Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?

Originally posted by spamandham
Welcome to my ignore list!

Like house says ... finally he gets it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
seven thunders, it does acknowledge other gods.


Jdg 2:13 And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.

there are many other mentions of other gods, but i'm currently searching the bible for them, so be patient.

This is a foolish argument, of course there are other gods mentioned in the Bible. However the Isaiah 45 verses support the preeminence of Yahweh. Yahweh's complaint about following these other false gods includes the following

v20 Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood,
who pray to gods that cannot save

From the following verses we learn that there is no other God that can save, and no other god that is righteous and no other god that can predict the future as Yahweh can. We also learn that it was Yahweh who created heaven and earth and in fact through his son, Jesus Christ, all things were made; including the fallen angels that masquerade as gods.

Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.

22 "Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.

However as brother OneGodJesus has suggested you folks apparently have another agenda, to somehow disprove scriptures or perhaps twist them to your own ends. That usually never ends up going to well for the perpetraters.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
But that is cool, cause as many people as reads this I know one thing, when it starts coming true it'll be too late for them to say "but we didn't know"

boohoo. I've tried and failed but that too is ok. It is that whole pearls and swine thing we were warned about I guess...

quick question, since when has anything in the bible come true when people said it's going to come true soon?
second, jesus is probably not coming back for a long time, if he even is, so don't hold your breath waiting. the end has been near for about 1960 years...

if i'm wrong, and i should've been a christian, i'll be fine. from what i know of jesus, he shared a lot of the same beliefs as the buddha. he probably wouldn't care if i went on a somewhat divergent path. jesus wouldn't care if i spoke in tongues once, as long as i was a good person. jesus' core message was peace and compassion, not elitist religion of following extremely strict guidlines because of how they're written.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
Thanks Spamandham, that was a well written walk through some history of the Bible, and explains generically the other gods-but if the first books were in an effort to consolodate gods into one I don't think they'd reference them or even elude to them....

They had to reference them, because the books were being written partly as works of persuasion for the followers of El, Baal, etc. The writers could not expect to accomplish that goal if they totally rewrote the familiar Genesis stories excluding the pantheon (known as Elohim in those days). Later monotheistic writings simply presumed that El was just another name for YHWH, and modern day apologists make the anachronistic error of claiming Elohim was just a plural form used because god is a King, much like a modern monarch might refer to himself in the plural.

Elohim....Elohim...that is somehow ringing a bell with me...why is that? And that explanation does make logical sense then...interesting food for thought...thank you.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
This is a fine statement for those who do not understand what believers actually believe...which is that by the hand of God...putting it into the hearts and minds of the writer what to write for His purpose...indeed he being the author, not the mortal who wrote it, then indeed the earlier writings WERE written with future writings in mind...in God
s mind.

If you take the position that the Bible as a whole is cohesive because god is the real author, then it should be obvious why a polytheistic perspective of Genesis is problematic.

FYI, it's really only a small percentage of believers who hold that god is the author of the Bible. The Bible itself does not even make such a claim. The closest you get to such a claim is in 2 Timothy, but it's a far cry from a claim that the Bible was written by god using the hands of humans.

See thats just it, I do think the Bible as a whole is a cohesive work and that God is the author...maybe not as literally as you are thinking I must be thinking-as if he dictated to man or something-I don't mean that, but just as I think He is the direct author of many things for his purpose and the good of mankind-it's what He wanted it to say and by his influence and His spirit for his work it was written through man for man, but is the word of God by His mind and influence and purpose.

...just like in opposition the "Father of Lies" is an author of many things, ideas, confusions and written works as well but he doesn't sit and dictate it nor take credit for it...it's just his influence for his purpose as well.

That is what I believe and actually most Christians I know believe likewise...I'm not sure what you are trying to say the Bible doesn't claim, or Christians don't believe...maybe that God didn't write the BIble...well yes, we know it was by men and not dictated by God...but influenced by him, for his purpose, and becoming his word known to man because of that.

Actually, I did. From the start. I'm just not interested in the snafu which resulted by those that didn't. A new thread, now, there is an idea!

yes I do see that you have understood where I was coming from since the start and I do appreciate it! Your posts are well thought out articulate and please know I appreciate your every effort Annie!

Because it requires a readjustment of one's view--and the readjustment includes a moment or two of 'floating in oblivion'--essentially this is the proverbial 'leap of faith' over the 'abyss.'

