Muddy- Tub Buddies

Preachers (without any exceptions I know of) profess profound love for king David's psalms. In fact, I've often heard preachers profess openly from their pulpits that– not only is Psalms their favorite book in the canon, but– of all the psalms in the ‘Holy Bible', David's psalms are their hands- down personal favorites. Most preachers seem to be of the opinion that David's psalms are the best part of the 'Holy Bible'. This is sort of funny, inasmuch as the same preachers sometimes excoriate famous people and infamous people– especially rock ‘n’ rollers– as narcissistic: simply because they often speak (of- and- in their fascinating works) in the first person.

Many’s the time I've sat in church listening to the preacher in the pulpit go on and on about how, with entertainers (for instance), everything is always about “me; my; mine; I; myself; yours truly;” etcetera. Yet these same preachers never have a disparaging word to say about king David and his psalms. Ironically, it might be impossible for anyone (or anything) to be as self- centered as king David's psalms.

While all of David's psalms might be recorded in the book of Psalms, Psalm 18 is likewise recorded in the book of 2 Samuel. Whether the text of this psalm is taken from Second Samuel or from the book of Psalms, there are words the translators added to the text of one verse of Psalm 18 which, intentionally or otherwise, might fig- leaf king David's narcissism (and perhaps that of those who unequivocally admire him).

The fourth verse of the twenty- second chapter of Second Samuel (as the translators render it) reads: "I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies." In this verse, the translators added two words (“who is”) which might cast king David in a decidedly more- humble fashion than the original text which they translated does.

When the translators’ appendages are removed from 2 Samuel 22:4, the verse reads thus: "I will call on the LORD, worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.” The resulting ambiguity concerning whom David is referring to as praiseworthy (himself or the LORD) is a sufficiently compelling reason to go to the book of Psalms and see how the text of this same psalm was rendered there by the translators.

Psalms 18:3, inclusive of the translators' additions to the text, reads: “I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.” Notice: the only difference between the text, as the translators render it– in Psalms 18 and 2 Samuel 22– is the use of “on” as the fourth word in 2 Samuel 22:4, instead of “upon” as in Psalms 18:3. The text they were translating, however, does contain one other difference.

If the words added by the translators are removed from Psalms 18:3, the text reads: “I will call upon the LORD to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.” At first blush, Psalms 18:3– minus the words added by the translators– might seem as if the psalmist expects to be praised whenever he prays to the LORD. However, this same text could rather indicate (if somewhat clumsily) that king David sometimes petitioned his people to praise the LORD, as in: “I will call upon [the people for] the LORD to be praised [--instead of myself–]: so shall I be saved from mine enemies [by the praise of the people].”

Therefore, only context remains to give definition to the text of this twice- iterated [2 Samuel 22:4 & Psalms 18:3] verse of David's psalms; and ironically, context isn't very kind to the “sweet psalmist of Israel.”

The text of Psalms 7:1, for instance, “O Lord my God, in thee do I put my trust: save me from all them that persecute me, and deliver me:” is pretty par- for- course where David's first- person references in his psalms are concerned. In Psalms 7:1, as you can see, the “sweet psalmist of Israel” mentions himself in the first- person six times, and the sentence which begins the psalm isn't even finished yet. David's first- person references tally seven when the rest of the opening sentence of Psalms 7 is added to its first verse. But this is sort of beside- the- point.

The simple truth of the matter is: the translators didn't need to add the two and three words they added to 2 Samuel 22:4 & Psalms 18:3 (respectively) for the statement made by the psalmist in these verses to be intelligible. Why– besides a sympathetic stigma for David's vanity in his psalms– they did so is a mystery to me. The translators' choice to add these five words to the text of the ‘Holy Bible' canon is inexcusable. The taking of such editorial liberties muddies “the washing of water by the word,” of which the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) wrote to the church of the Ephesians.

Untimely Punctuation

There are times when even the punctuation of the King James Version of the 'Holy Bible' is altogether questionable. The twenty- second chapter of Second Samuel is also known as Psalms 18 in the 'Holy Bible' canon. In the first three verses of this psalm– as it's recorded in Second Samuel– the translators added three words which are altogether gratuitous; and made a mess of the punctuation.

These three verses, as rendered by the king’s translators, read: "1 And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: 2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence [2 Samuel 22:1 - 3].”

In writing of the LORD in the first- and third- persons, David’s poetic license itself leaves some degree of clarity desirable. After all, the original text was written right- to- left, in block letters without upper- and lower- cases, and devoid of punctuation and spaces between words: which, in- and- of- itself is confusing. In addition to this muddle, the LORD is, in David's “voice,” both “him” and “thou.” Perhaps this murkiness infected the translators’ diction and punctuation.

Either way, the following corrections to the translation seem prudent, if not altogether necessary: 

Three words are added by the translators which serve no purpose to the text if not to obfuscate it. These three words are the italicized “that” in verse one and the (likewise italicized) “he is” in verse three. The text is cleaner and clearer without them.

Next, the punctuation should be adjusted so the passage reads sensibly. It's understandable perhaps that poetry doesn't have to follow conventional rules of punctuation; but, on the other hand, when punctuation comes as an imposition upon an extant text which may be properly punctuated, it seems a faux pas– at best– to slop the punctuation. Therefore– and because the text is supposedly “the word of God”-- it seems reasonable to expect full sentences, complete thoughts, and no run- ons in a translation which unabashedly editorializes to the extent the King James Version does.

The adjustments the translators' punctuation of the first three verses in Second Samuel chapter twenty- two cry out for are as follows: The semi- colon in verse two should be a colon, and verse two should end with a period after “rock.” Verse three should begin with “In him.” Also the commas in verse two are unnecessary, given that all of the items listed before the proposed colon (the translators' semi- colon) are separated by an “and.” Next, the colon in verse three should be after “refuge”; not after “trust”, where the translators put it; and all the commas in verse three should be removed, inasmuch as they were preceded by a colon, and one of them should be replaced by a semi- colon. Again, the twice- used “and” in the text of verse three separates two sets of things in the text. Also, there should be a period after “saviour,” in verse three, and the final five words in the passage should be their own sentence.

With the proposed corrections, the text of the first three verses of Second Samuel twenty- two read thusly: "1 And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: 2 And he said, The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer: the God of my rock. 3 In him will I trust my shield and the horn of my salvation; my high tower and my refuge: my saviour. Thou savest me from violence [2 Samuel 22:1 - 3]." This makes much more sense, to me.

Belial is a Bitch

When David the son of Jesse was running and hiding from king Saul (after having himself been anointed king of Israel by Samuel) he apparently spent some time in Carmel with his band of malcontented rebels. During David- and- crew’s outlaw years, extortion was one of the ways they avoided perishing from lack. The twenty- fifth chapter of the first book of Samuel describes how David applied pressure to get his protection shakedown from one citizen of Carmel whose name was Nabal.

Timing is of seminal importance to a shakedown. The shakedown has to take place at a moment when the mark has something sufficient to give. In this case, David and his outlaws chose shearing time: when Nabal was flush with the prospective proceeds of the wool being harvested. At that time, David sent ten “young men” to beg of Nabal whatever he could afford in the way of a charitable gift in support of David and his outlaw band. Nabal did not play ball.

When Nabal’s young men (his shepherds) heard of the rough treatment David's young men had received from Nabal upon his receipt of David's solicitation, one of them is recorded as having told Nabal's wife Abigail that her husband Nabal had made a possibly fatal mistake in railing on David and his band of outlaws. In one verse of the young shepherd’s warning to Abigail, four words were added by the translators; three of which are unnecessary.

1 Samuel 25:17 (with the translators’ additions) reads: "Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him." Oddly enough, this rendering makes it seem David is the son- of- a- bitch who can not be spoken to. This may be a true- enough assessment of David's character (David killed more than one messenger, after all); but it is a dereliction of the immediate context.

Obviously, 1 Samuel 25:17 requires the addition of a verb to render it sensible to an English- speaking reader (or hearer), but that's all that's required to make it so. The other three added words are unnecessary at best and misleading at worst. 1 Samuel 25:17 (without the translators’ unnecessary additions) reads: "Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is a son of Belial, that cannot speak to him.”

The simple redaction of the three unnecessarily added words, “such” and “a man”, from the text of 1 Samuel 25:17 clarifies the speaker’s intent to indicate Nabal as a miscreant: inasmuch as it was Nabal who would not have a conversation, but would rather rail on and chastise David and his outlaws as traitors (verse 10, ibidum) to their king. This is a distinction of contextual significance: which context is born- out by Abigail's words to the outlaw David, eight verses later.

