Inerrant Lie #77

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

According to the written testimony of the various contributors to the ‘Holy Bible' canon, the LORD tells a number of lies; and teaches his princes, principalities, prophets, kings, judges, priests, and people to do likewise.

In Exodus 23, while the Israelites were allegedly serving the LORD at mount Hor (always at instant hazard to their own lives from the LORD), Moses says the LORD made a promise to him which the historical record contained in the various applicable books following Exodus in the canon confirm He did not keep.

Perhaps this sort of back- handed faithfulness is to be expected from a LORD who says to His own people, “ye shall know my breach of promise,” as Moses says the LORD did in Numbers 14:34. Every broken promise is a lie, however, especially when told by the omniscient and only God, as the LORD claims always throughout the canon to be.

[How is it possible to be omniscient yet unable to establish a conversation on a better foundation than that of lies and broken promises told and made to those one claims infallible, eternal, and boundless superiority over; as the LORD, according to the ’Holy Bible’ canon, et. al., does (while claiming to be the only God)?]

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

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

Notice: the LORD says “I will…” three times in the above passage from Exodus 23; “before thee” four times; and mentions “the Hivite” at the top of His list of targets assigned for harassment by the hornets He promises to chase them, the Canaanites, and the Hittites out of the land with.

In fact, the manner in which the LORD makes this particular promise to Moses is entirely reminiscent of the wonder of the “swarms” which allegedly harassed Pharaoh and the Egyptians to distraction in the earlier chapters of Exodus. At any rate, the historical record in the book of Joshua informs the discerning reader that the LORD broke His promise of Exodus 23 to drive the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites out of the promised land by harassing them with hornets.

Joshua 9 tells of the Israelites' first encounter with the Hivites (who occupied the top of the list of targets reserved for harassment by hornets) after their alleged return from Egypt. This meeting with the Hivites takes place after crossing the river Jordan and entering the land of Canaan promised to “Abraham” (Abram) by the same LORD who said to Abraham’s descendants, “ye shall know my breach of promise” (Numbers 14:34).

This encounter with the Hivites is the Israelites’ third experience with the inhabitants of the land on the west side of Jordan. According to the narrative of the book of Joshua, the Hivites sent a peace envoy to the children of Israel while the children of Israel were in Gilgal– presumably resting and recuperating in the aftermath of the destruction they visited on the cities of Bethel and Ai, in the second challenge they faced in their holy land conquest after crossing the Jordan.

The ninth chapter of Joshua says that the embassy sent by the Hivites to Joshua and the children of Israel in Gilgal was made up of a number of the inhabitants of “Gibeon, and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim” (verse 17). Furthermore, it is alleged that these chosen Hivites had been sent “wilily” (verse 4) to beguile a peace treaty out of their hostile new neighbors, the Israelites.

The fact that the Hivites of these four cities knew what to say and do to beguile the children of Israel could indicate the betrayal of the children of Israel by the LORD. Chapter nine of Joshua says that, in order to beguile Joshua and the Israelites, “4 [The Hivites] did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old, and rent, and bound up; 5 And old shoes and clouted upon their feet, and old garments upon them; and all the bread of their provision was dry and mouldy.” The express intent of the Hivites' artifices in regard to their equipment, provisions, and clothing was their pretense to being distant foreigners.

According to the ninth- and- following verses of the ninth chapter of Joshua, the Hivites “said unto [Joshua], From a very far country thy servants are come because of the name of the LORD thy God: for we have heard the fame of him… 11 Wherefore our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spake to us, saying, Take victuals with you for the journey, and go to meet them, and say unto them, We are your servants: therefore now make ye a league with us. 12 This our bread we took hot for our provision out of our houses on the day we came forth to go unto you; but now, behold, it is dry, and it is mouldy: 13 And these bottles of wine, which we filled, were new; and, behold, they be rent: and these our garments and our shoes are become old by reason of the very long journey.”

Ultimately, the children of Israel are beguiled by the wiles of the Hivites which the LORD promised they wouldn't have to contend in battle with: perhaps mostly by this word from them, “We are your servants.” They therefore accept the peace- and- protection compact proposed by the ambassadors of the four cities of the Hivites.

Subsequently, the next military contest Joshua and the children of Israel have to peel themselves away from Gilgal (yes, they keep retarding to Gilgal) to march off to is in protection of their recently- acquired servants in the Hivite cities of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim against “Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem... Piram king of Jarmuth... Japhia king of Lachish, and… Debir king of Eglon [Joshua 10:1]” who have entered into a destruction compact against the Hivites in response to their making peace with the children of Israel.

A couple of things are noteworthy, here. The promise made by the LORD to drive the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from the land He promised to “Abraham” was made forty years before the Israelites crossed the river Jordan. While the promise was made under the condition that “[the LORD] will not drive [the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites] out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee [Exodus 23:29]”: the LORD had forty years from the time the promise was made to “By little and little drive them out from before [the children of Israel], until [they were] increased, and [inherited] the land [Exodus 23:30].”

Likewise noteworthy is the fact that Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem, Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon– the kings the children of Israel were compelled to protect the Hivites of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim from– were, like the Hivites themselves, on the list of targets the LORD promised to harass out of the promised land with swarms of hornets. Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem, Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon were, each of them, Canaanite kings. The Canaanites were the second target on the hornets hit- list from Exodus 23.

It could be the children of Israel lasted longer in the promised land than the LORD supposed they could or would. At any rate, the really ironical thing in the tale of this ‘Lie’ is a thing Joshua said in his farewell- to- public- service address, in the final chapter of the book which bears his name.

At his retirement party in Shechem, Joshua speaking for the LORD, says: “And I sent the hornet before you, which drave them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; but not with thy sword, nor with thy bow [Joshua 24:12].” However, nowhere does the LORD mention the Amorites in His promise to harass the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites out of the promised land with hornets.

Likewise, nowhere does Moses mention being helped by hornets in his war against the kingdoms of Og and Sihon (the “two kings of the Amorites” cited by Joshua, above) on the other side of the Jordan. The only mention of Amorites in Exodus 23 has nothing to do with hornets, and even if it did: the promise made in verse 28 of Exodus 23 would still be a lie in respect of the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites.

Inerrant Lie #76

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judges 2 begins by telling us that, at some time while Joshua was still extant (verse 6, ibid.) “an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim,” and goes on to say this angel credited the disobedience of the Hebrews– not their inexperience of war– with their inability to take the land from it’s previous inhabitants, saying, “1 ...I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. 2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you [Judges 2:1 - 3]."

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

Inerrant Lie #75

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #74

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never in the canon is this presumed obedience recorded, except in lie form. Even when Moses "was king in Jeshurun [Deuteronomy 33:5a]," he told the people, "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes [Deuteronomy 12:8]." This echoes the thesis and final word of the book of Judges, itself, concerning the apostasy described therein: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes [Judges 21:25, et. al.]." Again, Moses, in his final oration before his death, says to the Jewry: "thou art a stiffnecked people [Deuteronomy 9:6b]."

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

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

Inerrant Lie #73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #72

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the LORD– a used car salesman?

Inerrant Lie #71

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #70

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #69

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #68

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #67

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #66

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #65

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #64

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #63

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

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

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

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

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

Inerrant Lie #62

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.