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.