Hidden Agenda behind Inquisition; Censoring Scriptures via Murder

I dug into my boxes of books and found "Metaphysical Bible Dictionary"/Unity, put out in 1931, by Unity School of Christianity, Lee's Summit, Mo.
It's a large dictionary with this about Molech; "The national god of the Ammonites, Children were sacrificed in the fire to Molech."
Levticus 18:21, 20:2-5, 1 Kings 11:7 KJV.

"If any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers, that dwell in Israel, give of his seed to the idol Moloch, dying let HIM die: the people of the land shall stone him"-Leviticus 20:2

The Jehovahs Witnesses were reportedly founded by a freemason, and their Bible study books also confirm child burning sacrifices to Moloch. Half the dictionary section on Moloch is titled "Child sacrifice to Moloch" citing Ezekiel 23:4/36-39 & 20:26/3 & 16:20 & 2 Kings 17:17, Deuteronomy 12:31, Psalm 106:37-38 & 137:8-9 KJV or, in other versions it's 105:37-38 & 137:8-9, 1 Kings 11:7-8 KJV or 3 Kings other versions, 2 Kings 16:3 & 21:6, Jeremiah 7:31 & 19:4-5 & 32:35.

Those who reject the Bible as a source of history are agenda driven.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
It's a large dictionary with this about Molech; "The national god of the Ammonites, Children were sacrificed in the fire to Molech."

I think that we all agree upon this.

The Jehovahs Witnesses were reportedly founded by a freemason,

You are thinking of the mormons.

and their Bible study books also confirm child burning sacrifices to Moloch.

Ok, and???

Those who reject the Bible as a source of history are agenda driven.

Where does any of that say that Baal was worhsipped by the druids and that the druids burned their children to him? You seem to be thinking that any ritual involving a cremation and a statue is worship of moloch, whom you erroneously say is just another word for a god normally called Baal.

The BC ritual is illustrative of this. Its not moloch worship, its not Baal worship. There is a rock that was either made to look like an owl, orthat happened to look like an owl (and is recognized as such). There is a pit with a fire in it. A strawman is thrown into the pit. He represents a persons troubles, cares, and worries. They are cremating their cares. They are not sacrificing children. They are not burning them inside the statue or in its heated hands. The statue is not of a bull. They statue is not recognized as a god (ie is an idol). The god is not demanding the sacrifices be made to it. Its like saying that a cremation of a corpse is baal worship. Or that the rite of suttee is Baal worship. Its not.
Moloch is only worshipped by the ammonites, a tribe of israelis. Baal is merely a semitic word that means something like 'lord'. Indeed, Moloch is thought to be a word that simply means 'sacrifice'.


Now, once again, can you, or can you not, show that the Druids either:

1. Worshipped Baal
   
   or
   
   
2. Sacrificed children in fires

Or are you basing this entirely upon the similarity between the words 'beltain' and 'baal'??? Which is especially strange since Baal doesn't have children burned in sacrifice to him, rather moloch does.

Originally posted by Nygdan

"I think that we all agree upon this."

[b/] You've been denying that all along!

The Jehovahs Witnesses were reportedly founded by a freemason,

"You are thinking of the mormons."

[b/] No I'm not, though Mormons also are Mason founded.

[quote/]
"Where does any of that say that You seem to be thinking that any ritual involving a cremation and a statue is worship of moloch, whom you erroneously say is just another word for God"

[b/] I NEVER said any such thing, rather a war between Baalism & the Bible figures as Elijah & Jehu etc CONTINUES to this day. You lied again Nygdan!

[quote/] "There is a pit with a fire in it. A strawman is thrown into the pit. He represents a persons troubles, cares, and worries. They are cremating their cares. They are not sacrificing children."

[b/] Jones didn't get near enough to confirm or deny if the sacrifices were real or as you claim straw, so, you've been there to witness? I heard pained screams in the Bohemian Grove film.

