The subject of this post was treated in an earlier post on this blog entitled 'The Most Disturbing Scripture'. This earlier post was written in the ecstatic, first- blush passion of new discovery. The subject deserves more.
The revelation which immediately preceded the writing of 'The Most Disturbing Scripture' and indeed prompted its writing was: The first mention in scripture concerning the existence of evil comes in the negative sense-- inasmuch as the text cites the absence of good, not the presence of evil (which is thoroughly the same thing)-- and imprecates the LORD God as the 'original sinner': responsible for creating the 'no- good man', Adam, "not good [Genesis 2:18b]."
Some say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist. The same can be said in many ways of God: too many ways to begin enumerating, here. In scripture, one of the ways God 'hides' is by allowing 'the children of the devil [John 8:44]' to write 'the word of God'.
In Genesis 1, it's "God" in the beginning: speaking; observing; working; etcetera. This remains so three verses into Genesis 2. In verse 4 of chapter 2, "the LORD God" appears, and passages mentioning the aforementioned "God" are too- few- and- far- between until the Gospels, for my comfort. "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et. al.]," after all. A world without love is a worse fate than hell, where, "behold, thou art there [Psalms 139:8d &e]."
So, who is "the LORD God?" According to Alexander Hislop, this word 'the Lord' deserves some attention. In 'The Two Babylons' (Chapter 2; Section 2: 'The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child'), Hislop cites the Roman poet Publius Ovidius Naso's [a.k.a. "Ovid"] (ca. 43 B.C. to A.D. 18) poem, 'The Fasti' (ca. A.D. 8), saying: "The Greek Belus, as representing the highest title of the Babylonian god, was undoubtedly Baal, "The Lord."" Later (in Chapter 2; Section 2; Sub- Section 1: 'The Child in Assyria'), Hislop cites this earlier citation: "Baal, as we have already seen, signified "The Lord"; but Bel signified "The Confounder.""
One thing scripture is clear about is that, in the mind of David the patriarch-- and perhaps in those of the Philistines who made him 'holy [1 Samuel 29:9]' before Samuel's annointing 'took effect'-- both these terms "the LORD"; and "God" refer to Baal:
2 Samuel 5:20 records: "And David came to Baal-perazim, and David smote [the Philistines] there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me, as the breach of waters. Therefore [David] called the name of that place Baal-perazim." Accordingly, it's been noted that: as far as 'father' Davey is concerned, "the LORD" and "Baal" are 'One';
1 Chronicles 14:11 records the same event, thus: "So [the Philistines] came up to Baal-perazim; and David smote them there. Then David said, God hath broken in upon mine enemies by mine hand like the breaking forth of waters: therefore [the Philistines] called the name of that place Baal-perazim." Otherwise, the final "they" bracketed above as [the Philistines] is one of a very limited number of scriptural usages of the term "they" to indicate Jewry.
It's always 'Us and Them' to Jewish scribes. We-- speaking as a Gentile and child of God-- are "they," and they are "us," as a rule, in Hebraic scriptural references. When it's otherwise, it's usually a heavenly speaker whose words are recorded, as in "the song of Moses [Revelation15:3]" recorded in Deuteronomy 32.
Nonetheless, the above anecdote from 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles raises the question: why didn't [the Philistines] call it 'Dagon-perazim'? Perhaps "they," in this case, is a shibboleth covering all-- Jew and Gentile-- who knew Davey's "LORD" and "God" as Baal. Certainly, to David, "the LORD" and "God" are interchangeable terms at "Baal," according to the Doctrine.
Therefore it should be no big surprise if the 'One' Moses (who wrote Genesis) calls "LORD God" in Genesis 2 is Baal; or his confounding father Bel; whatever. The point being: this is not the One of Genesis 1. Moses' "LORD God" is not God the creator. The syntactical difference is broadly significant.
In the last verse of Genesis 1, God says of all God had made: "it was very good [Genesis 1:31e]." In Genesis 2:18, the LORD God admits to being the 'Father of evil' in his own estimation of his own work. This is a fundamental difference between God and the LORD God.
