Sojourner of Bibylon or the Hidden History of the World

Introduction

The title of this book is a play on the similarity of the word bible and the name of

Babylon. I believe the similarity is not a coincidence. And I want to say that without a

proper study of history and language, the Bible is just babble, the language of Babylon.

And, like Abraham, any true servant of God and student of the Bible is a sojourner

through its stories, accounts, phrases and verses.

The word bible comes from Byblos. Meaning book or scroll, the word is related

to the name of Byblos, the Phoenician city where modern writing is said to have begun.

It also is related to papyrus, from which we get paper and thus books. But Im sure many

dont realize that the name of Byblos comes by a tortuous route from the name of

Babylon.

Id like also to say that the confusion of language that began with the building of

Babel, the namesake of Babylon, which thwarted mans attempt at preeminence and

civilization, has also since been used, by man not God, to confuse and thwart any honest

attempt at understanding the Bible and what God is saying in it. This attempt to confuse

and suppress the truth appears to be partly intentional and began at Byblos. And though

Byblos was not actually Babylon, it was in spirit.

Byblos, also known as Gebal in the Old Testament, was a merchant seaport, which

was an important part of the far-flung shipping and trading empire of Phoenicia. Byblos

declined in importance with the rise of nearby Tyre. Bible prophets often condemned
Tyre for its worldliness and its ability to tempt and corrupt mens souls with its riches.

Byblos only added to corruption by its power over language. Byblos and Tyre were of

the same spirit, which is the spirit of Babylon.

Here began a long attempt to put sounds into symbols, phonetics- a word derived

from Phoenicia, an empire of Canaanites, enemies of Israel and Gods people, where this

developed- and bring language into the grasp of man. But here began a long sad journey

of mutated sounds, permutations, shifting pronunciations, disagreements of meanings,

dyslexia in both hearing and writing, bad translations, erroneous transcriptions,

disagreements of spelling and simple copying mistakes. And thus the Bible became

babble. But thanks to those that undertook to study the bible honestly and faithfully and

to preserve it and pass it on unmolested to later generations, we can piece it back together

and understand what it really means. I hope to help in this task and do a little to blow

away some of the fog of confusion. I hope I can add to an understanding of the ancient

mind, and the Hebrew mind, so that hopefully the Bible is clearer and easier to

understand.

I give credit to great Christians of the past and present for discovering great truths of

Gods holy scriptures. I offer many of my own insights and I examine the insights of

others. I dont claim to have all of the truth. There is no dogma here. What I have to

give are suggestions only. And the most definite suggestion I can give is to study the

Bible and fast and pray.

+
Authors Note

Footnotes were used very sparingly in this text. For further verification and study I have

a bibliography with many sources at the end of the book for reference.

+
Chapters

1. From almost Nothing to Something 5

2. The Way 31

3. The Nations 52

4. Whats in a Name 102

5. The End from the Beginning 125

6. A Tale of Two Women 155

Bibliography 177

+
From Almost Nothing to Something

The very first verse of the Bible tells us: In the beginning God created the heavens

and the earth. The Hebrew word for God in this verse is elohim. This is a plural form

and can mean gods and most high, etc. The most likely meaning is most high.

The most high is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

The first chapter of the Bible seems to present a contradiction. First, God creates the

heavens and the earth, but immediately after this were told that his creation was without

form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

So one might ask why God would create something without form; would God create

something evil? The Bible answers this. The prophet Isaiah wrote that God creates

darkness, bur forms light; he makes peace, but creates evil (Is. 45:7). So both evil and
+
darkness are only created, but light is formed and peace is made. There is a very

important difference in the words create, make and form. There is a reason why the

Hebrew language uses different words for these three concepts. Form in Hebrew is

yatzar (Strongs 3335). Create in Hebrew is bara (Strong;s 1254). Creation has no form;

its chaotic. It can often look very close to being formed, but its not. So God created

chaos and he didnt call it good.

So what God created at first was evil! But then he formed it and made it. By the act

of separating light from darkness he formed the light; he also said that it was it good.

So then he did do something good. God formed the light by causing particles to move in

waves. Darkness is particles that dont move in waves. But it can possibly come close to

moving in waves and even mimic light. God can see through darkness and light and also

distinguish between them (Ps. 139:11-12).

The creation account tells us that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the

waters. Notice that spirit is capitalized in the actual verse? A popular image is of a dove

flying over water, just above the surface. Another image is of a breeze or wind blowing

upon the water. This second image may very well get at much of the truth and science in

the account.

God separated the light from the darkness by blowing on it in the form of the Holy

Spirit The name of the Holy Spirit is He. This name means breath. What the Bible is

saying in other words is that God blew upon the waters with wind. The waters of chaos

and the darkness must have been very hot. Its known that when fluids move at high

speeds, they cool down whatever substance they pass over. Air and water are both fluids.

Anybody knows that a breeze often cools things down. Anyone familiar with

+
refrigeration knows that a gas moving at high speeds will draw heat out of a substance.

When God blew on the chaotic deep and formed light, he inscribed a circle on it.

The circle became a mark. The circular mark inscribed is called Tav, another name for

God the Son.1

Waves of light move in circles, like ripples on the surface of a pond. The Bible

refers to this when it states that God inscribed a circle on the surface of the deep (Prv.

8:27) This also means to orbit. Latin orbitus means circle. Its then interesting that every

object in the universe moves in some type of circle or elliptical formation. So one of the

first acts in the creation account was the creation of orbits. Most everything that follows

the laws of physics moves in a circular pattern. Even Greek philosophy described the

cosmos in terms of layers of sphere

The circle is obviously an important figure in many cultures and it is also in the

Bible. The prophet Isaiah also wrote about circles, depending on the translation (Is.

40:22). The Some Bible versions use the word compass instead of circle, but both

imply a circle formation. The Bible refers to deep and waters. This seems to refer to

the oceans, but may refer to what is known in Greek myth Chaos which might be

Hebrew rahab (Ps. 89:10, Is. 51:9). This may well be outer space and the cosmos.

So the deep and its waters were very hot and God was cooling them down by

blowing over them. This would cool the waters down, but also draw out heat. At high

enough speeds, the wind could create light. God calling forth light at this point details

this process. Light would be released.

The account defines the first day and concludes, And the evening and the morning

11 Strongs 8420
+
were the first day. Notice evening comes first? We usually think of morning coming

first, and then evening. We know that light is very fast. So human beings only see where

light has been, not where its coming from. So would a human being witnessing creation

see evening first? The light would be already disappearing before even being noticed.

God made the light into a living being. We are told that he called the light Day.

Day is capitalized in the verse. When God calls something, he is giving it life and

personality. The Hebrew name is Yom or Yon. But God also gave life and personality to

the darkness. We are told he called the darkness Night. Night in Hebrew is Leyalah or

Lilith. Yom and Leyalah would be opposed to one another.

Yom was formed into a relationship with God the Son, as his mother. His

relationship to her would hold him to the laws of physics. Leyalah had a relationship

with God the Father but she broke it. The moment light was formed into waves there was

also a wave of darkness, an anti-lightwave. But it lost form; Leyalah broke her

relationship with God.

God the Father contained himself in the waters with God the Son. The Holy Spirit

contained himself in light. All other spirits were also contained in either light or

darkness.

After God formed the light he separated waters. The waters were only created at this

point and, like darkness, they were chaotic. It was particles moving without any order.

When God separated them he formed the water into waves just as he had done for light.

He separated waters with the firmament. The waters above the firmament were chaotic

and the waters below were ordered into waves like light. What God was doing in

separating the waters was forming sound. He called the firmament Heaven. In Hebrew

+
this word is shamayim. This word might very well have the meaning of sound water.

Or even sound wave. So sound has a lot to do with heaven.

So at first God formed light and sound and implicitly formed sight and hearing.

Then God wanted to gather the liquid waters into one place. Most probably envision a

seething sea and God bounding them with cliffs or beaches, placing the waters in some

kind of giant cosmic bowl. But most might forget that water is also in the form of ice.

Ice may be the only way water can be truly gathered. Was God creating ice on the third

day? It may have already been frozen on the first day when God was moving over the

waters, but God may have used further action later to gather the waters.

Water can also be frozen with salt. We think of salt melting water. Anybody living

in a cold climate is familiar with rock salt. You throw it on ice or snow and they melt.

Its also known that salt water doesnt freeze. If you could reverse the process and pull

salt out of liquid water, it could freeze. God was calling forth salt on the third day of

creation. The account hints that he was. He may have been using salt to freeze the

waters.

The account refers to dry land. Land is italicized in most Bible versions. This is

because there is no word for land used in this verse. Land is inferred from the context.

But dry might also hint at salt. A lot of us know that salt dries out substances. Salt acts

to preserve things like meat by drawing out moisture.

The Bible often remarks that the earth was founded upon the seas and drawn out of

water (Ps. 24:2, II Pet. 3:5). But how could the earth stand on water? It could stand on

ice. It could also be dry ( and cold) with salt. Is the third day of creation hinting at an ice

age? Is this the ice so many of us are taught about?

+
 If God commanded the waters to be gathered into one place, and for dry land to

appear, then it is apparently a violation of his commandment for water to break these

bounds. If gathering of waters refers to ice, then wouldnt melted water be a violation

of Gods command. How could there be life then? How could there be rivers, rain, etc?

There may indeed have been a violation during the third day of creation. Seas are

almost always conceived of as evil in the Bible. This may have something to do with the

creation account involving earth and seas. It may be that God had intended the ice in his

creative action and something, or someone hindered this. Many know that glaciers were

important for carving out the land and providing flat arable spaces rich with minerals.

And as far as I know glaciers and polar pack ice are all made of fresh water, not salt

water.

So was sea water as we know it something God had not intended? Also, how could

there be life if all the water were supposed to be in the form of ice? The solution of the

problem may lie in motion. This means that, perhaps, water could be allowed to flow,

only in the process of moving back to being in one place as ice. This would allow life.

The problem with the sea is that it wont ever freeze without some further action. So

some force was turning water back to sea water rather than ice or fresh flowing water.

Heat could be created in the process of melting, but perhaps not light. The seas may not

have been conducive to life, or perhaps higher life.

The earth is always conceived of in a good light. The earth may have been in a

struggle with the sea in carrying out Gods command. This may be what glaciers were,

and are, all about. Glaciers may have acted to melt water for life without converting it

back into salt water. This could be through friction. Glaciers are known to scrape along

+
rock and create dust that enriches soils. Friction is known to create heat. It could then

cause melting. There might even be enough energy to create light. And this may explain

where the light came from before there was any sun. In fact, the processes of wind and

friction could both account for light before there were any stars, sun or moon. Is the

aurora borealis of the north really caused by glaciers and not the sun, as were commonly

taught? Should the third day of creation be thought of more as an ice world than as

anything else? Were the trees formed then coniferous, found usually in cold places, and

also dark places?

God the Son moved from the waters and anchored himself to trees and plants at first.

He anchored all other spirits in the trees also. The trees were brought forth with the

purpose of pulling carbon out of the earth. Extra carbon was threatening the earth from

the increasingly chaotic darkness. The trees would also act as radio towers to

communicate with heaven and one another.

On the fourth day of creation God made the heavenly bodies to aid in the separation

of light and darkness. Darkness had devolved back into chaos and threatened the form of

light. The heavenly bodies were placed in the firmament to protect the earth and sound

waves that were threatened by the chaotic darkness and chaotic waters. They had moved

from the chaotic regions above the firmament, in the form of comets and asteroids. The

sun, moon and stars would act to absorb and pulverize wayward comets and asteroids.

God split the spirits he had anchored in trees and left half in the trees put the other

half in the heavenly bodies. God the Son was anchored to the sun. God the Father was

anchored to the moon. God the Holy Spirit remained contained in light.

God would use the dust created in the process of founding the earth to make the sun,

+
moon and stars, and later men and beasts. The light and heat from the sun was probably

only reflected light. It was light that had already come off the earth through wind and

friction. Its already commonly known that the moon reflects the earths light. But does

the sun also reflect the earths light, rather than the other way around?

The sun may have been created partly to evaporate seawater. If seawater were a

problem, God was finding ways to remove it. And then God adds that the celestial

bodies are to keep time. Up until this point, there is no way to keep time. This is why it

may be difficult, if not impossible to determine just how much time (as we know it) went

by in the first three days of creation.

Sea creatures appeared on the fifth day of creation with the purpose of pulling carbon

and salt out of the water. They were only created, not made or formed. This means that

they were chaotic. They would appear like sea creatures, but they were susceptible to

mutation. They could exist as large organisms, or microscopic organism like amoeba.

They were intended to separate salt from seawater biologically.

Then God brought forth beasts and man on the sixth day of creation. But God did

not simply create beasts as he had done with fish and fowl from the waters. God made

the beasts. This means that the beasts had a higher structure than the simpler fish and sea

fowl. The beats could not mutate into a lower form which had only been created.

God declared that he would make man in his image. But men were only created at

first. This means that men had no more structure than fish and sea fowl; men could

+
mutate back into a lower form initially, unlike beasts. Beasts were actually more

complex in their structure at first. God at this point had only said he would make man in

his image; he hadnt actually done that yet. This would put man on an equal level with

beasts.

God created men and women both originally. Since they were only created male

and female, this means they only appeared as men and women anatomically. But they

were not made male and female or formed male and female. This means that they had no

sexual desire. They had the bodies of men and women on the outside, but inside they

were chaotic and had no determined inclination for sexual activity.

Each man had an exact female counterpart. The woman was the mold in which the

man was created. But they would not necessarily remain together or even desire one

another. The female counterpart of the male is called a shinan in Hebrew. This means a

duplicate, double, or copy.

God gave men dominion over all other creatures. Dominion meant actual

possession. This means that a man or woman could actually inhabit an animal and

control it. But there would be a struggle to dominate the animals. Men and women

would struggle for mastery over an animal. Then men and women began to desire not

only to control animals, but to dominate other men and women.

Mankind was commanded by God to eat only seeds and fruit, not leaves or roots.

Animals were commanded by God to only leaves and not seeds or fruit. Eating only

leaves, fruit and seeds only would not ruin vegetation. But eating roots would destroy

vegetation and create desert wastes. Eating meat would mix and sometimes fuse the

genetic structure of a human being with the animal they had eaten. In other words one

+
became what one ate- you are what you eat. Evil men and women would use the

simple commandments on food to dominate animals and mankind. There was only

physical death then, because God had given no commandment regarding death; there was

no spiritual death yet.

If a human being broke the commandment they would bring Gods wrath upon them.

They would lose dominion over animals. They would no longer have any control over

animals. Since human beings at that time had only a created structure, and not a made or

formed structure, their genetic structure would absorb the structure of whatever animal

they ate. They would be dominated by the dead animal, its spirit. By Gods decree they

could also fall indirectly under the dominion of human beings who had not violated

Gods prohibition on meat.

Human beings first acquired blood when they violated Gods prohibition against

meat. God would not fulfill for them his promise that he would make them in his image.

They would forever lose complete human form and never receive self-awareness.

Those who had eaten beasts with a more complex structure would begin to change

appearance. They could completely change into the form of whatever beast they had

eaten, but never be able to completely change back or control their appearance and

characteristics again. They would also not ever be able to recognize themselves again.

Those who had eaten fish and/or water fowl would take on their characteristics but

could control them for a time and also be able to retain complete human form for a time

(Dn. 2:43). This is because the fish and water fowl were only created and not made and

therefore had no dominant structure. They would also lose self-awareness forever.

Satan and many others took pleasure in the sport of hunting. Satan lusted after the

+
power and nature of many beasts. He lusted for meat and drew many into sinning against

Gods prohibition. They would free an animal from their control and hunt it for pleasure.

Some would violate Gods commandment against eating meat, including Satan. Satan

and others also tortured their prey before eating it. They began a conflict with Jesus and

those that would not torture and those that would not eat meat at all or hunt. There

followed wars for dominance between those that followed God and those that followed

Satan.

Satan formed a large following. He devised a plan to dominate all life. He used

several tactics to draw mankind and beasts to himself. Some fell easily to his schemes;

they might eat meat and Satan would give them a false promise that they could retrieve

their original form.

Some were more difficult to fool. Satan would get some to eat leaves or roots in

violation of Gods commandment. They would not fall under Satans direct control or

lose their form. But they would lose control of animals and be susceptible to attack and

seek Satans prowess as a hunter for protection.

Many of Satans most loyal followers hadnt violated any of Gods commandments

and were not under any of Satans control. They could control animals and men that had

violated any of Gods rules. They had control over their own appearance. They could

actually partly control Satan himself because Satan had fallen under the dominion of

men.

Satan revealed his tactics to his most loyal and trusted followers. But he left them

unaware to even more of his snares. His most trusted and loyal followers grew in power

over men and animals. Satan made them believe that they could completely control him.

+
He bestowed more of his knowledge and prowess upon them giving them greater power.

Believing they had saved mankind from corruption, and seeing their apparent dominance

over all life, they began to worship an image of man. But they forgot that Satan was part

man. They became confused in their worship of either Satan or themselves. They didnt

worship God and most would ultimately be trapped by Satan, never seeing their blindness

and losing the promise of being made in the image of God and receiving self-awareness.

Many that had violated Gods commandment repented. They helped Jesus to

protect others that had not violated Gods commandment. Those that had died to protect

men and animals from being corrupted or eaten would be rewarded by being made into

the seraphim, cherubim and angels.

Satan had acted to keep many men from corruption, but only for his own purposes.

He was killed in the struggles. He had known of Gods promise to make man in his

image and sought the favor and glory of God by acquiring the attributes of many beasts

he had slain and eaten. He had falsely repented of violating the ban on meat. Many

others that did not repent and were not killed were allowed by God to survive for a time.

The cherubim and seraphim were fully forgiven by God for violating his

commandment, but he would not fulfill for them his promise of making them in his

image. He gave them an exalted status in heaven but at the cost of losing total self-

awareness. They would not be allowed to know that they were part man and part beast.

This is why the visions of Ezekiel and John saw them with many faces.

Many did not violate Gods commandment against meat, but they violated his

commandment on what type of vegetation to eat. They didnt lose any control over their

appearance or characteristics and they didnt lose self-awareness. They lost dominion

+
over animals. They sought their former dominion of beasts through worship and

unknowingly passed on their own sinful nature to beasts. So, for example, ones that had

eaten anything without concern would pass on this characteristic to goats, or ones that ate

roots would pass on this characteristic to horses, etc. They would also fall under the

dominion of men who had not corrupted themselves and also be susceptible to being

attacked and eaten by animals since they could no longer control them.

More and more men and women fell to corruption, but Jesus and his followers

attempted to protect them from further corruption. Jesus warned that animals had

become a threat to any who had violated Gods commandments. Many helped Jesus in

the struggle as they could. Others helped Satan in his quest for dominion. God would

not yet break his promise to them to make them in his image. He would bring them back

to life and allow them time to repent. Those that had eaten roots and would not repent

would gradually become goats. Those that had eaten leaves would gradually turn into

sheep, but would also become goats if they did no repent.

When men, women and animals died their bodies would be burned on pyres. In

chapter two of the Genesis account the phrase LORD God is used instead of just God

every time, after it says God rested from his labors. This phrase would be Jehovah

elohim in Hebrew. Translated it means the most high Jehovah. Jehovah is a personal

name. Elohim is just a description. This phrase refers to God the Father alone. The

Hebrew root word yashen that forms the basis for the name Jesus even has one meaning

of sleep.1

God the Father, Jehovah, would take one of those that had died and bury him instead

11 Strongs 3462
+
of burning his body. This was Adam. God also took many animals and buried them in

the Garden of Eden as well. While Jesus rested and slept, Jehovah planted the Garden of

Eden on the seventh day of creation. In the first six days of creation Jesus, Jehovah and

the Holy Spirit had acted together in creation. But Jehovah acted alone in forming Adam.

Adams name means dust or clay, as he was taken out of dust or clay. The name

came also to mean mankind in general. It may also have the meaning of taken from the

ground. The Semitic root word ad is a verb which means to take, to gather or to

hunt. Adam was taken out of the ground. Ground in Hebrew is adamah.

The name and word adam also has the meaning of red or ruddy, apparently from

the reddish clay in the Middle East. The name Edom seems to be the same name,

meaning red or ruddy also. This was another name for Esau who had either red hair or

a ruddy complexion or both. As for the connection to clay, its interesting to switch the

order of the consonants in the word adam in the process and rather common phenomenon

known as metathesis. One gets md. Is English mud of the same derivation? Mud comes

from clay. Who knows?

There may be even an additional meaning in the name Adam. A partially connected

Semitic word is abad which means to labor or to work. It also means to destroy.

This may be in the sense that destruction is often an essential part of labor and in

cultivation. This can be seen in the analogy of the wheat and the tares of Bible parable:

the tares are destroyed in the cultivation of wheat. Even English bad might have a

derivation from this root word.

So one meaning of abad is likely to gather fruit, as with cultivating. The root abad

seems to be a compound of ab, which means fruit and ad, which means gather. This

+
Hebrew word is even the one used in one of Gods first commands (Gen. 2:15). Adam

was also commanded to be fruitful and multiply, which could be taken as similar in

meaning. The Hebrew suffix -m indicates a plurality and means a multiple or

magnification of something. M is also prefixed to mean a magnification in some Hebrew

words such as magen, great (ma) shield (gen). So the name Adam has a secondary

meaning of fruitful (as in cultivate or labor) ad, and multiple or magnified, am. So

within his name itself may be found the very first command that God gave him, Be

fruitful and multiply.

The generic Hebrew word for mankind, adam, is the name of the first man named in

the Bible. Its interesting to note that the Greek word demos, meaning people in general

or common man has the same main root consonants as adam.

Like the name of Adam, the name of Eden may also be partly linked to the Hebrew

root word ad or ed for gather, work or labor, as in be fruitful. The ed of Eden may have

the meaning of fruitful as in tillable ground, ground where one is able to cultivate.

The root ed also has the meaning of mist, fog or misty. The creation account (Gen.

2:6) vaguely refers to the fact that a mist used to rise from the ground at one time. The

relation of this meaning with the meaning to gather is not quite clear.

The root ed has the meaning of encompassing or enveloping like fog or smoke. It

also refers to wealth, what one acquires from gathering, and the passage of time, as a

conception of repetition as with labor (interestingly mists of time?). A related Arabic

word is uwd, which is known as a smoke from incense. Greek eth is probably related.

The word ether is derived. The original Greek implied burning or scorching and thus

smoke. This might lead one to conceive of the blackness of space, once held to be ether,

+
as smoke (from the burning of stars?).

The only connection to fog or smoke and gathering that has been suggested is that a

fog or mist condenses and envelops, which is a loose form of gathering, that is, as a

gathering mist or fog. Apparently when one gathers, one envelops or contains what

has been collected. It may be that the root word ed took on a double meaning from its

association with Eden.

The n in Eden points to a meaning of something springing, like water from the

ground or river from a land. The Hebrew word for spring is en. It is commonly found in

place names such as Engedi, spring of the kid, Enrogel, well of the fuller, Enrimmon,

spring of the pomegranate, Entannim, dragon well, etc.

The word en appears to be cognate with the word ayin, eyin or eyn, Hebrew for

eye. The word came to mean spring, fountain or well in one sense. Notice that

English fountain even has ain at the end of it, close to ayin. The word seems to have

been applied in the sense of a spring being an opening in the ground like an eye and

perhaps even crying or gushing water like an eye does.

It also seemed to have the meaning of a son springing from a father, a mother, or

wine springing from a winepress. The n seemed to mean both the source, like rock and

father/mother, or the product, like a spring, river, wine or son. In fact, the Hebrew word

for wine is yayin. Assyrian was inu. One can even see it in English wine. The Hebrew

word for wine might very well mean something like tears of the Lord. The initial y for

lord was apparently added to ayin.

To the modern western mind there doesnt seem to be a connection between water

and rock. But to ancient people, especially of the Middle East, there was a common

+
connection. Water was often retrieved from aquifers below ground. Men drove shafts

into bare rock to access valuable wells of water. And readers of the Bible well know the

story of Moses and the water from the rock (Num. 20:8-11). The Bibles description of

the rivers of Eden may well indicate that a spring of water rose out of the ground and

became the four rivers of Eden. It must have been a very powerful spring to become four

rivers and it probably came out of bare rock. The name Eden then became a common

word for a fruitful and luxuriant place of abundant and flowing water. Interestingly, the

root consonants dn of Eden are often found in the names of rivers in many places.

The middle of The Garden of Eden was where Jerusalem in Israel now is. The Tree

of Life was originally planted where Jesus Christ was crucified. The western edge of

Eden was located in some part of where Africa now is. The Nile River is part of the

River Pishon. Its flow was altered over time. The spring of the River Gihon still flows

out at Jerusalem (1 Ki.1:33, 38, 45; 2 Ch. 32:30;33:14). Parts of the River Gihon are now

the Jordan River (Genesis 13:10). The Tigris and Euphrates rivers still form the eastern

edge of Eden.

Eden is an ancient western Semitic word for a place of flowing water, a luxuriant

spot, as with an oasis. Many names of rivers, especially in Europe and the Middle East

have the consonants dn in their names. Some examples: The Danube River, The Don

River, The Dneister River, The Dniepr River. The root dn seems to have been a fairly

widespread and common term for river or flowing water. Even the Indus River in India

follows the pattern, though reversed in order, including both consonants n an d.

The Jordan River forming the boundary between modern Israel and Jordan also has

this dn in it. The dn usually appears in the form of den, dan or don. Most etymologists

+
today will tell you that the name Jordan means rapidly descending due to the rivers

many steep descents on its course. But I offer another derivation. It may very well mean

gore dan or river gore. One meaning of the English word gore is a triangular piece

of land formed by the confluence of two rivers. Geographically it is the land at the point

where two rivers join, the land bounded by both rivers. This is one- probably little

known- meaning of the word. According to the Bible several rivers joined together in

Eden, either at their sources or at some confluence. Even English garden may very well

mean the garden of eden, though this is not any accepted derivation of the word in

mainstream scholarly circles.

Adams was the first man to be formed by God. As Jesus slept on the seventh day of

creation, Jehovah took a part of him and placed it into Adams body. This brought Adam

back to life and he became formed when Jehovah breathed into his nostrils the breath of

life. This means he had the highest form of complexity. He could not mutate into a

lower form of life by eating eat nor could he be altered by it. He also had sexual desire,

not just sexual features. A part of his body would be required to fertilize the tree of life.

No one else yet other than God was a living soul.

Jehovah himself caused vegetation to grow in the Garden of Eden. Adams role was

to keep the garden growing. He was to keep corrupt men and women out of Eden- many

had survived the wars of the past. Adam was also to keep them and wild animals from

eating the vegetation.

God also had placed a part of Jesus into the animals he had buried. This raised them

from the dead. When Adam named them it gave him dominion over them. Jehovah

caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep so that he could take out the part of Jesus that he

+
had put into Adam. God would form Eve from this part, the rib..

With Adam began the practice of burial at death. But many continued the practice of

funeral pyres. By the time Adam was formed in the Garden of Eden, Satan had acquired

dominion over every form of life, including men. He buried a sea serpent under the seed

of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to fertilize it. The tree itself was under the

control of Satan by way of the fish which was under his control.

Gods curse and warning to Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

only applied to Adam himself and not to Eve (Gen. 2:16-17). You can see this by the use

of the word thou (at least in the King James Version), which is a singular and intimate

form. Somehow Eve found out about this warning. It is assumed that Adam told Eve not

to eat from the forbidden tree. So did the curse of death only apply to Adam? This

brings just how the serpent lied to Eve into better focus.

Satan spoke to Eve out of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He diverted

mans attention from the tree of life by getting Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of the

knowledge of good and evil. He also attempted to destroy them by bringing Gods wrath

upon them.

One completely under Satans control got into Eden and dug up the seed of the tree

of life in hopes of planting it in the future.

Satan tried to destroy Adam through Eve. But in so doing, he left open the door for

Jesus. And I would guess that this was because Satan didnt understand the deep

mysteries of God. And I think this has led to some confusion about the origin of sin in

the mainstream church. I think it has been passed along without being fully examined.

A main doctrine of Christianity is that sin came into the world by one man, Adam

+
(Rom. 5:12, etc.). This seems plain and simple enough. And I would guess most pass

through this doctrine with ease. Notice that no mention is made of the womans role in

bringing sin into the world. Eves sin is left out.

We see the serpent in top form in this account (Gen. 3:4-5). Satan not only lies but

plays with words like the master lawyer that he is. And he embeds the lies within the

truth masterfully. He implies many things which he doesnt say directly either. Spoken

like a perfect forked tongue, many forks!

Adam himself may have mistakenly believed that Gods command applied to Eve

also and he apparently told her so. She appears to have passed on the mistake to the

serpent and also probably unintentionally added that God had commanded not to even

touch the forbidden tree and its fruit (Gen. 3:2-3). I would assume this is a serious

problem with people in general.

Its not clear just how Satan knew of Gods warning, but he certainly intentionally

plays on the already distorted warning. The serpent repeats the warning back to Eve, but

he uses the word ye instead of thou. Ye is a plural form, applying to both Adam and Eve.

Satan was perhaps reinforcing a mistaken belief that the curse of death applied to Adam

and Eve both. So here we see Satan mixing truth with a lie. He was telling her the truth

that they both would not die, but at the same time he implies that Adam would not die.

He also reinforces Eves possibly mistaken belief that the curse of death applied to her as

well as to Adam.

The serpent clearly talks in double-speak; he seems to be speaking out of both sides

of his mouth at once, the classic forked tongue of a snake. He makes several

statements, many of which are not recorded, by implying even more things by what he

+
actually does say. He says, You surely shall not die (Gods lying). For God knows that

in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing

good and evil (God is powerless to stop you from eating it and is keeping you from being

like himself). He also appears to be saying, You both will not die if you eat from that

tree (Adam will not die if he eats from the tree). We often underestimate the sinister

power of Satans lies. Here, he veils one lie within another lie or distortion. He tells the

truth (assumedly) that both will not die as a totality, but lies that Adam himself will not

die, as a part of that totality.

God himself verifies that Satan was telling the truth when he said Eve would be like

God. I think its a misconception commonly spread by ministers and others who claim

Satans lie and purpose is to get people to desire and attempt to be like God. This seems

clearly false. First of all, God states it is possible to be like God in Genesis 3:22.

Second, Satan never said Eve would be God, but like God. Even he didnt lie here. His

lie was about death. What he did, was to get Eve to think she could be like God without

death or consequence.

The really sinister thing the devil did was to play on Eves desire and tempt her into

reaching for something with false motives: he got her to sin with an empty promise and to

carry out a desire without acknowledging the consequences. In other words, Eve was

basically being lazy and cowardly, (even though she was mistaken that the warning may

not have even applied to her). She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She wanted

something for nothing. She allowed herself to be fooled into grasping for a desirable

thing, but without paying for it. And Adam might have done something similar. I believe

this was the true nature of their sin and what is behind most sin.

+
 Adam and Eve were trying to get something for nothing. This seems to be a

common malady of the human race. Desiring to be like God wasnt the worst thing about

what Adam and Eve did. God never said this was wrong. What was wrong was their

motive. I think it would have been better if they had said they wanted to be like God and

were willing to die for it if they had to and then eaten from the tree. Of course theres a

paradox here. If you eat from the tree you gain the knowledge of good and evil. But then

you die. So what good is it? But still, the motive would have been right.

What Satan did to Eve first and Adam through her, gives us a good glimpse into how

Satan operates. He presented Eve with a false choice. She acted according to this false

choice. Why Eve did not act according to the real and original choice is not

substantiated. Perhaps Eve would have made her choice according to the real choice in

time, but the devil moved in before this happened.

The devil did also basically assault Eve when he twisted the truth and presented a

false choice. What he was probably doing here was attempting to take the place of God

and hoping to become a god to Adam and Eve. He had little power in the matter. He

could neither kill Adam and Eve nor give them the knowledge of good and evil. He

could only communicate. And communicate he did.

It is not clear what Adams motives were when he ate from the tree of the knowledge

of good and evil. But the Bible clearly tells us that Adam was not deceived by the

serpent. So it would appear that he didnt eat the forbidden fruit because of the serpents

lie (I Timothy 2:14). Why he ate, I think well just have to ask Adam himself if we get the

chance.

Adam might be seen as a coward. Did he eat the forbidden fruit only when he saw

+
that Eve had not died? One might think so at first glance. But remember, Adam was

probably quite intelligent and also much more spiritually aware than we are. He was but

a step from God and in a world not long yet under corruption. It was probably not that

simple.

Adam clearly sinned when he ate from the forbidden tree, according to Gods clear

statement. Others have suggested that he ate to redeem Eve, or at least to share her fate

out of love. This is probably closer to the truth about Adams motives. It may be

possible that Adam indeed had the power to redeem Eve as Christ redeemed mankind.

Adam had been made directly by God. He had no sin. He may have eaten the deadly

fruit in propitiation for Eves transgression. Maybe he was dying to redeem her from

death. Was he trying to be the savior? The hero? I would say most men are like that.

Or did he only think he was dying to save Eve? Remember, the curse of death may

not have even applied to Eve. Maybe Adam was presuming to be savior (like most men

would, I would venture to say). Adam may have leapt to an erroneous conclusion out of

some desire to play the Christ. But there may have been nothing to save since Eve may

not have been under the command. Another important point is that Adam committed a

sin perhaps thinking he would save Eve. But I would guess that- if there were anything

that needed to be saved in the first place- committing a sin would not work. I think most

would agree that one sin cannot be undone by committing another sin. We all know the

old saying, Two wrongs dont make a right. An act (hypothetical perhaps) like what

Adam did is certainly different from what Christ did to save mankind. Christ did not

commit any sin to save us; he became sin itself. All Adam did was to end up with the

need for a savior himself.

+
 One might ask here, why God didnt make clear from the start what all the curses

would be, should the forbidden fruit be eaten? The only stated warning was the

punishment of death, and that may have been only on Adam. Why did he add additional

curses to Adam, and then on Eve and the serpent also? Only Adam had transgressed a

clear command of God. Its not clear whether God replaced the curse of death

pronounced over Adam with different curses. God had not made any clear warning that

these curses would be imposed. This is not to say that God has no right to impose a curse

at any time. Perhaps God was exercising his own free will and prerogative to act, just as

the three transgressors had done.

There might be a widely-held misunderstanding of just what Adam and Eves sins

were at the beginning. Most might say that going against Gods command was the sin.

But only Adam seems to have broken an express warning of God. Adam is the only one

that clearly sinned. The Bible doesnt state that God had said anything directly to Eve. It

may be that Eve actually didnt sin at all by eating the forbidden fruit. Whatever the case,

Eve had both Adam and God to doubt, when she was tempted by the serpent. Perhaps

Eve thought that Adam was lying to her about God and what God commanded.

So what was Eves sin then? The best guess is that she disobeyed her husband

(depending on just what Adam had told her). Another guess is that not only did she

disobey her husband, but she did it by listening to someone else (and not God). Some

believe that Eve actually had sexual relations with the serpent. This may be going too far.

But Eve did listen to another person besides her husband and then disobeyed her husband

thereby; some might find that adulterous. They might find that no better than actually

committing physical sexual adultery.

+
 But still, Eve has not broken any express command of God yet. If Adam was God to

Eve, having been taken out of him and dependent upon him for existence, then God may

have very well applied his command to Adam to Eve also, as long as Adam had relayed

that command to Eve.

So Adam may have sinned to save Eve. But was this such a noble act? Or was he

redeeming her for selfish reasons. Did he just want a sexual partner? However noble his

act, he was now under penalty and death. It has been said that Adam possibly sinned

again by taking Eve back (Mark 10:12, Matt. 5:32, etc.). Eve was sinning too by going

back to Adam. Although she had not married the serpent, it might be said she had sinned

against her husband by relating in any way with the serpent. Furthermore, any relations

with Eve was now forcing the redeemed Eve to have relations with one who was

technically a dead man. And since both Adam and Eve had eaten, they had a knowledge

of sin and were thus punishable. I would guess that all their offspring would have the

knowledge of sin genetically or at least by word of mouth. I think this debunks many

claims that there was no guilt of sin before Moses and the law. I would guess that God

had to atone for sin often long before Moses in order to make life bearable for mankind.

Even though God had not yet made any actual statements about it, Eve had pretty

much committed adultery (by not merely listening to the serpent, but acting upon his

words) and would be committing basically necrophilia by having relations with Adam.

And here is where the big curse really comes into focus: everyone born to Adam and Eve

would be born in adultery and would also be born dead (spiritually). They would be dead

by extension, since Adam was dead spiritually. Eve may have not been dead spiritually

herself, but had the curse of being mother to children born in sin and spiritual death. And

+
here is clearly where the need for Christ comes in. Only he could redeem every person

and allow Eve to be the mother of living, redeemed children, which is probably why

Adam named her Eve (Gen. 3:20).

I may be going too far here, but Eve may have been the only person in human history

besides Christ not to have been redeemed by Christ from death. But she did have to be

redeemed from something like death. This was her plight. Otherwise she would have

been alone. She would have remained quite unique, but quite alone, not needing

redemption from death, but needing to be able to bear living children and to have godly

relations with her husband and mankind. She may have been redeemed from death by

Adam, or, more likely, she did not need to be redeemed from death. I would say that it

was not Eve that didnt need redemption, but her seed that didnt need to be redeemed.

This may explain how Christ (at least his human part) was without sin after having

entered the world through his mother Mary.

So if Eve was not under the penalty of death, did she not die then? Is she just

wandering around somewhere crying and waiting? I would suggest that she indeed didnt

die, but is sleeping. Christ himself referred to death as sleep. Notice that when he does,

it involves a girl. And the original Greek word used in each case is katheudo which only

refers to sleep. In the case of Lazarus and others, Jesus uses another word, kolmao,

which means either literal sleep or literal death. Also, in the case of Lazarus, Jesus

speaks plainly that Lazarus is dead (John 11:11-14). But I dont think he is being trite or

euphemistic when he refers to death as sleep. Especially in the case of the girl, was this a

picture of the dormant Eve?1

11 Strongs 2518, 2837

+
 Every person born is descended partly or fully from Adam and Eve. Everyone has a

little bit of Eve in them. They have the seed of the woman which is Jesus (Col. 1:27)?

But the problem is that everyone also has a little bit of Adam in them, a little bit of death,

and a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6). The seed must be germinated by

Jesus to grow; it must be awakened. This brings Jesus parable of the sower into more

vivid detail (Matt. 3:13, Mark 4:3, Luke 8:5).

The correct doctrine of original sin then ought to be that every human being is born

spiritually dead, cut off from God (2 Cor. 5:14). Nothing they do can ever change it;

they must be saved by Christ. But, although they are spiritually dead, they have free will

to do good or evil. But that really doesnt matter! They still cant remove the curse of

death. The best they can do is go to sleep So the false doctrine of original sin and total

depravity taught in most mainstream churches today is really a moot point, nevertheless

all the more dangerous.

God was surely not merely angry at Adam and Eve for their sins. His curses had

good reasons. He had the right to act forwardly towards them as they had done to him.

But as he does time and again in the Bible, he turns curses into blessings. One of the

main purposes of his curses on Adam and Eve appears to be to carry out his command of

be fruitful and multiply. He was telling Adam and Eve that they would carry out that

command. The problem for them was that it would not be enjoyable. They would still

carry out Gods plan, but because they sinned, it would be with sorrow, not joy.

Adam and Eve eventually didnt do what Satan hoped for them to do. That was to

make him their god instead of the real God. This is a fairly well-known Christian concept

and one which I believe is very true. Adam and Eve were redeemed by a restored faith in

+
God. Surely they were bitter, sorrowful and angry over what happened to them. They

could have blamed God and rejected him. They then naturally would have turned to the

devil. They might have even believed the devil, even after what he had done to them.

Since they died spiritually first and the physical death would come in time, they could

have reasoned that they hadnt died. They also could have reasoned that the devil was

also right that they would become like God, which they did. They could have easily

believed that the devil was right. In their minds this could reinforce a rejection of God.

Adam and Eve became infected by elements of the serpent when they ate the

forbidden fruit. But they would not fall under the control or be mutated because they had

been formed and were impervious to any other creatures genetic structure. But their

offspring would carry this serpent seed. Some would succumb to it and others would

not.

The Latin root word of English virus means poison, but it is also awfully similar to

the Latin root for worm and for that matter the Latin root for man, vir. The Bible even

warns about the problem of worms (Mark 9:44). It tells men not to think of themselves

any better than worms (Is. 41:14).

Many parasites have a snake-like or worm-like form. Gods curse on Adam and Eve

would be partly fulfilled by bacteriua, viruses and parasites. Insects could also carry out

the curses. Even the name Beelzebub, a name commonly applied to Satan, means lord

of the flies.

This brings the Jewish dietary and ritual laws into greater contrast. They were

almost certainly a protection against such contamination. The Bible warns of the ground

being polluted and there were rituals for keeping it clean, such as removing a dead body

+
from a gallows, etc. Contaminants might remain in people for many generations,

reminding one of the Old Testament bans on allowing foreigners and persons of uncertain

origin into the congregation of Israel only after several generations. Maybe part of the

reason God cast Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden was to get away from the

ground which was contaminated with the cursed Satan as a toxin. And later, God wanted

mankind to spread across the earth for the same reason, which explains why he broke up

the efforts of Nimrod at Babel.

When God cursed the serpent he transformed the tree into a snake. This

transformation is echoed in the event of Moses wooden staff being changed into a snake.

It is also echoed again but reversed in the event of God speaking to Moses from the

burning bush.

The curse on the serpent has more than one meaning. That the serpent was cursed to

go on its belly doesnt refer to physical form, but rather function. In other words, the

curse meant that the serpent was fated to be controlled by its appetite alone. This would

include food first and foremost and other passions. To go on ones belly harks to

whose god is their belly (Phil. 3:19). The serpent was cursed to have a perverse

relationship with food. This meant having no self-control regarding food and also an

implied disrespect for it. It also meant no discernment for food and a lack of concern for

safety, leading ultimately to destruction.

The curse on the serpent was also bad for Adam and Eve because they were no

longer top of the food chain; the serpent was placed above them. They were added to the

serpents menu. God said the serpent would eat dust all its life; this includes Adam who

God said was taken from dust and Eve by coming from Adam, by extension.