[quote/]"Or are you basing this entirely upon the similarity between the words 'beltain' and 'baal'??? Which is especially strange since Baal doesn't have children burned in sacrifice to him, rather moloch does."

[b/] I didn't invent the other spelling for Baal as Bel, as in the extra book of Daniel called "Bel and the Dragon", and the name Beelzebub. Moloch IS part of Baalism.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
You've been denying that all along!

I've been saying that the only place we really see worship of moloch and a moloch ritual is in the bible.

No I'm not, though Mormons also are Mason founded.

cite
What about the Church of Jehovah's Witnesses? This church was founded by Charles T. Russell. Russell was certainly well acquainted with the Occult and Masonry because he used the 33rd Degree Masonic Symbol 9winged sun-disk with opposing snakes) in some of his books! He also used the Knights Templar symbol (a cross inside a crown sometimes encircled by a wreathe or glory) in a number of his papers and books. Russell is also buried in a pyramid with Masonic symbols on its capstone.

Familiarity however doesn't mean membership, and indeed some of these symbols are rather commonplace. Also, the implication is that he had received the 33rd degree (if familiarity means membership), which should be rather easy to demonstrate, accurate records on that sort of thing are kept and are known.

Here is an intersting article:
Was C Russel a Mason?

Notice that he refers to Mason as "them" and "they", excluding himself and the brethren. [...]Russell did say "Now I am a free and accepted Mason" but, in context it is obvious he was not, because he included all his brethren in the faith as being "Masons" as well. He also said they were all Masons, but "not after the style of our Masonic brethren."

I hadn't heard this before tho, thought you were talking about the Mormons, where the case is more open and shut. Intersting.

I NEVER said any such thing

You insist that the Bohemian Club ceremony is a druidic moloch/baal ritual.

Jones didn't get near enough to confirm or deny if the sacrifices were real or as you claim straw

If you can't confirm that it was an actual person then you shouldn't be saying it was a real person.

I didn't invent the other spelling for Baal as Bel, as in the extra book of Daniel called "Bel and the Dragon", and the name Beelzebub. Moloch IS part of Baalism.

These arguments are simply too weak to be convincing, you are simply saying that these other bels were also baal. And, since the druids did not speak a semitic language, its even more of a stretch.

Originally posted by Nygdan

I've been saying that the only place we really see worship of moloch and a moloch ritual is in the bible."

While you claim that Bohemian Grove rituals are something else...What kind of rituals ARE practiced at Bohemian Grove, if Alex is making up false claims as you claim without evidence, though he has extensive history of the Grove documented?

You insist that the Bohemian Club ceremony is a druidic moloch/baal ritual.

History of the Grove at www.infowars.com... (6th link), you try to portray anything Alex says as invented facts, though Alex always cites his sources of info. He didn't make it up. Prove it's not Druidic/Moloch ritual, & what it IS instead.

If you can't confirm that it was an actual person then you shouldn't be saying it was a real person."

If you can't confirm it was a straw man, you shouldn't allege that it was. I said I heard pained screams in the Bohemian Grove film, not that I could see a real person dying from afar.

These arguments are simply too weak to be convincing, you are simply saying that these other bels were also baal. And, since the druids did not speak a semitic language, its even more of a stretch.

Is NOT Beelzebub from Baalism? Is NOT Daniel speaking of Baal as Bel? Did not jews migrate to England? I didn't name BELtaine after Baal, it's Druidic origin. Your argument against any of this is weak.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
What kind of rituals ARE practiced at Bohemian Grove

They are clearly not druidic rituals, since the druids never did anything like this, and they are clearly not worshipping Moloch, since they are burnign their cares and stresses in effigy, not making a sacrifice to a god, and since the statue is of an owl, not a bull, such as moloch is supposed to be represented. If they are a continuation of the amorites or any moloch worshipping cult, then they certainly would not change the idol, the god himself.