In 1 Samuel 25:25, Abigail is credited with calling Nabal out, by name, as the son- of- a- bitch who cannot speak to a man, in her supplication of David concerning Nabal's folly (in the matter of the aforementioned attempted- shakedown) thus: "Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send [1 Samuel 25:25]." This confirms the frivolous nature of three- of- the- four words added by the translators to 1 Samuel 25:17.

RICO Violations of the Translators

Does the LORD counsel us through the oftentimes contradictory advice of our peers? Twice king Saul went out into the wilderness with his army to seek the young upstart David, the son of Jesse, and to destroy him. On the second of these forays, Saul and his men entered into a cave to refresh themselves with a moment’s rest. David and his men were themselves simultaneously in the same cave, having previously entered to hide therein from Saul and his foxhunting army of bloodhounds.

While Saul and his men were unwitting of the presence of David and his rebels in the cave, David and his men were acutely aware of Saul’s presence in the same. While Saul and his men were sleeping, some of David's men counseled David to kill Saul, citing an unknown prophecy as authority for the kill. David (who was, in point of fact, the LORD’s anointed at that time) resisted the counsel of his warriors, citing the anointing which Samuel (the prophet and judge of Israel) had endowed Saul with before secretly anointing David with the same.

The apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) wrote to the church at Corinth, “the Jews require a sign [1 Corinthians 1:22]”; and, according to the text of the twenty- fourth chapter of First Samuel, the rebel David chose to provide a sign of his loyalty to king Saul in cutting off “the skirt of Saul's robe” instead of killing Saul and thereby signifying his loyalty to the kingdom which was already his own by virtue of the same anointing which had previously bequeathed the kingdom to Saul.

After Saul and his men exit the cave, David and his entourage likewise exit; and David openly addresses Saul with an explanation of the sign expressed in the missing skirt of Saul's robe. In one verse of this address (verse 10, ibid.), the translators added five words to the text, of which only one is a grammatic necessity; the other four being gratuitous and misleading. Verse ten (with the translators’ help) reads: "Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD's anointed [1 Samuel 24:10]."

In adding the words “some”, “me”, and “mine eye” to the text of verse 10, the translators managed to change the doctrinal value of the verse in substantial ways. Some would no doubt characterize these changes as “inspired” inasmuch as they make the LORD seem less “double minded” (in the words of the apostle James) and David less rebellious– even prudent– for refusing the LORD’s counsel (in the form of the advice of his peers to kill Saul) than the text unaltered would. This must have been the goal of the translators in adding these four words: because the sentence is whole without them. However, the truth is of infinitely higher value than propaganda (inspired or otherwise) could be, to the true seeker.

As previously stated, the translators added one word (the verb “is”) to the text of verse ten which is necessary to correct the grammar of the original expression. With this one necessary addition, and without the aforementioned unnecessary additions, verse ten of First Samuel reads: "Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and bade kill thee: but spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD's anointed [1 Samuel 24:10]."

Notice how the unaltered text of verse ten credits the LORD with the homicidal counsel of David's cohorts and with capitulation to David's willingness to spare his father- in- law, king Saul; while underscoring David's refusal to do the LORD’s bidding in the matter of Saul's demise. In altering the text to cover these elements up, the translators did the text and the truth no favors.

Square Peg, Round Arse

The second word in the first verse of the nineteenth chapter of Luke (in the King James Version) is an editorial enhancement to the original narrative, added by the translators, and therefore duly italicized. It is also a red herring which (intentionally or otherwise) distracts from the subject of at least the first 25- to- 27 verses of Luke 19: the multitude following Jesus of Nazareth on his way to Jerusalem for Passover and his final showdown.

In fact, the choice of this particular verse as the beginning of a new chapter is altogether queer in light of the verses immediately preceding and following Luke 19:1; and likewise in light of how late in Jesus of Nazareth's rambling Sabbath- day- rant the verse occurs. What became Luke 19:2 would have been a more appropriate choice for the beginning paragraph of a new chapter than that verse the translators chose. The added word in Luke 19:1 covers this vanity up, to some extent.

The last verse of Luke 18 reads: “And immediately [a blind beggar] received his sight, and followed [Jesus of Nazareth], glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God [Luke 18:43].” 

"And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho [Luke 19:1]": according to the next verse (with the translators' editorial ‘help’). Adding “Jesus” to the text of Luke 19:1 was the only way to make the verse seem like an appropriate opening sentence to the first paragraph of the next chapter. “Jesus,” in this case, is a square peg in a round hole.

However: the text of Luke 19:1 reads fine, in situ, without the arbitrary editorial indiscretion exercised by the translators. In light of the text of the next 24- to- 26 verses (not to mention the preceding seven chapters), wherein “the multitude“ of scribes, lawyers, Pharisees, publicans, and sinners is the subject of the text by virtue of being the target and inspiration of Jesus of Nazareth’s rants: the text reads more sensibly if the nineteenth chapter of Luke were to begin where the translators arbitrated Luke 19:2. Furthermore, this should have been done without adding a word (and that a proper name, of all things) to the text of what the translators chose as the first sentence of the first paragraph of a new chapter.

Without the jigsaw- wizardry of the translators, the passage would read: “And immediately [a blind beggar] received his sight, and followed [Jesus of Nazareth], glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God; and entered and passed through Jericho." This makes better sense, contextually, inasmuch as some of the multitude in attendance had perhaps followed Jesus of Nazareth from as far away as Capernaum, haranguing (and occasionally praising) him the whole way. [This was a relatively short trip (from Capernaum to Jerusalem) of somewhere- in- the- neighborhood- of eighty miles; and Jesus of Nazareth took perhaps a fortnight or more to traverse it (on foot), no doubt due– in no small part– to the harangue of the multitude along the way.]

Therefore it's noteworthy that the multitude of Jesus' detractors and supporters followed him through Jericho. The text of the beginning of Matthew 21:9 indicates some followed Jesus all the way to Jerusalem while others who were obviously less- encumbered with arguments and challenges from their peers “went before.” They (like he) were going to Jerusalem in observance of Passover, after all. Some of Jesus' harshest critics may have been among the naked who “spread their clothes in the way [Luke 19:36],” and “...cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest [Matthew 21:9].”

I suppose forcing “Jesus” take center stage sells more Bibles, even if it is an unnatural fit. That's the only thing about the translators' treatment of Luke 19:1 that makes any sense to me.

The Sweet Psalmist and the One of Sodom

The ‘Holy Bible' records many marriages, the most successfully blissful of which (according to preachers) being the gay matrimony of the King of the Jews (the “sweet psalmist,” David) and Jonathan, the son of Israel’s alleged first king: Saul of Gibeah. The translators of the King James Version did what they could to cover this aberration up in their treatment of 1 Samuel 18;21.

The text of 1 Samuel 18:21 (with the translators’ italicized additions) reads: "And Saul said, I will give him [David, that is] her [Michal (Saul’s daughter)], that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain." The fig leaf added by the translators (“the one of”) is helped by the previously- recorded broken promise made to David by king Saul of Saul's eldest daughter Merab’s hand in marriage [verses 17 - 19, ibid.].

Minus the editorial freedom taken by the translators with the text of 1 Samuel 18:21, the verse reads: "And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain [1 Samuel 18:21].” Obviously, the text is intelligible without the words added by the translators.

1 Samuel 18 begins with the record of Jonathan and David's marriage “covenant” upon occasion of David's alleged victory over the giant, Goliath of Gath. Verses 1 - 4 read: “1 And it came to pass… that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul… 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”

Beyond the fact that David allegedly received Jonathan's man- panties (his girdle, verse 4), the word “covenant,” used in verse 3, also indicates the context of the declaration that “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved [David] as his own soul” is one of matrimony. [We still speak, in legal terms, of marriage as a covenant.]

The doctrinal example of the definition of marriage expressed in the words “Jonathan loved [David] as his own soul” is to be found in the epistle written by the apostle “Paul” (Saul of Tarsus) to the Ephesians, “Paul” writes: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself [Ephesians 5:28].”

Likewise the words “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David” also express a matrimonial context in the event recorded in the first four verses of 1 Samuel 18. The doctrinal example of this definition of marriage is found in the account of the first marriage recorded in the ‘Holy Bible'.

In the final verses of the second chapter of the first book of the 'Holy Bible', it is recorded Adam said of his wife, Eve, “23 …This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh [Genesis 2:23 & 24].”

Adam's definition of marriage is subsequently cited by Jesus of Nazareth, in Matthew and Mark’s gospels (though falsely attributed to the LORD God in Matthew's gospel); and by the apostle “Paul” in his first epistle to the Corinthians, and in chapter 5 of his epistle to the Ephesians. Additionally, David is himself recorded as eulogizing his marriage to Jonathan thus: “...Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women [2 Samuel 1:26].”