+
 The serpent would eat meat, something proscribed by God. Put bluntly, the serpent

and his progeny would eat people. Even more bluntly, the serpent would ultimately

desire blood because life is in the blood as God said through Moses. In the desire for

life and power, the serpent would eat anything to meet this goal and would find that blood

was the most powerful source of food, human blood even more so, however twisted, even

containing life itself.

Adams curse was similar to the serpents in many ways. Adam was cursed to need

food, but Adam would not lose control over his relationship with food. He was cursed to

toil for bread, but not to break Gods command against eating meat. Adams curse

actually contained a blessing. He was given a healthy relationship and respect for his

food; he had to work for it. The serpent didnt necessarily even have to work for his

food. Adam was not put under the control of food.

The serpent probably quickly began to desire to eat people. At first it probably ate

them slowly, on a small microscopic level. Since there were only few people at first, the

serpent had to act as a parasite. Later, as the population grew, the serpent could eat

people outright, attacking them in the form of an animal or other creature. In fact,

perhaps the serpent has waited for the population to grow to gigantic proportions to fill

up the menu, as it were. Perhaps Adam and Eve then later ate contaminated food with

such bacteria or parasites in it. They were then doomed to die, at least physically.

+
The Way

+
 When Adam and Eve were cast from Eden, God placed four cherubim in the

Euphrates River, at the east Eden (Genesis 3:24). These cherubim are still there today

(Rv.9:14). Their bodies are bound to the River, but their spirits are free to roam. Two of

the cherubim are Michael and Gabriel.

Its interesting to note that grapes and also seawater both are almost identical to

blood chemically. This hints at another possible reason why it was of the utmost

importance for God to hinder access to the tree of life, with very dark implications. It

may be that the tree of life needed blood and bone to fertilize it and cause it to germinate.

It may even be that only Adams blood alone, or his descendants, would cause the tree to

germinate and produce. Would he have needed to cut himself? Or cut Eve? Assuming

this, its not hard to see then why God took quick action to keep mankind from the tree.

Evil men might have sacrificed Adam and his direct bloodline to get the tree to produce.

This might have been a danger just if evil men merely believed such sacrifices would do

that, however correct or incorrect they were. Of course, they would have had to know

where the tree of life was and what was required. That Hebrew for blood is dam is

compelling, and that Hebrew for to blush and rosy is adam.

At first it seems absurd and horrific to think that the tree of life somehow needed

human blood to grow or produce. But its not that hard to believe. We use chemicals that

are found in blood as fertilizer. We use feces and even ground up bone as fertilizer; dead

bodies make good fertilizer. Blood probably could be a good fertilizer. Its ghastly to

contemplate the requirements for a good-sized field!

There are even more connections between blood and the tree of life. It may be just

+
coincidence, but the Bible has some verses that eerily echo back to the tree of life. It

states that life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11-14, etc.). In the Old Testament the Bible

forbids cutting oneself (Lev. 21:5). Land is polluted by blood, but also cleansed by it

(Num. 35:33). Blood even cries out to God from the ground (Gen. 4:10).

God meant to keep men from getting to the tree of life. At least he meant to keep the

wrong men from getting to it and vice versa. The cherubim placed at The Euphrates

River were placed to keep the way of the tree of life, the King James version of the

Bible says in Genesis 3:24. Other versions have guard instead of keep. How would

they do this? It helps to look at the definition of way. Was it an actual way as in a path

that the cherubim were guarding or keeping secret? I think in some ways yes. I believe

this because I believe there was an actual tree of life in an actual location. But the word

way in this verse most likely also means manner, as in the manner that men go to or

seek the tree of life.

Im sure many have wondered why God blocked mankind from the tree of life after

Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis 3:22-24). As Christians we are taught of Gods gift of

eternal life through Christ. So Gods act and proclamation to block access to the tree of

life seem counter to his nature. Didnt he want mankind to live forever? On first reading

it appears that God doesnt want mankind to have eternal life. But on closer inspection

we might find other reasons for what God was doing.

God didnt explicitly say he didnt want mankind to live forever. And was he

making it impossible for mankind to get to the tree of life? It seems he was only making

it extremely difficult, not totally impossible. Was he making it something that had to be

earned? The line lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat,

+
and live forever could be translated, so that he doesnt stretch out his hand. But it

might also mean, in case he stretches out his hand These two translations dont mean

exactly the same thing. The first leads to a remedy of prevention and negation. The

second leads to conditions, not necessarily prevention and negation, but merely

hindrances. If you read between the lines he might have been saying, in case he reaches

out and takes from the tree of life and eats from it, I will make it hard for him to do that

(he will have to earn every bit of it; mankind will have to get it by good honest hard work

and merit).

itself. Rather, the Bible might seem to imply that the tree of life was not necessarily

self-sufficient. This is similar to the story of Elishas grave (2 Kings 13:20-21). Elishas

bones were able to raise another man back to life, but not Elisha himself!

Concerning the tree of life itself, there are some questions or puzzles that seem to

arise from it and statements in the Bible about it. Assuming it was a real tree and not just

a symbol of some greater truth, some may then question what is said about it. For

instance, God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life after they had

sinned. We assume this is for their own good and further, that perhaps they would have

been locked permanently in a sort of sinful eternal life, perhaps a permanent state of

death. But, if we assume that God holds the power to grant eternal life or eternal death,

why then would it matter if Adam and/or Eve, or anyone else, for that matter, ate from

this tree? Couldnt God correct the error? According to Bible scholars, we see that God

corrected the problem for Adam and Eve, by killing some animal and providing clothes

with the skin. This was an atonement of blood, which, scholars state, points to the death

of Christ, and further that Adam and Eve knew Christ would come, were Christians and

+
foresaw the life and death of Christ, though the Bible doesnt state this explicitly in these

terms.

Another question: why did God have to have the tree of life guarded with the flaming

sword? Couldnt He just have killed the tree, or withered it? Did the flaming sword kill

the tree? Is the tree still alive, or its descendants? Did it produce seeds that grew into

more trees? These seem like silly questions, but why is this in the Bible then? The tree

of life was apparently an uncommon tree. It had either few seeds or seeds that were hard

to cultivate. If it had seeds that could easily germinate, the tree of life would have spread

and God would have to guard each tree. Maybe the trees fruit takes a very long time to

grow (ages) or grow only with rigorous care or in very rare soils. Whatever, the nature of

such a tree, as its described in the Bible, is quite mystifying.

This all raises further questions of eternal life: Are all people meant to live forever,

in some form or another? The Christian answer is an unequivocal yes. But, going back

to the Garden of Eden, it appears that Adam and Eves future state was unclear, at least if

they were to eat neither from the tree of life nor from the tree of the knowledge of good

and evil. What would it have been like if they had not eaten from either tree? On the one

hand, they would not have died. On the other, eternal life would not be assured. We

assume, by default though, they would have lived forever, not having eaten from the tree

of the knowledge of good and evil. And after Adams sin, doesnt Gods statement that

the tree of life was now a danger, seem to indicate that Adam was not already going to

live forever. The statement confusingly seems to indicate Adam was not going to live

forever, unless he had eaten from the tree of life.

Another thing one can notice in the words of the Bible is that it never states that God

+
told Adam and Eve of the existence of the tree of life. The Bible does indeed clearly state

that the tree of life was in the garden, but nowhere does it state whether God told Adam

and Eve about it and/or what would happen if they ate from it. Are we to assume that

God did tell them about it? Or do we assume, if they had not sinned, that Adam and Eve

would have eventually eaten from the tree of life unknowingly?

And lastly, if Adam and Eve didnt specifically know of the tree of life, was God

afraid that they would eat from the tree of life accidentally? Also, would one bite of the

fruit from the tree of life give eternal life, or was it ongoing nourishment. Apparently one

bite gave eternal life or God wouldnt have been concerned. I myself have no full

answers for these questions about the tree of life. One day, I would like to find out.

There is another problem that God could have foreseen and may be why God did not

want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life. He knew man had sinned and what man

was capable of. It may be that he wanted to keep the wrong men from getting access to

the tree. Once one had eaten from it, they would live forever and could dominate

everyone else. They might try to keep everyone else from the tree by force. They could

then enslave everyone else and endlessly dominate and abuse generations of mortal

people.

When he placed cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life, God may really have

been creating a diversion. Men would sense that there was something special about the

region where the cherubim were placed. Being led by impure motives, they would seek

the tree of life there. But they would be self-deceived; God is not the one deceiving

them. This is at the heart of false religion. What sane person would not want to live

forever? This is a given with man and God is well aware of this. The problem is that

+
many people would abuse their eternal life. God foresaw what an elite class of men

might do if they possessed the tree of life. But he knew that sin had a way of defeating

itself and such foul motives.

When Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, God placed the flaming sword to keep

mankind away from the tree of life, or at least to curtail movement to it. God placed

Satan, the fifth and last cherub, at Mount Sinai in Arabia to hold the flaming sword. The

flaming sword is the deserts of the Middle East.

The Hebrew word used in the passage about the flaming sword (Gen. 3:24) is chereb.

This word means primarily drought and desolation. It has the meaning of sword as

in something that destroys, cuts, kills, Notice how similar this word is to the root

words linked to the cherubim?1 And also interesting, Choreb, better known as Horeb,

from the same word root, also called Mount Sinai, happens to be the spot where Moses

saw the burning bush.

The deserts of Arabia, Syria, Iraq, etc. would have acted as a barrier to people

coming from the east. Many anthropologists are of the view that no one lived to the north

and west of Mesopotamia in early times. The Genesis account even states that no one

lived west of Mesopotamia at all (depending of course on version- Genesis 11:2).

People only lived east of Mesopotamia because they were blocked by a growing,

deadly and impassable desert. This may explain why Abraham on his journey to the

promised land traveled indirectly, first along the rivers of Mesopotamia and northwest to

where Syria is and then down into Palestine. The only other way was most likely by sea

around the coasts of Arabia and up the Red Sea. So people may have been getting to the

11 Strongs 2719
+
west mostly by sea; traveling across the desert was probably unusual because it was very

dangerous, if not impossible.

This characteristic of the Middle East has been noted before. This is its solid and

stifling aspect as a blockade against movement from east to west and vice versa. It has

been mentioned by some that the desert region of the Middle East has hindered the

movements of people from the east into western Asia and Europe. Some anthropologists

(many who dont necessarily believe in the Bible) have even claimed that Europe was

actually the last region to be populated because migrations of human beings were stymied

by deserts in the Middle East for ages.

There are many explanations for what causes climate change and variation. Could it

be though that the flaming sword of Genesis 24 actually brought about the desert region

of the Middle East? And were the cherubim placed at the east of the garden put there to

keep that area from drying up? Notice that angels are released from the Euphrates in the

Apocalypse (Rev. 9:14-15- this may be connected to Rev. 16:12); this results in great

devastation and death.

Deserts are definitely thought of as flaming. Has something caused a climatic

pattern in that region which did not exist before? Ive said before that anthropologists

have claimed the Middle East, and for that matter the Sahara as well, were not always

blazing wastelands but were quite fertile. Maybe the oil and natural gas beneath the

regions of the Middle East affect the climate. It could be that natural gas has been

seeping out of the ground and altering the climate there. Wouldnt a flaming sword need

fuel to burn? Does it burn on the oil and gas of the Middle East? Is the oil and gas there

now the beginnings of the Lake of Fire?

+
 The Middle East contains the region known as the Fertile Crescent. This is in the

area described in the beginning of Genesis. This belt of arable land roughly follows an

arc from the area of modern Iraq to Israel and on into Egypt and the Nile valley. It might

appear that this area follows a crude circle; it borders a sweeping arc of desert. The

flaming sword of Genesis was said to turn every direction. That could very well imply

that some sort of arc pattern would be demarcated. The angel Michael is often called the

archangel because he is said to be one of the chief angels. But- playing on words- is

Michael perhaps the arc angel because he holds the flaming sword which sweeps around

endlessly in the deserts of the Middle East?

So, has the arid deadly desert of Arabia, etc. been actually created by the flaming

sword placed there by God? Is it some unseen force wielded by the angelic world,

creating climatic and thereby historic events on earth? It could very well be. Indeed

civilization seems to have moved from east to west in ancient times. Was it following the

sweep of the sword? We read of recurrent famines in the Bible; they seem to happen

periodically in various regions. I wonder if perfect information and data might reveal

famines in a circular sweep through time.

There is some linguistic evidence of this too. The modern name of Iraq describes a

region which is with all certainty at the center of this very place; the name is very

revealing if it is looked at closely. The name Iraq has been shown to mean several things,

broad, broad lands, flat land, shoreline (for the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers), to

name a few. It has been also linked to the ancient city of Ur, Abrahams original home

and to Uruk and Erech, ancient cities of Mesopotamia near the Persian Gulf. The name

Uruk might be the same as Iraq.

+
 There is large consensus that shoreline is closest to the original meaning. I would

say this is probably correct, but I would look more closely at this meaning. Shoreline of

what? Perhaps a sandy beach. But a sandy beach with no water! Id say the region was

known as a shoreline, but perhaps not on water. Perhaps not on the Tigris or Euphrates

at all; it could easily have meant a shoreline on a vast desert! And it was just about an

impassable barrier.

The Hebrew word raqa may bear this out. This root verb means to hammer, beat

out, spit out, broaden or expand as in beating out a sheet of metal. Related words

have to do with an expanse, broad, far, or sheet. Hebrew raqiya translates as

expanse, visible arch of the sky, and is always used for the firmament (Gen. 1:7-8).

The -ya at the end of the word connects it to God. This root word can clearly be seen in

the name Iraq, at least superficially, if not in derivation. As Ive said, its the consonants

that are most often the clue- same two sounds, r and q (or k/c).

Iraq might also have the meaning of green as in fertile, full of vegetation. The

description is easily connected to the fertile area along the major rivers of the region.

This is probably connected to another Hebrew word, yereq, meaning green or pale green,

as in vegetation. This might also have something to do with green being a common color

associated with Islamic countries. They might prize green, as it is often rare in that very

region. And the word yereq is from the same root as raqa having meanings of to spit

and expanse. Plants might be connected to spitting as they appear to be spit out from

the earth. And an area of green vegetation could easily be considered as an expanse.

An expanse like the sky or a desert are often seen as fixed or firm, hence firmament.

This is something that seems permanent, immovable, steadfast, etc. Are the words raqiya

+
and others, and possibly the name of Iraq then actually even related to English rock?

Almost exactly the same two sounds. Rock often means something immovable, steadfast

and long lasting. Deserts are also incidentally usually very rocky!

The firmament in the sky is often compared to a great arch, the vault of heaven.

Interestingly, English arch has loosely the same two sounds as the root of raqiya. The

firmament could also be seen as something that contains, thereby also a type of barrier.

English ark has this meaning as in a box or container as in the boat of Noah and the

Ark of the Covenant; it also means something secret, hidden. This is related to

English arcane.

Related to raqa are riqqua, beaten out, raqaq to spit or diffuse as in a sandy

beach, the name of Rakkath in Palestine. Possibly related is the Hebrew word ruwach for

spirit, sky, wind, etc. So is the Fertile Crescent, a green expanse (arch) on the edges of a

great barrier of desert which has been created by an unseen flaming sword? It could well

be.

Another word with the same consonant sounds is Latin Orcus. This is the Latin

equivalent of Greek Hades and English Hell. This is the region which contains the dead.

The Bible seems to say that the region of Iraq will one day be the location of something

like Hades and Hell (Rev. 18:2). This is probably the Lake of Fire (Rev. 19:20; 20:14-

15).

So it may be that after Adam and Eve sinned, a large desert began to form in the

Middle East. Their sin had something to do then with the appearance of this desert. It

has indeed been said many times that the worlds climate was perfect until the Original

Sin; there were no deserts and perhaps no polar ice caps either.

+
 Cain was overtaken by the tainted blood of his parents. Cain appears to have been a

hard worker at first, as he had much to offer God. But he was under the serpents curse,

not Adams. Cain was probably driven by a twisted desire to get an advantage over

everyone else, even God. This was the reason for being jealous of his brother Abel.

Cains problem is common with people in general. He had a twisted desire to be

better than everyone else and God and to gain the advantage at all costs. He thought he

could work his way into Gods favor. He made the mistake of offering God his labor.

His labor was for himself, not God, as had been laid out in Adams curse. King Solomon

seemed to convey this in his wisdom (Eccl. 5:19). Cain was attempting to work his way

into heaven and beyond. By offering the fruit of his labor only, he was really saying,

Look at what Ive done for you God. He was really worshipping his own efforts and

idolizing his own work, something warned against in the Bible (Is. 2:8, etc.). Cain was

worshipping himself!

Cain killed his brother Abel. He was cursed by his deed to be unable to farm and

thus to be a nomad. Cain was the first man of Adams pure bloodline to marry outside of

Adams bloodline. He married a woman of the remnant people from before the Garden

of Eden, a daughter of men, with tainted blood.

Adam and Eves pure bloodline could be maintained if their children mated with

siblings. The beautiful daughters of men had fish traits from eating fish and serpents.

This allowed them to maintain beautiful human form and conceal fish traits.

+
 Going from this, we can see that Cain must have had to break this prohibition on

meat. He must have had to eat meat since Gods curse didnt allow him to farm, (Gen.

4:12-16). If he was a wanderer, meat would certainly be a part of his diet. He could have

scavenged fruit and vegetables also, but it seems reasonable that Cain would also have

eaten meat. He would probably have had no problem doing it, as he had already sinned

by killing his own brother. Indeed, Gods statement (Genesis 9:3-6) hints that men had

been eating meat against his will and that murder was rampant for many motives,

including possibly cannibalism. Notice that Cains name itself may in the very word

cannibal. It appears God was offering men some solutions to problems that had arisen

and changing some earlier commands (about not eating meat as implied in Genesis 1:29).

He most likely would have found it necessary at times to eat dead animals and other

unclean food such as insects. He probably also became a cannibal; even his own name

seems to be within the word cannibal itself, and this is most likely not a coincidence.

His body and mind even might have become affected. It may be that God allowed

him to have special super human abilities such as the ability to see and hear better than

normal humans. He might have even had other abilities to be able to avoid other humans

and disappear entirely. Rather than giving him these abilities directly, God probably just

allowed them to come from the demonic world. They would have seemed like a blessing

but were surely ultimately a curse. Cains self pity and lack of remorse for his crime

surely opened him up to unclean spirits and the control of Satan.

There are some other ideas that have been spread among the Christian church, which

are most probably wrong. These are the ideas that Gods curses on Adam and Eve were

over the entire human race. It seems certain that only some of Gods curses would apply

+
to all of mankind, not all the curses. I have heard many women complain about Gods

curse on Eve about his statement (somewhat distorted), I will greatly multiply your pain

in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children. But these women have indicated that

they believe this curse applies to all women. Does it? Maybe not. God was talking

directly to Eve. If he had meant all of her offspring, wouldnt that have been made

clearer?

God distinguished Eve from her seed when he cursed the serpent a few verses

earlier than Eves curse. He didnt distinguish Eve from anyone or anything else in her

curse. So there may be another interpretation of this curse. One which has been

proposed is that God was referring to emotional pain, not physical pain. The King James

version of the Bible uses the word sorrow, indicating emotional rather than physical

pain. Perhaps God knew Eve would bear the guilt, shame and sorrow for allowing sin

and death into the world and upon all of her offspring. Some have interpreted Eves

multiplied pain in childbirth to mean she would have twins. This seems to justify the

belief that Cain and Abel were twins.

The curse on Adam appears only to apply to him alone, and not necessarily on all of

his offspring, as has been widely believed. As in Eves curse, God does not refer to

anyone or anything but Adam himself, unless Adam is taken as referring to all of

mankind in general, which it may have. If this curse applied to all mankind, then how

could others have been so prosperous? Cain and Abel both appear to have been quite

successful farmers or herders. Cain was apparently a farmer until cursed for his murder

of Abel. So Adams curse seems not necessarily to have applied to them, at least

completely. Indeed, Lamechs blessing of his son Noah indicated that Gods curse on

+
Adam might not apply to Noah (Genesis 5:29).

The curse of death has been claimed to apply to all. Even this has been debated.

Enoch and Elijah both never died. It would seem that the curse of death would have to

apply to all mankind, since they all sprang from Adam and Eve, who was dead after he

sinned. The fact that Enoch and Elijah never died then, is a bit puzzling. Enoch and

Elijah then may not have died, but this would not necessarily justify them before God and

allow them into heaven. Neither could they be a propitiation for the sins of someone

besides themselves. In other words, only Christ could atone for sin and justify mankind,

including Enoch and Elijah. Enoch and Elijah might possibly have not committed any

sins themselves, but they were still born in sin, being descended from Adam. They didnt

die physically. But they had been born spiritually dead or separated from God. This

helps explain that there may have been physical death even before Adam; Adam only

brought spiritual death into the world.

The first part of the curse on the serpent appears to be on the serpent alone. The

second part is on the serpents seed and on the seed of the woman. The seed of the

woman is also blessed as a part of the curse on the seed of the serpent.

Cains line appears to have been more advanced than Seths line. Cains descendants

appear to have been more driven. The Bible reveals that Cains descendants to be

associated with the advancement of skills and arts (Gn. 4:17-22). Nothing like this is

mentioned about the descendants of Seth. Cain and his descendants worked with

building, herding, metal and arts. They would naturally have been the first to practice all

sorts of science, including black magic.

Skilled work like this would seem to be a natural development, since Cain was

+
cursed from farming and destined to be a wanderer. The logical outcome is that Cain had

to live off livestock and produce, and very likely not by the kindness of the owners

hearts, but by force. So it is pretty obvious, if one takes a close look, that Cain and his

descendants became some kind of raider, and Cain was further protected by the mark that

God placed upon him in Genesis 4:15.

There has been a lot of speculation of just what the mark of Cain was. Students of

the Bible have no doubt wondered about it as soon as the Bible was written down. Some

suggestions are that the mark was dark skin, or a six-pointed star, Tau cross, etc. It was

not actually a mark, but a promise or oath. The Hebrew word used for mark in the

verse is owth. It is probably cognate with English oath.1 At first glance one might easily

think that it was a visible mark set to keep other men at bay. But upon closer inspection,

one might find that the mark may have been only something God placed for Gods

reference, not mans.

Men of Adams pure bloodline followed Cain and took wives of outsiders, mixing

the pure Adamic race with the corrupted populations. Many sought revenge for the death

of Abel and sought Cain. They would encounter the surviving corrupted race of humans.

They would marry women that were beautiful on the outside, but carried fish genes.

Many women of Adams pure bloodline would marry into the surviving corrupted

race. They would be given in marriage to powerful remnant men who had beast

characteristics from eating animals. These beast men lost the ability to conceal animal

traits.

The Bible shows us two lines of men (Gen. 4:17-22 and 5:1-32), one coming from

11 Strongs 226
+
Seth (Sethites) and one coming from Cain (Cainites/Kenites). The fact that they were

pulling away from God may have made the Cainites more motivated in worldly matters.

It seems also, that they had an advantage of eating meat- the line of Seth is assumed to be

vegetarians, as they would have held to the original commandment of God not to eat

meat. Meat would give the advantage of more energy and protein, and lead to greater

strength, size, etc. at least in the short run. All of the early technological, architectural,

artistic, advancements, etc. are mentioned in association with Cains line, not Seth. This

is not to say that Seths line didnt work or invent, but the Bible seems to indicate that

Seths line lagged behind when it came to inventing, etc.

The Bible only clearly names just four people who even knew about the curse and

the promise that God placed on Cain (Gn. 4:15, 23-24). We are not told that anyone else

even knew anything about it. So the mark doesnt seem to be a warning; it appears to be

just a device to bring the curse into effect, should Cain be killed. It also seems difficult to

understand who would be able to know how to recognize Cain. Only Adam and Eve

knew what Cain even looked like firsthand. If we assume Cain left his parents, then his

siblings would not know him or what he looked like, unless there are other siblings close

in age to Cain not mentioned in the Bible. We dont know either if Adam or Eve told

their children about the murder of Abel. They may have, and the siblings of Cain may

have wanted revenge. Even Adam and Eve may have wanted revenge.

The fact that God mentioned a curse on anyone that would kill Cain indicates that

God was not guaranteeing to Cain that he would not be killed. The mark was only a

guarantee that the killer of Cain would be punished. So one can only conclude that the

mark was not meant to deter revenge. It seems only to have been a reminder of who Cain

+
was and what he had done and the curse on retribution. God was only stating that he

himself would not kill Cain and that he was not personally seeking revenge. But he was

telling Cain also not to expect men to be so honorable.

It seems very likely that Cains descendants used very disagreeable and complicated

rituals involving animal and human sacrifice to gain advanced knowledge. This was

something Seths descendants simply wouldnt do. Cains line most assuredly appealed

to evil spirits to grant them all sorts of secrets that might have taken ages to develop

otherwise. Demons would have been surely eager to oblige any who gave the proper

wicked servitude. Indeed, the Hebrew word sheth, from which the word satan is possibly

derived, means chaos, tumult, desolation, waste. It also has the meaning of

rushing as in hastiness, recklessness. And hastiness proverbially leads to chaos,

destruction and desolation. God surely acted to hinder man from learning too much too

fast for his own good, and demons certainly had no qualms about giving man knowledge

before he was able to use it safely.

The Book of Genesis tells us that Cains descendants could work with metal. This

undoubtedly involved the knowledge of fire. It may be that they got this through devil

worship. They may very well have gotten fire from meteorites, as well as iron. They

might have believed, rightly, that fire and iron were gifts of the gods and of the heavens.

This is even revealed in words for stars and for iron. Iron has been connected to

Greek heiron, holy, consecrated. Sideros is iron in Greek and star in Latin,

interesting. Sider also happens to mean magic in Norse languages.

It becomes clear too, that Cains progeny were raiders as well, but developed skills to

earn more honest, however dubious, livings. Cains descendant Lamech had killed some

+
people (Gen. 4:23-24). In the passage, he shows faith that vengeance will not fall on him.

He uttered a curse that God would bring into effect.

It seems clear that Cains line was very wicked. We assume Cain was wicked by his

murder of his brother Abel, and that he never repented. I think the Bible would have

mentioned if Cain had repented. The Bible doesnt mention if Lamech repented either.

It appears that there was something protecting or avenging Lamech more than just a

sword. His words appear to be prophetic. He appears to have had the gift of speaking

something that would come to pass like other Bible prophets.

By examining the curses of Cain and Lamech closely, one can faintly detect a sinister

system of murder and retribution and curses which led to slavery and bondage. Lamech

had married beautiful women of the fish bloodlinie. They acquired the knowledge of

Gods curse through Lamech. They plotted a diabolical scheme for ultimately world

domination. Perhaps they disliked or hated Lamech and wanted to eliminate him. They

could have revealed that Lamech had killed someone. If someone killed Lamech, his

wives would be free, but they also knew that whoever killed Lamech (and probably

everyone descended from them) would be under a curse. It may be also that Cain was

still alive up to this point, and they did the same with him.

Even worse, the wives of Lamech may have realized that they could become part of

a ruling elite over a cursed populace. They might also continue their domination

indefinitely by keeping a horrible cycle of murder and retribution going, which would

force God to bring the curses into effect. An elite would have developed knowing about

the curses and their power to enslave whole populations.

With these curses pronounced and alluded to by him, can be seen the beginnings of a

+
cycle that could affect all of mankind. The Bible hints at this cycle, which began the

moment Adam ate the forbidden fruit. This is a cycle of curses lasting forty nine years

and four hundred and ninety years each. These are types of probationary periods. Cain

may have been killed in retribution for murdering Abel. There followed a curse of forty-

nine years where sevenfold in the curse refers to seven periods of seven years each.

This seems to be the beginning of the cycles of jubilee years, every fiftieth year (Lev.

25:8-10). Mankind would sin against God in some way and bring this long period of

punishment. Lamech was referring to a period made up of seventy periods of seven years

each, four hundred ninety years. This cycle is also referred to by Daniel and hinted at by

Christ himself (Gn. 4:15; 23-24; Dn. 9:25-26; Mt. 18:21-22).

There are faint hints of these cycles and they seem to come at key events in the

Bible. Counting the number of years that passed by the information given for the

generations leading up to Abraham, there were key events that happened at the time of

Adam, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Peleg and Joseph. There appears to be some great

transgression and then a corresponding punishment. There is also great heroism and

redemption.

Many of the pure beasts formed in Eden would mate with impure remnant beasts.

The offspring would be mostly sterile with unusual size and features. These would be the

corrupt beasts whose fossil remains are found today.

A problem with raising cattle that has been observed is the massive amount of

farmland needed to support cattle. Regions have been known to be over-farmed and

thereby depleted and turned into desert. It is not too hard to imagine that this is exactly

what the Nephilim did.

+
 Many experts believe that much of the Middle East was once covered by a verdant

forest. A desert may have first begun with the flaming sword of Genesis (Genesis 3:24).

Depleting trees would broaden the desert and also send massive amounts of moisture

back into the atmosphere and the ground. The moisture may have mixed with oil and

natural gas as well as trapped water in the ground and this could have contributed to the

great flood. The Bible hints at this (Gen. 11:3). One quickly passes over the line brick

for stoneand tar for mortar. But in this statement is a hint at a pattern in the regions

of the ancient Middle East. To make brick and tar requires a lot of trees. Why? Bricks

are made in kilns, which must burn a lot of wood or coal. I dont think they had coal, but

I would have to research this more to be sure. Tar also comes from trees. The people of

the ancient Middle East were using up massive amounts of trees for their building. Using

stone and mortar was probably too difficult and expensive.

Now, many scientists and scholars believe that the Middle East was once completely

covered in forest. The Bible refers to the wicked men who lived before the flood that

killed all but eight people. The wicked men, many of whom were the Nephilim or giants,

most likely had much of the forest cut down, leaving the desert we see in the Middle East

today. Trees contain a lot of water. When they were cut down, a lot of water was freed to

evaporate and to sink into the water underground and into any oceans. This may have

created a great imbalance between the heavy water and the regular water. Also, in Noahs

time, there may have been much more water in the earths crust than in the oceans (many

believe there was only one land mass then). The water that had been contained in trees

eventually could have ended up in underground caverns. Pressure built up. Water may

have also come into contact with uranium, creating steam, as in nuclear reactors today.

+
The steam would generate massive amounts of force, eventually bursting through the

earths crust and even splitting up the one land mass into several continents and at a high

rate of speed. The Bible seems to describe this exactly (Gen. 7:11).

Eventually only Noah and his sons had the pure bloodline of Adam. God would destroy

every creature on the earth. Noah would bring some on the ark with him. The clean

animals Noah took were animals that had maintained a pure bloodline going back to

formation in the Garden of Eden. The unclean animals were actually beast men

allowed to survive on the ark.

Note that the passage seems to give Noahs age in years, months and days. This

is probably a mistranslation. The passage is probably giving Noahs age in years but is

saying that the flood happened in the second month on the 17th day of the month, which is

the end of October on the old calendar (before it was changed by Moses after the Exodus-

see Deuteronomy 16).

Those humans that had their genetic structure mixed with sea creatures like fish and

serpents were able to escape Gods wrath in the cataclysmic flood. They were able to

transform into fish and survive.

The beast men that survived on Noahs ark would scatter as soon as they got to dry

land. The great flood did not wipe out all evil on earth. And like baptism, it actually

seems to be an incomplete or impotent element for the destruction of evil and the

transformation of man.

+
The Nations

Noahs ark landed on Mount Ararat north of Mesopotamia. Noah, his sons and their

wives were the only human beings left that were untainted by animal blood (Gen. 6:8-9).

Many other men had come on the ark, but they had corrupted blood mixed with either

animals or forbidden plants. After the cataclysmic flood, men only lived east of the

Euphrates River for some time No one would live for some time in what are Africa,
+
Europe and the Americas at first.

Japheth is the oldest son of Noah (Gen. 10:21). Ham is Noahs youngest son (Gen.

9:24). God blessed Noah and his family. As part of this blessing he upholds their

dominion over all animals, including over unclean beast men. He also lifts all bans on

food going back to before the Garden of Eden, except eating blood. God also gives them

the authority to kill any murderer, even those of the pure bloodline of Adam like Noah

and his sons. This didnt allow them to have dominion over pure men (Gn. 9:1-6).

But then Ham saw his fathers nakedness when Noah was drunk (Gen. 9:20-28).

Noah couldnt curse Ham directly because Ham had already received Gods blessing. So

Noah cursed Hams son Canaan and his descendants. Noah then gave his other sons

Shem and Japheth a double blessing. Part of the blessing on Shem was that he would be

the direct ancestor of Christ. Canaans descendants would serve the descendants of both

Shem and Japheth.

Nimrod began to desire to dominate men, even those of his own pure Adamic

bloodline. The unclean beast men would be those that he would hunt first. He kept

them from spreading out eastward and north and south. He brought them into the plain of

Shinar in Mesopotamia.

Nimrod married a beautiful woman of the fish bloodline. Their children would be

first giants after the flood. These were the mighty men called nephilim and gibbor in

Hebrew. They built Babel and planned construction of a mountainous tower.

God had commanded men to multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28; 9:1). But they

werent heeding Gods command; they were staying in one place. Satan led men to

+
Mesopotamia to contend with the cherubim stationed there. Babel in many ways was an

appropriate name for the city and area. The cherubim there were guarding a gate of sorts.

And they were guarding it for God.

But men lingered. First of all, Babel was just the gate of God. Do we want to

remain just at the gate of God? I dont think so. I think we would want to move through

the gate and onto the right path and get to the tree of life. So men were lingering at the

gate; they werent going beyond it!

Babel means gate of god, bab is gate and el is god. More accurately, Babel

means fruit of god. The final n in Babylon may have been added to indicate that there

was a well or spring at the place or that the place was considered an eye (of the gods?).

The root ab, eb, ap, etc. meant fruit, freshness or fruitful in early Semitic languages.

The root came to be applied in words for both father and son, as the son is the fruit of the

father and conversely the father bears fruit. The meaning expanded to mean work as

in the fruit of labor. The root might have either consonant b or p since they are often

interchangeable with one another linguistically.

+
 The name of Adams son Abel may very well mean son of god or fruit of god as in

a gift from god, although Abel was the fruit of Adam and God only indirectly. An

Assyrian word for son was aplu. Both Abel and aplu are strikingly similar to English

apple. The name of the Greek god Apollo probably is derived from the same root. Its

probable that a generic root word for fruit came to mean only one specific fruit, the apple

+
in the English language. Abel also meant meadow, field or watercourse in many

ancient Semitic languages. This could easily be linked to fruit as orchards and grain are

found often in meadows or fields.

The English word evil may be derived from the same root as aplu also. The Hebrew

word aval or avval seems connected. This word means evil, crooked or perverse.

The letters v and b are often interchangeable in linguistic terms, so one can easily see a

connection between aval and abel, and even aplu. The word abel or aplu for fruit might

have come to sometimes mean evil, because of the association of fruit with original sin.

A similar connection is seen in Latin malus, a word for evil or bad and also for apple.

One can clearly see this connection in the name of the mythical island of Avalon in

Arthurian legend. The name of Avalon has been traced to apples and the name has been

shown to mean island of apples or garden of apples. This legendary place, the island

of the blessed, a sort of Elysian Fields, was believed to be a place of bliss and peace and

the destiny of good people and heroes. But according to the sense of the word, the name

could easily be associated with evil. And if the n at the end of Avalon is taken to mean

spring or fountain, then the name of Avalon takes on an even more sinister meaning of

spring of evil or wellspring of evil. Is it the origin of evil?

The word pupil in English may be related to apple and Semitic Abel. It also may be

related to English people, populace, public, etc. This may be with the meaning of people

as fruit. God said to be fruitful and multiply, to populate the earth in other words.

There is the expression the apple of my eye or the apple of the eye, which is taken to

mean offspring or progeny, as in once you were just a gleam in your fathers eye. The

Psalms includes this expression (Ps. 17:8).

+
 The pupil is part of the eye. It seems to have been thought of as a child of the eye.

This may also have been in the sense that the moon was a child of the sun, a common

conception in the ancient world. The moon may have been thought of as the pupil of

Gods eye (the sun?).

A deeper meaning of Babel may very well be taken to be eye or pupil of God as in

an opening to God like a pupil is an opening to the mind and body, through the eye. The

meaning may have been reinforced by adding an n to the end of Babel. The n, for ayin,

eye, or fountain. So Babylon means the opening of Gods eye in one sense or

possibly the spring of Babel as springs were conceived of as eyes. This may also

indicate that there was a good spring at the location at one time. Perhaps this is referring

to the rivers. Babel may then have been believed to be the apple of gods eye and was

probably a center of moon worship, among other things. If you strip off the vowels of

both apple and pupil and leave just consonants, they have the same letters. And if you

replace the ps with bs, you have something close to bbl or Babel. If Babel was the eye

of god it probably was not meant as Gods eye but an eye that can see both gods and men

and also into heaven. Of course this was all in the mind of men.

There is no word close to bab in Hebrew for gate or eye. The word appears to be

Chaldean or Akkadian. But interestingly Hebrew root words with bb mean only fruit

(ababu), father (abba) or destruction (abatu, linked to abaddon of Revelation 9:11).

Here we see one connection with apple, as in fruit. How might this be connected to

destruction? Well, Adam and Eve sinned by eating fruit and brought destruction on the

world. Still, how might this be connected to eye? Well, Adam and Eve saw that the

forbidden fruit was both pleasing to the eye and that if they ate from it their eyes would

+
be opened. Even when you say apple and Babel, they sound somewhat alike. This is not

to say that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate when they transgressed was actually an apple.

Many scholars hold that the Bible indicates that the fig was the culprit.

So, was Babel the apple of Gods eye? To Nimrod and the people under his

domination it appears so. The meaning is obviously twisted and perverse from a

Christian standpoint. But according to Nimrod and his empire, where would this eye

work best? Probably in the spot where the cherubim were present and at the top of a

tower, close to heaven. Its interesting that the all-seeing eye on the U.S. dollar bill is

located at the top of the pyramid. Could this be related? I think it is. Some of Nimrods

progeny most likely ended up in Egypt where they continued on with their work in later

ages.

Babel also probably came to mean mountain or hill because the tower of Babel

was like a hill. This name might have been transcribed erroneously into Greek and

Arabic. B was often written like English g in the Phoenician alphabet. So the word hill

in Greek and Arabic is often gebal or jebel. The Gebal mentioned by Ezekiel (Ez. 27:9)

is widely considered to have been the Phoenician city of Byblos. Fate allowed this citys

name to be transcribed back into something like the name of Babylon. I think this is no

accident, but God showing a spiritual connection and purpose between the two cities.

Words for book and bible come from the name of the city of Byblos. Byblos was a sort

of franchise of Babylon, as were many other cities, like later Rome. Isaiah wrote

something to this effect when he denounced Babylon (Is. 14:21). Writing with phonetic

scripts is believed to have originated in that city. And the word phonetic comes from

Phoenicia, which was Canaanite in origin, where Byblos was.

+
 When construction commenced on the Tower of Babel, God, in all three persons

came down to confuse the language of mankind. It wasnt the cherubim or other angels,

or other men who confused mankind, it was God.

God had to scatter men from Mesopotamia because they were under the influence of

Satan. The pure Adamic families were mixing more and more with unclean races.

How God did this is not made clear. There may also be some misconceptions about

language in this event also. It has been assumed by many scholars that the language of

the world at this early time was simple, monosyllabic and unwritten. It may be that the

confusion the Bible is referring to is the confusion that arises in getting agreement on

advancing the language to more sophisticated levels. To do this, new words and word

tenses, new meanings, writing, etc. would be necessary as men attempted to cooperate,

discovered new things and had to conceptualize new and difficult processes.

There would be disagreements on meanings of words, pronunciation, modifications,

on proper names for gods, etc. The men probably saw the need to record information and

they may have disagreed on how to write down words. There may have been

disagreement on whether to write down words by sound or by pictures. There were also

surely elements of pride and ego, and friction along family lines. The men at Babel

surely knew there was a supreme god but disagreed on what to call him. They had been

calling on the name of the Lord even before the flood (Genesis 4:26). They may have

been looking for a single name, not realizing that there were three persons of God. This

may be where the three persons of the Trinity acted to confuse men. They may have

begun to reveal themselves and men didnt understand it and even if they did, they

couldnt conceive of how to rank them. They were looking for a power word or mantra

+
with which they could control God. Their purpose was defeated. It probably wasnt very

difficult at all for God to scatter mankind then. In fact, one wonders why God had to do

anything at all.

The Bible may seem to suggest that men were looking for a name that they

themselves would be called (Genesis 11:4). But it may mean they were indeed looking

for the name to call God, or both. Why did they think they needed just a name to keep

from being scattered, as the story relates? What good would just a name do anyway?

Apparently, perhaps there was some real power in discovering Gods name. More likely

men just imagined this. These men did seem to foresee just what God was going to do.

They probably remembered what God had commanded twice earlier. Notice also that

mankind scattered in the middle of the construction of the city, not after it was completed.

Whatever, God saw fit to scatter mankind as he had commanded. Why these men

thought they could go against God is a mystery. It is a mystery to me why God confused

the language of mankind. God clearly stated he would do this. What did language have

to do with it? Apparently there was indeed great power in speech. Perhaps God was

sparing mankind destruction. He may have been keeping mankind from blaspheming

him.

God was doing a good thing. What else would he do? He caused men to get away

from the gate. You can see what might have happened- and what eventually did happen

later- if men had remained at Babel. There would be a circus atmosphere, a carnival

aspect that would cloud mens minds and keep them from getting past the gate. Men

were most likely attempting to coax the cherubim into divulging their secrets. Men

would have used their talents and skills in all fields to tempt the cherubim and foster their

+
favor with the hope of getting forbidden information. Babylon would be a very attractive

and pleasing place. It would end up a place of false religion and every sort of erroneous

philosophy and doctrine getting people to see just about anything, except the right way.

Babylon gets its name from Babel and the word also came to mean babble in

Hebrew because of the event regarding language at the building of the city and the tower

of Babel. The English word baby probably is related because a babys speech is babble.

Baby also may come from ababu (fruit), as a baby is fruit of its parents.

You can see the problem of names and words when it comes to naming oneself or a

divinity with a look at just a few of the names of gods in ancient languages. It is

important also for interpreting the Bible. I will also show later how it helps with Bible

prophecy.

