Inerrant Lie #40

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

While the children of Israel are the subject of the "song of Moses [Revelation 15:3a]": it is addressed to the heavens and the earth [Deuteronomy 32:1]; not to the children of Israel. Therefore the subject of this song-- the children of Israel-- are referred to as "they"; instead of the customary "we," "us," etc. by which the tribes of Jacob are usually referred to in scripture, and especially in prophecy.

This is not to say that-- for instance-- when Nahum addresses his prophecy to the city of Nineveh, the LORD isn't actually speaking of Jewry in the same prophecy. The Jews are an exceptionally racist people, after all. It's therefore no wonder if the LORD keys on their exceeding race- based megalomania in the same way they do: by making even those things 'all about them' which ostensibly have nothing to do with them at all. Compare, for instance, Nahum's word about Nineveh's "wicked counsellor" ["There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counseller.... I will make thy grave; for thou art vile (Nahum 1:11 & 14d & e)];" and the historical record of Moses' demise [Deuteronomy 34:4 - 6]. This is one of the meanings of the "multiplied visions" and "similitudes" spoken of by the LORD in Hosea 12:10. It truly is 'all about the Jews,' in the Book of books they wrote. They're peculiarly special, you know.

At any rate, the song of Moses reveals that Paul's "spiritual Rock [1 Corinthians 10:4]" is not the cornerstone of the house of Israel, saying: "For their rock is not as our Rock even our enemies themselves being judges [Deuteronomy 32:31]." So what kind of rock did the children of Israel choose to build their house on? The answer is: a mineral rock; essentially a cow- lick. As their 'greatest of prophets,' John Baptist said: "he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth [John 3:31b & c]."

Psalms 125:1 identifies the everlasting rock of the children of Israel's security thus: "They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth forever." Therefore, the cornerstone of their house is-- according to scripture-- the mountain Abe attempted to murder Isaac upon [Genesis 22:2 & 2 Chronicles 3:1]; the home of Melchisedec [Palms 76:2], who blessed Abe for 'saving' those exceeding wicked cities in the vale of Siddim [Genesis 14:18 - 20]; the mountain upon which the Jews murdered their sacrifices and sacrificed their abominations [Isaiah 66:3] in the temple built to "the name of the LORD [2 Chronicles 2:4a]" Solomon [John 10:23, et. al.]; the high place of Baal [Jeremiah 19:5] above the city of Baal [2 Samuel 6:2]; in a word, the 'bloody rock [Ezekiel 24:7 & 8]' of their 'menstruous [Ezekiel 36:17]' 'righteousness [Revelation 17:6].' It is a lie that this 'rock' "cannot be removed."

In the course of that visitation of Jerusalem which ended in his murder, Jesus cursed a barren fig tree, and when the disciples saw how quickly the accursed tree withered away, they marvelled and remarked upon the suddenness of its demise. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done unto the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done [Matthew 21:21]." This is also recorded in the eleventh chapter of Mark's gospel in nearly identical fashion; with the one major difference being that Mark says this occurred over the course of two mornings, while Matthew seems to imply it was a single- morning event. We know which mountain he so spoke of inasmuch as this was done and said "in the morning as he returned into the city [of Jerusalem (Matthew 21:18a & Mark 11:12)]."

Likewise we know that if it weren't God's will to destroy that mountain, it would not be possible for it to be so destroyed: no matter who petitioned God for its destruction. As John states it: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him [1 John 5:14 & 15]." Therefore we know that it is actually God's will to prove Psalms 125:1b a lie. Either that or Jesus told a lie; or Matthew and Mark put a lie in Jesus' mouth. My bet is that the lie is to be found in the pen of the psalmist. God's will be done.

Inerrant Lie #39

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

As covered in 'Lie #6,' there's no small discombobulation between the various gospel accounts concerning the particulars of Peter and Andrew's call to join Jesus' ministry. According to Mark, however, one of the first things that happened upon their joining Jesus' 'Traveling Tentless Revival and Faith Healing Spectacular' was a Sabbath- day healing in a synagogue in Capernaum.

Mark says that in that synagogue was "a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God [Mark 1:23 & 24]." This sort of thing occurred a lot with the spirits of the 'unclean.' They were always identifying Jesus 'correctly,' (presumably).