It's noteworthy that if the LORD ever reproved David for being gay,

it's not recorded in the 'Holy Bible' that He did so. It's also noteworthy that the translators of the King James Version applied a fig leaf to this gay nakedness of their LORD when they applied it to the gay nakedness of the King of the Jews with the simple addition of the three words “the one of” to 1 Samuel 18:21. What– if not the One of blasphemy (as per Revelation 17:3)– could the LORD be, all things considered?

Damned if You Do

In Leviticus 4, the LORD describes for Moses the law concerning the transgressions of ‘ignorant’ sinners. In this chapter, there are four verses to which the king’s translators made considerable, unnecessary, and misleading editorial additions. The first of these is the second verse of the chapter.

Leviticus 4:2 (with the translators' help) reads: “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:...” (and goes on to prescribe the blood- magic ritual necessary to negate the ignorant soul’s responsibility for the sin ignorantly committed; which is not germaine to the current subject). The two words added to the text of Leviticus 4:2 by the translators– “concerning things”-- insinuate the LORD”s commandments are always to be done.

Contrarily, what Moses actually wrote, in Leviticus 4:2, is: “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:...” meaning the LORD expressly admitted to Moses that one way of offending “against” some of the LORD’s commandments is to do what the LORD commands.

Mind you: doctrinally, Leviticus 4:2 [and the other three verses of Leviticus 4 (13, 22, and 27, respectively) which are also of central interest to this post] makes better sense as Moses wrote it than it does with the translators’ additions; though, prima facie, this might seem like gibberish. What kind of “God” commands things to be done which he will condemn those who do them for doing, after all?

Admittedly, the unedited version of Leviticus 4:2 casts the LORD in a decidedly devilish, shysterly light– and this apparently at his own discretion. I suppose this is why the translators added the words “concerning things” to Moses' text in Leviticus 4:2: to cover the LORD’s voluntarily exposed nakedness. And the other three verses from this chapter of Leviticus which will subsequently be considered herein are comparable to this one in all these particulars. However, the text in each of these cases (as in too many instances of the translators’ editorial additions) needs no help to attain grammatical or intellectual wholeness. The text stands on it's own just fine, if in chilling infamy.

In the thirteenth verse of Leviticus 4, Moses (with the help of the translators) writes: "And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;...” Again, the translators lend the timbre of the text a (seemingly) more- ingenuous tone by adding the words “somewhat against” and “concerning things” which the text is actually more ingenuous without.

Read Leviticus 4:13 again, without the translators' helps: “And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done any of the commandments of the LORD which should not be done, and are guilty;..." Here, as in verse 2, the explicit admission Moses says the LORD gave utterance to– and which the translators took editorial exception to– is that some of the LORD’s commandments are temptations to wrongdoing, and “should not be done.”

Likewise, in Leviticus 4:22, Moses (with the translators' help) says the LORD said: "When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;..." Whereas what Moses actually wrote was: “When a ruler hath sinned, and done through ignorance any of the commandments of the LORD his God which should not be done, and is guilty;...” stating plainly that some “of the commandments of the LORD his God” are not to be done, according to the LORD who commands them.

Again, in Leviticus 4:27, Moses (with the help of the translators) writes: "And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;..." And, again, what Moses actually wrote (sans the translators' help) is: “And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth any of the commandments of the LORD which ought not to be done, and be guilty;...” again alleging the LORD plainly admitted, in no uncertain terms, that some of “the commandments of the LORD… ought not to be done.”

To restate what was already stated in the third paragraph (above): doctrinally, these four verses from Leviticus 4 make better sense as Moses wrote them than they do when the additions of the king’s translators are included in their respective texts. This is to say: in comparing scripture with scripture, one finds that the LORD did indeed command things to be done which should not be done. The proof of this can be found stated simply and straightforwardly in the canon, in spite of all the translators did (either knowingly or ignorantly) to cover it up.

Ezekiel, the original “son of man” in the canon of the’Holy Bible’, said the LORD told him, “I gave [the children of Israel] also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD [Ezekiel 20;25 & 26].” So the editorial liberties taken by the king’s translators in the above four verses from Leviticus 4 truly were considerable and unnecessary, if the translators' intent was not to mislead.

Not Negated

In the second chapter of First Samuel, the translators added two words to the text of the third verse [“not” and “is”, respectively]: the first of which is unnecessary from a grammatical viewpoint; the second of which is entirely necessary from the same point of view. The selected verse is taken from a prayer Hannah, Samuel’s mother, recited upon occasion of “loaning” her firstborn and– thus far– only child to the service of the LORD at “the temple of the LORD [1 Samuel 1:9 & 3:3, et. al.]” in Shiloh.

The verse under review reads: "Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed [1 Samuel 2:3]." As previously stated, the added “is” is a grammatical necessity; the added “not” is, however, not only unnecessary, but an obfuscating negation of the text to boot.

When the unnecessary addition to 1 Samuel 2:3 is removed, the verse reads: “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.” The seemingly- negligible addition of the simple term “not” to the text obscures the sense of the verse in multiple and substantial ways.

The most obvious change which occurs in the comprehension of the reader, when the added “not” is understood to be a bastardization of the text of scripture as the translators encountered it, is the realization that– contrary to popular belief– exceeding pride and arrogance do not equate. “Talk no more so exceeding proudly” means “let arrogancy come out of your mouth.” [See Luke 18:9 - 14, for example.]

Simply stated, this means it’s not the proud, confident rager; but rather the weaker, “meeker” man lying prone on his face “worshipping the holiness” with tears running out of his snake- in- the- grass eyes who is exceeding proud: at least in the eyes of Hannah (minus the translators’ subtle manipulations). The text of the Old Testament of the 'Holy Bible' canon unequivocally supports Hannah's perception in this matter– with few, if any, exceptions– if the New Testament doesn't. [Admittedly, the doctrine of the New Testament replaces everything good and sensible with worship (as per Revelation 13:15, for instance); but that's beside the point.]

The question, given Hannah's declaration that “the LORD is a God of knowledge,” is: what does it matter how anyone talks to the LORD? Doesn't the LORD know who's speaking to Him and why? If the LORD isn't a liar, and likewise really knows anything: isn't it a delusion to think that there's a proper way of speaking to (or for) the LORD which could be correctly characterized as anything other than truthful? Why does Hannah speak of pride and arrogance? Why not rather of truth and guile? Are the “actions… weighed [ibid.]” by the LORD the knowledge born of carnality [Genesis 19:5 & Judges 19:22, for example]? Is the Bible a rainbow- flavored Harlequin romance?

Hosea says the LORD told him, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge [Hosea 4:6a].” Is this the curse the rapist directs toward the victim who won't submit to the unlawful carnal knowledge of the rapist’s weighty actions? Ye “men” of the LORD: where is your Jesus coming?

Moses of Half- Manasseh

In Joshua 13:29, the king’s translators add three words to Joshua's original text (“this,” and “the possession,” respectively) which obscure what might be the truest word written in the canon about Moses’ family of origin.

With the translators’ help, Joshua 13:29 reads: "And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families [Joshua 13:29]." The addition of “inheritance” to the verse is negligible. The entire chapter is about “inheritances.” Like the (You) which attends many declarative sentences is understood without expression, “inheritance” is understood to be the subject of Joshua 13.

Without the translators’ help, Joshua 13:29 reads thus: “And Moses gave unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and was of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families.” It's understandable if the translators were confused by the text of Joshua 13:29 as it was written. Moses was, by his own, utterly unreliable testimony, a Levite son of Amram of the families of Kohath– not of the line of Manasseh. The only problem with Moses' pedigree, as Moses records it, is that Amram was long- dead before Moses was born. It's impossible that Moses was, as he alleges, a child of Amram.

Joshua 13:29, could amount to an admission– compliments of a “Freudian slip” from Joshua's pen– that Moses, though a Jew, was not a Levite. Certainly the pedigree Moses provides himself is patent malarkey. Perhaps Joshua 13:29 was simply meant to signify that Moses couldn't remember which tribe he was from (if he was indeed of the twelve tribes). It could be that Joshua 13:29 is Joshua's politest way of revealing Moses' bastardly heritage (outside of Pharaoh's household).

Abarim Publications’ Dictionary of Biblical Names defines the name Manasseh as, “Forgetting, Evaporating.” Moses, in Genesis, says of the name Manasseh: “Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house [Genesis 41:51];” meaning that, in the case of “first mention,” Manasseh is related to bastardization. A bastard is one who knows not who their father is. If Moses knew who his father was, he certainly didn't tell the truth about it anywhere in the ‘Holy Bible’.

