More on Comet Lovejoy 2? Comet Lovejoy (the first) passed us with amazing views in the southern hemisphere last year. Now ISON has a dance partner in the sky...
From - http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkSkyWatcher74?feature=watch
Sep 14, 2013
Did Obama Cancel the Syrian Strike on Advice from the Black Pope?
Maybe, maybe not. The "black pope" is the head of the Jesuit order. The Jesuits are the 'Navy seals" of the Roman Church, zealously trying to stamp out "heresy", (that is, anyone who thinks they might find salvation in the person of Jesus Christ without the need for the Pope or Roman Church's blessing) and bring the whole world under the worship and authority of the Pope.
Petrus Romanus: The History of the Black Pope and the Jesuit Order
Adolfo Nicolás, otherwise known as the Jesuit ‘Black Pope’, is a mystery man who almost never steps out of the murky nether-world of end times intrigue. But when US president Barack Obama said he was going to launch a missile strike on Syria, Adolfo Nicolás spoke up. Within 24 hours, Obama had backed down.
Now you know why they call the ‘Black Pope’ the most powerful man in the world.
From NCR: WASHINGTON – A U.S. military strike on Syria would be an “abuse of power” that should be “condemned and rejected,” the global leader of the Jesuit order of Catholic brothers and priests has said.
Jesuit Fr. Adolfo Nicolás, who leads the some 17,000 member order that counts among its ranks Pope Francis, adds his voice to a chorus of Catholic prelates around the world sharply criticizing the attack in an interview made public Wednesday.
“With all respect for the people of the United States, I think that a military intervention like the one being planned is itself an abuse of power,” states Nicolás in the interview. “The US has to stop acting and reacting like the big boy of the neighborhood of the world. This leads inevitably to abuse, harassment and bullying of the weaker members of the community.”
Nicolás, a native Spaniard whose superior general role in the past has been referred to as the “black pope” because of its influence around the world, also says such a military strike would question the authenticity of the United States’ Christian heritage.
Before critiquing the proposed U.S. strike in Syria, Nicolás says he does not usually make comment on political situations, but that “in the present case we are dealing with a Humanitarian situation that exceeds all the limits that would ordinarily keep me silent.”source – National Catholic Reporter.
Read more at - http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=14960
Petrus Romanus: The History of the Black Pope and the Jesuit Order
Adolfo Nicolás, otherwise known as the Jesuit ‘Black Pope’, is a mystery man who almost never steps out of the murky nether-world of end times intrigue. But when US president Barack Obama said he was going to launch a missile strike on Syria, Adolfo Nicolás spoke up. Within 24 hours, Obama had backed down.
Adolfo Nicolás, the Black Pope of the Jesuit Order
From NCR: WASHINGTON – A U.S. military strike on Syria would be an “abuse of power” that should be “condemned and rejected,” the global leader of the Jesuit order of Catholic brothers and priests has said.
Jesuit Fr. Adolfo Nicolás, who leads the some 17,000 member order that counts among its ranks Pope Francis, adds his voice to a chorus of Catholic prelates around the world sharply criticizing the attack in an interview made public Wednesday.
“With all respect for the people of the United States, I think that a military intervention like the one being planned is itself an abuse of power,” states Nicolás in the interview. “The US has to stop acting and reacting like the big boy of the neighborhood of the world. This leads inevitably to abuse, harassment and bullying of the weaker members of the community.”
Nicolás, a native Spaniard whose superior general role in the past has been referred to as the “black pope” because of its influence around the world, also says such a military strike would question the authenticity of the United States’ Christian heritage.
Before critiquing the proposed U.S. strike in Syria, Nicolás says he does not usually make comment on political situations, but that “in the present case we are dealing with a Humanitarian situation that exceeds all the limits that would ordinarily keep me silent.”source – National Catholic Reporter.
Read more at - http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=14960
Sep 13, 2013
Is Ison A Comet? New Images
Credit to BPEarthwatch's Youtube channel for keeping us updated on this. This video goes into the likelihood of this object generating a plasma trail as well as explaining the parallax factor and how it does not account for the unusual images we are getting. Is should also mention NASA's comet hunter satellite EPOXI was just declared lost or offline, so shockingly, one less source of images for the incoming ISON object.
Comet ISON - Doomsday, Asteroids & a Wake
This is from Thornews, and there is some interesting info about the comet here, but there is a lot of other crazy, insane and bizarreness that is unique to Thornews. He's a meandering poet holding onto sanity with a thread of information, and the occasional cursing rampage. So, you've been prepared. Here is Thornews.
Sep 12, 2013
Return of the Nephilim - Chuck Missler
Sorry I could only find the long version, but it's worth the watch. Lots on Nephilim, strange things in the skies, angelic battles and much more.
Ben Swann Reality Check: More Americans "Rethinking" 9/11
Well done. We do need to seriously consider the facts of the stories we are being spoon-fed by our "enlightened" leaders.
Sep 10, 2013
Large green fireball explodes over Alabama, event seen from surrounding states, filmed at Mumford and Sons Birmingham concert
Vincent Perlerin
Over 80 (so far) witnesses reported a large fireball over Alabama last night (9/9) around 8:35 PM local CDT (1:30 on 10/9 UT). The fireball was seen from primarily Alabama and Ohio, but witnesses from Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky also reported seeing the fireball.
