I've explained my basic view of how Daniel 7 relates to Revelation 13&17, and later elaborated on that. Now I want to talk about the issue of The Little Horn, and how I've become unsure it's as directly relevant to The Antichrist issue as we assume.
I've explained that I view the Ten Horns as Ten Nations that emerged from the Western Roman Empire. I've given two theories on how to identify those Ten. The WEU theory, and the Danite theory.
This post also has some tangential relevance to my last Daniel 11 post.
Basically I have been considering that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is an 11th Nation or Government to arise after those, rather then being necessarily the same as the Eight King of Revelation 17 or any other individual. I have three basic theories to suggest on which nation that could be.
First is the United States of America. Since the Little Horn isn't directly described as a King like the Ten are, perhaps that fits America being a Republic, that isn't in Europe but founded on European/Roman cultural pillars.
And perhaps the fact that since the U.S. was created, revolutions in Europe somewhat inspired by the American Revolution have removed some but not all European Monarchies. Could have something to do with the Three Horns being uprooted.
This could overlap with my American Antichrist theories. And perhaps also my America and Egypt observations as well dependent on how much you think the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is connected to the Little Horn of Daniel 7.
Second could be the European Union (or whatever it becomes) itself as a transnational Government. Which could fit better with the WEU theory on the Ten Horns. And perhaps #Brexit is the beginning of Three Horns being uprooted.
Third candidate could be Modern Greece. Officially it gets counted as the 10th Nation to join the EU when it joined in the 80s, which Bible Prophecy enthusiasts made a big deal of. But since the UK can be considered two nations in one (England and Scotland), you could also argue Greece was really the 11th.
That theory works best for making The Little Horn of Daniel 8 still the same Little Horn. And I've discussed Modern Greece's possible relevance to Bible Prophecy before, in the Last Roman Emperor post, and my main Historicism post.
Showing posts with label America and Bible Prophecy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America and Bible Prophecy. Show all posts
Friday, September 9, 2016
Saturday, August 6, 2016
America and Egypt
I posted recently about reasons to potentially associate The Beast with Egypt. But I've also discussed the possibility of an American Antichrist, (and tied that into Lost Tribes speculation and Mormon eschatology). In this post I want to explain why those ideas need not be mutually exclusive.
My Egypt post was largely geographical, and was clear that the West/EU would be the source of his military strength. Which means we could be dealing with a U.S. backed Egyptian leader, or a U.S. military presence in Egypt. But one could also go the other way, and since America is ethnically diverse suspect it'll be a U.S. President of Egyptian ancestry. Or maybe a combination of those factors.
But let's talk about why it could make sense thematically.
The thing I find really funny about all these right wing Christians saying "America needs to support Israel to be right with God", is that in The Hebrew Bible God constantly condemned Israel for turning to Gentile Nations instead of Him, defining it as a lack of faith in Him. That nation was most commonly Egypt, especially for the Southern Kingdom/Judah, though the Hasmoneans turned to Rome in First Maccabees Chapter 8. Interestingly after Augustus conquered Egypt the Roman Caesars took over the Pharonic Worship in Egypt.
But for modern Israel it is the United States of American they keep turning to instead of God. In that sense we are very much the modern Egypt.
As far as the desire to identify America with Manasseh (which I've considered) goes. We should remember the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim was an Egyptian, Asenath, the daughter of the High Priest of On.
It's interesting then that our Great Seal is all Egyptian imagery with Latin writing, derived from Masonic Symbolism. The Eagle was a Roman symbol, but Albert Pike wrote that in Masonic Imagery sometimes an Eagle really represents the Egyptian Bennu bird, called the Phoenix in Greco-Roman writings.
The Washington Monument is also molded after an Egyptian Obelisk. But there was also a lot of Roman architectural influences in Washington DC.
Freemasonry uses a lot of Egyptian symbolism in general. But some forms of it are particularly Egyptian. One was the Order of Memphis-Misriam founded by Cagliostro in 1776, the same year on the base of the Pyramid due to being when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
America like Ancient Egypt has been divided between North and South. And has a Capital at the border of that division but also the midst of the original 13 Colonies. And America like Ancient Egypt enslaved many Black Africans.
So the relationship between America and Egypt is something to keep an eye on.
Update September 2017: I've pretty retracted this assessment with my England and Egypt study. Though what I've talked about here can help back that up given how much American's History is tied to England's.
My Egypt post was largely geographical, and was clear that the West/EU would be the source of his military strength. Which means we could be dealing with a U.S. backed Egyptian leader, or a U.S. military presence in Egypt. But one could also go the other way, and since America is ethnically diverse suspect it'll be a U.S. President of Egyptian ancestry. Or maybe a combination of those factors.
But let's talk about why it could make sense thematically.
The thing I find really funny about all these right wing Christians saying "America needs to support Israel to be right with God", is that in The Hebrew Bible God constantly condemned Israel for turning to Gentile Nations instead of Him, defining it as a lack of faith in Him. That nation was most commonly Egypt, especially for the Southern Kingdom/Judah, though the Hasmoneans turned to Rome in First Maccabees Chapter 8. Interestingly after Augustus conquered Egypt the Roman Caesars took over the Pharonic Worship in Egypt.