Not Untied

In Deuteronomy 33, Moses records the various “blessings” which he prophesied over the tribes of the children of Israel before his death. “And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of [Reuben] before his death… Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few [Deuteronomy 33:1 & 6]." In adding one three- letter word (“not”) to the text of verse 6, the translators turned the text against itself.

If the added “not” is removed from Deuteronomy 33:6, the result reads: “Let Reuben live, and not die; and let his men be few.” This is a complete sentence and a full thought. Why would the translators add “not” to a text which is complete without it, if not to overturn the gist of the text? Why would the king's translators edit what they've been commissioned to translate, unless under political pressure to do so? After all, this isn't be the first blessing- turned- into- a- curse recorded in the ‘Holy Bible' canon: therefore the case for leaving the text alone enjoys precedent- based merit.

In Genesis 49, the “blessings” bestowed upon the twelve patriarchs [“Every [patriarch] according to his blessing [Jacob] blessed them.”] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel by their father “Israel” (which is to say Jacob) are recorded by Moses. Of these twelve blessings, two are explicit, overt curses.

In his “parting shot,” Jacob (according to Moses) takes a swipe at two of his children– Simeon and Levi– saying the trademark of their brotherhood is their cruelty; and cursing it as unconscionable. Moses says Jacob (“Israel”) said, “5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. 6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united… 7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel [Genesis 49:5 - 7].”

Scattered- and- divided is not established- and- united. Jacob's “blessing” of Simeon and Levi is a curse (uttered by “Israel [Genesis 49:2]”) dividing brothers. Why, then, would the translators add “not” to the text of Deuteronomy 33:6? Where's the coverup? What’s the caper? Perhaps the addition of “not” to Deuteronomy 33:6 is simply a Vatican- style figleaf applied by the translators to the text to cover Reuben's nakedness uncovered therein. Jacob (“Israel”) also cursed Reuben in “blessing” all his children before the day of his death, after all.

According to Moses, Jacob (“Israel”) himself said of Reuben: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch [Genesis 49:4].” The inspiration for Jacob's (which is to say “Israel's”) ‘blessed’ cursing of Reuben, alluded to by Moses in Genesis 49, is found in Genesis 35:22: “...Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it.” Cometh, then, the curse of Deuteronomy 33:6 without cause? Why cover it up?

The Court of the Dragon

Revelation 15:3 cities “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb,” respectively. The “song of the Lamb” is “Jesus wept [John 11:35],” if I have to guess. The “song of Moses” requires no such hazard.

Johnny Divine’s “Revelation,” cited above, is referred to (presumably more- properly) as ‘The Revelation of Saint John the Divine’ in more particular terms. However, Johnny Divine himself refers to the revelation in Revelation as “The Revelation of Jesus Christ [Revelation 1:1a].” So it is with that which Revelation 15:3 refers to as “the song of Moses.” It is not Moses' song. It was “taught” Moses by someone he called “the LORD,” in the same manner in which Moses “taught” the song to the children of Israel.

Revelation 15:3 is the first- and- only mention of “the song of Moses” in the canon (including the Apocrypha). From this glib fact alone, one may comfortably extrapolate the following: The song of Moses is something no one who has any knowledge of that portion of the canon attributable to Moses (the Pentateuch) could fail to identify correctly. It is, in fact, something so essential to Moses' doctrine that he himself would have told everyone to remember it, ‘til the eschaton- and- beyond: forever, in a word. (Moses was nothing, if not as- thorough- as- he- could- be, all things considered.)

In Deuteronomy 31:21, the “LORD [whomever- that- may- be, in this case]” who presumably gave “the song of Moses” to Moses says of “the song of Moses,” which he so gave: “And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen [the children of Abraham], that this song shall testify against [the children of Abraham] as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed…” Verse 22 says, moreover, “Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.”

One may therefore assume, with a large degree of certainty, that “the song of Moses” is included in “[the] book of the law… in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD [their] God… there for a witness against [them].” so alluded to by Moses, in Deuteronomy 31:26. This “song of Moses” is certainly recorded (presumably in it's entirety, and without editorial additions from Moses’ pen) in Deuteronomy 32:1 - 43, at any rate.

The last word in the song of Moses (with the ‘help' of the translators) is: "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people [Deuteronomy 32:43]." The words added to Deuteronomy 32:43 by the king's translators (“with,” and “and,” respectively) have the undesirable effect of turning “the song of Moses” into something it most- certainly is not: favourable to the Jews and their sects of proselytes.

Stripped of the ‘help' of the translators, Deuteronomy 32:43 reads: “Rejoice, O ye nations, his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land– to his people.” Notice how the “LORD” who speaks in the song of Moses calls “ye nations” his people; and “his land…” likewise “his people.“ He's not speaking about Abe and his children so.

The “song of Moses” (thus Deuteronomy 32) begins: “1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth…. 5 [the children of Abraham] have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of [God’s] children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. 6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought [not brought] thee? hath [the (human- trafficking) Devil; a.k.a “the LORD”] not made thee [nigger whores], and established thee [whoring niggers “of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah (verse 32, ibid.)”]?”

While the subject of “the song of Moses” is unreservedly the “very froward [First Mention (verse 20 of the song)] generation, children [of Abraham],” the last word of the song, verse 43, is a word of caution to the children of Abraham concerning the real and sobering differences between “the LORD [whomever- that- may- be, in this case]” and Abraham, “the father of us all [Romans 4:16, et. al.].” This much is obvious to those who have read the books of Moses.

In Leviticus 25:23 (et. al.), Moses quotes “the LORD” who gave him the law as saying: “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” Therefore, it is obvious to those Satanic enough to– unlike Christians and Jews– actually read the books of Moses that “the LORD” of the levitical law isn't “the LORD” who calls his nations his people; his people his land: in the very last word of “the song of Moses.” The “LORD” who gave the law has no land: He’s a squatter wandering.

Unlike “the LORD” who gave Moses “the song,” the “LORD” who gave Moses “the law” calls His children “strangers and sojourners”: even while admitting they are His children, and that He is, (as they are) a stranger and a sojourner. “Ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” He who gave Moses the song is not necessarily the same one who gave Moses the law. That's one of the advantages of “the invisible God”: the Devil can play God without either of them being responsible, regardless which He is HIM in a given moment. The more players who play God, the less responsibility there is for anyone to bear. And more to share.

Sleeping Dawgs

The “gospels” of the several apostles record the love- of- sleep characteristic of Jesus' disciples: in various places and in various degree. In Gethsemane, for instance.

The gospels that record the events which allegedly took place between “the last supper” and Jesus' arrest, plainly state that (in spite of all of Jesus' warnings– even the warning that evening to Peter about “this night”-- to the contrary) the disciples slept soundly the whole time Jesus was sweating- blood- and- praying in Gethsemane. Nonetheless, the disciples managed (in their slumber) to carefully record all Jesus and the angels did- and- said while the disciples so slept– if the gospels of the sleepers are to be believed.

[Jesus' disciples so loved slumber: they didn't even attempt to wake Jesus up– when he was presumably sleeping under water in a boat ready to sink– until their own lives were in jeopardy (Luke 8:22 - 24).]

The day after Jesus' “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem– the day on which Jesus cursed “the fig tree,”-- Matthew (with the translators' help) says that, after holding forth in the temple, "Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple [Matthew 24:1]." In adding this one little word, “him” to the text, the translators changed the tenor of Matthew's words entirely.

Without the ‘help’ of the translators, Matthew wrote: “Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to for to shew him the buildings of the temple [Matthew 24:1].” This word “came to” meant the same thing then as it does now: the disciples were sleeping in the courtyard (or on the porch; perhaps under it) waiting for Jesus to finish with his rant.

When the “Good Shepherd” finally shut his mouth, the disciples “came to”: they woke up, that is to say. Nonetheless, as in Gethsemane (two nights later): the writers of the gospels carefully recorded all Jesus ranted about- and- against in the temple– while they slept on the porch like dogs: If the vomitous gospels of the sleeping, egg- sucking thieves- in- the- night are to be believed.

The Blood of Sticks and Stones

The translators of the King James Version of the 'Holy Bible' added some words– "that" (once) and "vessels of" (twice)-- to the text of Exodus 7:19, which perhaps obscure the meaning of this verse more than they reveal it. "And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone [Exodus 7:19]."

If these 'helps' are removed from Exodus 7:19, the verse suffers naught but, perhaps, clarification. The verse is a fully recognized sentence without them. "And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in wood, and in stone [Exodus 7:19].”

The fact that the translators added these words to the text, in spite of there being no need of them, could betray an element of incredulity toward the text, as it was written, on the part of the translators. There's an old maxim, "You can't get blood out of a rock." Perhaps this maxim was an old one in A.D. 1611 (when the King James Version was published); or maybe this hangup at Exodus 7:19 is the inspiration for the saying. There need not be any consternation over the text as it stands, without the translators' 'helps', however.

