Month: September 2016

Self-deification and the magick craft

Very enticing this magick craft, so much so that it leads to self-deification. Let us use what some might consider an extreme example in the form of Rex Diablos Church who is the former Magister Templi in the church of satan, is now the Magus of the Chaos Imperium and whose name appears to mean something to the likes of: the devil is the king of the church.

He has made statements to the effect of that magick is based on scientifically demonstrable. Magick has two basic component to it: 1) it is premised upon the concept of bringing about causation via an applying of the will and 2) being empowered by demonic entities—by any other name (familiars, spirit guides, guardian angels, etc.).

Since there are certain manners whereby to go about conjuring up demons and imposing your will. Therefore, the practitioner of the magick craft—be they a conscious theist or some sort or not—very easily end up concluding that they, themselves, are a or the deity. After all, they are the ones volitionally, that is willfully, causing nature to conform to their wishes.

This is in counter distinction to the Christian who serves a sovereign LORD. YHVH is sovereign and so we do not craft results. Yes, we pray and yet within His will and not ours, “Your will be done on Earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

In typical satanic form, via what some call the “law of reversals,” satanists seek to reverse YHVH’s order. Everything that satan and his adherents do is a negation of that which YHVH did as they can only seek to emulate Him. They turn everything upside-down, inside out and backwards.

Thus, whilst YHVH stated, “I am that I am,” Diabolus Rex Church stated, “I am that I am not.”

That was during a discussion with Clyde Lewis and Freeman as he came across as a swell and good humored guy. By the way, he may very well be swell and good humored as, after all, he is not the enemy but is himself a victim (however willing) of the enemy.

However at last, the friendly neighborhood satanist lets the demon cat out of the bag.

He quoted the Jehovah’s Witness version of John 1:1 “The Word was ‘a’ god” to which, for whatever ignorant reason, Clyde Lewis says, “Yeah.”

Then added, “We have become gods…we are God, we’ve stolen the fire as Prometheus and now it’s upon us to do the same thing.”

Indeed, Prometheus is the lucifer figure and Diabolus Rex Church has fallen for the original lie, “You will be like God” (Genesis 3:5).

Also, during the discussion, which included a Q&A with callers, he could not exactly manage to be consistent. Whenever he was challenged he played the aloof neutral part and would say something like that the challenger had expressed an opinion and he happened to hold to a different one.

However, he did take occasional pop shots are religion. Well, not religion in general but exclusively one particular religion and that was…Buddhism? No. Zoroastrianism? Nay. Islam? Not. Let’s see, which one, which one? Right he only besmirched Christianity because, after all, why bother arguing against falsehood? Rather, he sought to discredit his only real obstacle: the truth of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah as expressed via traditional biblical Christianity.

Now that is a compliment!!!

John Cassian on the Nephilim

John Cassian (born circa 360 AD) wrote the following in Conference VIII – The Second Conference of Abbot Serenus – On Principalities – Chapter XXI – The Answer to the Question Raised:
After the death of righteous Abel, in order that the whole human race might not spring from a wicked fratricide, Seth was born in the place of his brother who was slain, to take the place of his brother not only as regards posterity, but also as regards justice and goodness. And his offspring, following the example of their father’s goodness, always remained separate from intercourse with and the society of their kindred descended from the wicked Cain, as the difference of the genealogy very clearly tells us, where it says: “Adam begat Seth, Seth begat Enos, Enos begat Cainan, but Cainan begat Mahalaleel, but Mahalaleel begat Jared, Jared begat Enoch, Enoch begat Methuselah, Methuselah begat Lamech, Lamech begat Noah.” And the genealogy of Cain is given separately as follows: “Cain begat Enoch, Enoch begat Cainan, Cainan begat Mahalaleel, Mahalaleel begat Methuselah, Methuselah begat Lamech, Lamech begat Jabal and Jubal.” And so the line which sprang from the seed of righteous Seth always mixed with its own kith and kin, and continued for a long while in the holiness of its fathers and ancestors, untouched by the blasphemies and the wickedness of an evil offspring, which had implanted in it a seed of sin as it were transmitted by its ancestors.

