Saturday, December 15, 2012

Page In Progress (12/15/12)

(The above is a page in progress, as we slowly but surely approach the apocalypse--like a beast steadily lurching towards Jerusalem?)

There's this touchy, feely, warm and fuzzy Christianity going around, being pervasive.  Somebody on Youtube pointed out that when a mature Christian calls out another "Christian" for being deceived or being a deceiver--other "Christians" will say that we are to love one another.  This is Luciferianism disguised as Christianity, which says that we must accept all sorts of wrong teachings and opinions within the body of Christ.  What many Christians must realize is that speaking the truth is showing love.  Of course we should be to the point when we speak forth the truth but also have the attitude of wanting to help somebody come out of deception.

  "1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." (1 Corinthians 6)

(When it comes to settling disputes within the church, those who are the least respected should be called to preside over such matters.  Doesn't happen very much today in such cases, I suspect.)

On the other hand, going around being holier than thou and accusing the brethren (so that we can look more righteous) is totally wrong.  As Jesus says in Matthew 7:1-5, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

There is a difference between the two kinds of judgment: the first kind being the right kind of judgment and the second kind being the wrong kind of judgment.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The Story Continues (12/12/12)

 Jesus Christ was YHVH Elohim--or Adonay YHVH--in the Old Testament.  Kabbalah says that YHVH is the ineffable name.  That cannot be: it was speakable, since the voice in the burning bush told Moses that the name he was to give to the Israelites was YHVH Elohim--translated "The LORD God" by the King James translators in Genesis 3:15.  That was Jesus' voice in the burning bush.
Now onto the issue of the "man of sin" being a Muslim (supposedly).  Where, O Man, does it say in the scriptures that the Antichrist will arise from among the Muslim nations?  He's called "Gog" in Ezekiel 38-39.  And where does Gog come from?  The north!
By the way, I've heard that the US is sending fighter jets to Egypt.  I see that Egypt will be the first of the three horns (Daniel 7:8) that the Antichrist will overcome.  Gog being the "king of the north" and Egypt being the "king of the south" in Daniel 11.  However, what is up first will be the Daniel 8 War, as I've said.  Very few Bible teachers or Bible scholars point this out.      

Monday, December 10, 2012

The Story Continues (12/8/12)

Hosea 2:11 says, "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts."  God is speaking of Scattered Israel, whose identity has been lost to them: Anglo-Saxons, Welsh, Scottish, French, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Greeks, Spanish, Austrians, Swiss and some others.  They need to wake up.  It's sad that only a remnant of them will do so.  The vast majority of them will take part in this ever-growing apostasy--culminating in them partaking of the strong delusion that God will send them, because they have no love for the truth.  Sad indeed.

Anyway, getting back to the above quote.  The Northern Tribes, after they were deported and scattered, no longer observed the feasts given to their fathers by Moses.  Likewise they quit observing the sabbaths.  But then the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom stopped observing the sabbaths and the feast days once they broke away from the House of David (earlier).

It's been said that Israel--God's chosen people--are the ones who maintain the world we live in, by way of them imagining this world.  And thus they sustain it.  1 Chronicles 29:17-18 says: "I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness...O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee."  Well, the Israelites today are not using their imagination for "uprightness," for the most part.  And they and the rest of the world are suffering severely because of this.  The Anglo-Saxons--the foremost of Israel--are for the most part engulfed in great deception.     

Anyway moving onto one Israelite author who really isn't helping, notwithstanding his superb ability as a writer.  Grant Morrison has an understanding of Genesis 1 and John 1.  I think he demonstrates this with a mini-series he wrote called "Final Crisis."  This story seems to be the apocalypse for the DC Comics universe (multiverse).  It ends with Superman saving the day by singing a song. 

The universe began with sound frequency: words uttered by God, causing creation to come into existence.  The Word was there in the beginning of creation.  All of creation, Morrison is saying, is constructed from sound.  According to Wikipedia, at the end of "Final Crisis," Superman is surrounded by darkness as he confronts the villain, Darkseid. 

Just as verse 2 of Genesis 1 is the aftermath of the First War in Heaven: the earth was in chaos, and darkness was over the deep waters.  Then God spoke and light appeared.  "...and God divided the light from the darkness."  (Gen. 1:3)  This is a reflection of the spiritual: light and darkness cannot mix.  "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5)

And as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 

Thursday, December 6, 2012

The Story Continues (12/6/12)

It's been said that we've been transitioning out of the Age of Pisces and into the Age of Aquarius.  Supposedly this period of transition began in 1845 and will end around 2200--when we will be in Aquarius proper.  2012 is the midpoint.
It looks like we will soon see the Daniel 8 war begin (once more).  And a few years down the line--after the deceptive peace--the Ezekiel 38 (also Daniel 11) war will take place.  That is the war in which the "man of sin" will come to his end.  Could it be that "the rest of the beasts...prolonged for a season and time" (Daniel 7:12) is speaking of those "beasts" or nations who were (from a future perspective) allied with the Antichrist--having survived armageddon--will finally be dealt with around the point where the Piscean age officially ends and the Aquarian age officially begins?  And Revelation 19:21--"the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse"--is speaking of the same thing? 

Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Story Continues (12/2/12)

Daniel 7:12 says, "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time."  Who are these beasts?  What we can discern is that they are the remnant of the beast army of the Antichrist--once he is obliterated from this earthly realm.
Let's look at Revelation 20 once more.  As I've said previously the 2nd beast (of Rev. 13)--or "son of perdition--is not judged by God at the "great white throne" judgment:" "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." (Rev. 19:20) 
Now it may be as Michael (shieldoftheson on Youtube) says, that Satan is bound up in the bottomless pit for a bit of time and then "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)  So when it says, "And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh:" (Rev. 19:21) this may occur a bit later, once the beast army is beaten and the Antichrist has already been flung--still alive (as stated above)--into the lake of fire.  It appears that this remnant is also referred to in Ezekiel 39:1-4: "Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel..."  It may be that the "sixth part" that is spared is the "rest of the beasts" of Daniel 7:12 who are allowed to live for a short time.  Michael is saying that the thousand years may actually be way shorter than a literal thousand years (time in the 4th and higher dimensions--that is in heaven--being different than time in our 3-D realm).
Ezekiel 39:7 says, "So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel."  This is speaking mainly of Manasseh (USA), though Ephraim (England) and the rest of scattered Israel are spoken of too.
Psalm 83:3 says: "They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones."  Zionist Christians are saying that we are about to see Psalm 83 fulfilled: Iran, Syria and Hamas joining in an attack on the State of Israel (supposedly).  But who are the "hidden ones"?  Who else but the scattered Israelites?  Anglo-Saxons (USA and the British Commonwealth of Nations) and those of most other European nations whose identity as Israelites is "hidden."

