Jul 122015

I loved this brief study on the subject of unicorns (rhinos) in the Bible. It really pulls the wraps off how cartoon mythology has been used to try to rob scripture of credibility in people’s minds.

Where did the idea of a horse with a narwhal tusk on its forehead come from? I think I’ve found the likely source in certain designs of medieval battle armour for war horses. The particular design below typifies the classic mythological “unicorn” appearance and no doubt enhanced the war horse’s aggressive functionality in battle, remembering that such horses were trained to be as functionally combatant as their armoured riders. It’s not so much mythological as historical when you look at it.

Horse Battle Armour


This design of horse armour appears to have been popularised as the image of a unicorn through its use in heraldry, the devices of recognition of medieval knights through to contemporary nobility. This is most easily recognisable in the British Royal Family’s coat of arms:



Another myth busted and the reliability of scripture confirmed yet again!

Nov 012014

massivegeogrFrom the article:

The Cambrian explosion is one of the most significant events in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. The surge of evolution led to the sudden appearance of almost all modern animal groups. Fossils from the Cambrian explosion document the rapid evolution of life on Earth, but its cause has been a mystery.

The sudden burst of new life is also called “Darwin’s dilemma” because it appears to contradict Charles Darwin’s hypothesis of gradual evolution by natural selection.

“At the boundary between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods, something big happened tectonically that triggered the spreading of shallow ocean water across the continents, which is clearly tied in time and space to the sudden explosion of multicellular, hard-shelled life on the planet,” said Dalziel, a research professor at the Institute for Geophysics and a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences.

The article on Phys.org: Massive geographic change may have triggered explosion of animal life.

10.coverThe original research abstract Geology, October 2014, v. 42, no. 10: Cambrian transgression and radiation linked to an Iapetus-Pacific oceanic connection? This may be available to you via your local library. My library provides online (from home!) access to many scientific journals and search services, but none of them had this article yet.


Sep 292014

I was going to say something about this, but Stuart Wall, with his gift for words, said it perfectly:

Quote from Stuart Wall on FaceBook: Didn't you read in Acts that the believers shared all things? Oh how easy it is to twist scripture when you ignore the Law. Expect worse to come before it is all over.

The article: Hot New Christian Trend: Wife-Swapping for Jesus on AddictingInfo.org

The video:

Christian Wife Swappers Preach The Word Of God Through Swinging

Sep 232014

Video: The Exodus Based on the Sources Themselves

Richard Friedman – The Exodus Based on the Sources Themselves

This is Richard Friedman at UCSD’s recent Out of Egypt: Archaeology, Text & Memory conference


Sep 162014

The whole matter of end times Nephilim and those of other associated times primarily hinges upon Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah and its future implications, does it not?, bearing in mind that in all things He should have pre-eminence.  In accepting that and proceeding to seek interpretation on that basis we must therefore consider His statement in its entirety and all such questions as may arise from its sum total. For the sake of brevity I will take one of the two instances of this in the Gospels, Luke 17:26,27.

Verse 26, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man.” Here Jesus likens one historic set of days to another in the future and ascribes to himself the title “Son of Man” as distinct from other non-human “sons”. Why should he emphasise this difference? There is more detail further along in the next verse.

Verse 27, “They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.” There are a couple of differences here which are obvious. The “Son of Man” did not marry and was not destroyed in the flood.  So let’s examine the other attributes of these other “sons”.

  • The very first word in Luke 17:27 is “they”. Who were “they”? Why are they seemingly lacking specific identity? Did they abandon it, was it taken from them or were they never assigned any identity? Were they once “sons of God” as distinct from the “Son of Man”? We could deduce that at this point, but let’s continue.
  • “They did eat, they drank”. Why is this emphasised? It is certainly a given factor in sustaining human life and was notably chronicled in regard to the Nephilim tribes in Canaan through which an exceedingly fruitful land was unable to sustain itself. “And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is A LAND THAT EATETH UP THE INHABITANTS THEREOF; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.” Numbers 13:32. Are there any other types of being by which it would be remarkable that they ate and drank? Yes there are such in the class of angels which visited Abraham in humanoid form prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. “ And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, AND THEY DID EAT.” Genesis 18:8. There are possibly other types of angels which could also eat and drink in physical manifestation but this one is certain.
  • “They married wives”. An unremarkable human activity in any generation to date but which would be a remarkable activity among formerly non-physical entities.
  • “They were given in marriage”. Now here is a very specific emphasis, relating in all cases to the act of covenant between a bride’s father and a bridegroom. It was an unremarkable given (no pun) in human marriage at that time, so why emphasise this? Does it contrast with any other kind of marriage seen in scripture? It certainly does and it can be found in Genesis 6:2 where the sons of God “took wives of all whom they chose”, in absence of any consent or covenant from the “wives” or their fathers.
  • “Until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all”. That’s a pretty comprehensive statement, indicating that all the previously described activity continued unabated, specifically throughout Noah’s lifetime until the flood when “they” all perished.

