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]."