Inerrant Lie #55

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

The secrecy of Joshua is mentioned in 'Lie #54', and it plays a central role in this 'Lie', also. When Joshua sent the two spies out of Shittim, he sends them expressly "to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho [Joshua 2:1a - c]."

Later, Joshua tells the people a different story altogether-- calling the spies messengers-- saying: "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent [Joshua 6:17]."

Five verses later, the narrative again spills the beans on the spies: "22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel [Joshua 6:22 & 23]."

Again, two verses later, the 'correction' in diction is inserted-- along with it's cypher-- when it is recorded: "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho [Joshua 6:25]." This is called gaslighting.

Spying is not the same thing as delivering messages. Both contemporarily and classically, emissaries have doubled as spies-- while serving as emissaries-- but Joshua's spies delivered no message to Jericho. They weren't sent to. They were sent to spy. They did, however, deliver a prostitute to the sorceress whore [Isaiah 57:3] they call their mother.

Inerrant Lie #54

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

Joshua confesses telling a number of lies in his autobiographical record of 'conquest'. Some of his lies are obviously deliberately told as lies. This one is not decidedly so. It's hardly worth mentioning, perhaps even. Maybe the only reason it even sticks out to me as a lie is because of my own field experiences with the "cluster fuck." Maybe it's simply the fact that it is Joshua's 'secrecy [Joshua 2:1' which ultimately makes a liar of Joshua in this case.

Preparatory to crossing the Jordan into "the land," Joshua tells the chiefs: "Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which the LORD your God giveth you to possess it [Joshua 1:11]."

Joshua then "secretly [Joshua 2:1]" sends spies across the Jordan who consequently find themselves in a SNAFU in Jericho which requires them to run and hide for three days before re- crossing Jordan to deliver their scout report/ SITREP to Joshua and crew, who are waiting on the other side.

According to Joshua 3:1 - 5, because of the SNAFU the spies ran into in Jericho, it was at least seven days after Joshua said "three days" when the nation crossed the Jordan against Jericho and "the land." This after Moses had already said, more than thirty days previously, "Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day [Deuteronomy 9:1a - c]."

Inerrant Lie #53

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

Samuel, the 'judge' of Israel was a hypocrite. He was likewise a liar, according to his own testimony of himself. Contextually, Moses and the prophets agree with Samuel's witness of himself that he lied in 'judging' Saul unworthy of the throne.

1 Samuel 15 tells the story of how Samuel 'served' Saul his walking papers. The narrative states that "the LORD" spoke to Samuel [perhaps while Sammy slept (or would have)], saying "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments [1Samuel 15:11a & b]." Whether this witness of "the LORD" is true or false is beside the point.

The lie Sammy tells on himself for telling is found in his rebuke of Saul's allowance that, in certain matters, he, Saul-- like Moses, Samuel, and the LORD-- follows "the people," like to the way David is later said to have been taken [by "the LORD of hosts"] "from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel [2 Samuel 7:8, et. al.]." Sammy says, "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent [1 Samuel 15:29]."

Samuel's own testimony earlier in this same chapter (above) says otherwise. What else could "it repenteth me" mean? Likewise his later testimony, again in this same chapter, says otherwise. Six verses later, Samuel confesses: "and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel [1 Samuel 15:35c]."

Moses likewise says "the LORD" repented of destroying "the people" many times in the wilderness [Exodus 32:14, et. al.]. Jonah says he repented of destroying Nineveh [Jonah 4:2]. Jeremiah records presumably the same "LORD" confessing: "I am weary with repenting [Jeremiah 15:6]." Plus there's that whole flood thing [Genesis 6:6]. Either Sammy's a liar or the rest of the liars are. (It's really both, isn't it?)

Inerrant Lie #52

The 'Holy Bible' is a confusing book. Perhaps the most confusing thing about the Book is the multiplicity of 'Gods' therein. The Doctrine itself states profusely only one God is true; all others are false. The difficulty for the reader is discerning which of the Gods propounded in the Doctrine is the true one, assuming any of them is.

For this reason, it's difficult to nail the Doctrine down on the lies told about God. After all, a statement of fact about one God may be a fallicy when applied to another God; but the various writers of the Bible don't clarify which God they write of in each case. They simply write of all 'Gods' as if they were each the true God. This dilemma finds doctrinal expression in the oldest book of the canon: the book of Job.

You most likely have at least a cursory grasp of the story related in the book of Job: Job loses everything but his wife and his own life. Job's 'friends' come to 'comfort' him concerning his misfortune. This 'comfort' comes in the form of endless, sanctimonious sermonizing-- reminiscent of the 'comfort' unfortunate souls are likely to receive from the disciples of Christianity, generally, in the contemporary sense.

The text of Job indicates Eliphaz the Temanite as the 'senior pastor' in Job's ministerial band of "miserable comforters [16:2, ibid.]." It is to Eliphaz "the LORD" addresses the pronouncement: "My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath [Job 42:7d - g, et. al.]." Inasmuch as Eliphaz and his 'associate pastors' speak of little else but the LORD, the text of Job is therefore a target- rich environment of lies.

One of the lies told by Eliphaz himself is: "Behold, [God] putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight [Job 15:15]. Given the fact that the subject of this statement is "God" (not "the LORD"), the dual reprimand of chapter 42 (noted above) perhaps doesn't apply as evidence of the fallicy of Eliphaz' statement of uncleanness. Indeed, the writer of the book of Hebrews seems to accept it as true.

In the ninth chapter of Hebrews, the writer thereof says of the bloody mess Moses and the Jewry make of purification: "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with [the blood of beasts]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices [i.e. better blood] than these [Hebrews 9:23]."

The implication explicit in this bloody declaration from Hebrews is, of course, that nothing-- not even the heavens-- are clean: as previously stated by Eliphaz in Job 15. Again, this is a lie. The only way it could be otherwise is if Eliphaz and the writer of Hebrews are commenting on a 'God' other than the one who created all these things.

Genesis 1 says of the God who created all things: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good [Genesis 1:31a - c]." Is then Genesis 1 a lie? The only way it could be is if the one true God is-- like the heavens and all things created (according to Eliphaz and the writer of Hebrews)-- 'unclean', which is to say, not "very good." Thus, Eliphaz and the writer of Hebrews didn't simply tell a lie about the creation: they likewise blasphemed the Creator.

Inerrant Lie #51

Much is written in scripture concerning false prophets. It seems much less is written about the false Gods responsible for their false prophecies. Of Moses and his LORD, however, much is recorded.

Deuteronomy 5, like Exodus 20, tells of "the LORD's" delivery of the ten commandments to the children of Israel. In Deuteronomy 5, unlike Exodus 20, Moses records his LORD saying: "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever [Deuteronomy 5:29]!" This expresses "the LORD's" knowledge of the contents of the hearts of the children of Israel: a thing Moses, three chapters later, denies his LORD possesses.

In the second verse of chapter eight, Moses-- prior to his own death, just the other side of Jordan from Jericho-- exhorts the people: "And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no [Deuteronomy 8:2]."

So, who lied: Moses or his LORD? Either way, it's obvious someone lied either in chapter five or in chapter eight of Deuteronomy. Perhaps the original liar in these disparate statements is Moses' LORD; in which case, both Moses and his LORD are liars here: Moses' LORD lies, and Moses follows suit in parroting him. With Moses it's difficult to say. He tells many lies, and blames his LORD for them all; often rightfully so.

Inerrant Lie #50

The prevalent apprehension of prophecy contemporarily is that of foretelling or prognostication. Though this is, perhaps, short- sighted or wrong altogether: it is, nonetheless, a view propogated by the canon itself. Even Moses spake so: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him [Deuteronomy 18:22]." Does this make Moses a false prophet?

After forty years of wandering in the wilderness, as the people were preparing to enter the promised land, by way of several other countries betwixt, Moses says his 'LORD' told him: "3 Ye have compassed this mountain long enough: turn you northward. 4 And command thou the people, saying, 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: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore: 5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. 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 2:3 - 6]."

The narrative of Deuteronomy doesn't contend this prognostication of Edom's presumed hospitality ventured by Moses' 'LORD', but the narrative of Numbers does so in no uncertain terms. In Numbers, Moses writes of the same encounter: "20 And [Edom] said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. 21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him [Numbers 20:20 & 21]."

In Deuteronomy 2, however, Moses doubles- down on that which he dismisses as a lie in Numbers. In Deuteronomy, Moses writes that, when he requested passage through Sihon's land, he wrote to them of Edom's compliance, thus: "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]."

Obviously, Moses lied-- either in Numbers or in Deuteronomy-- concerning this part of the journey into the promised land. The unequivocal language of the passage from Numbers allows no other option. The question, I suppose, given the fact that Moses (in Deuteronomy 2) says the prognostication in doubt was the LORD's making, is: Is the LORD God a false God? If he weren't, why would he utilize a false prophet like Moses? Perhaps Moses' LORD is a false God and a false prophet, too.

Inerrant Lie #49

Moses insinuates truths and tells bald- faced lies. I can only imagine the reason he does so is that such obfuscation likes him and his LORD God. It seems they both prefer to dwell in "the thick darkness [Exodus 20:21, et. al.]."