Thursday, November 22, 2012

The Story Continues (11/22/12)

It may be that when Francis Bacon and his friends shaped the English language--the King James Version of the Bible--that came down to us, Bacon simultaneously transmitting the truth to us from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and also obfuscating at the same time.  The English language is equivocal.  There are many words that have multiple meanings.  The word "love" has different shades of meaning, unlike in the Greek where you have different words for the specific kinds of love: agape being the greatest form of love, which only God can express.  And especially today people are turned off from reading the KJV Bible because the language is too archaic, in their eyes.
Bacon, being an occultist, knew that Satan attempts to counterfeit God.  (Therefore Satan is obligated to tell people what he intends to do before he does it.)  This is how God operates, as Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."  And so Bacon was compelled to transmit the truth via the Authorized Version of the Bible, but he--since he was a servant of Satan--sought to make the truth difficult to grasp.  For example, Zionism is of the antichrist spirit.  Yet many "Christians" today--especially those in the USA--are Zionist "Christians."  This sad state of affairs is not wholly the result of the (seeming) obliqueness of the Authorized Version or the KJV.  The wicked ones foisting on the people all these other modern (corrupt) Bible versions have also played a major role in the great deception and apostasy--such as the NIV, the Message, etc.  
Going back to the equivocality thing what really makes the equivocalness of the English language drive one to exasperation can be: how the word "repent" is used in the Bible, concerning God himself.  Genesis 6:6 says, "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."  Yet in Deuteronomy 23:19 we have: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"  Perhaps this was done to confuse people?  Certainly in Gen. 6:6 the LORD is not actually repenting of his creation of man.  After all, the Father sent his only begotten Son to be born as a man.  "45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15) 

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Story Continues (11/20/12)

These days the attack against the the Apostle Paul is stronger than ever (part of the "falling away" that he spoke of).  One way people discredit him is with the two recountings--in the Book of Acts--of his conversion experience on the road to Damascus.  Acts 9:7 says, "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."  In Acts 22:9 we have: "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."  An apparent contradiction?  Not really.  In the first verse "voice" means that Saul's (Paul) companions heard the voice of an unseen man but could not discern the words of said man--as the second verse indicates.
We see that Genesis 3:8 says, "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."  Here "voice" must mean the sound that the LORD God was making as he made his way through the garden.  For the next verse (9) tells us, "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"  Clearly the Creator did not speak until Genesis 3:9.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Story Continues (11/15/12)

The name "Iran" means "Aryan."  That means that the ancient Persians (ancestors of the Iranians) were descended--at least in part--from Aryans who had moved westward out of India (originally).  The Aryans were the gurus of very ancient (Vedic) India, originating in southern India (Dravidic).  That--in a nutshell--is the truth about the Aryans; there were northern people called "Aryans," who invaded India somewhere around the 3000's BC (before 1500 BC).  Thus the modern Caucasians of today are "Indo-Europeans" who are descended from a mythic Aryan people originating somewhere in eastern Turkey. 

It's true that a people originated in eastern Turkey--after Noah's flood circa 5,500 BC.  These were the children of Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.  "1And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there," it says in Genesis 11.  So there is a remnant of truth in the false Aryan origin/invasion theory.

Moving on to angels, it is said by Michael Hur (shieldoftheson on Youtube) that the Cherubim are the highest rank of angels.  This I know to be true.  Hur says that a cherub reflects--to the greatest degree--God's greatness and majesty.  Cherubim have the appearance of beasts, who can shape-shift.  They can appear as dragons--supposed to be where dragon imagery from ancient times originated.  Cherubim can also appear as creatures with the bodies of lions and with the heads of eagles--sounds like the gryphons of myth.  Of course Satan "art the anointed cherub that covereth" (Ezekiel 28:14).  These are spirit bodies that the angels have, as opposed to our earthly bodies. 

According to Hur, a cherub can turn himself into a metallic appearing UFO or flying vehicle.  In essence they can shape-shift into a variety of things.  A cherub can fly without beating their wings.  This kind of angel can soar for ages.  Psalm 18:10 says, "And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind." 

Immediately below the cherubim in rank are the Seraphim.  I've read that the Seraphim are serpentine in appearance.  I've also read that the Seraphim are shining creatures of light.  It is said that most--if not all--of the rebel angels (a third of the host) are of the Seraphim class.  And the elohim (Anunnaki of the Seraphim kind) "which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" to take wives from among the daughters of the Sethites (Jude 6).  This was a group of angels--some 200 of them (according to the Book of Enoch) not part of the original rebellion--who decided to transgress the natural laws that God had laid down.  (The Book of Enoch has the names of some of the transgressing group of elohim who came down to earth.  We are told this in Exodus 23:13 concerning their names: "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.")  So Satan took advantage of this wicked act by these particular Seraphim--to further his agenda: the corruption of man's DNA.

Seraphim can also shape-shift, like their more powerful Cherubim brethren.  Like the latter, the former can also transform into flying metallic ships.  (Now the holy Cherubim and Seraphim do not use their shape-shifting ability to deceive--as the satanic angels do--meaning that the good angels will appear to men and women as God directs them to.)  Perhaps they can turn into large, metal birds too?

By the way, I've become suspicious of Michael Hur.  He asks for money on Youtube.  More like he begs for money.  Christians should be wary of Bible teachers who make an appeal for money.


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Story Continues (11/14/12)

The idea that armageddon will occur in North America I received from reading a book about prophecy by Roger Rusk.  Revelation 14:20 says, "And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and sixhundred furlongs."  1,600 furlongs converts to 200 miles.  This verse is another picture of Armageddon: the final battle.  The Valley of Jezreel next to Mt. Megiddo is no where near that size.  The city in this verse may figuratively be speaking of Babylon America.
In Ezekiel 39 we have, "14And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search. 15And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog. 16And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah. Thus shall they cleanse the land." 
That does't sound like the Valley of Jezreel, which is 14 miles (northeast to southwest) and 20 miles (northwest to southeast).  It sounds like some place in America, somewhere in the western part.  Somewhere that is a vast piece of land where millions of men can gather for one big fight.  Also, Satan hates Israel--as Revelation 12 tells us.  And the "wilderness" became North America, in the ultimate sense.  And the USA is the regathering of Manasseh, whom God has used to bless the world in a great way--despite the murdering of people worldwide being carried out on a grand scale by US soldiers (in the name of the Synagogue of Satan/Illuminati). 
To clarify: armageddon can be seen as the war that starts with the invasion of Palestine--along with the short-lived occupation of Jerusalem--and ends with the final confrontation on North American soil--where Jesus Christ will slay his enemies. 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

The Story Continues (11/11/12)

Michael--whose Youtube channel is "shieldoftheson"--says that the sons of God who came among the Sethites and took wives from among their daughters were Atlanteans.  This seems plausible.  Going back before the flood it would appear that the Atlanteans (of the 2nd World Age) were part of the 6th day man of Genesis 1.  So in the time between the beginning of the 2nd World Age and Noah's (regional) flood, we had the world divided between two superpowers: Atlantis and the Rama Empire.  (And I've said that the earliest form of Atlantis goes back to the 1st World Age, having been founded by Satan himself (before he became Satan).)