Yes Annie, I think that is it! It just shakes them up to believe they don't know it all, or have all the answers, or that they have to exercise their faith to consider or seek or ponder something "new" to them

... or consider the fact their perception of something may not have been correct-not because it was incorrect, but because it wasn't whole...or completely understood, so couldn't be completely correct.

I just personally don't understand why it is my own "fellow" Christians that become so acccusingly angry and discontent with me for questioning my own knowledge, and thus theirs of the Bible, and God, etc...

Not questioning the validity of the Bible or the divinity of God or His son Jesus Christ...and proclaiming both my belief in the validity and divnity...but questioning my-and our-understanding of it all...

and how can it be the Holy Spirit of God that becomes contentious and hateful in discussing these things? I say when A Christian so becomes contentious the Spirit of God departs from him.

Seemingly it is the ones who proclaim to have all the correct knowledge of the Bible and God, and Christianity and the ways to be saved and go to Heaven,etc.... that become the foulest people to even talk with if you question even respectfully their ideas some times. They become irritated, and confused, and closed minded, and even hostile, and resort to redicule and degrading retorts, and condescending attitudes...and think they represent Christ? He did not handle anyone in such fashion and so many do-all in His name...He is shamed for their sakes.


Don't Christians truly become hypocrits of the worst degree when standing on their fondation of I am right and you are wrong and then they become hateful, angry, irritated, and lower themselves to become as crude as unbelievers that bash believers in their bashing of fellow believers just for believing in a new direction...not different, not contrary, just new...or perceived as new because it goes untaught and unspoken of.

Or as I have been accussed of being a non-believer or even a Christian basher...when I am not/do not. I bash people of all walks and races and religions who are ignorant enough to think they know it all, and rude enough to criticize me for thinking and seeking truth and using my brain God gave me to ponder the possibilities just because they don't agree or wont take a moment to ponder things with me.

Like I said...if my mental/spiritual/philosophicaljourney leads me to realize I am incorrect, isn't that as valuable as learning when we are correct? Either way leads us to truth.

It's funny, but the conspiracy I spoke of goes mostly misunderstood and unnoticed while ironically playing out to some degree right before us on this thread I see.



[edit on 3-1-2006 by think2much]

Originally posted by think2much
What is being hid, by whom, and why? These things are written plainly in the Bible and yet go unseen and unnoticed...or unappreciated.

The bible is a holy text, thus its interpreted and understood through faith, not literalism. People read the 'we' and 'us' parts and think that God is refering to himself and sets of angels. Or that it is a reference to the trinity that didn't make sense until after jesus.

As far as this being a conspiracy, I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, I doubt that there is any conspiracy involved now, or that there has been one for the last 3 thousand years or so. On the other hand, it is possible that there was a conspiracy of monotheists within judaism, who took the holy texts, eradicated the references to multiple gods, and downplayed the references that weren't eradicated. Or that there wasn't an actual effort to change the various texts too much, but just a re-interpretation of them.

For example, the two origin stories genesis are thought by some biblical studiers to actually be two seperate traditions, an Elohim and a yahweh tradition. Apparently, beyond a reading of the text, they compare the language and grammar of the two stories and find differences that are significant.

Also, in other texts from the bible, like the two Kings books and Judges, there are lots of references to outright paganistic practices of the hebrews and their kings, with idols in their national temple even. Consider the gold calf at Mt. Sinai. The hebrews didn't just pull it out of nowhere. They had paganistic traditions, and these traditions were very strong and ran very deep in their culture, as evidenced by the occasional need to burn out these traditions by yahwehists.
Also, in some extra-biblical texts, Yahweh is apparently presented as the divine consort of a goddess called Asherah, and even in the bible there is much less oppressing of the Asherah cult-worship than say that of Baal or other gods.
So these odd references to 'us' might be vestiges of just that.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
However as brother OneGodJesus has suggested you folks apparently have another agenda, to somehow disprove scriptures or perhaps twist them to your own ends.

Not for nothing, but the only person that has displayed an agenda here is the Poster Onegodjesus. He stated that he's 'sown the seeds' and doesn't have anythign else to say. He didnt' come here to discuss the topic, he came here to evangelize and gain converts.

Everyone else is discussing the topic openly and trying to consider things from a few angles.

Originally posted by think2much
...well yes, we know it was by men and not dictated by God...but influenced by him, for his purpose, and becoming his word known to man because of that.