At any rate, ask any Christian or Jew why Moe wasn't allowed to cross the Jordan, and they'll say, without hesitation or equivocation, that Moses was kept back from entering 'the promised land' because he struck a rock which he was supposed to speak to at Meribah-Kadesh. They cite no meaner authority on the matter than Moses himself-- Deuteronomy 32:48 - 52 being one of many such statements scattered through Numbers and Deuteronomy by Moses. While this is the reason most often given by Moses, it is not the only one he offers.

The latter half of Deuteronomy 1 recounts the tale of the twelve spies sent by Moses into the land to recon the 'lay' of it. This runs parallel to the account in Numbers 13 & 14, sort of. The upshot of the misadventure is that a whole generation is disallowed entrance to the land promised them. One of the differences between the two accounts is that, in the Deuteronomy version, Moses at least explicitly implies 'the LORD' chose this moment-- which precedes the second striking of the rock in Merbah-- to impose the 'no- entry injunction' on Moses.

The narrative in question runs so: "Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.... Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither [Deuteronomy 1:35 & 37]." 

Certainly this lie isn't as cut- and- dry as many of Moses' lies are, but given the lie he tells in rationalizing the sending of the spies in the first place, I'd say it's a bona fide lie, nonetheless.

Inerrant Lie #48

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

Notice how "the serpent" in the Garden of Eden is "more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made [Genesis 3:1a]," meaning the LORD God had not made the serpent. This implies God did make the serpent. [Is "the serpent" Lucifer?] Notice also how the question posed to Eve by the serpent has nought to do with the LORD God's word: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden [Genesis 3:1c]?" What did God say [Genesis 1:29]?

According to the apostle Paul, 'God' says, "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression [1 Timothy 2:14]." This indicates Paul's [and his God's] belief that not only did Eve transgress; she also 'tempted' Adam to do likewise. Hath God said?

Jesus of Nazareth said, "there is none good but one, that is, God [Matthew 19:17c - e, et. al ]." To eat of "the tree of knowledge of good [Genesis 2:9, et. al]" cannot, therefore, be a transgression unless the 'God' who imposes such 'judgements' wishes to not be known. Did Adam and Eve need remedial courses in the knowledge of evil? They were both created "not good [Genesis 2:18b]" (not simply because Adam was created alone); both were, after all, created butt- naked-- and left so--  presumably, 'in the image, after the likeness' of their butt- naked LORD God and his butt- naked angels.

Was it transgression in Eve to desire "knowledge of good?" Does God seek to not be known? Why does Jewry's "Father which is in heaven... [make] his sun to rise on the evil [Matthew 5:45a & b]?" because Moses 'covered' the LORD God's nakedness when Adam and Eve 'uncovered' their own? It's obvious Eve did not transgress against God. Is transgressing against the devil transgression? According to the apostle Paul and all the patriarchs of Judaism and Christianity, on the subject of Eve: it would seem it is.

"She was the mother of all living [Genesis 3:20]." Mother is always right. Better to die young: knowing good for a season; than to live forever knowing only evil.

Inerrant Lie #47

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

Genesis 10 says of Shem, the firstborn son of Noah (a.k.a. Sem), that he was "the father of all the children of Eber [Genesis 10:21b]." This is noteworthy, inasmuch as Eber is the great- grandson of Shem through his third son of five: Arphaxad. And because Baal worship had long ago been established [Genesis 4:26]. Yet of none of the other sons and descendants of Shem is this declaration pronounced. This implies the lineage so specified is more than genetic. It is in fact spiritual. Shem is "a father and a priest [Judges 17:10 & 18:18]" unto the children of Eber as the Levite was to Micah and, later, the Danites (in the book of Judges).

The meaning of the name Eber is "One from beyond, from the other side." I suppose scholars are wont to consider the 'other side' pointed to in Eber's moniker as indicative of the other side of the flood; but of course Eber wasn't born until well after the flood. There is, however, another 'other side' referred to in scripture.

Jude speaks of "certain men crept in unawares.... angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.... wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. [Jude 4a; 6a & b; & 13b & c]." Jesus of Nazareth refers many times to "outer darkness [Matthew 8:12, eat. al.]" as a place: i.e. a point of origin or destination. Solomon confesses of the 'God' of Moses and his father David (not to mention Jesus of Nazareth): "The LORD hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness [1 Chronicles 6:1b, eat. al.]."

This, in light of the Doctrine as a whole, is clearly the 'other side' indicated in the father and priest of the Hebrews-- Eber's-- name: the other side of the morning. The first day of the creation accounted for in Genesis 1 began with night. "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day [Genesis 1:5]."

Notice how time begins with the "evening" of darkness and light. Isaiah 14:12 refers to Lucifer-- the "Light- Bringer"-- as, "son of the morning." If the negative connotations associated with the name Lucifer in the canon were deserved, why would he be a "son" instead of a cockroach? Is not the 'God' who disparages the one bringing light a cockroach? He dwells in "the thick darkness [1 Chronicles 6:1, et. al.]."

Naturally, a strange 'God' tells strange lies. These lies begin in the second chapter of the first book of the canon. In verse 4 of chapter two of Genesis, the LORD God suddenly shows up taking credit for all the work which the first chapter of Genesis says God did. The LORD God and God are not the same entities or personalities. [In fact, the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth clearly indicates a female entity like the Sumerian goddess Nammu as a more likely 'former of all things' than any male entity, be it "God" or "LORD God."]

Be that as it may, the text of chapter two states, "the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth... But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground [Genesis 2:5c & 6]." Thus, after taking credit for creating the cosmos in the particular fashion which compels the water to evaporate and fall as 'rain' on the ground-- as "night follows day," which is to say, naturally-- the LORD God says he "had not caused it to rain upon the earth." What does he call rain? destroying "all flesh, wherein is the breath of life [Genesis 6:17f & g]" in a flood? Even without the light, the creation had to be wet enough to rain. What's he doing? admitting he's not responsible for bringing the Light- Bringer? 

In taking credit for the work of God in Genesis 1, "the LORD God" of nearly the rest of the canon, shows why Jacob is the prince of the house of Israel, the kingdom of Jesus [Luke 1:33]: he's a supplanter like the LORD God before him. Like his own 'blessing'/ scapegoating of Dan before the day of his own death [Genesis 49:17], Jacob's name means "he will supplant; a heeler; one who trips- up." Is this why Dan is not included as a tribe of Israel in Revelation 7(:5 - 8)? He's too much like his father Israel to be included?

"The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name [Isaiah 10:16, et. al.]." Darkness is former. Is Israel a rod "pilled [Genesis 30:37 - 39]" for sex- magic to bring forth the "basest of men [Daniel 4:17]" to receive the darkness as revealed in the peculiar exercise of making 'Darkie' comfortable in the light; where he, like Job's "Satan," plays 'God [Job 2:6, et. al.]?'

Inerrant Lie #46

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

As mentioned in 'Lie 18', the writer of Hebrews claims the Jewish nation helped 'make' Jesus. Therefore Hebrews 2:9-- while it reflects the esteem the Hebrews had of their own idolatrous handiwork-- though an egregious error and lie, is not surprising, per se. They are, per the Doctrine, an upside- down people, if only by the easy virtue of the odd number of convolutions inflicted upon the Doctrine by their rulers.

Speaking of the shameful mess of prideful bliss made of the Doctrine by the Hebrews, the "son of man," Ezekiel wrote: "I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him [Ezekiel 21:27]." The last overturning rendered by their handiwork, as I read, is Calvary. For, "last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my son [by hook or by crook; by flame or by fire; or by and for vanity, Solomon's "all [Ecclesiastes 1:2]" -Matthew 21:37]." Now, it's God's turn to twist them round, as I read.

It seems-- as the plethora of monikers (expletives included) presumably attributable to him indicate-- that there are any number of ways to apprehend Jesus. I agree with John the Divine that he is the Word of God made flesh, if only because that's what he said of himself (if "good seed [Matthew 13:37b]" ain't weeds). To come to Christ by another 'way' seems second- best, at best, to me. Who else in the lineup of usual (or even unusual) suspects are we supposed to believe?

If we take Jesus at his Word of God, he cannot be Christ, at any rate, for according to the Word of God, "the things concerning [him] have an end [Luke 22:37]"; while Christ has no end we don't wholly partake in, inasmuch as we are Christ. But if anyone in the canon told the whole truth, at least in part, even with ulterior motives-- it is he. Perhaps Jesus tells the most comprehensive of the lies we encounter in scripture, and because of the fulness of his lies, they appear as more comprehensive truth than all the other lies.

Hebrews 2:9 says, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man [Hebrews 2:9]." This verse is rich. It is, essentially, blindingly brilliant darkness, but the most immediately conducive lie to our present subject is: "Jesus... was made a little lower than the angels."

Peter said of Jesus, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16b]." To which Jesus responded, 'This is the word of my 'God' [Matthew 16:17],' to paraphrase. If Jesus is our Christ, we had an end, and the whole ball of wax was a Jewish conspiracy to kill everything, just so their exceeding wickedness could finally rest in peace, with them in it, as they've ever been. What has this to do with God or us? None of this would matter, for we are nought but Death, already, were it so.

