0 comments/  2741 views/  1 favorites

Which God, If Any?

By: wistfall1



PREFACE

This essay is long as it must be in order to be as comprehensive as possible. However, it is in sections for your reading convenience. The reason for it being so long is to present as many facts and evidence as possible, yet the subject is so huge as to preclude all facts and evidence, namely, that the bible is very much in error, and that it is proved by the bible itself in many, if not most instances, as well as a few other well known and accepted sources.

Please take your time reading it to get the full effect of the facts I'm presenting.

Believe it or not, this is only the tip of the iceberg. To include all errors would be to write an essay the size of the bible itself, if not larger.

The reason for this essay is all of the headline and attention grabbing that is being done in "the name of God". This "God", or "Lord", is always the one mentioned in the bible when those in the West are speaking of "God" that they claim is the creator of the Universe as well as the earth, and us humans too.

Some of the proofs mentioned here have previously been given in other essays and stories, but many have not. The bible is voluminous and that has made it easy for religions and preachers to cherry pick what they would tell us, and often out of context as originally intended.

Fundamentalists are particularly egregious in their push to have us all believe that the word of the God of the bible is the word of the one true god, and creator of all as in Genesis. Many of them have gone so far as to take it as literal that the earth is only six thousand years old, or perhaps ten thousand at the most, and some foolish enough say that dinosaurs walked the earth with men. They would have you believe this in the face of scientific facts to the point of having a park ala Disneyland or others like it depicting such scenes. They are teaching this to their young, and imbuing them with their ignorance.

However, this essay, as all of my other essays and stories, is to try to educate lesbians, and now also, since they are more in the news lately and targets of bigots, those who are transgenders, transsexuals, intersex, and transvestives. Any others that may be interested in learning the truth of the lies being told about the bible are also welcome to read. Those specifically mentioned have been demonized and made to believe that they are an abomination in the eyes of their god, the god of the bible, and will burn forever in eternal fires of hell.

That is taken from a compilation of books that are fiction called the bible.

Early on, I always heard that there were many paths to truth. That sounded as if it was logical. That was then. Since that time, I have learned that

the path to any truth had to be laden with verifiable facts that are germane to the subject.

Lies are not to be found on any path to truth. Suppositions by men who are thought to be learned are subject to scrutiny and verifiable by facts, and not conjecture called beliefs. Going to the source of their "facts" and verifying them is a must if one is to stay on the path to any truth.

If you are after seeking the truth, that is, and in particular, about the God of the bible.

Please note: Again, this was intended for lesbians who have a problem with church, cultural, or societal norms with regards to their lesbianism and how they have been told that the God of the bible will punish them. I know that some countries in the West have laws against homosexuality as well as other countries too. In the West, these laws are derived from the bible which is supposedly the word of God Almighty, the creator of all, therefore to be obeyed, and some countries are near to the US. Also, it continues in other parts of the world. Uganda has recently made homosexuality against the law, and Russia, if not having a law against it, is definitely against homosexuals.

To be humiliated, or made to feel fear, ashamed or guilty for being as you know within you that you are, is something that truly needs to be addressed, and corrected. As I have said, the best path to truth is to follow the path of verifiable facts. Herein are facts and their sources which you can easily check out for yourself to help you decide if there is any reason to believe in the bible and its condemnation with regards to your lesbianism.

No one should be told how to live if that mode of living is not directly and truly harmful to anyone else. We are not all the same as science proves, other than that we are humans, but we'll not get into that here.

If it is possible, you should live and love as is in you to live with those who welcome you as you are, as you were born to be, or as you have chosen to be. If it is possible! Some may feel that it is not possible. For those who feel trapped and unable to confront it, I wish you as much peace as you can find within yourself. However, by no means should anyone be allowed to make you feel shame or guilt, or to humiliate you for being as you are, nor push you into a church where you will find your redemption for your erroneous way of wanting to live. That's BS!

Though, as I said, originally intended for lesbians, I have now add those who are Transgender, Transsexual, Intersex, or Transvestite, for they too, are coming under increased pressure from a fixed culture that won't accept them for being as they were born to be, though science is proving that they are either a part of evolutions diversity, or the result of random DNA morphing, or even born as a result of environmentally induced genetic changes, or maybe from errors in developmental sequencing from embryo to birth (which will be addressed in the essay later).

Still, all are welcome to read, however, herein you will find pure facts directly from the bible, as well as some historical and scientific verities. So that none can say that the bible doesn't say it, I give book, chapter, and verse where any can verify it for its truthfulness. That said, comments are welcome, as are inquiries, but no challenges or apologetics will be allowed to remain in the comments section simply because you "believe". No "ifs, ands or buts" on this—your personal beliefs to the contrary are not solicited here.

WHICH GOD. IF ANY?

El was the chief god at Ugaritand perhaps of other cities or places such as Canaan. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh, the otherwise biblical name of God (as well as Jehovah); or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. "Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel.... El is called the ""father of men"", ""creator"", and ""creator of the creation"". These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament. (Found on the Internet on various sites.)

Here are a few psalms with regard to God, presumably of the bible, or Gods:

Psalm 82 (New International version) Verse 1 "God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the "gods."

Psalm 82 (KJV) Verse 1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he judgeth among the gods."

Psalm 82 (The Catholic Family Connections Bible, New American Version) Verse 1 "God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods."

Psalm 89, Verse 6 (KJV) "For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?"

All of the above are more than suggestive of the Jewish belief in more than one god. Deuteronomy, chapter10, verse 17:

"For the Lord your God, is God of gods..:"

In 1975/76, archeologist Zeev Meshel from Tel Aviv University, discovered an inscription at a place called Kuntiller Ajrud in northeastern Sinai. The inscription reads:

"I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and [his] Asherah."

His findings were published in 2012 and are easily found on the Internet.

Asherah, in various places, was said to be the consort of Yahweh as can be seen in the above and this below as well:

...''El Qom Uriyahu, the king, has written this. Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh, and his enemies have been conquered through Yahweh''s Asherah."

A puzzle to help you in your wondering:

Ever wonder about how "God" is portrayed in various ways, or wanted to question it, but felt as if it would be blasphemous of you? If so, read on and wonder, and maybe question as would well be appropriate.

If the President of the US asks his Secretary of State to visit another country that is heavily dependent on us to give them a warning, and also tells him to come right back without delay, and he does go but before returning, our Secretary of Defense being nearby tells him to stop with him, and that the president said it's okay, but is secretly lying, would it make sense for him to stay?

Further, if he does stay, and then the Secretary of Defense tells him that since he didn't obey the President's order to return immediately, he was going to be fired on his return, would you think that was right, or made sense? Or is it entrapment out of caprice, and wholly lacking any logic?

In essence, that is what the bible says God did with one of his prophets who thought he was doing exactly what God wanted him to do.

Over chapters 11 through 13, we are told the story in the book of I Kings as follows [copied later below for those wishing to see it immediately]:

God is pissed at Solomon for not being true to him so he decides to punish him by taking away ten tribes from him, but only after he, Solomon, is dead. His son Rehoboam is the one that gets punished, but that's not the story.

The story is that Jeroboam is the one who is said to have been hand picked by God to be king over those ten Northern Tribes, but Jeroboam quickly goes astray with false idols that he's made so nobody has to go to Jerusalem to worship.

God sends one of his prophets from Judah, a prophet not named, and he does as commanded, and also, as God has commanded him, he refuses Jeroboam's offer to dine and drink with him after the prophet entreats God on his behalf to undo an instant punishment, and Jeroboam does and it is rescinded by God.

Dutifully, the prophet then goes on his way, but is requested by another unnamed old prophet of God to come and dine with him. When t prophet demurs and he repeats that God said he shouldn't stop to eat or drink, this old prophet says that an angel told him that God said it was okay, but we are left to know that he's telling a lie.

The prophet from Judah says okay since he is told that God's angel said it was okay, and goes to dine with the old prophet. On doing so, the old prophet tells the prophet from Judah that because he disobeyed the words from God's mouth, he won't be buried in the sepulchre of his fathers. The prophet heads back to Judah on his ass, but is killed by a lion, one that neither eats him, nor his ass, but both stay right there.

Now compare the present day tale, and the biblical tale. Is there logic to either one, or do they both seem illogical and capricious?

More, is this the action of a God that in the New Testament we are given to believe from the words that a writer put in Jesus' mouth that that God is a loving and forgiving father?