History of the Grove at www.infowars.com... (6th link), you try to portray anything Alex says as invented facts, though Alex always cites his sources of info. He didn't make it up.

I see two citations there, one to a new york post article about a porn star being a member, and the supposing to be a transcript of nixon lamenting that the members are gay. This is not much in the way of research.
Also, Jones specifically notes:

Sacrificing a Human Being in Effigy to What They Call the "Great Owl of Bohemia."

They are not sacrificing a person, and the statue is not recognized as being of moloch, but as an owl. If anything, you have a case for athena worship, not moloch. Also, notice:

Now, for the First Time in History, an Outsider Has Infiltrated Bohemian Grove with a Hidden Digital Video Camera and Caught the Ritual on Tape.

Jones alleges that the Bohemian Club allways performs this ritual, every year. however, a moderate study of the group's history indicates that they do not, infact do this, and that the members are as much intersted in doing sketches and bits from shakespeare plays, playing hijinx on one another, and also taking an interest in cross cultural studies, as anything else.

Prove it's not Druidic/Moloch ritual, & what it IS instead.

There is no mention of moloch-baal worship in any of the sources contemporary with the druids, not that I have seen. Therefore, one cannot say that they worshipped ball-moloch. As far as what it is instead, its simply a ritual in which a persons concerns and exasperations are immolated. Indeed, its very much like the Burning Man festival in nevada, where the revelry is culminated in a ceremony in which a giant effigy of a man, who specifically represents the frustrations of the guys who started the whole thing, is set on fire, a cathartic release.

Did not jews migrate to England?

Certainly not in the time that we are talking about.

I didn't name BELtaine after Baal, it's Druidic origin.

The druids existed long long before there were any jews in their doman, which is quite a bit larger than bonnie old england. Baal cannot be said to be corrupted into Bell merely because of a gross similarity between the names.

Is NOT Beelzebub from Baalism?

Please demonstrate that it was. And, again, Baal is a semitic word for 'lord' or 'god', not a specific god.

Is NOT Daniel speaking of Baal as Bel?

First off, you were saying that its the spelling that connects Baal to Belltain via the spelling of Baal as Bel in Bel and the Dragon. Problem is, semitic uses a different writting system than celtic. Doesn't make sense to say that because Baal is sometimes called Bel that therefore the stem Bell- means Baal in every language everywhere.
Second, the story of bel and the dragon states that the idols name is Bel. Not baal. Not Belltain, not anything other than Bel. It doesn't say its moloch, it says its Bel. What probably is going on here is that the story talks about a babylonian god, a Baal, and confuses the word for into Bel. I mean, obviously we're assuming here that the word Baal could be confused into Bel, but this doesn't mean that everytime a Bel, baal, or B'al is mentioned that we're talking about the same god and the same religion. Moloch as worshipped by the ammonites is different from the Bel worshipped in babylon in teh Bel and the Dragon story, and Baal as worshipped in other parts of the levant is not the same as Moloch, or the same as Bel, or any of that. There is a profusion of idols refered to as 'baal' becuase baal is a semitic word for 'the lord'.

I mean, you seem to be saying that any god anywhere that has a 'buh' or 'ba' or 'bey' sound in its name is therefore a continuation of the worship of a god originally called Baal from phonecia, whether or not there can be a connection between the peoples of this other region and phonecia, or wether or not the rituals for the god are even the same.

Originally posted by Nygdan

If anything, you have a case for athena worship"

OH? Since when does Athena worship have mock OR real human sacrifice?

[quote/] "There is no mention of moloch-baal worship in any of the sources contemporary with the druids, not that I have seen."

You didn't look then. I Googled these from results page 1; "bonfires lit in memory of DRUID BAAL fires" at
www.englishculture.allinfoabout.com...
www.ancintegypt.hypermart.net... which states the name Beltaine refers to Baal.

Is NOT Beelzebub from Baalism?
"Please demonstrate that it was."