I suppose you could rationalize the polytheistic verses with the monotheistic verses by claiming that god is revealing himself over time, slowly refining knowledge as people are ready to accept it. But if you take such a tract, you might as well just embrace mysticism instead of trying to understand god through the Bible.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Not for nothing, but the only person that has displayed an agenda here is the Poster Onegodjesus. He stated that he's 'sown the seeds' and doesn't have anythign else to say. He didnt' come here to discuss the topic, he came here to evangelize and gain converts.

Wrong. As I have stated earlier, if you look at the attacks made by a group of like minded anti-christians, you will see the pattern and thus a limited ATS member conspiracy. If telling someone a right way to find truth is considered evangelizing then I am guilty, but I could have sworn that thinkyguy was asking for input on what others thought about the Godhead and other interesting topics. I just gave him the tools to get an answer. It is that whole you can give a man a fish or teach him to fish thing. People are lazy and wanted everything on a silver platter served to them. That is the reason for the "club-social" mega churches with no substance from the pulpit. If the thinkyguy cannot find truth via the route I gave then he will never find it in its entirety, with eternal consequences. And just because someone can parrot some "scholar" or "theologian" doesn't mean they understand anything on a personal level. It is the EXPERIENCE that makes the difference. Tongues is an EXPERIENCE that cannot be denied if you've ever had it. It is a miracle in and of itself. It is the key that opens the door of your mind to HIS will and ways. OGJ out.

edits:typos

[edit on 3/1/06 by OneGodJesus]

wow...onegodjesus.........

maybe you should go back and read some of these threads you mentioned earlier and you'll see that "those" people are not as anti christian as you claim........just because they think for themselves come up with there own deductions on religious matters and find little patience with closeminded "my way is the end all be all way" type people who come and hijack threads using them to convert not debate......doesnt make them the highjackers........they often seem to know more about the subject then the so called "christians" do .........

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I am surprised that no christians or Jews have provided the obvious refutation from scripture that there are many, perhaps co-equal gods with Yahweh. I will now provide some scriptures from Isaiah. I have little doubt that Isaiah is inspired material....(snip)

Thank you for your time and effort. I can see how you believe through the inspired works of Isaiah that it would refute the possibility of other gods, but I think you are not understanding what I truly question in that case.

In Isaiah God is proclaiming He is the one and only God of Israel, and I believe too of the world as we know it, as He is our creator, he is the author and finisher of our lives and salvation etc... and again I agree He is the one and only God for that purpose...but because he is telling them there is no other God beside him-for the purpose of them understanding there is none other god meant for them or this world or to be worshipped by them, does not say there is no other beings which might be seen as gods at all

20: Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

pray unto a god that can not save...cannot save because he is a dead god, or one that never existed, or one that has no power over the true God of this world, not because the other isn't a god...but just that he doesn't have power over the true God of our world? See what I don't get is possible a semantic problem as well as a perceptual one.

Maybe God is a word we identify with as the omnipotent, omnipresent creator who made this world and all of us in it and the universe in which we are bound...but maybe He does have a wife...but she is not a "god" or not alone...or not in our world...and brothers...but they are not "gods" because that term is reserved for our creator and therefor we are to worship no other being and thus have no other "god" before him.

He is the ONLY god because he came up with the identifying nomenclature that would secure our understanding of his supreme divinty to us as his creations in this world and universe he created.

However....maybe there are omnipotent omnipresent immortal beings like our God...related to Him, parents of him, siblings, etc...but since they did not create us and have no part in his plan for us, or our world etc....they are not to be seen or called "gods" nor worshipped nor share in any percieved divinity etc and He teaches us this by simply saying there are none but me-because He is all we need and should worship.

This train of thought in no way discredits Him as our God and creator or supreme being of the entire world as we know it, nor gives credit to other gods or contradictory divinty...

so anyway, if any being is worshipped besides him it is in vain, folly, and in sacrilege because whether it be invisable gods or be it idols to represent other beings as gods, or beings that would be thought of as dead but gods, all of who cannot save anyone... or help anyone... or have power over Him or His laws in His world, universe etc...so he warns of the ineffectiveness, and also of the blasphemous nature since He is the only God...and there are none other beside him then.