Some time later in Jesus' three- year public ministry, as Jesus and 'The Dirty Dozen' were entering Caesarea Philippi to preach and heal there, Jesus asked the disciples "But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ [Mark 8:29b - 30]." Matthew says Peter added to this ejaculation, "...the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16c]." Jesus' response to Pete's 'confession' is likewise recorded disparately from one gospel to another; but Matthew says Jesus said to Pete, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven [Matthew 16:17b - d]." Mark simply records that he told them to-- like 'unclean spirits'-- keep their mouths shut about this; to which Matthew concurs.

In comparison one with another, these things don't seem sensible. If it was the Father who revealed to Pete who Christ was: who revealed Jesus' identity to the many unclean spirits he cast out in the presence of Peter and the disciples? Paul adds mud to this already- murky stream, in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

Paul writes to the Corinthians: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost [1 Corinthians 12:3]." The first part of this verse I find credible. It's the last part that has my head spinning. Let's take it in order.

The first part of 1 Corinthians 12:3 amounts to a frank admission-- and this from a Jew (wonder of wonders)-- that Moses spake not by the Spirit of God. After all, it was Moses-- whose disciples demanded Christ be crucified-- who said, "...(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) [Deuteronomy 21:23c]." This altogether harmonizes with my cognition of Moses. As each are represented in scripture: Moses lies more than the Devil. Nonetheless, this does beg the question: why-- with this in mind-- would Paul believe Moses?

In his epistle to the church in Galatia, which begins with a curse doubled [Galatians 1:8 & 9], Paul writes: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree [Galatians 3:13]:" so what spirit is the epistle to the Galatians written in? "...no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed [1 Corinthians 12:3b]," after all.

The second part of 1 Corinthians 12:3 ["no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost"], however, is a different story. It tells on someone else's lies-- someone other than Moses, that is. The only question is: whose? Is it purely a Pauline fabrication? Did Jesus cast the Holy Ghost out of those 'afflicted' with it to keep his identity obscured? Is the Holy Ghost an 'unclean spirit' as far as the apostles who wrote the gospels are concerned? Or did the apostles altogether lie about these things and more for their own Jewish reasons which I can't begin to imagine? Either way, if at least the latter half of 1 Corinthians 12:3 isn't a lie, it certainly tells on a number of them.

Inerrant Lie #38

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

Man, in his own estimation of himself, is 'the measure of all things.' While this is not necessarily untrue, the manner in which this philosophy is understood and acted upon is oftentimes disingenuous. Just because man is 'the measure of all things' doesn't mean all things but man are mean or unnecessary. To disdain all lesser things is definitively ungodly.

Once upon a time, man was greatly chagrined to find the earth-- and therefore, by default, he-- is not the center of the universe, and that God's creation clock isn't delimited to man's twenty- four hour convenience. For these disillusionments (among others), he has-- to no small extent-- despised science, and God, ever since. "Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity [Psalms 39:5d]."

This tendency to make more of man than he in fact is also applies to what is commonly referred to as 'hero worship.' We observe this phenomenon often in relation to the overly- high esteem some have of the prophets and the apostles who were, after all, only men. Some-- like Paul in Philippians 2:6-- make more of Jesus of Nazareth than he made of himself. It's a sort of disease peculiar to humanity, it seems. "Always root for the home team," some say. If they only knew how to stay home instead of wandering like a bird with the palsy [Proverbs 27:8], this indiosyncrasy might be charming.

Paul exposes his 'manly' vanity in more instances than the one in Philippians, mentioned above. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he writes to them: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope [1 Corinthians 9:9 & 10]."

No doubt: this is a 'nice sentiment'; but it's simply not true. I think God must be a cowboy, at heart. God does deeply care-- and take care-- for oxen. If he who made the heart of a man cared not for cattle: man's egomania would be well- warranted-- to the point of all- out, open rebellion against God. The beeves are some of his most noble creations. I never knew what a mother's love really looked like until I was allowed to candidly observe the behavior of cows with their calves. There's nothing feigned about that affection. And for simple, clean industrial power, it's nearly impossible to beat a 2,500- pound bull. Before John Deere and Caterpillar, it was the ox that moved the mountains.

If God cares not for cattle, why is "cattle" the last word in the book of Jonah? "Then said the LORD [to Jonah], Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle [Jonah 4:10 & 11]?"