We are currently investigating dozen of reports about this event. We will update this page later today with more information.
Here is the current heat map for the event
that shows where the witnesses reported from. Click the image below to review the event map and witness reports for this fireball.
Someone catched the fireball on video at the Mumford & Sons concert at Oak Mountain Amphitheater in Birmingham, AL.
© AMS.org
Heat Map For AMS Event 2013/1907
Heat Map For AMS Event 2013/1907
We are currently investigating dozen of reports about this event. We will update this page later today with more information.
Here is the current heat map for the event
© Dr.Bill Cooke, NASA
The fireball event was captured on all-sky cameras in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee at 20:18 CDT on 9 Sept 2013.
The fireball event was captured on all-sky cameras in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee at 20:18 CDT on 9 Sept 2013.
Someone catched the fireball on video at the Mumford & Sons concert at Oak Mountain Amphitheater in Birmingham, AL.
Read more at - http://www.sott.net/article/266186-Large-green-fireball-explodes-over-Alabama-event-seen-from-surrounding-states-filmed-at-Mumford-and-Sons-Birmingham-concert
The Endgame - FEMA/NWO
I've not been covering much of this, but I have a lot of international readers who are not aware of what is happening within the U.S. While much of the power once granted FEMA has now been shifted to the DHS, the end result is the same. The recent announcement of Russian soldiers being used by FEMA at disaster drills is absolutely stunning. In a nation with rampant unemployment, we need to bring in Russian soldiers to for "crowd control"? Laws are changed for one reason...to be implemented at a later date. The only question is when...
Truth behind the Black Stone, Allah, Quran & Kaaba first built by Asa'd Abu Karb (410-435 A.D.)
This should be familiar to anyone who has researched the origins of Islam. Muslims amazingly claim Muhammad came to "correct" the scripture of the Jews and Christians (which logically implies a God who is not omnipotent) despite the fact that the early writings of Muhammad were repeatedly corrected in the first century after they were dictated to the "prophet" by an angry angel in a cave. For more background on the origins, see "The Truth About Angels, by Terry Law" or check out Acts 17 youtube channel for continuing studies.
Nimrod and the Tower of Babel
I have read the book listed below and found the research excellent. It's also spiritually uplifting in the manner which Peter Goodgame has written it, that is focusing on the Holy Spirit's work in the church, not just on the work of the Dragon. I'm not in agreement with his timeline, as it has some logical inconsistencies, but his historical research on who Nimrod was and what actually happened at Babel is the best I've read. Good stuff.
Peter D. Goodgame
A year ago, in the Summer of 2012, my latest book was published by Tom Horn and Defender Publishing entitled, The Second Coming of the Antichrist. Based on several years of intense research it brought forward a whole new paradigm through which to view the end-times career of the biblical Antichrist. Central to this new view was the idea that the Antichrist has been here before, and that he was once a powerful king who ruled over the world's very first superpower. The fall of that superpower was dated to circa 3100 BCE, directly connected to the Tower of Babel event of Genesis 11 and the breakup of the great Empire of Uruk.
No doubt this research has been problematic for many Christians who put their faith in the biblical chronology of ancient times that is found in modern English bibles, including the KJV. These bibles, based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text, place the Tower of Babel event circa 2100 BC. So why should we pay attention to a date that is one thousand years earlier and appears to contradict the Bible? The answer to this question is the Septuagint. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was produced several hundred years before the Jews who rejected Christ put together an updated version of the Hebrew Old Testament that is known today as the Masoretic Text (MT).
For several hundred years the early Christian Church —a predominantly Greek-speaking Church— looked solely to the LXX as the inspired version of the Old Testament. Their devotion to the LXX was very similar to the devotion many English-speaking Christians show today towards the 1611 KJV translation of the bible. To early Christians the LXX was the inspired Word of God for the Christian Era. Indeed, when Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Old Testament their quotes agree with the Greek LXX over the Hebrew MT the majority of the time, and they spoke Hebrew, so this in itself should be astonishing. Then when we turn to the first Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, we see that they quote directly from the LXX almost exclusively.
The Masoretic Text was put together by leading Jews in the first and second centuries CE, and when confronted with the differences between the LXX and the MT many early Christians argued that the Jewish scribes had obviously changed what the original inspired manuscripts had recorded! It was only beginning with Origen of Alexandria, circa 230 CE, when the Hebrew MT began to be viewed by Christians as a potentially valid translation of the Old Testament. All of this controversy is covered in great detail in the new book, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible by Timothy Law, published in July, 2013.
I mention all of this background not to get Christians to throw away their bible versions based on the MT, but simply to show that the LXX deserves to be considered as Scripture as well, and should be consulted and compared with all of the other original textual sources that are available. Specifically I believe that the Septuagint should be considered when we look into ancient history and try to arrive at dates for watershed events.
A truly watershed event was the Great Flood of the book of Genesis. The MT dates this event to 2348 BCE, whereas the LXX dates it to 3536 BCE. This is a very serious difference of 1200 years! So which text should we believe? I know that there is a common mystical belief out there that the Masoretic Text was dictated by God to Moses letter-by-letter and that this is supposedly proven by the Bible Codes and "equidistant letter sequences," but the fact is that Moses didn't write in the squared-off style of Hebrew used by the Masoretic scribes. Truthfully we don't know what the writing of Moses looked like, (although many believe he wrote the original Torah in paleo-Hebrew which preceded the Masoretic script and was much more cursive in style). If we let go of this mythological account of the origin of the MT we are left with very little to go on when comparing the validity of the MT versus the LXX, at least if we contain our arguments to textual analysis and theology. So we have to turn to the secular histories of the surrounding nations to discover which chronology holds up to scrutiny and makes rational sense.