After all, trees drink water; and hold quite a lot of it at any given moment. If the water throughout the land were turned into blood: what, if not blood, would the trees drink? It's not as if the sensibility of the trees would be offended by blood, compelling them to stop drinking. Therefore, there would have been blood in the wood of the trees, if the water were turned into blood.

As for the stones: do they not hold water? If not: how did the rock Moses struck twice pour out springs of water [Numbers 20:11, et. al.]? Considering the dearth of any archeological evidence of the Israelites' alleged four- hundred- thirty- year stay in Egypt or their likewise alleged forty- year sojourn of wandering in the wilderness, it's no small matter that the translators added these words to Exodus 7:19.

The rings of trees are 'smart', after all. If the right tree was found in Egypt, of the right age and condition, the rings could be tested for blood. If the test came back positive, this would be the only fossil evidence extant indicating the things written in Exodus- through- Deuteronomy might not be fable but rather fact. This would be no small coup.

A Comedy of Karmic Alchemy

Twice in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the ‘Holy Bible' canon) written by Moses, Moses describes the ‘fire- on- the- mountain’ event in which the ten commandments were delivered– by the LORD– to the children of Israel, as they were trekking the wilderness between Egypt and their promised land: in Exodus 20; and in Deuteronomy 5.

In both of these accountings, the translators added one word to a particular clause in the text of the first commandment which changes the tenor of the commandment, as uttered by the LORD, entirely. In both instances, the translators added the word “am,” which doesn't offend inasmuch as it's necessary to bring the grammar of the narrative out of the caveman high- style apparently favored by the LORD. The word offensive they added is “generation.” The two passages to which these two words were added are nearly identical.

In Exodus 20, Moses (with the help of the translators) writes: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me [Exodus 20:5]." There is only one minor difference between this verse and and it's twin in Deuteronomy.

In Deuteronomy, Moses (again, with the translators’ help) writes: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me [Deuteronomy 5:9]." The only difference between this verse and it's corollary in Exodus is the seventh word, “unto,” which is translated as “to” in Exodus 20:5– perhaps from the same Hebraic expression which was translated as “unto” in this verse.

What makes this word, “generation,” an unwelcome addition to the respective texts of Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9 is the simple fact that the sentence it's added to is complete without it. This makes the added word unnecessary from a grammatical standpoint. Also, the thought conveyed by the sentence this word is added to is likewise complete without it: making the addition unnecessary from a logical point of view. Why did the translators– twice– think it necessary to add “generation” to this clause of the first commandment? That's the real question.

Let's look at the statement again, without the translators' help. “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me.” What immediately jumps out of the text, as Moses wrote it (without the 'helps' of the translators), is the fractional nature of the statement. A third or fourth of a composite whole is a much different, and smaller, number than one- hundred- percent of a third or fourth generation of the same composite whole. Also, the generational nature of the statement is already expressed by the words “upon the children,” making the added word almost redundant: if not for a somewhat ambiguous propaganda value implied by it’s addition.

Thus, the net result of adding “generation” to the text is to muddy the doctrinal waters in which it swims; and to cast the king who commissioned the translational work itself in a “godly” aura, if, and when, he (as the LORD presumably does) visits vengeance upon the children of his own detractors. The fact that for the LORD to so punish children for the mischief of their fathers makes Him a hypocrite never seems to enter into the equation for the translators.

In Deuteronomy 24:16, Moses says: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Ezekiel records the LORD himself saying, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son [Ezekiel 18:20a - d].” Obviously, either the LORD lied in his recitation of the first commandment, or Moses and the prophets lied– or both– but this is beside the point.

This issue of generational retribution is one of the most wishy- washy elements of the canon, leading ultimately to the erroneous belief that Jesus could pay the price for the sins of others: by becoming their ‘sacrifice’- by- cold- blooded- murder. (Murder is, by the way, sin– not atonement for sin.) Besides which, there's the karmic alchemy of Job’s comedy. Who's sins did Job pay for?

Solomon wrote: “There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity [Ecclesiastes 8:14].” This “vanity” is also mercy and grace: the favorite subjects of Christian discourse; and the increase of thieves and murderers.

Mercy is not getting what you deserve. Does this not apply to Job’s comedy? Did Job not deserve the “hedge [Job 1:10]” of protection he enjoyed, pre- tribulation? Did not the LORD call him “a perfect and an upright man,” twice (Job 1:8 & 2:3): before he used Satan to try him? Did the children of Israel deserve the 'promised land'?Grace, likewise, is a perversion of justice. 

Grace is getting what you don't deserve. Job received much tribulation he didn't deserve, didn't he? The children of Israel received houses they built not; agricultural properties and the produce thereof, which they cultivated and planted not; flocks and herds they nurtured not; human traffic, including wives for- the- taking. Did they deserve to come- up like thieves?

In Deuteronomy 32:20 (in the song of Moses), the LORD is alleged to have told the whole nation they were "very froward [first mention]" and deserving an "end" of his own conjuring: when they had as yet to to cross Jordan and begin to "possess" the land promised Abraham, on the other side (where nine and- a- half tribes would remain after the conquest). Do "very froward" thieves deserve to be successful in their thefts?

If science is correct; and all the seemingly- infinite wealth of energy and potential in the universe is, in fact, finite: what happens to the righteous when “there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous,” as Solomon wrote? How do the books of the finite resources of mercy and grace balance in such a case; unless the mercy and grace the wicked receive are the just deserts the “just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked” would receive, if not for the mercy and grace of being rewarded with the just deserts of the wicked?

Pickling Pain Makes it More Acute

The translators of the King James Version of the ‘Holy Bible' ‘helped’ the text by artifice in places: turning full- thoughts- in- complete- sentences on their heads, simply by adding two- or- three words to a sentence. To be sure, the text itself is abundant in contradictions to such extent as to allow the deviance; but in covering their tracks with italics, the translators really uncovered the propaganda value of the work. The inerrancy of some lies is that they point to the truth when they are finally understood to be lies.

This turning- of- the- word- upside- down- editing- ethic on the part of the translators limits the pick- and- choose method most preachers and teachers apply to their brand of biblical authority (having never read the book they extol as “the ineffable, inerrant word of God”) to fewer passages which might appear contradictory in nature: than the rounder, fuller number of those which in fact are. It artificially delimits the fullness of the Doctrine in all it's devious, self- contradicting nature. It's grease to the sticky wheels of a scandalous doctrine of deviance. In a word, it reeks of Jewish conspiracy.

Witness how the translators massage Exodus 19:12 to make it appear more- conformable to a favourable light in which they would cast Moses; and less- conformable to Moses' recount of this same event in Deuteronomy 5:5. "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death [Exodus 19:12]:" Three words are added (“that ye,” and “not”) which change the timbre of the statement into a voice less- mocking than that in which Moses wrote it or Deuteronomy 5:5.

Without the 'help' of the translators, the verse reads: "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves. Go up into the mount; or touch the border of it. Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death [Exodus 19:12]." This reads more as a challenge to “come to Jesus,” as it were; which is more agreeable to the tenor of Deuteronomy 5:5. In the latter case, Moses is witnessed knowingly at death’s door: still taunting “the people” with their fear of the mount on that day.

In Deuteronomy 5:5, Moses says: “(I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the work of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) [Deuteronomy 5:5]." For ye were afraid, Bitches!

Baal Does All For the Children

On one of his encounters with Pharaoh, Moses said something which the translators of the King James Version of the Bible thought was improperly expressed in Moses’ regurgitation of the same. The translators therefore added two words to the text (“must hold”) in an attempt to make the passage less- offensive to either their own sensibilities or those of their sovereign, or both; though, if one takes the larger context of the canon into consideration, the passage makes better sense left alone, it seems to me.

The verse in question is Exodus 10:9. Moses and Aaron have petitioned Pharaoh for liberty to the Jews to go into the wilderness and “serve” the LORD their God; and threatened Pharaoh with a plague of locusts if he refuses to comply. After delivering this harangue, Moses abruptly departs from Pharaoh's presence; only to be ushered back in to him and queried (with the translators’ helps), “who are they that shall go? 9 And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the LORD."

The exception I take to the addition of “must hold” to the text of Exodus 10:9 is twofold: 1)The verse lacks only a verb in the way of modification to be a complete sentence and full thought; and 2) as previously stated, the text is more sensible (if less palatible and complete) without these two words. Here's the verse without the translators' help: "And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we a feast unto the LORD [Exodus 10:9]."