If you don't believe this—and you shouldn't—you should verify whether this is truly reported here or not. As stated earlier, here are the salient chapters and verses in I Kings to prove whether what is written here is true or not:

"I Kings, 11:31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith th Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give then tribes to thee:

I Kings, 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O, Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

I kings13:1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 13:2: And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name. 13:8: And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat nor drink water in this place: 13:9: for so was it charged me by the word of the Lord, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. 13:11 Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that they man of God had done that day in Bethel... 13:15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. 13:16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: 13:17 For it was said to me in the word of the Lord, Thou shalt not eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. 13:18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee unto thine house, that he may eat break and drink water. But he lied unto him. 13:21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, 13:22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of they fathers. 13:24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase. 13: 26 And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him."

As you think about the above, consider this: We are given to understand that the old prophet who deceived the prophet from Judah was fully informed of all that God commanded that prophet from Judah to do, so if he let it be known that he knows, then the prophet from Judah has no reason to not believe what the old prophet tells him is of the Lord and thus the old prophet was acting on God's behalf in this matter, and with God's full consent and command, else it would not have happened by the way, nor the lion behaved as it did.

Also, ask yourself why God would deem he should test his prophet from Judah with deceit as he did? What was the reason for it? We are not told, nor are we given to think that there was any reason whatsoever for this test and subsequent punishment from God (to show that God should always be obeyed exactly isn't good enough here as a reason for such capriciousness). We are left to believe that it was just God letting the reader know that God was God, and that was it. Is that capriciousness by God? Or is it all just a tale written by men, a story and no more, or maybe something to hold the totally ignorant in thrall and obedience as in a cult.

Cult may be more than worth considering.

There may be a logic to why this story was made up, but that is for speculation in some other forum. Here, to us, we are told by Fundamentalists, that the bible is the error free, that is, inerrant, word of God, period! Is that true? Is it inerrant? Is it the word of a real God, or foolish men pulling the wool over an ignorant mass?

Now to get with it:

Just about every time God is mentioned in the West, it generally refers to the God of the Jews and Christians (or Muslims, but called Allah by them). That God of the bible has been challenged and first that challenge was met by Fundamentalists who say that the word of that god is inerrant, that is; without error as it is found in the New Testament of Christians and the Old Testament of the Jews, or The Holy Bible comprising both.

When that was refuted, the "Creation" movement was begun, but again, their movement was to say that the God of the bible was, and is, the Creator who is perfect and to be obeyed. That too has been challenged only to be met by those who claim an Intelligent Designer was and is responsible for all of creation and that Designer again being the God of the bible as the one responsible for creation, and as such is inerrant.

Is the God of the bible really God as they proclaim? Or is there another God? What is the truth of this, if the truth can be found?

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT TRUTH

In my story, The Devil's Gateway (and others), the character, Liv, speaks about "foundations" being needed to build anything on.

In the Gospel according to Luke, in chapter 6, verse 49, it says:

"But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great."

Here are a few of the words we find in the bible with regard to "truth", what we may easily call the "foundation" of all we're told to believe in:

In the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 31, verse 24, Moses is said to be speaking before his death. There he is said to write:

"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished..." In the last verse of that chapter, verse 30, it says that:

"And Moses spake in the ear of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended."

That ends chapter 31.

In chapter 32 he is said to continue speaking, and in verses 3 and 4, it is written that he says:

"Because I will publish the name of the Lord; ascribe ye greatness unto our God; He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

"His work is perfect...a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right..."

There we have one version of "truth". The God proclaimed in the bible is a God of truth and his work is perfect. That should constitute a "foundation" to build on.

In the New Testament, in the Gospel According to John, it is written that Jesus, just before going to the Garden of Gethsemane, that praying, he said in chapter 17, verse 17:

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

This same gospel, chapter 4:24, has Jesus saying:

"God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Lastly, in that same gospel, chapter 8:32, Jesus is said to have spoken these words:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

When a person is suspected of having cancer, a blood test can be done to look for CEA (carcinogenic antigen), a marker which is a good guidepost, or marker, to indicate whether a person has cancer, or if cancer is recurring.

The phases about truth from the bible quoted above may not give the "truth", but can serve as good markers, maybe not for truth itself, but to expose cancerous lies where a solid foundation of truth should be. Cancer is prevalent in our society, and so are lies. Facts help us to establish where lies exist (just as CEA markers help us know if cancer exists), and therefore to determine if a work is truly true, or fictive.


Which God, If Any?



These words about truth, no matter where spoken, or by whom, stand alone as guideposts, markers. Truth, when speaking of worshiping, and believing in any god, must be laden with facts, as stated earlier, for lies have no part in the truth of any god who is said to be the All, the Creator. Any work laden with untruths, lies, contradictions, or lacking in contextual synchronicity are more than suspect and should be questioned vigorously to weed out any untruths.

WHAT WE SHOULD WONDER ABOUT

Christian Fundamentalists proclaim that the bible is the inerrant word of God, that it is factual as such in every way and word, and thereby to be taken literally. As more than hinted at above, we have to ask if we should take the bible as truth and literally, but more, is the God as presented in the bible really God, the creator of all the universe, and us humans with it?

If the bible is God's word, as Fundamentalists (and other believers) say, and the God presented therein is real, then the bible must be fact laden and have no errors, contradictions, falsehoods—even unintended ones—and certainly no lies. Any of these being present nullifies the veracity of the bible, and thus of the God presented therein for "his work is perfect". Also the "foundation" of the bible is suspect and "like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great." So must the bible stand on a solid foundation or fall in the ruin of it's lies, errors, and contadictions.

A BIT OF HISTORY

In the West, where Christianity and Judaism are predominant; and even where Islam is the main religion, just about every time God (Allah) is spoken of, it refers to the God of the bible, of the Jews.

In the West, there have arisen those who are called Fundamentalists, those who believe that the bible—the Old Testament of the Jews and the New Testament of the Christians—is the inerrant (no errors) word of God.

The truth is incontrovertible. Lies are deceitful; so are half truths, and have no place in any truth just as contradictions shouldn't either.

Though the truth of anything is difficult to find, especially about God, verifiable facts are the best path to finding truth as much as that is possible. That, too, is incontrovertible. Where there is a lack of facts, there must then be a deviation from the truth; the more deviation, the less likely hood of it being the truth.

Christian Church doctrine is not quite impossible to trace, but it is difficult even for professional researchers. The Church Fathers of old such as Iraneus, Origen, Tertullian, as well as many others, helped to direct the nascent Christian Church before the time of the Roman Emperor, Constantine, who dictated that there be only one church, and one belief. Those in the Nicene Council at that time made the basic decisions of what was to be doctrine for all. To this day, the idea of Augustine's Original Sin and how it is therefore in all, is still a staple of Christian doctrine that it must be erased through salvation.

During several hundred years after the death of Jesus there were many differing beliefs of just what constituted Christianity, and what the correct way was to not only worship, but also how, as well as what was true about Jesus and God.

This hierarchy that was eventually set up ruled most of Christianity for about a thousand years without any significant challenge. All challenges were met with a heavy hand by the newly established church from Rome, including summarily killing dissenters. It was, and is, a culture that would be the conscience of the West was begun then, and again, with an iron fist, including death to those who tried to dissent Out of that grew those who sought only prestige and power, not to mention enrichment. Consider these items:

What all of this says is that prior to Constantine, Christianity was a hodgepodge of independent churches and believers. It wasn't even commonly accepted by all Christians what constituted scripture and what was spurious. However, the aspirations of some of the Bishops of Rome led them to decide that they should have primacy, or the last word in what was and what wasn't, Christianity. Here are a few examples culled from the Internet:

"Pope Stephen I (254-257 CE) was also active in efforts to promote the power and importance of the bishop of Rome over other bishops in the Christian Churches. He claimed to be the direct successor of Peter "upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid" and he made use of the term cathedra Petri, which means "the chair of Peter" to describe the authority of Rome over all others. This made him many rivals and enemies among other bishops who objected to his interference into what they considered their sphere of authority."

This was pushed to the extreme after Constantine made Christianity the church of the Empire.

"383 AD Priscillian of Avila was executed. He was accused of Manichaeism, but the official reason for burning him was witchcraft."

Further: "Innocent I, Roman Catholic Pope (402 to 417): He lost no opportunity of maintaining and extending the authority of the Roman see as the ultimate resort for the settlement of all disputes..."