I've read that Atlantis once fought a war with the Rama Empire.  In its bid to rule the whole world, Atlantis employed cigar-shaped aircraft called "vailixis" to attack Rama (northern India).  Rama had aircraft called "vimanas," and may have defended themselves with them.  The latter successfully fended off the attack of the former.  (And antediluvian helicopters were used, as the Abydos hieroglyph attests.)  This was most likely before the advent of Adam and Eve (the later Anunnaki or elohim, as opposed to the early Anunnaki: Enki, Enlil and the other morning stars).  It is said that Enoch (son of Adam) later came to rule in Atlantis; and Cain came to rule in Rama.

Going back to the 1st World Age, I got the impression that Enlil and Yahweh--and therefore Jesus--are the same person.  Thus you could say that Enlil is the "bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16)  The pre-incarnate Jesus can be considered to have been among the angels, yet he was the image of God: the Word, who is God.  Psalm 89:7 says, "God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him."  The "saints" in this verse refers to the angels.  Enki, who is Lucifer, was considered the elder brother of Enlil.  This is because he was the first governor of this solar system--sent by God to govern in his name.  However Enki rebelled against the Creator.  Without going into the details, the Father sent the Ancient of Days (Enlil) to set things right again.  (And I guess Enlil was aided by Ninurta (the archangel Michael).)  But in between Enki's bid to dethrone God and Ninurta being sent into our solar system, it was actually Marduk who had been sent to put down Enki's rebellion.  He did so, and then he turned around and went against his God--becoming the son of Enki (spiritually).  And then Yahweh--with the help of Michael (Ninurta)--crushed Marduk's (now Satan's) rebellion.  Thus Genesis 1:2 is the aftermath of the war in heaven that occurred after Genesis 1:1.

With the dawn of the 2nd World Age, the Assembly of the Gods decided to create man (6th day) to "replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28).  (By the way, it appears that the dinosaurs were part of the 1st World Age, and they pretty much disappeared once the 2nd World Age commenced.)  Once they gained knowledge of a prior civilization called "Atlantis," men decided to revive it.  Meanwhile Enki--who had been thrown down to the earth along with Marduk--attempted to duplicate Enlil or YHWH's creation of man: the former created such creatures as Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, and Bigfoot.  Enki had (still has) advanced technology, but he is no God.  And the Ancient of Days put down this endeavor (also), and Enki died: he disappeared from this 3-dimensional plane.

Let us fast-forward to Noah's regional flood.  (Preceding this flood another flood had swallowed up Atlantis in 9,600 BC--for it had become corrupt.)  One theory has the deluge of the Black Sea (circa 5,500 BC)--when the Mediterranean massively poured into the Black Sea, converting it from a fresh water lake into an inland sea--as the flood in which God saved Noah and his family from the destruction of the people they lived amongst.  So the ark settled in the mountains of Ararat (Urartu) to the east.  It is from here that the early Sumerians (Ubaids) came into Shinar (Mesopotamia) from the east.  They were of one language.  When they constructed a tower in defiance of God, that's when they were scattered into different language groups.  Then the Akkadians rose to prominence.  And their first king was Nimrod (which may have been a title), a son of Ham.  However, he took on another title: Sargon, in honor of the antediluvian Sargon the Magnificent (Cain).  Nimrod or Sargon ruled from Babel, where earlier the inhabitants were scattered and never finished the tower.  And after Nimrod, Asshur (a son of Shem) gained the preeminence.

So most likely the early Sumerians or Ubaids partly came from the Indus Valley: they were the Aryans.  And the later Sumerians who came to dominance in the area were the Semetic Akkadians.  ("Sumerians" was a catch-all name.)  Thus the Chaldeans were an Akkadian/Aryan mixture.  Which explains how the name "Rama" made its way into Mesopotamia and further westward--by way of Abraham and Sarah--into the Levant.  Matthew 2:18 says, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

One last thing: this imminent war with Iran is that which is spoken of in Daniel 8, in which the USA is going down.  Then the Antichrist--after bringing in a deceptive peace--will launch the war of Ezekiel 38.  This will begin with the short-lived occupation of Jerusalem and end with the invasion of an America that has lost its military might and whose major cities have been burned with fire (where will be Armageddon): we read (after Gog's ultimately unsuccessful (as Zechariah 12 tells us) invasion of the "mountains of Israel" or the Land of Promise) in Ezekiel 38, "10Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: 11And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, 12To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land."       

Monday, November 5, 2012

The Pre-Existence of Man or Mangels

A good number of truths are not taught to people in the majority of churches.  One of them is the indications--in the word of God--that we existed prior to being born into this physical world and inhabiting these physical bodies that we have.  Beginning with Genesis 1:1 we move onto verse 2, which intriguingly says: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."  Something cataclysmic happened between verse 1 and verse 2.  Known as the "gap theory" it's got a lot to back it up.  (The rest of Genesis 1 is an account of the 6 (not literal) days of creation--or rather, recreation.)

A telling verse that sheds light on the truth of the gap theory is Jeremiah 4:23: "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."  You can't read that verse without being reminded of verse 2 of Genesis.  Now if you read some of the verses following Jer. 4:23, you will see a picture of the earth in the First World Age (before mankind was created): "24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger."  The kind of "man" that lived before this (present) Second World Age were the angels.  And we (mankind) were numbered among them.  We were the part of the angels (a third?) who remained neutral during that first rebellion.  After the war ended and Lucifer and the third of the angels (who sided with him) were thrown down to the earth. (Revelation 12)  (But it appears that the earth they crashed down upon had descended from a higher frequency of vibration, if you will.  Thus they are considered higher dimensional beings by us earthlings who are "trapped" in this physical plane.)

The scriptures have a number of verses that indicate that we were once angels.  An example is in Hebrews 11: "13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." Of course on one level this pertains to the Israelites leaving Egypt; on another level it is speaking of us having come from a different "country" or plane of existence. And we who've put our faith in Christ Jesus will be like the angels (once more). 

Now with the creation of the 6th day man in Genesis 1, it may be that mankind started out in the Second World Age at a higher vibration than what men and women are currently vibrating at.  Thus mankind has been in a gradual descent ever since.  Another way of saying it is that man has been devolving: devolution instead of evolution.  The 8th day man--Adam and Eve in Genesis 2--were also created to vibrate at a higher frequency.  The garden in Eden was an enclosed, self-contained greenhouse, if you will.  We read in Genesis 2: "5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."  This was a greenhouse that was protected from the outside world by some sort of force field--reminiscent of the mountain island of Hyperborea, which was surrounded by an impenetrable, turbulent sea.