Jesus does not waste words on stuff that’s already well understood and let’s remember that he is the light of the world, the revealer, to those with an ear to hear, of things hidden or undocumented and previously misunderstood or misinterpreted.  His words concerning the end of the age and the days of Noah must therefore be revelatory in every respect.

He describes a class or classes of being who obtained covenant consent from human fathers to marry wives on earth in the days of Noah as opposed to the sons of God of Jared’s day who took wives without consent. The only exception to this prior to the flood was the marriage of Adam to Eve who was flesh of his flesh in the first place and therefore belonged to him by right through the specific purpose of God.

What’s so important about this difference in the terms of activity and the respective fates of the “sons” involved? The answer can be found in Genesis 1:26, where God decrees before the heavens that the will of mankind has dominion, and therefore power of veto, in all the earth from the day that man was created. “ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and LET THEM HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Man was created a free agent and ruler over the affairs of earth according to the decree in this verse.

The sons of God in Genesis 6:2 blatantly transgressed this decree and are described in Jude as being imprisoned on death row until the day that their full judgment is executed. “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 1:6. The “sons” of Noah’s day, described by Jesus, gained covenant permission from mankind for their procreative activities which continued until their destruction in the flood. They exploited a “legal loophole” for a time, avoiding transgression of Genesis 1:26 but were destroyed in the flood, having committed themselves to mortal physical form.

“And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my covenant,which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.” Genesis 9:12-17

In consideration of God’s promise never to send another all consuming flood upon the earth, there is therefore good reason to believe that further “sons of God” might be encouraged to pursue further procreative activities with the covenant permission of whoever might be deceived into giving daughters for this purpose after the flood. By this calculation they would also avoid transgression of the Genesis 1:26 decree, knowing that the means by which they were previously thwarted would not be employed against them again. All they would need would be willing participants from mankind in this venture, but who might be willing and for what reason?

God had already forseen this eventuality and taken all possible measures against those who had been preserved in the flood from falling into such temptation. “AND GOD BLESSED NOAH AND HIS SONS, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”  Genesis 9:1. His blessing was upon the whole family who had survived the flood. They would prosper and multiply with no need to take recourse to “assistance” from elsewhere. Throughout scripture we read that men of God took responsibility to ensure that such a blessing would be passed to their subsequent generations. It would be a hedge of Godly favour around them which would be difficult to breach.

Difficult but not impossible and tragically we read how the potential for this blessing was taken from Canaan, Noah’s grandson. “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.  And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, CURSED BE CANAAN; A SERVANT OF SERVANTS SHALL HE BE UNTO HIS BRETHREN.  And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; AND CANAAN SHALL BE HIS SERVANT. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; AND CANAAN SHALL BE HIS SERVANT.”  Genesis 9:20-27.

(I have heard and seen mention on numerous occasions that “Noah was a drunkard”, citing this incident as an example. It should be considered that the post flood atmosphere of the earth was considerably less rich in oxygen than before the flood and would have had the effect of increasing the alcohol content in the fermentation process of wine. It is therefore likely that Noah’s first batch would have taken him unaware of its increased alcoholic strength in this instance.)

So Noah cursed Canaan into humiliating subservience while hung over from drinking wine. Ham had offended Noah but Noah couldn’t curse him because God had already blessed him. He did the next thing possible in his angry hung over condition. He denied the course of God’s blessing upon his descendants through Canaan. Subservience would follow his generations unless they could find a way to reverse their fortunes. Would they seek the Lord God after His blessing had apparently departed from them?  History would indicate that they did not but that they sought to other means to elevate themselves and what more tempting a way than to become generations of “mighty men” in the earth?

This is exactly what the Israelites encountered when they entered the land of Canaan after their exodus from Egypt. The genetics of the inhabitants of the land was so corrupted with Nephilim seed that the Israelites were instructed to completely wipe out the inhabitants of the land, man,woman, child and beast. They were also commanded not to serve the gods of the land by which such corruption had been invited and by no means to take wives of its inhabitants. The names of the tribes in Canaan reflected their various kinds of non-human mutation. The Israelites were under no illusion as to why the land needed to be purged. It must have resembled a combination of Gondor and Narnia in their worst excesses!