In contrast to Babel, bethel means house of God or temple of God. This is surely

where God intended all men to be. This is near Jerusalem. Is this perhaps also because

the tree of life was near where Jerusalem now is? It could very well be. Surely God

wanted men to stop lingering at the gate and get to the house. He just wanted this for the

right reasons. Men of false motives might have wanted to get to the tree of life, but they

had to come to Gods house to get to it. They most probably wanted nothing of Gods

house.

Noahs three sons fought against Nimrod. The struggle lasted hundreds of years. By

going to war they would bring upon themselves the ancient curse of Lamech. This would

enslave them and their descendants for four hundred ninety years. After the wars ended

men began to spread out from southern Mesopotamia.

Shems sons and their descendants remained in Mesopotamia for thousands of years.

+
Shems sons are Elam, Aram, Asshur, Arphaxad and Lud. Most of them would marry into

the bloodlines of the unclean beast men and corrupted fish bloodlines. Elams land

(later incorporated into Persia) was just east of the Euphrates in what is not western and

southern Iran. Upriver in what is now northern Iraq, the empire of Assyria took its name

from Asshur. The Aramaean kingdom in what is now Syria derived its name from Aram

and was further upriver and west in what is now Syria. And Lud is believed to have

bequeathed his name to the Lydians furthest west in Asia Minor, beyond the source of the

Euphrates. Arphaxad didnt receive territory but only he remained uncorrupted by

unclean races.

Japheths descendants moved north and west into Europe and Asia Minor. Most of

them would also marry into corrupted bloodlines. Only the descendants of Ashkenaz and

Madai kept themselves pure from corrupted bloodlines.

A close look at the names of Japheths descendants reveals more interesting things

and helps give a better interpretation of later books of the Bible. The name Japheth has

been associated with the name Iapetos in some ancient Greek writings. Iapetos was

sometimes held to be a god and may be linked with the name Jupiter of Roman

mythology. The name Gomer has been associated with a shadowy barbaric people

known as the Cimmerians. They might be the same people known as Gimerai to the

Assyrians. They were said to dwell far from the civilized nations like Greece and Persia.

The Cimmerians were often associated with Tarturus and the misty unknown edges of the

world.

Linguistically, g often shifts into c phonetically, and vice versa. A good example of

this is with the word for English bell. The old Germanic word for bell is glock. The

+
word clock is derived from this word. A new meaning was added as in something that

keeps time. The English word clock and glock are related words surely because most

clocks used to have bells. So it can easily be shown how the name Gomer could have

changed to Gimer and then to Cimmer. The Cimmerians are mentioned often in writings

of ancient Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome. They have been associated with areas in

Asia Minor and around the Black Sea. Ancient writers made guesses about Cimmerian

settlement, placing them (factually and not so factually) in locations as far as Denmark.

More recent writers have tied the Cimmerians even to Wales. The name of the

Cimmerians has been linked to Cimbricia, the ancient name for Denmark and the Crimea

in Ukraine. Wales has been very arguably linked to Gomer through the similarity with

the Welsh name Cymry for Wales. Even the word criminal has been linked to the

Cimmerians. The popular character Conan the Barbarian is a Cimmerian, in the popular

novels.

What people or country to be associated with Magog has been debated and is

mysterious. I offer my own suggestion. Most Bible scholars agree that the original land

of Magog was somewhere in Anatolia (modern Turkey) or the Caucasus region between

the Black and Caspian seas. Many of the descendants of Japheth appear to have settled in

this region. This is probably the land of Magog.

The name Magog may mean great giant from a root ma (great) and gog (giant).

The root word ma is probably connected to Greek mega for great. This root is cognate

with many English words like magnify, maximum, major, etc. Even the Sanskrit word

maha is cognate. It can be seen in the Hindi word maharaja meaning great (maha) and

king (raja). The prefix mega- also means million, perhaps because a million is a large

+
or great number. There may also be some connection to a Babylonian root mag

meaning wise. The link may be in that a wise man was considered great. Its believed

that words like magi, wise men and even English magician come from this root.

An archaic name for a small ancient kingdom of the Caucasus region was Albania

(white, because of snowcapped mountains). This land is now in Armenia and

Azerbaijan. The modern name Azerbaijan has been shown to mean something like place

of the treasury. The word Azer, with one meaning of treasury, has been linked to

biblical Asshur and Assyria.

Treasury of what? Fire, and probably minerals and metals and other goods from the

mountainous region. Its believed natural gas escaped from the rock there and caught

fire. Indeed, valuable crude oil is found there now. Many of the surrounding empires

probably traded heavily with the Caucasus region. This region also controlled a gateway

for goods, especially horses, from central Asia.

The kingdom of Albania had an ancient capital of Qabala (Gabala/Kapalak/Chabala),

near the modern port of Baku on the Caspian Sea. The name Qabala or Gabala may

actually be a corruption and imitation of Babylon, just as the Phoenician name of the port

city of Gebal was.

Qabala may have been under the domination of the Hittites at one time, and thus

Edomites through many marriages of Esau with Hittite women. Gog is likely an

Amalekite title. If this is true, then the Amalekites and their ancestor Esau may be the

link between Gog and Magog of Bible prophecy.

The name Qabala is interestingly also associated with mysticism, alchemy and

magic. And the very name Magog may have come to be associated with them as well.

+
Its been shown that the Hebrew alphabet has only one letter used for both c and g. Its

then easy to see a very striking similarity of the words Magog and English magic.

Magog may have become associated with magic in links to both Babylon and Egypt.

Both nations probably traded for metals and minerals used in science and magic. The

land of Magog then became associated with magic arts in the ancient world and may have

even acquired and mastered the craft itself from its trading partners. It may be that

gypsies originated here too. They have long been believed to have migrated from Iran

and somewhere close to this region. The word gypsy is a corruption of Egyptian.

Gypsies were believed to have come from Egypt. This is commonly held to be an

erroneous assumption, but there may actually be a connection with Egypt through ancient

trading links.

The name Magog may also be found in the name for the Magyars, who settled in

todays Hungary. The Magyar name has been linked also to another form, Mugel, which

is similar to Mongol. The Magyars have been linked to many nomadic tribes of central

Asia, notably Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Huns. Huns have been shown to once

comprise many different ethnic groups and tribes of far flung regions; even Germanic

tribes were allied with the Huns.

The name Hun has been shown to derive possibly from a Greek and Latin word onus

or onos, the name of a wild ass of central Asia. Such a word may have originally been

used as a derogatory description of the Huns as wild asses.

There is a consensus that the Magyars originated in Siberia and moved into what is

Finland today and then moved on to settle Hungary. The Finnish language is indeed

related to the Magyar language of Hungary (Finnish and Hungarian- maybe also Basque-

+
are notably the only languages not related to the Indo-European languages of the rest of

Europe). It may be that the Finns originally spoke a different language than they do

today and adopted the language they have now when they were subjugated by the

Magyars. The prophet Ezekiel associated Magog with Gog and a land to the north of

Israel (Magyar/Mongol homeland in Azerbaijan or even Siberia?- Ezek. 39:2).

Some tribes such as the Huns and Magyars may then have descended or mixed with

descendants of biblical Magog, grandson of Noah. The Huns and Magyars have also

been linked to Magogs possible homeland in the Caucasus region, retreating there after

major setbacks in Europe. The possibly related Khazars dominated parts of this region as

well, appearing to be a later offshoot of the original Hun confederation. The Khazars

converted to Judaism shortly after the appearance of Islam and the Arab invasion of the

Caucasus region and Anatolia. This may link the Magyar name with the Hebrew word

magor, fear. History shows this to be an apt description, as the Magyars were known to

be quite fearsome.

Names for the land called Media now in Iran and the Medes undoubtedly come from

Madai. The Medes have been linked by some to the modern Kurds.

Javans name is commonly held to be found in the name Ionia, in Asia Minor.

Linguistically (notably in Latin) the i and o in Ionia together stand for j a and v in Javan.

Elishah has often been identified with Cyprus. The name Cyprus itself is believed by

many to come from Caphtorim, Mizraims son. The similarity of names like Cyprus and

Caphtorim to the word copper are clues, because from an early date Cyprus was widely

known for its copper mines.

Tubal has been associated with Asia Minor and adjacent areas to the north. Meshech

+
has been associated with Russia and Slavic countries. The name Meshech even sounds

Slavic. Even more revealing perhaps is the Assyrian form of the name Meshech, Musku

or Muski. Is this name found in Moscow today?

The name Slav means slave, from Latin sclavus, which is clearly the name given by

Romans, eastern Romans at least, to people north and east of them in what are now called

Slavic countries, people who traded slaves with them. Ezekiel associated Meshech

(also Javan and Tubal) with slave trading (Ezekiel 27:13). The slavs may have gotten to

Europe both by migrating from the east or being deported to Europe by the Assyrians.

There are indeed many root words in Slavic languages which appear linked to Akkadian

and languages of Mesopotamia. In Europe they would have been absorbed by the

Roman Empire.

Kittim or Chittim was a common name for islands and coasts of Greece and Italy,

also Cyprus. Some derive Hittite from Kittim instead of from Heth. Many believe

Tarshish often meant what is now Spain. Tarshish has been identified with several places

known for sea trade. The name of the apostle Pauls hometown of Tarsus may have been

derived from Tarshish. The people of Tarshish were apparently a seagoing people and

spread far and wide. Tarshish is also sometimes identified with Tyre. Tyre may also be

somehow linked to the ancestor Tiras either in meaning or prophetically.

On close study, the name Ashkenaz, for Gomers son, is quite revealing. I believe it

is a prophetic name tied to an incident and Noahs corresponding blessing and curse

(Gen. 9:20-27). There is quite possibly a deep meaning to the name Ashkenaz. The

+
name has been linked to a western form, Ascanius and an eastern, Assyrian form,

Askuzai. In the Hebrew language and grammar, an initial vowel like the a at the

beginning of Ashkenaz often means it is a qualifier; it is often dropped off in a form of

abbreviation known as aphesis. For example, in the name Ichabod, chabod means glory,

and the i is a negation, as in no or not. So the name Ichabod means no glory or the

glory is no more, the glory has departed. The letter a, from the Hebrew letter aleph, is

often silent, whats called a glottal stop. It often acts to turn a noun into a verb. I

believe Ashkenaz then means will dwell or possibly has dwelt. Shkenaz would then

mean dwelling or tent and the prefix a qualifies it to a past, future or action tense. A

similar Hebrew word is shekinah which means to dwell. The word came to mean to

radiate, in the sense of an indwelling of God. The glowing or halo surrounding a person

or place was evidence of the presence of God dwelling there.

In the Greek language there is a word similar and probably related to Ashkenaz. It is

esknsen which means dwelled, dwelt or had dwelt. The initial e is a qualifier, as in

Hebrew. The word is derived from the Greek word skene, which means a dwelling.

One type of dwelling is a tent, common in the ancient world. The Greek word most

definitely has the meaning as a dwelling. The Hebrew word sakan is both a noun for

tent and a verb for to dwell. Incidently, the English word scene, as in a stage or

setting in a play, is derived from the same Greek word skene. The Hebrew word shekinah

has also already been shown to be closely related. It is also interesting that the English

word shine, as well as German schein are not that different from the Hebrew word

shekinah in spelling, pronunciation and in part of its meaning.

The meaning in the name Ashkenaz reveals a link to Noahs blessing (Gen. 9:27).

+
Noah referred to both tents and dwelling when he blessed Japheth. Was Ashkenaz named

with reference to this blessing? The meaning explained above would definitely indicate

that. So were the people descended from Ashkenaz meant to fulfill this blessing? And

were they to have a special relationship with the people descended from Shem? It may

appear so. To dwell in tents might also be taken to mean to interbreed or intermarry.

The name Ashkenaz can possibly be seen in some place names. Most scholars agree

that the Scythians of the Russian steps and northern Iran, known to the Greeks as Scythai,

are of the family of Ashkenaz. The Scythian name almost certainly comes from the

Assyrian form of Ashkenaz, Askuzai. When the qualifying a is dropped, the link with

Scythia and skuzai is apparent. If one takes the name Ascanius, the western (Latinized)

form of Ashkenaz, and similarly drops the initial a, scanius appears. This word can

clearly be connected to the names of northern Europe like Scandinavia, Scania, Scandza,

etc. In Hebrew, vowels are often not recorded. So Ashkenaz would be recorded as shknz.

The similarity to scanius is striking when this is done.1

Not all that much is known of the Scythians. They are often associated with ruthless

barbarism. The Scythian language is extinct, but held to be related to the Iranian

languages. Interestingly, almost all of the languages of Europe are related to Iranian.

There is much linguistic and archaeological evidence that suggests that a powerful people

connected to Iran dominated much of Europe, especially northern Europe. If a western

form of Scanian, can be reconstructed from Scythian, it becomes clear where these

people had much influence.

Many weapons appear to be named after the Scythians. The English scythe and

11 Herodotus 1. 103-107; 4. 1
+
probably sickle are quite probably derived from the Scythian name. They probably bore

weapons like these implements. The Scythians have also been identified with the Sacae,

a steppe people of the Black Sea area like the Scythians. This name appears to be another

form for Scythian. There is a Hebrew word saka for knife. It is considered a loan word

and could very well come from sacae, being one of the weapons carried by its namesake

people. The English word Saxon is also derived from the saex, the knife the Saxons

carried. Is there a connection? The Saxons were Germanic tribes. Many Roman records

attest that many Germans proclaimed that they were Scythians.

The English word sack appears related to Hebrew sakan (tent). A sack contains or

covers like a tent. As stated earlier, it is often helpful to take out the vowels in a word to

get at the consonants, which reveal the root of the word. If you take out the vowels of all

these words, one is left mostly with sk, skn, sknz, etc. They all appear loosely connected,

often in roundabout ways. The English word skin appears connected. It is also a

covering, container or housing, like a sack or tent (sakan). Also, tents are often made

from animal skins. The meaning of the English word sack as in to destroy or pillage

many also have connections to the Sacae or Scythians (Scanians) since they were known

for barbarous pillaging.

In short, linguistic, historic and archaeological evidence suggests that the Saxons and

other Germanic people were descended from Ashkenaz. Jews who are of Nordic descent

and physical characteristics call themselves Ashkenazi Jews. There is clearly a

connection. Celtic people have also claimed to be descended from Ashkenaz and the

Scythians. One Latin form for Scythian is Scotti. This name was adopted by the Scots

and given to the name of Scotland. The Hebrew word sukkot or succoth means

+
tabernacle, booth or tent. It appears strikingly similar to scot. Sukkot is probably a

dialectical variation, possibly Assyrian by way of the Samarians, of sakan. Both words

mean tent, also called booth or tabernacle. The Iranian or Scythian influence in Europe is

detectable in many ethnic branches like Celtic, Italic, Doric, Germanic, etc.

Ham, or Cham, is also a Hebrew name used for Egypt. Cham also means boiling,

hot, tropical. A Greek word for Egypt is Khemia. This is linked to English chemical

and alchemy, which is heavily associated with Egypt.1

Hams sons are Mizraim, Phut, Cush.and Canaan. Canaan and his descendants took

to the sea to escape their fate of slavery. They left Mesopotamia by boat and thrived on

the coastlands. They quickly moved along the coasts of Arabia and made their way both

to South Asia and Africa. Some went into the Red Sea and into Palestine.

The Canaanites were doomed to serve the descendants of both Shem and Japheth.

The name Canaan also bears an eerie similarity to the name Cain, the Bibles first

murderer. The Bible also may very well indicate that the Canaanites were seafarers or

had links to sea trade; the Bible reveals that the Canaanites are living by the sea and by

the side of the Jordan; they seem to be associated with the water, obviously for

sustenance and most likely as a means of transport (Nm. 13:29).

The Canaanites may well have been the worlds first sea traders. Indeed, the English

word merchant may be linked to the Canaanites. The word is possibly derived from the

words mer or mar, for sea, hence English marine, maritime, mermaid, etc. and chant, for

Canaanite. So the word merchant might literally mean sea Canaanite. The word for

sea might have links to Hebrew marah, bitter water. Indeed, a Hebrew word for

11 Strongs 2526-27, The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd college edition.

+
merchant is kenaaniy.1

Canaans families brought the families of Hams other sons into Africa. Mizraim

gave his name to Egypt in the Hebrew language. Egypt has also been called the land of

Ham. Nimrod had given lands of Mesopotamia the name of his father Cush. The

descendants of Cush came into what is now Ethiopia.

By the time of Peleg, the great great grandson of Shem, men had spread out far from

Mesopotamia. By then they had developed distinctly different languages and cultures.

The curse on Shem for warring against Nimrod would finally be lifted in the time of

Abraham. He and his family lived in Chaldea in the far south of Mesopotamia along the

Persian Gulf coast. They had connections to the sea and made some of their wealth from

sea trading. They were faintly aware of Palestine through Canaanite seafarers.

Abrahams father Terah took his family northwest along the Euphrates to Haran

where Syria is today. There Abraham got the call to move to the promised land of

Palestine. Abrahams family was following the Fertile Crescent to avoid the harsh

deserts.

Abraham bought land from the Canaanite people of the land when he moved into

Palestine. The Jordan valley still resembled the original Garden of Eden (Gn. 14: ).

Philistines were beginning to come from the sea. Hittites and other Canaanites lived

along the coast going all the way into Asia Minor. Amorites, Hittites and Jebusites lived

in the hills.

The Philistines, who gave their name to the Promised Land, were also of the line of

Ham as the Canaanites. They descended from Casluhim (Gn. 10:14). The name

1 Strongs 3669
+
Casluhim is related to the Hebrew for the constellation Orion, which was very important

to the Philistines and Egyptians.1

The Philistines were great sailors and navigators as were many of the bloodline of

Ham. They originated in Pathros near the Nile delta close to Gaza in Palestine and the

city of Pelusium, the name of this city connected to their own. The Hebrew name for

them is Pelesheth. In Greece they were known as Peleset and Pelasgians. Pelesheth is

linked to Hebrew palash meaning to migrate or roll in dust. Pelusium in Greek meant

mud or clay. Pelusium refers to the Egyptian word sinw for fortress, hence the name

Sin, in the Bible.1

The Philistines were exiled to Caphtor which is the island of Crete (Am. 9:7). They

came to Israel from there. They were known as Pelethites and Cherethites in Israel.

Pelethites refers to the Philistines and Cherethites refers to Cretans. They also went to

the Greek mainland. They became a part of the Arcadians there. They made up part of

the people of ancient Italy and took part in the founding of the city of Rome.

Abraham was closely related to the Chaldeans. The name for the Chaldeans in

Hebrew is Kesed (Kasdites) and is the same name for a nephew of Abraham (Gn. 22:20-

22). The Chaldeans descended from this Kesed, son of Nahor. Kesed is also the brother

of Bethuel, Rebekahs father.

By several meanings of the name Kesed, several connections can be made, including

to the land of Chaldea itself. The name Kesed is most likely related to the Hebrew word

11 Strongs 3685
11 Strongs 6428-29
+
qasid for religious1 The word also is certainly connected to words for pious, kind

and even maternal, being used also for the stork.

As a word for something religious, the connection is even stronger with the use of

the word Chaldean for priests and astrologers. The name came to mean Babylonians in

general as well as priests and astrologers. The cousins of Abraham by this name were

semi-nomadic, like Abraham himself, and are known to have moved between upper

Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. Many of them probably settled, ending up on both

the Persian Gulf and points along the Euphrates River, even as far as the Mediterranean

coast.

Abraham encountered Amorites when he came to Palestine. They had a very

powerful kingdom for a time. They even ruled in Babylon for some time under such

famous rulers as Hammurabi. Many of them allied themselves with Abraham in his

struggles with the kings of Mesopotamia and Sodom.

In this struggle a powerful alliance of northern kings and Mesopotamia attacked the kings

of Canaan. Sodom allied with Zoar and other kingdoms near Abraham. The Canaanite

kings rebelled after a treaty with Mesopotamia. They rebelled after an evil and prophetic

thirteenth year (Gn. 14:4).

Abraham unadvisedly rescued his nephew Lot and his goods from the northern

kings. God would punish him for his act, invoking the ancient curse of Lamech.

Abrahams descendants would go into slavery for four hundred ninety years, most of that

in Egypt.

God also makes mention that Abrahams seed would push or wipe out the Amorites after

11 Strongs 2616-7, 2623-4, 3777-8

+
an exile in Egypt (Gn. 15:13-16). The Amorites would be punished for their satanic false

religion and practices. They included a doomed race of giants or mighty men.

Lot was a herder like his uncle Abraham. Lot desired good pasture for his livestock

and chose a fixed location that was desirable. But he ultimately made a bad decision. It

appears he chose what he could see himself at hand and not to go more by faith and

apparently to avoid hardship and the unknown like Abraham.

Lot didnt desire to live in a city, but his compromises caused him to end up in

Sodom. He never compromised his morals, but we are told that he was surrounded and

tormented by evil people. He shows no signs of liking the sins of Sodom, but he did

apparently like all the comforts it had to offer, beginning with the initial fact that the area

was well watered. He surely was attracted to the nearby markets where he could sell his

produce and buy new things. He surely liked the protection of the city, which he found

out was false. We even find him living within the city itself just before its destruction.

Lots bloodline was passed on through his sons Moab and Ammon, or Ben-Ammi

(Gen. 19:37-38). Not much is known of these two sons. We only know of the nations of

Moab and Ammon and that they were opposed to Israel. The name Moab itself describes

the incestuous origin of this people, meaning mother-father in Hebrew. They are known

for using sexual relations to curse Israel (Num. 25:31), something that was probably at

the heart of Moabs demise itself, from their beginning. This may have been ultimately

partly ameliorated by Ruth the Moabitess, who married into the Jewish people, becoming

an ancestor of Jesus Christ.

So the only characteristics that can be seen concerning the Moabites and the

Ammonites is in sexual relations and in their cosmopolitan origin. They originated at the

+
destruction of Sodom, a once desirable city. The word Sodom itself is associated with

immoral and unlawful sexuality.

Its interesting to look into the origin of the word Sodom more carefully. The word

in Hebrew means burnt, scorched. The consonants sd correspond to words all

associated with fire, ash and smoke. The s corresponds to either Hebrew esh for fire, or

ashan for smoke, and d corresponds to ed or uwd, for a mist or smoke. Its interesting to

note that English soot, might be related.1

The word Sodom is very similar to the word Sodium, an element used in many

highly explosive chemical reactions and compounds as well as salt which most know is

associated particularly with Sodom and its region. Sodom was located in Sittim or

Shittim, a name which might have just been a variant for Sodom. The m at the end of

these words probably magnifies the force of the word, as in much ash and smoke. Even

the name for Satan may be somehow related to Sodom. Satan is often portrayed with fire

and smoke.

After Sodom was destroyed Lot fled with his daughters to a cave. The Moabites and

Ammonites lived in caves or underground ever since (Gn. 19:30). They were often at

war with the nation of Israel and other nations. They were often subdued and reduced to

slavery. Their kingdoms disappeared and it would be assumed that they intermingled

with other peoples. They mixed partly with the Arabse.

The word Arab itself might even mean mixed or mingled. Theyve been

considered by some to be a mongrel race. The prophet Ezekiel even referred to a mingled

people associated with Egypt as well as Ethiopia, Libya, etc (Eze.30:5). The Hebrew

11 Strongs 108, 5467, 6225.

+
word arab means to intermix, mingle. The word also means to braid and also to traffic or

trade. It also has the meaning of covering and crossing over, similar to Hebrew eber and

cheber. It is often applied to clothing, as clothing is created by braiding and crossing

over, as in stitching. It also applies to clothing in its sense of covering the body. It also

has been applied to darkness or dusk as in the sun being covered over. It also has the

meaning of sterile, as in closed off. It has been applied to the desert, apparently as

something closed off to humanity.1

An Arab might fit all of these meanings. Arabs usually live in deserts. Arabs often

traffic and trade. Arabs are usually covered in clothing to protect them from the sun.

They are even usually dark-skinned. They might very well be a mongrel people with no

distinct ancestry.

Abrahams son Isaac was born by faith and had no blood ties to beast men. But

Abrahams sons Ishmael and Midian, among others, were tainted by beast blood and

characteristics.

Ishmael was described as a wild man and an archer (Gn.16:12; 21:20). The

Hebrew word used to describe Ishmael is pereh, which is the same word used for the wild

ass.1 The Huns would fit this description; their name even means wild ass and they

were great archers. The name for the nation of Hungary is probably linked to English

onager from Greek onos and agros (field), for a wild ass of central Asia. The name Hun

was derived from this word and came to English by way of Latin.

We think of Ishmael and his descendants as being more in Arabia than central Asia.

11 Strongs 6150-60
11 Strongs 6501
+
But the Bible only indicates the Ishmaelites to be rather nomadic and involved with

caravans and trade routes. The Huns were somewhat like this. Ishmael was half

Egyptian and settled furthest east of Abrahams people. Many of his descendants became

part of the sons of the east and the kings of the east (Gen. 16:12).

The name Hun and the related name of Hungary have also been linked to a strikingly

similar archaic word onugur, for ten arrows. Ten arrows may have been a Hunnish

twisting of the real and much less flattering meaning used by the Latin west. It is

interesting to note by the way that ten arrows sounds eerily similar to ten horns and ten

kings in Bible eschatology.

The word onugur appears to be the root of many other derivations of the names of

peoples such as the Uhgurs of central Asia and language groups such as Ugric and

Ugrian. There may even be a link to people of the Ugaritic culture of the ancient Middle

East as well as Hurrians and people of the Bible known as the Horim or Horites. Horite

means cave dweller.

The name of Midian means contentious or brawler in Hebrew. His descendants

settled south of Palestine along the Red Sea coast. They would maintain ties with

Ishmaels descendants and would become staunch foes of Isaac and his descendants.

Isaacs two sons Jacob and Esau were twins. Jacob received no tainted blood of

beasts. But Esau had mixed beast blood (Gn. 25:25-27; 27:11). Esau was also called

Edom. He displeased his parents by marrying into the Hittites. Esau also married into

the Horites or Horim (see Genesis chapter 36). Esaus descendants often lived in caves

taking on the characteristics of bears and other beasts.

+
 The Chaldeans were connected to priests and religion from early times. It is almost

certain that their prowess as priests came from the fact that they were connected to the

people of Abraham. It could be said that this family in general had a special connection

to God. But the Chaldeans appear to have used it in a bad way. The evil Balaam was

most likely related by blood to Abraham and the Israelites. He was from Pethor in

Mesopotamia, apparently the same area of upper Mesopotamia (Haran) where Abraham

had dwelt for some time (Num. 22:5). Balaam had such special skills that the king of

Moab and the Midianites sent for him. This was most likely a common practice in the

ancient world. It may be that priests were hired like this and that priests in many empires

were not of the local people but descended from the Chaldeans as Balaam could well

have been.

The Amalekites organized the first nation (Num. 24:20). Descended from Esau, they

were a branch of the Edomites, a nation that probably hated Israel more than any other.

This hatred exists today. The hatred extends down through the branches of the

Amalekites and Agagites.

+
 Esau married into the Hittite people. They descended from Heth, the son of Canaan.

(Gen. 36:1-3). So the Edomite bloodline mingled with the original people of Asia Minor,

modern Turkey and the Caucasus region who dominated Asia Minor and the Caucasus

region before the Hittites did. These people would eventually make their way into Russia

and Siberia.

A common symbol of the Middle East is the crescent. The ancient symbol of

Byzantium was a star and a crescent, interestingly the emblem of Turkey today. The

Bible (NASV Jdg. 8:26) specifically mentions that the Midianites had crescent

ornaments. This reveals, first of all, that the crescent existed as a symbol long before

Islam. Esau also married into the Midianite and Ishmaelite people. So a connection can

be made between Esau, Edomites, Midianites, Ishmaelites, Hittites and Byzantium.

The Turks readily adopted the crescent when they moved into Asia Minor. Or did

they already have it for a long time? Were they new to Anatolia and Asia Minor, or were

they just returning to a land they were already familiar with? When they adopted Islam,

was it just a cover for an older faith, the faith of their old Hittite overlords, which was

also the faith of the Midianites, Ishmaelites, Canaanites and Esau? The crescent was a

prominent symbol for ages. It undoubtedly represented the feminine moon and night. All

of these people adopted Islam. Was it just a cover for an older faith? Its interesting how

the Byzantine symbol for this region hasnt changed to this day, through all the sweeping

changes over the centuries in Asia Minor and the Middle East.

There is no modern nation tied directly to Edom (Esau). The descendants of Esau

have surely intermingled with most of the worlds population. We might ask in what

nation can be seen the characteristics of the original ancestor. Physically, Esau was

+
known to be hairy and of reddish color (Gen. 25:25; 27:11). Reddish might mean red

hair or reddish skin, or both. But the most important characteristic was that Esau was a

hunter and a man of the wilderness (Gen. 25:27). His actions describe a person with no

desire for authority or formality and concern more for his immediate needs than for

spiritual or political ones (Gen. 25:30-34). The people who amazingly fit this

characteristic the most are the nomadic people of northern Asia and North America. I

might even note lightheartedly that American Indians have even been called Redskins.

It doesnt seem a stretch though to see the land of Edom most clearly as wilderness.

A little known people of Asia Minor were known as Isaurians. One can see the name

Esau clearly in the name of these people. They were known as being rough and wild.

The name Esau itself is linked to the Hebrew word asah, rough. A few Isaurians

managed to become Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire and of Byzantium.1

Byzantium eventually fell into the hands of the Romans. The Romans were a

mixture of Italic and Etruscan people among others. The Etruscans probably came from

Tyre. The word Tyre might be faintly detected in the tru of the word Etruscan. The city

of Troy may have also been a namesake colony of Tyre. The Tyrhennian Sea west of

Italy also betrays the influence of Tyre. Tyre was a great mercantile city with a vast sea

empire. Archaeology has revealed a probable middle-eastern origin of the Etruscans.

They probably originated in Tyre or Troy. Roman mythology tells that the Roman hero

Aeneas fought in the Trojan wars and helped to found Rome. This further substantiates

this connection. The name of Troy may be a duplication and corruption of the name of

11 Strongs 6213
+
Tyre. Ancient people often named newer cities after older ones. God condemned Tyre

through Ezekiel (Ezek. 26, 27 and 28). Tyre had powerful influence over other peoples

and nations. Indeed Isaiah also predicted that Tyres sister city Sidon would move

operations to Chittim, a place believed to be associated with Italy (Is. 23:12).

Tyre was probably connected by marriage to Esau by way of the Canaanites. The

Hittites then had a connection to Tyre through Esau. Byzantium and Troy were both in

Hittite territory formerly. So was Rome really just an extension of Tyre and the Hittite

empire as well as Babylon? Probably. The Italic element of the Romans were probably

descended from Ashkenaz by way of the Scythians. Roman myth even credits a figure

known as Ascanius with aiding in the founding of Rome. Ascanius is surely the Latin

form of the name Ashkenaz. Ascanius was said to be a king with a kingdom known as

Ascania. In Hebrew, the initial a, from the Hebrew letter aleph, is often silent and just a

modifier. So drop the initial a and one has Scania, the Roman name for Scandinavia.

There seem to be a few common elements within the enemies of Israel: they all had

connections to Esau, Ishmael and Midian. These were all cousins of the patriarchs of

Israel. Did their descendants harbor a deep hatred of Israel and stir up the people of the

lands where they went, against Israel? It appears so. Esau, Ishmael and Midian would

have likely learned some of the wisdom, knowledge and customs of God through their

ancestor Abraham. But they also would have known of magic and sorcery through the

Canaanites with whom they intermarried. They undoubtedly taught this to the people

they dominated. They went by land and by sea. They dominated through trade, most of

which depended on the sea. They became demagogues.

The next nation to threaten Israel was Aram. The Aramaeans were very powerful for

+
some time. Their god Rimmon was associated with thunder. Hebrew ram or rum is

cognate, meaning thunder. Its interesting that thunder rumbles in English. Ram

meant exalted or lofty and may have come to be associated with thunder because

thunder seems to come from high above. This would have an obvious application to a

god. The name of Rome and its reputed founder Romulus may be of related derivation.

The name of the Egyptian god Ra may be linked. The name Aram is probably related, as

well as Abram and Abraham.

The Aramaean kingdom was destroyed by Assyria and its people exiled to Kir (Am.

9:7).. The Assyrians were one of the greatest enemies of Israel. They began a legacy of

displacing peoples from their own homeland so that they would lose identity. Most of the

Israelites would not escape this practice.

Assyria was a supreme military power for hundreds of years. Its national god

Asshur reflected the warlike values of Assyria The name of this god most likely means

happy or blessed, with obvious ties to wealth. The name is related to Semitic words

for wealth, fertility, increase and happiness or blessedness, etc. The Hebrew name Asher

is certainly related, with natural links to wealth and prosperity.

Two basic roots make up the word asher. Ash/ish means fire (somehow related to

English ash?) and er (ur) means exalted and also glowing, shining, prominent, as

in a gleaming mountain peak or tower (notice Latin aura, aurora, aurum, gold, English

ore, etc.). Hebrew ashar and osher mean accumulation, increase, riches, etc. A

connection can be drawn between fire, wealth and prosperity and the god Asshur through

worship and burnt offerings, a common cult practice in the Near East. The divinity

would have been naturally sought for prosperity and gain. Wealth would naturally be

+
connected. Being able to burn away valuable commodities for the gods was a sign of

wealth. Interestingly, certainly related Hebrew words are asrah and asarah, ten and

issaron, tenth. These are clearly linked through offerings and the concept of the tithe.1

Asshur was closely associated to war and often linked to the planet Mars, as was the

Roman god with that name. Wealth and prosperity could clearly be linked to war, in both

positive and negative terms. War could bring gain or loss. Fertility could bring a higher

population, which could sadly be used to make war. Grimly, decimation (which

interestingly means tenth) was involved with war. The Romans were known to kill a

tenth of an army if it failed in war, a practice known as decimation!

Some have linked Asshur to Nisroch, which was also the name of the national god of

Assyria. Also known as Esdrach and Asorach, Nisroch was portrayed by an eagle. The

eagle may have been associated with Mars as both being flying above. Hebrew for eagle

is interestingly nezer. Hebrew nazar means consecrated hence nazarite, or diadem.

This may be related to a Semitic word nasi for prince from which comes nezzar. This is

probably connected to the name of the god. Another word with root naz is related to

watcher and watchtower. Some have linked this to the city of Nazareth (watchtower)

where Christ lived. Watcher may be linked to eagle by the fact that eagles are in a

position to watch from above, where they fly. Also, angels have been called watchers

(Dan. 4:13, 17, 23).

The Assyrians put pressure on the Canaanites of Lebanon also. The seafaring empire

of Phoenicia was born in the struggles with Assyria. Phoenicia spread across the

Mediterranean just as Tyre was falling in Assyrian hands.

11 Strongs 804, 833, 836, 6235-41

+
 The name Tyre comes from Hebrew sur (tsowr) for rock, hard, flint or

fortified. This certainly alludes to the stone walls and towers of the city of that name.

Its interesting that English tower seems connected. On close inspection, one can find

what seem to be many permutations of the word with interesting connections to Tyre.

Another Hebrew word, sur, means travel as well as merchant, even minstrel, harlot

and bull. The city of Tyre was heavily associated with merchants and long-distance sea

travel. It was also referred to as a harlot by several prophets. A clearly related

permutation is Hebrew tor meaning wall, ring, merchantman, go about, turn, etc.

It also means bullock, in the sense of roving or meandering as a bull might do. This

word is undoubtedly related to Greek tauros for bull. And in the sense of a bull as a

traveller, there also seems to be a connection to English tour.

Bulls were worshipped in Tyre and its region. The connection to Tyre is even more

pronounced in the Greek myth of Europa. In the myth, Europa was the daughter of the

king of Tyre. She was abducted by the god Zeus in the form of a white bull and taken to

Crete. This story encapsulates the fact that Tyre had a great influence on Europe in every

way. The story illustrates a transfer of themes form Asiatic Tyre to European Crete.

Europe is really just Tyre multiplied; its nothing but a giant seaport.1

In European languages, the hinterland of Tyre took its name from the city, from

whence came the name of Syria, from Greek Suria. Tyre is also connected with the name

Turkey, for Asia Minor or Anatolia. So names for both Syria and Turkey might be traced

to Tyre. It might even have something to do with the Norse god Thor. The connection to

Turkey is made even more striking by noticing that both Pergamos (Pergos) there and

11 Strongs 7788-94, 8446, 8450

+
Tyre both have the meaning of fortress, and both are explicitly linked to Satan in the

Bible (Ez. 28, Rv. 2:12-13).

Nearby Tyre is Sidon, which is clearly named after Sidon, a descendant of Canaan.

The name of the city has been connected to fishery, something clearly connected to a

seaport.

The Assyrians exiled. Elamites were exiled to Illyria where they would make their

way eventually to what is now Poland along the Amber Road. Many Syrians would be

exiled to what is now Sicily.

Many Israelites were exiled to parts of the Assyrian empire. Some were taken as far as

southern Arabia, others to Syria, or Aram, some to Asia Minor and the Caucasus region

and some taken across the sea as far as Spain. The The Israelites gave the name of their

ancestor Eber to the Ebro River in Spain and to the ancient name of Spain, Iberia itself.

They gave this name also to Iberia, the ancient name of a region of Georgia in the

Caucasus.

The Bible refers to a place called Tarshish. Tarshish often referred to modern Spain

as well as other places. Tarshish has often been equated with Tartessus in Spain. Many

trade goods identified in the Bible with Tarshish could easily have come from Spain.

When the prophet Jonah fled Israel he was headed for Tarshish. He left from the port

of Joppa in Israel according to the scriptures (Jonah 1:3). If he was headed for a Tarshish

on the Red Sea, he would have left from the port of Ezion-Geber, not Joppa. So the story

supports the suggestion that Jonah was headed for what is now Spain. Why there? It

could be that many other Israelites were already there, even naming it after one of their

+
ancestors. Jonah naturally would have felt comfortable going to establishments of his

own people.

Israelite tribes on the coast of Israel had more access to sea travel. Jonah was of the

tribe of Zebulun, whose territory was on the northern coast of Israel. The tribes of

Ephraim and Dan also had territory on or near the coast at Joppa. So it might be assumed

that many of the tribes of Ephraim and Dan migrated to what is now Spain. Some have

even linked Ireland to Spain through its old name of Iberia. An old name for Ireland was

Hibernia and some scholars claim the name was brought by some of the earliest settlers

believed to have come from Iberia.

Its clear that many of Israels enemies are actually closely related to Israel. One

may even be from within Israel itself. The Danite tribe, descended from Jacobs son Dan,

is believed by some to be the bloodline of the Antichrist. This is because the tribe of Dan

is left out of the list of the 144,000 at the Apocalypse (Rev. 7:4-8). The Bible tells us the

fate of Dan (Gen. 49:16-18). This tribe is known for its failures in the conquest of

Palestine and for its idolatry and apostasy. It is not well known that this tribe was heavily

associated with the sea people, sea trade and exploration. Their story makes clear that

the Danites had close association with the sea (Judges 5:17). And its interesting that this

tribe so associated with evil is associated with the sea, which is also usually seen as

something sinister in the Bible.

There are faint traces of people in history that may very well have been the tribe of

Dan. They always are found connected to the sea and sailing. They appear to have been

very mobile and active, as well as sophisticated and industrious. They were also part of a

growing culture based on sea travel and commerce.

+
 There is good evidence that many of the tribe of Dan migrated to Greece. Homer

mentioned two main Greek people in his Iliad. He often refers to Achaeans and Danaans.

Herodotus mentions a people of Greece called the Danoi. There are a few kings of Sparta

with dan in their names. So apparently Sparta had connections with Israel and the

Danites.1 Many Spartan families later became ruling elites in Rome. The Danites could

naturally have migrated to Iberia also, where they may have had blood relations. Dan is

even associated with Greece (Greece referred to as Javan) and the sea by the prophet

Ezekiel (Ezek. 27:19 KJV).

Sparta was located close to Arcadia, a rustic region in the very southern part of

Greece. The name of this region certainly means bear or land of bears from Greek

arctos for bear. Latin ursus for bear is surely related. The ar and ur respectively

probably mean something like spear or point, as in a bears pointy sharp teeth. The

name Sparta itself also appears to mean spear. Also, a common symbol or emblem of

Sparta was a bear, most likely for its militarism. Arcadia happens to be adjacent to

Laconia the region dominated by Sparta. Arcadia may also be linked to bears because it

was known as a rustic region and bears are commonly found in such areas.

Both Sparta and Arcadia are not far from the island of Crete. If the tribe of Dan were

Spartans, they could easily have been connected to the Philistines in mainland Greece,

Crete and Israel. Did the tribe of Dan actually join with the Philistines? Furthermore, did

they migrate to Greece and dominate it? Did they then migrate to Italy and Rome and

dominate it? There is evidence that indicates that it is possible.

Several ancient Roman writers claimed Arcadians helped found Rome. They also

11 See also I Maccabees 12:19-23.

+
claim the Roman gods and Roman alphabet were brought by the Arcadians as well as the

Pelasgians and the Etruscans. The Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians. I

would guess it was introduced by none other than the Pelasgians and the Arcadians.1

The tribe of Dan may also have settled in Ireland. Interestingly, one of the earliest

pieces of literature of Ireland is called Tuathe de Dannan. This title has been translated

literally, tribe of Dan. The people known as the Merovingians quite possibly descend

from the Danites also. The Merovingians are somewhat puzzling for historians and raise

many important questions. They were a dynasty in Europe during the Dark Ages.

The name Merovingian simply means sea man or sea people. But the

Merovingians were supposedly a branch of the Franks and the Franks were a Germanic

tribe, people who had little to do with the sea. So its a bit of a mystery why a land

people, with little original association with the sea would adopt such a title.

The Franks were divided into two main parts, those that dwelt at the river, Ripuarians

(Rhine) and those that dwelt along the coast, Salians (salty). This has been used as an

explanation for the name of the Merovingians. They were a part of the Salian Franks of

the coasts. This would explain their name.

But I believe this is an error. I think that the Merovingians were not Germanic at all

but had mixed in with the Franks who had come up the Rhine River from the hinterland.

