Clearly Paul doesn't esteem Jesus equal to God.

In the final chapter of the last book of the canon, Paul's 'equality fib' is even more clearly denounced for the fabrication it is. In Revelation, John the Divine writes: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel [“I Jesus,” verse 16] which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God [Revelation 22:8 & 9]."

Notice how John says the entity speaking with him is an angel, in spite of the fact that the same entity identifies himself (in verse 16) not as an angel but as "I Jesus" (who John should be capable of identifying via facial recognition, being an “apostle” of Jesus’): as if John is conspiring, at least somewhat, with the other disciples in projecting a delusion of Jesus as God-- in direct contradiction of Jesus' own testimony– on us all. At any rate, here in the final word of 'the word of God', we have one last parting shot of Jesus warning us all: "See thou [worship me] not... worship God.": clearly delineating a difference in status between himself and God.

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me [Deuteronomy 5:7]": not even Jesus Christ, whether the “Man from Galilee’ is a real quantity or a figment of imagination.

Inerrant Lie #11

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word”:

Moses, like Abraham before him, doubted the LORD’s veracity. Moses' doubt is immediately apparent in at least two places in the Pentateuch Moses penned. The first is found in the book of Numbers, upon occasion of Hobab's (Moses' Midianite brother in law) intended return to Midian.

Moses is chagrined by Hobab's proposed departure, and pleads with him, "Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou mayest be to us instead of eyes [Numbers 10:31]." This may seem sensible enough, at first blush, but in light of Moses' frank admission, two verses later, that the LORD is his navigator, it quickly becomes a mark of incredulity: "And they departed from the mount of the LORD three days' journey: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them [Numbers 10:33]."

Also recorded in Numbers: Moses exhorts the twelve spies he sent into the promised land-- three times (in outlining their mission prerogatives)-- to see the land; which the LORD had already told him was a good land, ("one flowing with milk and honey"): "what it is;... whether it be good or bad;... whether it be fat or lean [Numbers 13:18, 19 & 20]." Ironically, he tells a lie when he explains his reasons for sending the spies in.

In Numbers, Moses says it was the LORD's idea to send spies in: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them [Numbers 13:1 & 2]." In Moses' final recorded oration before the children of Israel, he says otherwise.

In Deuteronomy, Moses claims it was the people's counsel which compelled the surreptitious mission: "And ye came near unto me every one of you, and said, We will send men before us, and they shall search us out the land, and bring us word again by what way we must go up, and into what cities we shall come [Deuteronomy 1:22 & 23]." Perhaps he simply forgot which lie he'd already told about the event, and accidentally told the truth in Deuteronomy. Either way, one of these versions of the tale is a lie if they both aren't.

Inerrant Lie #10

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Moses, in relating the tale of Joseph's being sold as human traffic by his brothers, mentions two families of the children of Abraham's concubine wives (Hagar and Keturah): Ishmael and Midian, respectively.

In Genesis 37:27 (after the sons of Israel had cast Joseph into a pit to secure him while they brainstormed how best to murder him), Judah, pondering the traffic passing their location, comes up with a devious plot to wash his and his brothers' hands of Joseph's blood, saying: "Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh." With Judah’s ‘wonderful counsel’, all his brothers (except Reuben, who was ‘pinching- off a loaf’ elsewhere, and Joseph, who was perhaps following Reuben's lead) were content.

Human trafficking was apparently-- even in those primitive days-- always a tricky business, judging by the convoluted nature of the next verse. But as near as I can make out, Joseph's brothers (likely feigning impoverishment of rope and no knowledge of who Joseph was) pointed him and the aforementioned passing Ishmeelites out to some Midianites, who were also passing by that way; probably suggesting to the Midianites that there was money to be made: 'if only they had rope to pull poor Joe up out of the pit before he died of thirst, starvation, or both.'

My guess is: Joe's bros made no money on the transaction, and are therefore not counted by Moses (who wrote Genesis) as responsible for Joeseph's sale in Egypt; though Moses does credit both of Abe's un- covenanted- though- circumcised, participatory families with the same, in an oddly dissimulating way.

In Genesis 37:36, Moses writes, "And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard." This makes it seem the Ishmeelites were, frankly, uninvolved. Two chapters later, however, Moses changes his story, making it seem the Midianites were uninvolved. "And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither [Genesis 39:1].”