Obviously the difference is significant in the 'things' created by God and the LORD God, respectively. Beyond the plural nature of the term "Elohim," God refers to God's self contextually in the plural for the first-- and perhaps only-- time in the canon in Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he them; male and female created he them [Genesis 1:26a - d & 27]."
Notice: The first mention of man is in multiple pluralities: "them"; and "male and female." Notice also: man is a product of 'procreation'-- by God. The text of Genesis 1:26a - c answers perfectly to the description, four chapters later, of Seth's procreation by Adam (and "his wife"). "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth [Genesis 5:3]." Adam didn't procreate Seth alone. He had "an help meet" for that venture: his own 'spare rib'. Though the text of Genesis 5:3 makes no direct reference to Eve, she is insinuated explicitly by necessity.
So also, when God says, "Let us make man": it's more than 'pillow talk'. It's not a proposition of sex. It's the act itself; or sweet- talk over a cigarette, post- rut. Apparently, spiritual conjugation precedes thought, which conversation lags behind chronologically, as demonstrated by Jesus in Matthew 5:28. Though the Lady God isn't specifically mentioned in the text of Genesis 1:26, she is, like Eve in 5:3, understood to be present by virtue of the necessities of procreation and by the conspicuous plural tenses (which are peculiarly absent in 5:3 regarding Adam) of Genesis 1:26.
The 'man' Adam is, however, a creation altogether. Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man become a living soul." Notice: both the LORD God and the 'man' are referred to only in singularity; and, unlike God, the LORD God is a 'doer', not a 'speaker'. He says nothing while creating Adam. Even "the breathe of life" rings hollow compared to "the Word of God [John 1:1 - 14]." Also, there's no indication as to the origin of Adam's 'form'. Where did the LORD God's 'inspiration' for it come from? the sons of God? his own reflected image? graven imagery?
Though the text of Genesis 2 says nothing about why the 'man' Adam was made the way he was, the truth is he may have been more like his maker than is immediately apparent. He was, after all, evil and alone, and perhaps in love only with himself.
Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good [evil it is, that is to say] that the man should be [as created] alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Again: by whose example, or 'inspiration', cometh this insight? Does this come by way of observing the sons of God in their natural state: male and female [Genesis 1:27]?
Either way, the point is clearly made that the method of the LORD God's 'creativity' is strange. Love is not the inspiration. Envy or slothfulness might be. He-- in loneliness and alone-- 'creates' the 'man' Adam (and "his wife," Eve) in a manner altogether similar to the way in which a man 'creates' a graven image: especially in Eve's case. He requires no mate. He requires no procreation. Perhaps he finds procreation dirty, messy, and distasteful altogether. Maybe he, like Big Daddy Davey, considers 'man- love' "wonderful, passing the love of women [2 Samuel 1:26]." Be that as it may: the LORD God's way is certainly not God's way. Not even close.
My guess is the LORD God of Genesis 2 prefers "witty inventions" to procreation, at any rate, (only because I believe the text to some extent.) Perhaps the LORD God made his own 'man' out of a desire to indulge his own 'bestial [Ecclesiastes 3;18]' proclivities. The text of Genesis 2:19 expressly implies the LORD God expected his 'creation' Adam to be predisposed to bestiality for his own part.
Genesis records (as if one followed immediately-- or even naturally-- upon another) that, when the LORD God [2:18, above] identified the solitary condition of his 'man' as evil, he attempted to rectify the situation by making beasts to accompany the lonely 'man' Adam. "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof [Genesis 2:19]."
Verse 20 goes on to say, "but [though the 'man' named all the birds and beasts of the field] for Adam there was not found an help meet for him [Genesis 2:20d]." Apparently, Adam named none of them-- including the LORD God-- "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh [Genesis 2:23]." Perhaps Adam is the fool Solomon wrote of in Ecclesiastes 4:6: "The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh [Ecclesiastes 4:5]." Perhaps he was a narcissistic megalomaniac.
