Inerrant Lie #60

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

It's been mentioned, in a previous 'Lie', that Moses' LORD was (like Moses) perhaps not only a false God but a false prophet to boot. This 'Lie' is another nail in that coffin.

Josiah was the next- to- last king of Judah not appointed by a conquering foe as a stool- pigeon over a puppet regime. He did more than most (if not all) others to order the kingdom as per Moses' law. As such, his kingdom represents the final death- throes of the LORD's temporal authority over the kingdom of heaven as envisioned by Moses.

It's ironical-- given the great priority and power attributed to anointing by all the followers of Moses-- but nowhere is it written this Josiah was anointed king. In all cases it is written he was "made" king, and that by the people: not by the priesthood. (Josiah's son Jehoahaz was likewise made king by the people after Josiah's death. He reigned three months.)

Thus, Josiah was made king when he was eight years old. When he was twenty- six years old, Josiah was given a copy of Moses' law by the priest Hilkiah: after he had already reigned eighteen years as king without the law. What Josiah read in Moses' law disturbed him deeply. Therefore he sent Hilkiah, the priest, to enquire of the LORD concerning the state and fate of his kingdom and what was left of the nation over which he ruled. Such was the state of the priesthood's relationship with the LORD that Hilkiah outsourced this enquiry to a prophetess by the name of Huldah.

One of the affirmations Huldah the prophetess claims came of the resultant divination was the declaration by the LORD, to Josiah the king that, "Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace [2 Kings 22:20a - c]." This prognostication of the LORD's is subsequently refuted by the course of historical events: in the valley of Megiddo [called Armageddon, in Revelation 16:16], of all places.

Of Josiah's fate in the valley of Armageddon, it is recorded: "23 And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. 24 His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah [2 Chronicles 35:23 & 24]."

Certainly, Custer and the 7th met a more gruesome fate at Little Bighorn than the Judaeans met at Megiddo; but Josiah was nonetheless overrun by the Egyptians at Megiddo, and met his fate in battle-- not in peace, as the LORD God of Israel had promised him.

Inerrant Lie #59

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

The writers of the 'Holy Bible' had no respect for many things they would have been well- advised to rather respect. Among the little things the writers-- indeed the nation-- who penned this singular tome of scripture should have had more respect for is the simple word "all." All, as used by the writers of the Hebraic scriptures, rarely-- if ever-- means all. This arrogance concerning this tiny word has been noted in a previous 'Lie'.

As Moses presumably "slew all the males" of Midian [Numbers 31:7], so David-- the one and only true King of the Jews-- presumably smote all the males of Edom. This claim is not recorded in the various accounts of David's (albeit illegal, as per the law of Moses [Deuteronomy 2:4 & 5]) conquest of Edom; but rather as a sidebar mention in the record of Solomon's reign. In particular, the claim that David smote all the males of Edom instructs as to the origins of the popular rebellion which culminated-- at the time of Solomon's son's ascension to the throne of Judah-- in the rebellion of ten tribes of Israel from under the Judaic throne in Jerusalem.

In explaining how the aforementioned popular rebellion was born-- in the years of David's reign (while scapegoating the oppression of Solomon's reign for it)-- and from whence it issued, the scribes recorded, "15 For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom 16 (For six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom:) 17 That Hadad ["the Edomite," verse 14, ibid.] fled, he and certain Edomites of his father's servants with him, to go into Egypt; Hadad being yet a little child [1 Kings 11:15 - 17]."

As Moses' lie concerning the alleged slaying of all the males of Midian was later exposed by the course of historical events [again, see 'Lie #7'], so this claim made by the King of the Jews to have smitten all the males of Edom was likewise exposed by current events in the years of Jehoram's (son of Jehoshaphat) reign over Judah: sans the rebellious ten tribes of Israel. The king's scribe records it thus: "In [Jehoram's] days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves [2 Kings 8:20]." This would not be possible if the claim to have cut off all the males of Edom, made in 1 Kings were true.