But for modern Israel it is the United States of American they keep turning to instead of God. In that sense we are very much the modern Egypt.
As far as the desire to identify America with Manasseh (which I've considered) goes. We should remember the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim was an Egyptian, Asenath, the daughter of the High Priest of On.
It's interesting then that our Great Seal is all Egyptian imagery with Latin writing, derived from Masonic Symbolism. The Eagle was a Roman symbol, but Albert Pike wrote that in Masonic Imagery sometimes an Eagle really represents the Egyptian Bennu bird, called the Phoenix in Greco-Roman writings.
The Washington Monument is also molded after an Egyptian Obelisk. But there was also a lot of Roman architectural influences in Washington DC.
Freemasonry uses a lot of Egyptian symbolism in general. But some forms of it are particularly Egyptian. One was the Order of Memphis-Misriam founded by Cagliostro in 1776, the same year on the base of the Pyramid due to being when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
America like Ancient Egypt has been divided between North and South. And has a Capital at the border of that division but also the midst of the original 13 Colonies. And America like Ancient Egypt enslaved many Black Africans.
So the relationship between America and Egypt is something to keep an eye on.
Update September 2017: I've pretty retracted this assessment with my England and Egypt study. Though what I've talked about here can help back that up given how much American's History is tied to England's.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Does The Bible foretell Human Colonization of outer space?
Let's look at the very first Prophecy of the regathering of Israel to the Holy Land (which I do not view as fulfilled by 1948). Deuteronomy 30 verses 3-5 (actually continuing from chapter 29 which foretells the scattering in verses 24-27).
In Obadiah when talking about Edom, God says in verse 4.
Then we can look at Isaiah 13 talking about the armies Yahuah will bring against Babylon. In verses 4 and 5.
There are three Heavens Biblically, the Sky where the birds Fly, where the Sun, Moon and Stars are. And the Third Heaven where God is. I talked about this when discussing the Firmament. Using the word Heaven(s) back to back tends to mean the Third Heaven where God is, like we see in Psalm 115:16, Deuteronomy 10:14 and Psalm 68:33.
I reject Dominionist theology and eschatology which says that The Church is supposed to take over the World to bring about the Second Coming. Right now the Dominion meant for Adam is usurped by Satan (The Archon of The Kosmos) until the events recorded in The Book of Revelation take place and Jesus sets up His Millennial reign.
But it's interesting to look at how Psalm 8 elaborates on the issue of Adam's Dominion over God's Creation. In verse 3 we are told the Moon and Stars are the works of Yahuah's fingers. And verse 6 says He made Adam to have dominion over all the works of his hands. Why exclude the Sun here? Maybe because it's not something we can walk or build things on?
Now it is popular in the modern Flat Earth movement to say Stars are Angels, not astronomical bodies we could potentially build things on. Stars and Angels are linked often and I believe that is more then just symbolically, I think each Star has an Angel that governs or stewards it.
Now Flat Eatherers are right that Biblcally "star" is not a synonym for "sun". Rather they refer to anything up there in the heavens, including Angels and UFOs, when they are seen up there as lights in the sky.
The Biblical concept of Stars for one thing indisputably includes the Planets, which we can now see with Telescopes are large round spherical objects, some with other large round objects orbiting them. Jude uses the specific Greek term "Planates Aster" (Wandering Star) which refereed to the five visible Planets in antiquity. Hebrew had no equivalent term specific for those. And most scholars agree that Chiun of Amos 5:26 refereed to as Remphan in Acts 7:43, was an ancient name for Saturn, which the same verse calls a Star.
And in Greek astronomy the Sun and Moon were included among the "Planates Asters".
Rob Skiba even goes so far as to use the fact that The Bible records people worshiping the Stars as evidence they are sentient beings. The Bible constantly makes a point out of how the false gods people worship are inanimate lifeless objects. Like in Daniel 5.
As far as Rob's point about Stars falling from Heaven in Bible Prophecy. Taking it as literally as he wants to is severely hurt by that it happens more then once in Revelation. They seemingly ALL fall in the Sixth Seal in chapter 2. Then two more fall during the Trumpets, while also a third of them are darkened. Then a third are cast down in Revelation 12. And everything in Revelation happens in Chronological order, that is what this Blog is mainly about.
That meteors and asteroids landing on the Earth were described as "falling stars" (asteroid comes from the Greek word for star) is a known documented part of ancient terminology. And if you're going to insist The Bible must be MORE literal then common usage was, then these modern Flat Earthers need to abandon their current position on if the Sun and Moon literally rise and set.
The idea that the star falling at the start of Revelation 9 is Satan, and that he is given the Key is easily refuted by the beginning of Revelation 20 where a different Angel has the key and locks Satan in The Pit. The Angel given the Key I think is the Angel who sounded the Fifth Trumpet, later in chapter 9 we see the Angel who sounds the Sixth Trumpet plays a role on how those events play out.