In the garden Adam and Eve were most likely created as creatures who inhabited a higher dimension than the one we are in now.  This is hinted at by them being "naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Gen. 2:25)  They were to produce the line through which the Christ would come into the world.  For God knew that Adam and Eve would sin against their Creator, and God's Holy One would need to be born as a man--that mankind could be redeemed from condemnation.  Of course when Jesus Christ walked the earth as a man, he did so as the kinsman redeemer of Israel.  (Israel was supposed to be a light unto the rest of the world, and unfortunately they've more often than not failed at that.)

As for the 6th day man created in Genesis 1, I think there was more than one "man" created.  By the time of Adam (the 8th day man of Genesis 2) and Eve, the entire earth was inhabited by men and women.  And the "man" that the Anunnaki (those who from heaven came) created to be their slave in the gold mines--had to be some kind of "hominoid."  (That may be a word that Lloyd Pye has coined.)  The Anunnaki cannot be trusted.  They never point to the Creator--their Creator also.  It may very well be that the creatures--we know as "bigfoot" or "sasquatch--are the descendants of these hominoids who dug for gold in the mines of southern Africa. 

The Anunnaki who created these hominoids or hominids (for there are several kinds of hominoids) were the earliest Anunnaki to arrive on the earth after the end of the First World Age--marked by great destruction, upon which God rebuilt the earth.  These Anunnaki apparently inspired the Sumerian tablets that have come down to our time.  These accounts of the conflict between two gods--the brothers Enlil and Enki--are a mess.  I get the impression of obfuscation from my own study of the Sumerian tablets.  I'm no expert (I can't read the cuneiform.), but I cannot help but sense that the early Anunnaki were not being entirely upfront with their human subjects (the post-flood Sumerians).  These records also tell us that Enlil wanted to drown the Sumerians because they were too noisy.  This sounds ludicrous to me.  Besides if Enki and Lucifer are indeed one and the same individual, then he was not directly involved in the event of Genesis 6, which led up to God flooding Sumeria--supposedly having saved man (by way of the ark), once Enlil supposedly intended to drown all the Sumerians.  By the time of Noah's flood (circa 5000 BC) Enki or Lucifer was already long gone, having been cast into the abyss (which I cover below)--and any of his physical remains (I've read that his (physical) crown was found.) would have been archaeological finds even in that time perhaps.    

These Anunnaki (after their rebellion in the First World Age) may have become mortal--in the course of interfering with the affairs of the earth, once the Second Age commenced.  We have this quite interesting passage (Psalm 82:1,2-6,7): "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.  How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah...I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."  Once Enki died, he was thrown into the bottomless pit (the center of the earth that exists in the 4th dimension.  And it may be that once that happened, Marduk (Satan) gained the upper hand, becoming the current god of this world.  So anyway I guess to their credit these Anunnaki did--by their name: "Anu" refers to heaven and also to the Creator who reigns over all from that highest realm, and "ki" refers to the earth--acknowledge that they came from above and thereby implied that there was a God that was above them.

Of course YHWH also created a variety of "man" and set him in other parts of the world.  After all Elohim may speak of God and the sons of God.  We have a type of "Caucasian" people who once inhabited the Pacific (where the continent of Mu once was) and who fled to the islands of the South Pacific, after said continent went under the waters of a regional superflood.  And then you have Cro-Magnon man who suddenly appeared in Western Europe (circa 40,000 BC or maybe earlier) and moved eastward, displacing the Neanderthals as they did.  It is said that the Cro-Magnons originated on the island of Appalachia (in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean), on which the city of Atlantis was located.  These Atlanteans may have fled a destruction of Atlantis (that preceded the destruction of said city later about 9,600 BC--spoken of by Plato).  Perhaps all these comprise the 6th day man of Genesis 1.  (Atlantis may be a civilization that originated in the First World Age, but it was started up again by man in the Second World Age.)   

Then much time passed--during the 7th day in which God rested from his millenia-long reconstructing of the devastated earth (Gen. 1:2).  And we come upon the time of Genesis 2: the 8th day.  It is suggested by cite frequently from the book of Urantia, which claims to speak of Jesus Christ but truly does not--that the 8th day man (Adam and his helpmate Eve) were the much later (last) appearance of the Anunnaki on the earth (in Sumeria).  The saying--kingship came down from heaven to the earth and established itself in Eridu--was the result of the advent of Adam and Eve.  (Adam's son, Seth, established his rulership at the city of Eridu.)  This sounds plausible.  And by extension (broadly speaking) we are also of the Anunnaki or sons of God (elohim).  Speaking of Jesus in Hebrews 2:10, we have: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."  By the "son of man" (earlier--in verse 6 of Hebrews 2) we can become sons of God.

And next we have the appearance among the sons of Seth in Sumeria (or Eden) another group of Elohim (sons of God) or Anunnaki.  These left "their first estate," as Jude verse 6 states.  These angels saw the beauty of the daughters of men (children of Seth) and were overcome with lust.  They then came down and took for themselves wives from among the Sethites.  This was according to God's way, and it led to a group of offspring called the Nephilim: half man/half angelic hybrids.  Your typical (shouldn't have been typical) giant Nephilim lived perhaps to be around 700 years old.  Once a Nephilim died, his or her spirit--being unnatural--would roam the earth seeking physical bodies (be they man or beast) to house themselves in.  Most likely these Nephilim were driven, for the most part, beneath the earth--that is into the hollow earth.

In the scriptures there may be another bit of evidence that Adam and Eve go back to around 47,000 BC.  We have this interesting set of verses: "And Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler of the treasures.  And his brethren by Eliezer; Rehabiah his son, and Jeshaiah his son, and Joram his son, and Zichri his son, and Shelomith his son." (1 Chronicles 26:24-25)  In the context of which these verses occurs, they are speaking of the time of King David.  We know that Moses fathered Gershom.  However Gershom's son, Shebuel, must be a descendant of a number of generations later.  Moses lived around 1600 BC and David lived around 1000 BC.  We see that in the word of God when so-and-so was said to be the son of so-and-so, it does not necessarily mean that the former was the direct offspring of the latter.  The best example of that would be when Jesus was called "son of David."  So it appears that a good number of generations--between Gershom and Shebuel--were not named.  Gershom's brother, Eliezer--the other son of Moses--has four generations named between him and Shelomith, his descendant of David's day.  Again, we must conclude that some generations were skipped.  It must be that the writer of the Books of the Chronicles of the Kings did not record all the generations because not all of them were worthy of being written down.  Likewise from Adam to Noah we have ten generations: it may very well be that an unknown number of (unremarkable) generations were left out of the record (of the antediluvian patriarchs).


Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Story Continues (10/30/12)

The war of Ezekiel 38, still a few years down the road, will begin with the invasion and successful but short-lived occupation of Jerusalem.  It will end (a few years further down the road) with the invasion of North America.  That's what it looks like to me.  If the Antichrist cannot have the Chosen City, then he will take the next best thing: America, which is the culmination of the "wilderness" in Revelation 12 (that started with Europe and ended with North America) and of which God said "I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime..."  (This verse from 2 Samuel 7:10 appears to be speaking of America in the future--during the millenium to come.)

When in Genesis 1 God tells the man and woman he created to "replenish the earth," it is saying that there was a previous population of "man" that had inhabited this planet.  People such as Zen Garcia and Chace and Queeny Cameron have said as much, and I agree with them.  The people that were here before the 6th day man of Genesis 1 were the angels (to simply put it), who were under the governorship of Lucifer.  Then Lucifer led them--being a third of all the angels--in rebellion against the high God (also spoken of in Revelation 12).  So how long ago was this?  And that's the question.  Millions of years ago?  180,000 years BC?  I've felt for some time now that time way back then was different than the time we experience now.  And as Plato has indicated, we've had cycles of the rise and fall of civilizations--a cycle repeating itself over and over for quite some time now.  (Those Classical Greeks were Israelites, so they must have had some of the knowledge of when their ancestors were in Egypt.)  Hmmm.

One more thing.  The Sumerian cities that we know of--being in Iraq--may not be the original cities with those names.  (Note that the name "Iraq" itself is a form of "Uruk," which I've said is a variation of "Enoch," son of Cain.)  Graham Hancock has suggested that the original Sumerian cities (of the antediluvian era) may currently be under the waters of the Persian Gulf.   

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Gog and Magog and the Gentile/Israel Nations

The war of Ezekiel 38-39 ends with a major battle--Armaggedon--in "the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea" (The Valley of the Sun in Arizona?  After much of California and a part of Arizona has fallen into the sea?)--is different than the battle of Gog and Magog in Revelation 20.  The first one takes place immediately before this fast approaching millenium (age of Aquarius) arrives, and the 2nd one takes place at the end of said millenium.  It appears that the main reason for this differentiation is that there will be a massive pile of dead bodies at the end of the war of Ezekiel 38-39: these dead bodies will not be resurrected until the end of the "thousand years."

"12And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land. 13Yea, all the people of the land shall bury them; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD. 14And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search. 15And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog." (Ezekiel 39)

Now moving on to scattered or farflung Israel.  The Romans were Israelites, as I've discussed in a previous post (about the ancient Greeks/Danites).  In short, the Romans were descended from a group of Trojan survivors who fled the destruction of Troy circa 1184 BC.  The Trojans were of the tribe of Judah.  These Trojans settled along the Tiber River, intermingling with the local Latin people.  From this mixture the city of Rome developed.

In his letter to the Romans Paul quoted from two Old Testament books: Hosea and Isaiah.  Hosea is about how God would divorce the Northern Kingdom of Israel but that he would remarry them again.  Here is Paul quoting (from chapter 9 of Romans): "25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth."

Why would Paul be quoting from Hosea and Isaiah?  Because Paul himself was the (beginning of the) fulfillment of what Hosea prophesied about God making scattered Israel his wife again.  After all Paul was commissioned to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (scattered Israel).  And the Romans were part of scattered Israel.  Also, the 70th week of Daniel 9:27 speaks of Paul, as I've said previously: that week of years ends with Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, which would be the beginning of his (Paul's) mission to the Gentiles/scattered Israel.

As for the Romans they were of the Tribe of Judah, as I've just said.  A significant portion of the  Germanic peoples to the north were of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.  Israel (Jacob) blessed the two sons of Joseph--Ephraim and Manaseh--in Genesis 48.  It was fitting then that the Roman Empire would weaken from within and be finished off by these Germans; whereas the Angles and the Saxons would start to ascend to world supremacy.  In time becoming the Anlo-Saxons, this people would become England (Ephraim) and the USA (Manasseh).  They are in rapid decline now, surely a sign that we are in the last generation that will see (is seeing) the apocalypse.

I'm a "stranger" (an Oriental born in Thailand) who has joined himself to Manasseh.  If you're a person of English (Anglo-Saxon) descent reading this post, then I have a question for you: what in God's name is the matter with you?!!  Alright, I'll take a couple of deep breaths to regain my composure...I know that it was prophesied that in the last days that the descendants of Esau would have the upper hand; and the descendants of Jacob would be dominated and manipulated by the former into bringing about Satan's Antichrist kingdom. 

The only one who can save us now is Jesus Christ.  Not long after the "man of sin" makes his appearnace, Jesus will return to the earth to throw down all the thrones and establish his own throne here--as it should be.  As Daniel 7:9 says: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool..."


Saturday, October 13, 2012

A Younger Earth?

I would like to touch on the elect before tackling the controversy between young earth Christians and old earth Christians.  I think the elect refers specifically to the Judahites, as Paul says in Romans 11:7, "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded..."  Who is "Israel" in this context?  We go back to verse 1 of this chapter to figure who Paul meant by "Israel": "For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew."  The tribe of Benjamin was part of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.  Thus the Judahites (or Sephardic Jews) were of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

The elect is not those whom God predestinated to become saved, before time began; and the rest being those who were damned to the outer darkness for all eternity (or whatever kind of damnation Calvinists believe in).  This paradigm is completely false.

Now, it could be that time, in terms of geology, has not passed by at a very slow rate in the past (with great epochs lasting up to a million years or more).  Maybe the Pleistocene epoch (era of the ice ages) didn't start about 1.6 million years ago but rather much sooner.  The ice ages, along with their respective interglacial periods, may have passed in much quicker succession than we've been led to believe.  Maybe the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM--the height of the last ice age) didn't occur about 25,000 BC but rather about 10,000 BC.  Which would be around the time of the sinking of Atlantis (9,600 BC).  When it comes to the date of the Atlantis flood, I'm going to go with Plato on this one: he has more credibility than the majority of scientists today.

It's gradualism (the view of the mainstream geologists) versus catastrophism (the view of some Christians and alternative thinkers).  Of course there's the extreme version of catastrophism, which says that all the layers of sediment we see were laid down by a world-wide flood (Noah's).  This extreme catastrophism I'm inclined reject outright.  Yet I think there can be a place of reconciliation between the gradualists and the catastrophists.