The name Beelzebub was never in the Bible until Christ was accused of being the power of Beelzebub. It isn't repeated after either.

Concordances all give reference to names like; Beelpeor, as reference to Baal, as in Baalbek Lebanon.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
OH? Since when does Athena worship have mock OR real human sacrifice?

Since when do druids sacrifice children to moloch? The point was that if the BC ritual is moloch because of the fire, then it may as well be athena for having an owl, since when does moloch worship involve owls, moloch is a bull-man.

You didn't look then. I Googled these from results page 1; "bonfires lit in memory of DRUID BAAL fires" at

Firstly, I said sources contemporary with the druids. The page you cite, while interesting, is not contemporary with the druids by about two thousand years.

www.ancintegypt.hypermart.net... which states the name Beltaine refers to Baal.

I assume you mean this page
ancientegypt.hypermart.net...

The basic argument of that page is that Baal worship starts over worship of the constellation Taurus, and that it pops up everywhere at once or spread from sumeria/the levant. The idea that the worship was assoicated with taurus is forgotten over the years, and the baal festival/holy days, which should be in autumn because of a particular happening with the constellation, is eventually moved to Spring and given a different meaning. They present no evidence for this. They also erroneously note that any god from teh levant is actually the god named "Baal". They simply note that the word baal is similar to the word beltane. They don't explain how a semitic word spoken in israel and turkey gets to north-western europe in essentially the same form. They really don't do anything other than say that the words are the same, and waive their hands to say that the people, who were paying enough attention to the stars to notice the 'dawning of the age of taurus' and commemorate it with a fall festival for their bull-god, somehow completely forgot all this, and even forgot to have it in the fall, and instead have a beltane festival in the spring.
Wikipedia notes:

from Irish Beáltaine or Scottish Gaelic Bealtuinn; both from Old Irish Beltene, "bright fire"[...]Early Gaelic sources from around the 10th century state that the Druids would

So, again, the source is from several centuries after the druids were gone and the land had been long since christianized, and apparently it means 'bright' or at most 'the sun', from "the ancient continental Celtic sun and healer God, Belenus. ", not Baal.

And, notably, the festival does not apparently exist amoung the celts, only amougn the druids. If it was passed from Turkey to ireland, then we'd expect that people in between would celebrate it to, or even that in turkey and israel they'd celebrate the same thing in the fall and then somewhere along the line to ireland in the spring. Even better (though this is a stringent requirement and the idea by no means fails upon the failure of this to turn up) to have a more eastern culture have a bull festival with fires and sacrifices in the fall associated with this stellar event and meaning, then progressive loss of information westward, such as having a ritual in poland or north italy or thrace where the stellar meaning is lost, but the feast is still in the fall, and finally a fire celebration without the bull, stellar meaning, or god in the spring in ireland.
But without anything remotely like that, includng a fall festival to a stellar bull-god involving fires in the middle east, its utterly senseless to say that a spring feast with bright fires dedicated to a sun god of the crops and fertility has anything to do with an evil bull god who demands that children be burned in his statue upon request.

"Babylon", is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew word "Babel", and is translated as both "Confusion" and "Gate of Bel".

This is untrue. The founders of the city of babylon spoke an undeciphered language. They were replaced by a group of invaders who spoke a semitic language, the ctiy 'babylon' sounded like 'heaven's gate, gate to god' in their language, its not what the city originally meant, and it has nothing to do with the greek word for confusion.

www.kypros.org...
confusion = σύγχυση synchysi
babble = φλυαρώ flyaro

The Beltane Festival was also known as "the bringing down of the Sun". This refers to the astronomical event, which occurred on September 21st 4468BCE when the Autumn (Fall) Equinox of the Sun was in conjunction with the Milky Way

Where is it called this and why is it specifically that event????