It's obvious what the translators' hangup was with the passage, as penned by Moses. The verse clearly states the children of Israel indulged in human sacrifice, inasmuch as the most obvious verb to fill the gap between “we” and “a” would be “are”: “we [are] a sacrifice unto the LORD.” Such barbarism would sell few Bibles, if any, and could possibly start a rash of church- burnings and unchecked antichristian sentiment throughout the realm, defeating entirely the purpose of the king in commissioning this version of the scriptures.

Nonetheless, it is true that the children of Israel indulged in human sacrifice. Just as Lamech followed Cain’s lead in murdering the young and calling upon the name of the LORD [Genesis 4:23 - 26], so “Was… Abraham [their] father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar [James 2:21].” And we know that the children of Israel also practiced this same Kenite faith in Egypt and beyond in light of Moses' records and the prophecy of Amos.

It is a little- known fact that the children of Israel had a “tabernacle of the congregation” before the LORD ever required Moses build him a sanctuary. If the clergy of the several churches are aware of this original “tabernacle of the congregation,” one wouldn't know it by knowing their sermons and lessons. I don't know that I personally have ever heard any of them so much as mention it. Regardless, it is a doctrinally- stated fact.

After the children of Israel had made the golden calf and indulged orgiastic worship about it; and Moses had re- ascended the mount and obtained the description of the sanctuary the LORD required them to fashion unto him, “Moses took the tabernacle [which was already extant among them], and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation [Exodus 33:7a - d].”

This is confusion, and is purposely so, inasmuch as– when the LORD’s sanctuary is built– it will likewise be called “the tabernacle of the congregation.” The only thing that indicates the two are not one– given the chronological madness of Moses' rants– is the placement of the LORD’s sanctuary in the center of the camp [Numbers 2:2], while this tabernacle lies “without the camp [Exodus 33:7, above].” Who's tabernacle is the original “tabernacle of the congregation?”

The prophet Amos writes (and this is quoted elsewhere in the canon): “25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? 26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves [Amos 5:25 & 26].”

I know not who or what Chiun is; but “Moloch” is an obvious shibboleth of Molech; which, in turn, is one of the names of Baal; and scripture is replete with references to this one, always inclusive of child sacrifice. Also, the name Baal means “the LORD.” And Jesus is himself another human sacrifice, “once for all [Hebrews 10:10],” they say; though Catholics drink the “precious blood” and partake of the strange flesh of their “innocent victim” every day. Let the indignation ensue.

Is Jesus of the Flies Understood?

The translators help Moses' stammering mouth (in the pen of his mighty hand) every time he rehearses the account of the “plague of the swarms” (allegedly inflicted on the Egyptians) in the cogitations and ruminations of his pentateuch. In fact, every time Moses writes of the swarms, the translators add the two words “of flies” to the narrative. One example of many to be found in the pentateuch is the account, in Exodus, of Moses' alleged encounter with Pharaoh in which he prognosticates the swarms.

In this encounter, Moses (with the translators' help) says he told Pharaoh, "21 Else, if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are. 22 And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth [Exodus 8:21 & 22].” Likewise, in the account of the alleged event itself (in the verses which immediately follow this sample passage): not once does Moses specify these swarms were, in fact, of flies.

There are many mentions of this ‘plague of swarms’ in the canon; but only two in which the translators didn't add “of flies” to the narrative, that I'm aware of. Both of these mentions are to be found in the Psalms (78:45 & 103:31, respectively); both most likely written by Asaph (a member of David's ’Hallelujah Chorus’), who was most likely a scribe. But why flies? Many critters swarm. Ants swarm. Cockroaches swarm. Bees swarm. Grasshoppers swarm. Etcetera. Obviously, the translators took Asaph’s word for it; but why did Asaph say the swarms were flies? Perhaps Jesus points to the answer.

Moses, in his farewell address to the children of Israel, said, “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken [Deuteronomy 18:15].” Also, when threatening the Jews with the “diseases” he took credit for “[bringing] on the Egyptians,” Moses said: “I am the LORD that healeth thee [Exodus 15:26].” Likewise, three of the four gospels– Matthew, Mark, and Luke– record in particular that, when the Sanhedrin was informed of Jesus (how he healed and cast out devils): they said of Jesus that he had Beelzebub, the Lord of the Flies.

As is the case generally in the gospels– when comparing the various accounts of the apostles who provided them– the details in this case are somewhat murky. Luke says “some” of the people said “He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils [Luke 11:15b].” Matthew says it was the Pharisees who said, “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils [Matthew 12:24b & c].” Mark says, “the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils [Mark 3:22].” Moreover, according to Matthew, Jesus himself presumably admitted of this accusation before Matthew records being privy to it himself.

In chapter 10 of his gospel, Matthew says Jesus sent the twelve apostles before himself to preach “the kingdom of heaven [verse 7, ibid.].” In declaring unto them the parameters and particulars of this ‘Advance Forward OP’, Matthew says Jesus said to the twelve, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household [Matthew 10:25c & d]?” though Matthew doesn't record anyone calling his master (Jesus) “Beelzebub” until two chapters later: presumably after the twelve had reconnoitered from their advance reconnaissance. So, who was Jesus referring to as “the master of the house,” if not Moses: the ‘great physician’ who ‘healed’ his victims by not afflicting them?

Later, in the book of Acts, the apostle Luke records the apostle Peter alluding to Jesus as the “Prophet [Deuteronomy 18:15, above]” like unto Moses and foretold of by the same (Acts 3:20 - 24); and the martyr Stephen following suit with Peter (Acts 7:37 - 53). All the above begs the question: what kind of prophet was Moses?

Everywhere in the canon of the Bible, Moses is referred to as powerful, mighty, wonderful, and handy– even in his own descriptions of himself. Matthew says Jesus (the ‘Great Physician [Luke 4:23, et. al.]’) likewise laid claim to having “all power [Matthew 28:18].” Is this a good thing? Is it a godly thing to have what Hebrews call “all power?” According to the apostle Paul, this word, “all power” characterizes Satan.

The apostle Paul, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, writes: “7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed… 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness [2 Thessalonians 2:7 - 12].”

If, by “pleasure in unrighteousness,” Paul means to indicate a doctrine which states explicitly that murdering one’s king and God is atonement with the same; and remission of guilt for all other crimes one may commit before and after the dastardly deed itself: he's summed- up the Doctrine of the ‘Holy Bible' and the church age succinctly in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 - 12.

Finally, one must ask: Is Jesus Lord of the Flies? Did he inflict those he ‘healed’ with the devils he cast out of them? Wouldn't he be just like Moses, if he did?

Means and The Legacy of Meaning

As mentioned in the bio in the page header of this blog, the original text from which the King James Version of the Bible was translated lacked many clarifying elements which even modern Hebrew takes for granted. There was no punctuation. All letters were block letters, meaning: there were no uppercase letters to distinguish proper address from common referral. Also, there were lots of meaningful gaps.

Many times, verbs– which indicate the time and condition of a subject (for instance, whether a thing is happening now- and- perpetually throughout eternity; or if it is a past event which will never be repeated)-- were conspicuously absent from the original text. Thus, it became the prerogative of the translators to hazard a guess as to which set of conditions applied in a given situation and apply the terms they thought most conducive to expressing what they thought the text described, all in all.

Deuteronomy 6:20 is one passage in which the translators' discretion betrays some clumsiness, in my opinion. They add two words to the text: "And," and "mean"; the first of which is unnecessary– to the point of gratuitousness; the second of which seems to sidetrack, if not derail, the narrative.

The text of Deuteronomy 6:20 (with the translators' helps) reads: "And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD our God hath commanded you [Deuteronomy 6:20]?" The context, in this case, is a standalone. It doesn't add to the sentence before it. Thus, the "And" at the beginning of the verse is of no value to the verse or (as is implied by its usage) to that of the verse preceding it. Likewise, why the translators would choose to add the word "mean" to the text is beyond me.

In similar cases throughout the canon, such a gap would be bridged with a verb such as: "is"; "are"; "be"; "were"; "was"; etc. Here, for some reason, the translators used this peculiar verb "mean," which only further clouds the text of an already too- obscure canon. If the overall context of the canon were consulted, it would be obvious that Moses' intent in exhorting the Jewry to remember to their children the events he describes in the five verses following Deuteronomy 6:20 (to the end of the chapter) is to reinforce his legacy as "the LORD that healeth thee [Exodus 15:26h]"–: not to provide meaning to his law. This latter would be what a good parent would naturally do when fielding the request so stated.

