Secrets of the Bible
is against some writings of the Bible that blaspheme God.
against the people of Israel. I am a friend not an enemy of people of Israel!
The writer of this book is unknown. It is one of the most
ferocious books of the Old Testament indeed! Too much blood. Already
from the beginning it is written that God
"was speaking" to Joshua after the death
of Moses! In the book of Judges, God also "was speaking" to some
other people, and it goes on. The same things as
usual, God "was speaking" by the hours, some times to the one and other times to
God, they said, spoke to Joshua,
well, why not! But what did the Lord say? According to the unknown writers, God
said to Joshua, be strong and
courageous for you shall give this people possession of the land, which I swore
(God swore, to whom God would swore?) to their fathers. Only be strong and very
courageous, be careful to act according to all the law that Moses My servant
commanded you. The book of the law shall not depart
from your mouth. There is no use to analyse
and criticize everything they wrote,
but because they wrote correctly, (regardless if God
spoke to Joshua or not) that God wanted from Joshua to act according the law;
then I ask, what it is written in the law?
clearly, do not kill, do
not steal etc.
But it seems for those people, the law was nothing more than
written words. And although they wrote that God told him to act strictly
according the law, according to them, God also "told him"
(by a number of ways, according to them of course) not
to let anyone alive. And not only in battle, but not even babies and mothers! So according to
them, the slaughters of the babies and innocent occurred by
the "will and order" of God!!!! At the verses 10 and 11, of the first
chapter it is written that Joshua ordered the "rulers"
of the people and said to them. Speak to people and tell them to take provisions for three days,
because in three days they would cross the river to inherit the land, which God
would give them.
Now the question is, what kind of provisions they would take,
while, as it is written, they were eating manna, and, again according the writing,
were eating manna until after they crossed the river? It is also written, (and
these writings only might say the truth,
perhaps traditional or writing words belong to Joshua himself), they crossed the river by miracle, they set
stones that symbolize faith, and without any fight they camped at the western
banks of the Jordan River, and for first time after 40 years ate unleavened
bread from the grains of Canaan. Well, where did they find the flour after three
days, before they fight, and before conquered Jericho? As we saw at the previous
subject, if they had destroyed the Canaanites eastern of Jordan, and, as long Moses
was alive, before they crossed the river, then of course they
would have a lot of food, so, why would eat
bread for the first time after they crossed the river, having
Joshua as leader? At the chapter
5: 10-12 is written.
(While the sons of Israel camped at Gilgar, they observed
the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month on the desert
plains of Jericho. And on the day after the Passover, on the very day they ate
some of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. And the
manna ceased on the day after they had eaten some of the produce of the
land, so the sons of Israel no longer had manna.)
before they cross the river, didn't't have
any wheat and flour, and as they crossed the river without fight, and in three days,
then, how did they find the flour to make unleavened
bread? First needed to capture cities, defeating their enemies before taking
their grain stores. I repeat again, before they crossed the river, according the
writings, and while they were
eating manna, Joshua gave orders to prepare the people, and told them
to take provisions for three days. And I ask again, what kind
of provisions they would take, except food?
Their weapons, if they had any, they hold them by
So what kind of other provisions did they
take except food? But they wrote they were eating
manna until after crossed the river, and while crossed without a fight, then
where did they find the flour? Perhaps God didn't't
give them manna on those three days? Was perhaps the provisions manna? Well,
they did not write something like
that. They usually gave too many details, but
did not write at all that the provisions were manna, because God did
manna on those days. They did not write also that at those three days, and as
they were marching to Gilgar, they went to mow the farms of the Canaanites, if
of course was time for mowing. They did not write also they were carrying foods
and flour while were hungry.
They wrote that ate manna for 40 years, and about army that was ready
for war business against Jericho. So the Canaanites were in the city and the stores of
grain were in the city, which was protected by walls. Where then did they find
the flour after the Passover to feed the whole army? So again, if the provisions
were manna, then clearly they did not have flour to make bread after the
Passover. And if the provisions were flour and other kind of food, then clearly
again, they did not eat
bread for first time after the Passover at Gilgar. Now, or there is a lie, or
they were confused and did not
know what they were writing. It seems, the story of
the provisions of food belonged to other posterior war, and has nothing to do
with the previous slaves; rather it occurred some years after Joshua.
But if the provisions were manna, and
while they crossed the river without a fight, then very clearly emerges the
conclusion, that the Canaanites, because of their fear of God, and also because
those people came
from desert and were considered as brothers, accepted them without a
fight, by offering them food and land to stay on at the western banks of the
river. That seems to be the truth. The wars actually occurred
times, after the death of Joshua. It is written they crossed the river in a
miraculous way; meaning God was leading them by His way. But then why should
Joshua send spies to sound an alarm and cause the people of Jericho to panic?
