Daniel 11:38

Daniel 11:38 says, "But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things."  The Hebrew word translated as "fathers" is "avotay," which is the plural form of "ab"--meaning "father"--from which "abba" comes from.

This verse is speaking of the Antichrist.  Yet it may very well speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a Greek/Gentile/Israelite.  His fathers were the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

Adam

 

When I first started reading the Bible (over twenty years ago), I considered that the Adam spoken of in Genesis 1 (specifically Gen. 1:27) was the same as the Adam spoken of in Genesis 2.  Then in the age of the internet, while doing some research, I came upon a theory that said that the Adam of Genesis 1 was the "6th day Adam," and that the Adam of Genesis 2 was the "8th day Adam."

 

To me this seemed reasonable, since both chapters appeared to have two different accounts of the "creation" of Adam.  And I came to accept it as true.  Then one day I was listening to a podcast by Zen Garcia, where he said that Adam in Gen. 1:27 was the same Adam in Gen. 2:7.  Though I think Zen is wrong about a number of things, I give him credit for saying it right when it comes to Adam.  

 

I did see that in both verses a specific person (the same person) was being spoken of: "eth ha Adam" in the original Hebrew: "Eth ha" meaning that this very Adam was being described.  Chance Cameron--known as "Keeftwoof" on Youtube and who has a blog at http://keeftwoof.blogspot.ca/--confirmed this for me. 

 

So I've come full circle, in a sense.   Now Jesus Christ is the last Adam: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:45-47)  Yahveh Elohim came into the flesh--through the line of Adam--to redeem his kinsmen (the Elect, that is Israel).

 

(Also check out  http://www.wontbow.org.)   

The Nazis Fought Zionism

 

I was listening to the Joyce Riley radio show this morning, and the guest was talking about how the Nazis had disarmed the Jews.  Then a lady called in and elaborated on the reason for the Third Reich having deprived the Jews of their guns: the latter were responsible for Zionism.

 

Once the (lady) caller had said this, Joyce Riley moved to cut her off.  So the guest (some guy whose name I don't know) ignored what the caller had said and continued with the discussion at hand. Hmmm...

 

(By the way, the German people are of the Tribe of Judah--and Jesus Christ was of Judah also.  Thus looking at the soldiers in the photo above, you can be sure that Jesus looked very similar to them.  He was beautiful, like his father David.)

From Mahabharata to Cain

           (The name of the character in the foreground is "Ravi.")

I shall interpolate (in a way) a theory concerning the time of the Mahabharata War (5561 BC) and the rise of Cain, otherwise known as Sargon of Akkad, around 3800 BC.

If it is true that the Yamuna and Ganges Aryans (Pandavas) fought the natives (led by the Kauravas) in the 6th millennium BC--and that horrifically destructive weapons were used in the "Great Rebellion"--then Bharata became a devastated land.

Let's move some one thousand and five hundred years up to 4004 BC, the date that Yahweh Elohim formed the man (Adam) for a living soul--and taking some of Adam's DNA to form Eve.  India was then given an ample amount of time to recover--a seemingly interminable period of darkness that slowly saw things return to normal.  I've heard that Baghdad didn't recover from its pillage by the Mongols (in terms of population) until the time of Saddam Hussein.  That's about seven hundred years; just imagine the aftermath of the Mahabharata war, if it took over 1,500 years for India to recover from that. 

Cain, whose father was Satan (Heylel), was born some time after 4004 BC.  He came to prominence circa 3800 BC in the land of Nod (modern Iraq).  He proceeded to build the First Babylonian Empire, entering history as Sargon.

Sargon concentrated his efforts in the west.  He reached the Mediterranean and established Knossos (Gnosis) on Crete.  It is interesting that he did not move towards the east: perhaps Bharata was still recuperating from the war of Great Bharata: Sargon did not find that area attractive and so only had some (indirect) involvement there.

Another apparent piece of evidence that supports an earlier date for this war would be that China is conspicuously missing from the account of the Great Rebellion.  That's because no nation by that name existed in the 6th millennium.  (The Mahabharata names all the neighbors of the epic Aryans immediately north of the Himalayas.)

China was founded by Cain in the 4th millennium.  Thus Cain, as far as the east was concerned, sailed to the land that would become known as "China," bypassing India.

(I speak of the Epic (Yamuna and Ganges) Aryans--as opposed to the Vedic Aryans to the west (who authored the older (for the most part) Rig Vedas.  It was the Vedic Aryans who fought the Battle of the Prusni (Ravi) River.  The Vratyas may have been even older Aryans (Aryas or Iranians) who, before they entered India (as conquerors) from Tibet, pledged an oath to each other.)

 

Sargon (Sauron) was Cain

Sargon of Akkad was none other than Cain,  the son of Satan.  Nimrod was not Sargon.  That is Nimrod was definitely not the first world ruler to go by that name, if he even did call himself "Sargon."  (Sargon most likely means "King Cain.")

Cain, born sometime in the early 4th millennium before Christ, came to prominence about 3800 BC.  He probably died a little bit before 3114 BC, when the Mayan calendar begins.

Cain/Chiun/Chin (as in China)/Khan's descendants were those Pharisees--including lawyers and scribes--that Jesus Christ confronted, calling them a brood of vipers.  Their progeny rule the world today: they are those who say they are of Judah and are not, but do lie.
 

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).