Inerrant Lie #3

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

In 2 Samuel 24:24, king David buys the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite (the “stranger,” that is to say) for "fifty shekels of silver."

In 1 Chronicles 21:25, the same transaction is accounted at "six hundred shekels of gold," though the name of the “stranger” (the Jebusite, that is to say) from whom he bought it is changed to protect his 'stranger' innocence.

One of these scribes is lying, if both aren't. Fifty shekels of silver do not make six hundred shekels of gold-- without "balances of deceit [Hosea 12:7b]" in someone's hand. The question is: who's being defrauded? God? God's people? both?

After all, this same threshingfloor became the site of the [golden- calf-] temple Solomon later built to the name of the LORD Davey's [central- bank-] “God”; and Davey states unequivocally, in 2 Samuel 24:24, that the LORD's things are Davey's money [Mark 12:17, et. al.]. Therefore, to Inflate the size of the sweet psalmist's contribution to 'The Sacrifice On Moriah' [Genesis 22:2; Revelation 11:8] is to inflate Davey's esteem and self- esteem as a servant of the “God” who loves human meat on the altar: especially that of His only- beloved, only begotten Son (of Man).

Lovingly referred to generally in the New Testament canon as “the prophet,” for his psalms, king David– killer of messengers– has never been spoken “ill” of in my ears, unless it was my tongue wagging.

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." - Luke 6:26

Inerrant Lie #2

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

Are there lies in "God's inerrant word?" Considering the uberfascist, Christ- murdering “thieves and robbers” who wrote it, would it be "inerrant" if there were none? You don't expect the Devil to tell the truth, do you? Why would his children [John 8:44 & 56] be more truthful than he? Isn't it far more likely the children of the Devil are less- truthful than their father?

For instance, an "angel of the Lord [Genesis 22:2]," lies in calling Isaac "[Abe's] only son," a lie retold in Hebrews 11:17 where the writer thereof calls him Abe's "only begotten son," at once rendering the lie more messianic and more laughable than the angel's deception in Genesis.

Isaac was not Abe's only son. Isaac was Sarah's only son. Ishmael (Abe's firstborn by Hagar, his second wife) was thirteen years old when Isaac was born of Sarah, Abe's first wife. Ishmael was not only born before Isaac: he was also circumcised before Isaac was born. It's just patently false to say Isaac was Abe's only son, yet "God's ineffable, inerrant word" does so twice. That's an adamant lie. From "'God's' ineffable, inerrant word."

Was Abe “dragged- out” in Sarah's dress, jewels, and do- me pumps when "that God" made his Crucify- Your- Christ- on-  Calvary deal with “the father of us all?” That would explain everything in Genesis 22.

Inerrant Lie #1

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

Preachers, theologians, and seminarians say there are no lies in “the word of God,” the ‘Holy Bible’; though most, if not all, claim to “know” Eve lied about the words of God, in Genesis 3.

The strange dichotomy, here, is that the “lie” they say Eve told in verse 3 (of Genesis 3): "God hath said... neither shall ye touch it (lest ye die)," is not a confirmable lie. There is no evidence Eve wasn't instructed not to touch the “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

The only lie is the assumption of Eve and the biblical authorities that the LORD God is God. “Yea, hath God said [meaning, “Is ‘the LORD God’ God”]?” the serpent said. The lie Eve is accused of telling is not exposed as a lie anywhere in the canon. Her words are simply recorded, and the reader is left to discern what has been recorded. But “there are no lies in the word of God,” say those who so craftily “read” them in.

What's even stranger, is the fact that the pulpits all seem to agree that the only one in Genesis 3 who does voluntarily tell the truth, and only the truth: is a deceiver (or “liar”) [Some say, “The Deceiver; The Devil; That Old Dragon;” etc.]. But, according to the LORD God, whom the authorities all say is incapable of telling a lie: everything the serpent is credited with telling Eve, in Genesis 3, is nut- on. True and bona fide.

This is what the serpent said to Eve: “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:4b & 5].” We know Adam and Eve did not “surely” die, inasmuch as they left the Garden alive.

Everything else the narrative alleges the serpent said: the LORD God confirms as true (before sending the now- dead- unto- Him Adam and Eve packing). This confirmation of the words of the serpent comes in verse 22, where the LORD God says: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” That's everything the serpent said the fruit would do.

If all the things the pulpits say of the serpent in the garden are applicable: Doctrinally, it seems, Moses [perhaps thanks to sorcery] calls this one "the serpent in the wilderness [John 3:14]" in the mouth of the “cockatrice [Isaiah 14:29]”, birthed in “Nehushtan [2 King's 18:24]” as “the serpent in the wilderness (according to himself)”: Jesus of Nazareth. “The Christ.” Who’s head was he supposed to stomp on? his own?

At any rate: the lie they all miss in Genesis 3, is-- like the one they don't "miss"-- told by Eve: (to the LORD God.) In verse 13, Eve tells the LORD God, "the serpent beguiled me." How can anyone be “beguiled” by the truth? That's like being seduced into molesting your child by the same: The only way it happens is if you're a pervert or you're lying to someone who is. At least Eve made up for the lie by telling on the Liar she was lying to, in the Garden, in the first words out of her mouth, post- Eden: “I have gotten a man from the LORD [Genesis 4:1].” “Cain, who was of That Wicked One [1 John 3:12].”

[How'd she do that?]