The purported progenitor of the Franks, their king Meroveus or Merovech, was believed

to have been sired by a sea beast called a Quinotaur. This creature was similar to the

Philistine god Dagon and Greek water gods. Such a mythological creature was not a

common deity for Germanic people but was rather a concept of seafaring people. This

11 Pliny, lib. 7, c. 56, Dionysius Halicarnassus, lib. 2, Tacitus, Annal. lib.11

+
was something foreign to the original Germanic people. This is not to say that they were

incapable of seafaring, but they would have seen no use for it and would not have had an

interest in it originally. They had to be taught the benefits of sea travel and trade from a

foreign seafaring people.

The Merovingians were most probably seafarers who had moved up the coasts of

Europe. They probably had adopted a sea god from the Philistines, with whom they were

closely connected. After they had mixed in well with the Franks, the Merovingians then

expanded into what is now Denmark. There they dominated and influenced the religion

and culture of the Germanic people. Soon after, they took to the sea as Danes and

Vikings. Danish and Viking ships often bore dragons on their bows. The serpent dragon

was the emblem of the tribe of Dan, as was the eagle, which was also a common Nordic

emblem. The name Dan then appears among the Danes. The Danites could have easily

sailed up the coasts from Israel to what are now Normandy, England, Ireland and

Denmark.

So several cultures had taken to the sea and developed powerful sea connections.

They all curiously had dark connections to those that hate Israel. Tyre, Troy, Byzantium

and Rome all had connections to Canaanites, Ishmaelites, Midianites and Edomites.

Danites added themselves to the sea empires. The Bible suggests that the Danites would

betray Israel (Genesis 49:16-17). All of these people hate Israel yet have much in

common with Israel and a deep knowledge of God. All of them are listed as enemies of

Israel (Ps. 83:6-8). Notice also that Gebal is mentioned. This may refer to what is also

known as Byblos, a type of cryptic form of Babylon. These nations would be able to

twist the truths of God. They would also be able to mix the truth of God with the black

+
magic and sorcery of the Canaanites.

As their Danite cousins had, the tribe of Ephraim had most likely taken to the sea

through Joppa, which was close to their territory. Most of this tribe was probably already

leaving Israel and heading for what is now Spain. More Israelites may have been

deported to Spain by the conquering Assyrians by way of Joppa and Phoenician ports like

Tyre and Sidon. Ephraimites then could have made their way to Britain and Ireland. It is

widely known that Iberians were some of the first settlers of much of Britain and Ireland.

They were there before Celtic people were.

Ephraimite bloodlines then could have come to North and South America by way of

Spain, Britain and Ireland. The New World has often been equated by Bible scholars

with Ephraim in the Bible. Many of the prophecies in the Bible regarding Ephraim have

even been applied to the Americas and the United States; it is perhaps for this reason.

The tribe of Ephraim is also left out at the Apocalypse like the tribe of Dan (Rev. 7:4-8).

This has been linked to the sins of Jeroboam, who was of that tribe and is encapsulated in

Isaiahs prophecy (Is. 28:1-3).

The tribe of Manasseh has been often equated with Britain also. If Manasseh is

equated with Britain, I believe this was by land by way of Celts and Anglo-Saxons. The

tribe of Manasseh was heavily associated with the tribes of Gad and Reuben. These also

had territory in proximity of one another and all of these tribes were deported to Assyria.

They all may have remained together loosely. When Assyria and Babylon were

conquered by Scythians (Ashkenaz), the Israelites were most probably absorbed into the

Scythian people and moved into their homeland of what are now Ukraine, southern

Russia and northern Iran. These Israelites then most likely migrated with the Scythians

+
into northern Europe.

In Hebrew, gad is pronounced like goth and the Goths of Europe were most likely

descended from the Israelite tribe of Gad. Both Gad and Goth mean good fortune. The

blessing of Gad foretold his descendants would be warlike and often threatened, but

triumphant in the end (Gen. 49:19). The history of the Goths is very much like this very

blessing. The Anglo-Saxons were probably an offshoot of the tribes of Gad and

Manasseh, and a branch of the Scythians or Sacae. The name Saxon comes from the

name of a knife which was most likely possessed originally by the Sacae.

Gad also means host, troop, army, multitude. The word appears to have been

originally applied to the stars. The tribe of Gad was known to be large and skilled in

military activity, in apparent fulfillment of its name. Its interesting to note that the tribe

of Gad may have settled very close to the tribe of Dan in Scandinavia, one coming by

land from the east and the other by sea respectively.

The tribe of Asher may have been deported by the Assyrians by sea. They may have

been deported through one of the Phoenician ports like Tyre or Sidon. Syracuse in Sicily

is named after colonists from Syria. This may be a loose appellation and mean any

colonists of Assyrian, Samarian, Aramaic and Israelite descent. The Greeks are believed

to have brought colonists from Syria to Sicily. The Greeks were probably continuing a

practice of earlier empires like Assyria and Babylon. So, many of the regions on the

Mediterranean coast probably have bloodlines of the tribe of Asher. The tribe of Zebulon

had territory also near the coast. This tribe also probably ended up along the

Mediterranean coast.

+
 Assyria came into increasing competition with Chaldeans, Medes and Persians.

Assyria couldnt stop the growing power of the Chaldeans, who made alliances with the

Medes and Persians. The Scythians would help either side as it suited them from time to

time.

The Persians did not derive their national name from an ancestor, as many others did.

Persia stands out from most others for this reason, but obviously also because it was once

a great world power with renowned wealth and far-reaching influence. It attained the

status of empire and was famous for its military might, its literature, architectural

accomplishments, etc.

The origin of the name of Persia is the Semitic word perez, which means to divide

or to breach. It is the origin of the Hebrew name Perez. The word is linked to the

Persians as horsemen. Horses have divided hooves. Something like a horse is the wild

ass, pereh in Hebrew. The word could also be applied to wild men, which might be how

the original Persians were perceived, as strangers from the Asian steppes.2

Its interesting to note that a form of the word is found in the supernatural

handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:25-28). This inscription concerns the transfer of

Babylon to Persia and its world domination. The corresponding word itself is seen in

different forms, depending on translation, either as upharsin or peres. Upharsin has been

shown to be a compound of u and pharsin where u is and and pharsin is divided.

Peres, also means divided. English part and parse seem clearly related. And the

Persians were also later known as Parthians in their history.

22 Strongs 6501
+
 It may be possible that the name of the nation or empire of Persia came into

existence with the inscription recorded by Daniel. It may also be that Persia was seen as

a divider or a breach in the established order of the world. It may be that Persia was seen

as a protective divide between civilization and barbarism or between light and dark.

The name of Persia mutated into Farsi. P commonly mutated into f, especially in

Indo-European languages. The word might have become associated with enlightenment

and learning, which are concerned with dividing, as in making distinctions in concepts,

forms, meanings, etc.

The word Pharisee for the sect that often opposed Christ may originate from the

same word. Pharisee is known to come from Greek pharisaios, by way of Aramaic

perishayya. The Greek form is most likely related to another Greek word, phares. This

word may have been applied to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, meaning great house. But it

was also applied to the Lighthouse at Alexandria, called pharos. So the word seems

possibly connected to light. Light was seen, as mentioned earlier, as a divider, something

that divides day from night. It also is seen as a breach in the darkness. Light was also

applied figuratively to kings in the sense that their power and might were dazzling like

light. Pharisees were students and teachers and were heavily concerned with meanings

and definitions. Their role was to divide one concept from another. They also were

responsible for the light of learning and education.

The word pharaoh most probably is akin to Hebrew rapha. The Egyptian word was

most likely just a metathesis of the Hebrew version. In one sense it has the meaning to

heal of health and constitution. It is the root of the Hebrew name Rephaim, a people

known as the dead. These were akin to the giants whom the Israelites destroyed from

+
Palestine. The name Rephaim more accurately probably meant returned from the dead

showing the connection to healing. The Pharaohs all had themselves mummified and

entombed with the belief that they would come back to life. Perhaps they were not

mistaken. It has been suggested that one way many of the giants were in Israel after the

flood had destroyed them in Noahs time, is that they returned from the dead.

Israel has many enemies. They came by land and by sea. There was a daunting

array of nations with varying degrees of sophistication and power through the ages. It

may be that the greatest threat to Israel was from within and its enemies found that their

greatest success came by intermarrying with Israel. Indeed, God had warned Israel of

this danger. There were sects of foreign origin that had a profound influence on Israel.

The Magi who visited Christ at his birth appear to have originated in Persia.

Shown earlier, the Pharisees could easily have originated in Persia like the Magi.

Both had a powerful influence over Israel, especially the Pharisees. This may have been

a design of the enemy. Some believe the Magi originated in the courts of Babylon and

developed ties with Israel through the prophet Daniel at the time of the exile to Babylon.

The Pharisees may have also originated at this time and in this way. Indeed the word

Pharisee, my come from the same root as Persia which included Babylon to which the

Jews had been exiled. The script of the ancient Hebrew language was even drastically

altered, curiously at just about the time of the exile in Babylon. The Jewish calendar was

altered at this time as well, many names of months borrowed from Babylonian names.

From this point in the Bible on, readers of the Bible are getting a further narrowing

+
down within Semitic peoples of the line that would bear Christ and a discarding of the

rest. There is also a picture given of the enemies of Christ and Israel. Abraham very

clearly is the next indicated with additional information added, not only about Christ, but

Christs kingdom. Abrahams nephew Lot is discarded. His sons are sired through

incest. The offspring Ammonites and Moabites are discarded, except through Ruth who

was added to Christs bloodline by marrying Boaz and begetting Obed (Matt. 1:5).

Then we see Isaac as the seed of promise by Sarah. Ishmael, of a concubine, and

the Ishmaelites are then discarded. Midian was also of a concubine. He and the

Midianites are also discarded. Others are discarded. Next we see Jacob getting Gods

blessing and a new name, Israel, and Esau (Edom) and the Edomites are discarded.

Then within Jacob/Israels own descendants we get an even narrower description of

the bearers of Christ. Judah is indicated as the ancestor of Christ. The other sons or

tribes are discarded with various blessings and curses. The Bible gives various details on

the supremacy of the tribe of Judah and the position in Gods nation. Accounts of the

kings shed some light on the birthrights (1 Chr. 5:1-2 ). The Psalms also illustrate how

God whittled down the exact lineage of Christ (Ps. 78:67-72 ). Chapter 49 in Genesis

gives the specific details. It clearly marks Judah with the highest honor and this surely

also refers to Christs lineage (Gen. 49:8-12).

Within the family of Judah can be seen the narrowing and refining to get the exact

ancestor of Christ. Genesis chapter 38 gives details on how Perez became the ancestor of

Christ, and not some of Judahs other sons.

One last note about the nations. The Bible often mentions that the nations undergo

great torment, destruction and upheaval and that they will be healed in the end. At the

+
end of the gospels there is a curious scene in which Christ has Peter put out his fish nets.

We are given a peculiar bit of detail about the number of fish that are caught, one hundred

and fifty three. It has been remarked that this number refers to the number of nations that

will exist at Christs second coming. The prophet Habbakuk hints at this, equating fish

with nations (Hab. 1:13-17).1

11 Perry Stone, Manna Fest

+
Whats in a Name

An important thing to remember about names is that they usually have a prophetic

meaning and determine the fate of the descendants of the original bearer of the name.

We know that the Canaanites were in Canaan. But they were descendants of Ham.

Peleg, Terah and Abraham were descended from Shem. The Canaanites were under the

curse of their ancestor Canaan. Noah had cursed Canaan, Hams son. The meaning of

Canaanite may be zealot, a fanatic. Cananaean or canaanite are words for zealot. The

word comes from the Greek kananaios. This is widely held to be related to Hebrew and

Aramaic qann.

Another important thing to remember is that countries in the time and language of

the Bible usually derive from the ancestor of the people of a region, rather than a
+
description of the region. Names often reveal where the descendant of the original

progenitor settled. Names of places today sometimes refer all the way back to the person

mentioned in the Bible (see Genesis 10). In the Bible Egypt is often referred to as the

Land of Ham or Mizraim, for Hams son and Canaans brother Mizraim. Many

languages of North Africa are considered Hamitic. Some of the other names of Hams

descendants reveal where they settled and may be found even in modern names.

Lehabim is widely held to be found in the modern nation of Libya. The ancient and

modern city of Sidon assuredly comes from Sidon, Canaans son. Mizraims son

Pathrusim is believed to be found in the city of Pathros in Egypt. The ancient Hittites are

believed to descend from Heth, Canaans other son.

With an understanding of the names in the Genesis accounts, one can go on and

apply them to history.. The Hittites are somewhat of a mystery for historians. There is

continuing debate of their origin and debate among Bible scholars of how they fit with

the people of the Bible.

The Hittites are held to have spoken an Indo-European language related to both

Scythian and Germanic languages. But many Bible scholars claim the Hittites were of

Canaanite origin, descended through Heth, their supposed eponymous ancestor. The

Canaanites spoke a Semitic language. Some Bible scholars have assumed that Shems

descendants always spoke Semitic languages and Japheths descendants always spoke

Indo-European languages. This is probably a mistaken theory. There could easily have

been borrowing and even adoption between languages.

If the Hittites were originally Canaanites, they may have adopted an Indo-European

language because they moved into Asia Minor, which was populated by mostly Indo-

+
European speaking people. Generally, Japheths descendants did indeed appear to speak

mostly Indo-European languages. In the ancient world, Asia Minor appears to have been

populated by the descendants of Japheth, Gomer, Tubal, Togarmah, Meshech, Magog,

Ashkenaz, etc. The Canaanites were destined to be dominated by other people. In Asia

Minor, they would have also been in the minority, and may have found it expedient to

adopt the prevailing language.

The people mentioned in the very beginning of Genesis were living in one place

before they dispersed. With Nimrod mankind had uniformly desired to remain in one

area and develop together. The confusion in language that eventually scattered mankind

may have involved disputes over the name of God and the multiplicity of forms and

meanings. Everyone knows there are many names of gods mentioned in the Bible and

even variants on the name of the God of the Bible itself.

A word that came to mean God widely in the ancient Near East was el, a word for the

sun. El or al meant something like bright and shining one, illustrious one, etc. The

sun would clearly fit this description. Words like el and al came to be identified with a

divinity and became a prominent god for most Near Eastern cultures. Both the Israelite

and Canaanite languages had the word el.

A related name to el is the name of the Babylonian god Bel. Apparently a b was

prefixed to el. The b may come from the root ab for father giving the name perhaps the

meaning of father of the sun. The name came to have the meaning lord. The lord Bel,

the sun, was held to be masculine for obvious reasons as the moon was often feminine for

only reflecting the sun. The Canaanite divinity Baal appears to be cognate to Bel.

Arabic Allah is related. The Greek god of the sun Helios most assuredly comes from

+
the word el. A mostly silent h was added to the word and modified. From this come

English helium, heliocentric, etc. and probably English hell, with a modified meaning.

We saw that the word el is in Babel with the same meaning.

Interestingly, Helios could very well be cognate with Latin Julius. Both words can

be shown to have similar meanings and origin; they both are strikingly similar to the

name Helel, which Isaiah gave to the king of Babylon (Is. 14:12). This name is translated

Lucifer with the meaning of illustrious, bright shining one. Most everyone knows this

characters name.

The name Julius is familiar and eerily was applied to another great world dictator.

Julius is almost certainly related to the northern European pagan figure of Yule or Jul.

This figure is associated with the sun and is involved with the midwinter festival now

connected to Christmas. The original pagan festival celebrated the suns rebirth as it

began to rise higher and higher in the sky from its lowest point at that time of the year.

Another name often linked to the sun and very important to ancient people is linked

to the Greek word theos. Theos is almost certainly linked to the Greek letter tau which

was written with a cross mark like a + as was the Hebrew letter tav or taw in earlier

times before Hebrew scripts were altered. This may have been an ancient sun or light

symbol representing rays of light. The name is also related to the Phoenician letter taw.

Taw also means mark as in cross mark. The name of the letter may also have been the

name for the sun.

Theos simply means god. It meant god in a generic sense but came to mean a

personal god and the supreme God of the Bible in Christian times. This name appears

linked to the Greek letter tau and the Hebrew and Phoenician letter tav or taw. Zeus is

+
just a possessive form of theos. So Zeus is the god of gods. It makes sense that there

might be gods and that they have a god over them. This is the meaning of Zeus; he was

supreme.

Theos is probably related to the important early Egyptian god and persona of Toth or

Thoth. The divine Egyptian name of Ptah may also be a derivative as well as Tut. In the

Egyptian language Tut means image. Its interesting that Christ is called an image

(Colossians 1:15). A sun god worshipped at early times in Israel was called Dodo. This

name appears linked to the Egyptian god Thoth as Theos is also related to Latin deus.

The name Dodo could easily be pronounced and written as Toto because d and t are

closely interchangeable linguistically and have often been used alternately in spelling and

pronunciation. So the name is found sometimes with d and sometimes t.

The name David is believed to be linked to this sun god Dodo. Dodo was a known

Israelite personal name, variously spelled, (Jdg. 10:1, 1 Chronicles 11:12, 26; 27:4, 2

Samuel 23:9, 24, etc.). One meaning of the word or name dodo means beloved or

loving. The name is also related to the Hebrew word for mandrake, an aphrodisiac,

hence an association with love and amorousness. The name though, is also probably

linked to the divine. A few times the person so named is linked to Bethlehem, Davids

ancestral city, so it is plausible that the name Dodo may have even been a name common

to the region and Davids family and that the name David itself was a form of the name.

The similarity of David and the related word divine is also striking. The name David

probably means something like image of God, seeker of God or gatherer of God. It

may also mean smoke of god or cloud of god. The final d is actually pronounced th in

Hebrew. The initial d should most likely be a t for the Hebrew letter tav or taw and not d

+
for the Hebrew letter daleth, according to the origin of the name. So the correct spelling

may be Tavith, not David. It is interesting to note that tav, taw and tau were always

written + in ancient scripts and king David is the ancestor of Christ whose symbol is

always +. This may also have been an ancient symbol for light or image, representing

rays of light. The name of the letter may have often been used as a word for the sun.1

There are many forms of these names linked to gods. There are many roots like dio,

theo, tiw, deo, dis, teo, tue, div, devah, tev, etc. which are linked to important gods. From

these we have derived words like deity, divinity, devil, etc. There are names for the God

of the Bible in many languages like French Dieu, Spanish Dios, etc. There are many

names of gods which are related. The Germanic religions had Teu or Tiw from which we

get Tuesday. Another form of the name was Teiva. The similarity with tav and David is

striking. The name Teiva has been found on ancient artifacts. An important and related

god of the Celts was Teutates or Toutates. The Romans had a god known as Dispater

which meant father god. The name Devah and Devi for gods is found in the Sanskrit

language as far afield as India.

The Greek letter tau is undoubtedly related to the Hebrew letter tav and was related

to the divine and thus had special significance. The Greek word taumat meant miracle

or work of wonder. It is literally gift of god, mat is gift and tau is god. Hebrew for

gift is mattan. Thus the proper name Matthew is also gift of god. Its just the two

component words in taumat in reverse order. From this was derived the word

taumaturgy, magic or wonderworking.

Weve seen how important the heavenly bodies were for the ancients. From this are

11 The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. June, 2004, p.
187.

+
probably related words like day, dawn, dazzle, etc. The name of the Philistine god

Dagon may have a related etymology. Judging by how far these root words ranged, this

was an important symbol and word and may reflect the obvious importance of the sun.

And the symbol was applied to God.

The related root word appears to be very important. It is found far and wide in many

very different cultures. This indicates that the word is very old and basic. It may have

been the name for God originally and then corrupted as it was applied to the sun. It may

have been a sign of good fortune, protection and blessing. It may have been the very

mark that God gave Cain. It came to be sometimes associated with the sun, as were

many names for gods.

The word seems also to be associated with war. At times, the Germanic god Tiw was

a god of war. Gods were often associated with war. They determined the outcomes of

war, which was one way they controlled the fates of nations. War brought death, which

then was probably linked to the name. The names of gods like Thoth, Dad and Dodo are

strikingly similar also to death and dead. Indeed, gods were masters of both life and

death and the living and the dead. I also notice that King David was a leader of armies, a

warrior. God called him a man of blood. He was a bringer of death.

A possibly related name is Hadad, the thunderer and supreme god of the

Canaanites. Hadad was also an important deity for other ancient people of the Middle

East. The Akkadian god Adad is related. Hadad is believed to be two words, ha and dad.

Ha was a common definite article like English the. Dad may be related to the sun

divinity with various forms like Dodo, Toto, Thoth, etc., described earlier. The h

modified a name or word giving an added meaning of specificity, holiness, power or the

+
sublime. H or he is pronounced with a breath and is thus associated with spirit or

wind. In like manner Abrams name was changed to Abraham and Sarais name was

changed to Sarah.

The names Adonijah and Adonai are found a few times in the Bible. These names

are undoubtedly linked to the Greek form Adonis. Adonis implies godlike in Greek.

The name in both Hebrew and Greek are most likely linked to the root dan or don. These

roots have the meaning judge or lord, a lord often acting as a judge. The root can be

seen in the name of the Greek god Poseidon and even in English don, as in university don

or mafia don. Even the name of the Norse god Odin might be related.

Another common name for an ancient divinity in Mesopotamia was Gad. The

Hebrew name Gad comes from this, as certainly does our English word for God. In

Hebrew, the d is pronounced more like English th. The a in Gad is a long a, pronounced

like the o in English God. So in Hebrew, the name Gad is pronounced like English Goth.

Ive mentioned the meanings of this word earlier but Ill repeat it. The first meaning of

the word was probably host, as in the host of heaven, stars in other words. This meant

also troop, multitude, army, or group, as in a large number of something. After the

sun, stars were probably among the first things worshipped, after men fell into idolatry.

The name Gad then came to stand for a personal divinity itself. Since a divinity was

believed to bring good fortune, the name Gad also came to mean good fortune or just

good, then god.

Then some audacious men most likely called themselves what they called a divinity.

A Christian would say they got confused between God and themselves. When God

promised Abraham that his descendants would be as countless as the stars in multitude,

+
was he mocking those men who presumed to take upon themselves the name of Gad?

Another important name in the ancient world was Ea. This was a Babylonian deity

and came to be associated with the earth and is found in the very word itself. Ea is

pronounced more like ya in English, and developed into several forms like ja, ju, je, ia,

ye, etc. The name was transformed into a word for lord as in the Hebrew language. In

Israel it became one of the divine names.

Traces of this root word can be seen in many words. The word or name usually

means lord and often involves high rank and position or divine attributes like goodness

and majesty. There are English earl, judge, justice, earth, etc. In Greek there are eulogy,

euphoria, euphony, etc. The name of the Roman god Jupiter is two roots, ju for god and

piter for father. Jove, another name for Jupiter appears even to be very similar to the

Hebrew name Jehovah. Jehovah is believed by some to be an incorrect translation of the

name Yahweh, but the reverse might be true. The name Jove itself may have been created

in the Christian era and not prove any earlier links between Latin and Hebrew. The

Hebrew name Job may be something like Jove. The similarity is more exact when

considering the common transformation from b to v and vice versa.

Then there is the moon. The Hebrew word for moon is yereach and also kodesh. It

may be that the former is a northern term of Israel and the latter is from Judah. Yereach

is very similar to a common word for moon of the ancient Near East. It is also similar to

another word for terror, fright, with a connotation of reverence. In this region, a word

with the same consonants yrh and in the same order meant moon in many cultures. The

word has been connected to the ancient cities of Jericho and Jerusalem, believed to

originally be centers of moon worship. It also may be connected to yara, to throw and

+
foundation, as in throw down the foundations. It could be that the moon was seen as

something thrown as it appeared to be in flight. The initial y in yereah may have meant

lord as the moon was probably conceived of as the lord of the night or something like

that.1

Hebrew for month and also calendar is yerah. Its not hard to imagine that English

year is related. A year is made up of months and recorded on a calendar. Somehow the

meaning may have shifted from the moon and month to something made up of months or

something that embodies months.

The Chaldean name Nebo or Nabu also came to be applied to the moon. It was also

sometimes applied to the planet Mercury. The meaning of the name is disputed. One of

its earlier meanings was probably son. It appears at first to have meant son in the

simplest sense and related to Hebrew ben and Arabic bin or ibn, of the same meaning.

The Hebrew word ben is related to Hebrew eben which means stone. The connection is

in the sense of building, which often involves stone with sons as building the family

lineage. The connection is clearly seen in the related word banah, to build. Chip off

the old block might even apply here. It appears that a process of metathesis then

changed the order of b and n in ben to get neb and thus nebo. Then the meaning shifted

further.2

The Chaldeans appear to then have added a new meaning to son. Son of whom?

Most scholars agree that the proper name Nebo meant the son of Marduk, also called

Bel or the son of the lord (Bel). The moon was naturally the son of Bel (the sun). The

11 Strongs 3372-4, 3391-4

2 Strongs 68, 1129
+
moon is called the lesser light (Gen. 1:16). The moon gets its light from the sun and

reflects the sun like a son gets his life from his father and reflects his father.

But in time the word may have changed meaning again as it spread across nations

and cultures. The Bible states that the moon would govern the night (Genesis 1:16).

The name of the Roman god Neptune is possibly derived from the name. Neptune was

associated with the sea. How could the meaning have changed from moon and night to

sea? It may have been that men eventually came to understand the influence of the moon

on the sea. The moon is known to cause or influence tides. English neap tide (low tide)

may be so derived. It may also be that as associated with the night, the moon was

considered favorable for sailors, as navigation was best at night when the stars were out

and the moon didnt block out the stars, as did the sun. Words like navigate, navy, etc.

may very well be derived from the root nebo. Remember b and v are often closely

associated consonants, as in the Hebrew language.

A prominent symbol in ancient cultures was the crescent. This has been clearly

shown to be- almost obviously- a symbol for the moon and for many associated

divinities. One of the amulets of divnities like Ishtar and Astarte (Asherah) was a

crescent. The Bible (Jdg. 8:26) is probably referring to this (depending on the

translation). The moon is usually considered either as a son or a feminine figure in

ancient religions and there are various names from various cultures for goddesses of the

moon like Hecate, Nanna, Sin, Mina, Mona, etc. English moon has been shown to

probably derive from Mona.

Mina or Mona was important to Assyrians and came to be equated with destiny.

Somehow these goddesses were then associated with money, mining, minting, etc. There

+
was a Roman goddess of the mint that later became equated with Juno. The Roman

goddess Minerva could probably be shown to be somehow tied to Mina. The god

Mammon referred to by Jesus was some divinity associated with money. Mona and

money can be discerned in the last three letters of the name Mammon. Mina even came

to be the name of a common coin in the ancient Near East. The name of the Egyptian

god Amun may be related.

Is it perhaps that the shiny moon, especially when full, looks like a shiny silver coin?

Or that shiny silver may have been thought to be of the same substance as the moon?

Also, the goddess Mina may have been equated with destiny and money both because

money was probably considered closely associated with the outcome of ones life- a

connection Jesus was fervently trying to get out of mankinds attitude.

Perhaps destiny, night, the seas and money may have been equated with the moon

because much wealth could be gained by sea trade, which often needed the night. Money

could also be made in secret at night through crime. Even the name Nephilim, for the

mysterious giant men of renown found early in the Book of Genesis may have a link to

Nebo and the moon god. Nephilim has been linked by scholars to the Hebrew word for

fallen ones and also tyrant. But the Nephilim were not fallen, it was the angels who

sired them who were fallen. This could well mean sons of the fallen, the initial n

meaning offspring. There is also the Hebrew word naph or neph meaning adultery.

The origin of the Nephilim was surely considered illegitimate and adulterous and this

may offer another clue to the meaning of the name.

The name may have more than one meaning, which is often the case. The Nephilim

may have been sailors or worshippers of the moon and the night. They may have been

+
the first to fashion the crescent as a symbol for their god. The Bible doesnt say. The

crescent could very well have been passed to the Canaanites, Midianites, Ishmaelites and

Edomites from the Nephilim; these people all lived nearby each other in Canaan.

The names Mina, Mona, etc. have even another possible application. There are

many names of gods and other words that include some variation of the suffix mn. It

modified the word or name, giving it a deeper and more powerful meaning. I mentioned

Mammon above. Another example is the name of the Assyrian god Rimmon. The root

word mn was important. As I showed, mn may have meant destiny, as did the inversion

nm. This was perhaps in the sense of numbering as in her days are numbered. It also

meant weight or value and then came to mean name. Through inverting by

metathesis, English name and number are possibly related.

The accepted meaning of Abram is something like exalted father. This is clearly

from ab, father and ram, exalted. Ram may get its meaning from ar or r, mountain

in Semitic languages. The m may modify mountain, multiplying the force of the word,

changing the meaning to exceedingly high.

The name Nimrod may have a similar derivation. The name is obscure. The Bible

(Gen. 10:9) indicates the meaning of the name. Nimrod may be a form of the compound

name Hadad-Rimmon, the name of a god found in ancient records. It contains many of

the same letters as Nimrod and could very well mean similar things. It seems to include

elements of many of the names discussed already. But it includes them in a puzzling

order and seems to cram them together in an odd way. But using the concept of

metathesis, the words and meanings can be picked out from the name Nimrod.

+
 First, the definite article ha could easily be dropped. The name includes od, which

could be the same as ad for gatherer, hunter taker or enveloper. Next, it has rm,

which could mean exalted or mighty. It also has nm or mn, either of which means

exceeding. They also could mean multitude. Nimrod was a hunter. A hunter of what?

Possibly a hunter of multitudes, as in people, people to dominate. A similar name in

many ways is Hadad-Rimmon.

The meaning of the name Nebuchadnezzar is not clear. There have been many

arguable translations. The name most likely means moon stars mars. According to this

name, the king was held to be under (or over) the influence of the moon, the stars and the

planet Mars. The name Gad, stars or heavenly host, is seen as chad in the name. Nebu

is the moon. Nezzar or ezzar (azur) meant the planet Mars or son of mars. Nezzar

might also have meant prince, from the Semitic nasi. So Nebuchadnezzar is quite an

audacious name. The king and his people held himself to be equal to or greater than the

moon, the starry host, and the planet Mars.

Another very important name was Molech, a god of the Ammonites and others.

The name Molech is found many times in the Bible and in many forms like Milcom,

Malcam, etc. Molech certainly means king. Middle Eastern names with prefixes and

suffixes like Melek, Melchi, Malek, etc. all mean king. Amalek means king with the

prefix a as a modifier, signifying something like the as in the king.

People in ancient times probably confused planets with stars, although they surely

became quickly aware that planets were more mobile and varied in their circuits. This

+
may have made planets more important and may be why many of the names of gods

became associated with planets and not stars. The name of the god Asshur may have

originally been used for the planet Mars but the meaning may have come to mean any

shining body in the night sky, other than the moon. Its easy to see how a star or planet

was associated with shining fire. It seems natural to assume ancient people associated

heavenly bodies with fire. Worshippers may often have burned sacrifices at night to the

stars. They surely would have perceived that the stars were on fire and may have also

thought that the stars themselves were burnt offerings of some sort. They might even

have gotten the first fire from meteors or asteroids from the heavens, thinking them fallen

stars.

Its easy to see how meanings shifted and were redirected and became confused. Bel

and Baal were applied to the sun but came to mean lord. Pul, Pal, Pil are believed to be

other related forms, found especially in Assyrian dialects. They were added as titles for

whatever god was most important. So there was a Bel-Marduk, Baal-Gad, Baal-Hadad,

Pil-Eser, Pul-Asser, etc. Ar meant mountain but came to mean lofty, then exalted.

Then it was associated with thunder and then perhaps even the sun. Time, culture and

geography altered and shifted the meaning and importance of words.

Changes in application and meanings can also be seen in the feminization of a deity.

Adding a t somewhere in a word made it feminine. Also adding ah or eth at the end of a

name or word feminized it. Its interesting that eth means time in Hebrew. Time is

clearly linked to the heavenly bodies. This can be seen in the name of Astarte, a main

goddess of the Canaanites. This is a deity of love and fertility known in the Bible as

+
Ashtoreth, the abomination of the Sidonians. With her the association to prosperity was

shifted to the concept of related fertility. The name of this goddess is clearly linked to

masculine Asshur, and to cognate names of similar goddesses such as Ishtar and

Asherah.1

Astarte has been linked to goddesses like Aphrodite and Venus. They became

associated with the planet Venus. But as with other gods and goddesses, Astarte surely

became linked to other planets and stars or even the moon as her cult moved across

cultures. Goddesses Ishtar of Babylon, Isis of Egypt, Asherah of Canaan, Aster and

Easter of primitive Europe all had the same derivation. The name Esther is a form of the

Persian name Stara, which means star. This is probably a Persian form for Astarte.

Some have argued Esther is a form of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. All of these forms

refer to a star or heavenly body. English star is most certainly connected.

A name often went through many changes of meaning as it spread through time and

location. In some languages, the name Astarte, like Asshur, may have come to mean any

heavenly body of the night besides the moon. This may be the origin of the Greek word

aster, for star, from which came English astronomy, astrology, disaster, etc. Even

English star is probably directly from aster. One can almost clearly see the word star in

aster without any help. All of the consonants of aster are the same as in star, and in the

same order.

Then there is the planet Saturn. One can also see star in it if the vowels are taken

out, although there is the added n. And in the same order as well. German for star is

stern; it fits completely when only consonants are considered. There was another change

11 Strongs 6251-53, 6256

+
in meaning. This same basic root word was shifted to the planet Saturn and changed back

to masculine, as Saturn was a masculine figure.

Saturn may be derived from Set, the Egyptian god of night, deserts, etc., and ur,

shining (similar to Asshur). Set might be related to Hebrew sheth for tumult,

desolation as well as hastiness (as leading to catastrophe). Hebrew sheth might

possibly be related somehow to Chaldean shith, sixth. Saturn is interestingly the sixth

planet in the solar system. Six is commonly associated with evil. Six is hex in Greek.

One can then easily see how some are of the view that the word Satan is derived from

this word as well. Gods people would hold Saturn, as well as related satyr, as demonic

and objectionable figures to be avoided.

The meaning of the name Og in the Bible is interesting and revealing. This was the

name or title of the king of Bashan, defeated by Joshua. One meaning of the Hebrew

word og, is something round. The name of the king may have been a title and might

have meant something like crown, ring or even eye. The word for something round

may have applied to these, which are all round. If eye was meant, then this might have

implied someone with vision or insight. It might have had several meanings. The king

with this title may have been a man with great vision (literally and figuratively) and also

had an impressive crown and/or ring.

The word og may be cognate with Latin oc as in words like oculus, ocular, etc.

German for eye is auge. To augur something is to see into the future. It was long

believed before modern science that the eye was able to see by emitting light and

illuminating the world. Augerite is a shiny mineral, from Greek auger, shining. So to

apply the word for eye as a title could easily have meant more than one thing; it meant

+
both vision and light. This helps explain how the eye was highly venerated in things such

as the eye of Horus. The Latin word august and the title Augustus could very well have

been derived along these lines. The word occult is commonly defined as something

hidden or secret. But it may also mean eye worship, coming from the Latin for eye

and cultus (worship).

The sun has undoubtedly been conceived of as a great eye in the sky. It was then

not difficult to think of eyes as emitting light as the sun does. An eclipse of the sun might

have even reinforced the idea of the sun as an eye. An eclipse of the sun by the moon

would have appeared like an eye, with the moon as the pupil. This would have given

added import to something that was already special. Its interesting to note that when the

moon passes over the sun in an eclipse it occludes or blocks it. The word occlude is

related to the word occult according to experts, but the standard explanation for the

relationship is a bit cloudy and even misleading.

The name Goliath may have been a title or appellation given to the giant warrior

slain by King David. The name Goliath may be related to Hebrew gol or gal for

something that rolls or is circular. The name of the region of Galilee, for example has

been traced and connected to the meaning of circuit. This may have been applied in

light of the fact that this region had a circuit of defensible cities or something like that.

This word has been applied to skulls in the sense that they roll. So the title Goliath may

have been given to the warrior in the sense that he was renowned for making the heads of

his enemies roll (in many ways no doubt). Its ironic then that ultimately it was his head

that was removed by David.

Who is Gog? Im sure this is one of the top questions for just about every Christian,

+
Jew and perhaps Muslim and any student of the Bible. This apocalyptic figure has

haunted Christian minds ever since John the Revelator put the name down on paper. It

undoubtedly haunted Jewish souls as well from the writings of Ezekiel. This question is

important because Gog is widely associated with a great battle in Israel and the end of the

present age.

Is Gog an actual person or people? What does the name mean? Finding out the

meaning of Gog is a bit difficult. And the context where the name is found adds to the

confusion. Furthermore, I believe misinterpretations, errors of translation and reading of

scripts have made the meaning of Gog that much more of a mystery.

Gog is most notably found paired or associated with Magog. The two names may have

similar meanings and appear to involve the same root word. We know Magog was the

name of one of Japheths sons (Genesis 10:2). In some bible versions (NASV, etc.),

Ezekiel states Gog to be of the land of Magog (Ezek. 38:2). Other versions seem to mean

that Gog is the land of Magog itself. In the same verse, Gog is either the prince of Rosh

or the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Meshech and Tubal were also sons of Japheth

mentioned with Magog.

Rosh has been considered the nation or people of Russia. This is most likely an error

of unsophisticated study. The word Rosh only sounds like Russia, but the two words

have been shown to be unrelated. The Hebrew word rosh means head, chief or top.

The Jewish festival of Rosh Hashanah means head of the year as in the beginning of the

year. Hashanah means year. Some Bible translations then appear to have left the word

rosh without being translated from the Hebrew and it just means head or chief. So the

versions that read that Gog is the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal are most probably

+
correct.

Considering Gog to be the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, we then might ask

who Meshech and Tubal are. Equating the people and location referred to by Ezekiel

(Ezek. 38:2) with Russia, is probably correct. But it is a mere coincidence with the

conjectures based on the word Rosh. Rosh is probably not Russia. But Meshech is. And

Tubal is a people probably of Anatolia or the Asiatic part of Russia. I showed before

good evidence that Meshech is equated with the Russian people. And Magog I showed to

be probably related to Magyar and Mongol, also people from the Asiatic lands now in

Russia.

Is Gog an actual person? Gog is probably a title, not a person or at least not a human

person. Many scholars have claimed this. Depending on how the Bible is interpreted,

Gog appears at a battle at the end of the age. Some have linked Gog to the battle of

Armageddon- most probably mistakenly- to be destroyed at the return of Christ. Others

appear to be more correct in linking Gog to some battle of the end times shortly before

Armageddon. Gog also reappears one thousand years after Armageddon when Satan is

released from the bottomless pit. Its possible Gog is a person that can live a long time.

Most likely though, Gog is either a spirit or a title applied to some prominent leader. Gog

may even be a title or name for Satan himself.

The name Gog itself appears in several places (Ezekiel 38:2 and Revelation 20:8).

The name also appears in genealogical reference (1 Chronicles 5:4) but seems to be

unrelated in that verse. There is little information on just what Gog means. The name

probably means giant and is related to Greek gigas, giant. A word probably related is

Hebrew gag, one meaning of which is topmost as in a roof or pinnacle. This is likely

+
used as a term for someone of great stature- political, military, sometimes physical, etc.

The word is almost undoubtedly linked to the giants (Genesis 6:1-4). The men referred

to here, known also as Nephilim, probably were often referred to as Gog. And even after

such men were wiped out, the title was still used for prominent leaders.

Indeed, a Greek word that is probably related is agogos, which means to lead. The

root gog then certainly often implies leader. Some words in English have the suffix

-agog from Greek agogos, like synagogue and demagogue. Synagogue means to lead

together and demagogue means to lead common people. A demagogue is just what

Gog is, someone or something that stirs up the uneducated and undisciplined mob.

Interestingly, agogos has the same connotation as German Fhrer. It is most likely that

several illustrious people have born the title of Gog and that there will actually be

isolated individual(s) involved in connection to Ezekiels prophecy and Revelation.

In the Septuagint version of the Book of Amos, Gog is referred to as a title. This

appears to be what Gog is and may even be equated with Satan; it is then not given

lightly. Gog is equated with a prince and many times Satan and demons are equated with

royal titles.

The fallen angel Abaddon is called a king (Rev. 9:11). The figure referred to as the

prince or king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:12) is most likely Satan by the description that follows.

The name Gog appears to be equated with death and destruction, war and genocide on a

massive scale. Gog is most likely really a fallen angel of very high rank or Satan himself.

Gog is referred also as a nation (Revelation 20:8), but this is probably because nations go

by the name of the spirit that dominates them.

Id like to note that the term Gog and Magog in this verse above may additionally

+
be a term for the nations as a whole in the sense of the masses or a large multitude. The

likely connected Greek roots mega and giga, are found as English prefixes for million

and billion respectively. So the phrase Gog and Magog might very well have the

added meaning of millions and billions.

The closest name or word to Gog in the Bible that sheds some light on this is the

name or title Agag. It very probably is the same or has the same root as the name Gog.

Either the a or o between each g in these two names can each be used in the spelling

and/or pronunciation; theres little difference. I showed before that the Hebrew letter a or

aleph is often silent. Also, initial vowels before a root word often indicate just a

modifier; and there is often disagreement in scholarly circles about the modifiers. Its the

consonants that are more reliable and revealing.

The word or name Agag is found several times in the Bible (Num 24:7). Here, it is

part of Balaams prophecy concerning Israel. The name Agag here seems to refer to the

title of a king. The name is probably referring to the Amalekites, one of the main

enemies of Israel and referred to in the same discourse. Indeed the name appears again

with a king of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). Agag may be the title of this king and not

his name. This chapter of the Book of Samuel indicates Agag was a ruthless and

merciless killer.

Who were the Amalekites? Descendants of Esau, a bitter and implacable enemy of

Israel (36:12, 16). The Amalekites were just a branch of the Edomites (Esau). Both are

forever bent on the total destruction of Israel. Another person associated with Agag was

Haman. Haman was known as an Agagite (Esther 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5 and 9:24). The Bible

doesnt give any clear indication that Agagite necessarily means a descendant of Agag or

+
the Amalekites, but that is probably the case. Haman hated the Jews and wanted to

destroy them on a massive genocidal scale. He was of the same spirit as Agag, whom

Samuel cut to pieces, and the Amalekites. This is probably the same spirit of Gog of the

last days and may very well be an actual spirit hateful to Israel. Its interesting to note

that Hamans name is possibly linked to Gog (Ezekiel 39:11).