The final chapter of Isaiah's prophecy likewise refutes this vain notion of Paul's that 'God cares not for the oxen.' Verse 3(a) of Isaiah 66, reads: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man..." In my Bible, "is as if" is italicized: meaning these words weren't in the original manuscript which the King James translators worked from; and they thought the sense of the text required the addition of these words to be properly expressed. Thus, the original read, "He that killeth an ox-- he slew a man..." So Moses' 'facelift' on Cain's murderous 'sacrament' ultimately makes no difference. Blood- guilt is blood- guilt.

In fact-- according to the Doctrine-- Paul's insistence that 'God cares not for the oxen' is tantamount to calling God "that wicked one [1 John 3:12]" who 'gave' Cain to the world. Proverbs 12:10 says, "A righteous man regardeth [i.e. 'taketh care for'] the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Is God not righteous? I say he is; and Paul is not the center of the universe. God loves the beeves, and those who waste them [Hebrews 10:4] in copious 'sacrifices' to a God who doesn't eat such meat [John 4:32] will get the baptism of fire spoken of in Isaiah 66:15 & 16 and Revelation 18:8, et. al.

Considering how God cares for the oxen: How shall those who murdered his only begotten son-- and all others who say it was necessary to do so-- be judged for their egomania? Is this the 'inconvenient truth' Paul attempts to 'fig- leaf' in 1 Corinthians 9:9 & 10? Buffalo shibboleths is all it means to me.

Inerrant Lie #37

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

The apostle Matthew-- who, in his gospel, calls Jesus "the son of David [Matthew 1:1b]"; not the Son of God, or even the Son of man-- says Jesus told a lie.

In the twenty- third chapter of his gospel, Matthew alleges: "1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not [Matthew 23:1 - 3]." "Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do": like divorce [Matthew 19:10]? what about bearing false witness [Matthew 26:59] against the "bridegroom [Matthew 9:15, et.al.]" in his trial- by- murder [Matthew 27:42]? Perhaps Matthew is the 'Anonymous' author of the book of Hebrews.

In Matthew 19, we read a passage which makes the above passage from chapter 23 impossible for me to believe. The Pharisees pose a question of Jesus: "Is it lawful for a man to [as per Moses -Deuteronomy 24:1] put away his wife for every cause [Matthew 19:3d]?" The response they receive of him is, in a word, 'no.' In verses 4 and 5, Jesus tells the Pharisees marriage is a gift from God. He then goes on, in verse 6, to say, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [Matthew 19:6c & d]."

Jesus, in further indicting Moses and his disciples [John 9:28d] goes on, in verse 8 of Matthew 19, to call them both perverters of God's word, saying: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Why would this same Jesus [John 14:6c] exhort-- as Matthew alleges he did, in Matthew 23:1 - 3-- anyone to "observe and do" the perversions commanded by the same Pharisees he so rebuked in chapter 19?

I say either Jesus or Matthew lied, in Matthew 23:1 - 3. My money is on Matthew.

Inerrant Lie #36

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

It's unclear-- given the "Chicago Doctrine"-- whether people refuse to read the Doctrine they profess undying, uncompromising 'belief' in; or if-- when they read it -- they refuse to pay attention to what they're reading; or if the 'scholars' who have read, studied, and searched the scriptures have been the sort of individuals who refuse to do simple arithmetic, and indeed avoid it like the Plague. Perhaps those who have 'crunched the numbers' have been 'marginalized' as 'crazy' by the 'blind- faithers' who only 'want to believe,' and don't care what they believe.

Either way, there's a lot of eye- openings, concerning the integrity of scripture, awaiting those who will do simple arithmetic. Moses' fraudulent pedigree is one such 'rude awakening.' Once you realize Moses couldn't tell the truth about his own origins: do you really trust him to tell the truth about humanity's genesis? What can a man who can't tell the truth about who his parents were be trusted to tell the truth about?

One of the kings of Judah is recorded, in the Chronicles, to have been two years older than his father: a 'fact' the 'scholars' apparently don't 'bat an eye' at. Of this king, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."

What I find stunning about this passage, all- in- all, is that the last verse of the preceding chapter says of the same Ahaziah's father: "Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired." If you can add eight to thirty- two, you know there's no way Ahaziah was forty- two years old at the passing of his forty- year- old father. This is as impossible a thing as Moses' presumption to have been Amram's child.

So, what 'gives?' I honestly don't know if this is Ahaziah's attempt to claim 'self- generation'; or if it's simply an 'honest mistake' on the part of the scribe who wrote the entry concerning him. Either way, the same ascension to the throne is recorded in a more mathematically- sensible manner in 2 Kings. There, it's recorded: "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel [2 Kings 8:26]."