Ancient Sumer
The land of the two rivers is rightfully known as the "Cradle of Civilization." It is in the region of southern Mesopotamia where Cain founded the first city before the Flood, and this is where the first "Kingdom" was established after the Flood by Nimrod, according to Genesis 10:10. Sumer is credited as the first civilization to invent writing and mankind's very first body of literature was created here. More than any other culture, the stories of ancient Sumer parallel the stories found in the first few chapters of Genesis, although with a twist. As I show in chapter three of my book the Sumerians documented the same events as found in Genesis, but their perspective was theologically opposite. In any case, what is unique about the Sumerians is that while other cultures retained a mythological memory of a Great Flood that occurred in the distant past, the Sumerians documented the Great Flood as an historical event, occurring at a specific time in their history.
The historical chronology of the ancient Sumerians is related in the Sumerian King List (SKL), copies of which have been found on several
cuneiform tablets or blocks dating to different periods. It begins like this:
British historian and biblical scholar David Rohl, coming from a secular perspective, offers evidence that the original city of Eridu was the very city founded by Cain in Genesis 4:17.[1] When the Sumerian King List was later translated into Greek by the Babylonian High Priest Berossos around 280 BCE the name of this first city of Eridu was translated as "Babylon." In his commentary on Revelation 18 the early Church Father, Caesarius of Arles, offered support for the idea that Cain founded the original Babylon when he wrote,
The Sumerian narrative gets even more interesting when we turn to events that took place after the flood. The first two dynasties that are mentioned after the flood on the Sumerian King List are the dynasties of Kish and the dynasties of Uruk. Kish is mentioned first, but it is possible that the first two kings of the dynasty of Uruk may have reigned before Kish right after the flood, who were then followed by the kings of Kish, who were then eclipsed several hundred years later by Uruk under the rule of Gilgamesh. This can be argued because of the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh depicts Gilgamesh as a contemporary of King Aga, who was the last of the Kings of Kish. In other words, it was Gilgamesh of Uruk who brought an end to the Kish Dynasty, and therefore the kings of Uruk who preceded Gilgamesh must have ruled either before or alongside the kings of the Kish Dynasty.
The first two kings of the Dynasty of Uruk to rule in Sumer after the flood are described like this in the Sumerian King List:
These facts are all necessary simply to bring us to this point: The civilization of ancient Sumer experienced the very events that are described in the early chapters of Genesis. Their history goes right back to the very first city, documenting the Great Flood and the career of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, as well as a continuous line of kings and dynasties afterwards. These histories eventually lead right into the reign of Hammurabi of Babylon who lived between the time of Abraham and Moses.
Now here is the problem: If we look to the MT date of 2348 BCE as the date for the Flood we simply don't have enough room to cram all of this Sumerian history in between that time and Hammurabi! There are just too many kings, too many dynasties and too much documented history to make it happen! We need an extra thousand years or so to make Biblical history line up with Sumerian history! And that is where the Septuagint comes in with its Flood date of 3536 BCE.
The Uruk Expansion
We have looked at ancient Sumerian textual sources and now we will turn to modern archaeological sources for evidence of post-flood biblical history being played out in Mesopotamia in the years following the Septuagint's Flood date of 3536 BCE.
Many Christians harbor a deep suspicion of archaeology based on the assumption that the academic and scientific worlds operate with an axe to grind against the biblical record. As if all the academic experts have secretly agreed to come together to promote studies, research, and evidence with the singular goal of discrediting what the bible says. Generations ago this suspicion may have carried greater weight, but today this is hardly the case. The bible has been dismissed for so long in this realm and therefore my opinion is that, in general, most high-level published academic researchers are simply doing their best to interpret the data. They don't begin their research with an agenda against the bible, and neither do they try to wrap their research around pre-conceived ideas hoping to prove the bible. Instead they essentially ignore the bible and do their best to assemble the facts and then to interpret them to the best of their abilities. Coming from this perspective I think it is all the more noteworthy what scientific research in the field of archaeology has produced regarding a phenomenon in Mesopotamian history known as the "Uruk Expansion." Keep in mind that proper scientific studies of this phenomenon have only been in existence since about 1975, when the archaeological data first began to be identified.