As long then as there continued that separation of the lines between them, the seed of Seth, as it sprang from an excellent root, was by reason of its sanctity termed “angels of God,” or as some copies have it “sons of God”…

john20cassian-3509073

John Cassian does not elaborate as the statement was merely a portion of a reply to another issue.
He seems to be missing the mark on the Genesis 6 affair on a least two levels.

One is that he does not interpret sons of God within the Bible’s own context including other appearances of the term and the concept which derives from it within context.

Second is that he presuppose that there is some sort of genetic component to sin so that Seth had to be born “in order that the whole human race might not spring from a wicked fratricide” so that Seth’s lineage would be just and good, “the holiness of its fathers and ancestors, untouched by the blasphemies and the wickedness of an evil offspring, which had implanted in it a seed of sin as it were transmitted by its ancestors.”

Seth’s descendants most likely remained separate from Cain’s because Cain moved away from the religion where Adam and Eve lived and thus, where Seth and his descendants lived.

Of interest may be that some of two of the mentioned names within both Seth’s and Cain’s lineage carry include the Hebrew term “el” which is a reference to God within this context and, actually, the names are the same in both lineages: Mahalaleel and Methuselah.

On John Cassian view, and the view of all who hold to his view, the sons of God are exclusively males and exclusively of Seth’s lineage. Furthermore, on his view the daughters of men are exclusively females and exclusively of Cain’s lineage. Yet, why solely one gender from one lineage and one gender from the other?

Of interest may be a footnote to this section within the Philip Schaff book Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian:
In Gen. vi. 2 the mss. of the LXX. fluctuate between ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ [angels of God] and υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ [sons of God]. The interpretation of the passage which Cassian here rejects is adopted by Philo and Josephus, the book of Enoch, and several of the early fathers, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius and others.
The explanation, which Cassian here gives, taking the “sons of God” of the Sethites, and the “daughters of men” of the line of Cain, is apparently first found in Julius Africanus (οἰ ἀπό τοῦ Σὴθ δίκαιοι [essentially, this reads “the righteous by Seth”] ), and is adopted among others by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book XV. xxiii., where the passage is fully discussed.

On Atheist Oleg Dei's Other Disgusting Quotes in the Bible – Eat Human Feces

AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE, IF THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD

OF GOD, THEN THEY NEED TO BE LOBOTIMIZED!

—Oleg Dei commenting about his own anti-Christian article

Herein we continue considering an article titled, “Other Disgusting Quotes in the Bible!” written by Oleg Dei who heads an Atheist anti-Christian support group which masquerades as a group interested in science which calls itself the Science Club of Long Island. We have written about Oleg Dei and the Club before and you can find those articles here.

Oleg Dei’s writings never fail to provide excellent examples of how to misread, misinterpret, misunderstand, misapply the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts. Thus, they are great examples of how to not do it and great examples exercises for those who are learning the art of discernment, research, reasoning, etc.

A word of warning before proceeding; it is best to read Oleg Dei’s writings within articles such as these and not directly from where he posts them as he peppers his articles with images that the average person will surely find objectionable. This may denote his general level of maturity, his pandering to his militant Atheist audience, Freudian windows into deep psychological issues, etc. These are just guesses; point it, beware and be aware.

As for Oleg Dei’s “Other Disgusting Quotes in the Bible!” a few things that come to mind are that the Bible contains some disgusting quotes because people do disgusting things and the Bible is honest and up front about them. Also, he may want to read the philosophical text titled Everyone Poops because he seems to be surprised that the Bible would reference bodily functions.

Yet, most importantly, he take a, sadly, very typical Atheist tactic: he elbows his Atheist buddies in the ribs as he pokes fun, he asserts but does not elucidate and, most tellingly, he condemns without providing a premise upon which to base his condemnation. In other words, he does not, as he cannot, justify his condemnation but merely makes emotive statement. The tactic is to replace reasoned discourse with schoolyard bullying emotive taunting.

