The Books With The Power To Deceive – Allegorical Scriptures For An Allegorical World: A reality the Church has never been able to address and come to terms with, is the statement by Peter as quoted in the Homilies of his disciple Clement portraying the scriptures as “…the books which are able to deceive” — stating that the scriptures contain “falsehoods” written into the literal text. And it is often these “falsehoods” that are intentionally inserted into the scriptures that are portrayed as inconsistencies and (historical) flaws and anomalies in the written word by religious critics. But are they? One of the realities of mind that is not understood is the fact that the scriptures are designed to evolve the Intuitive Spheres of mind that are able to bring about Wholeness of Perceptive-Vision and understanding (see Linear Vs Intuitive Development Of Mind ). Therefore the authors of the scriptures had no interest in creating an historical account that would be little more than worthless fodder for the Linear spheres of mind — but rather, a means to open the mind of mankind who is portrayed as the prodigal son the necessary enlightened vision to perceive man’s higher Soul-Reality. And what this means is that each citing and portrayal of a supposed historical event, is unique unto itself — and is not supposed to reflect or parallel any other similar account. The people, places, events and things must be understood within their own unique context, in order to understand the aspect of mind and spirit that is being portrayed in the quasi-historical facade.
In the year 1707, John Mill shattered all faith in the infallibility of the Bible by demonstrating 30,000 various readings which were produced from 80 manuscripts. The findings of, first Mill, and then Wetstein (1751), proved once and for all that the variations in the biblical texts, many of which were quite serious, had existed from the earliest of times. The problem was that many of these inconsistencies and variant readings were intended by the authors to be in the exact place they appeared in the text. These discordances and inconsistencies are so divergent and conflicting that it states in the review of the book, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible (Religion in America)
by Peter J. Thuesen (Author):
As indicated by the title, this book chronicles the vicious debates between American Protestants over the translation and publication of different versions of the Bible, particularly the American Standard Version (1885) and the Revised Standard Version (1952). Limited to this topic, Thuesen does well. But the title is misleading; much of this book deals with other translations and with the Protestant/Roman Catholic controversy over the Bible. If the author had wished to write a longer history of problems with Bible translation, he could easily have found disagreement as early as the fourth century, when Jerome picked and discarded extant Latin texts as he prepared the Vulgate translation; or he could have given more detail about the work of the King James translators. The achievement of this book is that it demonstrates that the historical and literary discoveries of the 19th century became the theological controversies of the 20th century. Many new discoveries about biblical texts have been made in recent years; the information offered here about how the Bible has been translated to suit theological tastes and publishers’ expectations of profits is shocking indeed.
What the translators and body of believers fail to understand, is the fact that the alleged discordances and inconsistencies were intentionally inserted into the text of the scriptures for a number of important reasons. Admittedly, what is truly difficult for the untransformed carnal mindset to understand, is that each of the variant readings are unique to understanding that passage of scripture from that particular author from a spiritual perspective. It has been long noted that there is no unity and common witness of the Gospels on the crucifixion accounts. The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke contradict each other’s records of the crucifixion, even on the parts that would be seen as the most important. Each of the Gospel accounts portray Jesus as having died at different times of the day — wherein he supposedly spoke to different people — gave different sets of final words and confusingly different accounts of the circumstances surrounding the death of Jesus. It is not simply a case that they recorded different details: the actions of Jesus in each gospel reflect general differences in opinion about what Jesus’ character should be. In Mark’s sombre account Jesus is silent and mocked by all around him, and cries out in despair at the end. But in Luke and John Jesus is talkative, gives advice, and is surrounded by followers even while on the cross. Despite the massive impact they would have had on entire communities, the gospel writers also record different supernatural events occurring upon Jesus’ death too. Matthew 27:51-53 describes Earthquakes and the rising of the dead — things which no-one else at all noticed. Each gospel writer states their version as fact even though it is clear that no agreement exists among the Gospel accounts.
Where the critics will reject the crucifixion account on what they perceive to be flawed and conflicting accounts, it remains beyond their comprehension that the Gospels are not at all meant to be historical accounts — and each of the Gospel narratives must be understood as a unique spiritual account — sometimes portraying the experiences of different spheres and aspects of mind (see http://TreeOfLife.Nazirene.org ). From the perspective of the twelve spheres of mind, each of the spheres experienced what is portrayed as the crucifixion or allegorical portrayal of the Final Stage of Birth differently. And if we were able to read many of the Gospel accounts suppressed by the Church, we would find no historical agreement among those with the four Gospels we presently possess.
Sometimes the accounts are intentionally different within the same scripture. Acts 9:7 reads: “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man”. Yet, in Acts 22:9 the narrative reads: “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me”. It means absolutely nothing for the modern reader to believe that Saul was converted on the road to Damascus — there is no spiritual edification or uplifting when we relate this knowledge to an historical event at the beginning of our Common Era. But what is conveyed spiritually is of great value to the disciple in search of the Light — and must bring about a change of mind in his quest to open the door to the Kingdom. Thus the disciple begins to see his own transformation from the death of Stephen as spirit became clothed with flesh, to Saul — from a Jew to Paul — from Paul the little one, whose blindness was healed by Ananias — the gift from God. The many points at which the scriptures conflict in order to force the reader to look for the inner meaning is so numerous, that an entire book could be written in their compilation. Acts 7:14 has 75 persons coming with Jacob into Egypt — Gen 46:27; Ex 1:5; Deut 10:22 state there were 70. Acts 7:16-17 has Jacob buried in Shechem — Gen 49:28-30; 50:13 buried in Mamre which is Hebron according to Gen 23:19. If the Holy Spirit wrote both sets of scriptures, there should have been uniformity between them. Moreover, if the New Testament authors were attempting to convince others that they knew what they were speaking about from a literal sense, they would have been very careful to get the facts correct.
Perhaps one of the finest examples of the organic mind’s attempt to explain away from a purely physical/carnal perspective what it should be investigating, is demonstrated in the genealogies of Jesus. The fact that the genealogy presented in Luke is not the same as that in Matthew, has long been the source of many dogmatic theories. But the fact that the genealogy in Matthew contains four women, and three foreigners, should immediately send up a red flag warning that these genealogies cannot — and never were intended — to be read literally. Two of the women were strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, Rachab a Canaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth the Moabitess. In the pedigree of the kings of Judah, between Joram and Ozias (v. 8), there are three left out, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah — and therefore Joram could not have begat Ozias. When it is said (v. 12) that Jechonias begat Salathiel, that Jechonias was the son of that Jehoiakim who was carried into Babylon, the scriptures tell us that Jechonias was childless (Jer. 22:30), and in direct contradiction to what is written in Matthew, it is written that “No man of his seed shall prosper”. In order to insure that the genealogies cannot be read literally, it is further stated in Matthew: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ” (Matt 1:17 NIV). With regard to the many problems presented in the genealogies, the Adam Clark Commentary writes: [Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:] There are three considerable difficulties in this verse.
1. Josias was not the father of Jechonias; he was only the grandfather of that prince: (1 Chr. 3:14-16)
2. Jechonias had no brethren; at least, none are on record.
3. Josias died 20 years before the Babylonian captivity took place, and therefore Jechonias and his brethren could not have been begotten about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
To this may be added a fourth difficulty, namely, there are only thirteen in this 2nd class of generations; or forty-one, instead of forty-two, in the whole