The "Uruk Expansion" is an academic term for the growth of the Empire of Uruk during a period of a few hundred years from sometime around the middle of the 4th Millennium BCE to a concrete end date right around 3100 BCE. Some scholars place the start date at 3700, others at 3600, while others place it at 3400 BCE, but all of them agree that this empire ended abruptly, even catastrophically, right around 3100 BCE. In the notes below I refer to several sources involved in this research, and readers can also refer to a recent study published in late 2011 entitled, The Uruk Expansion: Culture Contact, Ideology and Middlemen. In chapter seven of my book I give a basic overview of the Uruk Expansion, identifying it with the aggressive imperial expansion of Nimrod, the biblical king of Uruk and builder of the Tower of Babel, who is named in Sumerian records as Enmerkar of Uruk. History Professor Mario Liverani offers an overview of this time period:
The Origins of Dynastic Egypt
Like the Sumerians, the Egyptians carefully recorded their own history and origins. Unlike the Sumerians, they provide no history of a Great Flood. From its record of the king that first unified Egypt in the pre-dynastic past right until the New Kingdom dynasties of the classical period there is an unbroken recorded chain of events that are completely silent regarding an event that the bible says wiped out the entire human family except for eight souls. Logically we must conclude that Egyptian history did not begin until after the Great Flood. Once again, if we look to a flood date of 2348 BCE we find that there is not enough room to cram all of this history into only a handful of centuries from the flood to Abraham. The Septuagint flood date of 3536 BCE is the only date that works.
The most famous chronological history of Egypt was compiled by the Egyptian high priest Manetho sometime around 250 BCE. Written in Greek it was a three-volume work called the Aegyptiaca, or History of Egypt. Manetho drew from an earlier document known as the Turin Canon that dates back to 1250 BCE created during the reign of Ramesses II. From these sources the beginning of Egyptian history traces back to an original king who unified Egypt named as Meni (Turin Canon) or Menes (Manetho), who was the founder of the First Dynasty of Egypt. Here is what Manetho recorded about this conquering king:
In the archaeological record there are two different kings that are identified by Egyptologists as King Menes. Some identify Narmer as Menes, whereas others identify his successor, King Aha, as Menes. I favor identifying Narmer as Menes, but the emerging academic consensus (promoted by Zahi Hawass) seems to favor Aha. In any case, Egyptologists agree that Narmer was the first king to unite upper and lower Egypt by conquest, as depicted in the artifacts known as the Narmer Palette (right) and the Narmer Macehead. I cover all of the Narmer issues in my book and in my online article, The First Pharaoh, providing an abundance of evidence that King Narmer the conqueror of Egypt was the very same figure as King Enmerkar of Uruk, known also as King Nimrod in the book of Genesis.
Most Egyptologists view the conquest of Egypt by Narmer as a pre-Dynastic event, and therefore they mark the founding of the First Dynasty with the accession of King Aha to the throne. It is the dating of King Aha's reign that connects the end of the Uruk Expansion with the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt and confirms the timeline derived from the Septuagint that is the basis of my book.
Just recently, in fact yesterday, September 4, 2013, a scientific study was released by the British Royal Society entitled, "An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling." This study came to my attention through my Facebook page from a friend (thanks Tama Ferrell) linking to a BBC report entitled "New timeline for origin of ancient Egypt." The reporter wrote,
All of this newly emerging data fits perfectly and supports the hypothesis put forth in my book, The Second Coming of the Antichrist, which indeed offers new insights into this influential period in human history.Peter D. Goodgame
Kailua, Hawaii
September 5, 2013
Notes and Sources
1. David Rohl, The Lost Testament (London, UK: Century, 2002), 66.
2. William C. Weinrich editor, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture: Vol. 12 - Revelation (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005), page 295. [From Caesarius of Arles, "Exposition on the Apocalypse" 18.21-24, Homily 17.]
3. David Rohl, Legend, 164
4. Mario Liverani, Uruk: The First City (London, UK: Equinox, 2006 [1998]), 73.
5. Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, 1996, p. 131
Septuagint research:
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, Timothy Law, July, 2013.
Uruk Expansion studies:
The leading expert on “Uruk Expansion” studies is the University of San Diego-based Professor Guillermo Algaze. He is the author of two books on the subject:
The Uruk Expansion: Culture Contact, Ideology and Middlemen
For more info or Peter Goodgame's book, go to - http://www.redmoonrising.com/
Peter D. Goodgame
A year ago, in the Summer of 2012, my latest book was published by Tom Horn and Defender Publishing entitled, The Second Coming of the Antichrist. Based on several years of intense research it brought forward a whole new paradigm through which to view the end-times career of the biblical Antichrist. Central to this new view was the idea that the Antichrist has been here before, and that he was once a powerful king who ruled over the world's very first superpower. The fall of that superpower was dated to circa 3100 BCE, directly connected to the Tower of Babel event of Genesis 11 and the breakup of the great Empire of Uruk.No doubt this research has been problematic for many Christians who put their faith in the biblical chronology of ancient times that is found in modern English bibles, including the KJV. These bibles, based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text, place the Tower of Babel event circa 2100 BC. So why should we pay attention to a date that is one thousand years earlier and appears to contradict the Bible? The answer to this question is the Septuagint. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was produced several hundred years before the Jews who rejected Christ put together an updated version of the Hebrew Old Testament that is known today as the Masoretic Text (MT).
For several hundred years the early Christian Church —a predominantly Greek-speaking Church— looked solely to the LXX as the inspired version of the Old Testament. Their devotion to the LXX was very similar to the devotion many English-speaking Christians show today towards the 1611 KJV translation of the bible. To early Christians the LXX was the inspired Word of God for the Christian Era. Indeed, when Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Old Testament their quotes agree with the Greek LXX over the Hebrew MT the majority of the time, and they spoke Hebrew, so this in itself should be astonishing. Then when we turn to the first Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, we see that they quote directly from the LXX almost exclusively.