But then maybe there was one ice age (around 4,800 BC) that came on very quickly--following a worldwide flood.  We have evidence that this (the quick freeze) happened: frozen mammoths have been found, perfectly preserved.  They were found with food in their stomachs.  That's how fast the temperature dropped: the mammoths were eating when the instantaneous freeze killed them where they stood.  According to Jupiter was a foreign object that came into this solar system and collided with Tiamat, the planet that orbited where the asteroid belt now is.  The latter was exploded and the former took up the orbit that it now has.  Now a large chunk of Tiamat--Venus, carrying much frozen water--was sent hurling into the inner solar system.  It passed by the earth and orbited Terra for a while--until its own inertia sent off to where it now orbits.  While Venus was revolving around the earth, ice from the former was magnetized and drawn to the polar regions of the latter--where the magnetic poles were (are).  Billions of tons of ice cascaded down on both the North and South Poles, extinguishing all the animals and plants living in those areas faster than you can "Say what?!"

It could be that the death of the dinosaurs occurred much later than 65 million years ago--perhaps 5 million years ago or sooner even?  And the rebellion of Lucifer (on the earth) may have been as recently--in contrast to vast epochs of geology and natural history--as 180,000 years ago (as Miguel Goitizolo says--at  180,000 BC may have actually been the beginning of the Pleistocene in general and not merely the beginning of the previous interglacial period (supposed to have spanned 180,000 BC to 150,000 BC).  Another interesting point about this date is that the light from certain mysterious, far away objects--that emit tremendous amounts of light--took 180,000 years to reach us.  These objects are evenly spaced throughout the night sky--from the vantage point of the earth.  Apparently the earth is a special planet.  This is according to a blog, which I can't find right now.  Anyway, hmmm.  Couldn't be a coincidence.

One last thing about Noah's flood.  It may have been worldwide.  I've read in "Underworld" (by Graham Hancock) that a number of superfloods took place since the ice began to melt in earnest about 18,000 BC (or actually sometime after 10,000 BC, as catastrophism would have it).  Most likely the idea of Noah's flood being one gigantic worldwide flood was actually a regional super-flood that covered the area of Sumeria only.      

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Sethites of Eden/the Kenites (Cainites) of Nod!

Before I get into the post proper I'd like to touch on this guy on Youtube calling himself the "Vigilant Christian."  I recently listened to him talk about the church or the body of Christ.  Near the end of this particular sermon the Vigilant Christian spent a few minutes talking about how Christians shouldn't criticize each other: instead of going around and attacking other Christians, a brother or sister should engaged in other (more constructive) efforts.

I immediately recognized what the VC (not Viet Cong) was doing.  He was using manipulation.  Not criticizing others is code for not pointing out false teaching (however subtle it may be) when you come across it.  Constructive criticism is a good thing--when our motive is to help somebody improve.  We are not to be busybodies--going around sticking our noses in other people's business; what we are called to do is to call out false or wrong teaching when we perceive it: that is everybody's business who is a part of the church.  That's the ideal: that everybody in the church would have studied to show themselves approved--knowing how to rightly divide the word of truth.  Sadly, that is far from the case in today's American church.

Now onto the post proper.  We are told in Genesis 2:10: "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden..."  To me, the way that is phrased, it sounds like the Garden was closed off from the rest of the land of Eden: the barrier may have been some sort of forcefield and so the Garden would have a nearly self-contained (except for that river from Eden) greenhouse-like environment; meanwhile the greater world had been engulfed in the last major ice age--known as "Wurm."  The description of the lengendary Hyperborea says that it was a mountain island surrounded by turbulent seawater that made it inaccessible.  Definitely a similarity there.   

I think that the Garden of Eden or Hyperborea eventually became Sumeria, which was destroyed by Noah's flood (circa 5000 BC?).  We are told in Jude that Enoch (son of Adam) was the seventh from Adam.  However if we examine the genealogy in Genesis 5 we can only count six generations from Adam (the word "from" being important) to Enoch.  Now if Jude decided to include an extra generation or descendant--whose name we are not given--then we can ask how many other descendants are not included.  That's anybody's guess.  It's plausible that quite a few generations have been skipped over, since the chronicler of Genesis was first and foremost concerned with showing a lineage from Adam to Noah (spanning just over 40,000 years)--whereby he is only interested in naming the prominent descendants: who, interestingly enough, are ten in number: there must be some significance in numerology involved.  (All this I found on, along with what I say about Cain and the land of Nod below.)  It may also be asserted that time prior to the flood was different.  Before Adamic man--anything before about 50,000 BC--there may have been another kind of time.  Miguel Goitizolo says that the previous interglacial period--between 180,000 BC to 150,000 BC--may have been when Lucifer reigned on the earth--implying that then was when his rebellion happened.  (Personally, I believe this person called Lucifer goes back much further in time--millions of years.  But then time was different then.  And time is moving much faster now than it was long ago.)     

Anyway, Cain was driven by God eastward into the land of Nod.  Apparently Nod bordered on Eden.  Cain founded a city he named after Enoch, his son.  What has been discovered is that the letter "n" is frequently replaced with the letter "r."  And the letters "ch" are often changed for the letter "k."  Thus this city that was called "Enoch" was changed (in its spelling) to "Erech" or "Uruk."  (My own version would be "Eruk," as in the 2nd drawing above.)  After Noah's flood the post-diluvian city of Uruk was most likely established on the site of the prior Uruk.

   (I got the this map from  Thank you.)

Note how Uruk in the above map is more towards the east in comparison with the just about all the other cities.  There's another Uruk just a bit to the northwest of Eridu.  This other Uruk we can say with a good amount of certainty was not the Uruk or Enoch that Cain founded.  By the way Eridu was where Adam established himself, once he and Eve had been driven from the Garden--which lay somewhere to the west.  We can say that the children of Seth were in the west (Eden or later Sumeria) and Cain and his children lived in the adjacent area in the east called Nod.

After the local flood of Noah, the Ark came to settle somwhere along the eastern portion of the Ararat Mountains.  It is from the east that the descendants of Noah--survivors of the flood--came to inhabit the post-flood Sumeria: witness Genesis 11:1-2 as it says that "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.  And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there."  At this time these people were under the rule of Nimrod (Sargon the Great), grandson of Ham. 

Nimrod or Sargon's DNA was partly contributed to by the serpent back in the Garden.  This came to be probably because Ham married Naamah a daughter of Cain.  Then it would follow that this Sargon would have a prediliction for dominating others, as his father Sargon the Magnificent (Cain) would have had.  Warfare between the Sethites and the Cainites may very well have been a reality.

Now moving further down the timeline (or more likely the time (sine) wave), we can see how Esau could and did sire children who had the serpent seed as part of their genetic makeup.  We know that Esau took wives from among the daughters of Canaan, as Gen. 36 tells us.  The land of Canaan was a land where the seed of the fallen angels (Nephilim) mixed with the serpent seed.  (Most of the Canaanites were hybrids, it could be said.)  We are told in Numbers 13:32-33 that ten out of the twelve men who spied out the land "brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."  Caleb (and Joshua), on the other hand, had said, "Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it."