Also, why is that page informative with respect to the thesis you want to support, but not with, say, the other conclusions it makes, such as that Jesus is just the fish-god, a representation of Pisces, in the same way that the bull-god ruled the religions in the age of Taurus, and the ram-gods ruled the Ram age?? Why is that conclusion, that jesus is nothing more than an expression of the rulership of Pisces over the world, not acceptable, even tho it uses the same logic, evidence, and criteria???

Concordances all give reference to names like; Beelpeor, as reference to Baal, as in Baalbek Lebanon.

Thats because baal means lord/god, not a specific god who's name is "Mr. Baal". Its not from 'Baalism', a religion centering upon the worship of Baal, which never seems to have even existed. Even the page you cite confuses any bal and names him Baal, as in the storm bal in their illustration.

Sorry for the late response... was at a convention this weekend.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
Alex has the photo history of the grove, besides current film
and that's not fiction he invented. If the statue is a match to the Talmud Molech statue of sacrifices, it wasn't Alex who arranged it.

Yes, Alex has a picture of a statue. He *SAYS* it's a "Molech statue of sacrifice."

Now... where are the pictures (photos, please) of archaeological sites with the "Molech statue of sacrifices"?

There are all sorts of drawings, and they're based on the Flaubert fictional novel. And please don't tell me "google it for yourself." I've done that. I think you should check Alex's sources very closely for yourself and ask yourself if HE has any pictures of ancient sites with these so-called statues.

I have seen Alex copy the old illustrations based on Flaubert's fiction (some lifted directly from that novel.) I haven't seen Alex come up with a single photo of an ancient site and ancient inscriptions.

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck

It's a large dictionary with this about Molech; "The national god of the Ammonites, Children were sacrificed in the fire to Molech."
Levticus 18:21, 20:2-5, 1 Kings 11:7 KJV.

"If any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers, that dwell in Israel, give of his seed to the idol Moloch, dying let HIM die: the people of the land shall stone him"-Leviticus 20:2

Ya need to look at the various translations again. It doesn't mean "burn/sacrifice"; the concept of "give." The original word "dederit" (in Latin) echoed by the original Hebrew and means "dedicate" as in "given to with the expectation that they become a part of the religion. doesn't mean kill.

It's an injunction to keep men from promising their wives that the child will be raised in the faith of the wife.

The Jehovahs Witnesses were reportedly founded by a freemason, and their Bible study books also confirm child burning sacrifices to Moloch.

But the Bible study books of other sects do NOT confirm it. And they point out (as I pointed out above) that studying the original texts does not lead to this conclusion.

Those who reject the Bible as a source of history are agenda driven.

So, you're maintaining that Egypt was uninhabited for 40 years (Eze. 29: 1-19) and the people had a huge diaspora that somehow never got mentioned by the Egyptians or other people?

That Nebuchanezzer managed to conquer Egypt (Eze. 29: 1-19) and somehow forgot to record his victory when he was putting up all those monuments to himself?

That pi acutally equals 3 and not 3.14?

That bugs have 4 legs? Lev 11:20-21

...and so on and so forth (including some cities such as Babylon that were supposedly completely destroyed and rendered uninhabitable forever?

I think you'll find that scientific and historical record don't always match the Bible and that the Bible is incorrect on a number of things... such as bugs and the behavior of ostriches.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
It's a large dictionary with this about Molech; "The national god of the Ammonites, Children were sacrificed in the fire to Molech."

I think that we all agree upon this.

Actually, we don't. Studies of ancient inscriptions and sites don't show that there was any such deity or sacrificial practice.

Yes, but I am saying that we agree that the bible states that the amorites worshipped moloch. As far as that being historically accurate, thats an entirely different matter. About the only place that Moloch exists, short of relatively modern recreations, is in the bible.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes, but I am saying that we agree that the bible states that the amorites worshipped moloch. As far as that being historically accurate, thats an entirely different matter. About the only place that Moloch exists, short of relatively modern recreations, is in the bible.

Oh.

You're right... the only source that mentions Moloch is the Bible. Even the cultures that supposedly worshipped Moloch don't mention Moloch.