So, while it may be true that Jesus was 'made lower', it is also true that his Father in heaven was, like his beloved, 'made lower.' Thus, the resurrection is evidence that dead things enter the matrix via the womb. I guess The Lie of these lies is that Jesus' Father in heaven is the God of any but the dead. Where's the lie? in the letter, or the spirit of this 'doctrine'? Is it not in both? How could the dead ever get 'made'? They're stolen from their rest 'in peace'.

Notice the subtlety of Jesus' Father which is in heaven: According to him, Jesus is the Son of the living God, making the living God his mother. God is not "the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore [Isaiah 57:3]." The aforementioned whore is, however, "the God of the dead [Matthew 22:11d]; not the God of the living:" ; "ye therefore do greatly err [Mark 12:27]."

As to Jesus being 'made lower': when he was pleading his 'Father's' case before Pilate, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then [as in now] would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now [as in then] is my kingdom not from hence [John 18:36]."

Inerrant Lie #45

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

My mother always said a partial truth is a lie altogether. By this barometer, the respective bureaucracies of every government under the sun are manned entirely by liars. Not only do bureaucrats never tell the whole truth: they rarely tell even a portion of the same. Same goes for news agencies; corporate boards; insurance adjusters; medical billers; truck drivers; school teachers; preachers; anyone who enters into 'non- disclosure agreements': just about anyone who makes a living is required to lie about something to obtain and to keep their job.

In his gospel, John the Divine writes a lie of a sort to make a bureaucrat (such as 'righteous' J. Edgar Hoover, for instance) envious. The reason this lie would be especially impressive to a government employee (not to mention 'the father of lies') is that it is at once true and false. This lie is written so: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized [John 3:22];" the 'lie', here, being, "Jesus... baptized."

The next verse of John 3 indicates John Baptist's 'baptism' as the definitive model of the term "baptized," as used by John the Divine in verse 22. We know this to be so inasmuch as Jesus did indeed baptize: though John himself admits: "Jesus baptized not [John 4:2a]."

In fact, the latter [b] half of John 4:2 divulges it was Jesus' disciples-- not Jesus-- who 'baptized' (still do, for that matter) after John's 'baptism'. By this, we understand that, when John writes (in 3:22) that "Jesus... baptized," he's projecting the taint of the disciples' deeds onto Jesus: making him responsible for their works and Johnny B's. As children, we called this "pinning the tail on the donkey." Bureaucrats call it "passing the buck."

One refrain repeated in nearly every sermon preached by the late Pete Ruckman, is: "A text without a context is a pretext." Accordingly, both John 3:22 and John 4:2 are pretext, insofar as the only way to resolve one with the other (not to mention with the truth) is to take them both out of their given context-- John Baptist's 'baptism'-- which is the pretext.

Contrary to 3:22, Jesus did not baptize after John Baptist's 'baptism'; but contrary to 4:2, Jesus did baptize. In fact, "the Word of God [John 1, et. al.]" tangibly demonstrated the difference between his baptism and Johnny B's at the wedding in Cana. "This beginning of miracles [John 2:11a]" is likewise recorded by John the Divine.

To understand the figurative value of the water- turned- into- wine in Cana, one may consult with Paul's words about baptism to the Ephesians: "That [the Word of God] might sanctify and cleanse [the church] with the washing of water by the word [Ephesians 5:26]." Baptism is the operation by which the inner man is sanctified and cleansed, definitively: a thing Johnny B's 'baptism' can't pretend to do. True baptism is poured in, with Spirit [John 6:63]; not poured over, or immersed in.

While his disciples were/are rub- a- dubbing with Johnny B, Jesus was/is sanctifying and cleansing those who would/will receive his words with the hearing of the same. Thus the lie is really twofold: 1) that "Jesus baptized not [John 4:2a]."; and, 2) that John Baptist did [John 3:23, et. al.].

Inerrant Lie #44

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

It's all God's fault. Not only did God create the heavens and the earth, but all things else besides. Everything perfect and otherwise is God's fault. Even wickedness in the heart of a man is God's faulty doing. This belief is expressed and implied many times in scripture. It is also a lie of lies.

According to the Hebrews, their own murders of the prophets-- the chosen of God-- and of the Christ of God: is God's fault. After all, "Was not Abraham [their] father justified by works, when he had offered up [God's chosen] his son upon the altar [James 2:21]?" thus setting the precedent which the Jews followed to Calvary and beyond? This, too, is God's fault. It was, according to them, none other than God who commanded Abraham to murder his son Isaac [Genesis 22:2], as a sacrament to the God who chose Isaac [Genesis 17:19].

Clearly, the confusion of Babel clung to Ur of the Chaldees-- inclusive of Terah and his house-- when they fled Babel, in corporate fashion, to enter into the land of the Canaanites. Yet, even Abe's confusion is God's fault, according to Moses, who says of Abe that he "departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him [Genesis 12:4a & b];" which is another lie.

The eightieth Psalm contains a repeating refrain which aptly demonstrates this fallacy of the Hebrews: "Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved [Psalms 80:3, et. al.]." This is confusion. The word "again" indicates their belief that it was God who 'turned' them out of the way to begin with. The imperative to "Turn us" places the responsibility for their repentance on the God whom they've offended. "Cause thy face to shine" means: 'take our abuse with a smile;' or, 'change your piss- poor attitude [Genesis 4:7].'

The root of this bitterness is found in the words and works of Moses. Moses, to this day, is praised vociferously from pulpits the world over for his endless chiding of God for God's 'evil intentions [Exodus 32:12f & g]' concerning Moses' people [Exodus 32:7], the Jews. Preachers call this "standing in the gap," or "making up the hedge," etcetera, when what it in fact is, is rebellion.

In chiding God in defense of the rebels, Moses sanctifies the rebels at the expense of God's expulsion from their 'camp [Exodus 33:3b - d]'. For this, the preachers and false prophets praise Moses. Prophets are sent from God to the people: to stand in the gap in God's 'defense'; to plead his cause before them. Yet this people sends the prophets back to God to plead their cause before him: as representatives of their own 'legal' defense; turning the world upside down.

Even the prophecy of Esaias is infected with this spiritual malady, to some extent, as demonstrated by his words in Isaiah 63:17: "O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance." Again, it is God who has turned out of the way, according to this passage of Esaias'. This is the belief given expression in the word "Return," above.

Beyond simply being a lie, this belief that 'it's all God's fault' is nothing short of false witness against God, as the scriptures express it. According to the scriptures cited above (et. al.): it is God-- not the Jews-- who is found to be 'out of the way'. This turn of phrase, 'out of the way' is perhaps the simplest definition of the term "deviant" extant. It certainly defines the term, at any rate. To say God is found deviating from the way is to call God a devil. Any 'God' who is deviant is a devil. Deviation defines devilishness. While it may be true that the 'God' of the Jews is a deviant devil [John 8:43 & 44], God who is love [1 John 4:8b] is not deviant. It takes a devil to say otherwise.

"30 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: 31 That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt [Isaiah 30:1 & 2]!"

Inerrant Lie #43

As stated in #42: Judas is not written much of; especially considering how great a deal is made of him forever after the day Matthew says he "repented... and hanged himself [Matthew 27:3d - 5]." That which is written is as sketchy as those who wrote it. I like Matthew's version, if only because-- in Matthew's account of Judas' demise, and only here-- am I relatively sure at least one of the Dirty Dozen took the first step from Jewry to God: repentance.

Also as stated in #42: there are discrepancies in the respective accounts (numbering two) extant in the canon concerning Judas' 'final end'. Luke, in 'The Acts of the Apostles [Acts]', records Peter recounting the death of Judas-- likely sometime before Pentecost the year it occurred-- on one wise; while Matthew, perhaps many years after, records the events in otherwise fashion altogether.

As sketchy as this amalgam of events is another, and of no less importance to any Jew worthy of ancestry: Judas' final act concerning the settlement of his estate; a.k.a.: 'the disposition of his soul in earth'. "What's it worth?" Pete seems to ask. Both accounts record a final lightening of the inheritance he passed on at his own soon- to- follow death-- by perhaps as much as one hundred percent.

Like the widow with two mites, Judas may have put his all 'in the treasury' when he-- according to Matthew-- cast the thirty pieces on the floor of the temple. Pete seems to 'not know' about this settlement while obliquely acknowledging it took place. Both claim this arbitration occurred immediately preceding Judas' death. But again: the two are not one.

Though Pete mentions Judas in Acts 1:16, who's to say the "he" mentioned in verse 17 isn't Jesus of Nazareth-- not Judas Iscariot? The "this man" of verse 18 could, as a matter of oratorical form, indicate the speaker-- if not for the sorcery the address would then obviously require.

Pete's subsequent description of the "this man" he mentions in verse 18, resembles Jesus more than Judas. "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity [Jesus was "accursed of God," (becoming "sin for us," Paul says) having, like Judas, hung to die; and-- according to Matthew-- having been so valued by those who 'bought' his soul as worthy of the silver paid for the field.]; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst [Unlike Judas, Jesus' bowels were spilt when he 'fell' upon his 'lifting up'.], and all his bowels gushed out [Acts 1:18]." "...and forthwith came there out blood and water [John 19:34b]."