I don't know which of these explanations is the lie. Obviously one of them is, if both aren't. [It was, after all, Joe's brothers who were ultimately responsible.] However Joe got to Egypt, whether compliments of the Midianites or of the Ishmeelites: it was (through the common patriarch Abraham) family business– from ‘sold- out’ to "Sold!"-- that expedited Joseph's sale to the Egyptians. Moses, who-- according to “the Word of God”-- is ‘the accuser of his brethren [John 5:45]’, said so.

Inerrant Lie #9

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Genesis 32:30 says, "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved;" the obvious lie, here, being Jacob's claim that the man he wrestled with all night was God.

The backstory, here, concerns Jacob's return to Canaan: after his sojourn in Syria with the 'kissing cousins.' During his stay in Syria, Jake demonstrated his proficiency in sex- magic (in ‘stealing’ Laban's flock by utility of "rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree [Genesis 30:37, et. al.]," with which he presumably controlled which livestock would bear offspring with proper markings and which ones would produce aesthetically less- desirable calves) among other things.

Jake had absconded to Syria in fear of his twin brother, Esau, after supplanting Esau one- too- many times: at which time Esau swore to kill Jacob for his devilishness. So, it was with some trepidation that Jake returned; even though he'd been gone for twenty years. On the night before the day in which he and Esau were reunited, "there wrestled a man with [Jake] until the breaking of the day [Genesis 32:24]."

During the "wrestling" match, Jake's thigh is set "out of joint" by the one "wrestling" with him 'touching' it. (Who was trying to rape whom? I am compelled to wonder.) At any rate, Jake is led to believe he's had the mastery of his opponent when the man "wrestling" with him says, "Let me go, for the day breaketh [Genesis 32:26]." Likewise, Jake is led to believe this combative man is God, when the man says, "as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed [Genesis 32:28]."

Later in the same day, when he and Esau ‘kiss and make- up’, Jake worships Esau as God (whom he claims to have "wrestled" with all night), saying, "I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me [Genesis 33:10]." (Kissy- kiss.) All these things notwithstanding, the thing Jake "wrestled" with all night was clearly not God.

God is not-- unlike sorcerers "wrestling" with the dead ancestors of other peoples' families-- afraid of the light God created. God can wrestle in the daylight. God can kill you or do anything else God wants to do to you without touching you. God can talk you to death. "And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh [Revelation 19:21]." It's unadulterated, wilfull obfuscation to call a man afraid of daybreak "God."

Inerrant Lie #8

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Moses begins Genesis 12 by telling us the next- to- last- verse of chapter 11 is a frank admission that Abram did not do what he was told to. That is to say, Moses (in Genesis 12:1) tells on his own lie three verses later. Genesis 12:1: "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee."

In chapter 11 it's admitted that not only did Abram not leave anyone behind: he went forth with his father's house (at his father's insistence); with his kin (his “brother,” cousin Lot); and "with [his country] them from Ur of the Chaldees [Genesis 11:31];” dispersing with them (at their insistence) in the confusion about Babel. Abram was told by the LORD (12:1, above) to go alone. Instead, he left Chaldea as one more frightened cow in a confused, stampeding herd.

Yet-- and here's the whopper-- in verse 4 of Genesis 12, Moses writes, "So Abram departed [Haran, an untold number of years later], as the LORD had spoken unto him;" and immediately tells on his own lie by continuing: "...and Lot went with him... " He did not do anything "as the LORD had spoken unto him." He did not leave his father. His father left Chaldea with him. He did not leave Ur. He and his father's house went with the city of Ur, what time they departed from Chaldea.

He did leave his father in Haran (Genesis 12:4, above) sixty years before the death of his father, but as Moses readily affirms, in 12:4, and et. al., through chapter 19 of Genesis: when Abe left his father in Haran, he still took his father's house with him in the person of Lot. It is true that he eventually arrived and settled somewhere other than the land of the Chaldees, but given the fact that he didn't go as prescribed, who's to say he landed where he would have had he gone as he was told to?