Chapter 6 of Genesis informs that the 'man' Adam and his family were not always the only inhabitants of the earth. The sons of God [male and female] were here, also; though it is possible Adam- and- family preceded them in arriving at this particular outpost in God's staggeringly large 'creation'-- like weeds breaking surface before crops.
Genesis 6 tells the story of the meeting of the sons of God and the sons of Adam; and the violent fallout which resulted from that encounter. There was a flood which purportedly only a descendant of Adam named Noah; his three sons; and their four wives survived, among mankind.
The implication of the flood narrative [Genesis 6 - 9] is that the sons of God were all wiped- out in the deluge. Only Adam's line remained thereafter. Where did the sons of God go? Were they 'raptured'? evacuated in spacecraft? The text does not explicitly say. Nonetheless, the Gospel of John does say: "as many as received [the Word of God], to them gave [God] power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on ["the Word of God"]: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but [-- like the Word--] of God [John 1:12 & 13]." This implies the inferior of the two extant races of mankind on earth prior to the flood was its sole 'survivor'; though also it's only victim.
The apostle Peter tells us God's temple is made of his children: not only 'in the heart of the earth [1 Corinthians 6:19]', but in the holy city New Jerusalem. "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ [1 Peter 2:5]." If the stones of the temple of God are the children of God, I expect the rest of the stones in the city of God to be of the same: one way or another.
It naturally follows that New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven is-- as perceived by the earth unto which she comes-- a population: not a spaceship or metropolis. The birth of Christ seems to back this, inasmuch as he did not depart earth in like fashion to the manner in which he came. Christ-- as Elijah presumably did-- left by means of space travel of some sort (Perhaps he was 'beamed- up'); though he came by way of the 'creative' processes of the Blessed Virgin's womb. Likewise, Elijah presumably had a mother, and left no bones at his departure.
The birth of Christ is readily recognizable as immaculate inasmuch as Mary was a virgin when the 'matrix opened [Exodus 11:12a].' Hence, only God could have done it/her. If the term 'immaculate' were to apply only to seedless impregnation, science could brag of someday maybe 'reproducing' an immaculate birth. Be that as it may: God's collusion is explicitly implied in the event, as the term is applied here. How many less- virginal (i.e. less- noticeable), though otherwise equally 'immaculate' ['of God' that is], births occur in sexually- active women? This would be be much more difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the birth of Christ illustrates the hyperdimensional nature of the womb. Who knows how many sources feed the matrix at the opening thereof.
The Word of God said we are not all of God. In particular, he told two parables demonstrating this data point and the difference between the respective 'creations' of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: the 'parable of the sower'; and 'the parable of the tares of the field'. Both of these parables are found in Matthew 13, et. al., wherein the Word likens the sons of God to wheat; the children of God's enemy to tares; the earth to a cultivated field; and the kingdom of heaven to a man 'knocking- up' a 'Dirt(y) Girl' through 'conversational sex' [i.e. "Let us make man..."].
In explanation of 'the parable of the sower' Christ says: "The sower soweth the word [Mark 3:14]."; and "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man [Matthew 13:37b];" thus identifying himself as "the Word of God." Consider for a moment the definitively transubstantial nature of the Word of God: God speaks; and everything we know of materializes out of nothing we know of. If something as wonderful as the Word of God enters the 'heart of the earth' through the hyperdimensional matrix of the womb: doesn't this indicate the womb as the vehicle of choice by which the sons of God do the same? even if there were spaceships in Genesis 6?
'The parable of the tares' begins so: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field [Matthew 13:24c]." This obviously refers to 'the parable of the sower', told immediately beforehand; but it is also the simplest whole exegesis extant on Genesis 1, that I'm aware of.
The next verse is likewise the simplest description of Genesis 2 I know of: "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way [Matthew 13:25]." Simply stated, this implies the LORD God of Genesis 2 is: a 'Sabbath- breaker'; God's enemy; and the original "thief in the night [1 Thessalonians 5:2, et. al.]."
Genesis 2:3 says, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." In the next verse, the LORD God makes his debut: seemingly just in time to take credit for and defile God's work; and to supplant God's Sabbath- observing children [the 'sleeping men' of Matthew 13:25] with his own alchemical wizardry, commonly referred to as tares.