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Garden In Eden=Hyperborea?

Thanks to a guy on Youtube named Erick (Covenant of Love), I've come upon an intriguing website called "The Wheel of Time" (  (And it's thanks to Chace and Queenie Cameron that I came upon Erick's YT channel.)  There's a page on this site about "The Primordial Civilization," which seemingly corroborates the theory of the Garden in Eden going back to around 47,000 BC.
According to this website all of these ancient civilizations that we're aware of--Sumeria, Egypt, the Sarasvati in India, the Incas, the Mayans, the Olmecs and even Atlantis--can all be traced back to an even earlier, original civilization called "Hyperborea."  It was situated on an island located in the ocean that encompasses the country of the Celts.  (Of course the Celts were not around that long ago.)  This island has been depicted as a mountain paradise surrounded by a surging sea and thus made inaccessible.  Hyperborea existed at the beginning of the current Manvantara--a Hindu span of time being a lengthy period of 51,840 years--that we're rapidly coming to the end of. 
The author of the aforementioned website, Mr. Goitizolo, argues that the Book of Genesis' description of the Garden being somewhere in the Middle East is purely symbolic--that what Genesis is truly describing is Hyperborea.
Genesis 2 says that the Garden was located in the land of Eden.  A river "went out of Eden to water the garden": Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and the Euphrates.  It says that Pison "compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold..."  From what we know Havilah was in the southern part of Africa, where the Anunnaki were mining for gold.  Gihon "compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia."  Hiddekel "goeth toward the east of Assyria."  And then we have the Euphrates.  From what I can tell the way these rivers are listed makes it look like the author is going in a circular direction--that is in a clockwise direction.  The picture being painted is that of a paradise location (the Garden) that is the "supreme center," as Mr. Goitizolo puts it, of this primordial earth.  Hyperborea is said to have been in the northern region.  Could it be that what is being said about the Garden in Gen. 2--in relation to the four rivers--is that it was situated at the North Pole (the top of the world)?
Mr. Goitizolo quotes from Diodorus quoting from a document called "Manifest of Hecateus," which says that there was on the island of Hyperborea a "magnificent" forest dedicated to the "Sun god" and a bizarre temple "of circular shape."  Perhaps after Hyperborea fell into ruin this temple looked something like in the drawing above.      

Sunday, October 7, 2012

The Seven Mountains of Revelation 17

"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.  And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.  And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

The above is from Revelation 17:9-11.  The most popular--and wrong also--interpretation of these verses is that they refer to the city of Rome (with its seven hills, where the Vatican is).  The proper interpretation is that these mountains represent the seven great empires that arose (consecutively) after Noah's flood: 1) the 1st Babylonian Empire (founded by Nimrod or Sargon the Great), 2) the Assyrian Empire (founded by Asshur), 3) the 2nd Babylonian Empire (founded by Nebuchadnezzar), 4) the Persian Empire (founded by Cyrus the Great), 5) the Greek Empire (founded by Alexander the Great), 6) the Roman Empire (founded by Julius Caesar), and 7) the Holy Roman Empire (founded by Charlemagne).

John says that five have already fallen (from his perspective on the timeline).  They are: the 1st Babylonian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, the 2nd Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire and the Greek Empire.  And according to John one is currently holding power (over the Glorious Land): the Roman Empire.  Then there is one that hasn't appeared yet: the Holy Roman Empire.  The way I see it, John saying that this empire continuing for a "short space" pertains to this political entity having disappeared by the time the eighth empire (the Antichrist's revived Atlantis) arises (quite imminent).  I've seen other explanations for the seven mountains--involving different line-ups of empires.  The line-up I've given above seems the most reasonable and the most grand--in terms of far-flung history.  After all my line-up begins with the first world ruler (not literally the entire world, I'm sure), Nimrod.

What about "the beast that was, and is not"?  Let's look at Rev. 13:3-4: "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.  And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"  The head with the deadly wound appears to have been the Roman Empire.  (There may very well be a double-fulfillment for the near-fatal head wound.)  Rome was a growing power in the 4th century BC.  However the Celts crossed the Alps, moving down the Italian peninsula.  These Celts took the city of Rome and had the Romans at their mercy.  The former made it known that all they wanted was gold, which the latter readily handed over.  The Celts then left and Rome was spared.  So Rome was wounded in the head, as it were, which healed up.  Rome went on to become a great empire, thus the question: "Who is like unto the beast?"

Revelation 17:8 says, "...and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."  To me this "beast"--that once was and came close to not existing but does yet exist--was Rome.  And Rome is of the eighth (Antichrist kingdom/final Babylon) and also is of the seven empires going back to Noah's flood.   

Rome and every empire that would come after it--especially the revived Atlantis that is rising--would be more beastly than the preceding empires.  Daniel 7:7 speaks of this: "I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns."  The previous verse describes a leopard with four heads, which is symbolic of the Greek Empire.  For Alexander moved like a leopard through the Persian Empire, bringing it to an end.  After his death his empire was divided among four of his generals.

It was the Romans under Prince Titus who smashed Jerusalem and dispersed the "evil figs" (Jeremiah 24) that I wrote about two posts previous.  During that siege the Jews (both Judahites and Edomites), from what I understand, resorted to cannibalism to survive--once the food ran out.  You had mothers eating their own children.  Jesus Christ said (Luke 13:34-35), "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."                

Friday, October 5, 2012

Sine Wave Theory of History

I've come across a fascinating theory for the passage of time.  Seemingly all history can be represented in the form of a sine wave.  Whenever the sine wave dips below the timeline, it means that civilization was becoming dark and materialistic; whereas when the wave ascends above the timeline, it means that civilization was becoming more spiritual (in a good way).  This I got from, whom I don't agree with when they say that only Israelites will be resurrected.  According to this theory we've been going through cycles of time: one cycle is called a precession, lasting 24,000 years.  It appears that this sine wave depiction of history corroborates my own theory about the Garden in Eden going back to around 47,000 BC (which I discussed in an earlier post). 

(It may be asked that if this date is indeed when Adam and Eve were created, then how come the lifespans of Adam and his descendants--up to Noah--(and taking into consideration the overlapping of generations) simply do not add up to such a lengthy period of time?  Well it may be that we have more than ten generations from Adam to Noah, and that we were given ten antediluvian individuals in the biblical record because the number "10" represents the ideal--such as in the Ten Commandments, which we humans could never attain to.)

Yes Adam and Eve sinned, but their appearance in the Middle East was nonetheless a good thing for mankind.  After untold centuries of human history, God would (for the final time) directly create a man--and a woman to be his helpmate.  That's why this couple were created just as the wave was moving upward.  It would be from the Adamic line--by way of Seth of course--that Jesus Christ would be born.  And the reason we had two more downward movements of the wave is because the serpent fathered his own line by having sex with Eve--from which union came Cain.  Obviously, we had two more dips since the time of the Garden is because it is--after all--a sine wave.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built around 12,000 BC just as the wave was moving downward (an overall decline on the earth).  Atlantis had grown corrupt (again).  It's theorized that Christ had appeared on the earth at that time.  He was killed and buried in the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid, but this tomb is empty: he was resurrected.