As per the lobotomy statement above, it is clear that Oleg Dei is as militant an Atheist as they come. He begins his article thusly:

“There are quotes in the Bible that are so disgusting that no one would dare print them now. The word of God? This is truly one of the most disgusting works of literature ever created. Brainless Christians still say God is good! Really, read this crap!”

Note that since he heads an Atheist anti-Christian group, he writes of “Brainless Christians” even though every quote he uses is from the Jewish scriptures. Yes, Christians also hold to them as scriptures but since he is strictly anti-Christian he does not dare to refer to “Brainless Jews.”

His first point is written as follows:

“Eat Human Feces!

‘And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.’ (Ezekiel 4:12-13).

Although in verses 14-15 the poor Israelites complain about eating abominable flesh, God (in his ‘wonderful’ grace) changes his mind and allows them to substitute human feces with cow feces. Gee, thanks a lot God! (as if eating cow excrement makes much of a difference). You’d think the Creator of the entire universe might have given his ‘chosen ones’ a soufflé or a bagel or something. Please, anything better than s***-cakes.” [Dei’s statement has been censored]

The only real problem with this is that absolutely everything he stated is wrong. No one was to “Eat Human Feces!” Oleg Dei has manipulated his Atheist audience, likely due to knowing that they will not double check his claims as they are merely pseudo-skeptics (yet, real cynics). He partially quoted the text in a convenient and self-serving manner so as to take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext.

We wrote a detailed article on this very issue, see Did God command the eating of a poop sandwich? part 1 and part 2

For our purposes, it is enough to note that the text of Ezekiel chap 4 details the actual recipe for the bread as consisting of “wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt” and these are the ingredients which Ezekiel was to “put…in one vessel and make them into bread” period. The dough is then to be formed/shaped or otherwise prepared as a “barley cake” and only then is he told how to bake it, “over human dung” and then “cow’s dung.”

The recipe of ingredients is one thing and the manner whereby to bake it is another. The dung was to be used as fuel. In fact, even today, people all over the world use bovine and other similar forms of dung as fuel for fires.

Also, the Israelites do not complain about anything as this pertained to Ezekiel only; so Dei is also wrong about that. No one had to eat cow excrement; so he is also wrong about that. How can someone read such a short text and come to so very many faulty conclusions? It may that that he is reading the text through the eyes of rebelling and condemning at any cost; even the cost of discrediting himself—which he most certainly did. How very sad.

Thus, Oleg Dei makes fun but does not provide a premise for condemning YHVH or the Bible.

AskELM’s Ernest L. Martin on the idolatrous Temple of God

We conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, considering Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.’s article titled, “Lingering Idolatry in the Temple of God,” AskELM (as in Ask Ernest L. Martin about whom I previously wrote Nightmare on AskElm Street – angelic “Sons of God”?), September 1, 2000 AD which contains some interesting point, some thought provoking speculations and some very serious errors.

Ernest L. Martin has been driving at the Ark, Temple, etc. as important features of eschatology and elucidates, “There are people today who are still enamored with this Ark of the Covenant (and its two Cherubs named Moloch and Chiun). Without doubt, if the Ark could be once again discovered, they would readily place the two Cherubs right back in any newly built Temple in Jerusalem.”
He then hearkens back to his mistaken reading of the 2 Maccabees text by noting that “Jeremiah saw the idolatry that had developed over the two Cherubs so he (under inspiration of God, in my view)…hid it away” with Martin now claiming that this portion of the apocryphal text is inspired (or just Jeremiah’s supposed actions).

Next, Martin attempts to prove that the Cherub named Moloch turns out to be Satan (as Satan is not an Angel but a Cherub as per Ezekiel 28:14). He then asserts that “The other Cherub was named Chiun (represented by the planet Saturn with the Sabbath being his day of consecration for worshipping him). But the Sabbath was made by God for His people to rest, and it was not made for Chiun (Saturn).”

askelm2c20ernest20l-20martin-8273603

He then, even more speculatively, generically asserts that “The early Israelites took the command of God to make the images of the Cherubim and place them in the Holy of Holies as an example given by God to worship those Cherubim (named Moloch and Chiun). This was one of the commands that God gave to the Israelites in the time of Moses that WAS NOT GOOD for the Israelites because it led them into idolatry…” (emphasis added). He is simply making empty assertions at this point in 1) claiming to know how the early Israelites took the command, 2) claiming that they thought that giving them an example to worship those Cherubim, 3) claiming that this was one of God’s NOT GOOD commands and that 4) this, God’s commands, led the Israelites into idolatry.

