Inerrant Lie #80

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

A number of times in the 'Holy Bible' canon, the LORD is identified as a false prophet. One such case concerns something the LORD allegedly said Elijah would do in the sunset days of his prophetic ministry.

The eighteenth chapter of the first book of Kings tells of a duel between the prophet Elijah and 450 prophets of Baal. According to the text, Elijah won this duel hands- down, and immediately slew the four- hundred- fifty unsuccessful prophets of Baal who had accepted his challenge; whereupon the sitting queen of Samaria (Jezebel) promised to likewise slay Elijah within twenty- four hours.

At this word from Jezebel, Elijah ran for his life from Samaria to the land of Judah, and (when safely out of Jezebel’s jurisdiction) ironically, “...requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers [1 Kings 19:4].” This prayer request, according to the second chapter of the second book of Kings, was denied: Elijah was not allowed to die; he allegedly “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” alive, instead. He left some business undone when he went, however.

The text of 1 Kings 19 says that, after fleeing to the wilderness in the land of Judah, Elijah further escaped to mount Hore: where he had a conversation with “a still small voice.” “15 And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: 16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room [1 Kings 19:15 & 16].”

Of the three items in the LORD’s to- do itinerary presented to Elijah in the fifteenth and sixteenth verses of First Kings 19: one is a command (verse 15); two are prognostications (verse 16). The command to “anoint Hazael to be king over Syria” is unequivocal. It is simply stated as a command without any qualifying verbage. Nonetheless, Elijah did not do so [though Elijah's replacement Elisha did (sort of); and that at the king of Syria's incidental request concerning another matter entirely– not because he was commissioned by Elijah or the LORD to so cover for Elijah's refusal to do it].

In verse sixteen of 1 Kings 19, the LORD prognosticates Elijah will do two more things: anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi king over Israel; and anoint Elisha of Abel-meholah as his replacement. [If these were not prognostications, there would be no need of the word “shalt” in either of the two declarative statements in verse 16. The language here would have simply followed the precedent set by the command to anoint Hazael (in verse 15) which came as a simple statement of command without any such equivocation.]  

Of these two prognostications, only the latter was done by Elijah. He did not anoint Jehu “king over Israel.” Thus, the disobedient nature of Elijah (at least in the latter end of his ministry) is unquestionable, according to the ‘Holy Bible'. (He did not anoint Hazael, after all.) My guess is that Elijah finally got sick- and- tired of being threatened with death and destruction by the LORD– in the words and by the persons of his contemporaries– simply for doing what was required of him by the same LORD. He's not the only one.

Job cursed the day he was born, and wished for death and outer darkness because of such shenanigans by the LORD, as recorded in chapter three of the book of Job; and requested that he might be hidden in the grave (in the thirteenth verse of the fourteenth chapter of the same book) instead of returning to his mother's womb to be reborn as he expected to be, according to the next- to- last verse of the first chapter of Job. Moses likewise despaired of life and the land of the living, though perhaps for perverse reasons.

In Exodus 32, after Moses had come down from the mount and discovered that the noise of war (verse 17) and singing (verse 18) he and Joshua heard as they descended the mount was the cacauphony of half- a- million people worshipping and playing (verse 6) in a naked orgy (verse 25) around his own effigy (in the form of a golden calf) under Aaron's priestly leadership: Moses went back up the mountain, and said to the LORD: “Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written [verse 32].”

Likewise, Jonah despaired of life after being made a false prophet by the LORD he served, saying, “I do well to be angry, even unto death [Jonah 4:9].” [The preaching Jonah had been sent to Nineveh to deliver came in the form of a prognostication: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” (Jonah 3:4) This prognostication did not materialize thanks to Nineveh’s repentance upon hearing Jonah’s message. Thus Jonah became a false prophet. (Deuteronomy 18:22)]

At any rate, the prognostications the LORD allegedly spoke, in a still small voice, over Elijah's final days as a prophet are reminiscent of the way in which He allegedly prognosticated falsely Edom’s cooperation with the children of Israel’s return to the land of promise: inasmuch as this latter was indicated as prognostication by the word “shall,” which “shalt” is a form of.

In the second chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses says the LORD told him, “Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you:... 6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink [Deuteronomy 2:4 - 6].” It is nonetheless recorded of this event (in Numbers 20:21, et. al.) that “Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.”

While Elijah did not necessarily give voice to the LORD’s false prognostication concerning his presumed anointing of Jehu over Israel, Jonah and Moses both gave utterance to false prognostications they received of the LORD, which categorizes them both as false prophets: by the LORD’s criteria.

Ezekiel says the LORD told him: “And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel [Ezekiel 14:9].” In so saying, the LORD credits Himself with being the inspiration of all false prophets, and of being “the tempter [Matthew 4:3, et. al.]” and “the accuser of our brethren [Revelation 12:10, et. al.].”

If the prophet is false because he was deceived by the LORD: isn't the LORD the false prophet? What do RICO statutes say of such things?

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.

Inerrant Lie #26

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

In the second chapter of his gospel, Saint John the Divine crosses a line when he writes (concerning Jesus of Nazareth and the Jews assembled in Jerusalem for Passover): "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men [John 2:24]."

