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.