He concludes by speculating about eschatology as Revelation 11 notes that “that there will once more be an image of a wild beast” which he takes to be an image of a Cherub, “probably in the form of Moloch the King” which “will again be placed in a Temple…one or both of the Cherubim will be replaced in a new Temple…” and Martin, faultily, concludes that “God was honest in His statement in Ezekiel that His commands ‘were not good.’”

Based on a tremendous number of misunderstandings, reading into text and generalizing assertions of conclusions, Ernest Martin writes, “If anyone wants to replace the Ark of the Covenant back into a renewed Temple, what he or she will be doing is placing the Image of the Beast mentioned in Revelation 13 back into the Holy of Holies.”

He then falls back into a grave(n image) mistake of his in stating, “God said that command to put those images in the Temple, contrary to the Second Command of the Ten Commandments” thus, God contradicts Himself, in Martin’s mistaken view and, again, claims to know that this was one of the commands “God gave that ‘were not good.’” Sadly, Ernest Martin takes his errors to new heights in stating:

…when one reflects upon the teaching of the Second Commandment of the Ten Commandments (and applies what the words state explicitly and without preconceived notions), it could be argued that even the building of a Temple is prohibited in the strict sense of the word. This is because the Temple represents an image or similitude of the House of God in which God resides in heaven.
Do we not read in the Second Commandment that Israelites should not make an image of ANYTHING in heaven (or in earth or under the earth, Exodus 20:4)? That is right! Even the building of a physical Temple on earth is getting close to breaking the Second Commandment.

He specifically states that explicit reflection on the second commandment “it could be argued that…a Temple is prohibited in the strict sense of the word” but backs off from that which “could be argued” by stating that it is only “getting close to breaking” the commandment. As I have noted again and again, of course “That is” most certainly not “right!” that we read in the second commandment that Israelites should not make an image of ANYTHING in heaven, etc. because the commandment states no such isolated, fragmented, partial thing but states that it should not be done for the purposes of idolatry.

Interestingly, Ernest Martin admits:

…it must be realized that God did in fact order Moses to construct the Tabernacle and later God told David to have the Temple built by Solomon. Yes, indeed, but still we are later told that God does NOT dwell in Temples made with human hands in an actual sense (Acts 7:48).

No, God cannot be contained by any image or physical thing and Martin has been driving at the good point that “Whatever the case, we Christians do not need a physical Temple in any manner whatever.” This is true but then why not simply state it without discrediting himself so often along the way? He could have simply quoted John 4 wherein a Samaritan woman states to Jesus, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” to which Jesus replies:

Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Overall, Ernest L. Martin’s article “Lingering Idolatry in the Temple of God” is a great example of how someone can come to faulty conclusions by piling up one error upon another. Martin does this to the point that he ends up with one erroneous view becoming the lens via which he interprets text, is lead to further error and this turns into a vicious cycle.

Pyramid grid Eden to Revelation

Let us begin by asking “What was Eden?” A simple answer may be that it was a garden. Of course, that there was a “Garden of Eden” is common knowledge. There are some 20 mentions of “Eden” in the Bible; let us consider them.

The segments below consist of the following:

Etymology The Garden Of… East Of Eden Where Was Eden? Eden’s As A Structure Megaliths

The Eschaton

ETYMOLOGY
Sixteen of the occurrences have the Hebrew word as Strong’s H5731 ‘Eden which means “pleasure.” This word is the same as H5730 ‘eden which means, “1) luxury, dainty, delight, finery 2) delight.” In turn, this word comes from H5727 ‘adan meaning, “1) (Hithpael) to luxuriate, delight oneself.”

