Man Dust

The precedent- setting (aka: first mention) chapter of the 'Holy Bible' in regards to the LORD God is Genesis 2. It's this same chapter which contains the canon's first mention of a "not good" situation: and this in respect of the same LORD God.

In connection with the manner in which the (according to apostolic succession and the twofold children of Abraham they proselytized-- not to mention the text itself:) "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, wholly- responsible- for- all" LORD God makes the "man" Adam: the LORD God himself admits he did it "not good [Genesis 2:18]." This simple admission is one of the very good proofs in scripture that the LORD God of chapter 2 is not God in chapter 1.

Genesis 1 states God called all God created (including the sons God calls men) "good" and "very good." The diametrical opposition present between the God of good and very good (Genesis 1) and the LORD God of not good (Genesis 2) is concurrent in one God, according to all the beliefs of all "believers" I'm aware of. This false belief embraces a schizophrenic state in God as an "all good, all the time" situation, in the estimation of those who profess this peculiar faith.

As to how the LORD God made Adam, the text of chapter 2 says: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [Genesis 2:7]." If one doesn't take a moment to filter out the italicized "of," it can easily escape one's attention how the passage makes more sense, doctrinally, without it.

The Hebrew of the original manuscript had no punctuation, so it's hit- and- miss the way anyone-- including translators-- apply it; but this is how it reads to me: "And the LORD God formed man (the dust of the ground), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [Genesis 2:7]."

There are several references to man as dust; as well as many references to dust, generally, in the canon. Genesis 2:7 is the first- mention- precedent for the expression and the word. Chapter 3 of Genesis directly mentions men as dust, five verses after calling dust serpent's food in the second mention of dust (and the first mention of dust as serpent's food), in verse 14.

In Genesis 13:16, Abram (before he's called Abraham) is promised (or is it threatened?) by the same LORD which made both statements in chapter 3 that his "seed" will be "as the dust of the earth;" a promise (or threat) which is likewise made to Jacob (before he was called Israel), in chapter 28 (ibid.). Following these initial mentions on the subjects: men, serpents, and dust are connected throughout the canon.

So why didn't the translators render the translation of Genesis 2:7 directly? Why 'help' a text which makes perfect grammatical (not to mention doctrinal) sense when left alone? My belief about this sort of thing is: The text should be helped as little as necessary to achieve wholeness. It shouldn't be a translator's prerogative to alter a work. If they do: who's work is it?

I grant: most of the canon is caveman- speak, without verbs being applied discretely; and some of the canon is gibberish altogether without most of a given thought or statement being supplied at the translators' discretion. Going farther than absolutely necessary with these corrections is going too far, however, if I'm to judge. 

Ultimately, in the above case, the over- correction on translation could be a deliberate fig- leaf over Abraham's serpent's- meat- seed- nakedness, enforced by the propaganda ministers of a kingdom which would ultimately claim to be the new kingdom of David. Governmental entanglement in religion has been known to produce such conflicts of interest.

Of Fig Leaves and Murder

Like Jesuits removing genitalia from Vatican statuary and covering the mutilated with fig leaves helps us all understand Rome's definition of saintliness (and sex toys): the king's translators helped Matthew clarify what would have otherwise been a fig leaf over Bathsheba's dower. In reciting that part of Jesus' heritage which is generally discounted as non- applicable elsewhere (Joseph's lineage), Matthew writes: "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias [Matthew 1:6]."

The above could be misunderstood as indicating Uriah the Hittite ("Urias,") as Solomon's maternal grandfather. So the translators added five words: "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias [Matthew 1:6]."

Why is such clarification necessary? Why mention Uriah at all? Is this a reminder that Bathsheba didn't scream "rape!" [Deuteronomy 22: 23 & 24] to be saved from being diddled by King Davey while Uriah was gone on mighty- man maneuvers with Joab and the army-- even though Davey porked Bath-sheba in the city? Does Bathsheba's willingness to cavort with her king behind her husband's back make Solomon "the son of a strange woman [2 Samuel 11:2, et. al.]?"

Regardless of the apostle Matthew's intent, the 'faithfulness' of the messenger- killing King of the Jews toward his subjects is underscored by the translators' help. Perhaps so 'poking the blind eye' was Matthew's intent from the start. After all, for a Book with so many curses imposed on any and all who would alter it in any way (including, of course, adding words to make sense of the tens- of- thousands of otherwise senseless gaps left in the narrative by those who wrote it): the 'Holy Bible' is gibberish without the help.

This intentional senselessness of a canon of doctrine presumably so carefully codified as to predict the future not only as a matter of prognostication but of bibliomancy and mathematical divination begs the question: What is the inspiration of such senselessness? What kind of hoodwink are the authors attempting to delude the masses with? Why would Matthew mention Bathsheba, even obliquely? What purpose does this mention of her serve? The answers to such questions almost always reside in the vale of siddim (or Shittim): in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most, if not all, biblical scholars are likely unaware of the spiritual sodomy of adultery: even though the 'Holy Bible' is the only doctrine I know of which defines adultery so. In Leviticus 18:16 (et. al.), Moses writes: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." It simply cannot be stated more simply that adultery is sodomy.

Thus, by referring as often as possible to David's wives as the wives of other men ("Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite [1 Samuel 30:5, et. al.]" being another such case in point), the writers of the 'Holy Bible' 'get their freak on' while seemingly distancing themselves from and condemning those they write about (in glowing terms, nonetheless, mind you). The apostle Paul calls this 'taking pleasure in wickedness [Romans 1:32]', to paraphrase; while John the divine admits the spirit which presides over that city in which David reigned and Jesus was murdered is Sodom [Revelation 11:8].

See what it means to be "The King of the Jews?" I wonder how many of his disciples molested Jesus as he hung on the cross in Sodom. Perhaps Jesus considered it lovemaking, not molestation; but the fact remains that a man crucified has no way to protect himself from perverts; and Jesus' father David [Luke 1:32] took pleasure in other men, even when the only way he could do so was to take their wives away and kill the male objects of his ardor to figleaf his envy of men as love of women.

Can't Get the Boys Out the Cows

The king's translators stumbled onto something which to them seemed confusing, apparently, in the chapter of the canon which describes the birth of religious practice: Genesis 4. They found it necessary to add words to a verse in order to make sense of what they were reading in the original manuscript.

The translators render Genesis 4:20 thus: "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle [Genesis 4:20]." The italicized words "of such as have" don't exist in the original manuscript. They were added, presumably because men don't dwell in cattle.

Are not all things possible with God? Conversely: Why wasn't the additional verbiage limited to one word, "have;" as in, "he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and have cattle?" Is the translators' clumsiness militancy against censorship showing itself?

Genesis 4:20 translated directly would read: "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and cattle." Does this make Jabal the Father of the Lamb of God? Are not all the sacrifices of the altar made of 'clean' animals-- which is to say-- cattle? Are not all sacrifices of the altar men in beastly guise? Is not the goat of the sin offering a man's sin? As such, is it not, in application, that man who offers it? My finger may not be all of me, but it is me, and it bears a seal indicating it is so: my fingerprint.

Genesis 4 describes events at a time when cattle weren't kept and cultivated for men's nutrition. Men weren't allowed to eat animal protein until after the flood [Genesis 9]. Therefore, in the epoch described in Genesis 4, it's certainly possible that the largest portion of a rancher's consumer base would be the religious sector. Do not men's souls abide in their religious practices? If men dwell not in cattle: why did Lot need to escape to Zoar for his soul to live [Genesis 19:20]?