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.