One instance is H1040 Beth ‘Eden meaning “house of Eden” and, more specifically, “house of delight” which was a “1) a city in Syria, modern Juseih (cuneiform = Bit Adini).” This term comes from two root words: H5730 which we encountered above and the primitive root Strong’s H5727 which we also already encountered.
This instance occurs as:

I will also break the [gate] bar of Damascus, And cut off the inhabitant from the Valley of Aven, And the one who holds the scepter from Beth Eden. The people of Syria shall go captive to Kir,” Says the LORD. (Amos 1:5)

The three other instances are H5729 ‘Eden which means “pleasure” and is from the primitive root H5727 ‘adan which we encountered above.
Why there is an H5731 ‘Eden and an H5729 ‘Eden with the same meaning and from the same root may be due to peculiarities of the Hebrew such as, perhaps, different spellings, etc. (note that the pronunciations are different: H5731 ā’·den is and H5729 is eh’·den).
In fact, we find that five references to “Eden” are to a person who was given that as a name. He was “a Gershonite Levite, son of Joah in the days of king Hezekiah of Judah”:

Have the gods of the nations delivered those whom my fathers have destroyed, Gozan and Haran and Rezeph, and the people of Eden who [were] in Telassar? (2 Kings 19:12 and repeated in Isaiah 37:12)

Haran, Canneh, Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, [and] Chilmad [were] your merchants. (Ezekiel 27:23)

Then these Levites arose: Mahath the son of Amasai and Joel the son of Azariah, of the sons of the Kohathites; of the sons of Merari, Kish the son of Abdi and Azariah the son of Jehallelel; of the Gershonites, Joah the son of Zimmah and Eden the son of Joah… (2 Chronicles 29:12)

And under him [were] Eden, Miniamin, Jeshua, Shemaiah, Amariah, and Shecaniah, [his] faithful assistants in the cities of the priests, to distribute allotments to their brethren by divisions, to the great as well as the small. (2 Chronicles 31:15)

THE GARDEN OF… With the above as background, we are left to deal with the question “What was Eden?” We have seen that it was a man and it was a Syrian city.

This leaves us to consider the original Eden and wonder what it was. Again, it is common knowledge that there was a “Garden of Eden” and it is simple to conclude that Eden was a garden. Well, whilst terminology shifts somewhat, as we shall see, that there was a garden of Eden means that yes, there was a garden but that it was of Eden. In other words, there was an Eden and Eden had a garden.

Let us consider texts in this regard gleaning from Genesis 2:8 to 3:23:

The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed…

Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads…

Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it…

…therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.

Thus, there was a something called Eden. A garden was planted to the East of Eden. From Eden a river flowed that watered the garden. Adam was to tend and keep the garden. After the fall into sin Adam was sent out of Eden and out of the garden in order to till the ground as he was no longer a tender and keeper of a garden that produced for him but he would now have to till, to work, the ground in order to make is produce.

EAST OF EDEN
This brings us to an interesting note which is that there was Eden and to the East of it was its garden. The river flowed from Eden to the East so as to water the garden. When Adam was sent out Eden and the garden he was sent East:

So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

Later, when Cain murdered Abel he also was sent East:

Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. (Genesis 4:16)

What these, and other, references to an Eastward movement means is unclear. Just where was Eden that in order to block Adam from returning to it, cherubim and a flaming sword were placed to its East? If Adam truly sought to return to the garden could he not enter via its North, South, West, North-East, South-West, etc.? Well, the sword did turn every way in order “to guard the way to the tree of life.” But still, there appears to have been some sort of passage way (walls and a gate?) which had an entrance to the East.

Crosby, Stills & Nash sang Joni Mitchell’s lyrics to the song “Woodstock” as follows:

We are stardust, we are golden, We are billion year old carbon,

And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.