"Pope Leo I (440-461): Viewed in conjunction with his voluminous correspondence, the sermons sufficiently explain the secret of his greatness, which chiefly lay in the extraordinary strength and purity of his convictions as to the primacy of the successors of St. Peter..."

Under the umbrella of being at Constantine's site of power, they exerted their aspirations to being the center of Christianity and that continued after Constantine's death.

397 AD Council of Carthage; final agreement on books to be in the New Testament. This was further ratified in one of the Council's of Trent about 546 AD (this council was held over several years).

What this all meant was that it took centuries for the final "bible" to be agreed upon, and that remained until Martin Luther came along centuries later.

The challenge to how the church was run was made by Martin Luther. His biggest complaint that has come down to us was "indulgences", or the sale of forgiveness of sins by clergy for a "donation". There were many other challenges, but this was the most grievous one. The clergy was enriching itself through these sales.

Luther started the Protestant movement, but any person looking at the King James, or Revised Standard Version, or any other version used by other than Catholics, will find that every book in these bibles are in the Catholic versions. The basic canons are the same, thus, to quote George Wallace's famous words when he ran for the presidency of the US, "there's not a nickel's worth of difference" in them—all the basic beliefs are the same—the Old Testament is true, and Jesus is our savior, our redeemer. All believe that if he's not God incarnate, he definitely speaks for God on earth and will return for "the resurrection" wherein the saved will be taken up to heaven with him.

The biggest thing we can come out of this with is the knowledge that what we now consider the bible was swallowed with little, if any, research or question as to its veracity. It was all basically and simply believed as written without question as true save for a little nit-picking here and there (and many of those nit-pickers were soon dispatched to the fires of the stake). Many of the non-canonical books included in the Catholic bible were omitted in the King James version, as well as other bibles following, but all the others are basically the same with few exceptions. It was mostly the "form" of worship and things like indulgences that were questioned.

In all of this, no one had a single original manuscript, and that is true unto this day.

Even much of the form of worship was kept by Lutherans, and later by others, but Luther's "Sola Scriptura" (scripture only) guided later reformers to alter that too, but slowly, thus the true beginning of many Christian denominations. The "word" as we now know it was totally accepted from day one without question of veracity or actual true foundation. Most of those subsequent "churches" retained the rule of burning at the stake for what they considered heretical (unorthodox teachings).

Using the above biblical quotes about the truth as markers showing where not to find truth, but rather lies, deceits, and contradictions, let's consider the bible itself.

A STRANGE PLACE TO FIND SOME TRUTHS

The original Fundamentalist in Christianity is the Catholic Church. History tells us that the Catholic Church was responsible for some very unchristian like deeds, the most famous ones being the Inquisition, the murder of the Cathars, the Crusades, the trial of Galileo, and the burning at the stake while still alive, Giordano Bruno. Yes, there were many other crimes, including the rape of many of the children of Naples and elsewhere by a protected clergyman, Stefano Cherubini (see Fallen Order, by Karen Liebreich), which crimes continued unabated until this day, and in many places (and, unfortunately, by those of many different religious "Christian" faiths).

The reason for starting with The Catholic Church is their bible (they compiled the first of our modern bibles). When the Catholic Church ruled with an iron fist, and quickly and readily condemned those who dissented in any way to being burned at the stake, they did so liberally. What they said that we should believe is what people had to believe, or keep it all secret within their minds lest they also be burned at the stake.

However, in due time, people did begin to question. Martin Luther opened the doors to dissent, and that by saying that only scripture ruled.

Nowadays, or beginning in the 1800s, the bible itself was being questioned. Darwin helped to open that door with his belief and scientific proofs of evolution rather than initial creation of life by the God of the bible (though that specifically may not have been his intention).

Before that a few brave souls used historical criticism, then we graduated to Textual Criticism, and much research of the supposed truths of the bible. Of course the Catholic Church, as well as Fundamentalists of various stripes, refused to accept it, still saying that the bible as it is written is God's truth, period!

Lo and behold, though published, it was not shouted about from the rooftops, the Catholic Church came out with a version of the bible that is chock full of admissions, one of which is the more than tacit admission that we have no factual idea who wrote the bible and therefore it is not quite the inerrant word of God. Research has found that it is filled with errors and contradictions; it is admitted that some long held and cherished beliefs about who the authors were is not true.

The bible I'm referring to is titled: The Catholic Family Connections Bible (and perhaps other versions). For example:

Many people still believe that the first five (5) books of the Old Testament (called the Pentateuch) were written by Moses. Just before the book of Genesis, we are given the following in the above mentioned Catholic bible:

"Inspired author: Stories were gathered from the oral tradition of tribal peoples in the period around 1225 to 1000 BC."

In the preface to the books of the bible is a section called Introduction to the Pentateuch, wherein we are told: "The grandeur of the historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch."

Translation: Have you ever wondered (as I often did) about the two different creation narratives, the first being called—or so it was said when I first wondered about it—the spiritual creation, and the second the physical creation?

The introduction calls this "A superficial difference between two of these sources..." (as mentioned above) as being responsible.

Superficial difference. The earth, a formless wasteland according to the first verse was the first creation along with the heavens on the first day, and on the third day the earth was said to bring "forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit" on the third day. The sun, from which nothing can grow without, however, is created on the following (fourth) day. That is backward!

That's a heck of a superficial difference, but that's not covered by them, nor the fact that the earth is held in place by the gravitational pull existing between it and the sun, the sun's being the greater pull due to it's size, which keeps the earth, as well as the other planets, in its place, or orbit. No sun, nothing to orbit about since the other stars hadn't been "created" yet either.

From this we get the idea of the real superficiality of the authors of the books of the bible, as well as the editors. Those editors who actually wrote the bible were centuries after the biblical facts were supposed to be begun; well over a thousand years after Adam's supposed creation, and even after Noah's supposed flood.

In the meantime, we are told of wars, the killing off of many of the Jews, and their unstable lives. Stories were told? Of course, but the fidelity of those stories is very much in question, so much so that different authors of those stories differed substantially as we've seen already.

Returning to admissions of this particular Catholic bible, looking at a section just before the prophet Isaiah, under the heading of "Inspired authors" again, we find it says that it is attributed to "the three Isaiahs or their followers."

Three Isaiahs or their followers? Do any of the main popular bible studies of the churches on Sunday before worship services mention three Isaiahs? Has a Catholic, or other, priest ever mentioned this? I've never heard of one, yet historical criticism is from of old.

Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic Church nun turned research analyst, in her book, The Bible, tells of Abraham ibn Ezra who lived from 1089 to 1164 and who was a poet philosopher from Spain, as being noted to have said that Isaiah couldn't have written the second half of Isaiah because it referred to events that happened long after his death. As well, he said Moses was not the author of the entire Pentateuch.

If all, or any of this is so, why do churches so often recite the verses from Isaiah, 53:5:

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed",

and refer to it as Isaiah's word instead of one of the other Isaiahs?

I've heard this many times in church, but was never told that this wasn't really from the original Isaiah, but from someone else whose writings were appended to an Isaiah scroll.

When we come to the New Testament, there are similar notes before each gospel on the lack of knowledge of the actual authors. Matthew said to be traditionally associated with the Apostle Matthew; Mark as a Gentile Christian, traditionally thought to be a disciple of Peter named John Mark; Luke, a Gentile Christian named Luke, traditionally thought to be a disciple of Paul; and John, a member of a Christian community possibly founded by the Beloved Disciple.

Lots of "traditionally" and "possibly", but obviously all really unknown and only given to us to believe that the names appended to each gospel are the authors of them. This, we're seldom, if ever, told by churches in this day, particularly Fundamentalist churches.

All of these truths just mentioned, strange though they may seem, can be looked at similarly as the CEA marker is looked at for finding if one may have cancer, or if cancer is recurring. They help to point to the truth of the lies and deceptions we have been spoon fed over the centuries that have become as inbred in us and a part of our culture.

The "markers" we find pointing to the lack of truth of the bible are found immediately in Genesis wherein we find not one, but two distinct accounts of creation. The first account is often said to be "spiritual" because of the creation of man that is "created" in chapter 1, verse 26, and described as "...in our image, after our likeness:..." versus the second creation of man account which describes the physical creation of man and woman in chapter 2 beginning in verse 7.

That's two distinct creations and the quick lie some tell of the first creation being spiritual is set at naught by looking at the first chapter again, but in verses 11 and 12. There, it says:

"And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth: and it was so.

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: And God saw that it was good."