Therefore, according to the scribe of 2 Kings, Jehoram-- Ahaziah's father-- begat him at the sensible age of eighteen years (as opposed to two years before his own birth), and 'The- Only- Man- Who- Ever- Created- Himself' didn't die at the hand of Jehu, king of Israel, after reigning only one year in Jerusalem. That makes better sense to me, at least. Call me crazy, if you must.

Inerrant Lie #35

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

One of the 'prettier' English synonyms for a lie is equivocation. This term describes an operation observed over and over again in the study of Judaic scripture. From Moses calling Abe's disobedience in Genesis 11 and 12 'obedience,' to the scholars' apprehension of the apostles' inference that Christ said Johnny B was Elias as truth (presumably because it's impossible for those knuckleheads to have ever gotten anything wrong) it never ends. Equivocation is the bread- and- butter of professional 'Christianity.'

One such 'equivocation' occurs in relation to Joshua's account of a battle which took place in the 'promised land' of Canaan. After the children of Israel laid waste to the Amorites who besieged the Jews' 'homeboys' in Gibeon, a number of kings organized another 'federation' against Josh and his 'crew' of battle- hardened 'one- percenters,' thinking to gang- bang the Jews out of existence before they got any stronger or took any more 'turf.' Inasmuch as the children of Israel couldn't seem to find any better place to 'hang' than in the valley next to Jericho-- which was reduced to a pile of rubble-- no matter how many serviceable cities they took from the indigenous inhabitants of the land: I assume the 'federation' of adversaries were forced to come down to the Jordan valley to 'bang' on them.

At any rate, the 'Jew crew' slaughtered them there, and then went to their cities, and took their 'turf' from their 'old ladies' and their children: presumably 'snuffing' them all. In point of fact, so thorough was the 'genocide' thereby waged, that Joshua wrote of it: "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe [Joshua 11:14]." There's only one problem with the integrity of this statement that I'm aware of: Cattle breathe.

Inerrant Lie #34

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

As noted in the previous post: there are many clerical discrepancies between the inventories listed in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. These are not trivial discrepancies. The previous post dealt only with the 'irregularities' in the respective inventories of the people who were said to have returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. There are also discrepancies in the respective inventories of the "treasure of the work [Ezra 2:69a, et. al.]," which was contributed by the people upon arrival at Jerusalem.

Of the gold of these 'freewill' contributions, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold [Ezra 2:69a];" while Nehemiah says, "The Tirshatha [at that time, this might indicate Ezra] gave to the treasure a thousand drams of gold... And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work twenty thousand drams of gold... And that which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand drams of gold... [Nehemiah 7:70a, 71a & 72a]." According to Ezra 2, this leaves 20,000 drams of gold unaccounted for by Nehemiah. I'll grant the "50 basons" of indeterminate substance, listed in Nehemiah 7:70b might make the difference; but this certainly does not explain the remaining irregularities in these two passages.

Of the silver of these offerings, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work... five thousand pound of silver [Ezra 2:69a & b];" while Nehemiah writes, "And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work... two thousand and two hundred pound of silver. And that which the rest of the people gave was... two thousand pound of silver... [Nehemiah 7:71 & 72a & b]." The sum of silver accounted for in these two verses of Nehemiah is 4,200 pounds. This leaves 800 pounds unaccounted for by Nehemiah, according to the tabulation of Ezra 2.

These people also gave priests' garments. Of the offering of these, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work... one hundred priests' garments [Ezra 2:69a & c];" while Nehemiah says, "The Tirshatha gave to the treasure... five hundred and thirty priests' garments. And that which the rest of the people gave was... threescore and seven priests' garments [Nehemiah 7:70b & d; 72a & c]." Unlike the other offerings-- each inventory of which is smaller in Nehemiah's tally-- Nehemiah actually accounts for 497 more priests' garments than Ezra; meaning, perhaps, somebody was wild about playing dress- up.

Inerrant Lie #33

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

When the children of Israel, at the request of Cyrus king of Persia, returned to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the 'temple to the name of the LORD' which has always been referred to as 'Solomon's temple,' they 'scrupulously' inventoried all that went in the 'wagon train.' This accounting was recorded by "Ezra, the priest, the scribe [Ezra 7:11a & b]," in chapter 2 of the book by his name. Not only were the people 'dutifully' numbered and recorded: the religious artifacts returned from the temple at Babylon were also so inventoried.