I guess it sjust seems like splitting hairs to believe we can't believe that, understand that, that there are no other Gods beside Him, and we should worship none but him....and still believe there are other omnipotent immortal beings like him creating worlds of their own-or that He had a partner...either Jesus and The Father being seperate but creating the world together... or He having a wife...that Adam would leave his heavenly mother and father...that co-created with him...this world or beings in their image as He spoke of.

I just don't see anything you posted as difinitively ending the thought of more beings like Him...just to know He is OUR God and there are none other-as in we are not to have others, worship others, etc. and truly for our world none others exist as gods in our world, you know?

But if you can clarify it or have other scripture perhaps...or can expound upon why my thinking must be in error...especially as originally posted about Genesis etc. I will of course be interested in hearing more

I am not strictly seeking for validation or refuting of the idea of other gods throughout the Bible as much I am as interested in the verses in Genesis where God says "Us" "ours" and "for this a man shall leave his mother and father..." of Adam implying Adam has parents, not just God as his father. And exploring such scripture that seems to be covered up, more than the scriptures and traditional thoughts that are overused without being definitively or divinely authoritive on the subject.

Thanks again for your time and efforts Seventhunders

Originally posted by think2much
What is being hid, by whom, and why? These things are written plainly in the Bible and yet go unseen and unnoticed...or unappreciated. The Bible is plain about these things....why are leaders so vague about them? I don't have the answers, but I firmly believe the questions are valid.
[edit on 31-12-2005 by think2much]

This was the end of what was originally posted plague. He asks a question requiring wisdom. I gave him the path to get the wisdom. How is that converting again? And as for the other thing about following threads, I have and it is a clear message from these folks who gang rush any threads about Christianity. So there.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by think2much
What is being hid, by whom, and why? These things are written plainly in the Bible and yet go unseen and unnoticed...or unappreciated.

The bible is a holy text, thus its interpreted and understood through faith, not literalism.

I don't agree...Yes, I can understand what you say but here is the small problem I have with that- so many believers will claim the same while having faith in-and defending- the very literal aspects they believe in the Bible.... when it serves their purposes.... and then claim/exhort others to "take it all in faith" when it doesn't serve to take it literally.

I can see that to do both serves me well, (take some things literally and through faith) and so I try, but I do not like being told I must take something in faith, just because it can't be explained logically, or if taken literally then threatens a traditional belief system.

Nor do I think anything can be understood fully without faith, because if you don't have faith, you aren't ready or willing to be accountable for any knowledge you'd gain intellectually by literal understanding anyway.

but not to get too sidetracked...or disregard everything else you educated me on, but let me just quickly skip to the end...

So these odd references to 'us' might be vestiges of just that.

and say THANK YOU!!!! I appreciate your adressing conspiracies to hide things anciently, even if I am thinking more modernly, and adressing my original questions literally by refering to the particular scripture/points I actually asked about.

It seemed so simple, but I am quite inept compared to many in getting my actual thoughts on the page, and so many missed the mark and I REALLY appreciated your post which addressed much of my issues-although the other posts have helped in other ways so all is not lost and I appreciate everyone's contributions-when contributing and not just arguing/putting others down etc.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by think2much
...well yes, we know it was by men and not dictated by God...but influenced by him, for his purpose, and becoming his word known to man because of that.

I suppose you could rationalize the polytheistic verses with the monotheistic verses by claiming that god is revealing himself over time, slowly refining knowledge as people are ready to accept it. But if you take such a tract, you might as well just embrace mysticism instead of trying to understand god through the Bible.

No really, spamandham tell me how you REALLY feel.

So I am rationalizing things by believing a God that could create a world and all thats in it couldn't orchastrate there to be a holy works that would come down through time revealing what was needed to be known and when so to speak....that seems quite literally possible to me and makes logical sense even...

but then such a tract leands to mysticism?

as for mystcism-well which should I embrace...Christian mysticism or another...actually, isn't mysticism becoming one with divinity through knowledge? I don't strive to be one with God in that sense, nor do I think by only through intellectualizing, understanding and philosophizing do we gain the knowledge to be one with God...isn't that what mysticism is?

Forgive me as I am admittedly ignorant- not well educated-on the subject of mysticism.

I am just searching for wisdom and knowledge and understanding, and am trying to use all my faculties in doing such...and dodging arrows at times for doing so!...and uncovering new truths-to me, and in so doing...it seems I uncover certain conspiracies to keep such things as I seek hidden...but I don't know anymore...may they NEED to be hidden, and I should contemplate them silently, you know?