As I read the text, "are" is a better term to use than "mean". To me the text reads less- beguilingly thus: "When thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What [are] the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD our God hath commanded you [Deuteronomy 6:20]?" This way, the text which follows to the end of the chapter is a reminder not to forget Moses while remembering his law. The historical accounts of the canon bear this up over and over again, inasmuch as, over and over again, the text of the canon states specifically that– in spite of Moses' continual warnings to the children of Israel to not forget the law– they worshipped the lawgiver and forgot the law he gave.

This seems counterintuitive, but given Moses' 'God- complex [Exodus 4:16 & 7:1]', the truth about the text of Deuteronomy 6:20 is more 'beguiling' than the flattery the translators afford the vanity of his legacy. And why should it not be so? It was, after all, none other than Moses himself who said of himself that he was "meek ABOVE all the men upon the face of the earth [Numbers 12:3]."

Without Abraham, a Bridge Too Far

Moses' writing style is a bit weak (which is to say, fallible) for a man who said, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy 4:2]." Truth be told, Moses' writing is so caveman- like that, if read from the documents utilized by the king's translators, the mind will silently fill in the myriad obvious gaps; adding to Moses' words. It can't be helped. The mind will make sense of the text (subconsciously, if necessary), even if the mouth won't.

What's more: according to the text of all the scribes who contributed to the canon, the LORD speaks even more disdainfully and craftily than Moses writes. He and Moses are both 'crazy like a wolf' in this way. They speak 'simply' with the subtlety of serpents. In the Army, this is referred to as "the dumb- private act." As unbecoming as it is for enlisted personnel to feign such simplicity, it is even less becoming of 'officers and gentlemen' such as Moses and his LORD God. Lying to the troops is no way to earn their trust.

Moses exhibits his fallibility (or is it craftiness?) many times in the five books he wrote; though Jewry considers telling such truths about him blasphemy. After all, according to Moses and Jew alike, "Moses gave [them] that bread from heaven [John 6:31 & 32; Exodus 16:32]." Nonetheless, Moses is 'fallible'. We encounter one such misleading 'error (if it is such)' in the next- to- last verse of Genesis 21.

The text of Genesis 21:33 (with the help of the translators) reads: "And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God [Genesis 21:33]." Notice: the translators found it necessary to add a proper name, "Abraham", to the text in order to make sense of it. If Moses were word- perfect- infallible, this would not be the case.

However, without the addition of "Abraham," the text would be a stretch to believe, inasmuch as Abraham abode at Beer-sheba; yet without the addition of "Abraham," the text would seem to imply Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar, and Phicol, his captain of the army, as the ones who "called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God."

Look at the text, again, in situ, with the preceding verse, minus the translators' help: "32 Thus they made a covenant at Beer-sheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 33 And planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God [Genesis 21:33]."

The first word of verse 33, "And," indicates a sentence– compounded with the preceding verse– which, in this case, has been made to stand alone, grammatically, by the intervening period (also added by the translators) at the end of verse 32. But the syntax remains the same.

What this means is that Moses, technically (as per the accepted conventions of grammar), told a lie: which the translators had to correct, in order not to join him in the telling of. Otherwise, we would have to believe Abimelech and Phicol planted a grove– which they would then have to maintain– in Abe's backyard (some distance from their own) for to there call upon a God other than their own. That would be 'a bridge too far', wouldn't it?

Seems Is Seams, Phonetically

The king's translators, in service to their monarch, added many 'helps' to the original text of the 'Holy Bible' which, at first blush, seem gratuitous. (What is meant to be indicated by "gratuitous," here, is that state of existence which is without purpose except to encumber that to which it is applied.) These 'gratuities', however, tend– upon further review– to subtly alter the spirit of the text in rather substantial ways. Here are two examples of this sort, from two things Sarah said, found in Genesis 21.

Genesis 21 records the birth of he- who- was- (allegedly-) Abraham's second son– Sarah's only child– Isaac: after Sarah was "taken [Genesis 20:3]" by Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar. "6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned [Genesis 21:6 - 8]."

If the 'discretion' of the translators is removed from Genesis 21:6 - 8, the meaning– seemingly– changes not; nor does their absence render the statement incomplete according to the dictates of the English language. Read it again without the 'helps': "6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh; all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the day that Isaac was weaned [Genesis 21:6 - 8]." The only thing which changes, prima facie, absent the translators' 'corrections', is the number of words in the text and the length of time required to read it.

However, there is a subtle division between Sarah and Abraham which– if not altogether expressed– is, at least, implied in the manner in which Sarah speaks, here. Never do the words "we," "us," "our," "ours," etc. occur in these verses. Sarah speaks here only of Abraham and herself severally: as if they aren't both involved in the production of Sarah's only son, Isaac. The only word in these three verses which brings the married couple together is added by the translators: "him" in verse 7.

This is, perhaps, an uncomfortable proposition: but without the embellishments of the king's translators, the text makes more sense, doctrinally, to yours truly. The words "God hath made me to laugh," in verse 6, evoke a scene from chapter 18 of Genesis.

In chapter 18, the LORD tells Abraham, "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son [Genesis 18:10b - e]." At this declaration, "Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also [Genesis 18:12]?" This seems to imply a platonic marriage between Abe and Sarah. "Sarah should have given children suck," if they'd had a real marriage, shouldn't she?

Perhaps Abe was busier procreating property through his many female servants than would allow of him having sex with his own wife. "Who would have said unto Abraham [is "of all people!" implied here]?" Perhaps Sarah was more sister than spouse [Genesis 20:12], in Abe's esteem. Certainly– in light of the numerous children he had through his "concubine," Keturah [Genesis 25:1 & 2], after Sarah's death– Abe's geriatric impotence, alluded to by Sarah (in Genesis 18:10) is only a delusion imposed upon Sarah by Abraham's behavior. So, if Abe and Sarah "knew" each other, in the biblical sense of the term: why did Sarah not conceive until after Abimelech took her?

To be sure, the text of Genesis 20 states explicitly that God "suffered [Abimelech] not to touch her [Genesis 20:6e]" what time Abimelech "took Sarah [Genesis 20:2]." But the Bible is chock- full of contradictions and lies. Could Abimelech have 'known' Sarah without 'touching' her? Did he 'take' her when he "took" her? The original text of Sarah's quotations in Genesis seems to indicate that the latter is, at least, possible: if not altogether true.

Likewise, two verses later in Genesis 21, the translators add a word which is utterly unnecessary, except to subvert the meaning of the text. In verse 10, Moses (with the translators' 'help') writes: "Wherefore [Sarah ] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and [your firstborn] son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac [Genesis 21:10]."

The addition of "even" to the text underscores in it a legal and political reality which goes without saying, in light of the Doctrine generally. However, this one little word manages also to subvert the legal, political value it underscores in Sarah's statement: inasmuch as (being Abe's firstborn son) Ishmael should have been entitled to a double portion of the inheritance; which is in no wise even– especially when it is inherited. At first blush, however, the content of the verse seems not to suffer from the addition of this one, little, four- letter word; and likewise to be nothing amiss without it. It even seems gratuitous.

The Burden of the Righteousness

The king's translators 'helped' Matthew's gospel with a word or two. In Matthew 5, for instance, the translators add two words to a thing Matthew says Jesus said: turning the meaning of that which Matthew says Jesus said upside- down.

Matthew 5:20 (with the translators' help) has Jesus saying: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." The addition of "the righteousness" doesn't make the statement Matthew here attributes to Jesus sensible. It's a sensible statement without "the righteousness" added. The only 'help' "the righteousness" lends the original text is to turn it on it's head. The apostles are unreliable enough without such help.

What Matthew actually said Jesus said, according to the text (not according to the translators), is: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 5:20]." The irony of the translators adding "the righteousness" to this quote is that, without "the righteousness" added to it, this quote happens to be the only 'proof' I know of, extant anywhere in scripture, that another quote Matthew credits Jesus with uttering could have been uttered by Jesus.

Later in his gospel, and presumably later in Jesus' ministry, Matthew says Jesus said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers [Matthew 23:2b - 4]." This statement, beyond being indefensible generally by the spirit and deed of Jesus' ministry, is also unsupported by the gospels when "the righteousness" is added to Matthew 5:20; and is itself a direct contradiction to another statement attributed to Jesus by Matthew.

After all, Matthew also says Jesus said, "29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light [Matthew 11:29 & 30]." How could Jesus' yoke and burden be "easy" and "light," when part of his yoke is the "heavy" and "grievous" burden of observing and doing whatsoever the scribes and Pharisees bid? Does "the righteousness" added to Matthew 5:20 make Matthew more credible? or Jesus a greater liar? or both?

The Manner of All the Earth

This one makes me more cautious about the writers (Moses, in the present case) of the 'Holy Bible' than the translators.