Let us consider other texts that reference Eden before finally getting to wondering what it was. These references are simply to likenesses to Eden and/or the garden thereof:

For the LORD will comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places; He will make her wilderness like Eden, And her desert like the garden of the LORD; Joy and gladness will be found in it, Thanksgiving and the voice of melody. (Isaiah 51:3)

So they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden; and the wasted, desolate, and ruined cities [are now] fortified [and] inhabited.’ (Ezekiel 36:35)

A fire devours before them, And behind them a flame burns; The land [is] like the Garden of Eden before them, And behind them a desolate wilderness; Surely nothing shall escape them. (Joel 2:3)

One reference is to a statement made to “the king of Tyre”:

You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone [was] your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. (Ezekiel 28:13)

Long story short, the Bible notes that behind human kings or princes there are spiritual kings or princes. In this case the statement is to both the human and the spiritual ruler “the king of Tyre” who is said, in v. 28:14, to have been “the anointed cherub.”

The remaining three references (found within Ezekiel 31) are very interesting as they present a metaphor likening trees and Eden’s garden to “Pharaoh king of Egypt and…his hordes” (and perhaps secondarily, it is another instance of a spiritual king/prince behind a human king/prince).

WHERE WAS EDEN?
So now, back, again, to the original question, “What was Eden?”

Answer: we do not know.

Yes, after 20 references to “Eden” we are not told. This simply means that, for whatever reason(s), it was not important for us to know.

Where Eden and the garden were is not specifically known and there are various reasons for this. Note that the Bible tells us that, “a river went out of Eden” which then “parted and became four riverheads.” In turn, these were (see Genesis 2:10-14):

Pishon which “skirts the whole land of Havilah” Gihon, “which goes around the whole land of Cush” Tigris, “which goes toward the east of Assyria”

Euphrates (no further info given)

The issue is whether these are pre or post great deluge/worldwide flood names. If they are pre then they are no longer relevant as the deluge would have wiped out any and all geographical markers such as river beds. But why would the text reference post flood names? Because those references would be understood by the peoples of Moses’ time and would have given them a contemporary indication of its location.
If they are post flood then we have a chance of identifying its location. Of course, Eden, the garden and its trees (including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) would have been washed away. One reason why we should not expect to find cherubim a flaming sword is that the garden and its trees are gone and so there is no longer anything to guard. It is interesting to think that since they were washed away and quickly covered they are likely petrified…somewhere.

Fine, but what might it have been? Well, that is another issue the answer to which is pure speculation. Repeat: that which follows is pure speculation.

EDEN’S AS A STRUCTURE
Eden could very well have been a mere landmark which is to say; a plot of land. Then again, it may have been something, some thing. Keep in mind that “the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). It may be that Adam live in Eden and “worked” in the garden (keeping in mind that this was light work so to speak, a hobby). The text specifies that Adam was put there in order to tend and keep and not necessarily to live there. We have a plethora of artistic depictions of Adam and Eve essentially living in the garden but perhaps they lived in Eden.

Perhaps Eden was a city—or some sort of structure.

world2bpyramids2b2-7305796

In Genesis 4:17 we learn that “Cain…built a city.” These earliest of Earth’s inhabitants were surely supremely intelligent as they were so very close to generically pristine. Thus, Cain could have conceived of the manner whereby to build a city without issue.
Sadly, we also have a plethora of depictions of these early inhabitants as being just this side of the stereotypical cavemen of Darwinian myth. Rather, they were very intelligent and were specialists in working metals, building, music, etc.

Still, we must wonder where or how it occurred to Cain to build a city. Why not simply live strewn about the face of the Earth or otherwise in one location. He could certainly have just thought of it but, he may have sought to emulate Eden—the city/structure.

After the flood we find that the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was:

Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. (Genesis 10:8-12)

Again, we have (now relatively) early people building cities.

MEGALITHS
The term megalithic builders refers to the unknown people who built various megalithic sites around the world. They built pyramidal/zigguratical structures that are very similar to each other even whilst being said to have had no contact and whilst building in sites geographically distant from one another.

world2bpyramids2b1-4931475

The occult philosopher Robert Anton Wilson once stated that if you have a pencil that is thick enough and a map that is small enough, you can connect any points. People whose cartographical skills far surpass my non-existing ones claim that via modern mapping techniques one can plot a pyramid grid on the Earth’s surface which shows that the pyramids are aligned to each other. I do not know if this is the case even when I see the maps partially because one could connect various point of anything really and end up with a different supposed grid: my point is what is a or the grid supposed to look like? Perhaps any resulting set of lines could be called a grid.