There's nothing strictly spiritual about the first story of God's creation—it is two distinct accounts by two separate men of the so-called creation story, and definitely not written by God, or exactly directed by God—the second telling not even a bad clarification. Whatever, they are different as are the creations of the first people, but more on them later.

THE EXODUS

Before looking at more "stories", or falsehoods, or lies, let's consider the so-called "Exodus" that is the second book of the bible and an obvious contradiction we'll find.

There are two different dates for this occurrence, the most popular one being that it came about in the time of Pharaoh Rameses II (some say the mightiest of the Pharaohs, and some say the second mightiest), approximately 1250 BCE or so. This is attested by several mentions of "the land of Rameses", more specifically in Genesis chapter 47, verse 11 which says:

"And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded."

This though it was supposed to be well over four hundred years before Rameses II was born, he who established the land of Rameses. Jacob is said to live for seventeen years in the land of Egypt, per verse 28 of chapter 47 of Genesis well before there was any Rameses.

The other time that we're told that tells of the Exodus is in I Kings, chapter 6, verse 1:

"...in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign..."

Solomon's reign is said to have begun in 970 BCE, therefore the four hundred and eighty years would begin in 966 BCE. Adding the four hundred and eighty years to that we get 1446 BCE, about two hundred years before the first Exodus date presumed to be given by geographic markers stipulated in the bible as above.

Those are two distinctly different, yet very positively given times by the bible for the Exodus. One is surely wrong—and as we shall further see, both are probably wrong as the Exodus never occurred, but is a fiction that was made up by men, and not any god.

A fiction?

Yes! That is seen by one little thing in the first book of the bible, Genesis, and also in Exodus, and attested by historical fact.

The Philistines are well known by most, probably from the story of David killing the giant, Goliath in one of the books of Samuel. They were well known in David's time and are historically known as well. However, they don't enter into known history until after Rameses II; in fact, not until about 1183 BCE in the time of Rameses III, the son of the mighty Rameses II.




Which God, If Any?



In Genesis, they are mentioned seven times beginning with chapter 21, verse 32 as "...the land of the Philistines," and said to be such in the time of Abraham as well as Isaac.

From this we can readily see that Moses, and, or, his "scribes" could not have written the first five books of the bible (called the Pentateuch). Whoever the writer was—or writers most likely—they had knowledge of the Philistines many centuries later than the time of the Pentateuch.

I've never heard of the Philistines mentioned in bible school, nor in the pulpit, as being around at this time. A convenient omission, or maybe unknown to the teachers or preachers? In this, the bible is damning as to its veracity or falseness; obviously it's a fiction pure and simple, and written in by those who were familiar with the Philistines, therefore most likely the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis and Exodus, were written in the days after the Philistines entered in the days within a little more than a hundred years before David, but most likely written later.

The Jewish historian and professor at The University of Tel Aviv, Dr. Shlomo Sand, in his excellent and detailed book, The Invention of the Jewish People (Verso, 2009), cites the Exodus as having to have had about three million people (page 138), a half a million more than I had previously estimated, and that didn't include the animals the bible says they also had.

Further, Dr. Sand also asserts as I previously had in other essays, that the Philistines did not appear "...in the region no earlier that the twelfth century (the eleven hundreds BCE). He further states that camels mentioned as being domesticated in the bible and used by Abraham, et.al., were only domesticated in the first millennium BCE, as do other historians and archeologists say.

Dr. Sand further states (page 118) that in the thirteenth century BCE (the twelve hundreds BCE), that Canaan was still "...ruled by powerful Egypt", as, again, many others say, as well as history. The Pentateuch, and most of the rest of the bible, is a collection of stories that are mostly fictitious.

Here's some more about falsehoods, and fictitious stories we never hear about in Sunday School, or from the pulpits, or in Christian books.

NUMBER OF FIGHTING MEN, etc.

Before reading about these numbers taken from the bible, here are some words from Israel Finkelstein (Professor of Archeology, Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (archeologist and historian) from their book, The Bible Unearthed (Touchstone [Simon & Schuster], 2002):

"In the years since 1967, the heartland of the Israelite settlement—the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh—have been covered by intensive surveys. ... Information on any signs of occupation from the Stone Age to the Ottoman period were recorded. ... These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discover of the remains of a dense network of highland villages—all apparently established within the span of a few generations—indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. ... In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites." (Italics mine.)

It continues:

"Most surprising of all was the tiny scale of these settlements. In most cases they were no more than a single acre in size and contained, according to estimates, about fifty adults and fifty children. Even the largest settlements in the highlands reached only three or four acres in size, with a population of a few hundred people. The entire population of these hill country villages at their peak of the settlement process, around 1000 BCE, could not have been much more than forty-five thousand.

"We know almost nothing about burial customs, apparently because graves were simple and the dead were interred without offerings. Likewise, there is almost no indication for cult. No shrines were found in the villages, so their specific, religious beliefs are unknown.

"It is also noteworthy—in contrast to the Bible's accounts of almost continual warfare between the Israelites and their neighbors—that the villages were not fortified. ... No weapons, such as swords or lances, were uncovered—although such finds are typical of the cities in the lowlands. Nor were there signs of burning or sudden destruction that might indicate violent attack."

Shortly, they say: "The early Israelites appeared around 1200 BCE, as herders and farmers in the hills. Their culture was a simple one of subsistence."

As a last bit of information from this book, it says: "Many of the early Israelites were thus nomads who gradually became farmers. Still, nomads have to come from somewhere. Here too, recently uncovered archaeological evidence has something to say."

Finally:

"The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside of Canaan—they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people—the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were—irony of ironies—themselves originally Canaanites!" (Emphasis mine.)

They go on to say that the settlement history of Jordan in the territories of Ammon, Moab, and Edom was broadly similar to those of early Israel.

With that all said, let's look at some of the fantastical people numbers outrageously claimed in the Old Testament:

Ex 12: 37-38 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand [600,000] on foot that were men, beside children. 38: and a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. (Emphasis mine.)

We'll see more about herds of various animals and their supposed numbers in a moment. This meant that there had to be at least two and a half million people in the so-called Exodus—each warrior aged man having a wife and a reasonably small estimate of children per marriage of two, leaves two million four hundred thousand (2,400,000) plus Levites who were not counted as warriors, their families, plus older people. In addition to this, the bible says that they left with their herds. They could not have possibly moved about as they said. Again, professor Sand estimates three million people.

Ex 38:26 A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to e numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty [603,550] men.

Another impossibly large figure of pure imagination. Of course, the writers were probably writing for an ignorant and illiterate mass that they never thought could, or would, possibly question what they wrote. Among the illiterate today, that is still true in many ways.

Num 1:2-3; 46-47 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; 3: From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: though and Aaron shall number them by their armies. 46: Even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty [603,550]. 47: But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them.

Note the similarity of numbers provided throughout many places in the bible.

Num 2:32 These are those which were numbered of the children of Israel by the house of their fathers: all of those that were numbered of the camps throughout their hosts were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty [603,550].

Num 11:21 And Moses said, The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand [600,000] footmen...

Num26:27; 51 And these are they that were numbered of the Levites after their families... 51: These were the numbered of the children of Israel, six hundred thousand and a thousand seven hundred and thirty [601,730].

Judges 20:17 And the men of Israel, beside Benjamin, were numbered four hundred thousand [400,000] men that drew sword: all of these were men of war.

I Samuel 11:8 And when he numbered them in Bezek, the children of Israel were three hundred thousand [300,000] and the men of Judah thirty thousand [30,000].

I Samuel 15:4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand [200,000] footmen, and ten thousand [10,000] men of Judah.

II Samuel 24:1; 9 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 9: And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the kind and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand [800,000] valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand [500,000] men. [Total of 1,300,000.]

Talk about purely imaginary pieces of fiction:

I Kings 12:21 And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, and hundred and fourscore thousand [180,000] chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.

I Kings 20:29 And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand [100,000] footmen in one day.

I Chronicles 12:22-37 For at that time day by day there came to David to help him until it was a great host, like the host of God. And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the Lord. [339,800]

I Chronicles 21:1; 5 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 5: And Joab gave the sum of the number of people unto David,. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand [1,100,000] men that drew sword; and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand [10,460] men that drew sword. [A total of 1,110,460]

II Chronicles, 13: 1-3; 15, 17 Now in the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. 2: He reigned three years in Jerusalem. ... And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam. 3: And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand [400,000] chosen men.: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand [800,000] chosen men, being mighty men of valour. 15: Then the men of Judah gave a shout: and as the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass, that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 17: And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand [500,000] chosen men. (Emphasis mine.)