If all the males had-- as alleged by Solomon's scribe-- been cut off from Edom under David's reign, the people inhabiting Mount Seir in Jehoram's reign would have been known as something other than Edomites: presumably Jews, inasmuch as one would expect the conquerors to appropriate the women of the vanquished. Thanks to just this sort of manipulation of the facts, the LORD of the 'Holy Bible' is not known by his name-- Baal-- but rather by the meaning of his name: the LORD. "For we may not make mention of the name of the LORD [Amos 6:10j]."

Inerrant Lie #58

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

Israel's conquering superman, Joshua, was-- like many of the heroes in the canon of scripture referred to as the 'Holy Bible'-- delusional. As such, he tells a number of lies which are recorded in his own chronicle of the conquest of the 'holy land'. Following Moses' lead, Joshua credits "the LORD" for the lies he tells: perhaps rightly so. Moses' lies, after all, were presumably told in service to the LORD. The LORD deviated from the right way [Genesis 2], and-- according to many of his prophets-- not only lied, but taught the prophets to likewise lie.

Most of Joshua's lies betray either a received delusion or a projected gaslight concerning his conquest of the 'promised land'. Simply stated: every time Josh said everything the LORD promised the children of Israel he delivered, Josh lied. Never was it so. Even when the veritable King of the Jews (David) reigned (many years after Joshua), the practicable deviations from the promises made by the LORD (through Moses and others) are too many to shake a stick at.

Yes, Davey reigned over all the geographic bounds promised the children of Israel; but he also reigned over the Edomites and the children of Lot, whose land the Jews were not to touch; and he likewise failed to deliver the promised land to the Jews, preferring rather to reign over "strangers" in their own land than to reign over the Jews in theirs. Nonetheless, lies about promises and their fulfillment abound in the 'Holy Bible', et. al., and as the Bible opposes itself, so the fossil record likewise opposes the Bible in many particulars.

One of the instances of the Bible opposing itself in matters of historical antiquity is found in the book of Joshua: "2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. 3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac [Joshua 24:2 & 3]."

Notice: Josh pins the donkey's tail on "the LORD God of Israel," in attributing the lies which follow to his word; and there are three lies told here, as I count. 1) Terah did not dwell "on the other side of the flood." Genesis 11 states unequivocally that Terah was born nine generations after the flood's conclusion-- at a time when men's lifespans were said to number in the hundreds of years. 2) Inasmuch as his father was born so many hundreds of years after the flood, Abraham himself was obviously not taken "from the other side of the flood."

Lastly: 3) the historical record of the Bible-- from Genesis to Revelation-- shows the LORD God's statement that "they served other gods" to also be a lie. Judeo- Christian religion began in Genesis 4, with the murder of Abel. Lamech subsequently made a holy sacrament of Cain's brand of 'brotherly love' in murdering perhaps two innocent victims in pursuit of atonement with the LORD and the LORD's blessing of supernatural protection over Lamech's miserable life. "Then began men to [likewise] call upon the name of the LORD [with innocent blood on their hands (Genesis 4:26d)]."

Abe-- who the apostles call "the father of us all"-- likewise would have offered his own son (the aforementioned "Isaac") calling upon the name of the LORD, if he had been allowed to [Genesis 22]. The apostles who wrote the New Testament likewise affirm the worthlessness of the man who won't murder innocent victims, saying it was necessary to murder Jesus of Nazareth for anyone to be considered worthy.

Today, the Christian children obviously serve the same LORD the 'fathers' of Jewry have always served. The only difference between Genesis 4 and John 3:16 is that Christians say "only Jesus" can atone the would- be blood of their own sacrificed children; while they scapegoat-- or, more precisely, softkill-- their own children for the blood of Jesus swimming in their own bellies. From Adam to the present, the "God" they serve remains the same child- sacrificing LORD of sorcery and blood magick he's always been, even when he changes his garments (which, in regard of Adam's butt- naked beginnings, most likely entails the [gay]LORD putting something on his butt- naked ass).

"The LORD" of the 'Holy Bible' is obviously the Devil.