The record of the events surrounding the Tower of Babel elucidates how such, seemingly disjointed, cultures could have built such similar structures. At that time, all people live relatively close to each other and came together in order to build a structure. Thereafter, the LORD caused them to disperse throughout the Earth according to language groups. These groups would eventually form their own cultures all over the Earth and would have been brought with them the common knowledge of building such structures. For some reason, the Giza pyramids seem to be the odd balls as most other pyramids are not three dimensional triangles but are ziggurats: step pyramids.

Also, note that as soon as one person expounds upon how building such huge structures would have been impossible for us much less earlier peoples, someone else comes along and expounds upon just how it could have been done—for examples of this latter claim, see Ancient Alien Megalithic Builders vs Wally Wallington & Edward Leedskalnin.

This dispersal explains how we find similar structures throughout the Earth and why these various cultures have shared “myths,” similar “legends,” similar histories which tell, in various forms, of an original garden, a great flood, etc.

Cain may have been emulating the Eden city/structure, Nimrod may have been emulating Cain’s and the megalithic builders may have been emulating the Tower of Babel. And yet, in keeping with the concept of the fall into sin, each, in turn, would represent an increasing corruption of the original Eden until the megalithic sites became the temples, the cities, of false and evil gods.
As with so very many city/structures; Eden could have literally contained information within its structure—in the form of specific alignment and/or glyphs.

THE ESCHATON
There are certain aspects of the end time-last days-eschaton that mirror, reenact or replace that which occurred in the beginning. Note that the book of Revelation makes reference to a new creation: a new heavens, a new Earth and a new Jerusalem (3:12 and 21:2-3):

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them…

Note that the new Jerusalem comes down fully formed, here are some more details (21:10-23):

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper. It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west. And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The one who spoke with me had a gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall. The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal. And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements. The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst.

And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

The new Jerusalem is a city and it was built, apparently, directly by God in heaven and placed upon the new Earth fully formed. Furthermore, note that it is constructed with a very specific shape, adornments, etc. For example and to review some features; it had twelve gates and angels which is not only symbolic of the twelve tribes but contained inscribed information in the form of their names. The city is aligned so that there are three gates on each cardinal point. The twelve foundation stones are inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles. Its foundation is laid out as a square and measurable according to both human and angelic measurements.

It is made of specific materials such as precious stones which are not only pretty but may have to do with frequency modulation, etc.

Note that a square is not a cube as one is two dimensional and the other is three. Now, because the new Jerusalem’s “length and width and height are equal” many have concluded that it is a cube. However, for what it is worth, of the many pyramid related statements made by the late Patrick Heron (author of Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse, et al.) of which is of contextual interest is that he pointed out that, in essence, a cube and a pyramid both have square foundations “length and width…are equal.” They also both have heights that are equal to the length and width. Of course, pyramid or rather, ziggurats can be disproportional being, for example, of more height than their length and width.
The “length and width and height are equal” one both a cube and a pyramid. The only difference is that on a cube the “length and width and height are equal” all the way up.

square2bpyramid-1704642
Top right: “length and width (or, breath) and height are equal” Top left: height moved to the center point. Middle: height centered on square foundation Bottom right and left:

cube and pyramid with same square foundation and height

To sum it all up: perhaps Adam and Eve attended that which I will term The University of Eden wherein their utter brilliance would have been put towards comprehending elucidations of the glories of God and His creation—His original “very good” creation, mind you.
Perhaps subsequent megalithic builders attempted to keep this knowledge alive, as they did via the Tower of Babel even as it became corrupted for various reasons: the noetic effects of the fall into sin, intrusion by the fallen (formerly) heavenly beings, etc.

So was Eden a, or the site of a, pyramidal-ziggurat, was this emulated by Cain, by Nimrod, by the monolithic builders thereafter and will it be the new Jerusalem? I have no clue and this has largely been a gedanken experiment.