This inventory was later copied by "Nehemiah, the Tirshatha [Nehemiah 10:1b & c]," in the book bearing his name. The number of discrepancies in these two ostensibly identical inventories is too large to mention one- by- one. My 'nose' first twitched on the scent of herring as I was reading Nehemiah, and noticed the absence of the infamous number "six hundred sixty and six," therein.

In Ezra, we read the following: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six [Ezra 2:13]." This is easily memorable because of the much- feared- and- hated number. However, in Nehemiah's copy of this same inventory, we read: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven [Nehemiah 7:18]." There is an obvious discrepancy, here, of one. In all, I count no fewer than twenty such discrepancies between these two accountings.

The 'bottom line' of Ezra's tally reads: "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women [Ezra 2:64 & 65]." In- and- of itself, this tally is faulty. If you add all numbers given in the inventory: the sum comes to 27,829. This leaves a difference of 14,531 persons between the inventory and it's summation. These are uncounted people who are nonetheless tallied.

Nehemiah's inventory and tally are presumably copied from Ezra's-- though some years later: "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king [Nehemiah 2:1b]," at the earliest. As I've said, Nehemiah's inventory-- as recorded in Nehemiah 7-- differs from Ezra's in no fewer than twenty particulars; though it is presumably a direct copy of the same.

The tally recorded by Nehemiah states the following: "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women [Nehemiah 7:66 & 67]." Compared with Ezra's tally: this is exactly the same in number-- except for the addition of forty- five 'singing men and women.'

The sum of all numbers given in Nehemiah's inventory is 30,101. This leaves a difference of 12,259 persons unaccounted- for in his summation; and is 2,272 more than the sum of Ezra's inventory. Again: these are uncounted people who have been nonetheless tallied.

I suppose the question all these discrepancies in such 'meticulous' accountings begs is: Do these differences reflect the human- trafficking of Jews? or do they rather reflect the Jewish 'passion' for human 'sacrifice?' or both? I smell the 'first love' of wolves-- putrefaction-- here, in any case.

Inerrant Lie #32

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

The anonymous writer of Hebrews tells a passel of fibs, which are likely-- for the most part, at least--the lies of others, faithfully retold by 'Anonymous.' Many are quite obviously Moses' lies, which the author claims to wholeheartedly (in hole- hearted fashion) believe in-- in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence extant that Moses was a pathological charlatan.

One such lie is found in the ninth chapter of this singular tome. In Hebrews 9:22, 'Anonymous' writes: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." When he refers to "the law," the 'unknown' author obviously means to indicate the Mosaic Law; though his 'indication' is actually an indictment.

In Ezekiel 18, we encounter the true way to remission of sins, which -- in a word-- is the first word uttered by Jesus of Nazareth, upon commencement of his public ministry: "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]." Ezekiel writes: "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed [this is called 'repentance,' or 'penitence']... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him [Ezekiel 18:21a & 22a & b]." "They shall not be mentioned unto him," describes-- in a word-- remission.

All this notwithstanding, 'Anonymous' tells on Moses' 'bloody' fallacies in at least two places, himself. In Hebrews 10:4 we read: "For it is not possible that the blood... should take away sins." Seven verses later, we likewise read that these same bloody "sacrifices... can never take away sins [Hebrews 10:11]." Is it a lie to faithfully repeat a lie in which one has believed? or is it 'simply' pathetic?

Inerrant Lie #31

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

In English, we often use 'fig- leaf' devices such as euphemisms and dysphemisms to 'cover- up' our lingual 'sleights- of- hand.' This is somewhat more honest than the way in which similar 'tricks' of vernacular are 'fig- leaved' in Hebrew: inasmuch as both operations-- euphemizing and dysphemizing-- are, in Hebrew, 'covered' by one and the same utility: a peculiarity the dictionary refers to as a 'shibboleth [Judges 12:5 & 6].'

In 1 Kings ['commonly' referred to as the 'Third Book of the Kings'], we encounter what must have been a particularly tasty 'fig' referred to by the scribe thereof as "Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." I say she must have been particularly 'tasty' inasmuch as she was taken by her own son as queen and, in turn, bore him the son that replaced him as king.

1 Kings 15:1 & 2 reads: "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah. Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." Later in the same chapter, we read: "And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was [the same] Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom [1 Kings 15:9 & 10]."