I have based this post entirely on biblical scripture and connective thought without the need for recourse to the extra-biblical texts of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees, to which many other commentators refer. It has been my observation that few if any such commentators take account of the transgression of the Genesis 1:26 decree in their presentations and many, with the exception of LA Marzulli, fail to examine the whole of Jesus’ statements referring to the days of Noah. Their subsequent speculations engender much controversy on the subject.

There is no record of any specific decree by God against the congress of angels with human women per se. They were not created for that purpose but were clearly deceived in that they “saw” that the daughters of  men were fair, i.e. physically desirable, in the same way that the woman “saw” that the tree was good for food, and desirable to make one wise. The deceptions of the nachash are in evidence here.

What stands as a defining factor here is the decree given at the creation of man that man should rule over all the earth and every living thing in it in Genesis 1:26. This was clearly transgressed by the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 and their summary judgment is documented in Jude. The evidence of this decree is further reflected in the fact that God courts, and satan deceives the will of mankind throughout the ages. In every event, man gives consent in some form or other to the things which occur on earth, whether by faith and obedience to God or by acting in response to satan’s deception.  Adherence to the Genesis 1:26 decree is further illustrated by the fact that, in God’s ultimate intervention, it was necessary that Jesus come as a man. It is also prophesied that antichrist will be manifested as a man.

On the Biblical basis expounded here, there is no necessity for any Nephilim genome to have been carried by any person on the ark and sufficient indication of repetitious procreation between “angels” and mankind in three distinct and definite historical phases. The consensus view of move-countermove within a “cosmic chess match” is also upheld, if not reinforced.  We may have yet to experience the overt and widespread manifestation of a fourth and final such phase if that was what Jesus did indeed indicate in his comparative statement regarding the days before His return!

Sep 152014

I think I am correct in assuming that the term “human being” is a relatively recent title which man has ascribed to himself. It raises certain questions in my mind in relation to scripture and, further, to modern English Bible versions.

“Being” is derived from the verb “to be”, the first person singular declination of which is “I am”. This is the name by which God identified himself to Moses at the burning bush (“I am that I am” Exodus 3:14) and by which Jesus identified himself to the Pharisees (“Before Abraham was, I am” John 8:58). This title reflects an eternal and divine existence in an unchanging present tense, beyond the bounds of the time and space continuum.

I have recently been working through Walter Veith’s 36 part series of lectures entitled “Total Onslaught”, throughout which he identifies and exposes certain false doctrines held and promulgated by the inner circles of catholicism and freemasonry, one of which is the eternal divinity of man as opposed to him being a creature of God in a fallen condition, requiring salvation and reconciliation to God.

Questions: Who first coined the term “human being” and why? Isn’t this an assertion of the lie spoken in Eden “and ye shall BE as gods” in Genesis 3:5?

I turned something up in a recent Bible study which highlighted this issue quite emphatically. A reading was taken from James 5:17 in the NIV “Elijah was a HUMAN BEING, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.” I was following this, knowing that the KJV put an altogether different dimensional meaning to the same verse. “Elias was a MAN SUBJECT TO LIKE PASSIONS as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.”

Any new Christian reading the NIV here might simply read that Elijah was a bloke, dude or geezer like us but I suspect that the NIV is using “initiate” language in its corruption of the Word of God in this verse. The lesson which the KJV seeks to give the reader is also lost. It omits completely the context of Elijah being “subject to like passions as we are” and this is the context by which a believer can gain a great deal of encouragement.

If we look at an episode in Elijah’s life, we can see such “passions” or emotional pressures coming to bear on him. In 1 Kings 18 and 19 we read of Elijah’s exploits in challenging Israel before the prophets of Baal, how he called down fire from heaven onto the altar which he built to the Lord, killed all the false prophets and demonstrated the power of God in many ways. Then, on hearing Jezebel’s threats, he runs and hides in the wilderness, wishes himself dead and sees himself as a man alone. God has to come and speak to him to correct his view of himself. This certainly reminds me of some of the episodes in my own life as a Christian, in principle but not quite to the same degree!

I hope this illustrates a point in relation to the subtlety by which the Word of God has been changed and its consequent effect of man’s view of himself, both secular and in Christian persuasions which use modern Bible translations. It should be understood that the vast majority of such translations in English published since 1910 are derived from completely different manuscript sources than the received text versions. For a detailed study of the history on this subject I would recommend viewing the following videos or, better still, following through the entire series of lectures to get the subject in the full context of the war which has been waged against the truth since Jesus ascended and up to the present day.