Perhaps the one Peter refers to as "this man" is one of the high priests. There were two of them-- Annas and Caiaphas by name-- at the time of Judas' and Jesus' coincidental 'last day'. 'One' of them may have "bought with [the thirty pieces of silver] the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field is called, The field of blood, unto this day [Matthew 27:7 & 8]." Who's blood?

According to Luke, Pete may have been confessing one of the high priests as a 'made man' among the Twelve. Was his wild deviation from the witness provided by Matthew a revelation into the reasons Jesus 'died' without Peter? "For [Jesus of Nazareth] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this [priest] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood [Acts 1:17 - 19]:" might be a 'more literal translation' of Peter's confession in Acts 1 concerning 'Judas'.

Does it speak ill of him who was not willing to die with Jesus to speak ill of one who-- though saying he wouldn't die with him-- knew of no way to live without him as soon as he comprehended something Pete likely knew all along: Jesus' was innocent blood? Pete's tale entirely contradicts Matthew's, regardless the reasons. Would Matthew lie on Judas' behalf? Who would Petey lie for? "Who should be the greatest [Mark 9:34b]?" Jews is Jews. Perhaps they both lied.

Inerrant Lie #42

Judas Iscariot does not enjoy the same sort of unconditional positive regard from the 'scholars' as the rest of the Dirty Dozen does. Every one loves to hate on Judas-- to the point that he is rather regarded in an unconditionally negative light. Perhaps it is due to this bias that the lie about Judas' demise stands completely unchallenged to date.

Judas is a somewhat enigmatic character in the gospels. Not much is written of Judas. Everyone knows their preacher says Judas is the only one who betrayed Jesus of Nazareth-- though this interpretation of events itself runs contrary to the narrative of the gospels. Three of the four gospels include the word "also" before "betrayed," as in, "Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him [Matthew 10:4b & c (et. al.)]."

"Also," (as used here) like Judas himself, is a somewhat enigmatic term. It's usage could indicate that-- besides being a chosen disciple-- he also betrayed him who called him into the ministry. It could also indicate that Judas wasn't the only disciple who betrayed Jesus, but that he also did-- in collusion with a larger conspiracy to do so. If the latter is the case, Judas is the 'scapegoat,' or 'fall guy,' for the nefarious political maneuvering of certain others in Jesus' inner circle.

In fact, what little we do read of Judas presents more questions than answers. For instance, when "Satan entered into [Judas (John 13:27a)]": did he first 'jump out' of Peter? It was, after all, Pete to whom Jesus had last said, "Get thee behind me, Satan [Matthew 16:23c & d]." Also, the indignation John attributes to "one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot [John 12:4 & 5]," concerning the ointment of spikenard which Mary poured on Jesus as he and his disciples dined with her and her family in Bethany, Matthew attributes to "his disciples [Matthew 26:8]," while Mark records it was an amalgamative "some [Mark 14:4]."

Why do the things written of Judas-- like the false accusations lodged against Jesus-- so often not agree one with another? It is, at any rate, understandable that the disciples might be offended by the one disciple of whom it is written that he did repent. After all, if any of the other disciples felt a need of repentance, it's not recorded that they discerned this; much less that they actually repented of anything, though their general unbelief is recorded in all the gospels.

Of the morning of the day of Jesus' crucifixion, the same disciple who records "Repent [Matthew 4:17]," as Jesus' first word, when he began to preach, says, "Then Judas, which had betrayed [Jesus], when he saw that [Jesus] was condemned, repented himself.... [Matthew 27:3a - d]." He goes on to say of Judas, "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself [Matthew 27:5]."

After Jesus' assumption, preparatory to which he had led the disciples out of Jerusalem "a Sabbath day's journey [Acts 1:12b]," the disciples returned-- like dogs to vomit-- to Jerusalem; having been warned (prior to his crucifixion) by him to whom they referred as "Lord, Lord," to flee Judaea at his crucifixion, and likewise commanded by the same Jesus to go before him into Galilee in expectation of his resurrection: to reconnoiter with him there.

Upon their return to the city of desolate abominations, Peter commenced a pow- wow on the disposition of Judas' 'bishoprick', citing a Psalm of David-- not the word of the Lord who, having been received up into heaven, had never left them-- as the authority and inspiration for this renovation.

.

The fact that Jesus had Saul of Tarsus pigeonholed to fulfill Judas' ministry is beside the point-- except inasmuch as the disciples' choice of Matthias highlights their divergence from Jesus' will: which is endemic to the disciples' lack of repentance. In this board meeting, Peter says, presumably of Judas (who Matthew- - see above-- says threw the silver on the floor of the temple, repented, and hung himself): "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out [Acts 1:18]."

This is a wildly disparate description of Judas' demise than the one offered by Matthew, and the two cannot be resolved as one. A man who hangs himself is discovered heads- up or headless, not headlong; and neck- stretching does not induce bowel- gushing. The two are not one.

Either Pete or Matthew (or both) are lying. The question is: who's lying and why? and what light does the 'brilliance' of lies cast on the darkness inside the liar? Is the only disciple who did die 'with' Jesus the only one of the twelve with him today? It was, after all, to a thief like Judas, who died 'with' him, that the same Jesus said, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise [Luke 23:43c]," and that because of the thief's repentance.

Inerrant Lie #41

Three books of scripture are attributed to the Big Solomy, the son of David, whose practical 'wisdom' compelled the violent overthrow of the Davidic kingdom by ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. Some of the psalms are likewise attributed to the Big Solomy.

Some say the only thing amiss about Solomon was his penchant for the flesh of 'strange women'. The Big Solomy's sexual perversion is, however, more the symptom of disease than the disease itself [Ecclesiastes 3:18]. Ecclesiastes 1:2 makes it clear that the Big Solomy entertained deeper frustrations than strange flesh alone.

In Ecclesiastes 1:2, Solomon writes, "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." This is an obvious lie, and one retold by the 'sweet' psalmist's preacher- son four more times in the twelve chapters of Ecclesiastes; the final instance appearing in the eighth verse of the final chapter.

Is God vanity? Is his creation? what about his children? what about his Christ? Certainly all is not vanity. This requires no great documentation to prove, but it does beg the question: what 'God' did the Big Solomy preach about? If not Satan, what 'God' is all vanity all the time?

Mind you: I'm not saying the Big Solomy disdained the words and work of God in calling them vanity. His 'God' doesn't think that way. It is precisely because Satan perceives God as vain that he envys him and all he says and does. Fools get Gold Fever for fools' gold.

As such, this lie that "all is vanity" is true to the one who wrote it and to the fools who love and praise him as 'the greatest king ever.' The lie is the implication that Solomon's 'God' is the same as Jesus' Father. These are not equal, and Solomon's own words aptly describe the difference between them.

"There is [God and his children] that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is [the Big Solomy and his 'God'] that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty [Proverbs 11:24]." The latter half of this selection from Proverbs, is the most apropos epitaph of Solomon and his 'God' I know of. For them all is vanity.

Inerrant Lie #40

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

While the children of Israel are the subject of the "song of Moses [Revelation 15:3a]": it is addressed to the heavens and the earth [Deuteronomy 32:1]; not to the children of Israel. Therefore the subject of this song-- the children of Israel-- are referred to as "they"; instead of the customary "we," "us," etc. by which the tribes of Jacob are usually referred to in scripture, and especially in prophecy.

This is not to say that-- for instance-- when Nahum addresses his prophecy to the city of Nineveh, the LORD isn't actually speaking of Jewry in the same prophecy. The Jews are an exceptionally racist people, after all. It's therefore no wonder if the LORD keys on their exceeding race- based megalomania in the same way they do: by making even those things 'all about them' which ostensibly have nothing to do with them at all. Compare, for instance, Nahum's word about Nineveh's "wicked counsellor" ["There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counseller.... I will make thy grave; for thou art vile (Nahum 1:11 & 14d & e)];" and the historical record of Moses' demise [Deuteronomy 34:4 - 6]. This is one of the meanings of the "multiplied visions" and "similitudes" spoken of by the LORD in Hosea 12:10. It truly is 'all about the Jews,' in the Book of books they wrote. They're peculiarly special, you know.

At any rate, the song of Moses reveals that Paul's "spiritual Rock [1 Corinthians 10:4]" is not the cornerstone of the house of Israel, saying: "For their rock is not as our Rock even our enemies themselves being judges [Deuteronomy 32:31]." So what kind of rock did the children of Israel choose to build their house on? The answer is: a mineral rock; essentially a cow- lick. As their 'greatest of prophets,' John Baptist said: "he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth [John 3:31b & c]."

Psalms 125:1 identifies the everlasting rock of the children of Israel's security thus: "They that trust in the LORD shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth forever." Therefore, the cornerstone of their house is-- according to scripture-- the mountain Abe attempted to murder Isaac upon [Genesis 22:2 & 2 Chronicles 3:1]; the home of Melchisedec [Palms 76:2], who blessed Abe for 'saving' those exceeding wicked cities in the vale of Siddim [Genesis 14:18 - 20]; the mountain upon which the Jews murdered their sacrifices and sacrificed their abominations [Isaiah 66:3] in the temple built to "the name of the LORD [2 Chronicles 2:4a]" Solomon [John 10:23, et. al.]; the high place of Baal [Jeremiah 19:5] above the city of Baal [2 Samuel 6:2]; in a word, the 'bloody rock [Ezekiel 24:7 & 8]' of their 'menstruous [Ezekiel 36:17]' 'righteousness [Revelation 17:6].' It is a lie that this 'rock' "cannot be removed."

