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":

Toward the end of his 'triumphal' account of 'holy land' conquest, 'Superman' Joshua tells a whopper which was a lie before he told it; a lie when he told it; and has been a lie ever since; and nothing but a lie. Given the insatiable desire of Jews to 'possess' people as heirlooms: I don't know how it ever could be true.

Joshua writes: "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 the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass [Joshua 21:43- 45]." This in spite of Gibeon [Joshua 9 & 10], and all other 'facts of life.'

To see how patently false this claim is, we need look no further than the beginning of the next book in the canon. In Judges, an event-- which occurred in Shiloh before the death of Joshua and to which he was a witness-- is recorded and memorialized by the name of "Bochim."

"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: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:1- 3]."

Thus commences one of the greatest 'wrestling matches' in the history of the world: one which is still ongoing; and may only be decided by the 'abominable' desolation of all the 'handy' tribes of all the 'handy' sons of 'Handy Dick-Skinner' Abe. At least the slavery of 'apostolic succession' will finally be over, and we'll all know how high the price for getting one's own way with God is. Praise God for the devil and his children [John 8:44].

If 'Josh the Conqueror' had been an honest man, Joshua 21:43 - 45 would have read something more like, "Judah has taken possession of all the land they can hold. Now it's every tribe for itself. Ya'll go fuck yourselves, now. We'll let you know if Judah needs any help keeping what they've possessed. 'God bless.'" He was obviously not an honest man.

Inerrant Lie #29

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

This one is, again, told by Moses, and it's glaringly obvious: as obvious as it is, say, that gay Jonnie's 'sweet psalmist' hubby Davey is the true "King of the Jews [Revelation 11:8]." In rehearsing their shared exploits on the east side of Jordan to the people he led out of Egypt, Moses says to them, "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 huge bite out of the integrity of Jethro's "dumb ass [2 Peter 2:16b]," Moses. Everyone's at least heard of Goliath of Gath, and how Davey 'shot him down' with a pebble from a stream: being as the same Goliath brought a sword to a 'gunfight.' Yet even this wasn't the end of the giants Mighty Mo claims Og was.

Perhaps it is in interest of protecting the 'integrity' of that mighty 'god of Egypt [Exodus 7:1]' 'Moe Greene' that the scribe who recorded Davey's encounter with Goliath disdains to call the 'champion of the Philistines' a giant. However, this 'fig leaf [Genesis 3:7]' is likewise uncovered by posterity, when Davey goes to war with the Philistines years later.

In four separate battles with the Philistines, Davey's army encounters four sons of Goliath; and kills them. 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." See how some kings have "servants": not soldiers? At any rate, I know of no other 'prophet' in scripture who-- like Mighty Mo-- heralds the end of the giants. I guess he must've taught 'em.

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.