It is very likely that the Amalekites became later known as the Turks among other

things, or blended in with them. The ancestor Amalek was the grandson of a Hittite

(Gen.36:2, 12). Ive mentioned that much of the Hittite empire was located in much of

what is now Turkey. The Turks have been known to be very ruthless as were the

Amalekites. God swore that he would wipe out the memory of them (Dt. 25:17-19).

This may be why they are only referred to from then on by the title Gog and not their

national name.

There are a few interesting twists on the name and word gog. I noted before that the

Phoenician mark for b was written like English g. This has led to faulty translations and

errors in transcriptions. So a word like gog might be variously altered to roots like bob,

gob and bog. Is goblin descended from such ancient lineage? Notice how if you change

the g back to b in goblin you get boblin, which doesnt look all that different from

Babylon.

The Septuagint version of the Bible has the word bougaios for Agagite, which

basically could mean Gog, in Esther (Est. 3:1). Scholars arent sure about this

translation. So bougaios could very well be an erroneous transcription meant to be

written as gougaios, not bougaios. This would make the use of this word something like

Gog, which would then be closer to Agagite. But note that bougaios appears somewhat

+
like bogey, as in bogeyman, that timeless character who haunts the night of our fears and

nightmares. Just an interesting observation.

The End from the Beginning

Understanding names in the Bible, understanding customs, understanding the nature

of God and the meanings he has placed in his creation go a long way in helping those

who study the Bible earnestly in understanding what it tells us is going to happen in the
+
future. Understanding the Old Testament ordinances, history and prophecies also helps to

understand the prophecies in the New Testament, namely, the Book of Revelation. But

determining what prophecies have been fulfilled and what have yet to be fulfilled

compounds the problem of not knowing just what the prophecies refer to at all in the first

place.

Many have warned that when reading the Bible, it is important to discern when the

passages refer to pure symbolism and when they refer to reality and a cross between

symbolism and reality. I believe that the Bible is multi-dimensional, like God, and that

the meanings he has placed in his scriptures and in reality are multi-dimensional. Men

have a problem in interpreting the Bible because we are usually cut off from anything

more than two or three dimensions. But I am certain that passages in the Bible often

mean more than one thing.

A good example of this is the beast with ten horns described by the prophet Daniel

(Daniel 7:7). Daniel wrote that this beast came from the sea in verse 3 of the same

chapter. Im sure there is little doubt that this beast in Daniel is one and the same beast

described in Revelation (Rev. 13:1 and 17:3). Revelation adds seven heads to the

description of the beast. Most would surely assume that this beast is not a real sea

creature of the natural world that will arise out of the sea. This beast is definitely

symbolic. But what it symbolizes is very real. What does it symbolize?

Here is where understanding Gods symbolism throughout his word is very helpful.

Gods symbolism, according to his faithfulness, is surely consistent throughout. In his

word, animals as symbols can be found to always represent political institutions like

empires and kingdoms. So the beast is some political entity. The Bible even states itself,

+
clearly, many times, when an animal refers to some kingdom as in the Book of Daniel.

Women in the Bible are often used as symbolism. And they always symbolize

religion, sometimes true but usually apostate or corrupt. Many prophecies portray

wayward harlot women with no loyalty or love. It always has to do with religion. There

is little doubt that the harlot in the Book of Revelation is a corrupt church. We read of a

real Jezebel and her name being used undoubtedly as symbol (Rev. 2:20). Its a vivid and

effective portrayal.

The Hebrew word for daughter, bath, is undoubtedly related to the word beth, for

house and temple. This even further connects religion to a feminine quality. The

Hebrew word for stork is kasiydah, which is clearly also connected to religion. Most

everyone has heard of the storks proverbial connection to babies, and the word in

Hebrew connects the bird to kindness and naturally to a maternal nature. The use of the

wings of the stork in Zechariahs vision of the women carrying the ephah is almost

certainly connected to religion as a motive force (Zc. 5:6-11). Its also very striking that

the word for stork seems also to be related to the word for Chaldeans. And where are

the women flying to? Shinar, the land of the Chaldeans.

The 144,000 virgins of the Book of Revelation may not be those who have never had

actual sex, but rather believers that have not been corrupted by any church. The Greek

translation may bear this out. The word used, parthenos, is only a feminine word; there is

no masculine equivalent. It is doubtful that the 144,000 are all women (even though it

should not be ruled out). It seems doubtful, perhaps, that a feminine word would be used

for men. The 144,000 may be men who have not sold out their morals and obedience for

gain, in the employ of a corrupted twisted harlot church. They have not prostituted

+
themselves as pastors for gain and have not fornicated with the worlds system of false

religion for any amount of money. This is a very similar portrayal as the ten virgins in

the gospels. They are part of the bride of Christ, another symbolic woman figure.

The names of nations in Bible prophecy can also be a bit misleading at first glance.

What adds to the confusion is that a nation is not always just associated with a

geographical space. Egypt, for example, may not be just the land along the Nile and its

delta. It is also its people, their descendants and maybe most important, its way of

thinking and moral values. America might very well be considered Egypt or an extension

of it. Most leaders in America are Freemasons, which is based almost totally on Egyptian

rituals and philosophy. The cultures of Central and South America are very similar to

Egypts, even with pyramids. Perhaps the people of these regions of America even came

from Egypt at one time. America is the breadbasket of the world as Egypt once was.

The problem becomes apparent when Bible prophecy refers to a nation that is extinct

in association with an event that has clearly not happened. Some prophecies seem to

have been fulfilled. Many of Jeremiahs pronouncements against Egypt and Babylon cite

events and people that are clearly of the past. But sometimes events are described which

dont seem to have ever occurred before. A good example of this is found in Isaiahs

prophecies. He wrote of Assyria and Egypt one day coming to peaceful terms. This

might be ascribed by some to ancient times. But it seems out of place. The empire of

Assyria itself is extinct and never existed for all that long, at least compared to Egypt.

If one remembers that Isaiah might be referring to Assyrias descendants, both

physical and spiritual, then Assyria might have a wider and more modern application.

Perhaps Egypt refers to many nations that have some connection to ancient Egypt. This

+
might be modern Egypt and America both. It might even possibly refer to China for all

we know. Assyria might refer to many people. It might refer even to Europe. Assyria

had influence far to the north and west of the Middle East. Its culture was similar in

many ways to European cultures. Its emblem was the eagle which is a common national

symbol of European countries.

An important problem in the Bible is determining whether a prophecy has been

fulfilled or not. It is often difficult to know. This is where history is important. One

must know history to know if a prophecy has come to pass. An additional problem is that

a prophecy might come to pass more than once, that is, it involves something that is

recurring. Also, a prophecy might appear to have come to pass, because some event

looks similar to what is foretold, but hasnt actually been fulfilled. Scholars have noted

that there are types and shadows which appear like events and even people that have yet

to be made known. King David was a type of Christ, etc.

Many of the events in the life and times of Christ were foretold in the Bible. This is

undisputed by scholars. The Bible itself takes pains to make this clear. But looking at

what Christ fulfilled and what he left to be fulfilled in the future may give insights into

the future.

The feasts and festivals of Israel may give a clue to what is yet to come. The Bible

indicates directly, and sometimes not so directly, that Christ fulfilled many ordinances

and functions once and for all (Hebrews 10:12). In fact, it has been said that by his life

on earth, Christ fulfilled not only all ten commandments of God, but all the Levitical laws

and ordinances of Moses as well. This seems certainly to be so for at least the seven

main festivals and feasts, and almost certainly for all, indeed.

+
 By his death, Christ fulfilled the Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread and the

festival of Firstfruits. There were four major feasts/festivals left unfulfilled at his death.

If the pattern is followed, one is amazingly left to conclude with a lot of certainty that

these feasts/festivals will be fulfilled. And knowing the essence of each festival may give

a clue as to how Christ will fulfill them.

He was the Passover Lamb (Paschal Lamb) without blemish. None of the bones

of the Passover lamb were to be broken (Ex 12:46; Num. 9:11-12). This was fulfilled by

Christ as the apostle John described (John 19:33).

He was also the Unleavened Bread. Christ often referred to himself as the bread of

life ( John 6:33, 35). When he instituted the Holy Communion at the last supper, he was

eating the Passover and most likely also Unleavened Bread. He then also equated his

broken body to the broken unleavened bread ( Luke 22:19, Mark 14:22, 1 Cor. 11:23-24).

I might even go further to add that the herbs and spices that the women were attempting

to put on Christs dead body, were a form of the bitter herbs required for the Feast of

Unleavened Bread, although the women never got to put them on the body.

Jesus was also the Firstfruits. This is the festival involving the barley harvest. A

barley sheaf was waved before the Lord on the first day of the week after Passover.

Christ himself was the firstfruits from the dead. He fulfilled Firstfriuts by his

resurrection on the day of Firstfruits or Sunday. He fulfilled the first three holy days of

the year during the week of his crucifixion. But there is some discrepancy on just when

Firstfruits, Passover and Unleavened Bread were observed at the time of Christ. There

were varying traditions of the Pharisees, Saducees and of minority sects in Israel. The

Dead Sea Scrolls are said to give a strikingly different prescription than that of the

+
Pharisees. There are discrepancies of the demarcations of a day from sunset to sunset or

from sunrise to sunrise. There were differences in the use of the word Sabbath. The

first day of Unleavened Bread was a day of no labor, similar to, but not called a Sabbath

in the Bible, but a holy convocation (Leviticus 23:6-7). However, the Pharisees and

apparently the majority of Jews in Jesus time called the day of Unleavened Bread a

Sabbath in the Bible. Its beginning was observed at slightly different times, according

to the definition of what the start of a day was, whether sunset or sunrise.

These differences have led to confusion about the events during the week of the

crucifixion. They have also shrouded what is probably a cover-up designed to veil the

connection of Christs life, purpose, ministry and death with the festivals of Israel

established by Moses.

The church has long taught that Christ was crucified on a Friday and rose from the

dead on a Sunday. But Jesus foretold that he would be in the heart of the earth for a

total of three days and three nights (Matthew 12:39-40). If this is taken literally, then

Jesus could not have been crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday. The only

certain reference to the time of the resurrection is that it happened early and before

sunrise on the first day of the week (John 20:1, etc.). The key word is before. It

probably happened late the seventh day. This is why the differing traditions on the

demarcating of days and of observances are important.

Jesus was probably crucified on Passover/Unleavened Bread. This makes sense, as

he was the embodiment of both. It seems likely that this day was on Wednesday, not

Friday and more so because it provides time for Jesus to have been in the grave for three

full days and three full nights and to rise from the dead by early Sunday morning. The

+
Last Supper then would have been on a Tuesday.

One might find it trivial to attempt to pinpoint exactly the events of the crucifixion,

but upon closer inspection, one might see a dark purpose in obfuscating the details. The

Roman church has long argued that the day of worship was changed from Saturday, the

weekly Sabbath, to Sunday because Jesus is believed to have risen from the dead on

Sunday. But if one holds that Sunday, the first day of the week didnt begin until

sunrise, then Christ clearly rose from the dead on the Sabbath, before dawn (stated by the

apostle John), not Sunday.

Many have argued that the real reason the Romans changed the day of worship from

the Sabbath to Sunday was because many supposedly Christian bishops were really pagan

sun worshippers who really wanted to destroy Christianity. They named the first day of

the week for the sun, their chief god. Furthermore, they profaned the Sabbath by

changing its name to that of Saturn, another powerful Roman deity. As stated earlier, the

name Saturn has been linked etymologically to Satan! Its not difficult to then conclude

that enemies of Christianity wished to weaken the church by getting it confused about

timing. This would have its greatest effects in keeping Christians in the dark, especially

about future events.

This change may have had another important repercussion. By getting Christians to

forget the Sabbath could turn them against God and invite his wrath upon them. Keeping

the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments. While many Christians dont see the

importance of keeping the Sabbath, arguing for grace, Saint Paul disagrees in (Romans ?)

Not understanding how the crucifixion unfolded leaves many in the dark about how

Christ fulfilled the festivals. More important, it could very well keep many in the dark

+
about how Christ has or will fulfill the other festivals.

The next main festival in the year is Pentecost or the Feast of Weeks. This has said

to have been fulfilled by the giving of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, seven weeks after

Christs death. A feature of the Feast of Weeks is that it involves the harvest of summer

wheat and the waving of leavened bread. Leaven is symbolic of sin. The church was

born on the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost. Interestingly, Israel met God at Mount Sinai on

the first Feast of Weeks after the Exodus.

Three main festivals of the Jewish year seem to have yet to be fulfilled. These are

Trumpets, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles. At Trumpets, a trumpet (shofar) is blown

at the sighting of the new moon. This festival announces the new year (civil new year,

according to the Hebrew calendar that existed before the changes of Moses and the

Exodus). Trumpets is a two-day affair because no one knows exactly which day or hour

when the new moon will be sighted. This may be what Christ was referring when he said

no one knows the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36). Not knowing the day and the

hour is used by most Christians to argue that Christians are not to seek the exact time of

future prophesied events. But Jesus may have been hinting that the end of the age would

begin on some future Day of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah). Seen in the light of the Feast of

Trumpets, the timing may be much more understandable than has been affirmed.

Christ may have been giving a sort of cryptic message that the time of tribulation

would begin at the Feast of Trumpets. Knowing other prophecies may shed more light on

this and confirm this to be the case. The prophet Daniel envisioned that there would be a

final tribulation time of 2,520 days. This is 1,260 (forty-two months) plus 1260 (another

forty-two months). Daniel also adds an additional thirty days (Daniel 12:11); thirty days

+
were added periodically to calibrate the Jewish festivals with the seasons. Some have

interpreted (most likely incorrectly) that each of these days refers to a year. This has led

to sweeping doctrines of historical epochs, etc. It was also applied to Daniels visions

resulting with doctrines that are mostly rejected Dan. 8:14).

So the tribulation time is a total of 2,520 days. This is exactly seven years according

to the Jewish calendar. This is based on a lunar and solar calculation, which includes

twelve months of thirty days each. So a Jewish year is only 360 days, unlike the purely

solar year of 365 days. The Jewish calendar adds an extra month in certain years so that

Passover always falls sometime in the spring.

Adding the additional thirty days brings a total of 2,550 days. Using the festivals of

Israel as a framework, there are many future Days of Atonement (Yom Kippur) of various

years that are approximately 2,550 days after Feasts of Trumpets seven years earlier. In

other words, this means that the final week of tribulation plus an additional thirty days

foretold by Daniel (Dn. 9:27), may very well fall between a future Feast of Trumpets and

a Day of Atonement (the Great Tribulation is believed by many to be the last half of the

total time of tribulation [Dn. 12:11-12, Mt. 24:15, 21-22]).

Some future Feast of Trumpets will probably herald the beginning of the final seven

years of this age and an additional thirty days which will end on a future Day of

Atonement. The tribulation is a time of trial and testing for Gods people. It is foretold

to last 2,520 days. The additional thirty are not tribulation for Gods people; their

tribulation has ended. But there are supposed to be thirty days before the Day of

Atonement.

Thirty is commonly held to be a number marking right timing or right ordering, a

+
higher degree of the perfection of divine order. Jesus was thirty years old when he began

his earthly ministry (Luke 3:23). Joseph was thirty years old when he began his office in

Egypt under pharaoh (Genesis 41:46). David was thirty years of age when he began to

reign. Jesus was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 27:3, Zechariah 11:12).

These thirty days could very well be a time between Christs return on earth and the time

when he actually begins to reign on earth. This then seems to mean that Christs actual

reign on earth will begin on the Day of Atonement, although hed actually returned thirty

days before that.

These thirty days may be included as part of a final forty days of probation for Gods

people or anyone left on earth that might be coming over to Gods people. Periods of

forty days, years, etc. most certainly signify a time of trial or testing. It is seen by many

as not the same thing as judgment, although it may very well entail judgment for those

who reject God. There would be forty-two days from the end of the tribulation (2,520

days after a past Trumpets) to the end of Tabernacles (also called Booths or Sukkoth). If

the two Sabbath rest days on the first and last days of Tabernacles are not included, then

there are forty days from the end of the tribulation to the end of Tabernacles.

These forty days could well be the period of the seventh seal of the Book of

Revelation which appears to include seven trumpet judgments and seven bowl judgments.

If so, these judgments would not be on Israel, but on the rest of the world! This is

because Israels tribulation would have ended. Jesus may have been referring to this

forty-day period (Matthew 24:37-39), being like the days of Noah. And Christ

indicated that the tribulation would end with the sign of the son of man which will

include a darkened sun and blood moon (Matthew 24:29-30). Many other prophecies in

+
the Old Testament assuredly refer to the same event.

So it appears that these forty days will begin with troubling celestial events. And

according to what has been determined from prophecy, thirty days will then pass to the

Day of Atonement. It appears that this is the day Christ returns in glory.

According to Jewish law, on the Day of Atonement the high priest went into the

Temple and sacrificed a bullock for his own sins and a goat for the people. He then spoke

all of the peoples sins over a second goat, the scapegoat, which was released to run off

into the wilderness, taking away the peoples sin with it (Lev. 16). It might be speculated

that Christ, the only true high priest, will return on a Day of Atonement, fulfilling it once

and for all.

He might enter the Temple to cleanse it, as the high priest did. He wouldnt need to

sacrifice a bullock for himself and he wouldnt need to sacrifice a goat for the people,

because his death atoned for all. Neither would he need to send out a scapegoat. But he

might very well do this as a fulfillment. The beast (Antichrist) and the false prophet are

good candidates for the bullock and the goat. Theyll be seized and cast into the Lake of

Fire, as the slain bullock and goat were slain as a sin offering and having their carcasses

taken away from the tabernacle and burned. Satan is a good candidate for the scapegoat.

Satan will be cast into the Bottomless Pit. The Bottomless Pit is a forlorn and solitary

place, like the wilderness where the scapegoat was released to roam. Of course the

destruction of the beast and false prophet will not atone for anyone or anything, just like

the bullock and goat offered on the Day of Atonement never permanently atone for

anything, as Paul observes (in ?). Satans banishment atones for nothing either, but it

appears with his banishment, sin is removed or banished.

+
 When Christ returns he will set up his kingdom on earth. He will certainly rule from

Jerusalem. Of course the armies under the sway of the Antichrist will seek to destroy

Christ and his kingdom by force.

There is also another interesting detail. Many of the judgments of the seventh seal

involve water. It appears there will be little drinkable water left on earth. But the prophet

Zechariah clearly referred to a spring of fresh and apparently drinkable water flowing out

of Jerusalem (Zech. 14:8). This appears to be in connection to the earthquake referred to

in many diverse parts of the Bible and the event referred by Zechariah (Zech. 14:4). It

appears that Christs return will involve an earthquake which will release a colossal

spring deep under Israel. This is also a picture of Moses tapping the rock and water

coming out. The nations opposed to Christ and Israel will undoubtedly desire the water

and this may be part of the reason they invade Israel.

There will still remain twelve days from the Day of Atonement to the end of

Tabernacles. That time then appears to be the occasion of the last harvest of Christian

souls and The Battle of Armageddon. The Festival of Tabernacles begins five days after

the Day of Atonement. Five is commonly held to be the number of grace in the Bible.

So this may be some kind of grace period.

Tabernacles is also known as the festival of ingathering or harvest. This may

correspond to events described in Revelation (Rev. 14). It uses the image of harvests and

could well be Christs fulfillment of Tabernacles once and for all. At this time Christ

would be gathering all those around the world who will accept him. This would be his

separating the wheat from the tares with the help of angels. The barley is known to be

easiest to separate, with the least effort. Wheat is harder to separate from the chaff. The

+
pressing of the grapes of wrath is widely held to refer clearly to Armageddon.

The prophet Daniel made a puzzling statement involving 1,335 days (Dan. 12:12 ).

This appears to be the 1,290 days referred to plus an additional forty-five days. It is

interesting to note that if the 1290 days of Daniel terminate with a future Day of

Atonement, then forty-five days after that (totaling 1335 days) would fall on the twenty-

fifth day of the eighth month (Marchesvan) in the Jewish calendar. This would be so

because the Day of Atonement always falls on the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri)

in the Jewish calendar (Lev. 23:27, Num. 29:7-11).

The twenty-fifth day of the eighth month has no known festival or holy day;

however, the twenty fifth of the ninth month (Chislev) does. This is known as the Feast

of Dedication. The Feast of Dedication is also known as Hanukkah. The Feast of

Dedication is referred to by the apostle John and also is found described in apocryphal

books (John 10:22, 1 Maccabees 4:52-59). The reference in Maccabees places the Feast

of Dedication on the twenty-fifth day of Chislev. But Hanukkah usually falls later in

December- i.e. not always in the ninth month, which is more in an early

November/December time frame.

Hanukkah originated with the desecration and restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem

in 170-164 B.C. This holiday marks the sack of Jerusalem and the desecration of the

Temple on December 25, 167 B.C., by the Seluecid king Antiochus Epiphanes. The

Seleucid king entered the Temple and set up an image of the Greek god Zeus and

sacrificed a pig to it. This is widely held to be the abomination of desolation spoken of

by Daniel (Dan. 11:31). The events surrounding this are also widely believed to have

been foretold (Dan. 8:10-14; 11:10-34).

+
 According to many interpretations of the Bible and of history, the Temple in

Jerusalem was desecrated for three and a half years. It was restored on December 25, 164

B.C. The Bible predicts that the Temple will be desecrated again at some time in the

future for another three and a half years (Dan. 9:27; 12:11, Mat. 24:15, Rev. 11:1-3).

The association of the desecration/restoration of the Jewish Temple on December 25

is curiously interesting with its obvious connections. But still puzzling is the fact that

Hanukkah falls outside of the timeframe set in Maccabees. This might be answered by

the fact that the date of December 25 in 167/164 B.C. might have been at a somewhat

different season than it is now; the calendar may have been off. Many calendar experts

agree that by 167 B.C. the Roman calendar was off by as much as two months from the

modern calendar! Interestingly then, perhaps, the desecration/restoration of the Temple

in 167 B.C. happened at a time of year more like October rather than December. This

becomes interesting, since Daniels 1,335 days may terminate with a final re-dedication

of the Temple at the end of October.

If this is so, why then is Hanukkah so far off of October? Also, if December 25

really is important to Christians as the day the Temple was restored, not as the day of

Christs birth, why is it also so far off from October? Has there been a cover-up? Going

back to ancient times? The only holiday associated with October now is Halloween.

Could this shed some light on this possible mix up of holidays? The Bible does shed

some light on it.

The end of October begins the rainy season in Israel and this time has been

associated with the great flood and Noah. Depending on how one interprets the book of

Genesis, the flood started at the end of October. This eighth month in the Jewish calendar

+
was considered the second month in times before Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.

This month (Marchesvan) was also known as Bul and this name was used long

before Moses. The name has been associated with dryness, being part of the dry season

in Israel and also dry for lacking any festivals. The Bible tells us that the original Temple

of Solomon was completed in this month and that it took seven years to build it (1 Kings

6:38). But it was not dedicated until eleven months later (1 Kings 8:2). Its also

interesting to note that if it was three and a half years to restore the Temple in the past,

and will be three and a half years to restore it in the future, this adds up to seven, the

original amount of time it took to complete the first Temple. So will there be a temple

dedication in the future at the end of October? This may involve a once and for all

dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem and may include the marriage supper of the lamb.

There is a non-biblical rabbinic tradition that when King David cut off Goliaths

head he buried it at Jerusalem. Its said a mound grew up at the spot and became known

as the place of a skull for the skull buried there, Golgotha for Goliath of Gath. Taking

leave to speculate, its interesting to think of the skull as a seed. If Goliath was a seed of

the serpent, it seems somehow fitting that God would use something evil for good. So

God used the place of a skull as the spot for Jesus crucifixion.

But it doesnt end there. Some have speculated that the original tree of life once

grew on the spot where Jesus was crucified. One might take the liberality of further

speculating that Christs own blood germinated the ground at Golgotha. Goliaths skull

in the ground might be thought of as a seed from which the tree of life will sprout. So it

seems somehow poetic and fitting that God would use one of the progeny of his enemy to

restore the tree of life. And God would also use the earthquake at Christs return to

+
loosen the ground for the tree to sprout. Its just a thought.

Every symbol represents a part of reality, but behind each of them is a deeper

spiritual reality and usually an individual spirit. The red dragon of Revelation is certainly

Satan; the Book of Revelation makes this clear (Rev. 12:3, 9). It is also a political or

governmental reality. The beast of Revelation appears to be almost identical with the red

dragon (Rev. 13:1-3). Both have seven heads and ten horns. But the red dragon has only

seven crowns and they are on its heads, while the beast has ten crowns and they are on its

horns. The beast seems to be described a bit differently from the red dragon also.

The Bible appears to be relating that the beast is some type of reflection of the

dragon, like a son, but it is an imperfect reflection. Bible scholars claim this is Satans

attempt at mimicking the father-son relationship of God and Christ. We can clearly see

that Satan fails to foster an exact representation of himself, unlike God. Christ is an exact

representation of God according to the Bible and Christ himself (John 10:30; 14:9, Col.

1:15).

Behind the beast is another spirit. According to Revelation, this is the angel called

Abbadon in Hebrew, the angel of the bottomless pit (Rev. 17:8). This fallen angel is

released by another angel, probably Satan (Rev. 9:1). Notice that this passage describes

this angel as falling. Other apparently good angels are never described as falling to the

earth. So the beast seems to have one fallen angel behind it as the red dragon has Satan

behind it.

It follows from this that the beast from the earth in also has a spirit behind it (Rev.

13:11). This beast appears to be more subtle, being described as a lamb. The spirit

behind it is assuredly an evil spirit by the description of this beast speaking like a

+
dragon. It is not clear what spirit this is. Satan, the beast and the false prophet seem to

be influenced by three other spirits (Rev. 16:13-14). I believe these three devils may be

spirits in existence early in creation. They may be even feminine spirits and named in the

creation account. A good guess would be Night and Seas. The other is probably

Ashtoreth which has much to do with war but not in the creation account.

So here we see three spirits at work behind three earthly (also heavenly, but cast out)

realities, the red dragon, the beast from the sea and the beast out of the earth. The Bible

further equates these three spirits and their corresponding earthly realities with Satan,

Antichrist and the false prophet. This is made clear (Rev. 16:13-14). Bible scholars have

described this as an anti trinity, a counterfeit of the real Holy Trinity. These are

probably the most powerful fallen spirits and work together for their purposes.

It is not clear just what exactly those purposes are. They are generally to thwart the

purposes of God. One way they do this is surely by controlling or possessing human

beings. The heads and horns of the red dragon, the beast from the sea and the beast from

the earth represent human beings who will be, have been or are undoubtedly under the

influence or outright possession of the spirit or spirits behind each. Daniel and

Revelation state this plainly (Dan. 7:24, Rev. 17:10-12). The purposes of the three

unclean spirits have much to do with their power over these humans, first and foremost.

The seven heads of both the red dragon and the beast from the sea are six powerful

emperors or kings of the past and a seventh who will arise and is probably alive now.

Indeed, the Bible states that five of the corresponding kings were of the past even when

Saint John wrote the Book of Revelation (Rev. 17:10). Notice that the seven heads each

has a crown on the red dragon but not on the beast from the sea (Rev. 12:3; 13:1). This

+
apparently refers to the fact that these seven individuals had power and authority at some

point in time. So the red dragon seems to be mostly an entity of the past. It will

apparently be completely of the past by the time the beast from the sea arises.

The beast from the sea is certainly an entity entirely of the future or to be revealed in

the future. Notice that the crowns of this beast are no longer on the seven heads, but on

the ten horns. The change of the crowns seems to refer to their authority coming from the

previous seven rulers of the past. These ten kings will rule at the same time (Rev. 17:12-

13). The seven previous rulers appear to have ruled at different times and places over

many ages. The ten horns/kings spoken of by Daniel are considered to be the same as in

Revelation (Dan. 7:7, 20, 24). But notice that Daniel never refers to the seven heads.

Daniel only refers to one head. It may be that only one of the seven heads of Revelation

had arisen by the time of Daniels vision. It is not clear if the ten horns are current with

Daniel or just a glimpse into the future.

One of the seven heads has been fatally wounded (Rev. 13:3). The prophecy seems

to indicate that the beast (Antichrist) is the seventh ruler (Rev. 17:11). The fact that he is

also an eighth may be referring to his death and resurrection. He is certainly the

wounded head. This, by the way, also alludes to the very beginning of the Bible and

Gods prophecy (Gen. 3:15). Many scholars believe passages in Revelation plainly tell

us that the Antichrist will be killed and raised from the dead (Rev. 13:12, 14; 17:11). Its

not clear just when this is, but it appears to be about the time that the red dragon hands

authority over to the beast from the sea. The three unclean spirits may operate together to

pull this miracle off.

Some think it impossible that Satan would be able to resurrect someone. I think the

+
reasoning at the core of this belief is that Satan is not equal to God and angels do not

have the powers that God does. From this reasoning it follows that the Antichrist will

only appear to rise from the dead. But it may be that the powers of fallen angels and

Satan may be underestimated. Whos to say just what their powers are? Perhaps they

have more power than we realize. Its only that God has hindered them. Of course God

must permit evil spirits to do anything. Maybe God will allow the Antichrist to be raised

from the dead.

Just because Satan raises someone from the dead doesnt mean that God is not still in

control. Satans power and the powers of all the angels ultimately come from God. This

will probably cause a lot of confusion and be an important test for true believers. No

doubt many could be fooled by such an event. It may be that Satan himself will be

fooled. It might very well be that with such an event, Satan will think that he is equal to

God. This might be the point at which the war in heaven begins (Rev. 12:7-9). Satan

may believe then that he is able to take over heaven itself.

The red dragon associated with Satan is associated with several people, but no one

human individual. The beast from the sea and the beast from the earth are associated

with more than one person also. However, they are both also equated with human

individuals; the beast from the sea is commonly believed to be the Antichrist and the

beast from the earth the false prophet. Furthermore, the human being equated with the

beast from the sea is both an individual and also a part of the beast from the sea at the

same time.

In the Bible horns almost always represent powerful people, so it is fairly certain that

the horns of the red dragon, the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth are all

+
human beings. The seven heads and ten horns have clearly been shown to be rulers. The

two small horns of the beast from the earth are probably the beast (Antichrist) and the

false prophet. The beast (Antichrist) had been the seventh head of the red dragon and of

the beast from the sea. But the seventh head is dead on the beast from the sea. So it may

be that the beast (Antichrist) becomes a horn of the beast from the earth after he is raised

from the dead.

Did Daniel really write that he saw a beast with ten caesars (Dn. 7:7)? Is this the

same figure described in the apocalypse? It certainly appears to be. Again, horns almost

always refer to powerful and prominent human individuals. All of the horns in Daniel

chapter 8 are referring to prominent individuals. Prominent mountain peaks are

sometimes called horns as in Matterhorn of the Alps. Some individuals can be thought

of as prominent above their fellows as are some mountain peaks over the rest of the

terrain. Powerful people also may be thought of as conspicuously dangerous as are some

animal horns. Indeed prophecy even makes it irrefutably clear that the horns are

individual kings (Dan. 7:24, Rev. 17:12).

A study of the English word horn yields some other amazing insights of the Bible.

The meaning applies to other concepts besides prominent individuals, but shed light on

the multi-faceted meaning God is trying to relate. Horns always symbolize power and

prominence in the Bible. The meaning is usually negative as in destruction and excelling

evil. But sometimes horns are seen as parts of Gods temple, such as the horns of the

altar, and are therefore good.

Horn is one word that is relatively unchanged in many languages. Greek is keras or

ceros, as in rhinoceros, nose horn. Latin corn is almost identical to the English form.

+
And even Hebrew qeren is recognizable. Applying a linguistic rule here helps clarify the

difference in the spelling and pronunciation of the word across these languages. C and h

often mutate into one another. The c in a word like corn is often pronounced more like

ch with c and h slurred together. So by this rule, corn changes to horn and vice versa.

The q in the Hebrew form is basically really a c sound and mutates similarly.

When horn refers to the horns on an animal like a bull or goat, it implies a weapon of

power and destruction. In this sense a horn becomes a spear (the meaning of horn as a

musical instrument comes undoubtedly from the fact that animal horns could possibly be

used in this way instead of as a weapon). When a horn is thought of as a spear, another

related word comes into view. This is English gore. We know the meaning of gore as

when a bull gores a person with its horns. And gore also has come to mean blood, which

is produced by spearing a creature. Gore is an arcane word for spear. Word roots gor,

ger and gar all often refer to spears in words. One theory on the meaning of the word

German, for instance, is spear man.

There are many words in many languages which include the roots har, hor, her, etc.

They all refer to an army or a mountain. These roots have a related meaning to gor, ger,

gar, etc. Sometimes related are roots with car, cor, cer, etc. Sometimes the root drops

the initial consonant and becomes ar, or, er, etc. All of these words refer in their deepest

meaning to a triangle. A spear tip is a triangular formation. An animals horn has a

triangular tip. A mountain peak is basically triangular. Here we begin to see a wide

range of meanings which at first appear unrelated, but are tied at a central theme of a

triangle.

When these roots refer to an army, it is surely in the sense of the fact that ancient

+
armies used spears as weapons. The German name Herman means army man. The

Greek god of war was Ares. Perhaps the Aryan people were so named because they were

warlike. Or maybe it was because they were known for having large herds of cattle

(which were horned). The Greek and Roman names for bear are arctos and ursus,

respectively. The ar and ur of these words may refer to the fact that bears have teeth like

spears.

Many mountains follow this pattern. Mount Hermon, Mount Ararat or just Ararat

and Hara are good examples. Armaggedon or Harmageddon means mountain/hill (ar) of

Megiddo. Ararat may simply mean mountains. Mount Sinai is also known as Horeb.

The h of Hermon and Horeb both also may add one of Gods names to make it a divine

mountain.

One last meaning these root words refer to is another geographical meaning referred

to earlier. That is the English word gore for a triangular piece of land formed by the

confluence of rivers. So, there is an amazing range of meanings, wide yet related. We

can clearly see the multi-dimensional layers of meanings found in the language of the

Bible.

The Greek word keras adds an s at the end, making it a bit different from the other

forms. The name Caesar most likely also means spear or horn and appears derived from

a word originating with the Greek, most probably by the way of Celtic people. Applying

the concept of metathesis and the changing of the order of letters, keras can be altered

into kesar, which looks surprisingly like Caesar. The Gauls who often fought the

Romans and Caesar were known to call their spears gaesa, gaesum, gesati, cesati, etc.

The Gauls also titled powerful and prominent leaders by these words. Caesar is believed

+
to have titled himself by the same word when he defeated the Gauls. Incidentally gael is

the Irish Celtic form of spear and may very well be the origin of the word Gaelic.1

So the name Caesar also comes from horn. Are we to assume the beast is a revival of

the old Roman Empire? Many have assumed this. This is correct in that the beast will

most likely have a political system operating like the Roman Empire did. It also seems

probable since the harlot figure envisioned rides the same beast. The harlot appears to be

Rome and its church (Rev. 17).

The ten horns or kings may not necessarily call themselves Caesars, but they will be

as prominent and powerful as the Caesars of the past. And at times there were several

Caesars in power at the same time. But notice that Daniel gives a little further detail

about the horns. He also envisioned that three of the horns would be uprooted, taken up

by the roots. The word used by Daniel is aqar or eqer. Aqar means to uproot. But the

verse might have a meaning more of eqer, which is transplanted. This may have

something to do with the three great monarchies of Europe which were ended in World

War I. These were those of the Russian Tsar, German Kaiser and Austro-Hungarian

emperor. The first two of these actually titled themselves after Caeser. The emperor

probably thought of himself as such. Were these monarchies really destroyed? Have

they disappeared only to reemerge someday, transplanted to other lands?1

The sea in symbolism always refers to nations and specifically gentiles (Rev. 17:15).

Ezekiel refers to the city of Tyre in the same way (Ezek. 27:3). Tyre was in fact a city

based on trade. Its principle strength was connections to the sea and ports worldwide.

11 Henri Hubert, The History of the Celtic People, Book I p.91, 265, Book II p. 74-75.Bracken Books
1992, London

11 Strongs 6132-33.
+
Tyre was a symbol of worldliness. It represented global humanity symbolically but was

also associated with the actual sea in reality. Babylon has been referred to in the same

way, especially in chapters 17 and 18 of Revelation. Babylon and Tyre were actual cities

at one time, but are also symbolic of worldliness and systems that still exist.

The sea is usually associated with evil for these reasons. It is also considered evil

because it is associated with water. Water is sometimes considered evil. The world was

once judged and punished with water. This may explain how the Hebrew root word dn

once meant life-giving, flowing water, as in Eden, but came to mean judge or judgment

as in the name Dan. Water was held to possess many evil propensities. But water also

still meant life, but only when associated with God himself. So when the sea is

associated with the beast of Daniel and Revelation, it is clearly evil. The point is made

even clearer when water is associated with the serpent (Rev. 12:15).

God promised he would never judge the world with water again. But this does not

mean that water would not be destructive again. Satan and man might still make use of

water for evil purposes, yet clearly with not the immense and total destructive power as

when it is wielded by God.

The Bible often relates the important commodities of Israel, and for that matter the

world (Ps. 104:15). It goes further with a curious parable about different trees or plants

(Jdg. 9:7-15). The bramble, is one of the few plants written about that is not a staple of

the ancient world. The fig is believed to be the very fruit of the tree of the knowledge of

good and evil, which brought ruin on mankind. Wine is said to, cheer God and men.

Why would it cheer God? Is it possible that the grape was some kind of replacement for

the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? Or a temporary substitute for the fruit of the

+
tree of life even?

The Bible doesnt say. But many passages about the vine are interesting. It is

interesting first of all to note some things about Noah. Noahs very name was associated

with lifting the curse bequeathed by Adam and Eve (Gen. 5:29). Known for building the

ark and saving mankind, Noah is also known for planting vineyards as well as the

production of wine (Gen. 9:20-21). He either developed the grape or advanced the

cultivation of grapes. Is there a link with this and the prophecy concerning him and the

meaning of his name?

Next we see wine (and also bread) associated with the mysterious Melchizedek and

his blessing of Abraham (Gen. 14:18-20). Melchizedek is widely held to be the pre-

incarnate Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:1-4). I believe this is the only explanation for who

Melchizedek was/is. The bread and wine are of course the elements of the last supper

and the New Testament. But also Paul points out the healing properties of wine (1

Timothy 5:23). Of course Paul also warned ominously of abuse (1 Corinthians 11:23-

30). The Book of Proverbs also gives ample advice concerning too much wine. Jesus

turned water into wine. One might see this as turning water, judgment, into wine,

justification.

Olive oil was a fundamental and vital staple of the ancient world and Israel. It could

be eaten, used to cook other food, burned for light and heat, anoint kings, heal the body,

both inside and outside, and even used as a mild laxative. The olive tree was associated

with wealth and prosperity in the ancient world. In Zecheriahs vision a picture is

presented of a golden lampstand and two olive trees (Zech. 4:2-3). This is echoed in the

Book of Revelation is another vision of the same lampstand, (Rev. 1:12-13). Christ is

+
associated with the bowl in Zecheriahs vision. The bowls purpose on the lampstand is to

supply each candle. Revelation further equates Christ with the bowl of the lampstand.

The two olive trees of Zecheriahs vision are mentioned again in Revelation. In this

passage the two witnesses are associated or equated with the two olive trees. The seven

candlesticks in the visions of Zecheriah and John are the seven churches as Christ makes

clear (Rev. 2:1, 1:20, 11:4).

There has been much debate about who these two witnesses are. Elijah, Moses,

Enoch and John the Baptist are usually associated with the two witnesses. Moses and

Elijah were seen at the transfiguration so this has given reason for some to think they are

the two witnesses. Many claim the two witnesses are Elijah and Moses. They cite

Malachi who pointed to the names Moses and Elijah (Mal. 4:4-5).

Others see Elijah and Enoch as the two witnesses. They are the only two people in

history (Bible) known to have been translated into heaven and not experience death

(unless they died in the process of translation). The Bible claims it is appointed to all

men once to die and then judgment (Heb. 9:27). So one must ask, are Elijah and Enoch

yet to die? If they have yet to die, they could well be the two witnesses, since they will

die as shown in chapter 11 of Revelation. But as believers, others claim, we know Christ

fulfilled all including dying for all, so, though most may die, all may not necessarily, but

we all will be changed, which Paul seems to claim (1 Cor. 15:51). Also, Elijah was

known for stopping rain like the two witnesses do. Elijah and also Moses were known

for great miracles involving water.

The Bible also speaks of Gentiles as wild olives and Jews as the natural olives.

Some have speculated that the olive trees of Zecheriahs vision represent Jews and

+
Gentiles, one tree being the natural and the other the wild. The assumption that Enoch

was a Gentile and Elijah a Jew has strengthened the identification of Enoch and Elijah

with the two olive trees and two witnesses. This reasoning may not be correct, because

the Bible speaks of wild olive branches only as Gentiles, being grafted onto natural olive

trees. In other words, there is one tree which includes both wild and natural parts, not

two separate trees. So these may be separate concepts.

I think there is another possibility for the identity of the two witnesses. But I first

have to ask, witnesses of what? They are called my two witnesses (Rev. 11:3). These

two are certainly witnesses of Christ. What did they witness about him? There are many

witnesses of Christ. In fact, all believers are witnesses of Christ, more or less.

What makes the two witnesses unique from every other witness of Christ? I would

venture to say that a true, or perfect, witness of Christ would be one that knew Christ as

he lived among men, saw his righteousness, saw his miracles, saw his transfiguration,

saw his death on the cross and saw him after he was raised from the dead; this would be a

true witness. There is only one person that the Bible clearly indicates that this could

have been. This is the apostle John, son of Zebedee. He lived and worked with Christ

and saw the miracles. He saw Jesus transfigured (Matthew 17:1-2). The gospel of John

reveals that John was at the crucifixion and also at the trial (John 18:15, 19:26). John

saw Christ after he had been raised from the dead and he saw Christ ascend into heaven.

The New Testament tells us about James and John the sons of Zebedee and the

request to be on Christs right and left in his kingdom (Matt. 20:20-28, Mark 10:37-45).