In the course of that visitation of Jerusalem which ended in his murder, Jesus cursed a barren fig tree, and when the disciples saw how quickly the accursed tree withered away, they marvelled and remarked upon the suddenness of its demise. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done unto the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done [Matthew 21:21]." This is also recorded in the eleventh chapter of Mark's gospel in nearly identical fashion; with the one major difference being that Mark says this occurred over the course of two mornings, while Matthew seems to imply it was a single- morning event. We know which mountain he so spoke of inasmuch as this was done and said "in the morning as he returned into the city [of Jerusalem (Matthew 21:18a & Mark 11:12)]."

Likewise we know that if it weren't God's will to destroy that mountain, it would not be possible for it to be so destroyed: no matter who petitioned God for its destruction. As John states it: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him [1 John 5:14 & 15]." Therefore we know that it is actually God's will to prove Psalms 125:1b a lie. Either that or Jesus told a lie; or Matthew and Mark put a lie in Jesus' mouth. My bet is that the lie is to be found in the pen of the psalmist. God's will be done.

Inerrant Lie #39

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

As covered in 'Lie #6,' there's no small discombobulation between the various gospel accounts concerning the particulars of Peter and Andrew's call to join Jesus' ministry. According to Mark, however, one of the first things that happened upon their joining Jesus' 'Traveling Tentless Revival and Faith Healing Spectacular' was a Sabbath- day healing in a synagogue in Capernaum.

Mark says that in that synagogue was "a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God [Mark 1:23 & 24]." This sort of thing occurred a lot with the spirits of the 'unclean.' They were always identifying Jesus 'correctly,' (presumably).

Some time later in Jesus' three- year public ministry, as Jesus and 'The Dirty Dozen' were entering Caesarea Philippi to preach and heal there, Jesus asked the disciples "But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ [Mark 8:29b - 30]." Matthew says Peter added to this ejaculation, "...the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16c]." Jesus' response to Pete's 'confession' is likewise recorded disparately from one gospel to another; but Matthew says Jesus said to Pete, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven [Matthew 16:17b - d]." Mark simply records that he told them to-- like 'unclean spirits'-- keep their mouths shut about this; to which Matthew concurs.

In comparison one with another, these things don't seem sensible. If it was the Father who revealed to Pete who Christ was: who revealed Jesus' identity to the many unclean spirits he cast out in the presence of Peter and the disciples? Paul adds mud to this already- murky stream, in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

Paul writes to the Corinthians: "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost [1 Corinthians 12:3]." The first part of this verse I find credible. It's the last part that has my head spinning. Let's take it in order.

The first part of 1 Corinthians 12:3 amounts to a frank admission-- and this from a Jew (wonder of wonders)-- that Moses spake not by the Spirit of God. After all, it was Moses-- whose disciples demanded Christ be crucified-- who said, "...(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) [Deuteronomy 21:23c]." This altogether harmonizes with my cognition of Moses. As each are represented in scripture: Moses lies more than the Devil. Nonetheless, this does beg the question: why-- with this in mind-- would Paul believe Moses?

In his epistle to the church in Galatia, which begins with a curse doubled [Galatians 1:8 & 9], Paul writes: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree [Galatians 3:13]:" so what spirit is the epistle to the Galatians written in? "...no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed [1 Corinthians 12:3b]," after all.

The second part of 1 Corinthians 12:3 ["no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost"], however, is a different story. It tells on someone else's lies-- someone other than Moses, that is. The only question is: whose? Is it purely a Pauline fabrication? Did Jesus cast the Holy Ghost out of those 'afflicted' with it to keep his identity obscured? Is the Holy Ghost an 'unclean spirit' as far as the apostles who wrote the gospels are concerned? Or did the apostles altogether lie about these things and more for their own Jewish reasons which I can't begin to imagine? Either way, if at least the latter half of 1 Corinthians 12:3 isn't a lie, it certainly tells on a number of them.

Inerrant Lie #38

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

Man, in his own estimation of himself, is 'the measure of all things.' While this is not necessarily untrue, the manner in which this philosophy is understood and acted upon is oftentimes disingenuous. Just because man is 'the measure of all things' doesn't mean all things but man are mean or unnecessary. To disdain all lesser things is definitively ungodly.

Once upon a time, man was greatly chagrined to find the earth-- and therefore, by default, he-- is not the center of the universe, and that God's creation clock isn't delimited to man's twenty- four hour convenience. For these disillusionments (among others), he has-- to no small extent-- despised science, and God, ever since. "Verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity [Psalms 39:5d]."

This tendency to make more of man than he in fact is also applies to what is commonly referred to as 'hero worship.' We observe this phenomenon often in relation to the overly- high esteem some have of the prophets and the apostles who were, after all, only men. Some-- like Paul in Philippians 2:6-- make more of Jesus of Nazareth than he made of himself. It's a sort of disease peculiar to humanity, it seems. "Always root for the home team," some say. If they only knew how to stay home instead of wandering like a bird with the palsy [Proverbs 27:8], this indiosyncrasy might be charming.

Paul exposes his 'manly' vanity in more instances than the one in Philippians, mentioned above. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he writes to them: "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope [1 Corinthians 9:9 & 10]."

No doubt: this is a 'nice sentiment'; but it's simply not true. I think God must be a cowboy, at heart. God does deeply care-- and take care-- for oxen. If he who made the heart of a man cared not for cattle: man's egomania would be well- warranted-- to the point of all- out, open rebellion against God. The beeves are some of his most noble creations. I never knew what a mother's love really looked like until I was allowed to candidly observe the behavior of cows with their calves. There's nothing feigned about that affection. And for simple, clean industrial power, it's nearly impossible to beat a 2,500- pound bull. Before John Deere and Caterpillar, it was the ox that moved the mountains.

If God cares not for cattle, why is "cattle" the last word in the book of Jonah? "Then said the LORD [to Jonah], Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle [Jonah 4:10 & 11]?"

The final chapter of Isaiah's prophecy likewise refutes this vain notion of Paul's that 'God cares not for the oxen.' Verse 3(a) of Isaiah 66, reads: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man..." In my Bible, "is as if" is italicized: meaning these words weren't in the original manuscript which the King James translators worked from; and they thought the sense of the text required the addition of these words to be properly expressed. Thus, the original read, "He that killeth an ox-- he slew a man..." So Moses' 'facelift' on Cain's murderous 'sacrament' ultimately makes no difference. Blood- guilt is blood- guilt.

In fact-- according to the Doctrine-- Paul's insistence that 'God cares not for the oxen' is tantamount to calling God "that wicked one [1 John 3:12]" who 'gave' Cain to the world. Proverbs 12:10 says, "A righteous man regardeth [i.e. 'taketh care for'] the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Is God not righteous? I say he is; and Paul is not the center of the universe. God loves the beeves, and those who waste them [Hebrews 10:4] in copious 'sacrifices' to a God who doesn't eat such meat [John 4:32] will get the baptism of fire spoken of in Isaiah 66:15 & 16 and Revelation 18:8, et. al.

Considering how God cares for the oxen: How shall those who murdered his only begotten son-- and all others who say it was necessary to do so-- be judged for their egomania? Is this the 'inconvenient truth' Paul attempts to 'fig- leaf' in 1 Corinthians 9:9 & 10? Buffalo shibboleths is all it means to me.

Inerrant Lie #37

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

The apostle Matthew-- who, in his gospel, calls Jesus "the son of David [Matthew 1:1b]"; not the Son of God, or even the Son of man-- says Jesus told a lie.

In the twenty- third chapter of his gospel, Matthew alleges: "1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not [Matthew 23:1 - 3]." "Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do": like divorce [Matthew 19:10]? what about bearing false witness [Matthew 26:59] against the "bridegroom [Matthew 9:15, et.al.]" in his trial- by- murder [Matthew 27:42]? Perhaps Matthew is the 'Anonymous' author of the book of Hebrews.

In Matthew 19, we read a passage which makes the above passage from chapter 23 impossible for me to believe. The Pharisees pose a question of Jesus: "Is it lawful for a man to [as per Moses -Deuteronomy 24:1] put away his wife for every cause [Matthew 19:3d]?" The response they receive of him is, in a word, 'no.' In verses 4 and 5, Jesus tells the Pharisees marriage is a gift from God. He then goes on, in verse 6, to say, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [Matthew 19:6c & d]."

Jesus, in further indicting Moses and his disciples [John 9:28d] goes on, in verse 8 of Matthew 19, to call them both perverters of God's word, saying: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Why would this same Jesus [John 14:6c] exhort-- as Matthew alleges he did, in Matthew 23:1 - 3-- anyone to "observe and do" the perversions commanded by the same Pharisees he so rebuked in chapter 19?

I say either Jesus or Matthew lied, in Matthew 23:1 - 3. My money is on Matthew.