Prima facie, this witness, “he knew all men,” seems true, relatively speaking, in respect of the “gospels” of murder- for- salvation written by Jesus’ apostles. On second glance, however, John the Divine's assessment of Jesus' knowledge of men might indicate the taint of Jesus' proclivities as gay, in light of passages such as Genesis 19:5– “[the men of Sodom] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men [the two angels] which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [Genesis 19:5].”

Jesus of Nazareth did seem to know everything and everyone, according to the apostolic records and traditions which are his only enduring representatives. Saying Jesus “knew all men,” however, contradicts Jesus' own testimony of himself, as handed down by the apostles; and frankly makes him sound gay (which he might be, if he ever existed).

In the seventeenth chapter of Jeremiah's prophecy, “the LORD” addresses “Judah [Jeremiah 16:21]”, thus: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it [Jeremiah 17:9]?" He goes on to explain the profundity of this statement in the next verse, saying; "I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Yet-- to the LORD-- the hearts of Judah (the tribe of Jesus' “father [Luke 1:32]” David, The King of the Jews) are beyond finding out.

Being a Jew, John the Divine was perhaps naturally inclined to regard all things Jewish favorably; but “Jesus'” own words refute John's assertion that Jesus "knew all men," if Jeremiah's don't. According to the apostle Matthew, Jesus of Nazareth dashed John the Divine’s assertion that Jesus “knew all men,” (along with many of the disciples’ expectations) to smithereens, when Jesus said to them: "Not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven [Matthew 7:21]."

In the next verse of Matthew 7, Jesus goes on to say, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works [verse 22, ibid.]?" Nonetheless, in respect of these things and John's assertion that Jesus “knew all men,” Matthew says Jesus went on to say: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [Matthew 7:23].”

“I never knew you.” Is Jesus a liar? If not, John the Divine must be. 

Inerrant Lie #77

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

According to the testimony of the ‘Holy Bible', the LORD tells a number of lies; and teaches his princes, principalities, prophets kings, judges, priests, and people to do likewise. In Exodus 23, while the Israelites were ‘serving’ the LORD at mount Hor, Moses says the LORD told him a particularly deviant fib.

At mount Hor (in Exodus 23), while the LORD was allegedly reciting for Moses the statutes which subsequently became a part of the canon of national legal precedents referred to as “Moses' law“, the LORD informed Moses that he'd assigned an “Angel” to see the children of Israel the rest of the way to the promised land. This ‘change- of- guard’ seems to in fact take place in chapter 34 of Exodus (verses 6 - 8)– while the children of Israel remained at mount Hor, being instructed in the service of the LORD–; after Moses, desirous of seeing the LORD’s “glory [33:18, ibid.],” is forewarned of the LORD, “thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen;” (which means, “Kiss my ass, and taste my blow- by. I’m gone.”) in the final word of chapter 33.

Meanwhile, in Exodus 23, the LORD– in setting Moses' heart at ease about his upcoming leave- taking– tells Moses: "28 I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. 29 I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30 By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land [Exodus 23:28 - 30]."

Notice: the LORD says “I will” three times in the above passage from Exodus 23, “from before thee” three times, “before thee” once; and mentions “the Hivite” at the top of his “hornets” target list. The book of Joshua tells a different story about “the Hivite” and the “hornets.”

Joshua 9 is a rehearsal of the Israelites' first encounter with the Hivites of Abraham’s promised land. This first encounter with the Hivites is their third encounter with the inhabitants of the land on the west side of Jordan. Only Jericho and Bethel- Ai are said to have been encountered before the Hivites on the west side of the river (which is to say: after Moses’ demise, on the other side). In this encounter, the inhabitants of “Gibeon, and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim [verse 17]” come “wilily [verse 4]” to Joshua and the children of Israel (in Gilgal) to scam a peace treaty out of their new neighbors.

The children of confusion (Israel) make the peace- and- protection compact with the Hivites. Subsequently, the next military contest Josh and the Jewry have to peel themselves away from Gilgal to march- off to is against “Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem... Piram king of Jarmuth... Japhia king of Lachish, and… Debir king of Eglon [Joshua 10:1]” who have marched upon Gibeon in the opening salvo against the Hivites of the cities listed in Joshua 9:17 (above), in punishment of their peace- making with the Jews.

The rescue of these four cities of the Hivites from the four avenging kings, their neighbors (on ‘the day the sun stood still [Joshua 10:13]’), is the third such in numerous military contests in the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. Where are the “hornets” the LORD promised Moses he would use to, first and foremost, drive out the Hivites from before the children of Israel?

Isn't this peace pact with the Hivites precisely the sort of compromise which the hornets promised Moses by the LORD (Exodus 23:28 - 30, above) were supposed to keep the Jews from blundering into? After all, in the same narrative in which the LORD promises to send hornets before them, he says “Thou shalt make no covenant with [the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite], nor with their gods [Exodus 23:32].” Nonetheless, in Judges 2, the LORD blames and condemns the Hebrews for this faux pas.

In the second chapter of Judges, “an angel of the LORD [went] up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said… I said… ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land [(as per Exodus 23:32)]… but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? 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].”

