The Trojan War: 874-864 BC ?

 

There is a theory that moves the date of the Trojan War from 1184-1174 BC (set by Eratosthenes) further down to 874-864 BC.  This makes more sense to me. 

 

The Etruscans were Trojans who had fled the destruction of Troy.  Their land of Etruria--to the north of Rome and Latium--came into being circa 700 BC.  And then there's the fact that both Etruria and Troy have the TR root in them.  That's telling, I think.

 

A historian named Timaeus moved the founding of Rome down to 814 BC.  In light of the later dating of the Trojan War, this makes sense.

 

Now there's a problem, and it has to do with the Dorians.  If it is true that the Dorians were Danites who left Israel in the days of the Judges--which would have occurred closer to the older date of the Trojan War (12th cent. BC)--then they (Dorians) could not have come into Greece Proper before 864 BC.  How do we resolve this?

 

Well, we could do so by saying that these Danites or Dorians did leave the Levant in the 12th cent. BC.  They migrated westward, making their way across Anatolia and crossing over into Thracia.  Or more likely they went around the Black Sea, for the Hittite Empire would have been a formidable power at this time.  The Dorians may also have arrived in Greece by ship. 

 

When the Dorians arrived, they pretty much settled in the northern frontier (later known as Macedonia) of the lower Greek lands (Peloponnese, Attica, Aetolia, etc.).  By the time of the aftermath of the Trojan War--the collapse of Achaean or Danaan society--many Dorians moved in.  The Achaeans, except for those of Athens, evacuated the Greek cities--eventually moving up the Danube River into Northwest Europe.  The Dorians moved in to fill the vacuum.  They became, for the most part, the Greeks of the classical era.     

The Tree of Life

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is symbolic of turning to Satan. It is also symbolic of acquiring dark knowledge--of the seeking of "hidden" knowledge (Gnosticism, which has its greatest form in the Jewish Kabalah).

Mahabharata and Advent of Last of the Anunnaki

"The Astika describes the birth of Garuda and of the Nagas (snakes), the churning of the ocean, the incidents relating to the birth of the celestial steed Uchchaihsrava, and finally, the dynasty of Bharata, as described in the Snake-sacrifice of king Janamejaya." (Mahabharata, Book I, Section II)  The above quote appears to speak of the origin of the Rama civilization (circa 15,000 BC ?)  In one of his books Mr. Churchward said that a people called the Nagas fled the sinking island continent of Mu.  Then it can be inferred that they sought refuge in India, eventually founding the Rama Empire in northern India.  Rama was one of the last rulers of said civilization--already in decline.  (It is interesting to note that the word Naga is similar in sound and meaning to "Nachash," the Hebrew word that was translated as "serpent" in the Bible (KJV).  Draw what conclusion you will from that, but neither Nagas or the Nachash could be literally serpentine.  Rama and his people were human.  The Nachash (Satan) was an angel: that is he was like Adam, a white guy--and the former was a "shining one.")

The Mahabharata recounts a time further on from the Ramayana--the "interval" (a time being 5561 BC?) between the preceding transition (from the Treta Yuga to the Dwapara Yuga) and the following transition (from the DwaparaYuga to the Kali Yuga).  This time witnessed a further decline from the Ramayana (Treta Yuga, a Silver Age), itself a decline from the days of Atlantis or Tripura (Satya Yuga, a Golden Age).  (The text says that the Mahabharata war was fought in the "interval" between the Dwapara Yuga and the Kali Yuga.  You be the judge of what "interval" means.)      

The following quote is also from Book One, Section II of the Mahabharata, "...the wanderings of Arjuna of immeasurable prowess in search of weapons; his battle with Mahadeva in the guise of a hunter; his meeting with the lokapalas and receipt of weapons from them; his journey to the regions of Indra for arms." This suggests to me that Arjuna went north to the Himalayas and even further north--for Indra had to be a storm god that came originally from the first Aryan homeland of Hyperborea (the Arctic Region), where blizzards blew--going back to the latter days of the last Ice Age (15,000 BC?) and maybe even further back to the antecedent interglacial (127,000-110,000 BC).)

(Some dude named Mooneyham says that in Tibet and Western China were/are secret hangars housing vimana--the aircraft of the glorious days of the Rama Empire.  Maybe Arjuna was searching for these also.)

The story I'm beginning to see from my research is this: the descent from the golden age to the bronze age saw the use of such destructive weapons--even atomic weapons.  Witness the following description of the Mahabharata conflict: “The heavens cried out, the earth bellowed an answer, lightening flashed forth, fire flamed upwards, it rained down death. The brightness vanished, the fire was extinguished. Everyone who was struck by the lightening was turned to ashes”.  Yet another description reads, “It was a ghastly sight to see. The corpses of the fallen were so mutilated they no longer looked like human beings. Never before have we seen such an awful weapon, and never before have we heard of such a weapon.”

In the wake of such horror and mass slayings Yahveh Elohim placed an Anunnaki couple, who were ruddy and called Adam and Eve, in the garden in Eden (4004 BC).  "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And 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.  But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Genesis 2:4-6)

(To be continued in the next post, hopefully--where I intend to address the claim that the Iliad is a swipe of Indian epics such as the Ramayana, which is not true!  All these epic poems are Aryan ultimately--the overarching pageant of the Aryans/Adamites, as they moved westward.)