Ooops. Tired Byrd-brain.

Hi James Dierbeck:

Baal-Zebul was a Canaanite deity ("lord of Wisdom") and Baal-Zebub seems to have been a Taunt Nickname ("lord of flies") used by Yahwists when referring to the gods of the aboriginal peoples of Canaan.

It's sort of like when you hear people sometimes saying "Baby Nuttin'Honey" instead of "Bebe Netanyahu": or "DubYa" for the current president Bush: it's meant to be insulting.

Clear as mud?

OH? Since when does Athena worship have mock OR real human sacrifice? (by James)

Originally posted by Nygdan
Since when do druids sacrifice children to moloch?

The point was that if the BC ritual is moloch because of the fire, then it may as well be athena for having an owl, since when does moloch worship involve owls, moloch is a bull-man."

I didn't place the Owl at Bohemian Grove that has a furnace belly like the bullman Moloch statues, and you avoided the point that Athena worship has no such rituals. Doesn't masonry include ALL religions, including Baalism?

"The page you cite, while interesting, is not contemporary with the druids by about two thousand years."

So I must produce a witness 2000 years old?

"They also erroneously note that any god from teh levant is actually the god named "Baal"

And where's proof that it's not?

from

"the ancient continental Celtic sun and healer God, Belenus. ", not Baal."

You've not proven that there's NO connection between Belenus & Baal.

"Babylon", is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew word "Babel", and is translated as both "Confusion" and "Gate of Bel".

"This is untrue."

I never stated that, so please, SPECIFY when you post a quote along with mine that's is NOT MINE.

The Beltane Festival was also known as "the bringing down of the Sun".
Where is it called this and why is it specifically that event????

AGAIN, I NEVER stated that, yet it's included AS IF it were MY statement, in violation of ATS rules.

"Its not from 'Baalism', a religion centering upon the worship of Baal, which never seems to have even existed."

You say Baalism never existed, because you reject the Bible as a chronicle of history, to make your case stronger."

Mod Edit: Fixed Quote Tag

[edit on 26/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Byrd

"Studies of ancient inscriptions and sites don't show that there was any such deity or sacrificial practice.

Please explain the motive implied by your insistance that the Bible LIED about such practice going on? WHY?"

Originally posted by Byrd

"You're right... the only source that mentions Moloch is the Bible. Even the cultures that supposedly worshipped Moloch don't mention Moloch."

What possible MOTIVE did ancient Bible figures have to lie about what they were fighting? IS the Bible not historical?

Originally posted by Byrd"and means "dedicate" as in "given to with the expectation that they become a part of the religion. doesn't mean kill."

Then explain the archeology find in Tunisia (Baalist) of burnt baby bones in jars cited by; www.dangoor.com...
Here's another site, since you'd reject also Catholic encyclopedia as a source;
www.jafi.org.il...

"So, you're maintaining that Egypt was uninhabited for 40 years (Eze. 29: 1-19) and the people had a huge diaspora that somehow never got mentioned by the Egyptians or other people?"

The Romans were the first sticklers for keeping records of everything.

"That Nebuchanezzer managed to conquer Egypt (Eze. 29: 1-19) and somehow forgot to record his victory when he was putting up all those monuments to himself?"

You have proof he did not? The zechariah death story involves a general of Nebuchanezzer, appeasing God of the Hebrews, in Jerusalem.

"That pi acutally equals 3 and not 3.14?"

What greatest of the prophets said that ESTIMATE? You're nitpicking as usual."

"That bugs have 4 legs? Lev 11:20-21

The moses era books were NOT written by prophets, but by chroniclers, including Genesis.

"...and so on and so forth (including some cities such as Babylon that were supposedly completely destroyed and rendered uninhabitable forever?"

You forgot to post what verse the alleged statement came from, which may be a prediction, rather than historic.