The supplies, the preparations, the spies, panicking the enemy, etc, are clear
signs of any typical commander. If God "made wars" then certainly the Lord
does not need spies to
survey the areas and panic the enemy. But indeed God guided them His way,
while God liberated them from the slavery of Egypt. So
were moving by faith, and entered Canaan peacefully without
murdering the innocent. The stones they set in the river, symbolize faith.
Therefore were moving by faith and got established at the western banks of
The story of the prostitute Rahab, who hid the spies, is also
very strange as "accidental" her house "happened" to be on the walls.
Rahab appears in the genealogy of the Lord, and whether she was prostitute or
not, it would not make any
difference. Prostitutes are also daughters of man. The prostitute is of course a
daughter of Adam; she belongs to any genealogy, as the
saint is belonging, and also the liar, the robber, the legal exploiter etc. In
any case a prostitute is much better in morality than a rich thief. But the
question is, was she really a prostitute? The story of a prostitute who helped
spies probably belongs in another time. It seems that in the city of Jericho and
the other areas of Canaan as well, there used to live some Hebrew or other
Semitic tribes that contributed not to fight against the formal slaves, and as
it was heard they been protected by God, they offered
them grain, water and land. God took them out of slavery, and God established
them in the Promised Land in a peaceful and holy way, and that make sense.
In the book we can see a lot of mixed up things. We see
symbols and faith to God; we also see traditions, atrocities, crimes,
foolishnesses and "divine wars" by human methods, ambushes, cunning traps
and spies. And only the faith and the symbols match with God. The contradictions
are very observable, and prove that they were various
traditional beliefs and stories about various wars that
been mixed up
with the admission of Israeli people into Canaan. The ancient traditions appear
very clearly. For example it is written that God spoke to Joshua and said.
Make for yourself stone knives and circumcise the sons of
Israel a second time. And after the "second circumcision", God said to
Joshua. Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you. So the name of
that place is called Gilgar to this day. Joshua. 5: 2
Until today and at that time!
They were talking about some far away past! So, obviously,
the writers were based on rumours! They
also wrote very confusingly that the sons of Israel did circumcision and camped
at Gilgar. The name Gilgar means they did circumcision, and
that is why they called the place Gilgar. They meant that
by this action took away the reproach because
of slavery to the Egyptians. So they camped at Gilgar,
they did circumcision, Gilgar, and they called the place Gilgar. Well, maybe it
does not mean much. But
maybe it means a lot. Maybe the traditions were passing some information that
said; on that place some old tribal leaders performed
circumcision, and that is why they used to call the place Gilgar.
But the other question is, how
was it possible to roll away
the reproach by cutting the foreskin of the penis? Since when, and how
is it possible for a man to roll away and take away
his shame by this kind of act?
What was this circumcision that it had so magical abilities, and how
was it possible for God to ask
illogical things? The Lord Christ said, the circumcision comes from your
fathers, not from God. The stone knives,
inform us about a tradition of the Stone Age. Obviously,
the circumcision was a
tradition that started from the Stone Age, it had nothing to
do with this case, though without hesitating annexed it in the book of
According the tradition, the old deified tribal leaders and fathers used
to do circumcision by using stone knives, and so they thought by doing the same
thing, they could role away the reproach of Israel people because of the
slavery. So the circumcision was a tradition that started from the deified
ascenders. Those great ascenders used to emphasize their racial prestige. It was
the memory and the tradition of the great and distant ascenders who performed
circumcision by stone knives, for the simple reason
at that time they used stone tools. The stone as
symbol of faith has nothing to do in this case.
They were talking about shame and prestige, and of course
these things have nothing to do with the literal cutting of the foreskin. Regardless if
cut by stone knives or metal ones. But the traditions stated, the old fathers
used to do circumcision by stone knives, and that is why they remained famous
and unashamed, as they believed of course. So they should be like their famous ascenders, and should roll away
the reproach by cutting the foreskin! But of course all these are only human
perceptions. If indeed God would say something, as to roll away the reproach,
then it would be the assurance that all people are equal in front of Him.
Certainly God would never ever say that by cutting the foreskin
knives would roll away the reproach.
But let us see some other things that are written.
It is written that an Angel of God appeared to Joshua, who
was, as they say, the main commander of the war. The first thing the "Angel"
asked Joshua, according to them, was to take off his shoes! They are really
vexing! The Angel of God told him to take out his shoes! And the Angel of God
also helped them in cutting throats of children! It is really vexing, and indeed
you feel like suffocated from indignation. Those people were ready to go and
kill mothers and children, and what an absurdity, they
used to find out it was a sin to wear shoes! The killing of children was not a
sin, but to wear shoes was a sin!!! (It also shows the very
low spirituala level of the time, that we can see until our days in some
religions. It is not a sin to kill, it is sin to wear shoes in the temples, what
an absurdity!!). They are indeed very vexing! They are also
far more vexing and satanic by connecting their crimes and their nonsense with God
and His Angels.