Notice how liberally the fig leaves are strewn over the passages concerning this same queen, in the Chronicles. In particular, notice how all the names but Asa's are 'shibbolethed'-- her father's beyond recognition. "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah [2 Chronicles 13:1 & 2]." How does "Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom" become sensibly, or responsibly, "Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah?"

Furthermore, 2 Chronicles says of Abijam (or Abijah, as the case may be) that he married-- not only his own mother, but-- fourteen wives [2 Chronicles 13:21]. To further 'cover' the incestuous nature of this period of the nation's history, the scribe of 2 Chronicles makes no mention of Asa's mother or her name. This may be more shibboleth than lie; but, given the extraordinarily deceptive nature of the 'Chronicle' of it: it may as well be apprehended as a lie altogether.

At any rate, my guess is: 'Mikki' was hot as hell on Easter Sunday.

Inerrant Lie #30

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

The book of Joshua was not necessarily written by Joshua, but it was written about the leadership of Joshua during the children of Israel's attempt to conquer the promised land after the death of Moses. Toward the end of this less- than- triumphal account of “holy land” conquest, the writer of the book of Joshua attributes a lie to Joshua which is perhaps optimistically ignored by scholars as a lie– and instead considered a “statement of faith.” It is nonetheless a lie: one which has always been a lie; and is a lie to this day.

Joshua 21:43 - 45 says Joshua said: "43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And… rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers…. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." This lie is, at best, a transubstantiation of a deception as truth and that likely based on good intent. Wishful thinking, in other words. The inspiration for this lie is presumably an accounting taken of the territories of the promised land not yet taken by the children of Israel, of all things.

This tale of the account taken of territories of the promised land not yet taken by the tribes of Israel begins at the start of the thirteenth chapter of the book of Joshua. Joshua 13:1 - 7 says, “1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him… there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remaineth: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, 3 From Sihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanite: five lords of the Philistines; the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites: 4 From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that is beside the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites: 5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath… 7 Now therefore divide this land…”

The rest of verse seven of Joshua 13 is a clumsy and confusing segué into a description, beginning with verse 8, of the land Moses gave to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh on the other (east) side of the Jordan. This description takes the rest of chapter 13. Verse eight of Joshua thirteen is also the beginning of a longer, more general historical account of the progress which had been made on both sides of the river Jordan, by the time Joshua was told by the LORD, “Now therefore divide this land,” at the beginning of chapter thirteen.

Chapter fourteen of the book of Joshua begins thus: “And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan [the west side of the Jordan], which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them [Joshua 14:1].” The boiled- down essence of the next four chapters of Joshua is that two- and- a- half tribes had received their inheritances on the west side of Jordan– in the land of Canaan, that is to say– by the time “Joshua was old and stricken in years,” at the beginning of chapter thirteen. Everyone else was left in the lurch.

It's worth noting that, when Joshua 14:1 says that some of the land had been “distributed for inheritance”: this word “distributed” apparently indicates the land under consideration had been taken by the tribes to whom it– according to Joshua, Eleazar, and the fathers of the tribes– belonged, in light of the narrative of the next three chapters of Joshua and the first chapter of the book of Judges. Also it seems these were the only three tribes who tired of convalescing (with Joshua, Eleazar, and the fathers of the tribes) in Gilgal (and later in Shiloh) to the point of demanding an inheritance to fight for and take possession of: in light of the narrative of the book of Joshua, generally. [A half- part of one of these tribes– the tribe of Manasseh– was no doubt antsy to get back across the Jordan to their own possessions on the east side.] The rest of the tribes must have been “waiting upon the LORD.”

After all, the LORD had promised to drive most of the inhabitants of the land out of the land before the children of Israel. In Exodus 23 (verses 28- through- 30) Moses records the LORD telling him– sometime after the delivery of the ten commandments and before the children of Israel left mount Hor, where the commandments were given–: “28 I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. 29 I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30 By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land." This promise came forty years before the children of Israel entered the promised land and concerns the lion’s- share of the inhabitants of the land inasmuch as the Canaanites were by far the most populous people inhabiting the land.

At any rate, it isn't until the eighteenth chapter of Joshua that the narrative of the book of Joshua finally circles back to the seventh verse of the thirteenth chapter of Joshua (“Now therefore divide this land…”) with the declaration, “And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet received their inheritance [Joshua 18:2].” Theirs was the land which had yet to be possessed, spoken of by the LORD in Joshua 13.