But, again: where are the “hornets” the LORD promised, in Exodus 23:28 - 30? There is no word in any of the passages applicable to the Hivites’ beguilement of the Israelites in Gilgal about the LORD in any way discouraging the Hivites from their ‘wiley’ cause. In fact, the narrative of Joshua 9 reads more like the LORD used the Hivites as his hornets in chasing the Jews out of the land “by little and little.” Did the LORD not lie when he promised to provide the hornets?

Never let it be said, however, that the LORD isn't devious when he lies. In the thirty- first verse of Exodus 23, the LORD says something which could be received (by Moses and the Hebrews) as a commission to be the “hornets” promised by the LORD, three verses earlier.

As previously mentioned: in Exodus 23:28 - 30, the LORD said “I will” and “from before thee” three times each, respectively. Nonetheless, in verse 31, the LORD says, "...for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee [Exodus 23:31c & d]": putting the onus of being the “hornets” so promised on the Hebrews themselves.

Given the alchemy which goes for spirituality in the LORD’s general manner of speaking, there's no reason the men who are the sheep of the LORD’s pasture (Psalms 11:3, et. al.) can't be the hornets of the same, or the dung of his orchard (Luke 13:8, et. al.), for that matter. The only problem is: how are men supposed to go before themselves to harass an enemy which seeks them out as friends?

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.

Inerrant Lie #74

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

The anonymous writer of the book of Hebrews writes of angels, "if the word spoken by angels was stedfast [Hebrews 2:2a]": indicting the word of angels as 'loose talk'. However, this runs contradictory to the scriptures themselves, it seems; and it was just this sort of attitude about angels for which Zacharias (father of John the Baptist) was made "dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things [were] performed, because [he believed] not [the angel's] words, which [were] fulfilled in their season [Luke 1:20]." 

It's beside the point (though in counterpoint to it), that unlike Zacharias, the Blessed Virgin did not challenge the angel to give her a sign of his credibility. She simply accepted what she was told by the angel graciously, and got on with it. "Every man shall kiss his lips that giveth a right answer," someone once said, who obviously thought it was a good thing to be kissed on the lips by other men. He probably thought this because he was a king of "Sodom [Revelation 11:8]."

Perhaps the sorcery some call sex and others call religion (both together in observances, "in Jesus' precious name,"-- globally– every Sunday morning) has this residual effect on it's practitioners: they become cynical where angels and sprits are concerned; while simultaneously worshipping men "as God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]." Perhaps they're so spiritual, in their own esteem of themselves, vis a vis all others, that even– especially– God has to take a number and get in line; and that only to be disregarded as 'unspiritual' and unworthy of the audience, when it is granted. At any rate, this incredulous esteem of the words of angels does seem to be a trademark of the (spiritual- and genetic-) children of Abraham: the second chapter of the book of Judges being one case in point; the conversation of contemporary Christianity being another.

Judges 2 begins with an angelic appearance and visitation (in the days of Joshua) wherein the children of Israel are upbraided by the angel for their disobedience to the word of the LORD. This disobedience is recorded at least twice: at Peor (Numbers 25); and in the matter of the Hivites of "Gibeon, and and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim" (Joshua 9).

The final word of this angel's 'hard sermon' is recorded to have been: "ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive [the inhabitants of this land] out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:2c - 3]." This disparaging word, "ye have not obeyed my voice" is contradicted by scribe and LORD alike.

One of the final words of the book of Joshua is, "Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel [Joshua 24:31]." This is consistent with the tenor of the book of Joshua generally; though it is nonetheless a lie: and an indictment of the angel's testimony in Judges 2.

In fact, in Judges 2 alone, the testimony of "Bochim [Judges 2:5, et. al.]" is refuted not fewer than three times: once presumably by the LORD. Four verses after the end of the record of Bochim– after "Joshua had let the people go [Judges 2:6a]"-- it is again alleged that "the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel [Judges 2:7]." Ten verses later, the scribes 'double- down' on this same lie, saying, "they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so [Judges 2:17d - f]." Then the LORD, himself, allegedly validates the same lie while simultaneously seeming to confirm the word of the angel at Bochim.

In Judges 2:20 & 21 (after the deaths of Joshua and all his contemporaries, according to the text), the scribes allege: "20 …the LORD… said, Because that this people hath transgressed my covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto my voice; 21 I also will not [(Note the next word.)] henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died [Judges 2:20 & 21]:" in seeming confirmation of the angel's testimony at Bochim; though it is explicitly an anachronistic irregularity, in light of the fact that Joshua was extant when the angel pronounced judgement at Bochim; and his entire generation– and the one after it– long- dead at the time of this alleged word of the LORD.

This raises the question: Who's angel was it at Bochim? The text of Judges 2 says it was "an angel of the LORD [Judges 2:1a]." But verse 21 of the same chapter indicates a difference in opinion between the LORD and his angel, if that were the case: in light of the word "henceforth" in verse 21, above. Perhaps the real lie, here, is that it was an angel of the LORD at Bochim. Perhaps the real lie of the canon is that the LORD is not the Devil.

In the final two verses of Judges 2, the scribes allege the LORD gives his rationalization for allowing the nations (who preceded the Jews in the promised land) to remain– as a 'test': "22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua [Judges 2:22 & 23]."

In verse 22, the LORD is thus characterized as confirming the lie that a generation of Jewry "hearkened unto [his] voice," with the words "their fathers did keep it." In verse 23, the scribe attempts to resolve the foregoing 'word of the LORD' with the words of the angel at Bochim, writing, "neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua"; but if that were so: why did the LORD say the generation to which the angel spoke so disparagingly 'kept the way of the LORD?'