Originally posted by think2much
So I am rationalizing things by believing a God that could create a world and all thats in it couldn't orchastrate there to be a holy works that would come down through time revealing what was needed to be known and when so to speak....that seems quite literally possible to me and makes logical sense even...

You are taking bits and pieces others have given to you and synthesizing them into a consistent whole by bridging them with speculation. I'd certainly call that rationalization. Mysticism is the ultimate religious rationalization, whereby all paths that lead to religious experience become equal. If your going to rationalize, why not go all the way?

Originally posted by think2much
as for mystcism-well which should I embrace...Christian mysticism or another...

If you embrace mysticism, you will discover it doesn't matter which type you embrace. Mysticism is about the religious experience itself, rather than philosophy or dogma.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted by think2much
What is being hid, by whom, and why? These things are written plainly in the Bible and yet go unseen and unnoticed...or unappreciated. The Bible is plain about these things....why are leaders so vague about them? I don't have the answers, but I firmly believe the questions are valid.
[edit on 31-12-2005 by think2much]

This was the end of what was originally posted plague. He asks a question requiring wisdom. I gave him the path to get the wisdom. How is that converting again? And as for the other thing about following threads, I have and it is a clear message from these folks who gang rush any threads about Christianity. So there.

i'm one of those people that rushes to christianity threads because they are the most active threads relating to religion and theology.

the world has grey areas (besides the background of the ATS board of course), okay, stupid puns aside.

1godjesus, do you believe that religion is founded on FAITH?
is there any proof to support everything about any particular religion?
do you believe in only one path to wisdom? if so, why?
exactly what how do you define converting?
finally, what do you think about other religions?

Originally posted by spamandham
If you embrace mysticism, you will discover it doesn't matter which type you embrace.

One does not embrace the mystery---the mystery embraces the mystic.

"Who is behind the Biblical Deceptions?"

There is abundant evidence to show, from the early christian writers as from the Jews themselves, that the things stated in that book (Genesis) were not believed to be facts. Why they have been believed as facts since that time, when better and fuller knowledge existed on the case than is known now,

can be accounted for only on the imposition of priestcraft.

--
Augustine, one of the early champions of the christian church, acknowledges in his 'City of God' that the adventure of Eve and the serpent, and the account of Paradise, were generally considered as fiction or allegory. He regards them as allegory himself, without attempting to give any explanation, but he supposes that a better explanation might be found than those that had been offered.

Origen, another early champion of the church, says, "What man of good sense can ever persuade himself that there were a first, a second, and a third day, and that each of these days had a night when there were yet neither sun, moon, nor stars? What man can be stupid enough to believe that God, acting the part of a gardener, had planted a garden in the east, that the tree of life was a real tree, and that its fruit had the virtue of making those who eat of it live forever?"

Maimonides, one of the most learned and celebrated of the Jewish Rabbins, who lived in the eleventh century, is very explicit in his book entitled 'Moreh Nebuchim,' upon the non-reality of the things stated in the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis.

"We ought not (says he) to understand, nor take according to the letter, that which is written in the book of the creation, nor to have the same ideas of it which common men have; otherwise our ancient sages would not have recommended with so much care to conceal the sense of it, and not to raise the allegorical veil which envelopes the truths it contains. The book of Genesis, taken according to the letter, gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Whoever shall find out the sense of it, ought to restrain himself from divulging it. It is a maxim which all our sages repeat, and above all with respect to the work of six days. It may happen that some one, with the aid he may borrow from others, may hit upon the meaning of it. In that case he ought to impose silence upon himself; or if he speak of it, he ought to speak obscurely, and in an enigmatical manner, as I do myself, leaving the rest to be found out by those who can understand me."

This is, certainly, a very extraordinary declaration of Mairnonides taking all the parts of it. First, be declares, that the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis is not a fact, and that to believe it to be a fact gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Secondly, that it is an allegory. Thirdly, that the allegory has a concealed secret. Fourthly, that whoever can find the secret ought not to tell it.

It is this last part that is the most extraordinary. Why all this care of the Jewish Rabbins, to prevent what they call the concealed meaning, or the secret, from being known, and if known to prevent any of their people from telling it? It certainly must be something which the Jewish nation are afraid or ashamed the world should know. It must be something personal to them as a people, and not a secret of a divine nature, which the more it is known the more it increases the glory of the creator, and the gratitude and bappiness of man. It is not God's secret but their own they are keeping. I go to unveil the secret.