Now (in chapter 18), in response to the LORD’s command to divide this land: “3… Joshua said unto the children of Israel, How long are ye slack to go to possess the land, which the LORD God of your fathers hath given you? 4 Give out from among you three men for each tribe: and I will send them, and they shall rise, and go through the land, and describe it according to the inheritance of them; and they shall come again to me. 5 And they shall divide it into seven parts: Judah shall abide in their coast on the south, and the house of Joseph [Ephraim and half of the tribe of Manasseh] shall abide in their coasts on the north. 6 Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God [Joshua 18:3 - 6].”

The rest of chapter eighteen, everything in chapters nineteen and twenty, and most of chapter twenty- one of Joshua describes the resultant allocations of the land divided among six of the seven tribes remaining and of the cities given to the Levites (in this case, the seventh tribe, as per Joshua 18:2) out of all the tribes. It is after this accounting, at the end of chapter twenty- one, that Joshua allegedly tells the lie, “...the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein [Joshua 21:43].” It must be that Joshua considers the deed spoken a deed done (transubstantiationarily, at least) once the lot is cast: if this confirmatory statement at the end of the twenty- first chapter of Joshua concerning the faithfulness of the LORD is ought but a heavy- handed gaslight. However, the truth is that the children of Israel have never had the promised land to themselves.

To see how patently false this claim is, one need look no further than the beginning of the next book in the canon. In the second chapter of the book of Judges, an event is recorded and memorialized by the name of "Bochim." This event took place while Joshua was still alive; and it seems, in light of verse six of Judges chapter two, that it must have taken place immediately before, during, or immediately after Joshua cast lots to divide the land which had yet to be taken (the land spoken of by the LORD in the first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter of Joshua). It could be the same angel of the LORD speaking in both passages.

"1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. 2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice…. 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you [the promise of Exodus 23:28 - 30 breached]; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:1- 3].” Three verses later, there seems to be a time- stamp on this “Bochim” encounter.

The sixth verse of the second chapter of the book of Judges says, “And when Joshua had let the people go, the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land.” This is exactly what one would reasonably expect the children of Israel to do, immediately after “Joshua cast lots [upon the land] for them in Shiloh before the LORD [Joshua 18:10]”: go to possess the land distributed to them by the lots Joshua cast.

Though it does not necessarily matter when the Bochim event occurred, it (Bochim) is the simplest proof of the disingenuous nature of the statement, at the end of Joshua chapter 21, that “the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers.” It is therefore offered here, as such, in the hope of as- briefly- as- possible concluding a matter the biblical account of which is obviously extremely muddled by non- linear accounts, anachronisms, lies, and so on.

For instance, in the immediately- adjacent biblical testimony, there are many statements which run contrary to the lie Joshua is credited with in Joshua 21. Some of these are found in the book of Joshua; some in the book of Judges. In the book of Joshua, there is this statement concerning the Jebusites (a tribe of the Canaanites the LORD promised– in Exodus 23– to drive out of the land): “As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day [Joshua 15:63].” The onus of accepting the Jebusites and allowing them to remain among the tribes of Israel is conversely and likewise laid on the Benjamites in Judges 1:21, which reads, “And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day [Judges 1:21].”

Also in Joshua, there are at least two more statements concerning the tenacity of the Canaanites. Joshua 16:10 says, “And [the Ephraimites] drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.” While Joshua 17:11 & 12 says, “11 And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher Beth-shean and her towns, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Endor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries. 12 Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.”

In chorus with the latter citation from Joshua 17, Judges 1:27 says, “27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land [Judges 1:27].”

Finally, there is this summation at the end of Judges chapter one, which reads: “29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them. 34 And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley: 35 But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries [Judges 1:28 - 35].”

Notice how, in the above passages from Joshua and Judges, the onus is on the children of Israel to do what the LORD said He would do: drive out the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Hittite. That is to say: for waiting upon the LORD (Isaiah 40:31, et. al.)-- which the ‘Holy Bible' advises, et. al.-- the children of Israel are rewarded with the curse of Bochim.

Never in biblical times (or accounts), nor in the more- or- less contemporary times since 1947 (C.E.) has the LORD, their own hand, or any other source ever given the children of Israel the promised land free- and- clear of any- and- all previous claims. If possession is nine- tenths of the law, the children of Israel are and always have been trespassers and thieves as a nation: in the land of promise and elsewhere. No matter where– except Ur of the Chaldees– the children of Abraham were to be found, someone who didn't want to share the land with them was always there before them. If the Annunaki hadn't simply disappeared somehow, the same might perhaps be said for all of us.

