Inerrant Lie #79

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

Of the demise of king Saul, there are two disparate accounts recorded in the 'Holy Bible'. The first of these is found in the last chapter of the first book of Samuel.

1 Samuel 31 alleges Saul's final demise on Mount Gilboa was of a decidedly Samurai nature. Verses 3 & 4 say, “3 And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers. 4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.”

The narrative of 1 Samuel 31 immediately goes on to say that king Saul's armorbearer confirmed Saul's death, sans any mention of further effort being required to effect Saul's passage. Verses 5 & 6 say, “5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him. 6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.” Contrarily, the second book of Samuel tells another story altogether about this event.

In the first chapter of the second book of Samuel, a man who represents himself as an Amalekite comes to David at Ziklag (the redoubt endowed to the refugee David and his band of outlaws by Achish the Philistine king of Gath) with the news of Saul’s demise and with Saul's crown in possession. Contrary to the allegation of the last chapter of First Samuel that Saul killed himself, this Amalekite takes credit for being the one who dispatched king Saul.

According to David's Amalekite messenger, Saul's demise was on this wise: “As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. 7 And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I…. 9 And he said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. 10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord [2 Samuel 1:6 - 10].”

Perhaps the Amalekite messenger told the story he told in a vainglorious attempt to ingratiate himself with the presumptive new king of the Jews. That is to say, the Amalekite messenger’s version of king Saul’s demise may have been a fabrication told with an eye toward obtaining a reward from his new leige. Perhaps it happened as he said it did, and the description of Saul’s demise from the final chapter of First Samuel is an outright lie or an incomplete truth. Either way, the outlaw refugee (soon to be forever King of the Jews), David, killed the Amalekite messenger who crowned him king.

Inerrant Lie #78

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

The first verifiable lie told in the 'Holy Bible' (in order of occurrence) appears four verses into the second chapter of the first book thereof. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 2:4, on the other hand, says “the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” With regard to the law of first mention, this means that– if God and the LORD God aren't the same entity (and clearly they are not)– the latter declaration (2:4) is a lie. 

Notice how the process of creation proceeds from opposite vantage points in the two examples above: “the heaven and the earth”; versus, “the earth and the heavens.” God's point of view (chapter one) is the bird’s- eye perspective: the heaven is the starting- point of all things earthly. The LORD God's point of view, on the other hand (chapter two), is the worm’s- eye perspective with everything heavenly beginning in the dirt.

[Why does everything begin with the earth from the LORD God's point of view? Is His mind “in the gutter?” He doesn't have carnal desire for the Divine Female. If He did, He would have made a woman from the dust of the ground. Perhaps the LORD God is “the Beast of the Earth” mentioned in Genesis 1:25. The resultant chord this would strike, throughout the canon, reverberates soundly with The Beast which figures so prominently in the eleventh- through- twentieth chapters of Saint John the Divine's “Revelation of Jesus Christ,” et. al. (all- things- between considered).]

Christian theologians and seminarians say, “the ‘Holy Bible' tells no lies: God and the LORD God are one- and- the- same God.” This perspective is willfully ignorant of the law of first mention. The text of the first three chapters of Genesis– indeed, the canon as a whole– makes it clear that, in many (if not all) particulars, God and the LORD God simply cannot be the same entity, without that entity being “the Father of devils,” to paraphrase Jesus of Nazareth: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it [John 8:44].”

The dilemma, here, in regard to the integrity of the 'Holy Bible' (vis-a-vis the law of first mention) is: the One the first chapter of Genesis calls God doesn't come across as disingenuous. The God of Genesis 1 blesses; praises; gives; never takes; doesn't make death threats. The God of Genesis 1 is easily recognized as lovely and loving: in a word, gracious. When credulity is coupled with the law of first mention, Genesis 1 is a Big Bang: a double- tap to most of– if not all– the rest of the canon; and secures the integrity of the ’Holy Bible’ generally, though only via the law of first mention. Either way, the LORD God is not the same entity Genesis 1 refers to as God.