It also seems abundantly clear he didn't go when he was told to go, instead waiting to leave Chaldea until it was his father's idea to join the Ur wagon train: meaning it was the Chaldeans’ idea to leave Chaldea behind which finally got Abram out of Chaldea. Had he gone when- and- as- he was told to, perhaps he would have fathered a family of truly great nations: the American Indian. Who knows? Jews aren't the only Semites, as they seem to believe they are, at any rate.

Either way, Moses told a lie in Genesis 12:4, if everything else he wrote about Abe wasn't a lie.

Inerrant Lie #7

Another lie from "God's ineffable, Inerrant word":

This one is found in Numbers.Verse 7 of chapter 31 says, "And [the children of Israel] warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males." This explicitly describes a holocaust of consecration. There is no “seed” left to the house of Midian, minus the male loins necessary to produce it. Yet the Midianites show back up-- in power-- years later.

As Judges 6 records, "the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel: and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strong holds [Judges 6:2]."

From the Midianites they were saved by Gideon and his three hundred, as Judges 8:22 affirms, saying, "Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian." How could the children of Israel be saved from a nation which officially doesn't exist, as per Numbers 31:7 (above)?

Obviously Moses' scribe lied when recording the 'killing of all the males of Midian' in Numbers 31. This should come as no surprise, considering that, for Moses, killing all the males of Midian would have required the execution of his own father- in- law, the priest of Midian [Exodus 18:1], and Moses’ mentor in all things “holy.”

Inerrant Lie #6

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

This lie occurs in regards to the calling of the apostles Andrew and Peter into Jesus' discipleship.

Matthew 4:18- 20 recounts their calling this way: "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him."

Mark 1:16- 20 records the event exactly as Matthew 4; while Luke 5:1- 11 records the event similarly only inasmuch as Luke says it occurred near water, ships, and nets: though all other particulars-- including the name by which the body of water where it occurred is referred to; what the brothers were doing with the nets; and the roll the ships played-- are completely otherwise: according to Luke.

John (the Divine; not the Baptist) on the other hand, records the event thusly: "Again the next day after John [the Baptist] stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples [of John Baptist] heard him speak, and they followed Jesus... One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ [John 1:35- 37, 40, & 41]."

Clearly, at least one of these gospels is lying, if they all aren't.

Inerrant Lie #5

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Psalm 51 is sub- titled "A psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bath- Sheba." Notice two things: this psalm is written not only after Davey's adulterous fling with Bath- Sheba and the subsequent murder of Uriah the Hittite; but also after the LORD sent Nathan to reprove and curse him for his indiscretion.

The lie occurs in the beginning of verse 4. Davey writes, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight..." The rest of the verse is sheer lunacy. To be sure, Davey's disgraceful behavior "graced" more than God only.

Bath- Sheba was humbled by her king (2 Samuel 11:4). Uriah-- one of Davey's thirty mightiest-- was murdered by his king. Joab-- whom Davey was ever- fond of cursing for doing his job as general of Davey's army-- was compelled to commit cold- blooded, premeditated murder on behalf of the king who cursed him as a murderer (those times when Joab killed scoundrels for justice and the kingdom's sake). Though, in this case, Davey blessed Joab for murdering a better man than his strange, sweet king.

Also, the messenger who brought the "sweet psalmist of Israel" word of Uriah's demise from Joab on the front line was clued- in to Davey's treachery by Joab (2 Samuel 11:19- 21). Then, of course, there was Nathan who was tasked with rebuking and cursing his king (2 Samuel 12:1- 10): obviously he was clued- in by someone. 

And these are only some of the witnesses the scribes recorded as such. [They may have known of more than their pens told of-- as is often the case in courts, like Davey's, where messengers are too- often killed for doing their job.]

So it's a bald- faced lie when the King of the Jews so addresses God in Psalm 51: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight..." The caveat is: How could “God's word” begin to be inerrant without allowing false prophets like Davey to lie for the sake of posterity and our understanding of the adversary? As the rock 'n' roll prophets say, "Know your enemy."

Inerrant Lie #4

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Peter, James, and John really 'understood' a lie, according to Matthew. In the seventeenth chapter of his gospel, Matthew records an event that 'trannies’ and Christians everywhere refer to as 'The Mount of Transfiguration'. Jesus went up “an high mountain apart,” with Peter, James, and John. [69 × 2 = 138 (or 2²).]