Never in the canon is this presumed obedience recorded, except in lie form. Even when Moses "was king in Jeshurun [Deuteronomy 33:5a]," he told the people, "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 thesis and final word of the book of Judges, itself, concerning the apostasy described therein: "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.]." Again, Moses, in his final oration before his death, says to the Jewry: "thou art a stiffnecked people [Deuteronomy 9:6b]."

Finally, the reason "the elders that outlived Joshua" are cited in Joshua and Judges (above) is that Joshua's entire generation was allegedly wiped- out in the wilderness for disobedience. [In the New Testament, the descendants of these same people murdered him whom they called (et. al.) "the Holy One of God."] And Moses again said, "Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you [Deuteronomy 9:24]."

For these reasons and more, I say: the angel at Bochim told the truth; and all who say otherwise are lying. Either way, these various witnesses of the events and times spoken of by the angel do not agree. Someone or somebody is lying. The "more sure word of prophecy" is the word of angels. How else would Daniel have known anything?

Inerrant Lie #73

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

Jesus said: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true [John 5:31]." Every time I recall Jesus saying this, I'm reminded how many times Moses bore witness of himself; and, in turn how many times he did so– presumably– at the LORD's insistence. Every time Moses told his people, "I am the LORD your God," he did so because he was told to, he says. Moses also says the LORD told him, "[Aaron] shall be thy spokesman unto the people ["prophet" (Exodus 7:1)]… and thou shalt be to him instead of God [Exodus 4:16]." Moses also writes of himself, "(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) [Numbers 12:3];" this last, apparently, of his own volition.

Moses' epitaph, in Deuteronomy, says, "Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated [Deuteronomy 34:7]." He may have died as sexy as James Dean; however, Deuteronomy reads like Moses' memory was slipping a bit; and his epitaph in the New Testament seems to read, "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

There are numerous places in Deuteronomy where Moses remembers things differently than they were originally recorded by him. The whole of Deuteronomy is the record of Moses' final oration to his people before being presumably killed by the LORD, personally, (while Michael and Satan "disputed about the body of Moses," according to Jude).

In this instance, Moses is rehearsing the events which allegedly occurred "in Horeb [Deuteronomy 5:2]" what time the children of Israel received 'the ten commandments' from the LORD. In Deuteronomy, Moses says, "(I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the work of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) [Deuteronomy 5:5]". This does not equate with the record of these things written by Moses in Exodus. Here, in Deuteronomy, Moses says he "stood between the LORD and [the people]" because of the people's fear. In Exodus, Moses says the LORD, shall we say, made him do it.

The text in Exodus relevant to these events begins in chapter 19, three days before the day on which 'the ten commandments' were allegedly spoken from the mount. In Exodus, Moses says the reason the LORD delivered 'the ten commandments' in the dramatic fashion in which he allegedly did so was for the purpose of obtaining for Moses eternal credibility with "the people" by being real impressive with a show; but this is no ordinary song- and- dance. Moses and his people have to play along. The LORD's a real special guy, so everyone has to be clean and show proper respect. The LORD requires a number of things from "the people"-- compliance with a threat of death among these– without which it will be impossible for him to do Moses this 'solid'.

In formulating his requirements, the LORD tells Moses, in part, "thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death [Exodus 19:12]:" this three days before the special day he's set aside in legalese praise of Moses.

The day of this shocking- and- aweing, rocking 'n' rolling party in praise and support of Moses, Moses says he went up the mount, and the LORD told him, "Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish [Exodus 19:21]." To which, Moses says he responds, "The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it [Exodus 19:23b - f]." He's done what he's been told to do. Why does he have to do what he's told to: especially on the holiday observed in his own honor?

According to Moses (in Exodus), the LORD responds to Moses' presumption upon his own honor, as it were, with: "Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest he break forth upon them [Exodus 19:24b - h]." Furthermore, in Exodus, Moses goes on to say, "So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them [Exodus 19:25]": as he was told to.

Yet, in Deuteronomy, Moses says, "I stood between the LORD and you… for ye were afraid… and went not up into the mount;" as if– instead of setting boundaries– he were taunting them with their fear, on the day of the event; not only on the day of his own death.

Inerrant Lie #72

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

Moses informs us of a number of lies he blames the Lord for. One of these has to do with the age at which a Levite is required to go to work in "the tabernacle of the congregation."

Moses' book entitled 'Numbers' tells of three censuses allegedly taken of the Levites by Moses during their likewise- alleged forty- year wander through the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan. In the precedent- setting first census taken by Moses, Moses says the LORD told him to number the Levites, "every male from a month old and upward [Numbers 3:15c, et. al.]."

In the second census of the Levites performed by Moses, Moses says the LORD told him to: "2 Take the sum of… the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers, 3 From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation [Numbers 4:2 & 3, et. al.]." Thus, in this second census, the length of the career of a given Levite is presumably limited by the LORD to twenty years. 

(The third census of the Levites, as the first, numbers "all males from a month old and upward [Numbers 26:62b]:" and is of no consequence in the current controversy.)