II Chronicles 17:3; 12-18 And the Lord was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the ways of his father David, and sought not unto Baalim; 12: And Jehoshaphat waxed great exceedingly; and he built in Judah castles, and cities of store. 13: and he had much business in the cities of Judah: and the men of war, mighty men of valour, were in Jerusalem. 14: And these are the numbers of them according to the house of their fathers: Of Judah, the captains of thousands: Adnah the chief, and with him mighty men of valour three hundred thousand [300,000]. 15: And next to him was Jehohanan the captain and with him two hundred and four score thousand [280,000]. 16: And next him was Amasiah the son of Zichri, who willingly offered himself unto the Lord; and with him two hundred thousand [200,000] mighty men of valour. 17: And of Benjamin; Eliada a mighty man of valour, and with him armed men with bow and shield two hundred thousand [200,000]. 18: And next him was Jehozabad, and with him an hundred and fourscore thousand [180,000] ready and prepared for the war. [A total of 1,160,000 men of war.] (Emphasis mine.)

By comparison, Desert Storm, the first war with Iraq, awaited about 6 months to gather a coalition of nations making up 500,000 soldiers before engaging the Iraq army.

What is salient in this comparison is the vast population that presently exists in our time versus the comparatively sparse population in all of Israel and Judah, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms supposedly after Solomon died.

Out of these fabrications, along with the knowledge that Judah is very hilly country, one can't help but see that it is nigh impossible to have 400,000 men in an army of Judah as it says in II Chronicles, chapter 13 itemized above.

In fact, Israel, or the Northern Kingdom, couldn't possibly have 800,000 men. Even 600,000 men of fighting age as in Exodus is impossible.

If you believe that God said that those 600,000 men would wander in a limited desert/wilderness for 40 years until they all died so as to not enter the Promised Land, you really have to scratch your head. If that were so, where are the fossils? And not just of 600,000 men, but of a similarly equal number of women for their wives must also have died, not to mention Levites and their wives (they're not counted as fighting men in the bible), not to mention the herds and flocks that died with them.

In the desert of Chad, fossils have been found.

Even more ludicrous is I Chronicles 21:5 that states that Israel, the Northern Kingdom, had one million, one hundred thousand fighting men compared to Judah's miserly ten thousand four hundred and sixty men, though Judah's lowly figure, given the highly extravagant figure for Israel, is not unreasonable.

As a further comparison, Alexander the Great's army was estimated at approximately forty thousand men, and he conquered most of the known civilized world. With stated men of war of the sizes stated often, the Assyrians would not have had a chance of defeating the Jewish forces unless they had a general such as Alexander.

These are things you are never told in bible study, that are never mentioned or even questioned secretly in small groups of higher study. If they were, they would all know that the Old Testament was definitely not as stated—there are too many fabrications and fabrications are plain and simply lies.

Using this criteria stated early on as to truth and God's (the one of the bible) perfection, how can any believe that the God of the bible is real? The imperfections, fabrications, and more, refute that assertion, and that's using only the bible itself to do so, or so far at least, the Old Testament.

It's not only exaggerating the numbers of fighting men. Just as outrageous are some of the numbers with regard to animals. For instance:

Num 31:32-35 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was sex hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep [675,000]; 33: and threescore and twelve thousand [72,000] beeves; 34: And threescore and ne thousand asses [61,000]; 35: Thirty and two thousand [32,000] person in all, of women that had not known a man by lying with him.

Now how in the world did they know the women had not known a man sexually? These were supposed to be men who were forbidden to look upon a naked woman. Oh, boy, what a fib.

1 Chronicles, 5:21 And they took away their cattle; of their camels fifty thousand[50,000], and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand [250,000], and of asses two thousand [2,000], and of men an hundred thousand [100,000].

675,000, then 250,000 sheep? The other numbers are just as outrageous too, and no preacher has questioned them, or mentioned them. Now that's really "Holey", especially for the desert and wilderness; now where could food be found for 675,000 sheep before miraculously being fed by God as some would claim, but the bible doesn't assert?

The "warriors" number game versus facts and archeology

From the books of Exodus and Numbers, there are too often strange consistencies in the number of warriors, or men able to bear arms, of six hundred thousand (600,000) that the writers of the bible loved and even improved on by Samuel and Chronicles as shown above.

But what do the facts say?

Research, historical, archeological, and biblical tell vastly different stories. Of greatest importance here comes from the seminal book mentioned earlier, The Bible Unearthed, which tells of surveys done in the Judean Highlands that began in 1967 from which I quote (some bearing repitition):

"...the heartland of the Israelite settlement—the traditional territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh—have been covered by intensive surveys. Teams of archaeologists and students have combed virtually every valley, ridge, and slope, looking for traces of walls and scatter of pottery sherds. ... Information on any signs of occupation from the Stone Age to the Ottoman period was recorded, in order to study the highlands' long-term settlement history. Statistical methods were used to estimate the size of each settlement in each of its periods of occupation. ...

"These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages—all apparently established within the span of a few generations—indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites." [Bold mine.]

They continue:

"...The typical village was usually located on a hilltop or on a steep ridge, with a commanding view of the surrounding landscape. It was set in an open area surrounded by natural forests comprised mainly of oak and terebinth trees. ... Most surprising of al was the tiny scale of these settlements. In most cases they were no more than a single acre in size and contained, according to estimates, about fifty adults and fifty children. Even the largest settlements in the highlands reached only three or four acres in size, with a population of a few hundred people. The entire population of these hill country villages at the peak of the settlement process, around 1,000 BCE, could not have been much more than forty-five thousand." [Bold and italics mine.]

Three things: Note above in the quote of I Samuel, chapter 11:8 where it says that a census of Judah numbered thirty thousand [30,000 men to fight; check it out in your bible].

Now this was in the time of Saul, the first king over all, yet Judah could not have fielded thirty thousand fighters when in most of Judah at the peak, the population when Saul was king and David was said to be king shortly afterward, in about1,000 BCE, numbered at most forty-five thousand according to Finkelstein and Silberman.




Which God, If Any?



The second thing to note is also above in the quote of II Chronicles, chapter 17, verses 13-18, men of war are said to have numbered A total of 1,160,000. This seemingly included Benjamin though Benjamin was arguably not a part of Judah (see below). This figure is more people than Judah could hold, and is at a time when it was separated from the Northern tribes of Israel when the Kingdom supposedly split after Solomon's death.

The third thing of note is the absence of Simeon not only here, but in many other places in the bible's history of the kings of the lands. Why this is important is that when the so-called partition of lands to each tribe, Simeon's portion was said to be south of Judah's meaning it was the furthest from the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Noting this, the kingdom was said to be split after Solomon's death due to his having set up places of worship of other gods [I Kings, chapter 11, verses 9-11]. In I Kings, chapter 11verse 13, God is said to tell Solomon that the Kingdom is to be split and his son will only have one tribe—Judah, and ten tribes were given to Jeroboam whom God had selected to be king over the Northern tribes of Israel.

This gets very convoluted, and erroneous.

Okay, ten tribes to Jeroboam and Judah to Rehoboam, Solomon's son. So what about Simeon? The bible seems to make them an orphan; for all intents and purposes, they disappear, not a part of Judah their nearest neighbor to the north, and wholly separated from the ten Northern tribes which comprised the now separate Kingdom of Israel.

Between the so-called number of men or war, and Simeon's virtual disappearance, these constitute huge errors in the bible In the history of I and II Samuel, and in I and II Kings Simeon is not mentioned.

In I Chronicles, they are mentioned five times, the last time in chapter 12, verse 25, Simeon is mentioned along with all the other tribes as coming to the aid of David.

In II Chronicles, there are only two mentions of Simeon, one in the time of Asa, King of Judah, and one in Josiah's time, King of Judah, neither of any significance.

The big question is what happened to Simeon? It was not apportioned to Judah at the break up, nor to the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Other tribes are seldom mentioned, but they were said to belong to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. According to the bible, Simeon did not belong to either the Northern Kingdom nor to Judah.

GENOCIDES AND OTHER SENSELESS KILLINGS

Num. 21:33-35: And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he and all his people, to the battle of Edrei. 34: And the Lord said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into they hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 35: So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. (Emphasis mine.)

