Without Abraham, a Bridge Too Far

Moses' writing style is a bit weak (which is to say, fallible) for a man who said, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy 4:2]." Truth be told, Moses' writing is so caveman- like that, if read from the documents utilized by the king's translators, the mind will silently fill in the myriad obvious gaps; adding to Moses' words. It can't be helped. The mind will make sense of the text (subconsciously, if necessary), even if the mouth won't.

What's more: according to the text of all the scribes who contributed to the canon, the LORD speaks even more disdainfully and craftily than Moses writes. He and Moses are both 'crazy like a wolf' in this way. They speak 'simply' with the subtlety of serpents. In the Army, this is referred to as "the dumb- private act." As unbecoming as it is for enlisted personnel to feign such simplicity, it is even less becoming of 'officers and gentlemen' such as Moses and his LORD God. Lying to the troops is no way to earn their trust.

Moses exhibits his fallibility (or is it craftiness?) many times in the five books he wrote; though Jewry considers telling such truths about him blasphemy. After all, according to Moses and Jew alike, "Moses gave [them] that bread from heaven [John 6:31 & 32; Exodus 16:32]." Nonetheless, Moses is 'fallible'. We encounter one such misleading 'error (if it is such)' in the next- to- last verse of Genesis 21.

The text of Genesis 21:33 (with the help of the translators) reads: "And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God [Genesis 21:33]." Notice: the translators found it necessary to add a proper name, "Abraham", to the text in order to make sense of it. If Moses were word- perfect- infallible, this would not be the case.

However, without the addition of "Abraham," the text would be a stretch to believe, inasmuch as Abraham abode at Beer-sheba; yet without the addition of "Abraham," the text would seem to imply Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar, and Phicol, his captain of the army, as the ones who "called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God."

Look at the text, again, in situ, with the preceding verse, minus the translators' help: "32 Thus they made a covenant at Beer-sheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 33 And planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God [Genesis 21:33]."

The first word of verse 33, "And," indicates a sentence– compounded with the preceding verse– which, in this case, has been made to stand alone, grammatically, by the intervening period (also added by the translators) at the end of verse 32. But the syntax remains the same.

What this means is that Moses, technically (as per the accepted conventions of grammar), told a lie: which the translators had to correct, in order not to join him in the telling of. Otherwise, we would have to believe Abimelech and Phicol planted a grove– which they would then have to maintain– in Abe's backyard (some distance from their own) for to there call upon a God other than their own. That would be 'a bridge too far', wouldn't it?

Seems Is Seams, Phonetically

The king's translators, in service to their monarch, added many 'helps' to the original text of the 'Holy Bible' which, at first blush, seem gratuitous. (What is meant to be indicated by "gratuitous," here, is that state of existence which is without purpose except to encumber that to which it is applied.) These 'gratuities', however, tend– upon further review– to subtly alter the spirit of the text in rather substantial ways. Here are two examples of this sort, from two things Sarah said, found in Genesis 21.

Genesis 21 records the birth of he- who- was- (allegedly-) Abraham's second son– Sarah's only child– Isaac: after Sarah was "taken [Genesis 20:3]" by Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar. "6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned [Genesis 21:6 - 8]."

If the 'discretion' of the translators is removed from Genesis 21:6 - 8, the meaning– seemingly– changes not; nor does their absence render the statement incomplete according to the dictates of the English language. Read it again without the 'helps': "6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh; all that hear will laugh with me. 7 And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born a son in his old age. 8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the day that Isaac was weaned [Genesis 21:6 - 8]." The only thing which changes, prima facie, absent the translators' 'corrections', is the number of words in the text and the length of time required to read it.

However, there is a subtle division between Sarah and Abraham which– if not altogether expressed– is, at least, implied in the manner in which Sarah speaks, here. Never do the words "we," "us," "our," "ours," etc. occur in these verses. Sarah speaks here only of Abraham and herself severally: as if they aren't both involved in the production of Sarah's only son, Isaac. The only word in these three verses which brings the married couple together is added by the translators: "him" in verse 7.

This is, perhaps, an uncomfortable proposition: but without the embellishments of the king's translators, the text makes more sense, doctrinally, to yours truly. The words "God hath made me to laugh," in verse 6, evoke a scene from chapter 18 of Genesis.