The case is, the Jews have stolen their cosmogony, that is, their account of the creation, from the cosmogony of the Persians, contained in the books of Zoroaster, the Persian lawgiver, and brought it with them when they returned from captivity by the benevolence of Cyrus, king of Persia. For it is evident, from the silence of all the books of the bible upon the subject of the creation, that the Jews had no cosmogony before that time. If they had a cosmogony from the time of Moses, some of their judges who governed during more than four hundred years, or of their kings, the Davids and Solomons of their day, who governed nearly five hundred years, or of their prophets and psalmists, who lived in the mean time, would have mentioned it. It would, either as fact or fable, have been the grandest of all subjects for a psalm. It would have suited to a tittle the ranting poetical genius of Isaiah, or served as a cordial to the gloomy Jeremiah. But not one word, not even a whisper, does any of the bible authors give upon the subject.

To conceal the theft, the Rabbins of the second temple have published Genesis as a book of Moses, and have enjoined secresy to all their people, who by travelling or otherwise might happen to discover from whence the cosmogony was borrowed, not to tell it. The evidence of circumstances is often unanswerable, and there is no other than this which I have given that goes to the whole of the case, and this does.

Disgenes Laertius, an ancient and respectable author, has a passage that corresponds with the solution here given. In speaking of the religion of the Persians as promulgated by their priests or magi, he says the Jewish Rabbins were the successors of their doctrine.


Aben-Ezra, a celebrated Jewish author has made a great many observations, too numerous to be repeated bere, to show that Moses was not, and could not be, the author of the book of Genesis, nor of any of the five books that bear his name.

Spinoza, another learned Jew, recites in his treatise on the ceremonies of the Jews, ancient and modern, the observations of Aben-Ezra, to which he adds many others, to shew that Moses is not the author of those books. He also says, and shews his reasons for saying it, that the bible did not exist as a book till the time of the Maccabees, which was more than a hundred years after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity.



To summarize;
First, that certain parts of the book cannot possibly have been written by Moses, and that the other parts carry no evidence of having been written by him.

Secondly, the universal silence of all the following books of the bible, for about a thousand years, upon the extraordinary things spoken of in Genesis, such as the creation of the world in six days -- the garden of Eden -- the tree of knowledge -- the tree of life -- the story of Eve and the Serpent -- the fall of man and of his being turned out of this fine garden, together with Noah's flood, and the tower of Babel.

Thirdly, the silence of all the books of the bible upon even the name of Moses, from the book of Joshua until the second book of Kings, which was not written till after the captivity, for it gives an account of the captivity, a period of about a thousand years. Strange that a man who is proclaimed as the historian of the creation, the privy-counsellor and confidant of the Almighty -- the legislator of the Jewish nation and the founder of its religion; strange, I say, that even the name of such a man should not find a place in their books for a thousand years, if they knew or believed anything about him or the books he is said to have written.

Fourthly, the opion of some of the most celebrated of the Jewish commentators that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis, founded on the reasons given for that opinion.

Fifthly, the opinion of the early christian writers, and of the great champion of Jewish literature, Maimonides, that the book of Genesis is not a book of facts.

Sixthly, the silence imposed by all the Jewish Rabbins, and by Maimonides himself, upon the Jewish nation, not to speak of anything they may happen to know or discover respecting the cosmogony (or creation of the world) in the book of Genesis.

From these circumstances the following conclusions offer:

First, that the book of Genesis is not a book of facts.

Secondly, that as no mention is made throughout the bible of any of the extraordinary things related in [it], Genesis has not been written till after the other books were written, and put as a preface to the Bible. Every one knows that a preface to a book, though it stands first, is the last written.

Thirdly, that the silence imposed by all the Jewish Rabbins and by Maimonides upon the Jewish nation, to keep silence upon every thing related in their cosmogony, evinces a secret they are not willing should be known. The secret therefore explains itself to be, that when the Jews were in captivity in Babylon and Persia they became acquainted with the cosmogony of the Persians, as registered in the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the Persian lawgiver, which, after their return from captivity, they manufactured and modelled as their own, and ante-dated it by giving to it the name of Moses. The case admits of no other explanation.

From all which it appears that the book of Genesis, instead of being the oldest book in the world, has been the last written book of the bible, and that the cosmogony it contains has been manufactured.