The Masoretic Text was put together by leading Jews in the first and second centuries CE, and when confronted with the differences between the LXX and the MT many early Christians argued that the Jewish scribes had obviously changed what the original inspired manuscripts had recorded! It was only beginning with Origen of Alexandria, circa 230 CE, when the Hebrew MT began to be viewed by Christians as a potentially valid translation of the Old Testament. All of this controversy is covered in great detail in the new book, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible by Timothy Law, published in July, 2013.
I mention all of this background not to get Christians to throw away their bible versions based on the MT, but simply to show that the LXX deserves to be considered as Scripture as well, and should be consulted and compared with all of the other original textual sources that are available. Specifically I believe that the Septuagint should be considered when we look into ancient history and try to arrive at dates for watershed events.
A truly watershed event was the Great Flood of the book of Genesis. The MT dates this event to 2348 BCE, whereas the LXX dates it to 3536 BCE. This is a very serious difference of 1200 years! So which text should we believe? I know that there is a common mystical belief out there that the Masoretic Text was dictated by God to Moses letter-by-letter and that this is supposedly proven by the Bible Codes and "equidistant letter sequences," but the fact is that Moses didn't write in the squared-off style of Hebrew used by the Masoretic scribes. Truthfully we don't know what the writing of Moses looked like, (although many believe he wrote the original Torah in paleo-Hebrew which preceded the Masoretic script and was much more cursive in style). If we let go of this mythological account of the origin of the MT we are left with very little to go on when comparing the validity of the MT versus the LXX, at least if we contain our arguments to textual analysis and theology. So we have to turn to the secular histories of the surrounding nations to discover which chronology holds up to scrutiny and makes rational sense.
Ancient Sumer
The land of the two rivers is rightfully known as the "Cradle of Civilization." It is in the region of southern Mesopotamia where Cain founded the first city before the Flood, and this is where the first "Kingdom" was established after the Flood by Nimrod, according to Genesis 10:10. Sumer is credited as the first civilization to invent writing and mankind's very first body of literature was created here. More than any other culture, the stories of ancient Sumer parallel the stories found in the first few chapters of Genesis, although with a twist. As I show in chapter three of my book the Sumerians documented the same events as found in Genesis, but their perspective was theologically opposite. In any case, what is unique about the Sumerians is that while other cultures retained a mythological memory of a Great Flood that occurred in the distant past, the Sumerians documented the Great Flood as an historical event, occurring at a specific time in their history.
The historical chronology of the ancient Sumerians is related in the Sumerian King List (SKL), copies of which have been found on several
cuneiform tablets or blocks dating to different periods. It begins like this:The Sumerian scribes documented the names of kings and the cities that they ruled over, beginning with the founding of the great city of Eridu(g). The dating of these dynasties in terms of thousands of years is obviously exaggerated, (or else, as some scholars have argued, is a misunderstanding or mistranslation of the Sumerian cuneiform script). The fact remains, however, that the Sumerians placed the Great Flood solidly within their historical chronology.After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug.
In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years.
Alaljar ruled for 36000 years.
2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years.
Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira.
In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years.
En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years.
Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years.
3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years.
Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag.
In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years.
1 king; he ruled for 28800 years.
Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir.
In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years.
1 king; he ruled for 21000 years.
Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag.
In Curuppag, Ubara- Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years.
1 king; he ruled for 18600 years.
In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years.
Then the flood swept over.
British historian and biblical scholar David Rohl, coming from a secular perspective, offers evidence that the original city of Eridu was the very city founded by Cain in Genesis 4:17.[1] When the Sumerian King List was later translated into Greek by the Babylonian High Priest Berossos around 280 BCE the name of this first city of Eridu was translated as "Babylon." In his commentary on Revelation 18 the early Church Father, Caesarius of Arles, offered support for the idea that Cain founded the original Babylon when he wrote,
...this is the city of all the proud and arrogant, which Cain established by the blood of his brother and which he named after his son, Enoch... For all the wicked in whom Babylon resides succeed one another and persecute the Church of God until the end of the world. In the city of Cain "all the righteous blood" is poured out "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah"... This is the city which killed the prophets and stoned those who were sent to it. This is that city that is built upon blood, as the Scriptures say [Hab. 2:12], "Woe to him who builds a city with blood and founds a city on iniquity." [2]So we see that human civilization traces all the way back to the founding of the original Babylon by Cain, who was also the perpetrator of history's first murder. From this perspective the judgment upon Babylon in Revelation 18:24 begins to make much more sense: "And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."
The Sumerian narrative gets even more interesting when we turn to events that took place after the flood. The first two dynasties that are mentioned after the flood on the Sumerian King List are the dynasties of Kish and the dynasties of Uruk. Kish is mentioned first, but it is possible that the first two kings of the dynasty of Uruk may have reigned before Kish right after the flood, who were then followed by the kings of Kish, who were then eclipsed several hundred years later by Uruk under the rule of Gilgamesh. This can be argued because of the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh depicts Gilgamesh as a contemporary of King Aga, who was the last of the Kings of Kish. In other words, it was Gilgamesh of Uruk who brought an end to the Kish Dynasty, and therefore the kings of Uruk who preceded Gilgamesh must have ruled either before or alongside the kings of the Kish Dynasty.