Inerrant Lie #36

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

It's unclear-- given the "Chicago Doctrine"-- whether people refuse to read the Doctrine they profess undying, uncompromising 'belief' in; or if-- when they read it -- they refuse to pay attention to what they're reading; or if the 'scholars' who have read, studied, and searched the scriptures have been the sort of individuals who refuse to do simple arithmetic, and indeed avoid it like the Plague. Perhaps those who have 'crunched the numbers' have been 'marginalized' as 'crazy' by the 'blind- faithers' who only 'want to believe,' and don't care what they believe.

Either way, there's a lot of eye- openings, concerning the integrity of scripture, awaiting those who will do simple arithmetic. Moses' fraudulent pedigree is one such 'rude awakening.' Once you realize Moses couldn't tell the truth about his own origins: do you really trust him to tell the truth about humanity's genesis? What can a man who can't tell the truth about who his parents were be trusted to tell the truth about?

One of the kings of Judah is recorded, in the Chronicles, to have been two years older than his father: a 'fact' the 'scholars' apparently don't 'bat an eye' at. Of this king, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."

What I find stunning about this passage, all- in- all, is that the last verse of the preceding chapter says of the same Ahaziah's father: "Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired." If you can add eight to thirty- two, you know there's no way Ahaziah was forty- two years old at the passing of his forty- year- old father. This is as impossible a thing as Moses' presumption to have been Amram's child.

So, what 'gives?' I honestly don't know if this is Ahaziah's attempt to claim 'self- generation'; or if it's simply an 'honest mistake' on the part of the scribe who wrote the entry concerning him. Either way, the same ascension to the throne is recorded in a more mathematically- sensible manner in 2 Kings. There, it's recorded: "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel [2 Kings 8:26]."

Therefore, according to the scribe of 2 Kings, Jehoram-- Ahaziah's father-- begat him at the sensible age of eighteen years (as opposed to two years before his own birth), and 'The- Only- Man- Who- Ever- Created- Himself' didn't die at the hand of Jehu, king of Israel, after reigning only one year in Jerusalem. That makes better sense to me, at least. Call me crazy, if you must.

Inerrant Lie #35

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

One of the 'prettier' English synonyms for a lie is equivocation. This term describes an operation observed over and over again in the study of Judaic scripture. From Moses calling Abe's disobedience in Genesis 11 and 12 'obedience,' to the scholars' apprehension of the apostles' inference that Christ said Johnny B was Elias as truth (presumably because it's impossible for those knuckleheads to have ever gotten anything wrong) it never ends. Equivocation is the bread- and- butter of professional 'Christianity.'

One such 'equivocation' occurs in relation to Joshua's account of a battle which took place in the 'promised land' of Canaan. After the children of Israel laid waste to the Amorites who besieged the Jews' 'homeboys' in Gibeon, a number of kings organized another 'federation' against Josh and his 'crew' of battle- hardened 'one- percenters,' thinking to gang- bang the Jews out of existence before they got any stronger or took any more 'turf.' Inasmuch as the children of Israel couldn't seem to find any better place to 'hang' than in the valley next to Jericho-- which was reduced to a pile of rubble-- no matter how many serviceable cities they took from the indigenous inhabitants of the land: I assume the 'federation' of adversaries were forced to come down to the Jordan valley to 'bang' on them.

At any rate, the 'Jew crew' slaughtered them there, and then went to their cities, and took their 'turf' from their 'old ladies' and their children: presumably 'snuffing' them all. In point of fact, so thorough was the 'genocide' thereby waged, that Joshua wrote of it: "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe [Joshua 11:14]." There's only one problem with the integrity of this statement that I'm aware of: Cattle breathe.

Inerrant Lie #34

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

As noted in the previous post: there are many clerical discrepancies between the inventories listed in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. These are not trivial discrepancies. The previous post dealt only with the 'irregularities' in the respective inventories of the people who were said to have returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. There are also discrepancies in the respective inventories of the "treasure of the work [Ezra 2:69a, et. al.]," which was contributed by the people upon arrival at Jerusalem.

Of the gold of these 'freewill' contributions, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold [Ezra 2:69a];" while Nehemiah says, "The Tirshatha [at that time, this might indicate Ezra] gave to the treasure a thousand drams of gold... And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work twenty thousand drams of gold... And that which the rest of the people gave was twenty thousand drams of gold... [Nehemiah 7:70a, 71a & 72a]." According to Ezra 2, this leaves 20,000 drams of gold unaccounted for by Nehemiah. I'll grant the "50 basons" of indeterminate substance, listed in Nehemiah 7:70b might make the difference; but this certainly does not explain the remaining irregularities in these two passages.

Of the silver of these offerings, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work... five thousand pound of silver [Ezra 2:69a & b];" while Nehemiah writes, "And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work... two thousand and two hundred pound of silver. And that which the rest of the people gave was... two thousand pound of silver... [Nehemiah 7:71 & 72a & b]." The sum of silver accounted for in these two verses of Nehemiah is 4,200 pounds. This leaves 800 pounds unaccounted for by Nehemiah, according to the tabulation of Ezra 2.

These people also gave priests' garments. Of the offering of these, Ezra writes, "They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work... one hundred priests' garments [Ezra 2:69a & c];" while Nehemiah says, "The Tirshatha gave to the treasure... five hundred and thirty priests' garments. And that which the rest of the people gave was... threescore and seven priests' garments [Nehemiah 7:70b & d; 72a & c]." Unlike the other offerings-- each inventory of which is smaller in Nehemiah's tally-- Nehemiah actually accounts for 497 more priests' garments than Ezra; meaning, perhaps, somebody was wild about playing dress- up.

Inerrant Lie #33

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

When the children of Israel, at the request of Cyrus king of Persia, returned to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the 'temple to the name of the LORD' which has always been referred to as 'Solomon's temple,' they 'scrupulously' inventoried all that went in the 'wagon train.' This accounting was recorded by "Ezra, the priest, the scribe [Ezra 7:11a & b]," in chapter 2 of the book by his name. Not only were the people 'dutifully' numbered and recorded: the religious artifacts returned from the temple at Babylon were also so inventoried.

This inventory was later copied by "Nehemiah, the Tirshatha [Nehemiah 10:1b & c]," in the book bearing his name. The number of discrepancies in these two ostensibly identical inventories is too large to mention one- by- one. My 'nose' first twitched on the scent of herring as I was reading Nehemiah, and noticed the absence of the infamous number "six hundred sixty and six," therein.

In Ezra, we read the following: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six [Ezra 2:13]." This is easily memorable because of the much- feared- and- hated number. However, in Nehemiah's copy of this same inventory, we read: "The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven [Nehemiah 7:18]." There is an obvious discrepancy, here, of one. In all, I count no fewer than twenty such discrepancies between these two accountings.

The 'bottom line' of Ezra's tally reads: "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women [Ezra 2:64 & 65]." In- and- of itself, this tally is faulty. If you add all numbers given in the inventory: the sum comes to 27,829. This leaves a difference of 14,531 persons between the inventory and it's summation. These are uncounted people who are nonetheless tallied.

Nehemiah's inventory and tally are presumably copied from Ezra's-- though some years later: "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king [Nehemiah 2:1b]," at the earliest. As I've said, Nehemiah's inventory-- as recorded in Nehemiah 7-- differs from Ezra's in no fewer than twenty particulars; though it is presumably a direct copy of the same.

The tally recorded by Nehemiah states the following: "The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women [Nehemiah 7:66 & 67]." Compared with Ezra's tally: this is exactly the same in number-- except for the addition of forty- five 'singing men and women.'

The sum of all numbers given in Nehemiah's inventory is 30,101. This leaves a difference of 12,259 persons unaccounted- for in his summation; and is 2,272 more than the sum of Ezra's inventory. Again: these are uncounted people who have been nonetheless tallied.

I suppose the question all these discrepancies in such 'meticulous' accountings begs is: Do these differences reflect the human- trafficking of Jews? or do they rather reflect the Jewish 'passion' for human 'sacrifice?' or both? I smell the 'first love' of wolves-- putrefaction-- here, in any case.

Inerrant Lie #32

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

The anonymous writer of Hebrews tells a passel of fibs, which are likely-- for the most part, at least--the lies of others, faithfully retold by 'Anonymous.' Many are quite obviously Moses' lies, which the author claims to wholeheartedly (in hole- hearted fashion) believe in-- in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence extant that Moses was a pathological charlatan.

One such lie is found in the ninth chapter of this singular tome. In Hebrews 9:22, 'Anonymous' writes: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." When he refers to "the law," the 'unknown' author obviously means to indicate the Mosaic Law; though his 'indication' is actually an indictment.

In Ezekiel 18, we encounter the true way to remission of sins, which -- in a word-- is the first word uttered by Jesus of Nazareth, upon commencement of his public ministry: "Repent [Matthew 4:17c]." Ezekiel writes: "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed [this is called 'repentance,' or 'penitence']... All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him [Ezekiel 18:21a & 22a & b]." "They shall not be mentioned unto him," describes-- in a word-- remission.

All this notwithstanding, 'Anonymous' tells on Moses' 'bloody' fallacies in at least two places, himself. In Hebrews 10:4 we read: "For it is not possible that the blood... should take away sins." Seven verses later, we likewise read that these same bloody "sacrifices... can never take away sins [Hebrews 10:11]." Is it a lie to faithfully repeat a lie in which one has believed? or is it 'simply' pathetic?