Inerrant Lie #29

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

The book of Deuteronomy is (for the most part) a recount, given by Moses, of the events which he experienced with the children of Israel in the forty years he wandered with them in the wilderness between Goshen and Shittim; and a refresher course on the canon of law which was delivered to Moses purportedly by the LORD, after Moses eloped with the children of Israel from Egypt. In rehearsing their shared exploits on the east side of Jordan to the people he led out of Egypt (prior to allegedly being whacked- out and buried by the LORD his God), Moses says to the people, "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants… [Deuteronomy 3:11a]."

This lie-- like the one told in Numbers 31:7 about having slain "all the males of Midian"-- comes back to take a bite out of Moses’ veracity. Everyone's heard of the “champion… of the Philistines, named Goliath;” and how little Davey (just before exchanging holy vows with king Saul’s son, Jonathan) shot him down with a pebble from a brook and launched by a sling: in the time of the kings; long after the conquest of the promised land; and likewise after the times of the judges. Such is the fate of giants who bring spears and swords to gunfights. Yet even the killing of Goliath wasn't the end of the lineage of giants “Moses the man of God” claims Og was.

Perhaps it is in the interest of protecting the integrity of that mighty “god to Pharaoh [Exodus 7:1]”-- Moses “the man of God”-- that the scribe who recorded Davey's encounter with Goliath chose not to call the “champion of the Philistines” a giant. However, this fig leaf (if such it is) is likewise uncovered by posterity, when the King of the Jews goes to war with the Philistines years later.

Purportedly, in four separate battles with the Philistines, David's army encountered four sons of Goliath; and killed them all. Of these encounters, 2 Samuel 21:22 says, "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."

Obviously, Moses either didn't know enough about the lineage of the giants to speak authoritatively on the matter; or he was too busy rallying the children of Israel for the coming conquest of the promised “holy land” to tell the truth about it. Either way, according to the account of later events: it was a lie to say, “only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants.” Either that, or David's scribes lied about Goliath and his children.

Inerrant Lie #28

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

When-- after forty years of death- watch was accomplished in the wilderness-- the children of Israel finally began to conquer territory in their “land of promise” and claim it as their own: they received a special instruction concerning the land they were not to take.

This OPORDER, as it were, is recorded in the past tense in Deuteronomy 2:19. Moses says ”the LORD” told him (before the respective contest): "And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession."

Eighteen verses later, in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses unequivocally claims innocence in regard of the foregoing mission prerogative, saying: "Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us [Deuteronomy 2:37]." 

In chapter 3 of Deuteronomy, Moses recollects how the children of Israel-- after destroying Sihon of Heshbon-- proceeded to destroy Og king of Bashan. In verse 4, he says, "we took all of [Og's] cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them..." Prima facie: no problem. But in verse 11 of chapter 3, the vail lifts. Moses says, "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the Ammonites?"

The controversy which presents itself here, in light of Moses' unequivocal claim to have abided by the foregoing prohibition on Ammonite entanglement, is that– besides being told not to distress the Ammonites– Moses was told, “nor meddle with [the Ammonites].” This means the children of Israel were to have nothing, good or bad, to do with the Ammonites. Everything Ammonite was a “no- go.” How does one "behold" a "bedstead" behind no- go lines without ‘crossing the line’?

Further evidence that Moses' claim (in Deuteronomy 2:37) of having adhered to the prohibition on conquest of Ammonite territory declared by the LORD (Deuteronomy 2:19) is fishy comes five verses later: in verse 16 of Deuteronomy 3.

In Deuteronomy 3:16, Moses admits-- in spite of his earlier protestation to not have come "unto any place of the river Jabbok [2:37b, ibid.],"-- that he "gave [to the Reubenites and Gadites] from Gilead… even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon." How does one go “unto the river Jabbok” without coming “unto any place of the river Jabbok?”

Joshua also rebuffs Moses' hands- off affirmation from Deuteronomy 2:37, writing: "24 And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad…. 25 And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah [Deuteronomy 13:24 & 25]." Again: how does one ‘give’ “half the land of the children of Ammon” to someone else without meddling with the Ammonites? Someone lied about something here.