The first two kings of the Dynasty of Uruk to rule in Sumer after the flood are described like this in the Sumerian King List:
It is interesting that the first king of the Uruk Dynasty reigned before the city of Uruk was even built. The actual founding of the city of Uruk is credited to Enmerkar, the second king of the "Dynasty of Uruk." The first king is the biblical Cush, who emigrated by sea from Mesopotamia and formed a colony that became named after him in the mountainous land of Cush (today's Ethiopia). The second king, who built the city of Uruk, is Nimrod the descendent of Cush who is credited in Genesis 10:10 with establishing a kingdom based in Shinar that was later expanded into northern Mesopotamia. Nimrod's southern base included the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh. The city of Erech is of course Uruk, while the city of Babel is the very same city of Eridu that was first established by Cain before the Flood. In my book I bring forth the evidence that it was here in Eridu where the Tower of Babel was built. Eridu was the spiritual capital of Nimrod's kingdom, whereas Uruk (Erech) was his political capital from where his empire spread out.
- Meskiagkashar, son of Utu, became high priest and king - reigned 324 years. Meskiagkashar went down into the sea and came out at the mountains.
- Enmerkar, the son of Meskiagkashar, the king of Uruk, who built Uruk - reigned 420 years. [3]
These facts are all necessary simply to bring us to this point: The civilization of ancient Sumer experienced the very events that are described in the early chapters of Genesis. Their history goes right back to the very first city, documenting the Great Flood and the career of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, as well as a continuous line of kings and dynasties afterwards. These histories eventually lead right into the reign of Hammurabi of Babylon who lived between the time of Abraham and Moses.
Now here is the problem: If we look to the MT date of 2348 BCE as the date for the Flood we simply don't have enough room to cram all of this Sumerian history in between that time and Hammurabi! There are just too many kings, too many dynasties and too much documented history to make it happen! We need an extra thousand years or so to make Biblical history line up with Sumerian history! And that is where the Septuagint comes in with its Flood date of 3536 BCE.
The Uruk Expansion
We have looked at ancient Sumerian textual sources and now we will turn to modern archaeological sources for evidence of post-flood biblical history being played out in Mesopotamia in the years following the Septuagint's Flood date of 3536 BCE.
Many Christians harbor a deep suspicion of archaeology based on the assumption that the academic and scientific worlds operate with an axe to grind against the biblical record. As if all the academic experts have secretly agreed to come together to promote studies, research, and evidence with the singular goal of discrediting what the bible says. Generations ago this suspicion may have carried greater weight, but today this is hardly the case. The bible has been dismissed for so long in this realm and therefore my opinion is that, in general, most high-level published academic researchers are simply doing their best to interpret the data. They don't begin their research with an agenda against the bible, and neither do they try to wrap their research around pre-conceived ideas hoping to prove the bible. Instead they essentially ignore the bible and do their best to assemble the facts and then to interpret them to the best of their abilities. Coming from this perspective I think it is all the more noteworthy what scientific research in the field of archaeology has produced regarding a phenomenon in Mesopotamian history known as the "Uruk Expansion." Keep in mind that proper scientific studies of this phenomenon have only been in existence since about 1975, when the archaeological data first began to be identified.
At the height of its development the Late Uruk culture included the following elements: a capital of indisputable preeminence, Uruk itself measuring one hundred hectares, with its sacred and organizational center at the Eanna precinct; a central territory that embraced all of Lower Mesopotamia (poorly known in this phase, unfortunately) and Khuzistan (Susa); a zone that we can define as the semi-periphery, Upper Mesopotamia, with a mixed culture; and a zone with commercial outposts distributed over the Anatolian and Iranian highlands. But this system had a short lifespan of only a couple of centuries. The settlements of the periphery were destroyed or abandoned, and the long development of the Eanna center was interrupted. It seems, therefore, that the first period of urbanization faced a crisis or a real collapse, after a long formative phase and the culmination of its internal organization (writing) and commercial expansion (colonies). [4]The date of circa 3100 BCE (give or take at most a few decades) for the abrupt end of the power and influence of Uruk, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel, is one of the most concrete benchmarks that can be applied to the ancient world. It is corroborated by Sumerian history, modern archaeology, and by the chronology of the Greek Septuagint Old Testament Bible. From Mesopotamia we now turn west to examine the evidence that the end of the Uruk Expansion directly led to the beginning of the emergence of the great civilization of ancient Egypt.
The Origins of Dynastic Egypt
Like the Sumerians, the Egyptians carefully recorded their own history and origins. Unlike the Sumerians, they provide no history of a Great Flood. From its record of the king that first unified Egypt in the pre-dynastic past right until the New Kingdom dynasties of the classical period there is an unbroken recorded chain of events that are completely silent regarding an event that the bible says wiped out the entire human family except for eight souls. Logically we must conclude that Egyptian history did not begin until after the Great Flood. Once again, if we look to a flood date of 2348 BCE we find that there is not enough room to cram all of this history into only a handful of centuries from the flood to Abraham. The Septuagint flood date of 3536 BCE is the only date that works.
The most famous chronological history of Egypt was compiled by the Egyptian high priest Manetho sometime around 250 BCE. Written in Greek it was a three-volume work called the Aegyptiaca, or History of Egypt. Manetho drew from an earlier document known as the Turin Canon that dates back to 1250 BCE created during the reign of Ramesses II. From these sources the beginning of Egyptian history traces back to an original king who unified Egypt named as Meni (Turin Canon) or Menes (Manetho), who was the founder of the First Dynasty of Egypt. Here is what Manetho recorded about this conquering king:
After the dead and the demigods comes the First Dynasty, with 8 kings of whom Menes was the first. He was an excellent leader. In what follows are recorded the rulers from all of the ruling houses in succession.