Unlike American jurisprudence, which is supposedly precedent- based, the LORD apparently makes up the rules as he goes along. Sometime between the second and third censuses of the Levites, Moses says the LORD (in assigning the Levites their duties- by- family) told him: "24 This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation 25 And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more: 26 But shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge [Numbers 8:24 - 26]." This is a pretty notable departure from the LORD's first word on this topic.

In the first census of Levites, the LORD allegedly limited the career of the Levites to twenty years: thirty years old- to- fifty years old. In assigning the Levites their several duties, the LORD sets the bounds of service from twenty- five years (five years younger than previously)- to- death, basically. Ministry (Numbers 8:26, above) is work, after all, even if it isn't what the LORD calls "service." Talk about 'bait 'n' switch.

What is the LORD– a used car salesman?

Inerrant Lie #71

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

Genesis 20 relates a story from the life of Abraham which is not only peculiar but (presumably) incestuous; as well as being one example of how Abraham was, presumably, accursed under Moses' law [Deuteronomy 27:22] (which law Moses says he received of the LORD). Moses, in Genesis 20, tells us that, after the destruction of Sodom, Abraham "sojourned in Gerar [Genesis 20:1c]." Mischief follows.

While in Gerar, Abraham and Sarah went as brother and sister– not as husband and wife, which in fact they were. According to the text of Genesis 20, this conspiracy to defraud was a longstanding covenant between Abe and Sarah. Verse 13 has Abe telling Abimelech, the king of Gerar, "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto [Sarah], This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother."

However, when Abimelech asked Abraham why they had so done, "Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake [Genesis 20:11]." Abraham goes on to say, "...yet indeed [Sarah] is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife [Genesis 20:12]."

This is, perhaps, beside the point, but if this last word from Abraham is true, Moses– through Joshua and the people who entered with him into the promised land– cursed Abe (and, by extension, all of his children, themselves and Christians [Romans 4:16] included) from mount Ebal with the words, "Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people [presumably said], Amen [Deuteronomy 27:22]." This cursing is recorded in Joshua 8:30 - 35. In light of Genesis 12:3a & b ["I will… curse him that curseth thee"]: does the cursing from mount Ebal imply Abraham was cursed for cursing himself? and that before the LORD ever made any covenant with him? Perhaps one must be accursed to make a covenant with the LORD.

At any rate, inasmuch as he knew not that Abe and Sarah were married, "Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah [Genesis 20:2c & d]", whom he found attractive enough to take, even though (presumably) Sarah was already an old maid [Genesis 17:17] and perhaps past any thought of being able to enjoy sex [Genesis 18:11]. Nonetheless, Abimelech "took" Sarah, and this abduction as it were expedited a nighttime visit and death threat from "God" to Abimelech, according to Moses who wrote Genesis.

Moses says God told Abimelech, "restore [Abraham] his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine [Genesis 20:7]." Any place Moses refers to God, in any of his writings, is of singular interest: inasmuch as Moses more generally refers to "the LORD," or "the LORD God." The thing which may immediately be observed about this Mosaic reference to God therefore is that the one speaking as God to Abimelech refers to a deceiver (Abraham, by name) as "a prophet."

The upshot of this scandalous controversy, as Moses records it, is that Abraham is enriched by virtue of shakedown for deceiving Abimelech, and Abimelech is coerced into participating in the shakedown by the "God" who tells Abimelech "[Abe] shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live [v. 7, above]." Abimelech's 'participation' in this shakedown is recorded in verses 14 & 15, thus: "14 And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and womenservants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. 15 And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell where it pleaseth thee."

In return for Abimelech's cooperation, "17 Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. 18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife [Genesis 20:17 & 18]." Notice how "God" heals the damage done to Abimelech by "the LORD," according to this passage.

All the forgoing, from Genesis 20, is naught but precipitating action in regards to the lie here under examination, and is only included that you might understand the lie presently illucidated, which comes to us in succeeding chapters.

In chapter 21 of Genesis– allegedly after the birth of Abraham's second son, Isaac, and about the time Abraham's firstborn son, Ishmael, was married– Moses says, "...that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest: 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned [Genesis 21:22b - 23]." This, Abe presumably swears to, indemnifying himself and, by extension, his children to "not deal falsely" with the Philistines of Gerar unto Abimelech's third generation.

In Genesis 26, (after the death of Abraham, chapter 25) Moses writes that Abraham's second son, Isaac, after marrying his cousin Rebekah and the resultant birth of their twins, Esau and Jacob– like his father Abraham– at the behest of the LORD, sojourned in Gerar. "And the men of the place asked [Isaac] of his wife; and he [like Abe] said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon [Genesis 26:7]." Like father like son.

"Abimelech king of the Philistines [v. 8]" subsequently discerns Isaac's Abrahamic deception and calls him out on it. After rebuking Isaac for his deceptive foolishness, "Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death [Genesis 26:11]." The text says nothing of the LORD (or God) saying anything to Abimelech about Rebekah or Isaac either before or after their deception is found out, but it does say, "the LORD blessed [Isaac (Genesis 26:12c)]" after these things.

What's more, the text says Isaac "...waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: 14 For he had possession of flocks, and possessions of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him [Genesis 26:13 & 14]." Though Moses doesn't directly credit Abimelech for any of Isaac's wealth, as in Abe's earlier shakedown he did.

