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?