Inerrant Lie #65

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #64

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #63

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #62

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #61

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

There's a strange little lie told of Saul in 1 Chronicles. In particular, this lie is told of Saul's death. This seemingly insignificant gaslight concerning the death of Israel's first anointed king calls into question the very nature of death: the one fate no man seems to have ever eluded-- unless if a Book chalk- full of lies managed to tell the truth about Enoch, Elijah, and the LORD God.

Saul died, along with his sons, on the battlefield fighting the Philistines. One of the lies told about his expiration has to do with who actually finished Saul off. If I haven't already written a 'Lie' post about that, I'll try to remember to and do so. That is, however, not of immediate concern. This post concerns the reason Saul died.

The scribe who recorded the event attributed several reasons to Saul's death. It is thus recorded: "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it [1 Chronicles 10:13]." This is utter nonsense, and that according to the Doctrine.

The simplest rebuttal to this assertion that Saul died for his own transgression is a simple question: If men die for their own transgressions, why did Jesus die? The answer to this question, as provided by the Doctrine, is: Jesus died because other men sin; i.e. Jesus died because Saul transgressed, in the present context. Why, then, did Saul die? Moses and the apostle Paul also reject this notion of Saul dying for his own transgressions.

According to Moses' record of the LORD speaking from the midst of the fire on the mount of God, men die for the sins of their forebears. When he delivered the ten commandments to the children of confusion, the LORD said, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation [Exodus 20:5c & d, et. al.]." Roman Catholics and the apostle Paul take a longer view-- back to Eden-- of this heritage of responsibility.

Catholics refer to the belief that a man is responsible for a perceived transgression committed by Adam and Eve in Eden-- espoused by Paul in his epistle to the "saints" in Rome-- as "original sin." Paul wrote: "14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses [not Jesus?], even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression... 16 ...for the judgment was by one to condemnation [Romans 5:14a & b; 16c]."

Given the LORD's assertion in Ezekiel 18 and elsewhere that-- contrary to his own words from the mount in the wilderness-- this is not his standard operational procedure (not to mention Moses' own dismissal of the notion of corporate punitive responsibility as a matter of legal policy and procedure in Deuteronomy): this whole matter is one of the most lied- about issues in scripture. This confusion and deception falls out from the LORD God scapegoating the whole world for his own wickedness.

It was none other than the LORD God, after all, who admitted to committing the first "not good" (which is to say evil) act recorded in the canon, as such, in Genesis 2:18, thus: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be [as I made him] alone"; nevertheless, he doesn't admit his wickedness in denying the man and his wife access to a tree God gave to those God called men. 

Genesis 1:29 states, "And God said [to the men God created (see v.27, ibidum, for context)], Behold, I have given you... every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." In conflict with God, the LORD God says, "of the tree of the knowledge of good... thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [Genesis 2:17]."

Likewise, "the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and [us]: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life [another gift from God to man], and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

The original sinner is the LORD God; not Adam or Eve or anyone else. Saul died-- as we all do-- to cover the LORD God's butt- naked, scapegoating, cocksucking, butt- rutting, self- righteous ass. "Yea, hath God said?" Amen.

Inerrant Lie #60

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #59

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #57

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

Inasmuch as I write this on Christmas Eve, it is appropos that this 'Lie' be based, in part, on the most- often quoted, best- known verse in the canon: John 3:16. John 3:16 is referred to, ad nauseum, as 'the fullness of the Gospel message in truncated form,' to paraphrase. It is also the unvarnished, unalloyed truth according to believers; but according to the apostle James, it is also a lie.

In his self- titled epistle addressed to the dispersed Jewry, James writes that a friend of the world is THE enemy of God. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God [James 4:4]." According to the testimony of Jesus of Nazareth, this makes God THE enemy of himself.

John the divine says Jesus of Nazareth said God is much more than a friend of the world. According to Jesus (via John): God is, in fact, a lover of the world. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life [John 3:16]." The next verse in John says Jesus went on to call God the would- be saviour of the world. So which of these declarations is true? Is either?

It seems far more likely that the "God" in question is the devil opposing himself (to snare all others) as all hypocrites definitively do. Whose kingdom do Christians say has an end? Is it not the kingdom of "Satan?" Jesus of Nazareth said, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end [Mark 3:23c - 26]." 

Who-- if not "Satan"-- does Jesus thus make himself out to be? This same Jesus, after all, said: "I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end [Luke 22:37]."

Inerrant Lie #56

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

It's been mentioned in a previous 'Lie' that Moses' LORD was, perhaps, a liar. Samuel's LORD certainly was, if you believe Sammy's witness of him. Sammy goes so far as to say, in essence, his LORD taught him to lie. Understand: at the time the following took place, Sammy was the notable judge and prophet of the nation; the embodiment of the nation's morality. He'd already rebuked the sitting king and judged him unworthy of bearing rule, in the name of "the LORD."

Sammy says the LORD told him to anoint another king while Saul still sat as king. Sammy says the LORD informed him he would find the one he was to anoint in Saul's stead in Bethlehem (sister city to "Gibeah of Saul"). Of course, as Saul was afraid of the people: so Sammy (hypocrite he was) was afraid of Saul. "2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD. 3 And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee [1 Samuel 16:2 & 3]."

Notice: the LORD not only 'taught' Samuel to lie ("cover it with a fig leaf," in essence); he also provided the necessary alibi-- sacrifice (the aforementioned fig leaf). Sammy's 'obedience' to this word of deception he credited his LORD with is reminiscent of how the centurions guarding the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth "took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews [never so among the Gentiles] until this day [Matthew 28:15]."

When a man lies, he is called a liar. When the LORD in heaven lies, he should be called the devil [John 8:44], shouldn't he?

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.