Num. 31:17: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Emphasis mine.)

In Numbers, chapter14, the men are condemned to wander for forty years and not seeing the Promised Land for their refusal to fight. Then in chapter 16, there is further muttering by many that Moses has taken too much upon themselves. The results from God's anger over two days is in verse 49:

"Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah". [The previous day said to be two hundred and fifty according to verse 35].

Deut. 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: (Emphasis mine.)

Deut 3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city. (Emphasis mine.)

Deuteronomy, 20:16 "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:"

Yet, despite it saying that nothing be saved that breaths, a previous verse, 14, says:

"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee,"

Quite a contradiction and all in the same breath.

Joshua, 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city [Jerico], both man and woman, yoiung and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.(Emphasis mine.)

Joshua, chapters 10 & 11 relate pure carnage wherein he "utterly destroyed" or "left none remaining including in the field and in their cities as in 10:40 says:

"...he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the lord God of Israel commanded. (Emphasis mine.)

In chapter 11, verse 20, we are told that:

"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.

In doing all of this, God rained hail from heaven killing more than Joshus's men did with the sword (10:11), and Joshua had the sun and moon stop moving in verse 12. (Emphasis mine.)

Joshua, also in bloody chapter 10, is said in verse 28:

"And that day, Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain..."

Not surprisingly, Jericho was found by archeologists to not have been settled at the time of the popular date for the Exodus, and further, that it was unfortified and had no walls. The same was true of Ai, said to also be conquered by Joshua. This was by archeologist, Kathleen Kenyon and others even before her.

This has been known for some time but the fables continue to be told and made to be believed by the retelling by the churches so often that it has become a very popular and unshakeable fable.

* * * *

The list of carnage and genocide goes on almost ad infinitum. As if to prove this, in the book after Joshua, Judges, we find in chapters 6 through 8 that Gideon (he of whom the present day free bible passing out, as in hospitals and hotels, is apparently named for), we find an unusual story, though not for the bible.

Midian is given by the Lord to have their way with the children of Israel as it says on the opening verse of chapter 6. However, Gideon is selected by the Lord to set things aright once more. We're given to subtly assume that the Midians along with the Amalekites, as well as the "children of the east" come to pay an unfriendly call. Gideon calls for reinforcements to counter them, but the Lord says that they are too many, to winnow them down to only three hundred (300) men. In chapter 8, verse 12, we're told that one hundred twenty thousand of the enemy were killed. By only the three hundred? We're really left to guess.

However, the worse was yet to come. As Gideon went to fight, he needed food and water, which were denied him by the people of both Succoth and Penuel (verses 5 and 8 in chapter 8). They refused. After winning, he goes back and kills seventy-seven (77) princes and elders of Succoth in what seems a very harsh manner.

Penuel meets an even greater disaster. In verse 17 of that chapter, we're told that he slew the men of the city and destroyed it.

* * * *

In I Samuel we find carnage, but not in all bibles in chapter 6, verse 19;

"And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and three-score and ten men [50,070] (Emphasis mine.)

In fact, the differences are somewhat startling when you think of Fundamentalists saying that the bible is the perfect word of God Comparing the above scripture from the King James bible quoted above, let's look at the Catholic bible which says:

"The descendants of Jeconiah did not join in the celebration with the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh when they greeted the ark of the Lord, and seventy of them were struck down." (Emphasis mine.)

That's a huge discrepancy, plus there's no mention of those being killed being descendants of Jaconiah.

In checking the New Int'l Version of the bible, it says seventy also, but adds that a few Hebrew manuscripts being the same, but most Hebrew manuscripts, plus the Septaugint recording it as fifty thousand and seventy.

Checking the New Revised Standard Version of the bible, it says seventy and mentions those as being descendants of Jeconiah.

This is conclusive proof that in and of itself that the bible has been tampered with to have such differences, and is not the perfect word of God as the Fundamentalists proclaim.

I Samuel, 15:1; 3 "Thus saith the Lord..." 3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (Emphasis mine.)

But Saul didn't utterly destroy all of the Amalekites; he took Agag, the King alive (verse 8). Samuel, per the Lord having "repented having set up Saul as king troubles Samuel, who upbraids Saul in verses 17 through 19.

Then in verse 33, Samuel himself "...hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."

That's almost like saying that God was on the sideline making sure of it and cheering Samuel on.

In this, Samuel foreshadows the murderousness of Elijah and Elisha.

NOT JUST SENSELESS AND BLOODTHIRSTY, BUT CAPRICIOUS

This could readily go under the above as genocide and other senseless killings, but I have found this exceptionally special, and thus deserving of its own category.

To set the stage for proper understanding of this sequence, we need to follow it from a particular place, specifically in I Samuel in the last chapter, the 31st. In verse 1, Saul has been fighting the Philistines, and he is losing not just the battle, but his son Jonathan, thus in verse 3 he asks his armour bearer to "...Draw thy sword, and thrust me through..."

In II Samuel, chapter 5, after David has been made king, we are told in verse 5 that he reigned over Judah in Hebron for seven years and six months, and then in Jerusalem thirty-three years.

What we are also told that there have been many battles, and much time has passed when in chapter 11, in Jerusalem, he sees Bathsheba from whom Solomon will be born later. After that, much time has passed until we come to chapter 21, which is what this is all about. In verse 1, we are told:

"Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord, and the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites."

Many years after Saul has died, and this deed he had committed, God, the Lord, has now decided to punish the children for the sins of the father, namely Israel as Saul's children. If we extrapolate aright, this is at least ten years after Saul has died fighting Philistines, not Gibeonites.

Strangely, the bible apparently does not mention Saul slaying the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites are mentioned in Joshua, chapter 9 as being deceitful, but being allowed to stay as they had been, but servants to the Israelites.

Now it isn't enough that so many years later God had punished Israel, but David, apparently with God's okay, asks the Gibeonites what will satisfy them as justice for the sin of Saul and they say that seven sons of Saul must be turned over to them to be hung, which David agrees to (verse 6 of chapter 21 of II Samuel).

We have seen earlier that God will visit the sins of the fathers unto the children, and also, if he pleases, change his mind and not punish the children for the sins of the fathers. A famine years after the sin, which punishes a great many people, and then to hang seven sons of the father who committed an unknown sin? More than bloodthirsty, and more than capricious. This could only have been written by men who stretched fiction much too far.

This is how men would write, and badly, of course, but not any God. To drive this home, read the next:

* * * *

Just as strange and weird as the above instance, if not more so, and much of it very uncertain, in chapter 24 of II Samuel, and seemingly out of nowhere, the King James bible says:

"And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah."

That is, take a census.

He does by sending Joab to do it. It takes him, according to verse 8, nine months and twenty days to do the job: there are, according to verse 9, eight hundred thousand (800,000) valiant men in Israel, and five hundred thousand (500,000) in Judah, numbers obviously greatly exaggerated (see earlier notations on this). However, what is odd is that in verse 10, we're told:

"And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of they servant; for I have done very foolishly."

Huh? What has he done foolishly? How has he sinned by obeying God? More, how could God's anger at Israel include Judah, and with a census yet? We'll see shortly, but only partly, what may have happened, but to continue, verse 15 tells us of David's choice of punishments for his supposed transgression:

"So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men."

That's the entire length of the tribe's territory from north to south (if this part of Dan was the northern most part for Dan was divided into two parts).

The first question is how could David have sinned by doing as God asked him? To try to solve this, I looked to see if there were any references, as well as what other bibles may have said. A look at the Catholic bible, I found this at the start of the same verse 1:

"The Lord's anger against Israel flared again, and he incited David against the Israelites by prompting him to number Israel and Judah."

It is the same save for it saying that God incited David, but not why, nor, again, why Judah is included in whatever God has in mind.

Looking at the New International Version, it says the Lord burned against Israel and incited David to take a census. The New Revised Standard version says the same as the NIV and the Catholic bible. It still makes no sense.

All agree as to the census numbers.

However, another King James bible has cross references to I Chronicles. Looking at that book, it says in chapter 21:

"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

There is a humongous difference between the Lord's anger and Satan stirring the pot, so to speak, that is, if Chronicles can be believed, it is so often out of whack in many other places. Still, it makes some sense.

Well, so much for the inerrant bible—again.

But that's not all. I Chronicles gives the census numbers vastly different in verse 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 (1,100,000) men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand (470,000) men that drew sword."