While they were “in” the mountain, “there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him [Matthew 17:3].” At some point, Peter (like a Vatican penis- worshipper shaking his money- maker), holds forth on tabernacles and why the sight requires three. “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him [Matthew 17:4].”

Matthew says Jimmy, his one- ball- Peter, and they're thunderballs- brick- shithouse- Brother (John the Divine) messed in their man- panties and faceplanted at the sound of this “voice” out of the cloud. “Jesus came” and “touched them” and whispered sweet nothings in their ears until they got up, at which time, “they saw no man, save Jesus only.”

After taking encouragement enough to rise up out of their “front- lean- and- faceplant positions,” the disciples present query Jesus: “Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?” This question indicates the disciples understood one thing: that the voice out of the cloud indicated Jesus was all three (Moses, Elias, and Jesus). Jesus answers: “That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them [Matthew 17:12b - d]."

The lie-- appropriately, from a numerological standpoint-- comes in verse 13; where Matthew says, "Then the disciples understood that he [Jesus, presumably, but maybe the voice in the cloud] spake unto them of John the Baptist." The lie is that “the disciples understood.” “Sweet Geezus” wasn't speaking about Johnny B any more than the voice- in- the- cloud was.

As previously stated: the math, here, is simple [69 × 2 = 2 pairs]. Did John Baptist come down from heaven? Did Jesus? If you can answer that controversy correctly, then you already know who Elias is. Jesus said, "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven [John 3:13]." Elias “ascended up to heaven” in “a chariot of fire,” with “horses of fire [2 Kings 2]”; “came down from heaven” as a newborn baby “Jesus”; and was “received” into a cloud out of sight [Acts 1:9].

Inerrant Lie #3

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

In 2 Samuel 24:24, king David buys the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite (the “stranger,” that is to say) for "fifty shekels of silver."

In 1 Chronicles 21:25, the same transaction is accounted at "six hundred shekels of gold," though the name of the “stranger” (the Jebusite, that is to say) from whom he bought it is changed to protect his 'stranger' innocence.

One of these scribes is lying, if both aren't. Fifty shekels of silver do not make six hundred shekels of gold-- without "balances of deceit [Hosea 12:7b]" in someone's hand. The question is: who's being defrauded? God? God's people? both?

After all, this same threshingfloor became the site of the [golden- calf-] temple Solomon later built to the name of the LORD Davey's [central- bank-] “God”; and Davey states unequivocally, in 2 Samuel 24:24, that the LORD's things are Davey's money [Mark 12:17, et. al.]. Therefore, to Inflate the size of the sweet psalmist's contribution to 'The Sacrifice On Moriah' [Genesis 22:2; Revelation 11:8] is to inflate Davey's esteem and self- esteem as a servant of the “God” who loves human meat on the altar: especially that of His only- beloved, only begotten Son (of Man).

Lovingly referred to generally in the New Testament canon as “the prophet,” for his psalms, king David– killer of messengers– has never been spoken “ill” of in my ears, unless it was my tongue wagging.

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." - Luke 6:26

Inerrant Lie #2

Another lie from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

Are there lies in "God's inerrant word?" Considering the uberfascist, Christ- murdering “thieves and robbers” who wrote it, would it be "inerrant" if there were none? You don't expect the Devil to tell the truth, do you? Why would his children [John 8:44 & 56] be more truthful than he? Isn't it far more likely the children of the Devil are less- truthful than their father?

For instance, an "angel of the Lord [Genesis 22:2]," lies in calling Isaac "[Abe's] only son," a lie retold in Hebrews 11:17 where the writer thereof calls him Abe's "only begotten son," at once rendering the lie more messianic and more laughable than the angel's deception in Genesis.

Isaac was not Abe's only son. Isaac was Sarah's only son. Ishmael (Abe's firstborn by Hagar, his second wife) was thirteen years old when Isaac was born of Sarah, Abe's first wife. Ishmael was not only born before Isaac: he was also circumcised before Isaac was born. It's just patently false to say Isaac was Abe's only son, yet "God's ineffable, inerrant word" does so twice. That's an adamant lie. From "'God's' ineffable, inerrant word."

Was Abe “dragged- out” in Sarah's dress, jewels, and do- me pumps when "that God" made his Crucify- Your- Christ- on-  Calvary deal with “the father of us all?” That would explain everything in Genesis 22.