In chapter 18, the LORD tells Abraham, "I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son [Genesis 18:10b - e]." At this declaration, "Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also [Genesis 18:12]?" This seems to imply a platonic marriage between Abe and Sarah. "Sarah should have given children suck," if they'd had a real marriage, shouldn't she?

Perhaps Abe was busier procreating property through his many female servants than would allow of him having sex with his own wife. "Who would have said unto Abraham [is "of all people!" implied here]?" Perhaps Sarah was more sister than spouse [Genesis 20:12], in Abe's esteem. Certainly– in light of the numerous children he had through his "concubine," Keturah [Genesis 25:1 & 2], after Sarah's death– Abe's geriatric impotence, alluded to by Sarah (in Genesis 18:10) is only a delusion imposed upon Sarah by Abraham's behavior. So, if Abe and Sarah "knew" each other, in the biblical sense of the term: why did Sarah not conceive until after Abimelech took her?

To be sure, the text of Genesis 20 states explicitly that God "suffered [Abimelech] not to touch her [Genesis 20:6e]" what time Abimelech "took Sarah [Genesis 20:2]." But the Bible is chock- full of contradictions and lies. Could Abimelech have 'known' Sarah without 'touching' her? Did he 'take' her when he "took" her? The original text of Sarah's quotations in Genesis seems to indicate that the latter is, at least, possible: if not altogether true.

Likewise, two verses later in Genesis 21, the translators add a word which is utterly unnecessary, except to subvert the meaning of the text. In verse 10, Moses (with the translators' 'help') writes: "Wherefore [Sarah ] said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and [your firstborn] son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac [Genesis 21:10]."

The addition of "even" to the text underscores in it a legal and political reality which goes without saying, in light of the Doctrine generally. However, this one little word manages also to subvert the legal, political value it underscores in Sarah's statement: inasmuch as (being Abe's firstborn son) Ishmael should have been entitled to a double portion of the inheritance; which is in no wise even– especially when it is inherited. At first blush, however, the content of the verse seems not to suffer from the addition of this one, little, four- letter word; and likewise to be nothing amiss without it. It even seems gratuitous.

The Burden of the Righteousness

The king's translators 'helped' Matthew's gospel with a word or two. In Matthew 5, for instance, the translators add two words to a thing Matthew says Jesus said: turning the meaning of that which Matthew says Jesus said upside- down.

Matthew 5:20 (with the translators' help) has Jesus saying: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." The addition of "the righteousness" doesn't make the statement Matthew here attributes to Jesus sensible. It's a sensible statement without "the righteousness" added. The only 'help' "the righteousness" lends the original text is to turn it on it's head. The apostles are unreliable enough without such help.

What Matthew actually said Jesus said, according to the text (not according to the translators), is: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 5:20]." The irony of the translators adding "the righteousness" to this quote is that, without "the righteousness" added to it, this quote happens to be the only 'proof' I know of, extant anywhere in scripture, that another quote Matthew credits Jesus with uttering could have been uttered by Jesus.

Later in his gospel, and presumably later in Jesus' ministry, Matthew says Jesus said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers [Matthew 23:2b - 4]." This statement, beyond being indefensible generally by the spirit and deed of Jesus' ministry, is also unsupported by the gospels when "the righteousness" is added to Matthew 5:20; and is itself a direct contradiction to another statement attributed to Jesus by Matthew.

After all, Matthew also says Jesus said, "29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light [Matthew 11:29 & 30]." How could Jesus' yoke and burden be "easy" and "light," when part of his yoke is the "heavy" and "grievous" burden of observing and doing whatsoever the scribes and Pharisees bid? Does "the righteousness" added to Matthew 5:20 make Matthew more credible? or Jesus a greater liar? or both?

The Manner of All the Earth

This one makes me more cautious about the writers (Moses, in the present case) of the 'Holy Bible' than the translators.

Moses tells us that– after escaping some presumptive "evil [Genesis 19:19]" in the mountain he was instructed by the angels who destroyed Sodom to escape to–: Lot escaped the 'life of his soul [Genesis 19:20]', Bela, which he called Zoar; and dwelt in the mountain previously 'feared' by the same Lot as more evil than "little" Zoar: now preferring a cave to the city he saved. Lot's two unwed daughters went with him to the mountain. 