Inerrant Lie #31

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

In English, we often use 'fig- leaf' devices such as euphemisms and dysphemisms to 'cover- up' our lingual 'sleights- of- hand.' This is somewhat more honest than the way in which similar 'tricks' of vernacular are 'fig- leaved' in Hebrew: inasmuch as both operations-- euphemizing and dysphemizing-- are, in Hebrew, 'covered' by one and the same utility: a peculiarity the dictionary refers to as a 'shibboleth [Judges 12:5 & 6].'

In 1 Kings ['commonly' referred to as the 'Third Book of the Kings'], we encounter what must have been a particularly tasty 'fig' referred to by the scribe thereof as "Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." I say she must have been particularly 'tasty' inasmuch as she was taken by her own son as queen and, in turn, bore him the son that replaced him as king.

1 Kings 15:1 & 2 reads: "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah. Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." Later in the same chapter, we read: "And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was [the same] Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom [1 Kings 15:9 & 10]."

Notice how liberally the fig leaves are strewn over the passages concerning this same queen, in the Chronicles. In particular, notice how all the names but Asa's are 'shibbolethed'-- her father's beyond recognition. "Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah [2 Chronicles 13:1 & 2]." How does "Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom" become sensibly, or responsibly, "Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah?"

Furthermore, 2 Chronicles says of Abijam (or Abijah, as the case may be) that he married-- not only his own mother, but-- fourteen wives [2 Chronicles 13:21]. To further 'cover' the incestuous nature of this period of the nation's history, the scribe of 2 Chronicles makes no mention of Asa's mother or her name. This may be more shibboleth than lie; but, given the extraordinarily deceptive nature of the 'Chronicle' of it: it may as well be apprehended as a lie altogether.

At any rate, my guess is: 'Mikki' was hot as hell on Easter Sunday.

Inerrant Lie #30

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

The book of Joshua was not necessarily written by Joshua, but it was written about the leadership of Joshua during the children of Israel's attempt to conquer the promised land after the death of Moses. Toward the end of this less- than- triumphal account of “holy land” conquest, the writer of the book of Joshua attributes a lie to Joshua which is perhaps optimistically ignored by scholars as a lie– and instead considered a “statement of faith.” It is nonetheless a lie: one which has always been a lie; and is a lie to this day.

Joshua 21:43 - 45 says Joshua said: "43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And… rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers…. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." This lie is, at best, a transubstantiation of a deception as truth and that likely based on good intent. Wishful thinking, in other words. The inspiration for this lie is presumably an accounting taken of the territories of the promised land not yet taken by the children of Israel, of all things.

This tale of the account taken of territories of the promised land not yet taken by the tribes of Israel begins at the start of the thirteenth chapter of the book of Joshua. Joshua 13:1 - 7 says, “1 Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him… there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remaineth: all the borders of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, 3 From Sihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron northward, which is counted to the Canaanite: five lords of the Philistines; the Gazathites, and the Ashdothites, the Eshkalonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avites: 4 From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that is beside the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites: 5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath… 7 Now therefore divide this land…”

The rest of verse seven of Joshua 13 is a clumsy and confusing segué into a description, beginning with verse 8, of the land Moses gave to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh on the other (east) side of the Jordan. This description takes the rest of chapter 13. Verse eight of Joshua thirteen is also the beginning of a longer, more general historical account of the progress which had been made on both sides of the river Jordan, by the time Joshua was told by the LORD, “Now therefore divide this land,” at the beginning of chapter thirteen.

Chapter fourteen of the book of Joshua begins thus: “And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan [the west side of the Jordan], which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them [Joshua 14:1].” The boiled- down essence of the next four chapters of Joshua is that two- and- a- half tribes had received their inheritances on the west side of Jordan– in the land of Canaan, that is to say– by the time “Joshua was old and stricken in years,” at the beginning of chapter thirteen. Everyone else was left in the lurch.

It's worth noting that, when Joshua 14:1 says that some of the land had been “distributed for inheritance”: this word “distributed” apparently indicates the land under consideration had been taken by the tribes to whom it– according to Joshua, Eleazar, and the fathers of the tribes– belonged, in light of the narrative of the next three chapters of Joshua and the first chapter of the book of Judges. Also it seems these were the only three tribes who tired of convalescing (with Joshua, Eleazar, and the fathers of the tribes) in Gilgal (and later in Shiloh) to the point of demanding an inheritance to fight for and take possession of: in light of the narrative of the book of Joshua, generally. [A half- part of one of these tribes– the tribe of Manasseh– was no doubt antsy to get back across the Jordan to their own possessions on the east side.] The rest of the tribes must have been “waiting upon the LORD.”

After all, the LORD had promised to drive most of the inhabitants of the land out of the land before the children of Israel. In Exodus 23 (verses 28- through- 30) Moses records the LORD telling him– sometime after the delivery of the ten commandments and before the children of Israel left mount Hor, where the commandments were given–: “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." This promise came forty years before the children of Israel entered the promised land and concerns the lion’s- share of the inhabitants of the land inasmuch as the Canaanites were by far the most populous people inhabiting the land.

At any rate, it isn't until the eighteenth chapter of Joshua that the narrative of the book of Joshua finally circles back to the seventh verse of the thirteenth chapter of Joshua (“Now therefore divide this land…”) with the declaration, “And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet received their inheritance [Joshua 18:2].” Theirs was the land which had yet to be possessed, spoken of by the LORD in Joshua 13.

Now (in chapter 18), in response to the LORD’s command to divide this land: “3… Joshua said unto the children of Israel, How long are ye slack to go to possess the land, which the LORD God of your fathers hath given you? 4 Give out from among you three men for each tribe: and I will send them, and they shall rise, and go through the land, and describe it according to the inheritance of them; and they shall come again to me. 5 And they shall divide it into seven parts: Judah shall abide in their coast on the south, and the house of Joseph [Ephraim and half of the tribe of Manasseh] shall abide in their coasts on the north. 6 Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God [Joshua 18:3 - 6].”

The rest of chapter eighteen, everything in chapters nineteen and twenty, and most of chapter twenty- one of Joshua describes the resultant allocations of the land divided among six of the seven tribes remaining and of the cities given to the Levites (in this case, the seventh tribe, as per Joshua 18:2) out of all the tribes. It is after this accounting, at the end of chapter twenty- one, that Joshua allegedly tells the lie, “...the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein [Joshua 21:43].” It must be that Joshua considers the deed spoken a deed done (transubstantiationarily, at least) once the lot is cast: if this confirmatory statement at the end of the twenty- first chapter of Joshua concerning the faithfulness of the LORD is ought but a heavy- handed gaslight. However, the truth is that the children of Israel have never had the promised land to themselves.

To see how patently false this claim is, one need look no further than the beginning of the next book in the canon. In the second chapter of the book of Judges, an event is recorded and memorialized by the name of "Bochim." This event took place while Joshua was still alive; and it seems, in light of verse six of Judges chapter two, that it must have taken place immediately before, during, or immediately after Joshua cast lots to divide the land which had yet to be taken (the land spoken of by the LORD in the first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter of Joshua). It could be the same angel of the LORD speaking in both passages.

"1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which 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…. 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you [the promise of Exodus 23:28 - 30 breached]; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:1- 3].” Three verses later, there seems to be a time- stamp on this “Bochim” encounter.

The sixth verse of the second chapter of the book of Judges says, “And when Joshua had let the people go, the children of Israel went every man unto his inheritance to possess the land.” This is exactly what one would reasonably expect the children of Israel to do, immediately after “Joshua cast lots [upon the land] for them in Shiloh before the LORD [Joshua 18:10]”: go to possess the land distributed to them by the lots Joshua cast.

Though it does not necessarily matter when the Bochim event occurred, it (Bochim) is the simplest proof of the disingenuous nature of the statement, at the end of Joshua chapter 21, that “the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers.” It is therefore offered here, as such, in the hope of as- briefly- as- possible concluding a matter the biblical account of which is obviously extremely muddled by non- linear accounts, anachronisms, lies, and so on.

For instance, in the immediately- adjacent biblical testimony, there are many statements which run contrary to the lie Joshua is credited with in Joshua 21. Some of these are found in the book of Joshua; some in the book of Judges. In the book of Joshua, there is this statement concerning the Jebusites (a tribe of the Canaanites the LORD promised– in Exodus 23– to drive out of the land): “As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day [Joshua 15:63].” The onus of accepting the Jebusites and allowing them to remain among the tribes of Israel is conversely and likewise laid on the Benjamites in Judges 1:21, which reads, “And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day [Judges 1:21].”

Also in Joshua, there are at least two more statements concerning the tenacity of the Canaanites. Joshua 16:10 says, “And [the Ephraimites] drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.” While Joshua 17:11 & 12 says, “11 And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher Beth-shean and her towns, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Endor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries. 12 Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.”

In chorus with the latter citation from Joshua 17, Judges 1:27 says, “27 Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land [Judges 1:27].”