The two olive trees or two witnesses stand on Christs right and left. Is this what James

and John were referring to? The Bible doesnt make this clear. It also never states that

+
James and John were granted this request. But, according to what a witness is, at least

John qualifies. Perhaps James did also, but the Bible does not say. I do think that James

and John are good candidates as the two witnesses of Revelation 11, although this same

James appears to have been killed (Acts 12:1-2). But notice this James is never

connected to Zebedee. Johns gospel hints that John wouldnt die or at least he might

remain in the world until Christs return (John 21:21-23). We know that both probably

knew Christ throughout his life, were apostles, were at the transfiguration and saw him

after he was raised from the dead.

The lampstand is a picture of Christs interaction with his church. Christ, the bowl,

supplies the oil to the seven candlesticks. The candlesticks shine light as they burn the

oil. The olive trees supply the olive oil to the bowl. Christ associates an angel for each

of his seven churches (Rev. 1:20). The seven churches named in Revelation are all gone

now. But their spirits remain. Revelation is telling us that there are seven distinct types

of churches, related to their attendant angel. They are still in the world and constitute the

true Christian church.

Many times the Bible mentions earthquakes. Several passages refer to specific

earthquakes or at least we might assume with some certainty that they are special

earthquakes. We know there are earthquakes all the time around the world. So often

when the bible refers to an earthquake, it must be a unique or very unusual earthquake.

There seems to be one earthquake which may link several passages from different parts

of the Bible. The Book of Revelation mentions a great earthquake (Rev. 6:12). This is

probably the same earthquake as one mentioned later in the book (Rev. 11:13).

Something like an earthquake is mentioned that seems to be associated with the

+
earthquake already mentioned, because of similar events described. In the Olivet

Discourse, Christ himself also describes events very strikingly similar to events described

in Revelation (Matt. 24:29-30).

Zechariah also describes a similar event; he seems to be referring to the same thing

(Zebh. 14:4-7). He also does not describe an earthquake specifically, but such an event

he describes would surely be associated with a great earthquake. Ezekiel also certainly

describes a great earthquake (there are varying translations and wordings in Ezekiel

38:19). This earthquake is helpful in very positively linking several prophecies to the

same event. Each of these prophecies fills in much detail of the events. Ezekiel

associates this earthquake with a great battle. Could this be the battle of Armageddon?

If it is, then Ezekiel gives important information of just what nations and people will

be at this battle. If we go by the study of the names earlier, and according to our

knowledge of these people, we may have a fairly clear picture of what nations will be

fighting against Israel. Ezekiel indicates that Russia, Persia (Iran), Turkey, Libya and

Ethiopia will attack Israel. Ezekiel mentions a country from the far north which is most

probably nations of northern and eastern Asia. Some European nations appear to be

indicated also.

Another event which links several prophecies and appears to be associated with the

same events is the Lord, or Christ, standing on the Mount of Olives. Zecheriah and the

apostle John describe this (Zech. 14:4, Rev. 14:1). So the earthquake described in other

places appears to be associated with Christs return when he stands on the Mount of

Olives.

+
A Tale of Two Women

+
 The Book of Revelation could be called many things. It might be called, The Four

Horsemen. It might be called, A Tale of Two Cities. I titled this chapter after two

prominent characters in the last book of the Bible. One woman is the harlot and the other

is the bride of Christ. I said earlier that a woman always represents an institution in Bible

symbolism. The harlot is widely held to be the corrupt or apostate church. The bride of

Christ is the true and faithful church.

The bride has been equated also with Ruth of the Old Testament. Ruth the

Moabitess, the gentile, has a good end, married to the wealthy Jew. The Moabites and the

Ammonites share a lineage with the Jews as Abrahams descendants. Hated and

despised, their ancestral lands, along with Edom, are seen by many to escape the power

of the Antichrist (Daniel 11:41). Ruth of Moab marries into the bloodline of Christ

through Boaz and she helps the reapers, which is seen as symbolizing the work of the

gospel and the church. The bride is faithful and obedient. The harlot is self-centered,

recalcitrant and even murderous.

We see the fates of these two figures in Revelation. The harlot is deposed, stripped

of power and burned up. The bride of Christ joins with the returned and triumphant

Christ. The harlot church is associated with worldly religion. It is a sold out merchant

church filled with the spirit of Balaam, who prophesied for money. He would have

twisted the truth if he could have. Christ refers to this himself ( Revelation 2:14). This is

a church which really preaches nothing and everything but the true gospel at the same

time.

The false church is depicted in contrast to the bride of Christ (Revelation 12:1; 17:1-

+
6). Many theologians have equated this woman with the Jewish nation. But some equate

her with Israel. Technically the Jewish nation is the tribe of Judah and Benjamin only.

Israel includes ten other tribes, which are lost or concealed. So Israel is actually all

twelve tribes and it has spiritual dimensions. It is all those who have trusted in Christ and

it includes a great amount of people actually descended from Israel by blood. I showed

earlier that a majority of the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel are most probably in

the nations of Europe and North America. Some are possibly in Asia and Africa.

The English word church is said to derive from Greek kyriakos or kyriakon meaning

of the lord. I would argue that the word church comes from the Greek, but from kyklos

by way of Latin circus, for ring or circle. Regardless, nowhere in the New Testament is

either kyriakos or kyklos used for church in the original Greek language. The word used

is ecclesia. This word means called out, ex (out) and clesia (call). This is exactly what

the church is supposed to be but sadly is not in most cases. Instead it has become vicious

rings of cronies out for nothing but gain. Ultimately these circles of friends will evolve,

if they havent already, into the harlot.

In prophetic language God often depicted sinful and wayward Israel as a harlot or

adulteress. Ezekiel chapter 16 gives such a description. Ezekiel 23 depicts the separate

kingdoms of Samaria or Israel and Judah as the harlots Oholah and Oholibah

respectively. The 1st chapter of Hosea equates the harlot Gomer with Gods bride and

describes a rebellious Israel.

The woman in Revelation 12 has been equated with Jews only and not all

descendants of Jacob nor the Christian church because she is described as giving birth to

a child, who is believed to be Christ. This is correct, but Israel gave birth to Christ, and

+
Israel includes more than just Jews. It includes many people who have lost the

knowledge of their blood lineage with Israel and people who have become spiritually

bonded to Israel through faith.

The harlot and the bride of Christ are associated with two cities in Revelation. The

harlot represents Babylon (Rev. 17:5, 18). The bride of Christ, most likely the woman of

Revelation 12:1 is Jerusalem as depicted in Revelation 21:2. The fates of these two

women unfold in the last seven years of this age before the return of Christ. They are

keys and central guideposts to visualizing the events in this period known as the

Tribulation.

This period is widely believed to be the 70th week referred to by Daniel (Daniel

9:24-27). The person referred to as he in verse 27 is commonly considered to be the

beast/Antichrist of Revelation. This verse clearly shows this person to make some kind

of treaty or covenant with the world, including Israel. The verse shows it to be at the start

of a seven-year period, the week. This event is usually equated with the white horse of

the first seal (Rev. 6:1-2). This figure appears as a common figure of peace. The fact that

there is no arrow with the bow of this figure has been interpreted to mean this figure has

no real power to bring peace and is false. Furthermore the red horse immediately

following shows this to be a false peace or only a momentary peace. It is not clear just

how long this peace lasts. It may be for a few years or maybe less. It may be that the

four horsemen immediately precede the 70th week of Daniel, or Tribulation, and are not

part of it.

The four horsemen of the Apocalypse appear to be extensions of the four living

creatures in heaven. These seem to be what are known as the four spirits of heaven and

+
they appear to be mentioned in several places of the Bible (Rev. 4:6, Zecheriah 6:5, Ezek.

1:5). The horseman is a standard symbol of Bible prophecy. The four horsemen in

Revelation represent spiritual realities which are extensions of the four living creatures at

the throne of God. The horsemen in The Book of Zechariah chapter 6 appear to be the

same as those in Revelation. Zechariah appears to give a little more detail.

The four horsemen seem to herald the return of Christ and come to destroy his

enemies. They could well be in fact disguised as the four main enemies of Israel, but will

destroy them. All those that have no real faith in Christ might be fooled and destroyed by

these world forces and not see them for what they really are. Four main enemies of Israel

are Dan, Edom, Babylon and Egypt. They appear to represent respectively: self

vindication and misplaced zeal, uncontrollable violence and constant warfare, false law

and love of money, and the attempt to attain eternal life and paradise without and through

God and by other means than repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Most believe that the white horse represents an antichrist crusader spirit, zealous to

fight infidels and offenders and to defend the faith and fight for Christianity. It appears

like the church. White can be seen to represent the church. The rider on the white horse

himself may not be evil himself. He is likely coming to destroy all those who are of the

Antichrist, who seek to take Gods place and avenge God themselves by force. Zechariah

states that this horse goes to the north (of Israel). It also states it will appease Gods

wrath in the north (Zech. 6:6).

Almost without question, the red horse represents violence and war. Red is clearly

the color of blood. Edom (Esau) is Jacobs brother. Edom means red. Edom was

vengeful, violent, always roving, hunting and filled with unending and uncontrollable

+
rage. Zechariah doesnt state where this horse goes. It seems to stay in the Middle East.

They seem to mean that there has been and will always be war in the Middle East, at least

until the return of Christ.

The black horse most likely represents law and commerce. The scales he carries

represent law and banking (or money changing). The black horse has been believed to

bring famine. Rather the vision clearly shows that he brings artificially induced

economic ruin by hyper inflation, although this might be precipitated by some kind of

food shortage. Bankers, judges, lawyers, politicians, Pharisees, priests and religious

legalists all traditionally wear black. The Babylonians were masters of statute law codes

and commerce. Zechariah states this horse goes to the north (of Israel). He also states it

will appease Gods wrath in the north (Zech. 6:6).

The green horse probably represents false life and false prosperity. Most Bible

translations read pale or ashen or pale green. But the Greek word is chlorus, which

means green, hence chloride, chlorophyll, etc. Green is the color of plants, but also the

color of sickness and disease. Green is interestingly the official color of Islamic countries

today. It was probably the color of Egypt which once dominated over regions now

controlled by Islam. Also interestingly enough, American money is green! The green

horse of Revelation appears to be the same as the dapple horse of Zechariah. Zechariah

states this horse goes to the south (of Israel). Egypt and all Islamic countries are to the

south of Israel. The green horse has authority over one fourth of the earth (Rev. 6:8).

Interestingly, the followers of the religion of Islam comprise approximately one-fourth of

the earths total population.

The horsemen in Zechariah are a bit different from those in Revelation. The main

+
difference is that in Zechariah there are chariots connected to the horses. There are no

chariots connected to the four horsemen in Revelation. The Bible tells us that the four

chariots represent the four spirits of heaven (Zechariah 6:1-5). Zechariah shows us

several horses of each color; Revelation has only one horse for each color. In Revelation

the horsemen all have riders but no chariots. In Zechariah only the red horse has a rider

(Zechariah 1:8).

The horses and riders then appear to be something other than spirit, that is flesh or

perhaps evil spirits. And we all know where the flesh leads! If animals represent human

political movements in prophecy and humans represent religious institutions, then the

horses and riders represent political and religious forces fused and working together,

church and state. Assuming this, in Zechariah, spiritual forces guide the political

movements but these are not associated with religion. But in Revelation religion and

government are fused; and there is no guiding spirit anymore. The horses and riders no

longer have a spirit associated with them. This is clearly a bad thing, since man is a

fallen creature. This may mean that at one time the four spirits of heaven were guiding

men when they moved about the earth. But in Revelation spirits are no longer connected

to the movements (horse and rider). This is surely destructive. The four riders of

Revelation are moving, but the spirits might be assumed to have remained at the

Euphrates. So at one time spirits guided government and political movements, except

perhaps in Israel where men were intimately involved. There only men were involved

with governments and only Christ was guiding them. But in the rest of the world the four

spirits were involved. It may be that at some point men will be left to themselves in

religion and government and this will ultimately be a disaster. It appears that spirits, at

+
least good ones, will no longer be guiding movements of men. And this does not bode

well.

Zechariah states that the horses patrol the earth (Zech. 1:10). It also states where

three of the four colors of horses go. The white and black horses go to the north (of

Israel) and the strong dapple horses (assumed to be the ashen or (pale) green horse of

Revelation) patrol the south. But the strong dapple horses then request to patrol the entire

earth (Zech. 6:7). No information is given on where the red horse goes. It is found only

in Israel or close to Israel.

Only the rider of the fourth horse of Revelation is given a name. His name of Death

may indicate that Satan directs this horse himself. This eerily harks back to Satans

activities mentioned in Job (Job 1:7).

If the four spirits of heaven are the same cherubim that were stationed to the east of

Eden and are the same angels bound at the Euphrates, as well as the spirits behind the

four colors of horses, then all of these visions are somehow connected to guarding the

way to the tree of life. These spirits are revealed to patrol the earth but are stationed at

the Euphrates. Its interesting to note that there is even a place called Cherub in Babylon

(Ezr. 25:59; Neh.7:61). Also, if Cherub is just a form of Chebar, this is the very spot

where Ezekiel saw the cherubim himself (Eze. 1:1)! Chebar has been shown by some to

be the same as Habor, a river in Assyria. It may be that these spirits direct religious and

political movements. It may also be that they draw those movements to the Euphrates.

Its interesting that many powerful rulers and empires were drawn to the Euphrates

region. Alexander the Great set up his court at Babylon, where he died. Rome is equated

with Babylon in Revelation. Persia absorbed Babylon into itself and made it its capitol.

+
So the four spirits of heaven may act to guide human endeavors as a function of guarding

access to the tree of life. It may be that false religions and evil governments are drawn to

the Euphrates, possibly as a diversion. Notice also that there are always four empires

described in Daniels visions; these may also be equated with the four spirits of heaven.

Daniel 9:27 makes clear that some important treaty or deal will be broken after

tghree and a half years. This may also involve the ten kings of Revelation (Rev. 17:12-

13). Then there appears to be three and a half more years of tribulation which has been

called the Great Tribulation, a period even referred to by Christ himself (Matt. 24:21).

Christ refers to apparently the same event as Daniel did (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27). Paul

seems to be referring to this also (2 Thess. 2:3-4). John may also refer to this same event

(Rev. 13:14-15).

So the Bible seems to say that some very powerful figure will grow in power and

influence resulting with some worldwide peace or government. But the Bible also seems

to reveal that this powerful figure will not be completely prominent and not all powerful

for three and a half years after this treaty. This figure, associated with the beast of

Revelation, will be apparently under some amount of the control or influence of the

harlot (Rev. 17:1-3).

But then the beast/Antichrist and the ten kings will free themselves of the false

church as depicted in Revelation 17:16-17. The scene in Revelation 13:1 appears to be

after this event because the harlot is no longer riding the beast. Also, the horns of the

beast of Revelation have no crowns in 17:3, as they do in 13:1.

So to sum it up, the Bible seems to reveal that some powerful figure will be heavily

involved in some worldwide treaty or system which involves many nations and includes

+
the nation of Israel and the false church. It will involve ten powerful and influential

persons also, probably connected to royal bloodlines, in the formation of some global

government. But after three and a half years, the powerful persons behind these events

will come to the fore and be revealed as ten kings and the beast/Antichrist. It may then

be that wars, famines, plagues and natural disasters will unfold in increasing severity and

this is what is represented by the other horsemen of Revelation.

It appears likely that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem will be part of this

worldwide deal brokered by the beast/Antichrist. That the temple will be rebuilt in

Jerusalem is made clear in Revelation 11:1-2. It clearly refers to the temple. So at some

point the temple is going to be rebuilt. This does not mean that it is Gods will that the

temple be rebuilt; but it fulfills Bible prophecy.

The deal brokered by some powerful figure in the future is apparently very

important. Im sure this might make many ask just what it is that necessitates this deal.

It may be some war or crisis. It would probably be in the Middle East. It may involve oil

and surely will involve religion. The rebuilding of the temple would most likely be one

of the terms of such a deal. Bible prophecy may very well hint at this and refer to times

immediately preceding or even during the final seven years before the return of Christ.

One possible event leading up to some worldwide pact is the destruction of

Damascus in Syria. Jeremiah and Isaiah foretold of the fate of Damascus (Is. 17:1-3; Jer.

49:23-27). Damascus has never been destroyed. So apparently these prophecies have yet

to be fulfilled. They may be some of the last prophecies to be fulfilled before the return

of Christ. And this may be a key to indicating just what takes place immediately before

the final seven years of this age.

+
 This would probably involve some war in the Middle East. Daniel describes events

at the end time and this may refer to events immediately preceding the final week or

tribulation (Dan. 11:40-45). As always, it depends on how this passage is interpreted.

The passage refers to three powerful individuals. There is one individual who is widely

believed to be the beast/Antichrist. There are also two kings, who may very well be

two of the ten kings in Revelation. These two in Daniel are the king of the north and the

king of the south.

Parts of Daniel foretold of events that are commonly believed to have already come

to pass. Some of these events involved kings of the north and south. In Bible language

this always means the nations to the north and south of Israel. This is a pattern of history

that repeats itself. Bible prophecy therefore often appears to be fulfilled more than once,

or increasingly fulfilled at various stages of history. Bible scholars have been of the view

that some of the Book of Daniel was about the Seleucid empire (Syria) to the north of

Israel and the Ptolemaic empire (Egypt) to the south of Israel. But Daniel clearly refers

to an end time, so this part of the book deals with events yet future (Dan. 11:40-45). But

these events are undoubtedly part of a pattern of history that has existed for thousands of

years.

What Daniel may very well be referring to is an important battle or war involving a

coalition of African and perhaps Arab nations with one prominent leader or king and a

coalition of perhaps European and even American nations with one prominent leader or

king over them. The northern coalition prevails and subdues the southern one according

to Daniel. But the leader of the north seems to withdraw with reports from the east and

north, which could be a breakup of the northern coalition or the rising power of perhaps

+
China and Europe.

It may be that these end-time events spoken about by Daniel may be a key to

understanding how events unfold just before the seven-year tribulation. It makes sense

that for there to be some important global peace or agreement, that it would have to be

necessitated by some important events. This would explain the rebuilding of the temple

in Jerusalem. So it appears that a strengthened and empowered Israel will rise from these

events. But notice that Israels old enemies of Ammon, Moab and Edom will also remain

and perhaps also be empowered (Dan. 11:41).

At some point, three of the ten kings of Revelation are apparently going to be

stripped of their power. This seems to be what Daniel 7:8 refers to. Its possible, as Ive

said, that this has already happened, possibly in World War I. For some reason, the

Antichrist and kings under his authority may see the need to strip three world leaders of

their power. This may come after a war. It may be just for show, to make it appear that

the Antichrist and those allied with him are in control and in favor of peace and the

punishment of those responsible, or made to appear responsible, for war. Its not quite

clear just when this will take place. It seems that it might come soon after the Antichrist

is revealed. It appears to come after the harlot has been removed and even after the

beast/Antichrist comes to the forefront of world events. This would apparently be after

the event of Revelation 13:1 because the beast still has all ten horns at this point.

So what is the fate of the good woman of Revelation, the bride of Christ? Again, it

depends on the interpretation. I believe the woman of Revelation 12:1 is both true Israel

and the true church. If this is the case, then the church will remain on earth during the

tribulation and not be swept away from the earth, raptured, to safety to avoid tribulation,

+
as has been the mainstream teaching of Christian seminaries. They have taught this under

the assumption that the woman of Revelation 12:1 is only the Jewish nation.

Notice that this woman has a crown of twelve stars. These undoubtedly represent the

twelve tribes of Israel, ALL TWELVE, not just one tribe. Technically the Jewish nation

is just the tribe of Judah with Benjamin absorbed into it. So if this woman is all of Israel,

this includes the lost tribes, which were scattered throughout the world. They are surely

within the church today. So then it follows that Israel and the church are inseparable.

And it follows that this woman will undergo tribulation as revealed (Rev. 12:12-17).

Twice, Revelation chapter 12 reveals how long the woman will be persecuted and

also helped. In verse 6 we are told 1,260 days. This happens to be the same description

of the time the two witnesses prophesy and control nature on earth (Rev. 11:3). We are

told this amount of time more poetically, time times and half a time (Revelation 12:14).

This phrase is used also by Daniel. It undoubtedly refers to the same event (Dan. 12:7).

Both of these periods refer to three and a half years, the Great Tribulation. This happens

to be 42 months, the same amount of time that Jerusalem is trampled down (Rev. 11:2).

The other woman of Revelation, the harlot, is the false church. This is a

compromised church that accepts anyone and any doctrine. It has lost any purpose

regarding the true gospel of Christ. It is a worldly and mainstream church with global

reach as described in the Bible (Rev. 17:15). Revelation clearly tells us that the true

church or true Christians will be persecuted by the false or harlot church. Many true

believers will be even put to death by the false church (Rev. 17:6).

Revelation chapter 17 also shows the harlot church in league with the beast. This

church is showy and immoral. It uses politics and the worldwide global system set up by

+
the beast/Antichrist for its purposes. This false church is associated with Mystery

Babylon, which represents false religion. Revelation 17:9 clearly associates the false

church with Rome, which is built on seven hills. So the false church will apparently be

based in Rome. This is not to say that Catholics necessarily are false Christians, but that

the organized Catholic Church will be totally corrupted by this time. This church will

dominate and will have absorbed all other prominent denominations as well. They will

have compromised for gain and combined into a super church. The real church will

assumedly go underground and disappear from public view. The political powers will

persecute the true but hidden church (Rev. 17:14).

But eventually the beast/Antichrist and world leaders will also break up the false

church. This may be also for show. But Gods word reveals that the beast/Antichrist and

world leaders desire to end the false church (Rev. 17:16-17). They seem to desire an end

of pretense and having to answer to the false church. They apparently will want to

dominate the world openly and without any hindrance or contrivance. And the same

passage reveals that the purposes of the world system and beast/Antichrist will fulfill

Gods purposes in the destruction of the false church.

The fall of Babylon is further described (Rev. 18). It describes the wealth of the city

and ties it to sea trade. This also ties in to Ezekiel 27 and 28. These chapters show an

aspect of satanic power through trade and money. They describe a merchant empire filled

with the evil pride. This appears to be a bit different from Mystery Babylon. It may be

actually a revived Babylon in the same area where it originally was, on the Euphrates in

Mesopotamia. It seems different because the kings lament for this Babylon. Why would

they lament for it if they hated it? So it appears that there are more than one Babylon.

+
There seem to be three, Mystery Babylon, commercial Babylon, and military Babylon.

To summarize the course of events in the last seven years of the present age, this

period most likely begins with some very important deal, probably a complex worldwide

treaty or alliance. This is conceptualized by the rider on the white horse. There will

probably then follow worldwide peace for a few years. This will be rather a false peace

or superficial peace. Behind the scenes the false harlot church will quietly persecute

and even kill real Christians. There will probably be increasing unrest as a powerful

global system headed by the beast/Antichrist figure and ten powerful world leaders

increasingly consolidates power and clamps down on any disobedience.

I believe that about three and one half years into this new world order there will be

war in heaven as the Bible describes (Rev. 12:7-9). Satan will then be locked out of

heaven and increase his activities on earth. This war in heaven will probably have

repercussions on earth. Satan will take his wrath out on mankind and surely on

Christians. There may be increased supernatural activity. These times might be quite

unlike anything human beings have known since times deep in mankinds past.

There is usually a lot of debate about just when the war in heaven happens. Some

believe the war has already happened. Some think this war occurred deep in the past and

even not long after the creation of the universe. Many even believe- I think erroneously-

that Satan has already been consigned to hell. But it seems that the Bible pretty clearly

indicates otherwise in many verses.

I think Revelation makes it clear that this war happens shortly before the return of

Christ. I would speculate that what might trigger this war is the Antichrists resurrection

from the dead. At this point, Satan may believe he has powers equal to God and is

+
invincible. Then he will attempt to take over heaven and all of creation.

At this point the world government will put down the false church. It will probably

be blamed for the worlds problems. True Christians will still be persecuted, but directly

by the worlds governments. Three powerful world leaders will then probably be

destroyed or stripped of power. Then the regular sacrifice in the rebuilt temple in

Jerusalem will be stopped by the unified world government and an image of the

beast/Antichrist will be placed in the temple. Then Jews will be persecuted along with

Christians. In fact a Jewish zealot may assassinate the Antichrist for halting the sacrifice

in the temple. God would have to allow the satanic resurrection of the Antichrist.

The unified world government under the power of the beast/Antichrist will then

implement a new monetary system. This will be based on a mark to be placed on the

hand or forehead (Rev. 13:16-18).

What is the mark of the beast? This is probably one of the most asked questions.

The hexagram, or six-pointed star is a good guess. It is called the Star of David

(probably erroneously), but is also known as the Seal of Solomon and is probably of

Egyptian origin and not a Hebrew symbol. Solomon was known for advanced idolatry

and may have worshipped the hexagram or used it in satanic rites. The hexagram may be

the Star of Remphan Stephen was referring to just before his martyrdom (Acts 7:43).

This appears to be a talisman taken up by the Hebrews out of Egypt in the Exodus.

In Bible concepts, a mark may not be necessarily physical. A mark on the forehead

might be ones thoughts. A mark on the right hand might mean ones works. Since Satan

should not be underestimated as the master deceiver, one must be careful to understand

how one might be marked. There might be either a physical mark or just a spiritual mark.

+
Some might actually receive a physical mark. Others might be marked by their refusal to

obey God (Rev. 13:16-18).

The prophecy says that no one can buy or sell without the mark. But it also says that

no one can buy or sell without the name of the beast or the number of his name. The

name and number of the beast appear to be a bit different from the mark. So this may

indicate that there are both an actual physical mark and some other invisible marker.

The Bible makes clear that not all will take the mark (Rev. 14:9-11). But there may

be many who dont take a physical mark, yet are still marked spiritually. In support of

this, notice that worshipping the beast and his image appear to be separate from taking

the mark, but both bring the same punishment. The Greek word for name, onoma, might

be taken figuratively as character. So the verse might be taken as, whoever takes on the

character of the beast will be condemned. In other words, those who are of the same mind

and opinion as the beast will be condemned.1

The death and destruction will continue with increasing severity. The two witnesses

will appear in Jerusalem. They probably will be blamed for troubles experienced around

the world and caused by the Antichrist. Actually, they will probably keep the world from

total destruction, with their control of nature. They may very well keep true Christians

from being destroyed by nature. This will go on for three and a half years. This is the

period of time known as the Great Tribulation.

Jesus said himself that his return would be like a thief in the night. But the Bible

also seems to say that his return would be seen by all. There seems to be a contradiction.

Jesus warned us to watch and be on the alert for his return. So clearly those who are

11 Strongs 3686
+
diligent and faithful will not be surprised by Christs return. His return will be like a

thief in the night for those who are not diligent and faithful.

At the end of this time, the worlds armies will be amassing in total desperation as

depicted by Gods word. I believe that exactly at this time the Euphrates will be dried up.

I think this correlates exactly to the release of the cherubim stationed at the Euphrates.

Armies will then converge on Israel and Jerusalem (Rev. 9:14-15; 16:13-14; 19:19).

At this exact time the two witnesses will be killed. But a few days later they will rise

from the dead. This will happen just as Christ returns. This will be on a unique day,

probably an eclipse, in which the sun and moon are darkened. This is referred to by

Zechariah and Matthew among others (Matt. 24:29, Zech. 14:6-7. All of the dead in

Christ will then rise from the dead at this time.

Christ will immediately descend on the Mount of Olives and all true Christians will

be transformed. This has been called the rapture of the church. It will probably happen

as Christ returns. He will then stand with 144,000 highly-favored Christians on the

Mount of Olives, (Rev. 14:1). The Mount of Olives will split in half during a massive

earthquake which is mentioned also by Zechariah and Ezekiel, as I showed earlier. The

hill on which Jerusalem sits, Mount Zion, will be changed and rise much higher than it is

now. This is probably the event referred to also by Isaiah (Is. 2:1-2).

At this point a new age will have begun. This is called the Millenium (Rev. 20:6).

The Devil will be bound for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2). But after this, Satan will be

released and gather another army against Israel. Here we see the nations of the world

under the influence Satan. They are called Gog and Magog. Many have attempted to

pinpoint just who these nations are or where these lands are. But remember how the

+
Bible often refers to nations. It usually refers to a namesake ancestor like Magog. But

sometimes it refers to concepts like destruction or rebellion, punishment or defilement. I

believe this is what the Bible is doing in a phrase like Gog and Magog. Jeremiah the

prophet refers to Babylon as Merathaim, meaning double rebellion and Pekod, the name

of an Akkadian people but which also means punishment (Jer. 50:21).1

After this will be a final judgment. All accounts will be settled. Then the earth will

be remade. Jerusalem will be remade. The bride of Christ, the woman of Revelation

12:1 will receive her beautiful wedding gift.

When will these things be? Thats what everyone wants to know isnt it? When all

these things happen. Some things envisioned have already come to pass. Some would

argue like Preterists that all of the Bible has already come to pass. But this seems

doubtful. So what then is the timeline for these awesome visions? Weve got some idea

of what the visions are representing. But when will they be? How do we know?

The Bible gives some descriptions of periods of time. But how are they all linked?

What is the timeline? Its hard to say, but the Bible seems to provide even some clues to

that.

The best point of reference has been shown by countless Bible scholars, to be seven

years of Tribulation, the final week of trial for the Jews revealed to Daniel by the angel

Gabriel (Dn. 9:27). Gabriel seems to relate that there will be a rebuilt temple in

Jerusalem and that a leader will make an important treaty. Gabriel seems to say that this

treaty will be broken and sacrifice will be banned in the temple. Some argue that this

leader is Christ and he stopped the sacrifice by his own death on the cross. But this is

11 S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, 1970, pp. 280-281 and M. Dietrich, Die Aramer Sdbabyloniens,
1970.

+
probably in error. It seems that this figure is the Antichrist. There is also an obvious

mistaken belief that the treaty is with the Jews. The Bible actually doesnt reveal who the

treaty is with, except that it will be many people.

It is easily assumed that something happens to cause a large part of the earths

population to make a treaty with the Antichrist. This is probably a large war, perhaps

World War III. Gabriel clearly states that this treaty is broken in the middle of the

week, or after three and a half years. So here we have a fairly clear timeline of events.

There is a large war and a treaty made. Then the treaty is broken after just over three

years.

Its already been mentioned that there are some seven-year periods in the Jewish

calendar that fit exactly between the Jewish festival of Rosh Hashana (Feast of Trumpets)

and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Interestingly, many treaties have been signed on

Jewish holidays like Rosh Hashana. So this treaty mentioned by Gabriel could very well

happen on Rosh Hashana, which would be in September or October.

If the beast of the Apocalypse is identical with the Antichrist, then there are some

details about the beast that give some more information about the timeline of events (Rv.

13:1-5; 17:3-13). One has to look very closely at some subtle differences to get this. It

comes out of the sea. I would say this indicates it derives its power from the sea, hence

sea trade. But also I believe it is also correct that the sea represents gentiles, as many

have observed. Both point to a European power.

The beast is given power to continue for forty-two months, which is only one half of

the seven- year timeframe. So the beast seems to appear halfway into the seven years.

Notice that at this point the horns of the beast have crowns. This seems to indicate that

+
the kings associated with the beast have kingly power. But there are no crowns on the

horns in the description of the harlot riding on the beast. So the kings have not

apparently received kingly power at that point. It seems then that the beast will be mostly

concealed by the false church and in submission to it for the first half of the seven-year

Tribulation. Then the kings will destroy the harlot church and rule with the beast. This

almost certainly will happen midway in the Tribulation.

At this point something else happens. It seems that the Antichrist will be killed and

resurrected, or a faked death and resurrection is perpetrated. The Bible seems to relate

that it is a real death and real resurrection. At about the same time another beast appears

(Rv. 13:11). It appears very much unlike the first beast. It is described as a lamb. But its

real nature is betrayed by its form of speech. Animals always seem to represent some

political entity and there is probably no exception with the second beast. The two horns

are most definitely the resurrected Antichrist and the false prophet. Notice that there are

no crowns on the horns. This most likely indicates that the second beast is not associated

to royalty. It also reveals that the Antichrist (at least when he is revealed) and the false

prophet are not of any royal bloodline. Some have claimed this describes the United

States, as it has no links to royalty. I would say this is a good guess, but wrong; its

probably the United Nations.

The second beast comes out of the earth. The earth probably represents Israel.

Something has caused the United Nations or something like it to come to Israel. The

United Nations is usually involved with peacekeeping. So something has happened to

bring a peacekeeping force to Israel. The Antichrist had come to prominence apparently

by some very important peace treaty. But it may not be complete and may not include

+
everyone. This seems to be what is revealed to Daniel, possibly the preincarnate Christ

himself (Dn. 11:40-41). There may still be skirmishes going on in Israel and around the

world, even after an important treaty is concluded.

The United Nations will probably be involved with putting down strife around the

world. Now having much to do with this will undoubtedly be the Moabites, Ammonites

and Edomites. Now who are they? Where are they now? Well, its not always easy to

see. Theyre probably mixed in with just about every nation on earth now. But they do

appear more prominently sometimes. They dont have their own autonomy, as foretold

by Ezekiel (Ez. 25:8-11). But in western countries they might be mistaken for Jews! The

Jews may disagree, but they are mixed and are unable to verify any pure genealogy since

70 A.D. This kind of problem is even well illustrated by Nehemiah and Ezra at the time

of the return from exile in Babylon.

The Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites are also undoubtedly mixed in with Arab

nations and are probably a part of the ruling classes in the Middle East. They are

involved usually with trade and commerce around the world. It will probably be that they

will use their connections to escape the power and control of the Antichrist. They might

foment unrest and alternatives to the worldwide domination of the Antichrist and his

system.

+
Bibliography

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishing, Inc.

June 2004

New Bible Dictionary, ed. I. Howard Marshall, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer, D.J. Wiseman.
+
The New Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D

The Ancient Near East; A History, W.K. Simpson

Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, A.K. Grayson

Nimrud and its Remains, M.E.L. Mallowan

From Adam to Christ, M.D. Hooker

The Other Side of Jordan, N. Glueck

The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected, Volume I: From the Creation
of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire, Samuel Shuckford

The Archaeology of Palestine, W.F. Albright

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, A. Mazar

The Geography of the Bible, D. Baly

History of the Mongols, Bertold Spuler

Religions of the Ancient Near East, H. Ringgren

Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, A.K. Grayson

History Begins at Sumer, S.N. Kramer

Chronicles of Chaldean Kings, D.J. Wiseman

Ancient Mesopotamia, A.L. Oppenheim

Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, A.K. Grayson

Foes from the Northern Frontier, E. Yamauchi

History of the Anglo Saxons, Sir Francis Palgrave

The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler

Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, A. Dearman, ed.

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, I, J.C.L. Gibson

+
Molech, a God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, J. Day

The Germanic People: Their Origin Expansion and Culture, Francis Owen

Essays on the Semitic Background of the NT, J.A. Fitzmyer

The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, A.H. Sayce

Studies in Daniel, H.L. Ginsberg

Yahweh Versus Baal, N.C. Habel

The History of the Celtic People, Henri Hubert

Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, W. F. Albright

The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment, Eliezer D.Oren

The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, N.K. Sandars

The Language of the Sea Peoples, F.C. Woudhuizen

The Ancient Mediterranean, Michael Grant

The Three of Us

The Trinity is a central belief for Christians. I put discussion about it at the

+
beginning of this book because the three persons of The Trinity are held to be the only

preexisting beings and to precede everything and everyone else.

Christians believe that God is not some nameless, faceless entity without concerns or

personality. On the contrary, Christians hold that God is three persons. This may mean,

in other words, that there are three persons who have the substance of God. There are no

other persons with these attributes.

I probably dont need to point out that the Bible hints at the existence of the Trinity

in passages like Genesis 1:26; 3:22 and 11:7 (Im assuming the plural us in equivalent

plural tenses of the original Hebrew word). The three persons of the Trinity have certain

characteristics that make them quite unique from every other person. They have no

beginning and no end. They can exist outside of creation and the laws of the universe.

They dont need anything. This assumes that the persons are more than just created

manifestations of God. The three persons of the Trinity are said to be like spirit, soul and

body for human beings. But I believe it is incorrect to see an exact analogy here, because

all spirit, soul and body in human beings are created. Put another way, some see the

Trinity as a sort of me, myself and I situation. But this fails to treat each person of the

Trinity as self-existing and truly individual.

The three persons of the Trinity are commonly known as God the Father, God the

Son and God the Holy Spirit. It may be that these three persons even have individual

names, at least as far as mankind is concerned. The Bible seems to indicate these names.

I will explain more fully throughout this book. It appears that God taught Adam the use

of language so that he could communicate with God and with other men. God most

likely gave Adam names for each person of the Trinity. These names were probably lost

+
by most and this probably was at the heart of the confusion at the Tower of Babel.

The name of God the Father was most likely El. The name of the Holy Spirit was

probably He and the name of the Son was most likely Tav. Incidentally, a probably

related Hebrew word for good is Tov or Tob, for merry, loving, etc. There are many

possible derivations, apparently related in one sense to the name David from Hebrew dod

and duwd meaning beloved and also mandrake, believed to be an aphrodisiac. I will

show the many meanings behind Tav and Tov, which are seen more vividly in European

languages with very probable connections to Christ.1

The Sons name would have become known as Jesus when he became a man. Over

time the names of the three persons of the Trinity were undoubtedly corrupted, abused

and misapplied for pagan uses. For instance, the name El was applied to the sun.

Some have ascribed attributes which define the three persons which I think may be

incorrect. God is said to be omnipresent, all knowing and all powerful. I would agree

that only God is all powerful, all knowing and omnipresent. But these qualities may not

necessarily be requirements to qualify one as a person of the Trinity. In Matthew 24:36

Jesus himself stated that there was something God only knows, not even Jesus. Also, 1

John 4:8 states that God is love. I believe that it is incorrect to define God. The word

is in this verse has the meaning of doing. In other words, God is doing love.

Definitions are only found in creation, so I think it is a mistake to define God with

anything. But in creation we can see what God is doing. So we see God loving, being,

caring, etc. We see his form only when he enters creation.

Many have speculated on how the three persons of the Trinity interact with one

11 Strongs Concordance 1730-32, 1736, 2896

+
another. One might wonder how God could know something that Christ doesnt. If

Christ is equal to God, wouldnt he know everything God knows. Im sure many find

this a puzzling thing about Matthew 24:36. But just because Christ and God are equals,

doesnt necessarily mean they can read each others thoughts. They might be able to

keep things from each other. Christ himself even said that he did what he saw the father

doing (John 5:19-20). He didnt say he did what God thought or knew all of Gods

thoughts or intentions.

The Trinity is standard Christian doctrine and it is heresy to deny this most

fundamental tenet of Christianity (God in three persons, see John 17:11 and Matt. 28:19).

The Trinity doctrine is difficult for mortal man to grasp and leads often to confusion and

misunderstanding. For sure it was hotly debated in the past and led to a lot of

destruction. The doctrine states that the three persons of God are the same and equal in

essence. The debate mostly centered on the essence of the three persons of God. Arian

Christian doctrine did not accept that the Son is equal with the Father. This was rejected

by the Roman Church. But is this not stated by Christ Himself in John 14:28? I would

say that Christ was referring to his status after having agreed to coming into the world as

Gods son.

One might speculate that if Christ is the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15), then he

does exactly what God does. He is not a mere reflection or shadow, not a ghost or

projection; he is a living image. Looking at it another way, if one did everything God

does, or always carried out Gods will, that person would indeed be God. I think this is

what Christ was trying to tell us; he was not being trite when he indicated this to Philip

(John 14:8-9). Mankind is made in the image of God, Christ is the image of God. Christ

+
moves exactly as God moves. On the other hand, Christ is not a mere puppet either. He

has his own personality. And he also does not do Gods will without seeing God or

thinking about God. He can even question what God is doing and even ponder not doing

Gods will, as he did at Gethsemane the night he was arrested (Matt. 26:39, Mark 14:36).

Christ has been said to be the person of the Trinity who agreed to take on the form of

a man and redeem Gods creation. I believe this is the correct way to conceptualize such

interaction. Carrying this line of reasoning further, I would say that the three persons of

the Trinity made several agreements, apparently even before time and creation began.

One of the persons agreed to be the Father, one the Son and one the Holy Spirit. At first

they were all equal and had no rank amongst themselves. Then the Son agreed to submit

himself under the fathers authority. The Holy Spirit agreed to submit himself under the

Sons authority and thereby under the Fathers authority.1

The nature of the three persons of the Trinity has been hotly debated, ever since the

Church began. The argument has led to deep divisions and created many different

denominations of the Church. Accusations of heresy and corruption have been tied to

various expositions on the nature of the persons of God. I think the Apostle Peters

statement in Acts 10:34 sheds some light on this subject and may help to bring an end to

the division.

In this verse, depending on the version, Peter comments that God is no respecter of

persons. This statement may very well give us an understanding of the nature of Christ.

Some suppositions are that when Christ agreed to take on the form of man, he thereby

agreed to be stripped of his divinity; he lost equality with God. He lost immediate and

11 John Milton, Paradise Lost.

+
total access to the power of God. But he did not lose his person. He was still the same

person as he had always been. So in person, he was still divine.

As a man, Christ was just like any other man. But in person, Christ was unique. As

a man, Christ had to rely on God just like anyone else. He had to pray for help just like

anyone else. He was under the authority of God just like anyone else. God treated him

just like anyone else. God gave no special favor to Jesus because of who he was, because

of his person, as Peters statement attests.

So, after all, as a man, Christ had no more ability or favor than anyone else. What he

taught about prayer, fasting, obedience, faith, etc. was indeed what he himself was

submitted to. It was all equally available to anyone else as well. God did not treat Jesus

differently from anyone else. And Jesus was glorified not because of who he was, but

what he did. And this applies to everyone. No one is glorified by who they are, but by

what they do. Jesus was justified by who he was, however. And everyone else can only

be justified by who Jesus was also. I believe this is a distinction that has been overlooked

and that this has led to much confusion and dissension. We get glimpses of this hierarchy

in the New Testament. Many times Christ referred to his position under Gods authority.

Christ also seemed to indicate that the Holy Spirit was under his (the sons) authority.