Moses tells us that– after escaping some presumptive "evil [Genesis 19:19]" in the mountain he was instructed by the angels who destroyed Sodom to escape to–: Lot escaped the 'life of his soul [Genesis 19:20]', Bela, which he called Zoar; and dwelt in the mountain previously 'feared' by the same Lot as more evil than "little" Zoar: now preferring a cave to the city he saved. Lot's two unwed daughters went with him to the mountain. 

Apparently, Lot's soul was now so secure (now that he had vouched [Genesis 19:21e] for "Zoar" to the salvation of the great wickedness of Sodom thereby; and done that which he was originally counselled to do by the destroying angels) that he wasn't likely to ever leave his man- cave in the mountain. Moses (with the translators' help) writes, "And [Lot's] firstborn [daughter] said unto the younger [daughter], Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth [Genesis 19:31]:" in proposing to her sister that they get Lot drunk and molest their father; each on her several night. Three words are added by the translators to Moses' original text of Genesis 19:31, to make it sensible in English– and, perhaps, to keep their heads on their shoulders–: "is" and "there is."

It seems reasonable to me, that, the less a text is altered: the more of it's true substance is encountered. This case is no different; but the substance in this case is repulsive.

If the razor of parsimony is applied to the passage under present scrutiny, the text would read something more like: "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth [Genesis 19:31]:" This is most likely the more faithful rendering, and insinuates gut- checks uncomfortable to express: all things doctrinally considered.

The most obvious- seeming scandal described by the text, as Moses wrote it, is the insinuation that Lot's daughters may not have been his own, but rather the 'love children' of the whoredoms his wife was compelled to in pursuit of "a man in the earth to come in unto [her] after the manner of all the earth." Lot did save a city which was on the kill list for the same reasons Sodom was on the same. He called it 'the life of his soul' before he called it Zoar. Let's face it: Lot and Abraham were most likely queer as three- dollar 'billies.

The former scandal raises the specter of another. When Lot's eldest daughter says her father is "not a man in the earth to come in unto [herself and her younger sister] after the manner of all the earth," this could well imply inbreeding with one's own daughters was commonplace in that time and place.

Considering the importance placed on whores, harlots, and adulteresses in the 'Holy Bible', the possibility that Lot's wife was one- or- more of these could be generally significant. After all, Lot's wife never entered into the 'life of Lot's soul' with him. "She became a pillar of salt [Genesis 19:26b]" while viewing the destruction of those cities of the vale which Lot wasn't able to save.

Speaking of which: Why was Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? Granted: according to the text, the angel said, "look not behind thee [Genesis 19:17e]," but it was in the same breath that he said, "neither stay thou in all the plain;" and "escape to the mountain"; both of which were ignored by Lot and the angel. If the angel compromised on these two directives, isn't compromise implied where all others of the same set are concerned? Wasn't Lot, after all, going back to Sodom in Zoar?

Were the citizens of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim somehow not destroyed what time their respective cities were destroyed? Were spaceships involved? Were they beamed- up by the same birds that burned- down their respective cities? Judges 5:20 says, "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera." Could something of the same sort have occurred at Sodom's destruction; that being the reason why Lot's family was commanded to not look behind them? Was someone covering- up a rapture with a 'holocaust'? If so, will not someone, someday, cover- up a holocaust with a 'rapture'? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Remember Lot's wife [Luke 17:33]."

Sad Sod God of Sodom

When Abraham went to bat for the city of Sodom, as recorded in Genesis 18, he said something to the LORD which the translators took exception to. The translators therefore added two words to the original text to make Abe seem more respectful. I guess they thought he should have been.

The text in question reads: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes [Genesis 18:27]." The italics, of course, indicate the addition by the translators of the words "am but" to the text; whereas Moses actually wrote it thus: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which dust and ashes [Genesis 18:27]:"

Much of the canon reads clumsily, if left to it's own devices, and this verse is no exception. It's obvious to anyone who's read the King James version of the 'Holy Bible' that the help of the translators is often necessary to make the text sensible. However, the question here, as elsewhere, is: is this particular help necessary? Without it, the text indicates the LORD is a man like to any other man of Adam's line, at least inasmuch as he is, as Adam was, "dust and ashes." Is this possible?

If the LORD made Adam– as God made the sons of God– in his own image, after his own likeness: where do their similarities end and the uniqueness of each begin? Is the LORD but a corruptible man like unto the one he presumably made? I don't personally recall anywhere in the canon where the LORD is characterized as anything but a man. One quick example which comes immediately to mind is that which Moses wrote of the LORD after he allegedly saved the children of Israel from the pursuing Egyptians in the Red Sea.

Moses, presumably in a state of extreme euphoria, wrote of the LORD, after exiting the bounds of the sea, "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name [Exodus 15:3]." Conversely, Samuel, when lying about the LORD, said: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent [1 Samuel 15:29];" but, again, Sammy was lying. Perhaps the LORD is himself what he said Adam was: a mud patty with magic breath. If he even exists.

Figleaf Cups in Contact Sports

In Genesis 18, Moses describes Abraham's attempt to succour the city of Sodom against the judgement intended upon it by "the Judge of all the earth [v. 25, ibid.]." The king's translators, in rendering this account in English, add two words to verse 28 which figleaf Abraham's 'subtle' nature, as described by Moses.

According to Moses, Abraham begins his defense of Sodom presupposing there could be fifty righteous in the city under indictment; asking the one he calls "the Judge of all the earth": "wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein [Genesis 18:24b]?" To which query he is given the response that, if there be fifty righteous in Sodom, the city will be spared for their sakes.

Upon receiving this favorable response, Abraham immediately changes the point upon which the controversy thus engaged turns, from one concerning the possibility of there being fifty righteous in the city, into a fantastical spectacle– a specter– of righteous being condemned by association with the wicked.

(How few righteous does it take to secure a wicked city such as Sodom? That's the question. All by himself, Abe was, presumably, a city. In earlier events, Abe allegedly had no fewer than three- hundred- eighteen "trained" servants in his household [Genesis 14:14].)

Abe allegedly asks 'the Judge': "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five [Genesis 18:28a & b]?" To which 'the Judge' ably responds with, "If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it [Genesis 18:28d & e]."

The rest of the dialogue between Abe and 'the Judge' consists of Abe progressively begging the requisite number of righteous necessary to succour Sodom lowered until, at the last, the agreed number is one- fifth (20%) of his original plea. Sold! at 10 'righteous [Whatever that means,]'. If there are ten 'righteous' men in wicked Sodom, Sodom will be counted out of the coming holocaust. The rest of this tale is not germaine, per se, to the current subject.

The questionable element– the figleaf over Abe's 'subtle' nature, alluded to in paragraph one– in verse 28, is the two words added by the king's translators: "lack of." The original text is more forthcoming about what was really said, it would seem, inasmuch as the application of Abe's figleaf is gratuitous, at best. Rendered free of the translators' 'corrections', Genesis 18:28 reads: "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it [Genesis 18:28]."

"Wilt thou destroy all the city for five?" One might ask Abraham, at such a moment, "What about all the wickedness you've continually courted, Abe? If there aren't fifty righteous in a city the size of Sodom: what business have you to rescue– not Sodom only, but– all the cities of the valley by force of arms [Genesis 14]; and succour them generally, safe- guarding "the way" to Sodom [v. 16 - 18, ibid.]? If the land can't contain Lot and you both [Genesis 13:6]: why do you stay so close to each other?" The number was fifty. The current operation– the aforementioned 'point upon which the controversy thus engaged turns'-- is a matter of adding a negative- five to fifty; not the whole shooting- match in five.

I think Abe's bleeding heart talks like the father of all proverbial 'used- car salesmen'. That's what I think the translators so covered- up: Abe's 'Bait and Switch'.

Noah's Perfect Milieu

The King James translators applied a 'loincloth', as it were, to Noah's historical record, it seems to me. Plain, old fashioned hero- worship seems to be the inspiration of the translators' help, in this case. Genesis 9:20 (with the translators' help) reads: "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard." This is an innocuous- enough statement; though perhaps somewhat artificially so.

According to the law of parsimony: if it isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed. The text under examination reads just fine without the 'help' of the king's translators; and their addition of the two words "to be" changes the chronological nature of the passage from one of origins to that of new beginnings; as if Noah never drank wine until he was six hundred years old. That would be altogether incredible.

Perhaps the reason the translators found it necessary to add to the text of verse twenty is what follows in verse 21. Taken together, without the translators' help, the verses read: "20 And Noah began an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent [Genesis 9:20 & 21]." This makes it seem as if drunken nakedness were Noah's normal milieu– before and after the flood– and it probably was; but that's not terribly flattering to one of Christianity's most- worshipped heroes. 

Worship is what it's all about, according to Revelation 13:15.