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.   

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..."

 

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 bibliotecaplyades.com 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 miguelgoitizolo.com).  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.      

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 nabataea.net, 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 squidoo.com/AncientSumeria.  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."

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" (miguelgoitizolo.com).  (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.      

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."                

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 israelect.com, 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?"    
 

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).

 

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."