Atlantis grew steadily worse in its corruption, so that God hit it with tidal waves and it sunk beneath the waves around 9,600 BC (just below the timeline, as the world was once more engulfed in night). 

If it is true that the Son of man incarnated on the earth at that time, then the legend of Toth may be how that story has come down to us.  From what I gather, Toth came to Egypt from an Atlantis engaged in wickedness.  Once in this land--that would one day become known as "Egypt"--he set about to build the Great Pyramid.  And it may be that he was slain before he could put the capstone on it (being the top corner).  Jesus says in Luke 20:17: "What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?"    

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Elect: John Calvin (Bankers' Boy) Was Wrong

(Calvin's portrait not by me.)
Before I get into the post proper, I would like to touch on a theory about how Cain's line would have survived Noah's flood.  Genesis 4:19 and 4:22 say: "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah...And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah."  I want to draw attention to Naamah the sister.  It's said that the reason why Naamah is named here is because she would later go on to marry Ham, son of Noah.  And that's how Cain's bloodline (the "Grail") was preserved through the flood. 
It's also theorized that Noah's regional/localized flood took place in Central Asia/Westernmost China.  Meanwhile Cain and his descendants were dwelling in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (north of Sumeria), safe from the flood in the east.  Either way what we have--for sure--is the persistence of the serpent's seed (Cainites). 
On to the post proper.  Who is the elect?  The elect is not who John Calvin said they are.  Predestination has nothing to do with the question of free will.  We did not inherit a sin nature from Adam and Eve.  And God does not cause people to sin.  And the elect are not those in the world whom God has chosen to become saved, while the majority of others he has condemned to eternal damnation.
To simply put it, the Elect are the true descendants of Judah: the Sephardic Jews today.  Let us go back to around 701 BC (and later perhaps) when "Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." (2 Kings 18:13)  The verse just quoted is a hyperbole of course.  For we know that Jerusalem was not taken, and it appears that Lachish was not overrun either: "After this did Sennacherib king of Assyria send his servants to Jerusalem, (but he himself laid siege against Lachish, and all his power with him,)..." (2 Chronicles 32:9)  Nowhere else is it said that Lachish was eventually subdued.  We can conclude that at least the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Lachish escaped being taken captive by the Assyrians, as Isaiah 37:4 attests to when King Hezekiah makes a request of Isaiah: "lift up thy prayer for the remnant that is left."
The Sephardic Jews are descended from this remnant.  Jeremiah 24 speaks about the good and evil figs.  The good figs are those Judahites (of the Babylonian captivity) for whom God would set his "eyes upon them for good..." (Jer. 24:6) 
This is what God says about the bad figs: "8And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt: 9And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them. 10And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers."
Apparently some of these "evil figs" were those Jews who were dispersed from Jerusalem in 70 AD and ended up in Europe.  And apparently John Calvin was a descendant of these figs who had turned away from their Creator: Calvin was actually a Jew.  He hid his Jewish identity by changing his true surname from "Cohen" to Calvin.  His doctrine of Calvinism is proof enough of his background.
In part 2 of this series I intend to get into the Book of Romans to show that 1) the elect are the Sephardic Jews (they who were predestinated from before time (as we know it) began and 2) the Gentiles are Scattered Israel (Ten Tribes of Israel and the Israelites who emigrated from Egypt before the Exodus).

Monday, October 1, 2012

Bowing Down to Mammon/Synagogue of Satan

Before going into the post proper I'd like to discuss Lucifer.  There are a few theories as to whom Isaiah was talking about in chapter 14 of his book.  "Lucifer" may have been a man--a king of Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar, if the Assyrian deportations of the Northern Kingdom of Israel happened as late as 611 BC--but not as early as 732 BC.  This passage may be speaking of the coming Antichrist or the planet Venus.  And of course Lucifer may be Satan.

I doubt that Lucifer refers to Venus the planet.  And I doubt that Lucifer refers to Nebuchadnezzar.  Lucifer is spoken of as being "brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (Isaiah 14:15)  This is for thinking that he could be as the most High and not repenting of such pride.  Nebuchadnezzar also had pride, but he did repent of his pride--after God gave him the mind of an ox for seven years.

Neither do I think that Lucifer is Satan--before he fell into sin.  What I think is that Lucifer may refer to this imminent Antichrist, and it may refer to a person (of the Anunnaki or the Ennead) named Osiris or Enki.  I've read that Enki is an anagram of "Cain."  And that his brother Enlil was Abel.  Now Abel was a type of Christ Jesus.  Hmmm.

Next I would like to discuss (once more) the thousand years in Revelation 20.  I think that verses 4-15 are reiterating what verses 1-3 say.  Verse 3 says, "And cast him into the bottomless pit...till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."  No where in the rest of this chapter is it said that Satan is chained up again for a period of a thousand years in the future.  Thus when verse 4 opens with "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them..."--it is speaking of the same (current) millenium (not literal) that we're in.  That's how I see it.  Thus "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus" (Rev. 20:4) are those saints--living in the Roman Empire--who were killed for their stand for the truth.

Now onto the subject of this post.  Let's start out by reading a passage from Luke 12: "45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

I think the above passage applies to false teachers.  I'll look at certain teachers I suspect of being wolves in sheep's clothing: Carl Gallups, Tom Horn, the Vigilant Christian (a guy named Mario), and possibly some others.  In this post I'll discuss my impression of Carl Gallups.

A few weeks ago I heard Pastor Butch interview Carl Gallups on the former's radio show.  This interview started out with Gallups giving his credentials.  Immediately I became suspicious.  I find it sad that Christian hosts (for the most part) will only have as guests those who can present an impressive--by worldly standards, that is "speak foolishly"--list of credentials.

On Pastor Butch's program Gallup spoke of how a sizable number of people have viewed his videos on Youtube, if I recall correctly.  (I guess the idea being that he's reaching many people for the kingdom of God.)  The way I see it, I'm not concerned so much with somebody's past accomplishments so much as I'm interested in what they have to say.

In his second letter to the Corinthian believers, the Apostle Paul has some things to say about those who boast: "16I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. 17That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. 18Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. 19For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. 20For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face."  Being smitten in the face here sounds similar to the wicked servant beating "the menservants and maidens" in the quote from Luke's Gospel above.  

Continuing on Paul, in verses 11:21-28, gives his credentials: "Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.  Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.  Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant..."  Then in verses 29-30 Paul says, "Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?  If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities."