Inerrant Lie #76

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

A number of the writers who contributed to the writing of the canon of scripture referred to as the 'Holy Bible' obviously thought their own word of more value than those testimonies of angels which are likewise included in the same canon. The apostle Peter's rebuff of the word of the angel, Gabriel, (in regard of who and what Jesus is) comes to mind.

The aforementioned Gabriel, in submitting the (OPERATION): "JESUS" OPORDER to the Blessed Virgin, said of the prognosticated one: "32 He… shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:... 35 …also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God [Luke 1:32 - 35]." The operative words in the preceding three- verse citation are, "his father [is] David," at the end of verse 32; and "he shall be called [take your pick of godly monikers]." That is to say: the angel said Jesus is David's son, no matter what "they" shall call him.

Peter obviously takes exception to this word from Gabriel, as testified to by him in 2 Peter. Peter, in his “more sure word of prophecy [2 Peter 1:19a]” hailing Jesus as the Son of God, says “we [unlike the Blessed Virgin, who believed the angelic ‘fable’] have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you [unlike the Blessed Virgin, who kept her mouth shut] the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty…. when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

[2 Peter 1:16 & 17].” This voice, Peter alleges, came from “God the Father [verse 17a, ibid.].” How would Peter know what “God the Father’s” voice sounds like? This reviling of angels is the rule rather than the exception in the Bible.

In the book of Judges, the scribe who wrote the third chapter of the book (in verse three of the same) lists the nations the Hebrews were not able to drive out of their own lands. In doing so, he claims to speak for the LORD: without citing any occasion upon which the LORD allegedly told him to do so. Again, the word of this anonymous scribe contradicts a testimony of angelic origin.

In verses 1 & 2, the scribe writes, "1 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan; 2 Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof [Judges 3:1 & 2];" obviously alleging the ”only” reason the LORD didn't drive the previous inhabitants of the land out of their own lands was to “teach [the Hebrews] war.” As previously stated, this assertion contradicts an earlier testimony uttered by “an angel of the LORD.” The record of this angel's prophecy is found one chapter and many years earlier, in Judges 2.

Judges 2 begins by telling us that, at some time while Joshua was still extant (verse 6, ibid.) “an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim,” and goes on to say this angel credited the disobedience of the Hebrews– not their inexperience of war– with their inability to take the land from it’s previous inhabitants, saying, “1 ...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]."

It may be of negligible consequence whether the scribe or the angel lied, in Judges 2 & 3. They may have both been lying. The whole canon of scripture might be nought but fable, after all. But, if the Bible is to be accepted as– at least in part– true, the fact that the writers were so averse to the testimonies of angels which they allow as factual occurrences is of no small import. After all, the same angel who told the Blessed Virgin that Jesus is the son of David (not the Son of God) also said Jesus' kingdom is “the house of Jacob [Luke 1:33a]” (not the universe): meaning he is not the king of any Gentile, great or small; and what he does with his kingdom is of little or no consequence to us.

Inerrant Lie #75

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

According to the testimony provided by the gospels, Jesus told some interesting tall- tales. Johnny Divine says Jesus said, "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man [John 7:22]." This is utter nonsense. Moses had nothing– other than resistance against it– to do with circumcision, according to all his own historical records in the canon. Yet Johnny Divine goes on in the next verse to say Jesus called circumcision a statute of Moses' law.

In John 7:23, John says Jesus said, "If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?" This, again, is utter nonsense. Circumcision came, not by the law of Moses, but (according to this same Moses) by commandment of the LORD (Genesis 17:10), to Abraham: long before Moses was born. In fact, according to the testimony of Joshua, not one of the annual passovers observed in the children of Israel's forty- year sojourn in the wilderness was observed-- according to the law--: thanks to Moses' abhorrence of circumcision.

Moses says the LORD told him, "This is the ordinance of the passover:... no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof [Exodus 12:44b - 47]." Yet Joshua writes, "4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise [at Gilgal; after Moses' death, and the crossing of the Jordan]:... all the people that came out [of Egypt] were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.[Joshua 5:4 & 5]." According to this witness– contrary to what Johnny Divine says Jesus said– Moses obviously took circumcision (which was practiced by all in Egypt) away.

Moses didn't even circumcise his own children– at peril of his own life–: his wife had to circumcise Moses' child, to save Moses' life. Moses, in his own ruminations, testifies: "24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met [Moses], and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision [Exodus 4:24 - 26]."

It could be claimed that Moses gave the Jews a more necessary circumcision than that of the flesh, given a thing he wrote and alluded to a number of times in his pentateuch. One example of Moses' treatment of this 'more- necessary- circumcision' is found in Deuteronomy 10:16: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." However, in another passage, Moses' says the LORD God– who would rather skin Moses than to skin the dick of Moses' son– is the surgeon who so skins the heart.

In Moses' final address to the children of confusion before his death on the east side of the Jordan, Moses tells the confused that, when they fall upon apostasy and consequently repent: "the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live [Deuteronomy 30:6]." This doctrine espouses rebellion in favor of reformation by the hand of another who does more reliable work than their own, in light of the Jews' inability to circumcise their own hearts.

Also, if Moses propounded and practiced circumcision of any sort: why did the children of Israel abide in a continual state of apostasy under Moses' leadership? In the farewell address which constitutes the book of Deuteronomy, Moses bears witness of the state of Israel's apostasy under his direction, saying: "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes [Deuteronomy 12:8]." This echoes the summation of the apostasy of the Hebrews in the times of the judges.

The book of Judges says of the apostasy prevalent under the judges, "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes [Judges 21:25, et. al.]"; putting the blame for their apostasy on their lack of a king; but, even when "Moses… was king in Jeshurun [Deuteronomy 33:5a]," they all did whatsoever was right in their own eyes– not whatsoever Moses told them to.

In fact, Moses prophesied false in respect of observance of the law, generally (of which circumcision is only a small part held over from the traditions preceding Moses), when he said "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes [Deuteronomy 12:8]." The witness of scripture refutes this assertion entirely: to the end that, Jeremiah, (in the time of the kingdom's utter dissolution) writes, "...all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart [Jeremiah 9:26i]." Apparently the heart of a Jew not even the LORD can circumcise. If, as Johnny Divine says, Jesus said "Moses… gave unto you circumcision": Jesus obviously lied like the Devil.