These numbers have been shown earlier. Notice though that these numbers between II Samuel and I Chronicles are vastly different. There goes the myth of the bible being inerrant again as the Fundamentalists say.

However, all books of the bible agree on seventy thousand men dying in the pestilence, in II Samuel and I Chronicles.

One more thing to add to this scenario of the census and that is Satan versus God. How could there be a mix up in the King James about the same thing, but in II Samuel versus I Chronicles? The same is true of the New International and New Revised Standard versions, as well as the Catholic bible.

Didn't anyone see the differences? Didn't Fundamentalists see the differences?

Did God contradict himself, or was it men who contradicted themselves? I would think men. In fact, this is all too capricious, as much of the bible is, and too senseless.

THE SPLIT OF THE TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL

All who know anything about the bible and the tribes of Israel have probably heard about the ten northern tribes of Israel splitting off from the unified Israel that was so-called united by David into one kingdom. This split came after Solomon's death. In I Kings, chapter 11, verse 11, God is displeased that Solomon has taken so many foreign wives and made altars for them to their gods, so part of verse 11 says:

"...I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant."

That servant, Jeroboam, was hand picked by God. But, in verse 13 following, it says:

"Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen."

How it came to be, I have no idea, but I had always, for some reason, assumed that Jerusalem was located in the land of Judah. Maybe it is because the south kingdom after the split was, and has always, been called the kingdom of Judah.

Perhaps Joshua, chapter 15, verse 63 had something to do with my mistaking Jerusalem as being in Judah's territory. Chapter 15 tells of the allotment of land for the tribe of Judah, and Jerusalem is not included. However, the last verse in that chapter, 63, says:

"As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day."

This is a major error if Joshua, chapter 18, verse 21 and 28 are correct as below:

"Now the cities of the tribe of the children of Benjamin according to their families were Jericho, and..."

"And Zelah, Eleph, and Jebusi, which is Jerusalem, Gibeath..." (Emphasis mine.)

Maybe there were different authors, writers, editors, and they goofed, but God is perfect, so it couldn't have been him.

Back to the split, let's look at it carefully as I suddenly did.

Jacob had twelve sons, which many presumed were the twelve tribes of Israel. Those sons are from north location territory to south and west to east: Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Zebulun, Levi, Joseph, Issachar, Gad, Benjamin, Judah, Reuben, and Simeon, according to many maps. One exception is that some maps show Simeon below Judah, and some show Judah surrounding Simeon.

However, the tribe of Levi was dedicated to God as a priestly tribe and had no land allotment as the others did, so that makes eleven tribes.

Further, Joseph was not included in the land allotments, so that makes ten tribes, but, Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim were given allotments as if they were equal sons as the others were, so now we're back up to twelve tribes that we've always been told about.

However, though I had thought Jerusalem was in Judah, it is actually in Benjamin. Thus when I saw in I Kings, chapter 12, verse 21 that Rehoboam:

"...assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand [180,000—another gross exaggeration of warriors] chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to being the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon."




Which God, If Any?



I had to begin wondering what tribes were included in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That's when I realized Jerusalem is actually in Benjamin's territory (per Joshua, chapter 18, verse 28).

If, however, that was so, and Judah was with Benjamin to war against the split ten tribes of Israel, what was the tenth tribe of the Northern Kingdom? It looks like it wasn't Benjamin, and it couldn't have been Simeon. That leaves only nine tribes for Jeroboam instead of ten as is written in the bible. A fantastically huge error.

As I noted earlier in The Warriors and Numbers Game above, Simeon sort of disappears in the bible. It is not in the north, but either in the south below Judah, or surrounded by Judah. Therefore it can not be a part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, therefore there are not ten tribes in the Northern Kingdom, but nine.

In other words, the bible is not inerrant—this is an error of "biblical proportions" as the saying goes.

Okay, there is one Internet biblical site that tries to explain this away. (Sorry, Literotica does not permit any Internet sites being published here.) It leads us to I Chronicles (probably written sometime in the 400s BCE according to the Catholic bible, which time is about 500 years after the fact, and is known to be error laden as already cited earlier here).

In I Chronicles, chapter 4, verses 41 and 42, we are told that in the time of Hezekiah who ruled Judah approximately 727 to 698 BCE, again (two to three hundred years before Chronicles was probably written), that Simeon was a part of Judah.

What is important here is that these times of Simeon maybe being part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were not so in the time of the split as itemized in I Chronicles, verses 41 and 42, therefore, there were not ten tribes at the inception if Jerusalem is in Benjamin and a part of Judah.

Every explanation given by some to put Simeon in the orbit of the Northern Kingdom are attempts to justify this gross error in the bible and not even given biblically written justification.

It is known that many men, and at many times, wrote books of the bible, and many men subsequently edited those books for whatever reason. This is more evidence of the bible, particularly the Old Testament, being a work of many fictions by men, as well as many authors and editors.

UNBELIEVABLE—OR, HUH?

This takes a little more explaining, but it is quite unbelievable.

Out of over 600,000 men (Levites included), there were also young men under the "warrior" age that weren't counted, and maybe some older ones too, if you can believe the numbers of those of warrior age given in the bible.

One of the strictures imposed on the Jews by God was the covenant that proved you were a Jew, a sign of being one of God's chosen people, and that was male circumcision as in Genesis, chapter 17, verse 10 and 12, which say:

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised."

"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you..."

Apparently there was no circumcision while wandering, and possibly none of children born in the first one to two years before the warriors refused to fight as commanded, for they would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land, and maybe none at all while wandering.

When after the forty years to make sure that all had died who were not to enter the promised land, there were six hundred thousand plus to replace them, they weren't circumcised. Why not? It's not explained, but the book of Joshua, chapter 5, verses 2, 3 and 7 unbelievably say:

"At that time the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. And Joshua made them sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins."

The "circumcise again" phrase is not clear. Were they that were circumcised be circumcised again? We're not told.

"And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way."

Ouch! Ouch, ouch, ouch!

There had to be over the six hundred thousand of those men, and the only two men allowed into the promised land of the original group were Caleb and Joshua.

Think about it: "...not circumcised by the way."

There were six hundred thousand new men plus Levites that were newly of warrior age, many of them older men who were not circumcised originally for there was no circumcision "...by the way." There also had to be new babies that were age eight days or more that hadn't been circumcised but were not yet of warrior age.

That probably meant that there may have been about a million or more that needed to be circumcised if the bible is to be believed.

Think about this too: how long does each circumcision take (assuming God miraculously kept them all from becoming infected). And remember, men and women weren't allowed to see each other's nakedness, so that had to mean either special tents, or make the women go off a goodly way so they couldn't see the men's nakedness.

Joshua and Caleb would have had to circumcise the Levites first, let their wound heal, then begin the process of circumcising a million or so males. That's a lot of knives and a lot of time, and a lot of time to make many sharp knives, and to find suitable rocks to make them out of in the wilderness or desert.

That's also more than quite unbelievable! Incredibly unbelievable! Pure fiction, in fact.

CONTRADICTORY BLOOPERS

In the splitting of the kingdom, I Kings, chapter 11, verses 29 though 31 say:

"And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field:

"And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces:

"And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saight the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee:" (Emphasis mine.)

Now fast forward to many kings later to II Kings, in chapter 17, where Israel has just been taken by Shalmaneser of Assyria who besieged Samaria, the capitol of Israel for three years. In saying why this was done, verses 20 and 21 say:

"And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.

"For he rent Israel from the house of David: and they made Jeroboam the son of Nabat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the Lord, and made them sin a great sin." (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, a great blooper indeed. First God, with a peculiar ceremony that was somehow usual, personally has his prophet select Jeroboam to be the first king of the ten tribes that were said to make up the Northern Kingdom of Israel, then in the next book, it's said that the people of the Northern Kingdom did the selecting of Jeroboam. This, too, is an inexplicable contradiction.

The Catholic bible reads the same. This is a god of many errors.

* * * *

Not quite a blooper, but perhaps made into one by Christians who coopted a verse and made it into something that it most likely wasn't when the place and context is considered. This is in Isaiah, chapter 7 in which we're told of Ahaz' problems with Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. In this conversation between Isaiah and Ahaz, Ahaz is told a couple of things to be cheerful about, namely that Israel will cease to be a people in "three score and five years" (verse 8), and then the much ballyhooed and oft quoted verse 14:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you [Ahaz] a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

This is sworn to by one and all the popular and mainstream churches to be a prophecy about the coming of Jesus. The famed historian, Richard E. Rubenstein, in his book, "Thus Saith The Lord" (Harcourt, 2006), gives the proper reading of it—which any of us can if we'll read from the start of the chapter—which is that a son will be born to one of Ahaz' wives or concubines, which son was a beloved of the Lord, namely Hezekiah.

The word translated in the King James Bible as "virgin" is mistranslated and should have been rendered a "young woman". Just about everyone now agrees that it's a mistranslation save for some diehard Fundamentalists and the Catholic church.

Any that have been in non-Catholic churches that "preach" will most likely have heard this said as meaning Jesus will be born. The Catholic Church coopted it to mean other than what is contextual, and so have most of the other churches. As I said, read the chapter from the start—it's not long.

PROPHETS?

We sometimes think of Moses as a prophet, and in a way, he was, but not like those that started in the mold of Samuel. Samuel was the start of what are called the major prophets, but after him, they escalated dramatically, and morphing into something new. Why was that?

That book by Richard E. Rubenstein cited in the previous section, helps with our understanding of that. First, let's look a Samuel, and, believe it or not, a blood thirsty prophet, or should I say, Fundamentalist as many of them can be said to be. Here's why I say Samuel was blood thirsty. In chapter 15 of I Samuel, starting in verse 2 and 3, it says:

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

"Now go up and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (Emphasis mine.)

In verse 9, however, it says: "But Saul and the people spared Agag [the king]..."

Then in verse 32, it says: "...Bring ye hither to me Agag, the king of the Amalekites." In verse 33, it continues: "And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless, among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."

Yes, supposedly he's under orders from God, but so was Saul. Still, as Saul did to most, Samuel personally did to finish it completely, and without remorse, it seems.

He also had no problem in pronouncing a famine as stated earlier.

This seems to have signaled a new type of prophet, but it was to be outdone in this new way by Elijah, and then Elisha.

ELIJAH

Elijah apparently came into being as we know him because of Jezebel and her foreign gods that she brought with her when she married Ahab, king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel after the so-called split of the kingdom. However, first he works a couple of miracles. This is very important when looking at the scenario we're quickly presented shortly. Chapter 18 of I Kings tells the story of Elijah challenging the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal, Jezebels god, and four hundred other prophets she had, to a test of proving who is god for there was a drought into the third year. God sends him to Ahab saying that he would bring rain.

Meeting Ahab they exchange unpleasant pleasantries at which Elijah tells him to have Baal's prophets to meet him in a contest on Mount Carmel, and have the people there also. Mount Carmel is said to be 1,540 feet above sea level. There Baal's prophets kill their offering to their god and beseech him in their manner to take their offering and bring the rain. After some time, and Elijah's mocking of them, Elijah makes his offering which he'd had water poured on it three times. Yahweh consumes it all with fire, including the water thereabout. Then in verse 40 and 41:

"And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

"And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up, eat and drink; for there is a sound of abundance of rain."

Back to the top of the mountain, the rain comes shortly.

An odd thing happens next. Most don't see it; I know I didn't for a long time until it was pointed out to me by another book, "Jezebel", by Lesley Hazleton (Doubleday, 2007), an interested psychologist. Ahab tells Jezebel in chapter 19, verse 1, what has happened. It is here that an extremely strange occurrence comes to pass in verse 2 and 3:

"Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.

"And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there."

That is strange! He works miracles, and stands fearlessly before Ahab, causes the rain to be brought by Yahweh, and afterward so easily orders the massacre of all of Baal's prophets, and possibly Jezebels personal prophets, but the bible doesn't say if they were included.

So now he runs in fear of a woman?

A blood thirsty prophet going more than one better than Samuel, and he cringes and whines in verse 14. This is inexplicable!

However, the next verse and what happens thereafter is just as inexplicable, not to mention, a long time in coming to pass:

"And the Lord said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria:

"And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt though anoint to be a prophet in thy room."

As the author, Ms. Hazleton aptly suggests, it looks as if God has fired Elijah, but he is to do three things first: Go to Damascus and anoint Hazael to be king of Syria, then anoint Jehu to be king of Israel, and lastly anoint Elisha to be the next prophet. Instead he finds Elisha first, which is told of in the last three verses of the chapter.

Whee! What a trip that was. From miracle worker, to rainmaker, to killer, to fraidy cat running from a woman and gets himself fired after whining.

The next chapter is weird in a different way. God has said to anoint Jehu as the next king of Israel, but chapter 20 starts out with the king of Syria going to war against Israel if Ahab doesn't surrender first. Oddly, Ahab is told by an unnamed prophet of God that he will deliver Syria to him, and he did.

Then it all instantly segues to the next year when against great odds, God is pissed at Syria for bad mouthing him, and on the seventh day of a new war, Israel, in verse 29, slays one hundred thousand footmen in one day. More thousands die when they ran away to Aphek in verse 30.

Ahab, however, let's the king of Syria live instead of killing him as he's supposed to do, and God tells him through another nameless prophet in verse 42:

"And he said unto him, "Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people."

This is another passing on of punishment to the children for the sins of the father, and the war, with God's blessing won by Ahab, was after saying Jehu was supposed to be king of Israel.

As if that wasn't weird enough and wholly out of sync, after that comes what Ms. Hazleton points out as an insertion by an editing scribe; a new chapter, 21, and the tale of murder by Jezebel. Remember, Elijah hadn't yet gone to Damascus, nor had he anointed Hazael, and not anointed Jehu as he was supposed to do. All is out of schedule as if ignored by the players. This is even stranger.

Chapter 21 is about a vineyard which Naboth tended in Jezreel, which Ms. Hazleton questions for the stated purpose which Ahab is said to want it: for a herb garden. Naboth refuses for it is the law of Yahweh that there be no buying of ownership, for the land belongs to Yahweh, and this is known, but Ahab sulks.

Jezebel is said to tell him that she will get it for him, and writes letters in Ahab's name to elders and nobles in Naboth's city, where he's set up to be said to be blaspheming God and subsequently stoned to death. At hearing this, Ahab is said to go down to possess the land.

All out of kilter, reenter Elijah, sent to meet Ahab. In verse 19, it says:

"And thou shalt speak unto him saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine."

In verse 28 of this chapter, Ahab is remorseful and is semi-forgiven in verses 28 and 29::

"And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth and wept softly.

"And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

"Seest thou how Ahab humbles himself before me? Because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house."

This is all so out of whack, not to mention, convoluted. So here we have Elijah still not going to Damascus and anointing Hazael, and not anointing Jehu, but after anointing Elisha.

More, he's going to let Ahab, the idolater who has a wife who has brought idols into Israel, not done as God wanted him to do to the king of Syria, and just had a man framed and killed by his wife though known to be innocent, and he forgives Ahab enough to let him live. No justice yet. Totally weird.

Truly, this is a fiction inserted at a later date as probably was the war mentioned before this.

Three years later, however, in the next chapter, Ahab talks Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah into fighting Syria for Ramoth in Gilead for he says it is theirs. A long story short, and Ahab gets killed in battle. He was taken to Samaria where his chariot was washed, and the dogs licked up his blood. Ahaziah, the oldest of Ahab's sons reigns for two years.

There are so many errors in the telling of this tale that it is incredible.

How something like this could have been inserted into the story is offered by Ms. Hazleton is that the "books" were actually scrolls that had to be unrolled to read, or to write in. This, she ventures logically, makes it difficult to read what went before, or after, so additions of this sort are not carefully edited prior to seeking where to insert any new additions. Ostensibly, the scrolls are somehow known as to order in which to read. Frankly, it's confusing as to how they could do it, but more confusing as to how it was missed by any who transcribed it in the making of an actual book such as the first bibles, and by any and all who have read it since being inserted.

Like so much about the bible, it's hard to tell what was done, written, or why, and when, or by whom. What we do know is that it is error filled, and this is another example of it. Fundamentalists read with what is called "Willful blindness" thus subconsciously willing themselves to overlook anything inconvenient to see or question.

* * * *

The book of II Kings begins thereafter, and Ahaziah has fallen. Behold, Elijah is back again, and neither Hazael nor Jehu has been anointed by Elijah as God commanded him to do. There's more bloodlust to come. Ahaziah sends messengers to ask Baalzebub if he will recover. God has Elijah intercept them who prophesies to them that Ahaziah is to die in bed. Ahaziah sends a captain with fifty men to Elijah and he called him to come down from hill he was on. Verse 10 says:

"And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty men."