While the text of Genesis 2:4 says, “the LORD God made the… heavens”; and Genesis 1:1 says, “God created the heaven…”: this does not imply that that which God created the LORD God multiplied. Genesis 2:1 states, “the heavens… were finished, and all the host of them,” three verses before the LORD God makes His first appearance (2:4) in the text of the canon. Serendipitous parsimony (the law of first mention) also succours the integrity of the canon here.

[It could be the translators of the King James Version chose to place the chapter break, between chapters one and two, in the odd place they chose, of a conspicuous purpose: to obscure the marked difference of subject matter three verses later in the text, at what became Genesis 2:4. After all, Genesis 2:1 contains the first mention in the 'Holy Bible' canon of “the heavens,” which is echoed three verses later in regard of the LORD God. It is obvious, even to the casual observer, that the first chapter of Genesis should end where the translators placed Genesis 2:3– by virtue of the simple fact that God is the subject from Genesis 1:1- to- Genesis 2:3; while the LORD God becomes the subject from Genesis 2:4 onward. It is equally obvious Genesis 2:4 should have been Genesis 2:1, had the translators no ulterior motives directing their editorial discretion.]

Genesis 2:4, and perhaps all that follows it in the canon, is simply an attempt to credit the LORD God for that which God had already done; a gaslight from Moses, who is responsible for many things from Genesis 2:4 to Deuteronomy 34:12 (and some psalms). [All chapter breaks, paragraph breaks, verse breaks (and enumeration), word breaks (the spaces between each word), punctuation, capitalization, and lower- case lettering, on the other hand, is– throughout the entirety of the canon– an editorial arbitration imposed upon the text by the translators.] That is to say: It's altogether possible that, as LaVey [Levi] borrowed heavily in light- hearted fashion from “Might Is Right”, and other works in authoring “The Satanic Bible”: so perhaps Moses' copy on Genesis 1:1- through- Genesis 2:3 is not of Hebrew antiquity in particular. It certainly is not Moses' own revelation, at any rate.

In fact, the first chapter of Genesis (and much which follows it in the first eleven chapters of Genesis) comes from Babylon: a long time before Moses' alleged birth. Whether he ever really existed or not, Moses (who purportedly wrote Genesis) was obviously not an eyewitness to the events recorded in Genesis, et. al., at any rate. Moses' appearance in Exodus is– except for the fact that the book of Job was written before Moses wrote anything– to this extent, chronologically ordered in the canon of the ’Holy Bible’, even if the account of Moses' life and exploits is altogether a farce.

In comparing the text of the first chapter of Genesis with that of the second and third chapters of the same (much less the rest of the canon), the fact that God and the LORD God are not one becomes inescapable simply by virtue of the words and works of both God and the LORD God recorded in these three chapters. If, as is reported generally, the LORD God and the entity Genesis 1 calls God were one- and- the- same: it would be a schizophrenic entity, to be kind. That is to say, Genesis 1 makes diabolical rubbish out of virtually (if not literally) everything which follows it in the canon. That's the law of first mention, applied.

For instance, Genesis 1 plainly states God commended the work of every day’s creation, saying six times, “God saw… that it was good [Genesis 1:4, et. al.]”; and furthermore praised the whole work at it's completion, saying, “...behold, it was very good [Genesis 1:31].” The LORD God, on the other hand, disdains the work He claims as His own, saying “It is not good [i.e.: It is evil] that the man should be [as the LORD God, according to Moses, made him] alone; I will make him an help meet for him [Genesis 2:18].” [Does this last part of Genesis 2;18 sound like a queer proposing a gay marriage between two of his queer acquaintances: “him… meet for him”?] The lonely state of the man Adam's original existence, at any rate, is itself one of the irreconcilable differences between God and the LORD God.

Genesis 1:27 says, “God created Man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” while the preceding verse indicates it was not a lonely God who so created Man in twin- flame pairs. Genesis 1:26 says, “God said, Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” In contrast, nowhere does the text of the 'Holy Bible' canon describe the LORD God as anything but lonely; and the man He claims to have made was purportedly as lonely as Himself. God made Man. The LORD God– allegedly– made a man.

While the One Genesis 1 calls God is (arguably) only called God: the LORD God does indeed go by numerous monikers (the most common of which is “the LORD”) in appropriating to Himself the words, attributes, and works of God. This confusion- of- face serves HIM (Hebrews 12:29) well, perhaps, and could be the cause of His peculiar loneliness. After all, the various handles the LORD attributes to Himself could (as the title God does) belong to other entities upon whom He likewise presumes. Clearly the LORD is insane generally; and schizophrenic in particular: if all which is called God in the 'Holy Bible' is one entity throughout the entirety of the canon.

Isaiah 44:6 (as numerous other passages do) seems to indicate the LORD is proud of His clinical solitude, inasmuch as He reviles all the Gods in denying their existence. Isaiah says the LORD said to him, “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts [Is this a gay marriage between the King of Israel and the LORD of hosts?]; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” As further evidence of the LORD’s clinical insanity, Moses says one of the commandments the LORD gave the children of Israel was: “Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people [Exodus 22:28].” But for HIM (His Infernal Majesty), however, “there is no God,” says He who so blasphemes “the Gods” to the children of Israel.

[Ironically, the only Hebrew word for God used in the first three chapters of Genesis (Elohim) is a plurality with the Divine Female (“Elo”) preceding the Divine Male (“Him”): exactly as the alleged virgin- birth of Jesus of Nazareth implies She must have.]

Beside all of which, Solomon writes, “If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they [Ecclesiastes 5:8].” When Solomon cites “the highest,” this is refers to one of the LORD’s many monikers (or shibboleths) covering one of His many personalities: “the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth [Genesis 14:19 (first mention), et. al.].” Ecclesiastes 5:8 is a frank admission– by the man most renowned for his wisdom in the entire canon of the 'Holy Bible’– that there is someone above the Most High; and others above them both. According to this word from Solomon, every time the LORD says He is the only One and there is no other God: the LORD is proving His own blindness and insanity. “Wisdom is justified of her children [Matthew 11:19, et. al.]."

Compared to the God of Genesis 1, the LORD God of Genesis 2 (and throughout the canon) seems deluded, disingenuous, lonely, dazed, confused, and insane. Genesis 2:7 says “the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.” It may be true that the LORD made Adam. It may be true that the LORD made Eve. It seems entirely more likely, however, that just as Moses attempted (in Genesis 2:4 & 5) to credit the LORD with the first five days of creation, so the rest of the text of the second chapter of Genesis is an attempt to attribute the works of the sixth day of creation likewise to the LORD. Either way– whether God or the LORD God created Adam and Eve– the children of Adam are differentiated from the sons of God in Genesis 6. This differentiation in itself should be enough to prove the LORD God and the One called God in Genesis 1 are not one- and- the- same.

In Genesis 2, when the LORD God [who, again, might be “the Beast of the Earth” mentioned in Genesis 1:25] admits Adam's loneliness is an evil thing, the text implies the LORD thought bestiality would be more helpful to the man Adam than marriage and procreation could be. When the LORD says (at the end of verse 18), “I will make him an help meet for him,” He doesn't go to work making Eve. Instead, the text of the next verse says the LORD made “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;” and brought them to Adam to ”name” them. [To this day, every woman takes a man’s name at marriage, even in matriarchal societies.] The text of Genesis 6 confirms the LORD’s bestial bent.

In Genesis 6, when “every imagination of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was” deemed by “GOD” to be ”only evil continually… it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart [Genesis 6:5 & 6].” The text of the next verse goes on to define what the LORD means when He says “man.” Genesis 6:7 says, “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

It was, however, the One Genesis one calls God who made “the sons of God” (Genesis 6:2) and called them Man, even if the LORD is the one who made the beasts which Genesis 6 calls men. Likewise, it was the thoughts of the beasts referred to as men in Genesis 6 which were found to be only evil continually– even if the sons of God seemingly paid the price for the wickedness of said man-beasts in being wiped- out by the resultant deluge. “There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity [Ecclesiastes 8:14].”

It must have been the LORD whom Solomon was channeling, when he wrote: “that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [(Genesis 2:7)]; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity [Ecclesiastes 3:19].” This, too, is contrary– in a fundamental way– to the God of Genesis 1.

Whereas the LORD clearly sets no difference between man and beast (except to perhaps prefer the beasts above Man), Genesis 1:28 says, “God blessed [Man (verse 26) which God had made], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” God did not suggest marriage between Man and beast. God set difference between Man and beast: which fact is clearly evident in Man’s being given dominion over the beasts– “every living thing that moveth upon the earth”-- by the God of Genesis 1. This raises the specter of another seminal difference between the God of Genesis 1 and the LORD.

Everything God does in Genesis 1 is a gift. Nothing is taken in Genesis 1. All is given. The LORD God, on the other hand, takes credit for that which God had done; and instead of giving dominion to the man Adam, the LORD God takes dominion over the man (whom God most likely made). Genesis 2:15 says, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” From whom did the LORD take Adam? [This is the first mention of any form of the word “take” in the 'Holy Bible' canon.]

It is also alleged, in the second chapter of Genesis, that the LORD made a woman for Adam to correct the evil He had presumably done in making the man alone. This “gift” is also taken from Adam, and never given to him: only brought to him. Verses 21 and 22 of Genesis 2 say, “21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” If the woman is the “help meet for him” promised by the LORD God in Genesis 2:18, this conception of the weaker- as- helper- of- the- stronger betrays a spiritual opposition toward God's ways in the LORD God's works: The Battle of the Sexes, in the contemporary parlance.

The most significant thing about the gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth is not the miracles he allegedly performed. It's not that Jesus was allegedly murdered. It's not even that the apostolic succession made salvation of Jesus' alleged butchery and murder. The most significant thing about the gospel story of Jesus of Nazareth is the fact that Jesus was allegedly born of a virgin. By extrapolation, this means: not only is the real first- cause of all things the Divine Female; but, also, if the LORD God wasn't a perverter of God's ways, He would have made a woman of the dust of the ground– not a man.

If the LORD God had formed a woman of the dust of the ground, and breathed into her nostrils the breath of life, making of her a living soul: He wouldn't have had to take a rib from anyone to perpetuate the living form thereof, or to provide her a help meet for her. According to the evidence of the alleged virgin- birth of Jesus: the LORD wouldn't even have had to give the woman He so formed seed (that is to say, had sex with her) to provide the help meet for her– though, if He weren't altogether gay: why wouldn't He gladly have done so? Conversely: why wouldn't the Divine Female give birth to her own husband? Clearly, if She did so [as the alleged virgin-birth of Jesus of Nazareth indicates She must have], the Son She married is not the LORD God. After all, “wisdom is justified of all her children [Luke 7:35, et. al.].”

The first verse of Genesis 3 also sets a difference between God and the LORD God. The first sentence of Genesis 3:1 reads: “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” This is an admission that the serpent in the garden was not a creation of the LORD’s. The LORD hadn't made anything as subtle as the serpent was. Who, then, made the serpent, if not the God of Genesis 1? The rest of verse one of chapter three brings to mind another of the cardinal differences between God and the LORD.

When the serpent says to Eve, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” this question arises because (as recorded in the seventeenth verse of Genesis two) the LORD God had– at threat of assured death– prohibited Adam from eating of one of the trees of the garden. This also is opposition to the word and deed of the One Genesis 1 calls God. 

The Law of God is recorded in Genesis 1. Verses 26 - 29 of this Law state, “26 And God said, Let us make Man in our image, … let them have dominion … over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created Man …male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, … have dominion over … every living thing that moveth upon the earth [including the LORD God, if He lives and moves]. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you …every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

In particular, verse 29 of Genesis 1 answers the serpent's question of Eve in the negative, though Eve responded to the serpent’s query in the affirmative (betraying the LORD’s representation of Himself, to Eve, “as God” -2 Thessalonians 2:4). God said “I have given you …every tree [including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, obviously] …for meat.” This illustrates, again, the difference between the LORD God and God. God gave. The LORD God taketh away. The LORD took the dominion when he “took the man.” The LORD took the rib from Adam. The LORD took the tree of knowledge. Ultimately, the LORD took the tree of life [Genesis 3:22 - 24]. The LORD is opposition to God. Therefore it really shouldn't be surprising to find that that which God blessed, the LORD God curses (even though He claims to have Himself made that which He so curses).