"I think you'll find that scientific and historical record don't always match the Bible and that the Bible is incorrect on a number of things... such as bugs and the behavior of ostriches.

As I said, you judge the whole Bible by Genesis (the Moses era transcription of Hebrew ORAL TRADITION by chroniclers not prophets) & Moses era chronicler books by unknown names, according to words of non-prophets in it, demanding that all be translated exactly accurately, & be infallable, though Jonah was fallable.

Y'all better consider that the predicted effects of a major meteoric hail & impact event IS scientifically accurate totally; global quake, waves roaring, part of earth scorched by superheated atmosphere, and darkened skies, all of which is repeated thoughout the non-Moses era Bible.

Mod Edit: Fixed Quote tag

[edit on 26/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck

Originally posted by Byrd

"Studies of ancient inscriptions and sites don't show that there was any such deity or sacrificial practice.

Please explain the motive implied by your insistance that the Bible LIED about such practice going on? WHY?"

I think you have a very good question -- why does the Bible say they "worshipped Moloch" when there are no temples to Moloch found in any of the cities, there are no inscribed prayers to Moloch anywhere, and no mention in any other culture that they worshipped a god named Moloch/Molech? We can read the writing of those people.

Why doesn't the Bible match what those people wrote about themselves? Or match the information from thousands of seals and inscriptions and other things they left behind them?

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
Then explain the archeology find in Tunisia (Baalist) of burnt baby bones in jars cited by; www.dangoor.com...
Here's another site, since you'd reject also Catholic encyclopedia as a source;
www.jafi.org.il...

There's writing on the jars. The infants are sacrifices to the goddess Tanit. Not Molech:
bmei.org...

"So, you're maintaining that Egypt was uninhabited for 40 years (Eze. 29: 1-19) and the people had a huge diaspora that somehow never got mentioned by the Egyptians or other people?"

The Romans were the first sticklers for keeping records of everything.

Sorry, that would be the Sumerians who lived long before the Romans. And the Egyptians, for that matter. And the Babylonians as well.

"That Nebuchanezzer managed to conquer Egypt (Eze. 29: 1-19) and somehow forgot to record his victory when he was putting up all those monuments to himself?"

You have proof he did not? The zechariah death story involves a general of Nebuchanezzer, appeasing God of the Hebrews, in Jerusalem.
Biblical scholars place Nebuchadnezzar at 600 BC:
www.theology.edu...

And the Pharoah as Necho, who lost a battle to Neb and control of the regions of the Middle East...but not Egypt:
www.bible-history.com...

The story in question says that ol' Neb completely destroyed Egypt and made it a barren waste and sent her people to wander homeless. Artifacts indicate that the Egyptian homelands were intact and that the pharoah and his successors enjoyed uninterrupted reigns.

The moses era books were NOT written by prophets, but by chroniclers, including Genesis.

...so you're saying that chroniclers make mistakes?

As I said, you judge the whole Bible by Genesis (the Moses era transcription of Hebrew ORAL TRADITION by chroniclers not prophets) & Moses era chronicler books by unknown names, according to words of non-prophets in it, demanding that all be translated exactly accurately, & be infallable, though Jonah was fallable.

Err... could you explain this one? I'm afraid that I'e missed your point, here.

Y'all better consider that the predicted effects of a major meteoric hail & impact event IS scientifically accurate totally; global quake, waves roaring, part of earth scorched by superheated atmosphere, and darkened skies, all of which is repeated thoughout the non-Moses era Bible.

I'm not sure what you're tying this in to... it's been a long day and I'm afraid that I'm not focused enough here because it's just not making sense. What prediction of a major meteoric hail (and what IS major meteoric hail?) It sort of sounds like the Cambrian Extinction event that you're describing but that was a single meteor of a certain size. And what darkened skies repeated throughout the Bible? And are you saying that the non-Moses Bible is full of errors? Or Bible manuscripts after Moses are full of errors? Or what?

Could you please explain further?