Apparently, Lot's soul was now so secure (now that he had vouched [Genesis 19:21e] for "Zoar" to the salvation of the great wickedness of Sodom thereby; and done that which he was originally counselled to do by the destroying angels) that he wasn't likely to ever leave his man- cave in the mountain. Moses (with the translators' help) writes, "And [Lot's] firstborn [daughter] said unto the younger [daughter], Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth [Genesis 19:31]:" in proposing to her sister that they get Lot drunk and molest their father; each on her several night. Three words are added by the translators to Moses' original text of Genesis 19:31, to make it sensible in English– and, perhaps, to keep their heads on their shoulders–: "is" and "there is."

It seems reasonable to me, that, the less a text is altered: the more of it's true substance is encountered. This case is no different; but the substance in this case is repulsive.

If the razor of parsimony is applied to the passage under present scrutiny, the text would read something more like: "And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth [Genesis 19:31]:" This is most likely the more faithful rendering, and insinuates gut- checks uncomfortable to express: all things doctrinally considered.

The most obvious- seeming scandal described by the text, as Moses wrote it, is the insinuation that Lot's daughters may not have been his own, but rather the 'love children' of the whoredoms his wife was compelled to in pursuit of "a man in the earth to come in unto [her] after the manner of all the earth." Lot did save a city which was on the kill list for the same reasons Sodom was on the same. He called it 'the life of his soul' before he called it Zoar. Let's face it: Lot and Abraham were most likely queer as three- dollar 'billies.

The former scandal raises the specter of another. When Lot's eldest daughter says her father is "not a man in the earth to come in unto [herself and her younger sister] after the manner of all the earth," this could well imply inbreeding with one's own daughters was commonplace in that time and place.

Considering the importance placed on whores, harlots, and adulteresses in the 'Holy Bible', the possibility that Lot's wife was one- or- more of these could be generally significant. After all, Lot's wife never entered into the 'life of Lot's soul' with him. "She became a pillar of salt [Genesis 19:26b]" while viewing the destruction of those cities of the vale which Lot wasn't able to save.

Speaking of which: Why was Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? Granted: according to the text, the angel said, "look not behind thee [Genesis 19:17e]," but it was in the same breath that he said, "neither stay thou in all the plain;" and "escape to the mountain"; both of which were ignored by Lot and the angel. If the angel compromised on these two directives, isn't compromise implied where all others of the same set are concerned? Wasn't Lot, after all, going back to Sodom in Zoar?

Were the citizens of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim somehow not destroyed what time their respective cities were destroyed? Were spaceships involved? Were they beamed- up by the same birds that burned- down their respective cities? Judges 5:20 says, "They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera." Could something of the same sort have occurred at Sodom's destruction; that being the reason why Lot's family was commanded to not look behind them? Was someone covering- up a rapture with a 'holocaust'? If so, will not someone, someday, cover- up a holocaust with a 'rapture'? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Remember Lot's wife [Luke 17:33]."

Sad Sod God of Sodom

When Abraham went to bat for the city of Sodom, as recorded in Genesis 18, he said something to the LORD which the translators took exception to. The translators therefore added two words to the original text to make Abe seem more respectful. I guess they thought he should have been.

The text in question reads: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes [Genesis 18:27]." The italics, of course, indicate the addition by the translators of the words "am but" to the text; whereas Moses actually wrote it thus: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which dust and ashes [Genesis 18:27]:"

Much of the canon reads clumsily, if left to it's own devices, and this verse is no exception. It's obvious to anyone who's read the King James version of the 'Holy Bible' that the help of the translators is often necessary to make the text sensible. However, the question here, as elsewhere, is: is this particular help necessary? Without it, the text indicates the LORD is a man like to any other man of Adam's line, at least inasmuch as he is, as Adam was, "dust and ashes." Is this possible?

If the LORD made Adam– as God made the sons of God– in his own image, after his own likeness: where do their similarities end and the uniqueness of each begin? Is the LORD but a corruptible man like unto the one he presumably made? I don't personally recall anywhere in the canon where the LORD is characterized as anything but a man. One quick example which comes immediately to mind is that which Moses wrote of the LORD after he allegedly saved the children of Israel from the pursuing Egyptians in the Red Sea.