We can assume that each person of the Trinity was fully capable of manifesting

himself separately. But they seem to have made some agreement to always act together

and in a certain way. God the Father almost never manifests himself apart from God the

Son. Only God the Son manifests fully in creation. God the Holy Spirit only manifests

in the form of wind or shining light, speaking in tongues, miracles of healing, etc.

One way to understand the Trinity and how it relates to creation is to think of the

+
three persons of it as witnesses interacting with each other and the rest of the world, as

John wrote (1John 5:7-8).. The Bible is clear that God the father is invisible and that the

creation is a manifestation of his power and attributes (see Col. 1:15 and Heb. 11:3).

When the three persons communicate with each other there must be communicable words

for them to understand one another. Christ has been called the Word. So Christ might

be thought of as the words that the Father uses to communicate with the Holy Spirit. And

creation may be thought of as the conversation that the three persons have with one

another.

It may very well be that the first three verses of the Bible contain each person of the

Trinity, one for each verse. God the Father is involved in verse one. Verse two is

concerned with God the Holy Spirit and God the son is at work in verse three. So Christ,

the Son, is associated with light and indeed he even said he is the light of the world.

When God said, Let there be light, who was he talking to? Also, whoever he was

talking to had to know what light was for the command to make any sense. So with that

statement, we see three persons: Someone making the statement, someone else hearing

the statement, and another translating. Another way of looking at it is that there must

always be three witnesses in any case. The word of only one against another is not

acceptable. Two must testify for any case to be valid. So the three persons of the Trinity

always confirm each other.

The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ created all things (Col. 1:15-17 ). It is Christian

doctrine that only Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not created. Everything else was. So

in the creation account of Genesis one has to wonder, if, as God makes his commands,

whether or not He is commanding Jesus or the Holy Spirit, or both. Or was he

+
commanding angels? It is probably most correct to think that all three persons of God

were active in the creation. Perhaps angels were also to some degree. Note that God is

commanding, but also his Spirit is on the earth (Gen. 1:2). It is assumed Jesus was also

walking on the earth (Gen. 3:8), perhaps even as he was creating it. It is not unreasonable

to assume that, even though God creates all things, he does it by delegation, that is,

through angels. The book of Revelation often shows angels having various powers over

the elements.

That Jesus has always existed, before and after his actual life, is confirmed,

according to some, with his presence all throughout the Bible. Called a christophany,

some see him in some cases as the angel of the Lord. Sometimes hes seen as

Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 7:1-4). Some believe this is the figure Jacob wrestled

with (Gen. 32:24-29) and the Captain of the Lords host (Jos. 5:13-15). I believe that

Hushai the Archite (2 Sam. 15:30-37; 16:16-19, 1 Ch. 27:33) might also qualify. Notice

this figure is found at the top of the Mount of Olives where god was worshipped. And

some family relationships are usually given for many individuals in the Bible; but

nothing is given for Hushai the Archite. There is mention that one Hushai had a son, but

we dont know if it is the same as Hushai the Archite (II Sam. 15-17, I Kings 4:16). We

are only told he is just a companion of David. He seems to appear from nowhere.

Hushai could well be the same name as Hoshea which is one form of the name Joshua or

Jeshua and thus Jesus. Archite may not refer to a region, such as Erech, but may well

translate as the rock, king or of heaven.

What is the nature of a son? When Christ is called the Son of God, what does that

mean exactly? A son has all the legal rights, traits, attributes, essences, etc. of the father.

+
And a son has always been a part of his father. In some ways, each person has always

been a part of their parents. But a son usually waits for some time to receive all of the

powers, duties, responsibilities, etc. of the father. Is this the nature of Christ to God then?

Another major tenet of the doctrine of the Trinity is the nature of the three persons.

Standard doctrine states clearly that they are un-created. That is, they have always been.

They have no beginning or end. The three persons are distinctly different from any other

person or thing. All others have been created. They have a definite beginning point, and

are not eternal by nature (see Col. 1:15). It is hard for mere mortals to grasp what it is to

have no beginning and, in many respects, is better left alone. One thing that seems to add

confusion to this is that, although Christ Himself has no beginning, his physical attributes

did (by attributes I mean anything in creation: light, wind, water, angels, etc.) Only his

person was not created. This means that Christs actions, his physical form and powers

may have begun at a finite point. He himself has always existed. Even His attributes

have no beginning, in a sense, because there were no other persons there at the beginning

besides God and the Holy Spirit to witness them. Many believe the so-called big bang

was the moment when creation came into being. Remember, God is said to be invisible

(Col. 1:15), and creation came out of the invisible world (Heb. 11:3). So, even though

Christ has always existed, his outward attributes need not have always existed. Another

way to look at this is, that, since God is first and foremost, and not originally bound to

any law or any created thing, it is impossible for him to have any fixed form, since that

would mean that some force beyond himself has forced him to have that form. However,

God can ordain a form for himself, but that had to have been at some definite point in

time. In other words, God is invisible, but the form which He ordained to take, is not.

+
Colossians 1:15-17 sheds some light on this concept. It clearly states that the form he

ordained to take is Christ, rather the manifested Christ. And let us never forget, what God

ordains, stands.

I think most, if not many, would say that the Holy Spirit is the most mysterious of the

three persons of God. This person is referred to but we get no clear description, at least

not at first glance. I would say that the Holy Spirit is the feminine aspect of God. Ive

stated that one of the names of God might be Ha. This word in Hebrew denotes a breath

or spirit. The Holy Spirit is clearly illustrated as breath or wind in the Bible. And adding

-ah or -ha to a root word in the Hebrew language makes the form feminine. The Holy

Spirit is described as a dove in the New Testament and notice that the dove that Noah sent

from the ark is referred to as her.

In the writings of king Solomon there is a picture of what seems to be the Holy Spirit

(Proverbs 8 and 9). Some have claimed this is Christ. But this figure is referred to as her

and it is also possessed by God. Possessed has bad connotations. The original Hebrew

uses the word qanah, which has the meaning of erected, created.1 This is clearly not a

quality of Christ. Therefore I dont think this is Christ. One might believe this to be a

symbolic or figurative image of wisdom. It might be seen as a mythological figure

similar to Greek Sophia or the goddess Columbia, Diana, Athena, etc. But I think it is a

mistake to see this just as some metaphor or literary personification. It is probably a

spirit created by God and associated with earth, Mother Earth. The seven pillars she

carves out are considered seven pillars of wisdom by many. But I would go further and

associate them with both the seven continents and the seven churches of the Book of

11 Strongs 7069
+
Revelation.

+
 The Bible is clear that God made the heavens and the earth. Notice that heaven is

sometimes plural and sometimes singular in the Genesis account. Is this referring to the

same exact thing? Sometimes heaven is used and sometimes heavens. Is it just an

inconsequential choice of letters? Its doubtful. In English, heavens is used and also

heaven and firmament. The plural form in English may include two Hebrew words

shameh and raqiyah. Shameh is probably akin to English summit, the lofty heights, the

highest point. Firmament is used for raqiyah. But by the use of raqiyah, the singular

form of heaven is not necessarily above like summit. Rather it is simply a divider of the

waters (Genesis 1:6-8). Whatever, we are assured that God made every form of heaven,

whether singular or plural.1

It may be that some cataclysm had ruined creation between the first two verses. And

it seems almost certain that if there had been such a catastrophe this early, it was

instigated by Satan. There seems to be trouble already in this verse. The well-known

gap theory holds that something happened between the very first two verses. Its

puzzling why the Genesis account states God made the heavens and the earth and then

immediately describes it as void and dark. Isaiah seems to ponder such a situation (Isa.
11 Strongs Concordance 7549, 8064
+
45:18).

Many have speculated that God would not create something void and dark. They

point to the activity of Satan here and that wicked activity was present this early;

someone or something changed what God had made, although we know God had allowed

it. It may be though that the first verse is simply detailed by what follows. But there

seem to be serious problems from the start. Light and darkness were apparently fused

together. Two different types of water were also fused as were the earth and seas.

This process probably also produced steam. This may be what the second day

involves. Was God separating liquid water from gaseous water on the second day?

It does appear that the creatures, including mankind, were put on the earth with a

purpose, and part of that was to correct preceding violations. Were the creatures made on

the sixth day made to finish the job of taking the salt out from seawater? Or something

else?

It may be that all angels are spirits, but not all spirits are angels. Angels are the

messengers. By definition, an angel might even sometimes be a human being since the

word only implies messenger. But in the Bible angels are clearly not human beings.

Human beings dont qualify as spirits. They have spirits, but are not completely spirit.

Also, the spirit human beings have should be considered dead because of original sin, at

least before they receive the Holy Spirit. I will include angels in the term spirit and only

+
non-human entities.

Many believe demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants and other beings such

as animal hybrids of Noahs time that were killed in the flood. The term giant most likely

means earth born. The word includes the Greek word gea, for earth. It indicates that

they were not made in heaven but on earth. Even human beings were made on earth and

not heaven. And only Adam and Eve appear to have been made directly by God himself,

as pure spirits were.

Humans and spirits both have personality, mind and free will. They are all living, so

free will must be assumed. They are able to choose a course of action. But humans

appear always to have a sense and grasp of consequence and spirits do not. This can be

seen in Gods command to Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and

evil. God clearly reveals the consequence to Adam. It seems then, that when a spirit

does something good or evil, there is no sense of any wrong or right or how God is

affected. So when a celestial being does Gods will it has no sense that it is pleasing God

or doing right, it just does it. The same goes for when a spirit goes against Gods will.

There is no sense of wrong or hurt to God.

A spirit is assumed good or evil based on their choice in doing Gods will or not.

And it appears, that as soon as a spirit chooses not to do Gods will, it is permanently

condemned and there is no turning back or chance for pardon. This may seem harsh. It

seems even more harsh if a spirit is never given any idea of consequence. One might

assume sin could only be sin if one has been warned. But this may not be necessarily so.

Sin may be sin only if some command has been broken in some way. It is a wrong course

of action, missing the mark, the meaning of the word in English. Many of the Ten

+
Commandments give no indication of any consequence, yet breaking them is considered

a sin.

When human beings act, they often go through a process of reasoning. They weigh

the consequences and consider the merit of what they are doing. This is often an

agonizing process. Humans learn from their mistakes and grow throughout life. Spirits

certainly have no growth process and are complete the moment they are created.

Most human beings dont do something unless they believe they are doing the right

thing. A person who does something without any compunction is probably controlled by

a demon and/or bad habit (they are probably interconnected). Adam and Eve believed

they were doing the right thing, for whatever reason. But they sinned because they didnt

believe God and because their reasoning was wrong. And the outcome was not what they

thought it would be and was bad. They allowed a twisting of the truth to guide their

choice. But even though they seemed to act quite speedily, with little thought, they

certainly went through a process. A spirit does not seem to do this. It just obeys a

command of God or not, or it acts on its own without any command.

Human beings seem to be more intimately connected to God, just by the added

element of consequence. Angels get information like humans do. Angels even have

some knowledge of what they are saying. But angels only deal with information at arms

length. Humans get information much more closely and usually painfully. They

prophesy and even seem to create the future by the use of words and names and by

blessing and cursing. Humans play a role in the redemptive process, even though the

ultimate redemption is by God alone.

Spirits, or at least some of them, may have been created within the time of the first

+
verse of Genesis and the creation of the heavens and earth. One question that has been

asked is whether spirits, or angels, have gender. Some quote Jesus that angels are not

married (Matt. 22:30). But just because angels are not married doesnt necessarily mean

they have no gender. Jesus pointed out that angels are not married in heaven. But this

may not mean at all that angels could not marry when they are not in heaven. If fallen

angels took wives and fathered the giants, then clearly they can marry. So the Bible

indicates they do have gender. And the term angel itself may imply gender. That is,

angels may be the masculine form of spirits, because the only entities who actually

appear to mankind in the Bible are in masculine form.

They are called angels and always have to do with delivering some message. This

may be seen as a male role. But Zechariah wrote of feminine entities who are clearly not

human beings (Zech. 5:7-11). Feminine spirits might be involved with elementals. This

would be much like the feminine role of procreation. Feminine spirits might even be

involved in creation itself. Its interesting then to notice that English matter is much like

the root word for mother.

God is able to divide the light from the darkness. He appears to be able to separate

them himself, but nothing else can until the fourth day of creation. It may be at this point

that many other spirits, both male and female were created. They are likely associated

with the heavenly bodies and are those set within the firmament of heaven. Their stated

purpose is to divide light from darkness. God seems to be delegating the ability and the

task of separation of light form darkness to his creatures. This is probably not just

physical light and darkness, but also moral, intellectual, etc. It may be that Satan,

Michael, Gabriel, etc. werent created until this point of creation.

+
 Some of the beings appear to be evil and contrary to God. Two suspects are Seas and

Night. Night is generally considered by people in general to be evil or at least not good.

Seas are also usually portrayed in a bad light in the Bible. A Hebrew word related to the

word for night is lilith. It is used for the screech owl. Lilith is an evil night demon in

Jewish lore. That the element of night was contrary and rebellious is also hinted at by the

fact that God had to separate light and darkness more than once in the Genesis account.

As Ive mentioned, many scholars believe that one of the angels in the Bible was

Christ himself. It may be that he was at first intended to go with the Israelites on their

journey from Egypt to the promised land. Notice in Exodus, 32:34. God refers to mine

Angel. First of all, angel is capitalized in the King James version in this verse. This

indicates that this angel is special. I would have to provide more research to determine if

the scholars and transcribers of the King James version were merely relaying something

indicated in the original scriptures or if they were adding their own opinion. Also, one

might overlook use of mine angel.

One might simply agree that all angels are the Lords. But mine angel may mean

something deeper. In other words, it is saying not just my representative, my exact

living representative. Even more to the point, it may be saying, my exact image. This

seems to be what it is saying, because just a few verses on we read, I will send an angel

before thee (Ex. 33:2) Here angel is not capitalized and it is not mine angel, but an

angel. In the Book of Acts, Peter was mistaken for his own angel (Acts 12:15, King

James version).

God even said that he would not go with the Israelites (Ex. 33:3). If God was

+
referring to himself as the preincarnate Jesus Christ in Exodus 32:34, he had clearly

changed his mind in Exodus 33:3, and he tells us why. Notice that in the same chapter,

Moses asks God to show him his glory. Moses makes a bit of a complaint that God is not

being clear about just who he is going to send among the Israelites. Moses seems to

comment on Gods change of mind. Moses also seems to indicate that he is aware that

God himself at first was promising to go among the Israelites. Moses may have been

hoping to get to see God here, and is a bit disappointed. He is well aware that God has

substituted someone else who, though awesome (Michael?) is not God himself.

I believe, as many others have probably shown, that this is where Michael the

archangel became the prince of Israel, instead of Jesus Christ. Michael is clearly the

protector of Israel (Dan. 10:21, 12:1). Michael and also Gabriel are mentioned by name

in Daniels visions. There is a third person mentioned who is never named (Dan. 10:5,

12:7). This is apparently another angel. It is most probably Christ himself. Notice he

was upon the water reminding one of Christ walking on water.

Angels were certainly created very early. They must have been the ones called sons

of God in the Book of Job. It mentions that they sang for joy when the earth was created

(Job 38:7). So Angels may have already been in existence before the earth or mankind

came into being. Or this may be an event at the end of the creation process. We might

assume that they are an extension of the created order but that they were made before

anything on earth was. They may have already been there when the earth was created.

A cherub is considered to be of the highest order of angels. The word used in

English is taken from kerub, straight from the Hebrew language. The derivation is not

certain. The name probably took on several meanings over time. It may be related to

+
Hebrew karbel which means to gird or to clothe, related to another Hebrew word kebel,

meaning to twine or braid (as in clothing) with the implication of fettered, restrained,

bound, limited (we know that angels have much to do with restraint [2 Thes. 2:6-7,

Jude 1:6, Rev. 20:1-2]). Even English curb has the same meaning. The word comes

from Latin curvus. And English curve also has in one sense the same meaning as curb as

something that limits, as momentum on a road or racetrack. Notice that curb has the

same consonants as cherub, c r b or k(ch) r b. And since v often transforms into b, curve

has virtually the same consonants as cherub.

So the word cherub has in one sense the meaning of something that covers or

conceals. This may be verified in the description of a being believed to be Satan in

Ezekiels prophecies. They describe a cherub who covers (Ezek. 28:14). So one of the

duties of a cherub is clearly to cover or conceal. They cover God as indicated in the

description of the mercy seat above the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:18-22). We might

assume this covering is both in honor of God and to protect mankind from being fatally

exposed to Gods full radiance. It also may be that Satan failed in his role to cover God,

thereby revealing him, against his will. This would be a grievous transgression and may

be at the heart of the sin of Ham and perhaps Canaan in revealing Noahs nakedness

(Gen. 9:21-25).

The word for cherub may be also related to chabar another Hebrew word.1 It means

to join with a figurative meaning of fascinating, casting a spell. A similar Hebrew

word is cheber, with similar implications. These words might be connected to English

charm. A cherub then has the power to fascinate. If Satan is a cherub, he then could very

11 Strongs 2249, 2266, 3525, 3527, 3528, 3529, 3742, 3743

+
well have the power to fascinate, which he is widely believed to do. This could mean that

Satan fascinates mankind by alternately revealing and concealing God, yet with harmful

effect, not in the manner as God knows to be beneficial.

Satan is referred to both as Lucifer the light bearer and as the prince of darkness.

By his activity he may have the power to enlighten and also to confuse and darken the

mind. If the word cherub is somehow connected to spells and fascination, this might be

linked to English dragon, another word used for Satan. This word comes from a Greek

word also tied to fascination, dracon. The word is related to Greek derkomai, to look in

the sense of grasping or seizing as in grasping ones attention or gaze. English draw and

drag have a similar meaning in the sense of pulling and attraction. The connection is

striking in the Old English forms dragan and Old Norse draga for draw and drag

respectively. There might even be a connection to Hebrew derek and darak. They mean

road, way, track. With a simple mutation of d to t, a clear connection to English

track, truck and trek can be made. These may have a connection to the fascinating

dragon as a road to destruction, the wide way to destruction that Jesus warned about.

Notice also that English dark has the same three letters. Darkness is associated also with

the dragon and fascination as with the unknown and mysterious darkness, or the illusory

effect that darkness has on light.1

A cherub is depicted with wings in this passage which seems to indicate that they

also fly. And naturally it might also be assumed that they can act as transporters. This

seems to be what is portrayed by Ezekiel (Ezek. 1). Zechariahs vision associates angelic

beings with chariots (Ze. 6:1-5). Notice that chariot and cherub have two of the same

11 Strongs 1404, 1869-70

+
consonants. A cherub was designed to both cover and carry the mercy seat and the ark of

the covenant. Many English words with the consonants c and r have something to do

with transporting or carrying something, carry, chariot, cart, carriage, chair, etc.

Hebrew for chariot is rekeb or merkab and the verb to ride is rakab. Notice these all

have the same consonants as cherub (with k for ch)? Even English crib may be derived

from the same root. But here we also have an example of metathesis , where the same

consonants appear in words, but the order of the consonants is changed. A metathesis is a

language change, either in hearing or writing, in which the order of letters gets changed.

Its a type of dyslexia, either in the hearing or recording of words through writing and/or

speech, or both.

Two other possibly related Hebrew words are baraq and berek. Baraq means

gleaming, lightning and also flashing sword (reminds one of Genesis 3:24- notice a

flaming sword may not necessarily be flashing so that it is not immediately noticed).

Berek means to kneel or bless. These all have the same consonants as cherub (if q is

taken for k or ch). It is interesting that in Islam, the Quran relates that Muhammad

ascended to heaven on a creature known as Al-Buraq. This creature is described

somewhat similarly as the cherubim in the Bible. Notice also that the word ark has two

of the same consonants as these words. And ark, or arc, is also related to curve in one

sense. These are also related to heaven as in the vault or arc of the sky. English bark,

from Latin barca, is a type of boat. The word contains ark, Noahs boat. A boat carries

and transports, somewhat like a chariot. English barge may be a derivative.

If Ezekiels vision describes what we know as a cherub, then such a creature has four

wings (Ezek. 1:6). The seraphim are described as having six wings (Is. 6:2). So those

+
angelic beings with four wings are assumed to be cherubim. The four living creatures in

The Book of Revelation are probably seraphim, since they have six wings (Rev. 4:8).

These also may be the same four spirits mentioned by Zechariah (Ze. 6:5).

The seraphim are associated with purification by fire according to Isaiahs vision (Is.

6:6-7). Their whole purpose, or an important one of them, may be purifying. Ezekiel

appears to describe Satan as a cherub (Ezek. 28:14). But Satan is often depicted more as

a seraph, being associated with fire, etc. It may be that Satan was originally both a

cherub and a seraph. Or perhaps he desired to be a seraph. This may be at the root of his

sin, wanting to be or do something he was not meant or created for; he failed to carry out

his duty. Indeed, a Hebrew root, satah, means to deviate from duty, to go aside, turn.

This word is probably akin to the word satan, and similar roots which have meanings of

adversary, opponent, to pierce, scourge, depart from right, sin.1

Seraphim are described by Isaiah as standing above the lord (Is. 6:2). Satan may

have mistakenly believed the seraphim were superior to God just because of their

outward stance above him. Isaiah also relates that a being believed to be Satan desired to

go beyond his ordained place (Is. 14:13-14). Perhaps God will grant Satan his wish of

being a seraph, at least as related to fire, in hell.

The Book of Job includes an interesting observation about angels. In consoling Job,

Eliphaz the Temanite comments that God gave frivolous tasks to angels (Job 4:18). The

first part of the verse indicates God puts no trust in his servants. Perhaps this means that

God does not rely on servants. God may give seemingly pointless tasks to men and

angels to test their obedience and loyalty. Perhaps Satan and other angels desired more

11 Strongs 7846-54.
+
important duties and more meaningful tasks. They also probably desired the deepest

secrets of God which might have been revealed in more serious functions.

Angels are often depicted in popular culture. It may be though that they have no

fixed form, at least not yet. Visions of angelic beings may be glimpses into the future or

perhaps the past. It may be that angels can change shape and appearance, as well as

remain invisible (see Numbers chapter 22).

Humans, animals and plants have a fixed form. It may be that any attempt to mix the

forms leads to sin and confusion. Mankind often imagines creatures which dont exist in

nature. They are fascinating, but God surely has good reasons why they dont exist in

nature. Or perhaps they have, but with disastrous results.

Idols in ancient religions were often composite forms with features from very

different animals. Expressions of these chimera were undoubtedly created in a rebellious

spirit opposed to Gods order and reflected possible acts of fallen angels to mix with

creatures and created hybrid forms. This does not necessarily mean that God will not

allow some composite creatures. Its just that it must be done on his terms. The living

creatures described by Ezekiel and in the Book of Revelation are clearly composites, but

they are clearly benevolent beings and at the very throne of God.

The living creatures are described as having wings, hooves, etc. The magnificent

being in Ezekiel 28 even seems to have gems encrusted in his body. It also appears to

have pipes and drums for some musical function. The living creatures at the throne of

God have the faces of oxen, eagles, lions and men. Interestingly, according to Jewish

scholars, these faces are the emblems of four of the twelve tribes of Israel. Ephraim is

the ox, Dan the eagle, Judah the lion and Reuben the man. Their banners were chosen to

+
represent groups of three Israelite tribes each in the camp of the Israelites when they

moved through the wilderness at the time of Moses.

The creature described by Ezekiel is widely held to be the fallen angel Satan (Ezek.

28:12-19). The end of verse 13 clearly states this being was created. This being is finite.

This passage describes a world that seems to be quite different from our own. It is most

likely either from a pristine time before Satan and mankind sinned. It also may be

describing another dimension that natural men dont have access to.

The Bible clearly shows that angels have various powers given to them by God.

These powers can be destructive and constructive, but always they are contained by God.

Satans abilities are very clearly under the control of God in the first few chapters of the

Book of Job. Angels can appear or remain hidden at will, as in Numbers 22:20-35.

Angels often have various powers over nature like wind (Hebrews.1:7 Revelation 7:1).

They have power over fire (Revelation 14:18). They can kill men (2 Samuel 24:16-17,

Isaiah 37:36, Revelation 9:15). Chapter 16 of Revelation shows that angels can create

plagues and natural disasters. And these angels are not always fallen angels; some act on

Gods express commands and according to his will.

The Bible clearly tells us that both good angels and fallen angels can kill men. Satan

can kill men, according to Gods statement (Job 2:6). The name of the rider on the pale

horse of Revelation 6:8 seems to indicate that he is a fallen angel, maybe Satan himself.

Hell follows him.

Death and Hell are given as proper names; this indicates they are individuals. Its

interesting that the Greek word used for Death in this passage is thanatos or thano.

Notice a striking and eerie similarity of the Greek root than in these words with the

+
Hebrew tan or than for serpent or dragon? Is there somehow a connection? Perhaps the

Greek language is related to Hebrew somewhat or at least has borrowed words and

originally associated death with serpents.1 The Greek word used for Hell in this passage

is haides, English Hades. Its interesting that this word has the meaning of unseen or

without shape, etc. and comes from the Greek root word eidos, to see and is the origin

of English idol.2

Death and Hell are most likely two fallen angels. Death may be Satan himself. This

is supported by the fact that these are the same names of two beings thrown into the lake

of fire (Rev. 20:14), though some translations dont make them proper names in this

verse. Death and Hell have the ability to kill men.

Even the angel of the lord is able to kill men. What makes this a little provocative is

the fact that many believe the angel of the lord is often Christ himself. The angel of the

Lord is almost certainly not always Christ (Acts 12:7). This angel also kills people of

Israel (II Sam. 24:16-17). Its not made clear how the angel knows who to kill. It may be

that only Christ can kill people of the covenant old and new. But maybe the angel of the

Lord is used for several different angels. It is probably Michael in some instances. Other

angels are only permitted to kill gentiles. This may be what is happening in Revelation

14:14-16. It appears here that Christ himself is killing people. But it is perhaps another

angel and if it is Christ, he is not killing but reaping souls for salvation. Other angels are

killing gentiles, but not Jews and Israelites. Christ may only be killing people of the

covenant. And notice that the angel of the lord is associated with threshing and reaping

11 Strongs 2288-89, 2348-49, 8565, 8568, 8577

22 Strongs 86, 1491-2, 1497
+
(II Sam. 24:16-17 and Rev. 14:14-16).

We know only a few of the names of angels, both good and fallen. There is a certain

amount of names that are known, depending on what is considered a name and what is

considered a proper translation and an acceptable text, whether canonical or apocryphal.

We know of Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, Abaddon, etc. The names are usually associated

with royalty. The being in Ezekiel 28:12 is called the king of Tyre. When Satan

tempted Jesus, he claimed he had the authority over kingdoms. Daniel calls Michael one

of the chief princes (Dan. 10:13). The Bible clearly reveals Michael to be the guardian

of the nation of Israel. The Prince of Persia appears to be another angel, apparently a

fallen one, since he fights with the angel that helps and instructs Daniel in Daniel 10:20.

The same verse refers to another apparently fallen angel called the Prince of Greece. No

specific name is given. Angels are commonly ranked, cherubim and seraphim being the

highest in rank.

Often the names mean something straightforward and uncomplicated like Abaddon,

which means destruction. Angels appear to be named by their chief function. Some

angels are bound to a certain area. Cherubim were placed at the east of Eden not long

after Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven from the Garden of Eden. It is not

made clear whether these cherubim are fallen or not. Whatever the case, they are placed

in a rather important position. Other angels are bound in darkness and chains as related

by Jude (Jude 6). The angels in this verse are clearly fallen, having committed some

transgression worthy of great punishment.

Some have speculated that the angels in Jude were the same sons of god who mated

with human women before and during Noahs time (Gen. 6:1-4). This was something

+
that seems certainly to be forbidden and consequential. The serpent, believed to be

Lucifer, didnt seem to get the same punishment for his transgression. Satan is not bound

like the angels Jude referred to were. According to the first few chapters of Job, Satan

clearly has access to heaven. The events in the Book of Job clearly take place after the

events in Genesis and the cursing of Satan.

Apparently Satans original body was cursed on earth but still had access to heaven?

Or Gods curse was not immediate and still has to take effect? The Bible reads that the

sons of God presented themselves before God, including Satan. Notice that Gods

question to Satan is quite probably rather a remark than a question. We know that God

would not need to ask where Satan had been (Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2). God may have been

really saying, What are you doing here? This clearly would indicate that Satan was not

welcome and not supposed to be there, although God was allowing it. Satan clearly has

access to heaven and appears to be (no surprise) not very pleasant (Rev. 12:10).

It may be that all angels, whether good or bad, presently have access to heaven.

Even angels chained in darkness within the earth may still have access to heaven. This

may be because one doesnt seem to need a body to be in heaven. Saint Paul hints at this

himself (2 Cor. 5:6-9, 12:3). One might ask how Satan is able to speak to God in heaven

without a body. It would make sense that Satans spiritual body could be seen and heard

in heaven, but his cursed body on earth would not know what had transpired in heaven.

This could be the case with other fallen angels and also human beings. I believe this is in

the area of something like astral projection.

Its interesting to compare Gen.1:2 with Jer. 4:23-26. The language is identical, yet

Jeremiah is assumedly describing some calamity other than creation. Or is he? Is it

+
possible that there was some period of time between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2? Whatever,

the description of a formless earth in the beginning of the creation may be referring to

some calamity, rather than an earth that is in some nascent state. And its clear that the

time periods in the creation are epochs, and the actual time passed is not determined,

since there is nothing specified with which to measure time, at least until the fourth day

of creation.

The waters referred to in the Genesis creation account could be some chaotic world

which God had to constrain and keep from destroying either itself or the rest of creation.

Perhaps something had happened to fuse creation into some dark mass described as

waters. This could very well have been what God had to separate later. Notice that

waters are referred to before light.

Water is found throughout the Bible as both something that cleanses and something

that God contains and manipulates as part of His order. God uses water for baptism; he

used it to destroy evil men and creatures during Noahs time; he parted the sea for the

Hebrews and destroyed pharaohs army with it.

In the very beginning of Genesis, God separates light from darkness and waters from

waters. Where else do we read of God separating waters? In Genesis 1:3 we see the

actual creation of light. But we never see the creation of water; it already seems to exist

in verse 2. At least there is no direct account of waters creation. It also may be referred

to as all or part of the deep in this verse. We are left to assume that it was created in the

very first verse of the Bible.

Such a time period ending in chaos might explain such difficult phenomena in

creation as dinosaurs, ape men, etc. It is just speculation and going into an area which

+
frankly God may see no need for us to understand; nevertheless I think it is important to

address it, with all the speculation and controversy regarding this topic.

Perhaps many angels were impatient and acted outside of Gods will and even in

opposition to it. Maybe they were over eager to see creation evolve and develop and took

matters into their own hands. And they may even have been thinking they were pleasing

God himself.

Such behavior might be compared to that of a petulant and precocious child. Most of

us surely have seen children (and many have been those children) who are over eager to

please their parents. Indeed, this is a perfectly natural disposition. Most of us learn

quickly to curtail our desire to please and measure up to our parents expectations. We

see early on, the damage that can be done by going out on our own. We learn to follow

our mothers instructions and to avoid the almost certain destruction of doing it our own

way and that good intentions pave the way to hell as it were. How often we felt the

withering look of our father when we fail and so wish to have not messed it up.

There is a learning process that we go through and it takes a few times to make

mistakes. There are some children that seem to have a penchant for big mistakes, even

starting out with the purest of intentions. Some pervert the desire and create a lot of

havoc. The extreme could be seen to be trying to guess what parents want, before they

even ask! A child may ask himself or herself what parents may want and do it for them

with the heightened effect of having done it, before they even ask. What a little angel

she is! our mother may say, I didnt even have to ask her! There are undoubtedly

many little mind readers out there. But the gamble probably goes terribly wrong more

often than not.

+
 So is it going too far to imagine that an angel such as Satan was such a perverse

child as above? Its clear that Satan must have been allowed by God to do anything. So,

were dinosaurs and cave men, and many other creatures known in the fossil record,

creations of Satan? Did Satan try to read Gods mind and decipher Gods plan, before it

went into effect? Are the anomalies and phenomena, which seem to contradict the

creation account, premature trifles and dead works of Satan? Was he trying to somehow

garner Gods approval and win Gods praise by these creations? Was he attempting to

work his way into higher status? And the most important question is: why would God

have allowed it? Was there some purpose in it? Maybe there is. Maybe its a test of our

faith. We know that God can take any evil purposes and turn them to good. Perhaps

within the lines of the creation account, Satan was working to make creations of his own,

which were out of Gods will, yet a faint reminder was left for Gods good purposes.

One might further ask, if all things were made by Christ and for Christ, as stated in

the scriptures (Col. 1:15-17), why then would there be such dead ends and anomalies in

the world like dinosaurs, etc? The answer is fairly simple for theologians: Gods

permissive and decretive wills. God clearly has a permissive will, thats why theres sin

in the world. It isnt Gods direct will, but can be used to further his direct or decreed

will. A good example might be the ancient pyramids of Egypt. They probably werent

Gods direct will, but were built nonetheless. So perhaps dinosaurs were allowed to be,

though they werent part of Gods direct will. So it may be that the creation account after

verse one is actually a recreation, or reordering. That may be why the word replenish is

used in the creation account (Gen. 1:28). What is there to replenish if there had been

nothing there before?

+
 One thing the Genesis account does, which is often overlooked, is emphasize the

importance of numbers and number ordering to God; it does this from the outset. This

indicates the high importance of the numbering and the sequence of events. But one

often doesnt hear about all of the meaning behind numbers and what they can do for the

understanding of the Bible and especially Bible prophecy.1

Notice that there is no numbering with the initial statement of creation. Perhaps this

has something to do with the dark and foreboding sense that Im sure most feel in the

passage before the first day of creation. There are many arguments about whether the

days are literal or figurative and how much time actually elapsed. But the Bible is clear

that there was a deliberate and sequential ordering.

The number one is supreme and primal. It is unique and contains unity or union. We

are informed that there were always three persons, but they were unified as one. The very

beginning of Genesis proclaims it. There is possible turmoil and opposition, but still God

is in control and needs no assistance. Any one else that may have been in existence is

clearly after, dependent and probably opposed to God.

The number two implies division. It often involves dissension and enmity, but not

always. From the second day of creation on there is a lot of dividing and into two parts

each time. Interestingly the Hebrew word tannin is the name for serpent or dragon but

also seems to be from the root word for the number two. But just as interesting, the name

Tav, which might have been Christs original pre-incarnate name may be also related to

the number two, just as is the English word division itself; and Christ is number two of

11 E.W. Bullinger, Number in Scripture:

+
the Trinity. God the son may be doing the dividing here.1

Many ancient religions refer to a cosmic serpent of ages past that seems to have a

similar function as God in this part of Genesis. This serpent, called Tiamat in ancient

Sumerian and Babylonian inscriptions is equated with Hebrew tannin. Tiamat might

have the same meaning as Greek taumat for gift of god, wonder-work or miracle. I

think this has been erroneously applied to God and also caused confusion about the

nature of Satan as the serpent.

The cosmic serpent Tiamat has been conceived of as a giant circle in the heavens. It

is often conceived of as a giant snake that forms a circle with its body and completes the

circle by taking its tail in its mouth. The Bible does often refer to serpents and circles and

such a circle in the heavens. Leviathan in Hebrew means wreathed serpent. This

serpent circle is sometimes connected with the firmament of heaven.

Rivers were often referred to as serpents for their meandering and snakelike forms.

The cosmic serpent appears to have been some sort of cosmic flow of water (the jet

stream?). It was conceived of as a cosmic circle, flowing into itself. It may have been a

conception for Gods spirit as it hovered over the deep. And it seems also to apply to the

firmament. So the serpent is a divider, which is indeed a characteristic of Satan (it may

be mere coincidence, but the word satan includes (a)sa meaning fire, fiery and tan

meaning serpent, dragon, hence fiery serpent). But the serpent who appears later in

Genesis is clearly an earthly creature, although it has supernatural attributes.

What is meant by separating the waters from the waters? There is indeed more

11 Strongs 8565, 8577-79

+
than one type of water. In chemistry, there are H2O and D2O. In laymans terms, D2O is

called heavy water. D2O, or deuterium oxide, is made up of deuterium and oxygen.

Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, which means it has an extra proton (or something

like that- Im not a physics expert). It is denser than regular water and heavier than

regular water. It is found in deeper ocean water, probably because it sinks, or is made by

the pressure of gravity.

So, the passage about separating the waters may be referring to the two known

types of water. The lighter water would rise and be the invisible vapor of the sky, clouds,

lakes, rivers and the water close to the tops of the oceans. The heavier water would be at

the bottom of the oceans and in the earths crust. God possibly separated them using

light, possibly as a form of energy able to cause evaporation or something like it. It

makes sense that the firmament spoken of in the Bible would be some dividing line

between the heavier denser material and the lighter more ethereal matter. This might also

be something like the ionosphere.

It is interesting to note that firmament might have a quite unexpected additional

meaning. I mentioned earlier that it is roughly translated from Hebrew raqiya for an

expanse with the implication of being steadfast and fixed, as in the Latin. In Latin it

might also be translated as, sound mind. The word is a compound of firma and ment.

Both are Latin. Firma is something firm, solid, sound or secure. Ment appears to come

from mens for mind. So is it a sound mind that divides waters? Whose mind? It must be

Gods. Is he giving us a sound mind to divide waters? Waters where? This probably

includes both waters outside us, as with Moses, and also even within us. Perhaps this

relates to the division of the mind into left and right sides and there is actually a

+
firmament between them. This may indeed even be at the heart of problems in speech

comprehension and communication. Speech patterns often reveal handicaps or

differences in keeping word sounds in order, metathesis in linguistics terms, a type of

hearing and speaking schizophrenia.

Its interesting that plants are created on the third day. Three is obviously the

number of The Trinity and it seems no accident that a connection is made between plants

and The Trinity. Christ often referred to himself in terms of plants. He is the bread of

life. He is anointed (with olive oil- I will show later more connections with the olive).

His blood is equated to wine. He has been equated to the tree of life.

Three has been called the number of divine perfection (see Bullinger). On the third

day we also see more control over water, something Christ often displayed in his

ministry. The dry land appears. This might point to the Holy Spirit who is often

symbolized by water. Also, extending control over water might reflect the submission of

the Holy Spirit to Christ.

The number four represents creation. God could have stopped at the fourth day and

had perfect creation. Creation is measured by height, depth and width. On the fourth day

God shows a theme which will recur in the Bible: divine perfection is three and created

things are always four, four being three plus one. So perfection is in the Trinity. Creation

is simply an addition to it.

Created matter is made up of four elements: fire, earth, air and water. There are four

main directions on a map. There are four winds. On the fourth day, God took the

dimensions of height, depth and width and added a fourth dimension: time. The sun,

moon and stars would serve to keep time. It may be that most of the angels were created

+
at this time; they are often associated with the celestial bodies. Notice that there are no

humans created yet. The only ones then that the heavenly bodies were of any use to as

timekeepers, were God the father, God the son, the Holy Spirit, angels and plants! It is

often assumed time was created for man. Even though we know this could extend to man

once he was created, we might assume that mans fall distorted the keeping of time for

human beings.

Five is associated with grace. So the creatures made on the fifth day might be

connected to grace. It was a whale that saved Jonah. Sea creatures appear to have been

spared the Great Flood. Birds were also made on the fifth day but were judged along

with man (Genesis 6:7). But birds did survive and feature prominently in the account

after the flood.

Six is commonly known as mans number; he was made on the sixth day. But notice

also that animals were made on the sixth day as well. Looking back, God could have

stopped on the fourth day and had perfect creation. He didnt need man or animals for a

perfect world! Nature could have gone on fine without them. There may be something

implicitly evil about men and animals. It may be tied to the fact that they have

completely free mobility and therefore are capable of sin. Its interesting to note that a

plant cant move. It cant do anything wrong then! It does merely what its creator made

it for. A plant cant sin, but it might be used in matters involving sin, which is the case

with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It did nothing wrong itself, but it was

involved with sin. So a plant can be used for bad purposes, but this must be done by an

animal, human being or a spirit.

+
 This also seems to relate to Gods command for humans- and animals- to eat only

plants. It appears from these commands that men could eat any kind of plant. Animals

could only eat green plants. It appears that the original sin brought on a grievous and

widespread abuse of this original simple command.

The nature of the serpent in the beginning of Genesis is a bit puzzling. Most would

assume it is Satan. Satan is called the serpent of old. But the serpent is referred to as

cattle by God himself in Genesis 3:14. It seems to be referred to as some type of beast

but with greater powers than regular animals (obviously in Genesis 3:1). This creature

can speak! But it seems almost certain that this was a real creature and not a mere

symbol.

If this being was Satan, most believe it is also known by the name Lucifer. Some

believe this is a name he had before his fall. But the being in Genesis appears to be

described differently in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The creature of Genesis seems a bit

earthier. What explains this difference? It may be that the serpent in Genesis is the

offspring of Satan. Perhaps Satan actually mated with a snake or snake-like creature.

The result would be some hybrid, perhaps a dragon, something Satan has indeed been

called. Maybe theres a reason for this. If we assume that angels (or some of them) were

able to mate with human women and generate offspring, we might take it a step further;

some of them might be able to mate with animals and even plants. This would be a

grievous sin and why God forbids sexual relations between humans and animals and

humans and angels. It may be that God had allowed Satan some power to create life

forms. Perhaps Satan formed the serpent from clay as God had formed Adam from the

dust.

+
 Many speculate that Satan was originally one of the seraphim. The word seraphim

has been connected to a common Semitic word sarap for both a common snake and also

for burning as well as thinking. The word is clearly linked to English serpent and

perhaps to Greek sauros for reptile or lizard.

The root word for snake may be linked to another Semitic root sar for prince or

god hence the proper name Sara, princess. The word Israel itself contains the same

root (sr). Snakes were surely worshipped commonly and were thus associated to gods

and then perhaps princes by extension (is this where English sir really comes from?).

The root for snake probably came to be connected to magic through religious practice and

led to a derived word for magic, hence English sorcery. Angels may have mated with

animals at times in the past. God appears to have not expressly forbidden it at first

because he had allowed the unnatural dragon to live as such; he only changed it after

Satan lied to Eve. He didnt bind Satan in chains like other angels who mated with

human women. God appears to have forbidden such acts only after some later point.1

Such a creature as a dragon might have been Satans first attempt to take bodily

form. It also may have been his most desired form. Satan may have needed to sire an

offspring to be able to relate with the physical world. He may not have been able to

tempt Eve without a real mouthpiece. The serpent was his vehicle. Some assume that

angels like Satan can just enter a persons thoughts and tempt them that way. This may

be true now, but it may not have been possible with Adam and Eve before they sinned.

They had to be tempted from outside of themselves before they had sinned. It was only

after they had sinned that angelic beings had free access to them, even from within.

11 Strongs 8269, 8312-14

+
 God was probably grieved that Satan had procreated, but he may not have considered

it a sin, since there is no record that God had expressly forbidden it. God was apparently

more angered by Satans lie to Eve. But still, God may have cursed the serpent in the

way he did simply because he was turning the creature back into its natural form. He was

denying Satans desire. It may be that Satan preferred a creature like a dragon to be

master of the earth instead of mankind. He may have been in disagreement over the form

that the masters of the earth would take (notice there is no reptile form represented

among the cherubim).1

But Satan appears to have come back somehow. Satan himself reveals that he was

able to roam and walk about the earth (Job 1:7). How could he do this? Wasnt he cursed

to go on his belly earlier? I would speculate that what Satan may have been referring to

was that he was able to walk about the earth by mating with more animals or humans or

possessing them. Or he may have been taunting God about the fact that Gods curse had

not been realized. Satan perhaps was mocking Gods curse and teasing God by alluding

to the fact that by possessing human beings, Satan is able to circumvent Gods curse.

Satan knows that by possessing someone, their body becomes his, for all intents and

purposes. As Christians though, we know that God will ultimately bring his curse on

Satan to an ultimate reality and fulfillment. The curse may simply have referred to a

future reality.

I noted that Isaiah chapter 14 is a Bible passage that is widely held to refer to Satan.

It clearly describes the fall of the king of Babylon and Lucifer. It seems to provide a

different vantage point of the fall of the serpent in Revelation 12:7-9. Some have

11 See former freemason and witch Bill Schnoebelens talks with The Prophecy Club
+
suggested that Isaiah 14 clearly shows Satans fall to have taken place at the fall of

Babylon. I believe this is also incorrect. Angels like Lucifer are often referred to as

kings. The human king of Babylon and the earthly kingdom of Babylon did fall, but it

was not completely destroyed. The prophecy in Isaiah 14 has probably not come

completely to pass.

What the prophecy does show is a glimpse into Satans heart and mind. Satan may

have thought about rebelling from God quite early. But his actual rebellion may only be

partly fulfilled. The Bible seems to show Satan systematically and resolutely, often

quietly, at work undermining Gods plan and government. And Satans ultimate destiny

has yet to be fulfilled.

Satan doesnt appear to be bound as some of the fallen angels are, like those referred

to in Jude. It may be, apparently, that there were different punishments for different kinds

of sins. Satan sinned in the Garden of Eden by lying to Eve. He had probably sinned

earlier, at least in his heart, as the passage in Isaiah 14 indicates. The fallen angels in

Jude had committed actual sins and received immediate punishment. Satan had sinned

actually but he had not transgressed as these angels had. If Jude refers to those angels

that had mated with human women, this apparently involved a terrible infraction against

the will of God.

Satan probably instigated this sin. Perhaps he misled or coaxed these angels into

committing such a grievous deed. But he is so far guilty only of lying and misleading,

not the deed itself. But since Satan is ultimately behind many of the worlds great sins,

he ultimately has much of the blame and will have a great share in the punishment. He

even appears to have retained some authority over other angels or at least fallen ones.

+
Revelation 9:1 describes what appears to be a fallen angel in similar fashion to Isaiah 14.

If this is Satan in Revelation 9:1, he has the ability to release who may be another fallen

angel, Abaddon. Abaddon may be one the angels referred to in Jude.

If Satan had access to heaven, as he clearly did in Jobs time, when then is Satan

thrown out of heaven? The Bible clearly shows that Satan is cast out of heaven

(Revelation 12:7-9). Revelation 9:1 also probably refers to Satans fall, as mentioned

above. And it appears to be final. When does this take place? Many claim this war

happened at the very beginning of time and was Satans transgression and rebellion that

cursed him. I dont believe this to be the case. I think it refers to the time just a few

years before Christ returns to earth in triumph. Even though the passage in Revelation

above speaks in the past tense, it refers to an event of the future of the time when it was

written; this is a common feature in bible prophecy. God often speaks in the past tense

about something future. It creates a sense of assuredness and finality. God assures us

that he knows the end from the beginning.

If Satan is locked out of heaven, then earth and Hades are the only places he has to

go. He will avoid Hades of course. So earth is the only place Satan will be. Revelation

12:12 tells us this plainly. So earth will feel the full wrath of Satan. His only help will be

the angels he brings with him from heaven (Revelation 12:9). It appears Satan will also

be helped by the fallen angels that are already held in the bottomless pit.

Another angel in the Bible is referred to only as the angel of the Lord. There is

some contention on just who this angel is. Many claim that this angel is the pre-incarnate

Christ. I believe this is true. He is probably the one walking in the Garden of Eden (Gen.

3:8). There are many of the instances involving the angel of the Lord (passages in

+
Exodus, Numbers 22:22-35, Joshua 5:13-15, Judges 2:1-3; 6:11-24; 13:3-20, etc). Many

of these passages provide details which seem to prove that this angel is Christ. Many

times this angel is worshipped. The Bible shows several times that it is forbidden to

worship angels and angels always tell those that are doing it to stop, as in Revelation

19:10. So the fact that the angel of the Lord did not stop anyone from worshipping him

reveals that the angel of the Lord is God or Christ or at least in the instances where he

doesnt stop worship of himself he is and other times angel of the Lord refers to a

different angel.

Jesus is often claimed to be found in the writings of the Old Testament. He even said

so himself. Christians believe Christ is the central figure of both Old and New

Testaments, but many cant find him specifically, or directly, before the New Testament.

Theres the saying, Christ is in the Old Testament concealed, and Christ is in the New

Testament revealed! We can see prophecies and foreshadows, but Christ himself doesnt

seem to be actually there in the Old. It might be a superb test of Christians to find Christ

actually there. It is debatable, Im sure, but it does seem that the angel of the Lord is

Christ. There is probably much contention over this, but I believe this is correct in many

instances. The word angel simply is from the Greek for messenger. It also appears that

the angel of the Lord is not always Christ. But many believe, as I do, that the angel of the

Lord of the Old Testament was often indeed the pre-incarnate Christ, called a

christophany or theophany.

It may be at this point that Christ and the Holy Spirit acted with God the Father to

recreate or replenish the universe. The Bible seems to suggest that in creation, the Father

acts from above and the Holy Spirit acts from below, at least in terms of the earth. One

+
might also assume then that Christ acts horizontally.

The Bible speaks of all three persons of the Trinity in the masculine form. Father

and son are both masculine terms. Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as he and him (John

14:26, 16:7). But every time the Holy Spirit is mentioned or involved in Bible accounts,

there are always feminine characteristics. Christ calls the Holy Spirit the Comforter.

Comforting is almost definitely a feminine characteristic. The Holy Spirit is depicted

also as a dove, which is a feminine figure (Luke 3:22). This verse uses the term bodily,

which indicates that this was no mere metaphor, but an actual physical form. It is telling

us that they Holy Spirit manifests in the physical world in feminine forms.

Notice the Spirit of God is hovering over the dark waters like a bird, consistent with

the depiction of the dove. This also suggests stooping very low in the creation a type of

condescension. Latin for dove is columba. Columba or Columbia was depicted as a

woman in mythology, something probably not altogether incorrect. Columbao in Greek

means also to dive in the water. Jonah in Hebrew means the same thing. And- almost

uncanny- the English noun dove is also past tense of the verb dive.

If the Holy Spirit is active in matters below, it would fit with the fact that the English

word matter itself is very close to the root for mother, a feminine concept. I also think

that mythological concepts of the earth as female are not altogether mistaken. One might

say the Father does the design and the Holy Spirit carves it out, or fleshes it out. Christ is

referred to as the Word, which indicates he acts as the communicator between the Father

and the Holy Spirit.

But one might ask, if the Holy Spirit is masculine, then why does he manifest usually

in feminine forms? The answer may be that a fourth being is involved. This being would

+
be a creation and therefore inferior to God. But it may have been the first created being.

I would suggest it was the first physical form, and a means by which the three persons of

the Trinity could interact physically. The most likely name of this fourth being is Ea.

Other forms of the name would be Eu, Io, Ju, Ja, Jah, Ah, Ha, etc. The reason the Holy

Spirit is usually depicted as feminine is because the Holy Spirit took the third place in

submission to God the Father and Christ. The fourth being would then be submitted next

below the Holy Spirit and probably in close connection to him for that reason. Notice

also that the name Ea is in the very English word earth.

This name is found in names of God like Jehovah, etc. But if God is supreme and

masculine, one might wonder why God would have the name of what is most likely a

feminine created being. I suggest this is to signify that God has entered into a holy

marriage relationship. He is signifying by that name that he has a contract or covenant,

with Christ and the Holy Spirit and with creation. God even told Moses that his name

Jehovah had not been known before Moses (Ex. 6:3). So is Jehovah Gods married

name?

The creation account appears to show God working with his first creature Ea at the

outset. But where is she next? Assuming that the Father always acts from above and the

Holy Spirit from below, one might notice that the Father took the waters that were above,

and the Holy Spirit took the waters that were beneath. Then, as the dry land was

appearing, the Father took the surface of the ground, and the Holy Spirit went into the

ground or earth.

It is fitting that Solomon painted a vivid picture of wisdom and understanding in

+
action, since he was the wisest to ever live. It may be a shame that he didnt do more

with his wisdom. But he did shed some light on this person Ea. He provides what might

be some astonishing details in his proverbs, especially the eighth and ninth chapters.

Who Solomon describes as wisdom and understanding is most likely the person Ea. And

I would say that this is not mere symbolism, anthropomorphism or personification. I

believe this to be a person that appears as a human being in her basic form. She has

powers far beyond normal human beings and is usually seen at work in the elements.

This being appears to be eternal and very old according to the passage, but seems to have

a beginning and therefore inferior to God.

Solomon tells us what this figure did next in creation. She carved out a sanctuary in

the rock of the earth (Prov. 9:1). The fact that the pillars are hewn indicates something

happening in rock, so it is likely something in the earth, not in heaven. Notice that seven

pillars are carved out. Are these the foundations of the seven churches of the Book of

Revelation and the seven spirits of God?

Religious institutions, whether good or bad, are always referred to as feminine. The

Christian church is no exception. The whole picture here is very feminine. We see

activity much as in the Hebrew temple. Next we get a picture of maidens. These are

probably connected to the seven pillars and there are then assumedly seven maidens, each

a figure of each of the seven churches. Are these also known as the Pleiades, or the seven

sisters?

The Pleiades are figures from Greek mythology. They are the seven daughters of

Atlas, Maia, Electra, Celaeno, Taygeta, Merope, Alcyone and Sterope. All of these

names are tied to earth forces. Notice that Atlas is known for holding up the world. His

+
seven daughters would no doubt have related functions holding up the world like

Solomons seven pillars perhaps.

Just because the Pleiades are mythological doesnt mean that there is not some truth

in the details. It is even possible that Solomons account somehow passed into other

cultures. They became twisted no doubt and lost any benefit for godliness and blessing.

I would say that men were not wrong in seeing the earth and the elements as women in

human form. Where they went wrong was that they worshipped them and not God.

I suggest that this is taking place at the third day of creation. The seven pillars are

carved out and a sanctuary is made. Dust and rubble would certainly be produced in the

process. Notice also that a sanctuary in the rock is like a womb, a birthplace, another

feminine concept. One would assume that any underground channels of water and lava

would be either avoided or constrained to make this sanctuary safe for habitation.

Minerals and elements probably got into water and lava and made their way to the

surface.

I think this was happening on the third day of creation because this is when trees

were formed. Trees would need finely ground minerals for nutrients. There would have

been no fertilizer yet from decaying organic material. I assume trees couldnt grow on

bare rock either. Dust was also released into the air and water. Salt water may have

appeared at this point. Some have suggested that the trees at this point acted to remove a

thick cloud of carbon dioxide gas that was over the earth at this time. The gas most likely

trapped energy, causing extremely high temperatures detrimental to life. The trees

replaced carbon dioxide with oxygen which cleared the air and lowered temperatures.

This may have been when winds were created, something also associated with the Holy

+
Spirit.

God then formed the stars and moon from the dust produced as the sanctuary was

carved out of bare rock. Its believed that stars are not merely gas, but have a core of

beryllium or other elements. God then made animals and mankind from the dust.

Now at about this same time, I assume Satan had been observing this. He probably

imitated what was going on to set up his own kingdom. He would not go into the earth

himself, in order to act from above as God the Father. He may have even seduced Ea or

her daughters. They are created beings, so they are fallible and capable of sin. Satan

probably coaxed another powerful angel into going into the earth as the Holy Spirit had

done. A sinful angel was probably influenced by Satan seduced all or some of the

maidens into work that they should not have done.

Another structure was likely carved out in the rock. Since this was not under the

direction of God, there were undoubtedly mistakes. Perhaps channels of water were

released which should not have been. They may have contributed to the flood that wiped

out almost all life on earth. Perhaps lava was released that should not have been released.

Perhaps toxic dust and fumes were released which were dangerous to life on earth.

Maybe even a bottomless chasm was opened. Was this where the lake of fire and the

bottomless pit began. Perhaps the Holy Spirit created them to be used one day for the

punishment of the unrepentant.

Perhaps a competition started at this point. Satan probably created demons at this

time. He would certainly create forms that were not desired by God. There were

probably forbidden hybrid creatures made with parts of different species of animals.

There were probably mistakes and horribly mutated forms. The Holy Spirit was making

+
men and women. Satan was probably using up elements needed by the Holy Spirit. The

Holy Spirit had to leave out some elements as men and women were formed. Nothing

was left out that was essential for being formed in the image of God, but this allowed for

infirmities and imperfections in mankind (weaknesses in the human genome?) as king

David mused (Ps. 139:15-16).

Satan probably imitated God by throwing up dust into space. Since Satan is far

inferior to God, he probably couldnt make stars, but was able to make planets. Notice

that the creation account says nothing about planets, assuming stars doesnt include

planets (Gen. 1:14-19). It seems certain from the way the account is worded that planets

are not included. This is because planets are not needed for telling days and seasons, nor

for dividing light from darkness. Its interesting also that the original Greek root word

has the connotation of something roving, that wanders off course and is unreliable. It

even has the sense of something deceptive or deceitful and false. The planets were

certainly something difficult and even frightening to ancient astronomers because of their

unpredictable nature or in the difficulty in tracking them.1

It has been speculated that when people die they dont go immediately to heaven.

Rather, they wait in a sort of holding cell. Its not heaven, but it is apparently pleasant.

Some have used this to explain the paradise mentioned by Christ on the cross. His

statement is puzzling to many because he stated he would be in paradise that day, but he

would also be in the earth for three days. A pleasant place in the earth would explain the

apparent contradiction. Paradise is not necessarily heaven.

Some have called such a place the bosom of Abraham (Lk. 16:22-31). Its the

11 Strongs 4105-8
+
place, or one of the places Christ went to when he was three days in the heart of the

earth. I would suggest this to be the same place as described by Solomon, hewn from the

rock.

The parable in Lukes gospel indicates a lake of fire and an impassable chasm. This

is probably the bottomless pit. Christ is surely telling us that the gulf cannot be crossed.

Apparently if someone attempts to cross, they will be swept into the bottomless pit.

Christ refers to outer darkness. This may be what hes referring to.

Some claim it is impossible for men to return from the dead. Christ doesnt say that;

he only says there is no use for it. It is probably difficult however. Perhaps the creatures

created by Satan make it horribly difficult if not almost impossible for one to come back

to the earths surface.

The root dn may also be linked to another root, tn, which often means serpent,

hence Hebrew tan or tannin. As Ive noted, d (Hebrew daw) and t (Hebrew taw) are very

similar consonants. Both are dentals and often transform into each other and are often

interchangeable.

Leviathan means wreathed (levi) serpent (than). The Babylonian figure Lotan has

been shown to be related. The link here may be that rivers were often conceived of as

serpents, from the long narrow shape and winding, wreathing movement. This may be

what is referred to in the Books of Job and Isaiah (Jb. 26:13; Is. 27:1). The patriarch

Jacob may even have been somehow showing this very link in his associating the tribe of

Dan with a serpent (Gen. 49:17). It may be mere speculation that the root even got into

the Greek word for death thanetos. The serpent was often associated with death.

+
 Even the description of the rivers in the Bible might lead to this conclusion. The

Bible describes a new river that will apparently be formed by an earthquake (Zecheriah

14:8). It sounds like some powerful spring will be released and two new rivers will be

created. Is this just a return to the way it was in the beginning? Genesis 2:10 seems to

describe something similar to what is described in Zerechiah 14:8. When the Bible states

that a river flowed out of Eden, out may mean up from the ground instead of flowing

away from Eden. So the description in Genesis 2:10 may be describing a powerful

spring flowing out of the ground of Eden, not flowing away from Eden. And if the river

divided at the garden, this sounds much like Zechariahs description.

Earlier I wrote about Abrahams kin possibly being originally from the area of

Canaan or modern Israel, at least after the great flood and after mankind spread out from

the tower of Babel where Iraq now is. If the tree of life was in the area of Canaan, then

Abrahams people would be the rightful owners of the land where the tree of life grew. If

it will ever grow again there, then they are the rightful owners of the tree of life. It makes

sense that the Canaanites were drawn there for this reason. Since they were undoubtedly

heavily influenced by Satan, then their being in Canaan was part of Satans dark plans to

thwart the destiny of Gods people. Abrahams people being there was no doubt part of

Gods majestic plan.

Many valuable plants and trees have taken ages to develop. Fruit trees in particular

take many years just to mature and produce fruit. Thats why its quite costly when fruit

+
trees are damaged. There are food staples in the Bible which are used as various symbols

for prosperity, life, strength, etc. That one passage refers to a few of them in such a

striking manner, it is clear that they are of great worth (Jdg. 9:8-13). To lose olive trees in

particular was a terrible loss because it might take generations to get an olive tree just to

mature and maybe more to produce.

It may be also that many of the great people of the Bible had something to do with

innovations and breakthroughs in agriculture and cultivation. The Bible hints that Noah

had something to do with the development of the grape (Gen. 9:20). Maybe one of his

ancestors has that honor and not Noah himself.

There are a few more observations that should be made here about Adam and Eves

choice between the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I said

earlier that Eve attempted to get knowledge most likely under the faulty and cowardly-

and misinformed- assumption that she would not die. At this incidence God had clearly

alerted Adam- and thereby we assume Eve- of the existence and nature of such a tree. He

also told them what it would cost to acquire knowledge and be like God. God didnt stop

them from eating of this tree; he merely gave them a verbal warning.

On the other hand, God appears not to have told Adam or Eve of the existence and/or

nature of the tree of life. Neither did he say to them directly that he was going to block

them from getting to it; this he did actually and immediately. Both trees had a great cost.

And, perhaps contrary to what many might believe, God did not necessarily desire for

mankind to not take from both trees. He just wanted the motive to be right in getting to

them and for their benefits to be earned.

Jesus himself said he is the way, etc. (John 14:6). He defines the narrow way and the

+
broad way (Matthew 7:13). It is fairly clear that the word way in these verses is a

concept for the manner in which one conducts their life, etc. So the cherubim were

guarding the manner in which men came to the tree of life. They were guarding it in

many ways. One way was in a geographical sense.

They are in a geographical location, so there must be a geographical reason for this.

What would this be? A few times the Bible makes it clear that men cant see angels

unless God allows it. As I said, I believe those cherubim stationed at The Euphrates are

still held there today. I assume then, perhaps men cant see them physically, but know

they are there at a deeper level, a spiritual level. In the past, as at the time of Nimrod and

the tower of Babel, it appears there were no people living west of the Euphrates at all,

and most were living in the area near the Euphrates. At that time then, they were near the

cherubim, but as time went on and men spread out over the whole earth, the cherubim

had to patrol the earth as Zechariah shows us (Zech. 1:8-10).

Men seem to be drawn to that region. Abrahams family itself was drawn to that

region. What were they trying to find? When Alexander the great had conquered most of

the civilized world, he moved to Babylon on The Euphrates in the land of Shinar (Iraq).

Nimrod was drawn there. Balaam was from there (Numbers 22:5 [NASV]. Men of false

motives seem to be drawn there. It is not clear whether the angels there are good or bad.

Many have assumed they are bad angels. These cherubim simply guard the way. It is

false religion that is drawn to Babylon; its always been that way and will be that way

until Babylon and false religion are destroyed.

Kingdoms seem to be drawn to the region of The Euphrates River. In the process,

+
both spiritual and physical barriers have developed there which seem to be a dividing line

between east and west. Revelation 16:12 seems to be suggesting this. The Bible seems

to suggest that men were not able to live west of The Euphrates River. Doing so would

have been a violation. So the region of The Euphrates has some deep spiritual and

material significance. The problem is that the significance affects self-deceived people.

God desires that all men take from the tree of life, but under the right motives and under

Gods authority.

A few more connections might be made from the Hebrew root words just mentioned.

Another meaning of arch in English is head, chief, main, as in archbishop, arch-

fiend, archrival, etc. An old word for king is ric and is found in many languages as in

Latin rex. Notice that arch, or arc, and ric have the two similar consonant sounds.

Derived words have the meaning of government, rule, etc. as in Dutch riyk, German

reich, Swedish rige, etc. Such names as Patrick, rule of peace, Frederick, government

of freeedom or peace, Richard, hard rule, bear this out. The suffixed -rick is akin to

English reach with the sense of power, as in long reach.

Orcus was the king of the underworld. The s is just a suffix usually added in Greek

and Latin languages. If orc or arc meant king, then prefixing an m, signifying much,

might add the meaning of great king. This might possibly be the original meaning of

the names Mark and Marcus. Both names are officially stated to be derived from the god

Mars. Mars would qualify as a great king.

Mars has been linked to the ancient god Amurru, worshipped by many in the ancient

Near East and patron and bearer of the name of the Amorites. Mars may also be related

to Marduk, possibly of Amorite origin. These names may all be connected to the god

+
Molech or Melech whose name means king. Mars or Marcus may have mutated into

Molech. This is known as a rhotatic shift, a difficult-sounding term for a change in the

pronunciation of the letter r. Many may have pronounced the r like an l as Koreans and

Japanese do. Such a change may explain why an ancient word for spear was ger in some

cultures, but gel and even ges in others.

Whatever the case, its interesting to note that in words for king of widely disparate

languages, they all include a k sound, such as in king, melek and rex (x pronounced more

like a k). Lastly, its also interesting to note that rik is kir backwards. Using the process

of metathesis again, kir is almost undoubtedly seen as akin to car and ger which also

meant spear or horn. I showed earlier that horns or spears were widely used as

descriptions of kings or great leaders.

+
From Something to Almost Nothing

It appears that for angels (fallen) to interact outside of Gods authority (although God

must still permit it), they needed locations that met certain requirements. Such might be

a certain mountain or high place. This may be because higher elevations are at the point

nearer to where the firmament is. There is less oxygen at higher elevations and more

electrical activity, etc. Often the Bible refers to forbidden acts of worship and idolatry on

high places. The incident at The Tower of Babel may have been mans attempt at

creating a place like a mountain which would enable fallen angels to interact with

mankind as on Mount Hermon. Others have remarked most correctly that these wicked

men also built the tower as a refuge for another flood. But God had told them he would

not flood the world again. They had not faith in him. They worshipped the sun and had
+
great rituals to resurrect it each year at the winter solstice. But God had promised them

regular seasons. They also became great shipbuilders, but they had no need of ships as in

Noahs day.

Mount Hermon might have been the mountain of God mentioned in Ezekiel 28:14.

Or it might have been Mount Sinai. Humans would not necessarily physically see there

what Ezekiel describes, but at a deeper level they would surely be drawn to such a place,

as they are drawn to The Euphrates River. It very well may have been that fallen angels

mated with human women on Mount Hermon or some other mountain and had the hybrid

angel/human giant offspring. These people may have then been on the west side of The

Euphrates River, which, again, was prohibited by God.

If the tree of life once grew near where Jerusalem is now, then the giants may have

been close to the tree of life. If they had known what to look for, they might very well

have eaten from the tree of life and become immortal. Then they might have been able to

subject mortal men to themselves forever. These mighty men already had an advantage

over normal humans as the Bible indicates in Genesis 6:4.

One surely might ask just what the purposes of Satan and fallen angels were in

mating with human women. Probably just simple lust had something to do with it. Saint

Paul possibly alludes to this in 1 Corinthians 11:10. It seems that Satan was not directly

part of this and did not mate with human women. The guilty angels or some of them may

have done this on their own without Satans influence. But he most likely instigated the

whole thing. It may be that Satan was attempting to do what God did with the Virgin

Mary. Perhaps Satan was trying to create false messiahs to lead men astray and usurp

Christs place. These giants were indeed mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

+
 It has been argued that Satan was attempting to dilute Christs bloodline by siring

people who could then mingle with the ancestors of Christ. Then fallen angels could

claim to have sired or at least be related to Christ. In Genesis 6:9 Noah is referred to as

perfect in his generation (blameless instead of perfect in some translations). This

may be telling us that Noah had no blood from the giants who had been sired by fallen

angels. Satan may very well have known where the tree of life was and he may have

instigated the creation of a hybrid race that was more powerful than mankind and could

more successfully have carried out his plans.

The Book of Enoch and other accounts paint a bleak picture of what happened under

the Nephilim and fills in what may have been happening to cause God to want to destroy

mankind. This also may explain why the Middle East is so barren today. Some claim

men were over-farming and abusing livestock and the environment. This led to

starvation and to cannibalism. The ruling Nephilim may have cannibalized their weaker

human subjects- a nasty scenario.

If women went up on Mount Hermon, who were they? I believe they were witches

with secret and advanced knowledge, and they were descended through Cain, the slayer

of Abel in Genesis. It makes sense. Cain violated Gods authority from the start. The

first witches were probably Adah and Zillah, wives of Lamech.

The first sin is obviously the original sin of Adam. Then there was a long cycle of

punishment. This would be the murder of Abel and the death of the one slain by Lamech.

Mankind was not to take vengeance, not yet anyway. It appears that Cain was probably

finally killed for his crime; the mark of Cain didnt protect him. It did however bring

Gods curse into effect. Lamech was probably also killed, bringing in an even longer

+
curse. I suspect that there was a long period of murder and retribution.

God probably wanted men to punish transgressors, but according to his commands,

timing and law, and not out of personal vengeance alone. So retribution was forbidden at

that time. But men seem to have taken matters into their own hands and there was surely

an escalating cycle of murder and retribution. This is why capital punishment is

mentioned after the flood and it was finally instituted by God himself.

Notice that Lamech (descendant of Cain, different person than Noahs father) was

also the seventh generation from Adam like Enoch. So it appears that the violence that

Lamech was referring to had escalated up to the time of Enoch, a very righteous man who

must have offered wisdom and an exemplary life (Jude 14-15).

I would guess that Lamech was killed for his crime and the curse he mentioned came

into effect. I would also guess that the wives of Lamech, Adah and Zillah were witches,

and took terrible vengeance or action at the death of their husband. Cains descendants

had undoubtedly acquired forbidden occult skills. Its interesting that the name Zillah

may mean phantom or shade. The name appears to be related to Hebrew tsalal and

tselem of the same meaning and derivation.1 The name is also close to the Hebrew word

tsela, for rib with references to womanhood. Also, Lamechs other wife Adah, bears the

same name as a wife of Esau, of Canaanite extraction and grandmother of Amalek,

probably Israels greatest enemy, one so ferocious, God had to wipe it out of living

memory. The name Adah may have something to do with Hebrew ad and eth, which

have something to do with time as in repetition, also record, witness, etc. Time is

something the curses involved.

11 Strongs 6741, 6751, 6754

+
 The Bible then tells of forbidden intercourse between either human beings that

should not interact, or human beings and angels. What looks like a long period of

oppression then transpired, one which could well have involved also giants and even

other strange creatures. This was ended with another righteous man, Noah, and the flood.

(Matthew 11:12). Satan made it known that he has the power to set up rulers when

he tempted Christ, and many passages equate rulers with Satan (Ezek. 28 and Isaiah 14,

etc.). This is not to say that all rulers are equated with Satan or his order, however.

But then it appears that the Hebrews went back to Babel. But Terah and Abraham

then acted as deliverers by leaving Babel. But many times, Abraham then acted

unadvisedly, apparently. It has been mentioned by Bible scholars and teachers that

Abraham perfected faith in his life. His story is one of growing in faith. Many of his acts

were less than purely faithful until the end of his life. One of his mistakes was to have

relations with his maid Hagar. He brought his son Ishmael into the world whose

descendants would be a major thorn in Israels side.

He went to war to save his nephew Lot (Gen. 14). Speculating, one might see that if

Abraham had not rescued Lot from the kings that had taken him, Lot would not have

remained in Sodom. Lot would not have needed to be rescued by the angels when

Sodom was destroyed. Perhaps his daughters would not have married men of Sodom and

therefore they might have had husbands. They then would not have had children through

+
incest (Gen. 19:31-38). By his act, Abraham might have delayed something that was

supposed to happen. It was foretold that Lots descendants would end up as possessions

of the kings of the east (Ezek. 25:1-11). But according to the prophet Daniel (Dan.

11:41), God seems to reveal that he would ultimately use this as providence for Israel in

the last days.

Then the Hebrews were delivered from bondage, only to fall into idolatry and

vengeance in the promised land. This brought them another long period of punishment.

Then God delivered them. But the people sinned yet again by asking for a king. The

Bible refers to four hundred and eighty years, a period only off by only ten years (1 Kings

6:1). This brought the dynasty of David and the building of the temple. But then

followed a long period of strife culminating about four hundred and ninety years later

with the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, the destruction of the temple and the exile in

Babylon.

The prophet Daniel then is told almost directly about one last cycle of punishment, at

least for the Jews. This was another period of idolatry and allegiances with pagan

empires culminating with the appearance of Christ. Many scholars note that the last

cycle for Jews has one final week of seven years known as the Tribulation to go. This

last seven years was apparently postponed at the appearance of Christ and would appear

to commence at the end of the age.

But what about the cycles of punishment? I would say that they continued even after

Christ. But now the Christian church was on trial. If you look in history you might still

see the cycles. The Christian church grew and prospered but it compromised with the

+
Roman Empire. This led to persecution and apathy. But Rome finally fell, or was badly

hurt, almost exactly four hundred and ninety years after Christ. The Dark Ages lasted

about four hundred ninety years. It was actually a period of much freedom, but what

followed was more church compromise, witchcraft, greed, etc. Some relief came with

the high Middle Ages.

But there was more church compromise and certainly false crusades. There was a

respite with the Protestant Reformation and the discovery of America. It has been about

four hundred and ninety years since then. Are there any more cycles?

The evil seed is all those who take the kingdom by force as Christ commented Cains

descendants known as the Kenites/Cainites are mentioned a few times in the Bible (Gen.

15:19, Num. 10:29, Jdg. 1:16 and 4:11). The name Kenite means smith and fits with

the description of many of Cains descendants in the book of Genesis. Cains descendant,

Tubal-Cain, was a smith like his namesake Kenite tribes. The Kenites appeared to by

allied with the Midianites and were connected to Moses through his Midianite wife

Zipporah. Now, how could the Kenites have descended from Cain? Wouldnt his line

have died out with the flood? Apparently not! The only answer is that the Kenites

descended from one of the wives of Noahs sons, and descend on the womans side or

once did. Its interesting to note that modern Jews (and assumedly others) can only be so,

if they descend from the mothers side. But the Hebrew patriarchs descended on the

fathers side. When did this change take place? Furthermore, why would anyone want to

claim descent from wicked Cain? Perhaps such people dont see Cain as wicked.

Interesting!

+
 Sadly, the real nature and purpose of the nations of the world today is usually

misunderstood. They are thought of as benevolent and indispensable. We enjoy the

boisterous bragging and pageantry as nations compete with one another. This is behind

the popularity of sporting events like the Olympics. Its what makes international

politics, arts, culture, etc. that much more compelling. But the real purpose and fate of

the nations in the world as it is surely have darker and more ominous overtones; they

might even be found out to be ultimately frightening and destructive. They will probably

be revealed to be in opposition to mankind and for purposes against Gods will.

The nations themselves had been ordained by God and are not necessarily entities

that should not be. God had originally intended for mankind to spread over the earth and

populate it. He stated this at the very beginning of the Bible and also commanded it

again after men stopped working on the Tower of Babel. It was after that time that

mankind formed into nations. These groups were surely based on family ties, kinship,

language structures, culture and, last of all, religion. It was how the nations constituted

themselves that displeased God, not that they existed.

We often forget that nations are not just geographical constructs, but are rather cultures,

blood ties, linguistic relationships, etc. This also causes a misunderstanding of the

struggles related in the Bible. We often think those old battles are over. We often ignore

the lessons of the struggles of the children of Israel against the inhabitants of the

Promised Land and against the surrounding nations like Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, etc.

But if we think about them beyond borders and also cloaked within newer cultures, then

we might find that the battle still rages. Most important, we should also keep an eye on

+
the deepest and purest essence of a people. This might mean looking at character traits

instead of geographical location, physical traits, etc. This is getting at the spiritual level,

which is the intention of the Bible, that is, seeing things at all levels and for the deepest

understanding. If we remember that nations may be hidden, and if we open up our

definitions, we might see the full scope and presence of the war. We need to put on the

right glasses, as it were.

Another important name of the Bible is Eber from Hebrew cheber and heber,

sometimes spelled Aber; (Gen. 10:24, 11:14-17). The name means exalted father and

also to emigrate or cross over. Is English over related? What about German ber?

The original word that gave rise to the name is tied to braiding and crossing as they relate

to making clothing. This Eber was an ancestor of Abraham and others in the Middle

East. Abrahams original name has been shown to come from the root ibri, from which

Eber is also derived. Eber is considered an ancestor of the Hebrews and of Jews and

Arabs both.

Most scholars would agree that the word Hebrew comes from the name Eber. It can

clearly be detected in the word Hebrew. The h is basically silent and superficial. The w

is just a sound extension and a written clarifier to the final e. The word arab is most

likely also just a form of the name Eber. The es in Eber have just been replaced by as

and the order of the b and r have been reversed by metathesis. So the words Hebrew and

Arab in some cases may really be the same word! The people these words delineate, as

+
we know, are blood relations. The original ancestor Eber most likely got his name

because he crossed over the Euphrates from the east. His name was certainly given to

him prophetically.

Another ancestor of Abraham was Peleg (Gen. 10:25). This verse gives a little extra

information about Peleg. It states that the earth was divided in his time. Most scholars

take this to mean that the earths population only separated at the time of Peleg, evidently

after the fiasco at the tower of Babel. The Hebrew word peleg means a watercourse,

division, as in a river, canal or even irrigation ditch, something that divides land. There

is a similar word in the related Assyrian language, plagu and in related Akkadian,

pulukku. I propose my own observation: the English word plow or plough might be

related, as one plows a ditch, like an irrigation canal. I note this again because I really

want to show that even English and Hebrew might have more connections, deep in the

past, than has been admitted.1

There is a Greek word, pelagos, which means sea. It can be seen in words like English

archipelago. The Greek word most assuredly has connections to the Hebrew word peleg.

The meaning probably just shifted, from a smaller watercourse in Hebrew, which implied

division, to a larger watercourse in Greek: the sea itself. The Greek meaning leads to a

possible additional meaning to the name Peleg: It may very well have meant that Peleg

himself lived by the sea. He also may have been a seafarer. Indeed, the name of Pelegs

father, Eber, means to emigrate. So Eber may have been the one who moved his family.

This may have been to Chaldea on the Persian Gulf, where Abraham originated or

perhaps to Canaan, the Mediterranean coast of modern Israel.

11 JCS 18, 1964, p. 69.

+
 Moses made a striking statement about the nations of the world when he blessed

Israel in part of a song after the departure from Egypt and the wandering in the

wilderness (Deut. 32:8). This refers to the sons of Israel. The verse seems to say that

God made the boundaries of the nations according to the population of Israel. But the

Septuagint version of this verse has sons of God instead of sons of Israel. This is a

profound difference. If, as remarked earlier, sons of God means angels, then Moses

blessing says that God made the boundaries of the nations according to the numbers of

angels. This would imply that every nation is governed by angels! And it is assumed

fallen angels are in control, since God temporarily handed over authority to Satan (see

Luke 4:5-7).

Its been remarked earlier that angels appear to be ranked and have certain authority.

There are beliefs that Satans government rules over the nations and struggles between

nations on earth are merely shadows of the real struggle in the unseen spirit world. And

the real struggle is between Satan and Israel or the nations of the world and Israel. This is

also echoed by Paul (Eph. 6:12). Depending on how it is translated, the song of Moses

seems to affirm that this is indeed what has happened to the world. It may also be that

God allowed this as punishment for disobeying his initial command to spread out over the

earth. Men eventually spread over the earth, but God was no longer with them; they

+
came under the domination of fallen angels. The purposes and intentions of the nations

became twisted and their primary aim was the destruction of any nation that came under

the domination of God and heaven. Such a nation was and is Israel.

This ocean confederacy was called loosely the Sea People at times in the ancient

world. There is evidence that it was made up roughly of five main nations. According to

ancient inscriptions from many empires, long ago, the five nations were known as

Peleset, Tjeker, Denyens, Shekelesh and Weshesh. Most of these names are more

commonly known in other forms. At least, I propose, as many others have before, that

the Peleset are known to us as Philistines, the Tjeker are known to us as Tyrhennians

(probably of Tyre) or Phoenicians, the Denyens as Danaans (Greeks mentioned in

Homers Iliad), and the Shekelesh are known to us as Sicilians. The Weshesh have not

yet been identified.

One of the central themes of the Bible is God with us, Immanuel. It is not so apparent

throughout, but it is throughout the Bible. It was foreign and a mystery to most, but

appears to have been understood and awaited by some. From just about the first page of

the Bible, God foretold that God himself would come into his own creation as a man and

live among us; he would also redeem his own creation; he would live and die as we do.

God first rather subtly announces this fact early in the Bible (Gen. 3:15), which has been

+
called the protoevangel. Adam also subtly affirms his faith in this statement in the same

chapter, verse 20. This is the first prophecy in the Bible. It is uttered by God himself.

These statements are a bit easy to gloss over. It is easy to miss the astounding importance

of what is being promised. These verses are saying, in other words, that God himself

would be born through Adam and Eve and would destroy Satans seed. So these verses

proclaim that there would be two seeds: Gods and Satans, the seed of the serpent. I

and many others would suggest that history has been just the struggle of these two seeds

over time. These two lines were probably what Christ was referring to as wheat and

tares. Christs coming into the world and defeating death would certainly be the ultimate

victory. Every other victory would then be just a part of that ultimate triumph.

The Bible goes on to develop this struggle between the two seeds. It delineates

which people would bear Gods seed and it has also shown who have born Satans seed.

It seems clear that Cain was the first manifestation of Satans seed in mankind. Many

believe Cain and Abel were actually twins. Abel was meant to bear Gods seed. But he

was murdered by Cain. Abel was replaced by Seth, who is an ancestor of Christ.

Central to Christian belief is that Christ was born by a virgin by the Holy Spirit. So

there is no doubt that a human woman can bear a child through interaction with a spirit.

Can only the Holy Spirit cause human childbirth without the interaction of a man and

woman? Im sure this question would be hotly debated. It may be that other spirits than

the Holy Spirit are and have been able to cause a woman to give birth. This would have

been so with the Nephilim, if sons of God meant angels or spirits. God undoubtedly did

not will for other spirits than the Holy Spirit to sire a human child. But God may have

permitted it.

+
 So Cain was a type of offspring of spirits opposed to God. The giants, or Nephilim,

could well have been the actual offspring of spirits opposed to God, or at least

disobedient. From the non-canonical books of Enoch and Jubilees there are stories which

fill out the scanty information given by the Bible about the mysterious people known as

the giants with various names as Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, etc., found later in the

Bible (Gen. 6:1-4, Num. 13:22; 28-33). The Book of Jude gives something of the events

regarding the origins of these people. The passage about them in Genesis certainly

describes the giants as offspring of some sort.

The apocryphal Book of Enoch relates that fallen angels first mated with human

women on Mount Hermon. For human women to go to Mount Hermon would have been

a violation of Gods authority, because Mount Hermon is west of The Euphrates, although

they may not have known just why they were going to Mount Hermon. Mount Hermon

may not have existed before the Great Flood as it probably greatly altered the terrain.

The book of Joshua indicates that many giants did live and dominate the area around

Mount Hermon (Jos. 12:4-5; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15 and 18:16). Notice that one held to be of

the giant race, Og king of Bashan, ruled over Mount Hermon. This clearly links these

people to that place.

means earth-born coming from Greek gea for earth. This would mean that they

were not created in heaven as the angels had been.

+
 According to the Bible, it appears that the nation of Israel is unique in that it is not

governed by fallen angels. The prophet Daniel seems to indicate that the angel Michael

is the Prince of Israel (Dan. 10:21). He appears to be some type of guardian against the

fallen angels that rule everywhere else on earth. This appears to be a position that is

necessarily under Gods authority and ultimately under Christ.

Even though Christ is of the bloodline of the kings of Israel, it might be a mistake to

give Christ the title of King of Israel or King of the Jews. This is because Christ is really

the King of the Universe and not merely the King of Israel. His authority over Israel will

be ultimately handed over to his servants. Christ even told the apostles that they would

rule over the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28).

The Bible states many times that God would bring the twelve tribes of Israel back to

their homeland. I think that many today mistakenly claim this refers only to the Jews.

The Jews dispersed from Israel shortly after Christs death and the destruction of the

Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. But many of the tribes of Israel left long before this. If God is

speaking about all tribes, then people descended from these tribes are being referred to.

This must be the case, since the lost tribes must have mixed in with other populations.

Where did the lost tribes go? Is there any trace of them?

+
+