Dynasty One, 1st King - Menes of Thinis, whom Herodotus calls Men, and his 7 descendents. He ruled 62 years. He led the army across the frontier and won great glory. He was killed by a hippopotamus. [5]
In the archaeological record there are two different kings that are identified by Egyptologists as King Menes. Some identify Narmer as Menes, whereas others identify his successor, King Aha, as Menes. I favor identifying Narmer as Menes, but the emerging academic consensus (promoted by Zahi Hawass) seems to favor Aha. In any case, Egyptologists agree that Narmer was the first king to unite upper and lower Egypt by conquest, as depicted in the artifacts known as the Narmer Palette (right) and the Narmer Macehead. I cover all of the Narmer issues in my book and in my online article, The First Pharaoh, providing an abundance of evidence that King Narmer the conqueror of Egypt was the very same figure as King Enmerkar of Uruk, known also as King Nimrod in the book of Genesis.Most Egyptologists view the conquest of Egypt by Narmer as a pre-Dynastic event, and therefore they mark the founding of the First Dynasty with the accession of King Aha to the throne. It is the dating of King Aha's reign that connects the end of the Uruk Expansion with the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt and confirms the timeline derived from the Septuagint that is the basis of my book.
Just recently, in fact yesterday, September 4, 2013, a scientific study was released by the British Royal Society entitled, "An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling." This study came to my attention through my Facebook page from a friend (thanks Tama Ferrell) linking to a BBC report entitled "New timeline for origin of ancient Egypt." The reporter wrote,
Using radiocarbon dating and computer models, [researchers] believe the civilisation's first ruler - King Aha - came to power in about 3100BC... Archaeologists believe Egypt's first king... came to power after another prominent leader, Narmer, unified the land.When we turn to the actual report we find a further explanation of this time period within the introduction to their findings:
The Egyptian state is normally defined to start with the First Dynasty, which was established during the Naqada IIIC cultural period. For this study, we take the foundation date to refer to the accession of king Aha of the First Dynasty, although his predecessor, Narmer, most probably held political control over the whole state. Historical foundation dates vary widely and recent estimates range from 3400 to 2900 BCE. An absolute chronology for the Predynastic would allow for new insights into this influential period in human history.As the report states, prior to the research completed by this team there were competing estimates for the start of King Aha's reign that varied by 500 years. The goal of the research was to use archeological data, radiocarbon dating, and computer models to arrive at a much more precise absolute date for this event. Using the most precise models the researchers arrived at a period of time for this event from 3111 to 3045 BCE, and a median value of all their modeling arriving at 3085 BCE. In other words, all of their scientific data when fed into computers points to 3085 BCE as the most statistically-likely year for the beginning of King Aha's reign over Egypt. This is after the death of King Narmer of Egypt, whom I have identified as King Nimrod of Uruk, which ties directly into the parallel archaeological research in Mesopotamia that places the end of Nimrod's "Uruk Expansion" and the fall of the Tower of Babel right around 3100 BCE.
All of this newly emerging data fits perfectly and supports the hypothesis put forth in my book, The Second Coming of the Antichrist, which indeed offers new insights into this influential period in human history.Peter D. Goodgame
Kailua, Hawaii
September 5, 2013
Notes and Sources
1. David Rohl, The Lost Testament (London, UK: Century, 2002), 66.
2. William C. Weinrich editor, Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture: Vol. 12 - Revelation (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005), page 295. [From Caesarius of Arles, "Exposition on the Apocalypse" 18.21-24, Homily 17.]
3. David Rohl, Legend, 164
4. Mario Liverani, Uruk: The First City (London, UK: Equinox, 2006 [1998]), 73.
5. Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, 1996, p. 131
Septuagint research:
When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, Timothy Law, July, 2013.
“CREATION AND CATASTROPHE CHRONOLOGY” http://www.setterfield.org/ccchron/barrychron.html, Barry Setterfield
Uruk Expansion studies:
The leading expert on “Uruk Expansion” studies is the University of San Diego-based Professor Guillermo Algaze. He is the author of two books on the subject:
The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (2005)→ Civilization and Its Discontents: Why did the world's first civilization cut a swath across the Near East? Science News, 1990, Bruce Bower - http://chip.choate.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/HPRSS/jstanley/webpages/pdf/civilization_discontents.pdf
Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape (2008)
The Uruk Expansion: Culture Contact, Ideology and Middlemen
For more info or Peter Goodgame's book, go to - http://www.redmoonrising.com/
Full Moon Silhouettes
Sometimes, it's nice just to enjoy the blessings and beauty around us...
Full Moon Silhouettes from Mark Gee on Vimeo.
Sep 9, 2013
ISON's Coma Has Grown from 55,000 to 75,000 km
More info on the approaching comet...if it is a comet...
How To Pass From Curse to Blessing by Derek Prince - Part 5
Interesting points here on the power of authority, as decreed by God, in spiritual warfare. Those with authority have power to bless or curse those under their authority.