The conflict between the sons of God and the sons of Adam is endemic to the relationship of each with their respective creators. In particular, the dilemma resides in the disparate words and works of God and the LORD God. Where God blesses his children, the LORD God curses his own.
Of God we read: "And God blessed [the sons of God], and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that [-- like Adam--] moveth upon the earth [Genesis 1:28]." This describes a gift without reservation. Inasmuch as God sanctified the seventh day to rest, we can safely assume this blessing came at the beginning of the eighth day, at the earliest: in light of the fact that acceptance of the gift requires action other than sanctified rest at the inaugural 'family reunion picnic and camp- out'.
Whereas God blessed and gave, "the LORD God took the man [hostage, shall we say?], and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it [Genesis 2:15]." This describes servitude, not bestowed dominion.
Likewise, the first- recorded words of the LORD God are not a blessing or gift; but rather a limitation on the garden freely gifted by God to the sons of God in Genesis 1:29; and a threat of death [first mention]. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [Genesis 2:16 & 17]."
In comparing the words and works of God and the LORD God, it becomes readily apparent that there must have been great confusion in the encounter between the sons of Adam and the sons of God. After all, to this day preachers quote Luke's assertion that "Adam... was the son of God [Luke 3:38c & d]" in all agreement with Luke. What are the chances that, so many thousands of years before Luke's ministry, the consensus concerning Adam's lineage differed from Luke's prognosis of the same among the sons of Adam extant in the epoch described in Genesis 6? --even though the text of Genesis 6 clearly sets a difference between the respective families? The confusion of our own times is clearly the same as theirs.
The profusion of 'Christian' church denominations, and the animosity of most of these for all others is indicative of the fact that there exists to this day great consternation among those who 'claim the name' as to whose name they've claimed; and the end thereof. "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints [1 Corinthians 14:33]." To this day, the consensus that the LORD God of Genesis 2 is God is ubiquitous throughout the 'Christian' world. Most Protestant denominations are, for all intent purposes, only differenriated from Jewry by the clothes they wear.
Nothing more clearly demonstrates the totality of the apostasy of this time than same-sex marriage: if not out- and- proud queers in 'Christian' pulpits. It's the lobbying efforts and monies of these same queer preachers which is rightfully to be credited with delivering this litigious abomination of desolation to the world, after all. Satan is still allowed to 'hide behind the pillars of the temple', as it were: as per Job 1:6, et. al.
If not for queer congregations of 'Christians', there would be no out- and- proud queers in 'Christian' pulpits. The false witness of God which these congregations promulgate is that the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah saved Zoar, and compelled the apostle Peter to say of Lot (who vouched for Zoar) that he was a "righteous man" with a "righteous soul [2 Peter 2:8]." Such false witness is most commonly excused and even extolled as 'blind faith'.
The fallacy of blindly believing every word of a book-- altogether unread, by most of them-- as 'the absolute truth', and that of God, is: the words of God are not the only words therein. When 'Christian' preachers refer to the 'Absolute Authority' and 'Absolute Truth' they hold in their hands as "containing not one lie," they reprove the LORD who said of roughly half the words of the book of Job: "ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath [Job 42:7 (& 8)]." Who're you gonna believe: Eliphaz the Temanite; or God? Peter the apostle; or Jesus Christ? your preacher; or the scriptures? the words of 'godly' men; or your own conscience? someone else's God; or your own?
"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees [Matthew 16:6b]," for little Zoar hath leavened the whole world with Sodom, thanks to the Jews and their doctrines of devils.
I think the greatest trick the devil pulled was to convince the world that he is God: and God is Satan. Likewise, I think one of the greatest 'tricks' God ever pulled was allowing him to do so. There is really no better 'cheese' to bait a strange- flesh 'mousetrap' with than a strange 'LORD God', creator of the same strange flesh: like flamer moths for flaming flames [Hebrews 12:29]. It's a marriage made in Abraham's bosom: Strange God, Strange Flesh.