In the third chapter of Genesis, the LORD explicitly curses the serpent (which verse one says He had not made) saying, “...Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel [Genesis 3:14 & 15].” When the LORD says to the serpent, “dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:” this is tantamount to calling the serpent a man- eater, in light of what the LORD says of Adam, five verses later: “dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” This likewise might be a curse on Adam, and certainly is evocative of the man- child- eating dragon in Revelation 12. Notice also how the LORD curses the woman and the serpent in putting His enmity between the serpent and the woman and their respective “seeds.”

Next, the LORD curses the woman, saying, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee [Genesis 3:16].” If the multiplication of Eve’s sorrow is not a curse, certainly the rest of verse 16 is. The LORD God’s statement to Eve that “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” is comparable to the construction worker being lorded- over by the D9 Cat bulldozer he uses as a brute beast to prepare roadways and building sites. It is this same turning of things upside- down which is spelled- out in the LORD’s ejaculation of Genesis 2:18 that He would make Adam “an help meet for him” (especially if Eve were not that “help”).

Contrary to the LORD’s madness, the stronger is supposed to help the weaker. Oxen weren't co- opted into doing man’s work because they were weaker than men. Oxen are useful to men (though not as twin- flame lover- soulmates) because they are stronger. Big men aren't supposed to stand on the sidelines cheering as smaller men play football. That's contrary to nature. Neither is the woman meant to be the man’s helper. Clearly, the LORD’s motto is “Might makes right.” [No doubt, as far as the LORD God is concerned, the Divine Female shouldn't even exist; and, if needs- be She must exist, She should only do so as His welcome- mat and punching- bag (not as His world, His field, His manse, His heavens, in a word: everything to HIM).] Either way, the Divine Female is property, and a man is possessed of his possessions [Joshua 22:9].

[What kind of moron does it take to despise the Queen of Heaven and Earth for being the heaven- and- earth which gives him life and sustains his life in the land of the living? A zombie?]

Finally, the LORD curses everything and everyone who partakes of the life of the Earth when He says to Adam, “cursed is the ground for thy sake [Genesis 3:17g].” Indeed, He curses Adam's mother in so saying, “for out of [the ground] wast [Adam] taken [Genesis 3:19, et. al.].” Furthermore, the LORD God curses the family unit– the true image of the fullness of the Godhead– when He curses the ground, inasmuch as in so doing He curses (in a figure, at least) all marriages between a man and a woman: for the woman is– according to the LORD– the land a man marries. And “Eve [herself]… was the mother of all living [Genesis 3:20],” i.e. the ground the LORD God cursed: Adam's mother (if Adam is counted among the living). Thus, it is the Divine Female, who is all and in all (Colossians 3:11), whom the LORD God curses first and foremost above all; and is the target of His hateful reprobation at all times: past, present, and future.

Deuteronomy 24:1 - 4 says, “1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes… then let him write her a bill of divorcement… and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement… and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die… 4 Her former husband… may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled… and thou shalt not cause the land to sin….” In the third chapter of his prophecy, Jeremiah sheds this light on Moses' law of divorce: “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? [Jeremiah 3:1].” This verse from Jeremiah more specifically identifies the woman as the land referenced in Deuteronomy 24:4, which (like the woman) is sown and maintained by Man.

All these things the LORD God curses were blessed and counted “very good” by God who made and created them, according to the first chapter of Genesis. How, then, could the LORD God be God without God being a bumbler and two- faced liar? Does God make mistakes? The LORD God certainly does. He admits as much according to Genesis 2:18, Genesis 6:7, and many, many other passages in the 'Holy Bible'. Every time the LORD God repents, He’s admitting He messed something up. Thus, “saith the LORD, …I am weary with repenting [Jeremiah 15:6].”

Nonetheless, if the law of first mention is applied to the ‘Holy Bible', the integrity of the canon remains intact– in spite of all the lies told throughout– thanks solely to the creation narrative taken from Babylon and folded into the ‘Holy Bible' as the first word thereof: Genesis chapter one- through- Genesis 2:3. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. In the end, all the LORD God ever made was an unholy mess of the toilet paper He calls a Bible. The LORD’s potty- training is only to be repented of. Help your Mother. Don't make an unholy mess of the head. By God, clean the latrine from time to time.