Human Animal Hybrids Exist! | Tom Horn | It's Supernatural with Sid Roth
This interview is clipped poorly, with some answers cut off. Also, Sid seems to interrupt a number of the answers, but you can get the foundational ideas from the interview. The research that Tom Horn has done is excellent, and of extreme importance at this late hour of history.
How the Seeker-Sensitive, Consumer Church Is Failing a Generation
We don’t need gimmicks; we need the gospel
The millennial generation's much-talked-about departure from church might lead those of us over 30 to conclude that they have little interest in Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Unfortunately, their spiritual coming of age has coincided with many Protestant pastors relying on a consumer business model to grow and sustain their churches. This template for doing church and the millennials' hunger for authenticity has caused an ideological collision.
Seeker-sensitive services originally promised to woo post-moderns back into the fold. Out the stained glass window went the somewhat formal 45-minute exegetical sermon, replaced by a shorter, story-based talk to address the "felt needs" of the congregants while reinforcing the premise that following Jesus would dramatically improve their quality of life.
Contemporary worship had already found its way into the mainstream, but their new model nudged the church further toward a rock-concert feel. Finally, programs proliferated, with programs for nearly every demographic, from Mothers of Preschoolers to Red Glove Motorcycle Riders.
None of these changes were pernicious or even poorly intentioned. In the case of my previous church, choosing the seeker model began innocently. The staff endeavored to create a wide on-ramp for folks who might ordinarily bypass the sanctuary in favor of Starbucks. (As an incentive, we provided fair-trade coffee and bagels each week.) Trained not to assume that everyone was on the same page politically or spiritually, we sought to have friendly, nuanced conversations with visitors.
Being aware of those who come through the doors of any organization is a good thing. I have walked out of many services without a single person engaging with me. However, many churches gradually, and perhaps unwittingly, transitioned from being appropriately sensitive to the needs of their congregants to becoming–if you'll permit some pop-psychologizing–co-dependent with them.
What does co-dependence look like within a church? Avoiding sections of Scripture out of fear that certain power pockets will be offended. Believing that repeat attendance depends primarily upon the staff's seamless execution of Sunday morning–rather than the manifest presence of God. Eliminating doleful songs from the worship repertoire because they might contradict the through line that "following Jesus is all gain."
Jesus was neither a co-dependent nor a businessman. He unashamedly loved those on the margins and revealed himself to all who were searching. He seemed quite indifferent about whether or not he disappointed the power brokers. Additionally, Jesus understood that the irreducible gospel message—that we are all sinners in need of being saved—was, and always will be, offensive. No brilliant marketing campaign could ever repackage it.
I have been following after Jesus for more than three decades and the gospel still makes me bristle. Love those who publicly maligned me? Confess my sins to a friend? You're kidding Jesus, aren't you? Only he's not kidding. Both his words and his life clearly demonstrate that to align ourselves with him means that we must be willing to forsake everything so that we might become more like him.
Rather than helping congregants in this endeavor, churches that bend into their mercurial whims foster a me-first mentality. This actually plays into one of the potential root sins of this generation: self-absorption. While it's all too easy for those of us over the age of 30 to poke fun at their selfie antics, I think young Christians actually want the church to help them reign in their narcissism. Writer Aleah Marsden told me, "We definitely want to see Jesus at the center because the rest of the world keeps shouting that we're the center. We don't need the church to echo the world."
As they clamor for a communion supper with the best wine and freshly baked bread, the seeker-sensitive, consumer model has offered them treacly grape juice and dry cracker pieces, leaving them unsatisfied and frustrated. In an article about college students who turned from Christianity to atheism, Larry Alex Taunton wrote:
Christianity, when it is taken seriously, compels its adherents to engage the world, not retreat from it... These students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable.
Based on the dissonance between Sunday morning and the other six and a half days of the week, it would seem that many of us have passively acclimated to a faith that demands very little of us. Perhaps millennials' dissatisfaction with and departure from the church will motivate all of us to opt for more integrity and authenticity.
Sep 8, 2013
Calvinism and Arminianism
I've lived under the very strong conviction that "predestination" and "free will" are both completely true, as both are written clearly in the scriptures. The fact that our minds cannot conceive of this fully is to be expected, as we are not God, and not capable of fully comprehending the things of Him. We see partial truths now, but the idea that God's perfect mercy and forgiveness is compatible with His perfect justice is beyond the mind of any human being to full comprehend and answer questions knowledgeably. Let us be content to say God's word is true, and we will know it all one day soon, oh so very soon.....
Strange Shifts in the Moon's Orbital Path
I might add it's not just the moon, but even the sun, in this location, is rising 10 to 15 degrees further south than has happened in my lifetime. Strange days indeed!
Feast-day Eclipses in 2014-15: What do they Mean?
Some background on the expected four "blood moons" that will fall exactly on holy feast days in 2014 and 2015. Interesting stuff, and well worth our time to investigate. Things are happening very quickly now....
I Will Follow Christ by Clay Crosse, Bebe Winans & Bob Carlisle
I'm sure this is on her somewhere, but here it is again, just because it's talking about the decision that we will all have to make soon, very soon. Are you ready? No? What do you need? More info? Just ask. More prayer? Do it and ask for it. More of the Spirit? Believe, and seed the Lord with all of your heart, soul and strength. I have a feeling that you will, will find what you're looking for...:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)