The snake was in his kingdom. The evil creeping mind of the
creation put them to do and write whatever he wanted. It is also written that
Joshua spoke to the people and told them to protect themselves from the "anathema".
And the anathema was not to take at all from the valued plunders, but all that
anathema treasure had to be kept in the "treasury"
of the Lord. So Lord had a material treasury, and what a blasphemy, Lord "wanted" the cursed and snatched
plunders for Himself! To do what with them?? They used
to consider as anathema the people, even their innocent children, even their
animals. They considered anathema the golden and silver objects, but they
offered those cursed objects to God! Well, everyone understands the cunning of
the state rich people, who instead of admitting
they wanted for their own the
valued plunders, they said the cursed treasure should be kept
in God's treasury!
So according the writings someone
by the name Achan had
the unholy audacity to steal from the cursed plunders, and so this unholy act
raised God's "anger", but obviously, it was the
rulers who were very angry. After the stealing, they started losing battles, because God, as
they said, "did not fight" with them. What a "holy" and frighten, and
what cunning indignation to steal things that belongs to God! He is Perfect and
Spirit, what need does He have of gold and silver? And yet we see faithful
people even in our days offering similar vows to the
saints, as payments for some services, yet to understand that God does
not trade. Look how they used to warn and
terrorize the people, and yet do it. And although they say God was talking many
times to Joshua, but He did not say anything about the stealing. And when
Joshua was desperate and indignant resulting to tear his poor cloths, then he
protested to God saying.
"O Lord God why didst Thou ever bring this people over the Jordan, only
to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? And
if they destroy us what will Thou do with Thy great name?"
In another words, they suggested to the Creator of the world
what were His benefits. And they thought how bad would be for God if they were
destroyed and lost! If they were lost, God would be lost too!! As they wrote
about Moses, here similarly they ask themselves if God acts by "cunning"!!
In continuation we see Achan was arrested after stealing one
uniform, two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold of fifty shekels, and
hid them in the earth under his tent. There is no point asking if they even had
tents as were coming from the desert after 40 years of wandering, but they knew
what they wrote, because when the stealing happened they had tents and did
come from the desert!
But if it was God's orders, and after all those
things that happened in the desert with killings and revenges
according their writings) how would
Achan dare to do something like that after the
miracles, and knowing that the "cursed plunders belong"
to God? There is no point of this, and certainly the
worshippers of the cursed mammon never
gathered together Achan, his sons and daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his
sheep, his tent, and all that belonged to him, and after stoning them, burnt them in fire. They had to give a hard lesson by
warning anybody that would dare in putting his hand on what was considered as
their own. Behold how they wrote about God as a "horrible, unjust and pitiless
Who can insist that God the Father of our
Lord, and our Father, the
Fountain of love and justice, is the same god as those
authors write about? The god of whom they wrote is the
because when the evil interests talk, it is the Darkness
that talks. Achan, they said, stole some plunder, and he should be punished for
his action, but even so, by what kind of logic, and
by what kind of conscience,
would they burn his
children even his animals? Although they wrote, after that terrible crime, God
was "satisfied", and blessed them and gave their enemies to their hands.
Glory to our Holy God for His great patience, and for His great forbearance.
Glory to the Highest God and Father.
Of course the story of Achan has nothing to do with Joshua,
and it becomes very observable when we look closely the writings that are
contradictory. They wrote by giving details, and as it is written, the army
crossed the river first followed by their children? The last were the priests.
But they do not mention at all about passing of flocks too; neither said
anything about donkeys that crossed the river. Did they write anything about
flocks, or donkeys that passed the river? Did any innocent
donkeys passed the river? No. We read writings that mention
about a camped army outside the walls of Jericho, and were ready for war
business, but how was it possible to pasture also flocks of cows sheep and
donkeys? How would then burn Achan's flocks at that place they said,
while they had no flocks, and of course poor Achan, as a soldier at the war,
could not pasture also flocks!
But the terrible rich rulers, unhesitating
in their interests, the ascenders of secretaries and Pharisees hypocrites were
warning the people by a frightful unscrupulousness,
that would burn anyone who dared to put his hand upon their treasure. And so,
they burnt his children and anything that belonged to him as an example. And of
course all these things occurred in posterior times during the endless wars. They came to the point of
saying that God was throwing stones to kill their enemies, as the old father
gods did in their tradition, and elsewhere they wrote that God stopped the sun
to complete the "God pleasing" slaughter.