Finally, there is this summation at the end of Judges chapter one, which reads: “29 Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. 30 Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites dwelt among them, and became tributaries. 31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out. 33 Neither did Naphtali drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became tributaries unto them. 34 And the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountain: for they would not suffer them to come down to the valley: 35 But the Amorites would dwell in mount Heres in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim: yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributaries [Judges 1:28 - 35].”

Notice how, in the above passages from Joshua and Judges, the onus is on the children of Israel to do what the LORD said He would do: drive out the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Hittite. That is to say: for waiting upon the LORD (Isaiah 40:31, et. al.)-- which the ‘Holy Bible' advises, et. al.-- the children of Israel are rewarded with the curse of Bochim.

Never in biblical times (or accounts), nor in the more- or- less contemporary times since 1947 (C.E.) has the LORD, their own hand, or any other source ever given the children of Israel the promised land free- and- clear of any- and- all previous claims. If possession is nine- tenths of the law, the children of Israel are and always have been trespassers and thieves as a nation: in the land of promise and elsewhere. No matter where– except Ur of the Chaldees– the children of Abraham were to be found, someone who didn't want to share the land with them was always there before them. If the Annunaki hadn't simply disappeared somehow, the same might perhaps be said for all of us.

Inerrant Lie #29

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

The book of Deuteronomy is (for the most part) a recount, given by Moses, of the events which he experienced with the children of Israel in the forty years he wandered with them in the wilderness between Goshen and Shittim; and a refresher course on the canon of law which was delivered to Moses purportedly by the LORD, after Moses eloped with the children of Israel from Egypt. In rehearsing their shared exploits on the east side of Jordan to the people he led out of Egypt (prior to allegedly being whacked- out and buried by the LORD his God), Moses says to the people, "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants… [Deuteronomy 3:11a]."

This lie-- like the one told in Numbers 31:7 about having slain "all the males of Midian"-- comes back to take a bite out of Moses’ veracity. Everyone's heard of the “champion… of the Philistines, named Goliath;” and how little Davey (just before exchanging holy vows with king Saul’s son, Jonathan) shot him down with a pebble from a brook and launched by a sling: in the time of the kings; long after the conquest of the promised land; and likewise after the times of the judges. Such is the fate of giants who bring spears and swords to gunfights. Yet even the killing of Goliath wasn't the end of the lineage of giants “Moses the man of God” claims Og was.

Perhaps it is in the interest of protecting the integrity of that mighty “god to Pharaoh [Exodus 7:1]”-- Moses “the man of God”-- that the scribe who recorded Davey's encounter with Goliath chose not to call the “champion of the Philistines” a giant. However, this fig leaf (if such it is) is likewise uncovered by posterity, when the King of the Jews goes to war with the Philistines years later.

Purportedly, in four separate battles with the Philistines, David's army encountered four sons of Goliath; and killed them all. Of these encounters, 2 Samuel 21:22 says, "These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."

Obviously, Moses either didn't know enough about the lineage of the giants to speak authoritatively on the matter; or he was too busy rallying the children of Israel for the coming conquest of the promised “holy land” to tell the truth about it. Either way, according to the account of later events: it was a lie to say, “only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants.” Either that, or David's scribes lied about Goliath and his children.

Inerrant Lie #28

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

When-- after forty years of death- watch was accomplished in the wilderness-- the children of Israel finally began to conquer territory in their “land of promise” and claim it as their own: they received a special instruction concerning the land they were not to take.

This OPORDER, as it were, is recorded in the past tense in Deuteronomy 2:19. Moses says ”the LORD” told him (before the respective contest): "And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession."

Eighteen verses later, in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses unequivocally claims innocence in regard of the foregoing mission prerogative, saying: "Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us [Deuteronomy 2:37]." 

In chapter 3 of Deuteronomy, Moses recollects how the children of Israel-- after destroying Sihon of Heshbon-- proceeded to destroy Og king of Bashan. In verse 4, he says, "we took all of [Og's] cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them..." Prima facie: no problem. But in verse 11 of chapter 3, the vail lifts. Moses says, "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the Ammonites?"

The controversy which presents itself here, in light of Moses' unequivocal claim to have abided by the foregoing prohibition on Ammonite entanglement, is that– besides being told not to distress the Ammonites– Moses was told, “nor meddle with [the Ammonites].” This means the children of Israel were to have nothing, good or bad, to do with the Ammonites. Everything Ammonite was a “no- go.” How does one "behold" a "bedstead" behind no- go lines without ‘crossing the line’?

Further evidence that Moses' claim (in Deuteronomy 2:37) of having adhered to the prohibition on conquest of Ammonite territory declared by the LORD (Deuteronomy 2:19) is fishy comes five verses later: in verse 16 of Deuteronomy 3.

In Deuteronomy 3:16, Moses admits-- in spite of his earlier protestation to not have come "unto any place of the river Jabbok [2:37b, ibid.],"-- that he "gave [to the Reubenites and Gadites] from Gilead… even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon." How does one go “unto the river Jabbok” without coming “unto any place of the river Jabbok?”

Joshua also rebuffs Moses' hands- off affirmation from Deuteronomy 2:37, writing: "24 And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad…. 25 And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah [Deuteronomy 13:24 & 25]." Again: how does one ‘give’ “half the land of the children of Ammon” to someone else without meddling with the Ammonites? Someone lied about something here.

Inerrant Lie #27

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

How many times have you heard someone say, "Jesus of Nazareth was either God- in- the- flesh or a raging lunatic!"? This ultimatum, whether it applies to Jesus of Nazareth or not, applies more acutely (and appropriately) to Moses. Jesus of Nazareth commanded the spirits and apostles that worshipped him as “the Holy One of God” (and other appellations of such like) to observe silence. The number of times Moses says, “I am the LORD,” on the other hand, is staggering.

Back in the early nineties, when the alphabet- soup of federal agencies surrounded the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX: CNN had an analyst [or maybe it was Janet Reno herself] on- air talking about David Koresh (the pastor of the Branch Davidians). They played audio of Koresh reading a passage of Moses as proof of how evil Koresh was, saying he clearly had a messiah complex and might be the Antichrist. They represented the audio they played as Koresh's own words, which they clearly were not; but what does this say about Moses, whose words they actually were?

One such passage is to be found in Deuteronomy 11. Beginning in verse 13, Moses says: "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day… 14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season… 15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full." This is a staggering claim for a man to have made so many thousands of years ago.

These days, the U.S. Air Force has Operational Weather Squadrons which manipulate weather conditions in the theater of conflict to assure maximum advantage to U.S. troops in- theater. Nonetheless, even now, preachers insist, “Only God can control the weather.” Why do they believe Moses, when they revile and scorn as lunatic any contemporary who speaks as Moses did?

Back in the fall of 2015, I attended church on a Saturday evening at a church in Santa Clarita, CA, which is in Los Angeles County. California had suffered from drought for seven years or so, at this time; and, for some reason, the head pastor of the church I visited that Saturday evening chose that moment to lead his congregation in a prayer service begging God to bring relief from the persistent drought– before he commenced the message he delivered that evening.

The substance of that particular pastor's prayer that evening about the drought concentrated on his adamant, repetitive assertion that only God could do anything about the weather. I used to live in Sclarita (as Santa Clarita is referred to by the “locals”) in the 1990’s, and even then it was obvious someone was engaged in weather modification exercises to anyone who chanced to look up at the sky over that valley on any given day. Chemtrails abounded with regularity. Everyone noticed and commented on them in conversation about town. It was no secret.

At any rate, when the aforementioned head pastor was done laying on the floor wriggling like a worm and pleading to be heard and obeyed by God concerning the drought, there was a moment taken for “prophetic testimony,” in which the congregation was encouraged to share anything they felt the LORD was impressing upon their hearts regarding the subject of the drought. We waited for an uncomfortably long time, until one old man finally made his way up front to the microphone to say, “God will provide a solution to this problem.”

I suspect churches all over the L.A. Basin were exercising their prayer- prerogative in precisely this same manner, that particular weekend. On the following Monday morning, one of the things which caught the eye of many of those who perused the L.A. Times newspaper was a public notice announcing that NOAA had filed for and received permits to engage in weather modification exercises in the skies over L.A. County over the course of the winter immediately following. That may be the first year (2015) in which meteorologists assigned names to particularly dangerous winter storms.

One of my acquaintances in Santa Clarita was killed by “Lucifer,” that winter. I think it's all- but certain that, that Saturday and Sunday, all the pastors in the L.A. metropolis were doing the same thing that pastor did that Saturday evening when I visited his church: praying God end the drought; and praying so exactly as that pastor had done: forcefully and repetitively declaring only God could do anything about the weather. I think the pastors of L.A. already had the scoop on NOAA’s plans for weather modification before that weekend began. Perhaps they didn't know NOAA would obtain permits, that year. They had never bothered with permits in previous years. Moses would have been proud.

At any rate, whether or not Moses could make it rain, and even whether Moses is the LORD is beside the point. The point is that weather modification was not a science, much less a given, in Moses' day; and Moses most likely lied every time he said “I am the LORD,” regardless of whether he did so at the LORD’s behest. Either that, or the scribe who wrote, “[the LORD] buried [Moses] in a valley in the land of Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day [Deuteronomy 34:6]” lied. No man can literally bury himself; and if Moses were the LORD: why would he?