Pew Research Center on religious views on evolution, universe and scientists

Cary Funk and Becka Alper wrote Strong Role of Religion in Views About Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus for the Pew Research Center, October 22, 2015 AD.
It pertains to the “wide differences among religious groups when it comes to beliefs about evolution” as “There have long been religious divides over the theory of evolution” about which they direct readers to a pervious article on that specific issue: Darwin and His Theory of Evolution.

Note that I will deal with one segment of a much larger research project the results of which can be found, in totto, here.

One of the most interesting, but not surprising, finding is a disparity which notes that a mere 29% of polled scientists agree that “scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time” with 66% of the general public agreeing and a huge 78% of religiously unaffiliated agreeing. It seems that pop-science propaganda ruled supreme amongst the general public and especially amongst the religiously unaffiliated.

As per below, “those who attend church services at least weekly are less likely to believe that scientists generally agree about human evolution” which means that they hold to the correct view as the stats show as much about scientists.

BIO EVOLUTION The following stats pertain, generally, to US adults: 65% “Humans and other living things have evolved over time.”

31% Humans and other living things have “existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

Now to US adults who are “religiously affiliated” (“those who attend worship services at least weekly”):
86% humans and other living things evolved over time.

73% White Catholics. 59% Hispanic Catholics. 71% White mainline Protestants. 36% White evangelical Protestants.

49% Black Protestants.

Humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time: 60% White evangelical Protestants. 47% Black Protestants.

22% “of those who attend church services less frequently.”

35% “humans have evolved due to natural processes.” 24% “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things.”

5% “unsure of their views about the processes behind evolution.”

“Religiously unaffiliated”:
67% humans evolved due to natural processes. It is noted that “This is the only group among whom a majority holds this view” which makes sense as they likely have no other option.

Humans have evolved due to natural processes: 15% of those “who attend worship services regularly.

46% of those “who attend services less regularly.

SCIENTISTS “Scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time”: 66% general public. 29% scientists. 78% religiously unaffiliated. 69% White mainline Protestants. 65% Catholics. 46% White evangelical Protestants (49% “say scientists do not agree about this”). 63% While black Protestants. 72% less-frequent churchgoers.

54% more frequent churchgoers.

CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
The view of scientists on whether “the universe was created in a single, violent event, often called the ‘Big Bang.’”

Scientists “generally agree”: 42% US adults. 61% religiously unaffiliated. 47% White mainline Protestants. 30% attend church services regularly. 48% attend church services less often.

35% of “other Christians (i.e., those who are Mormon or Orthodox Christian)” are “less likely than the religiously unaffiliated.”

Scientists “are divided”: 52% US adults. 69% White evangelical Protestants. 62% Hispanic Catholics. 46% White mainline Protestants.

62% attend church services regularly.

I certainly cannot speak for every group of personages referenced herein and, of course, the report notes, “a number of other factors also have a significant influence on views about evolution including age, gender, education and political party and ideology.”
However, at least within my circles “religiously affiliated” will consume common mainstream science info such as within magazines, TV and books and will also consider other views such as from Creation Science or Intelligent Design sources. Thus, they possess a fuller scoped view of the subjects in general. Conversely, the general public has, as with most “religiously affiliated,” undergone at least a dozen years of Darwinian indoctrination (and more than that as per-school aged children are exposed to Darwinian propaganda within children’s TV, movies and books) and thereafter will solely consume even more Darwinian from magazines, TV and books. Thus, they end up thinking that only one single view is right, Darwinism, and anyone who even questions it is _______________ (fill in the blank). They also will, apparently, not consider that what they were taught in school as supposed evidence of evolution (and that which their grandparents and their grandparents, etc.) were taught has, by the current day, likely been discredited as outdated, hoaxes, frauds, mistakes, etc.

You can view the charts and graphs related to this data at the album below:
22478719172_94a862792c_z-6177125

VIDEO: Disturbing Look at Secret Forces, Private Security Contractors and drones gone wild

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~