Although they thought were talking
about God, the Creator of universe, they also say that God could
not control some miserable army the next day,
although could stop the sun, and it seems it was absolutely necessary to
complete the slaughter that day, while the blood of revenge was boiling, and
hate was high. Who knows what might happen tomorrow, maybe things could change
and the enemy could be organized by better martial
methods, and so, God who could stop the sun,
it was possible to lose the battle
the next day!!!
Well, who was the one who said that stupidity has no relation with wickedness?
He was absolute wrong! Stupidity and wickedness go always together!
So in their ignorance they thought that wrote about God, but
indeed they wrote about some traditional god, who was a miserable and pathetic
tribal leader. Who were those who were throwing stones to kill enemies? Of
course the traditional gods tribal leaders were throwing stones from the hills,
as long were alive. Besides this absurdity, we also see sadistic pleasures. They
hanged the kings on wooden sticks and enjoyed their tortures. Well, they were
felons, but they, who kill babies and mothers, were "holy" and "blessed"
by God. We killed them all, they said, we killed all the residents of the city,
we killed all the men all the women, all the residents of Ai. Israel took only
the cattle and the spoil of that city as plunder for them "according to the
word of the Lord He had commanded Joshua".
So Joshua burned Ai and made it heap up forever, desolation
until this day. Which day are they talking about? And he hanged the kings of Ai
on a tree until evening. Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of
Israel on mount Ebal, "just as Moses had commanded the sons of Israel" etc,
etc. They are really vexing. Although have passed so many thousand years after
those atrocities and sinister crimes that happened in the name of the
Most-gracious God, we feel as suffocated from the indignation and anger.
Glorious is the Highest God for His patience and for His forbearance.
It is also written they demolished the walls of Jericho by
flutes and by the sound of their voices! Of course the lovely ever suffering
people of Israel, at that time, and now, are innocent, they have no relation
with all these things. Besides the people at that time had no other choice, and
whether they wanted or not had to obey orders, and as those orders were, as they
said, divine, what else would they do? Certainly the wars did
not occur at that
time by Joshua, but the slaughters of the innocent
occurred, and occurred
in the name of God by orders of the rich rulers. So we do
not talk against the lovely people of Israel,
we simply write about those mistrustful ancient rich rulers and about their
servants. In chapter 6 is written they demolished the walls
using their voices and by 7 flutes.
They were going around the walls as
spinning tops, and on the 7th day they went around 7 times. On the 7th they
trumped the flutes, and when the people shouted, the walls collapsed!! Now how
can we interpret this paradox, or rather not the paradox, but the paradoxical
writings? It is rather observable
that Moses wrote or said something,
(or some other Prophet) in
relation with the 7 trumpets of the Angels that are mentioned in the book of
Revelation. It seems it was about some prophecies mentioning about
the 7 trumpets before the end of the world, and about the domination of the Lord
on the 7th day. And those people thought that the prophecy was talking about
their domination on the other people. It seems they misinterpreted some
prophecies, and attached them falsified to the destruction of Jericho.
Otherwise all those paradoxes have no other meaning. Because
how was it possible to demolish the walls by shouts
and flutes? As it is known, the walls of Jericho had been demolished
some times, (according the history)
but of course never
been demolished by flutes. Of course someone would say it happened by a miracle,
but the question is, why would God do this kind of miracle? And if God would
make a miracle, why did they need the flutes
for? If it were about faith, what kind of
faith would demolish the walls, only to kill the guilty and the innocent? And
beside this, why did they need to panic the people of Jericho, while they would
kill them all any way. Yes of course, God could make a miracle and demolish the
walls, but how was it possible to help felons in cutting children's throats?
How was it possible to say, love the others but hate the others?
Be holy but
unholy, do not seek revenge, but let free your revenging mania to destroy them
Do not steal, but snatch children's means of life, cut the
breast of the mother, from which the child takes his first meal in his life. Do
care about the horror on his innocent little eyes, do not care about his cry;
do not be sorry for the little child, be inhuman, become a beast. Do
but pierce without a pity, and you "holy" man pierce without compassion,
children's sweat hearts. That was what the evil
Devil and his paranoiac
servants said, not of course God. And certainly, if God wants to destroy corrupted
people, then the Lord who is the Master of life can do it. Was it possible,
would God ever ask for help if Lord wanted to take revenge?
But God doesn't seek revenge while God loves all people.
Would God ever ask
people to kill, when already gave them laws, as do not kill, do
not steal, love the others as you love your
self? Not of course. But all these terrible acts
happened in the name of the Highest, provoke curse, provoke aversion of the
Highest against the unholy and evil.
The unholy and evil that was written as will of the All-holy and All-good God
provokes curse that unties the hands of the Devil, whoo does
not lose any
opportunity resulting more terrible sufferings, killings