Moses, presumably in a state of extreme euphoria, wrote of the LORD, after exiting the bounds of the sea, "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name [Exodus 15:3]." Conversely, Samuel, when lying about the LORD, said: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent [1 Samuel 15:29];" but, again, Sammy was lying. Perhaps the LORD is himself what he said Adam was: a mud patty with magic breath. If he even exists.

Figleaf Cups in Contact Sports

In Genesis 18, Moses describes Abraham's attempt to succour the city of Sodom against the judgement intended upon it by "the Judge of all the earth [v. 25, ibid.]." The king's translators, in rendering this account in English, add two words to verse 28 which figleaf Abraham's 'subtle' nature, as described by Moses.

According to Moses, Abraham begins his defense of Sodom presupposing there could be fifty righteous in the city under indictment; asking the one he calls "the Judge of all the earth": "wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein [Genesis 18:24b]?" To which query he is given the response that, if there be fifty righteous in Sodom, the city will be spared for their sakes.

Upon receiving this favorable response, Abraham immediately changes the point upon which the controversy thus engaged turns, from one concerning the possibility of there being fifty righteous in the city, into a fantastical spectacle– a specter– of righteous being condemned by association with the wicked.

(How few righteous does it take to secure a wicked city such as Sodom? That's the question. All by himself, Abe was, presumably, a city. In earlier events, Abe allegedly had no fewer than three- hundred- eighteen "trained" servants in his household [Genesis 14:14].)

Abe allegedly asks 'the Judge': "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five [Genesis 18:28a & b]?" To which 'the Judge' ably responds with, "If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it [Genesis 18:28d & e]."

The rest of the dialogue between Abe and 'the Judge' consists of Abe progressively begging the requisite number of righteous necessary to succour Sodom lowered until, at the last, the agreed number is one- fifth (20%) of his original plea. Sold! at 10 'righteous [Whatever that means,]'. If there are ten 'righteous' men in wicked Sodom, Sodom will be counted out of the coming holocaust. The rest of this tale is not germaine, per se, to the current subject.

The questionable element– the figleaf over Abe's 'subtle' nature, alluded to in paragraph one– in verse 28, is the two words added by the king's translators: "lack of." The original text is more forthcoming about what was really said, it would seem, inasmuch as the application of Abe's figleaf is gratuitous, at best. Rendered free of the translators' 'corrections', Genesis 18:28 reads: "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it [Genesis 18:28]."

"Wilt thou destroy all the city for five?" One might ask Abraham, at such a moment, "What about all the wickedness you've continually courted, Abe? If there aren't fifty righteous in a city the size of Sodom: what business have you to rescue– not Sodom only, but– all the cities of the valley by force of arms [Genesis 14]; and succour them generally, safe- guarding "the way" to Sodom [v. 16 - 18, ibid.]? If the land can't contain Lot and you both [Genesis 13:6]: why do you stay so close to each other?" The number was fifty. The current operation– the aforementioned 'point upon which the controversy thus engaged turns'-- is a matter of adding a negative- five to fifty; not the whole shooting- match in five.

I think Abe's bleeding heart talks like the father of all proverbial 'used- car salesmen'. That's what I think the translators so covered- up: Abe's 'Bait and Switch'.

Noah's Perfect Milieu

The King James translators applied a 'loincloth', as it were, to Noah's historical record, it seems to me. Plain, old fashioned hero- worship seems to be the inspiration of the translators' help, in this case. Genesis 9:20 (with the translators' help) reads: "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard." This is an innocuous- enough statement; though perhaps somewhat artificially so.

According to the law of parsimony: if it isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed. The text under examination reads just fine without the 'help' of the king's translators; and their addition of the two words "to be" changes the chronological nature of the passage from one of origins to that of new beginnings; as if Noah never drank wine until he was six hundred years old. That would be altogether incredible.

Perhaps the reason the translators found it necessary to add to the text of verse twenty is what follows in verse 21. Taken together, without the translators' help, the verses read: "20 And Noah began an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent [Genesis 9:20 & 21]." This makes it seem as if drunken nakedness were Noah's normal milieu– before and after the flood– and it probably was; but that's not terribly flattering to one of Christianity's most- worshipped heroes. 

Worship is what it's all about, according to Revelation 13:15.

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]?