Nor does Moses mention the simple fact that Isaac and Rebekah's deception amounts to nothing less than a breach of the covenant Abraham made with Abimelech in chapter 21. Neither does Moses indicate whether or not the Abimelech in Gerar in chapter 26 is the same Abimelech Abraham swore to in chapter 21. The reader is led to assume, however, that it's the same Abimelech in both cases. After all, the name of the latter Abimelech's "chief captain of his army" is– as the former Abimelech's was– Phicol. Assuming both Abimelechs are the same, it's reasonable to assume Abimelech was older than Isaac, but quite a bit younger than Abe.

The insidious element of the foregoing lie is that it was the LORD– who, throughout the canon (especially in the books of the prophets), rails on the Jews as covenant- breakers, adulterers, truce breakers, etc.-- who 'taught' Isaac to break the covenants made by his father Abraham: as the Sanhedrin "taught" the Romans to lie about the body of Jesus [Matthew 28:15]. Why is it assumed that when the LORD lies (by teaching and commanding his children to lie on his behalf, in some cases) the lie was necessary and righteous? Does conspiracy wash the hands of the wicked? I thought it was the filth thereof.

Inerrant Lie #70

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

At the end of Moses' fifth book, his death and interment at the hand of the LORD is recorded. Deuteronomy 34:5 & 6 says, "5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 6 And [the LORD] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."

In contradiction to the above statement that "no man knoweth of [Moses'] sepulchre unto this day" is a declaration by Jude which is well- favored among Christian preachers; who– given the fact that they believe there are no lies in the canon– obviously haven't thought very much about it.

Deuteronomy was written long before Jude lived, but Jude nonetheless wrote, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee [Jude 9]." How could Jude know about this confrontation if no one was at Moses' sepulchre to witness the alleged contention between Michael and the devil over Moses' body?

Obviously, there's a discrepancy between these two passages. It's anyone's guess which account is false, but one or the other is, if both of them aren't.

Inerrant Lie #69

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

Concerning Jesus' final hours before being condemned– in particular, the disposition of the events which transpired in Gethsemane between the conclusion of Jesus 'last supper' and his arrest in the garden– the apostles Matthew, Mark, and Luke offer a record which is nothing short of fantastical. Such should not be the case. According to Moses' law, multiple witnesses are supposed to make a sure testimony: not a convoluted mess of testimony.

Moses wrote, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established [Deuteronomy 19:15, et. al.]." Therefore it stands to reason that the trifold multiplicity of documented witnesses to Jesus' and his disciples' words and acts in Gethsemane before his alleged condemnation and subsequent crucifixion should provide a solid, reliable account of the matters under examination. As with so much of the disharmonious gospels: such is not the case, here.

In fact, as a whole, the record so received is reminiscent of the apostle Mark's characterization of the testimony of the false witnesses who allegedly bore witness against Jesus at his hearing before the Sanhedrin, whose "witness agreed not together [Mark 14:56b, et. al.]." Individually, these three accounts of the same interlude in Gethsemane defy reason. When one "harmonizes" the three, the resulting composition is a dysphonic cacophony. I suppose this dissonance is one more reason the blind believe in a perceived necessity of faith to be likewise blinded to be authentic.

Upon their arrival at Gethsemane, the apostles Matthew and Mark allege Jesus "saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy [Matthew 26:36b - 37, et. al.]." The apostle Luke, on the other hand, says nothing in particular of the Boanerges and Peter, though he does explicitly state that Jesus "was withdrawn from [the disciples] about a stone's cast [Luke 22:41a]," when he "kneeled down, and prayed [ibid.]."

This latter is significant inasmuch as it was none other than the same Jesus who, according to the apostle Matthew, told his disciples to pray in secret, saying: "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly [Matthew 6:6]." For Jesus to then pray "as the hypocrites [Matthew 6:5]": to not only be seen but likewise heard of men would be hypocritical. But all three of the apostles who bear record of the interlude in Gethsemane record the words Jesus allegedly prayed– from a stone's throw away.

Even more significant is the simple fact that all three of these witnesses claim to have been dead- asleep while Jesus so prayed. How could they then have knowledge of his exact words– even with the anachronistic assistance of electronic surveillance– without active recording equipment (also an anachronism) to boot? Yet they all somehow manage (in spite of all they disagree upon) to agree upon the exact words Jesus prayed: though Matthew says Jesus so prayed three times (Is this "vain repetitions," as per Matthew 6:7?); Mark says he so prayed two times; and Luke says one time.

Besides all these things, Luke furthermore claims that, while Jesus prayed (sweating "great drops of blood [which fell] down to the ground [Luke 22:44b],"): "there appeared an angel unto [Jesus] from heaven, strengthening him [Luke 22:43]." If you've read the gospels, you don't need me to tell you that if anything would have woke the disciples up (and probably made them run away [see Mark 6:49 & 50, and John 6:19 - 21; and Matthew 17:1 - 6, and Mark 9:2 - 6, et. al., for instance.]), it would have been the appearance of an angel from heaven and/or anyone sweating great drops of blood. The apostles were decidedly, and understandably, jumpy about such appearances and events.