"Wilusa" and "Troy"

I've read on a website (I forget the website and I'm too lazy to dig up which one it was.) that the Aramaic (root) word for "tower" is TWR.  We should remember that Aramaic was the northwestern branch of the Aryan/Akkadian family of languages...actually I've found the site and the specific page: http://www.biblebabel.net/trojans-and-etruscans-who-were-they.php

Very interesting what they have to say.  The people who created this site are not Christians, yet what they say here lends support to what the Bible and true history has to say.  (I checked into what they assert and am convinced that they are very much on the path of verity in this regard.)

Apparently TWR is the root from which "Troy" is derived.  So "Troy" refers to the citadel.

In a recent post I posited the theory that YHWD (part of an inscription on the Bat Creek stone and which means "Yehudah" or "Judah"--removing the prefix "L" from LYHWD) was morphed into Wilusa.  I was wrong.  What we have here is that the root "WLY" is where "Wilusa" is derived from.  WLY means "to border upon."  From the same root comes "waliy," which means "ally."  I've heard somewhere that Paris (as the de facto ruler of Troy and using his political name "Alexander") was an ally of the Hittite Empire.

It's interesting that this article says that the Hittite "pariya-muwa" does not mean "Priam;"  Rather pariya-muwa means "Ephraim" or more likely "Abram."

Wil-USA and Jer-USA-lem have something in common. 

The Question of the Apostle Paul: the Lies and the Truth

It seems that many people are working to discredit the Apostle Paul.  These people appear to be evenly matched against each other on both sides: Christian and Atheist.  One way to paint Paul as a delusional zealot is by pointing out two ostensibly contradicting verses (in the Book of Acts)--that have to do with what actually happened during Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus (at that time when he was still known as Saul).  Acts 9:7 (KJV) says, "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."  Acts 22:9 (KJV) says, "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." 

I just came upon a website (www.ffrf.org), which belongs to Freedom from Religion Foundation.  This is where I read an article by Dan Barker--in which he says that it is indisputable that Acts 9:7 contradicts Acts 22:9.  Barker says that "they heard not" ("ouk ekousan" in the Greek) cannot be interpreted as Saul describing his companions' inability to understand the voice that they're hearing (Acts 22:9). 

Barker does not explain that there's one way of understanding: when you hear (clearly perceive) words uttered by somebody, which you may or may not comprehend in terms of the choice of words and/or their ordering.  That is you discern a string of words, but you cannot understand the meaning that the speaker is trying to convey with said words.  And there's another way of understanding: when you hear someone's voice, but the sounds they're making are unintelligible: you cannot discern any meaningful words--from the sounds uttered by the voice.  (Which is the case with Paul's companions when he was converted on the road to Damascus, as is explained in verse 9 of Acts 22.) 

Thus Barker is saying that what Paul recounts--when he says in Acts 22:9 that his companions "heard not the voice of him that" spoke to him--is that his fellow travelers did not hear the voice; this would then not corroborate the account given in chapter 9 (verse 7 specifically).

Barker says that he confronted a certain "Christian apologist," named James White, about this apparent contradiction.  According to Barker, White replied that since the Greek word "phone" (FONAY)--that is translated as "voice" in the King James Version of both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9--is in two different cases in each verse; then "phone" does not mean "voice" in both verses.  In Acts 9:7 "phone" ("voice" in the KJV) is in the genitive case (which shows possession and can also show a relationship to the verb ("hearing") for which it is the object), then it must be translated as "sound."  Whereas in Acts 22:9 "phone" ("voice" in the KJV) is in the accusative case (which means that the verbal ("heard not") is saying something specific about the voice and should be understood as meaning "voice."  (That is Saul's companions could not discern any kind of comprehensible words from the utterance by the voice.) 

And according to Barker, White is wrong when he says that "phone" in the genitive case should be translated as "sound," and "phone" in the accusative case should be translated as "voice."  In saying that White is wrong, Barker is right (in this).  The Greek "phone" cannot be translated as two different words (in the English) just because they have two different cases: the genitive in Acts 9:7 ("phones") and the accusative in Acts 22:9 ("phonen"). 

As for James White, I've encountered some of his videos on Youtube.  What I've seen about him is that he says a lot of gibberish--a lot of bullshit.  He's a fraud: a wolf in sheep's clothing.  What we have here then--concerning both Dan Barker (and the FFRF) and Christian apologists like James White--is a case of controlled opposition, where both of them are working the opposite sides in a dispute (and where neither of them are being totally upfront).  But both of them serve the same master, that being Mammon.  They are both playing a game (divide and conquer).  The object of this game is to cause confusion for those who are honestly seeking the truth.

Barker says that two modern versions of the Bible (the New International Version and the Living Bible) translate "phones" in Acts 9:7 as "sound."  In doing so the translators for these two versions are attempting to (subtly) discredit Paul (and by extension Luke, who wrote the Book of Acts).  The translators are also attempting to add confusion to this matter, making it more difficult to sift through this thing that is already complicated--because of having to look into the Greek, if you want to go all the way with finding out the truth.  Therefore the modern translators [except for those who worked on the New Revised Standard Version (in this case)] are being disingenuous.