In the final analysis: the testimonies under review here represent at least three lies, inasmuch as three people who admit to being asleep claim to have been cognizant of the things taking place around them as they slept; and, given Luke's embellishments to the narrative, probably more like five- or- more lies are extant in these three accounts. Perhaps it all these lies simply add up to one great lie: that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. It would sure simplify things, if he didn't.

Inerrant Lie #68

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

According to Matthew, Jesus of Nazareth told a lie about the identity of the one whom Moses' book of Genesis credits with making Adam and his wife.

Notice especially the first three words of the passage cited by Jesus in the lie told: "23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh [Genesis 2:23 & 24]."

According to the apostle Matthew, Jesus, when holding forth on the subject of marriage said: "4 Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh [Matthew 19:4b - 5]?"

Did we create ourselves? If so, Jesus' lie would at least be true in spirit; but his query "Have ye not read?" makes what Jesus said false witness of what Moses wrote in Genesis. Moses credited Adam– not his creator– with the statement in question.

Inerrant Lie #67

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

The apostles Mark, Luke, and John record the day of the week upon which Jesus' crucifixion took place, in their respective gospels. All three agree Jesus was crucified on Friday.

For example: John records that it was because the next day was the sabbath (Saturday) that the condemned's legs were broken, in the hopes they would perish before the sabbath and not therefore defile the holy day with their accursed presence. Jesus was, of course, already dead when the leg- breaking took place, so the soldier who broke the legs of those crucified with Jesus stuck a spear in Jesus' side, instead. Thus, one of Jesus' five wounds itself signifies the day of the week on which he died.

As to the time of day on Friday at which he was interred in the tomb: it would have been Friday night. Matthew records it was Friday evening before Joseph of Arimathea received Jesus' corpse from Pilate for burying. Therefore the sun would have set on Friday before Jesus' interment.

All four gospels report that, before sunrise on Sunday morning of the following week, Jesus was verified to be out of the tomb. The problem is that, when the Jews came to Jesus begging of him a sign that they might believe on him and his prophecy, Jesus said, "...An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [Matthew 12:39b - 40]."

Friday night- to- Sunday morning is two nights and one day: not three days and three nights. Thus, the sign Jesus provided is at least as false as Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh. Do true prophets provide false signs and "lying wonders [2 Thessalonians 2:8 & 9]?" Does God-- like a modern- day politician-- tell lies and hyperbole to control the behaviors of those who attend upon God's words? Or is Jesus the Devil?

Inerrant Lie #66

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

Jonah, like many (if not all) of the Bible's noteworthy contributors told a lie in the name of the LORD. Like most, if not all, of the liars in the Bible, Jonah credited the LORD with inspiring the lie he told Nineveh. Unlike most of the Bible's contributors, Jonah admitted to being a false prophet and to being angry with the LORD for making him so.

Jonah was purportedly sent by the LORD to Nineveh to prophesy against them of their destruction. Being a "stiff- necked" Jew, however, Jonah wanted no part of such a ministry. As he records admitting to the LORD after- the- fact: he suspected the LORD would repent of the perdition purposed against Nineveh. So Jonah ran away from Nineveh to avoid the infamy of false prophesy.

In Jonah 4:2, it's recorded, "And [Jonah] prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil."

What this confession indicates, besides Jonah's aforementioned aversion to being considered a false prophet, is that Jonah knew the LORD had repented-- with regularity-- of the evil (and the good) he had purposed against (and for) the Jews over the hundreds of years since the exodus from Egypt. It also implies Jonah suspected that, unlike the Jews, Nineveh would repent of their wickedness; allowing the LORD to repent of the destruction he purposed against Nineveh.

All the above notwithstanding, Jonah prophesied against Nineveh unequivocally: without mentioning any possibility for the Ninevites to be forgiven– by repenting; or sacrificing; or any other means. "And Jonah began to enter into [Nineveh] a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown [Jonah 3:4]." False.

Inerrant Lie #65

Three more lies from "God's ineffable, inerrant word":

The final chapter of 2 Samuel gives an account of a census ordered by king David and taken by Joab, the captain of the host. 1 Chronicles 21 also records the details of this census which was considered especially onerous by Joab. As is most often the case with various biblical accounts of the same things or events, there are discrepancies between the accounts of this census.

The record of 1 Samuel reads: "And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men [2 Samuel 24:9]." Thus, the overall census total given in 2 Samuel is 1.3 million.

1 Chronicles gives a wildly different set of numbers: "5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword [1 Chronicles 21:5]." The census total here is 1.57 million.

There are three obvious discrepancies in these two sets of numbers: 1) The number of battle- aged men in Israel given in 2 Samuel is 300,000 less than that recorded in 1 Chronicles; 2) The number of battle- aged men in Judah given in 2 Samuel is 30,000 more than that recorded in 1 Chronicles; 3) And the census total given in 2 Samuel is 210,00 less than the same total recorded in 1 Chronicles.

The inexplicable irony of these discrepancies is that, of the two accounts provided of David's census, it is in the tale of the one with the largest overall total where Joab is credited with leaving some of those he was supposed to count uncounted. 1 Chronicles alleges Joab left two tribes untabulated, saying, "But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab [1 Chronicles 21:6]."

Inerrant Lie #64

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

It's been mentioned, in a previous 'Lie,' that Moses' LORD God lied to him (and Moses, subsequently, to the people) concerning the Edomites' presumed cooperation with the Israelites' passage through Edom on their way to Canaan, the land of promise. The fact that Moses also lied to Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, concerning Edom's reaction to his request for permission to pass through Edom is likewise recorded in 'Lie #50.'

However, according to Jephthah of Gilead (one of Israel's judges): Moses also lied to Sihon concerning the Moabites' reaction to Moses' request for permission to pass through Moab. In Deuteronomy 2, Moses records having written to Sihon: "28 Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet; 29 (As the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the LORD our God giveth us [Deuteronomy 2:28 & 29]."

Jephthah, when contending (three hundred years later) with the Ammonites of his day over the land taken by Moses from the Amorite Sihon (who would not allow Moses and Israel to pass through his land, and was therefore vanquished and his land taken) writes to the king of the Ammonites: "Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh [Judges 11:17]."

Clearly, Moses' account of Israel's passage through Edom and Moab is diametrically opposed to Jephthah's unequivocal denial that either occurred. One of them is lying about something, if both aren't lying about everything. My guess is: Jephthah told the king of the Ammonites the truth; while Moses lied about everything. The LORD God knew Moses face- to- face [Exodus 33:11], after all.

Inerrant Lie #63

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

Over and over again, one runs into lies in the 'Holy Bible' concerning the meaning of the word all. Moses lied about killing all the males of Midian. David lied through his scribe about killing all the males of Edom. Numerous times the LORD says through his prophets he will utterly destroy all that remains of the house of Jacob; yet so as leaving them a remnant. And so on. In the account of David's conquest of Zobah, another such all- by- half- measure is recorded.

The scribe who wrote 1 Chronicles says, "And David took from [Hadarezer of Zobah] a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots [1 Chronicles 18:4]." This latter statement is properly characterized as a gaslight, and it's a remarkably simple, though elegant, example of one.

Notice how the scribe could have written simply that David destroyed all but a hundred of Hadarezer's chariot horses. This would have been a more straightforward statement, inasmuch as it is stated in a single, simple sentence.

The manner in which the scribe chose rather to express the record leaves the first half of a compound sentence to stand alone without the qualifying latter half-- at the discretion of all who encounter or cite the passage. This is the sort of device which allows colloquialisms to develop in the historical record, ultimately allowing fable to replace fact in the retelling of a matter. This amounts to a truncated form of the gaslight propagated by the record of Genesis 12 that Abraham's disobedience was in fact obedience.

Inerrant Lie #62

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

Paul the apostle is, like many-- if not all-- contributors to the canon, a veritable father of lies. Given the fact that we can only compare the things various contributors wrote to the things the other contributors wrote: clarity on who lied about what is ephemeral, at best, without the natural revelation [Psalms 19:1 - 6] to check them all against. Nonetheless, in the present case, the natural revelation agrees with certain other contributors to the canon to form a consensus, of sorts, on Paul's duplicity in a certain matter relevant to the creation process.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Howbeit that [Adam] was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that [Adam] which is spiritual [1 Corinthians 15:46]." Like everything the LORD God does, this is backwards and upside- down, if not inside- out to boot. It's backwards inasmuch as the first man created is "Lucifer, son of the morning [Isaiah 14:12]": not Adam.

Genesis 1:3 - 5 states: "3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Who brought the light on day one, if not the light- bringer: Lucifer?

Paul's assertion that spiritual revelation follows natural revelation is likewise upside- down inasmuch as Adam is not a son of God, but a witty invention of the LORD God. Consider, for a moment, the nature of principalities. Every principality abides under a principal, which is to say, a prince, i.e. an "angel." Therefore the principalities of light, heaven, earth, seas, reptiles, birds, etc. cannot exist-- except chaotically-- without the principals pre- existing their principalities.

Adam exists as an afterthought in the wicked imagination of the LORD God. God made and blessed "them [Genesis 1:29, et. al.]." The LORD God made and enslaved "him [Genesis 2:18]." God made "sons [Genesis 6:2, et. al.]"; while the LORD God has one only son-- be his name Adam or Jesus or Chuck or what- have- you.

Also, Paul's assertion that spiritual follows natural is inside- out inasmuch as God doesn't reside around but rather inside. That is to say, Paul's understanding is inside- out inasmuch as it's outside- in. "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you [1 Corinthians 6:19b]?" God, who "is a spirit [John 4:24a]," smokes the cigarette of consummation before the convivial act, according to Jesus of Nazareth who said: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart [Matthew 5:28];" meaning the spirit is speedier.

Paul's duplicity in putting the natural before the spiritual is simply and eloquently demonstrated by "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem [Ecclesiastes 1:1]." Solomon wrote of the demise of the flesh: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it [Ecclesiastes 12:7]."

The reason God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning is because the sons of God were already with God, in spirit (i.e. in God's heart), before the beginning. God didn't make a house without cause, and then decide what to do with it, as the LORD God obviously did in regards to Adam. "[God] created it not in vain, [God] formed it to be inhabited [Isaiah 45:18d & e]." Confused yet?

God's reasons are always simple, thus God's work is always "very good [Genesis 1:31." The LORD God's reasons are always duplicitous, therefore the LORD God's works are always "not good [Genesis 2:18]." Spirit leads in all the ways.