The star described as "falling" to the Earth at the start of chapter 9 in the Greek can be read as just sort of descending but not totally landing. I still like my hunch that that star is Iapetus which has a lot of fringe theory speculation. But I no longer like the idea I flirted with before that the Abyss is actually inside Iapetus, the Abyss is inside The Earth, the Great Deep.
Wormwood in clearly an asteroid or comet of some sort that will poison the Earth's Water supply. Comets especially are known to have chemicals in them, not to mention the radiation any such object might bring. In Hebrew wormwood is an idiom of bitterness.
Genesis 22:17 and Hebrew 11:2 says the stars are as innumerable as the sands of the sea shore. The enclosed Dome model allows no more stars then what we can see, the sand in the sandbox I played in in my backyard as a kid dwarfs that number of stars. That model says the stars we can see are about all there are, we can number those fairly easily.
Now this hypothesis has the potential to hurt our bias for seeing these prophecies being fulfilled in our lifetime. But I also have suspicions that many of these could apply to during or after the Millennium. My one objection to Chis White's argument for Gog and Magog being Post-Millennial is his insistence that Technology will become primitive. I fully reject the idea that God would be against technological advancement.
I've actually argued before that the Regathering of Israel may not fully happen till near the end of or after the Millennium, in one of my first Lost Tribes posts. Only thing there I don't stand by anymore is the Mystery Babylon maybe being Samaria part. Some of those themes I may return to in a more refined form in the coming months. As well as the issue of Edom's eschatological destiny.
Update May 15th 2016.
What is below is not needed for this theory and gets really fringe. I'm not definitively arguing for any of it but I do find these implications interesting.
Since I'm into unconventional theories about the Ancient World having more technology then we normally think (but rejecting needing "Ancient Aliens" to explain it), as well as the possible scientific theories of Stargates/Wormholes. Maybe some of this colonization already happened?
Maybe some of the Lost Tribes went to a planet in another Solar System, a planet called Arzareth, taken from the Apocryphal 2 Esdras (sometimes IV Esdras) 13:45, which is said to be previously uninhabited by Mankind (Adamkind? or Enoshkind? we don't have it in Hebrew). While my main serious Lost Tribes theories have been based on them in Asia east of the Euphrates, (and maybe some coming to Japan and Pre-Colombian America). as an aspiring writer I've long thought of writing a SciFi/Fantasy story with this premise.
Schiller-Szinessy speculates the name Arsareth comes from a Hebrew phrase in Deuteronomy 29:28 (the Prophecy that started this study), "ereẓ aḦeret" translated in the KJV "another land". The "land" part is aHeret, a form of Erets, the Hebrew word for Earth, same one speculated to be etymologically related to the English "Earth", as well as many other Semitic and Germanic words for Earth, and from them Tolkien's Arda. Indeed the last part of Arzareth, "areth" sounds similar to Aerith, a Final Fantasy character who's name was meant to sound similar to the English "Earth".
So it could be translated "another Earth" though it does not need to mean that. Eretz is a word often used of specifically the Holy Land and other nations' homelands. But I've talked elsewhere on the Flat Earth issue that the references to the Four Corners of the Earth use Erets (and the Greek Ge) in a sense that means Eurasia+Africa. In that context the Americas can very much qualify as Another Erets, as could Australia and New Zealand, but applying that to Japan is a bit more of a stretch, Japan is the Eastern Corner I think (though Korean could also be argued to be the Eastern Corner). It is generally theories based on them going to Japan or the Americas that try to make the Arzareth reference a linchpin of the theory, Esdras is not Inspired Scripture anyway. I seem to be the first to get the idea that maybe it's not on Earth at all.
Apparently Joseph Smith said the Lost Tribes were taken from The Earth and to somewhere near the Pole Star.
It used to be considered plausible to speculate the Moon could be habitable or inhabited, just as much as Mars was. Lucian, Kepler, De Bergerec, McDermot, Washington Irving, George Tucker, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Anderson, H.G. Wells, C.L. Moore and C.S. Lewis all put intelligent life there, Jules Verne of all people however had it uninhabited. Now we know it's not inhabited and never was. (With Mars past in-habitation still seems possible. It is speculated Earth could become like Mars with the right disasters "Unless those days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved".)
If I were living when it was still plausible to speculate about life on the Moon. I'd make note of how a Genesis 10 Patriarch, Yerech ben Yacktan (Jerah of the KJV), has the same name The Hebrew Bible and other Semitic language texts call The Moon. One who's historical traces seem far fainter then some other sons of Joktan. The Mormon argument for affiliating him with the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon I find interesting, but I've talked about what's wrong with the BoM before.
In fact this patriarch predates the Moon being called that. In Genesis 1 the Sun and Moon don't have their names yet, they're just the greater and lesser lights. Yareach as a name for the Moon first appears in Genesis 37, during the lifetime of Joseph and Jacob, then Job (I'm not sure it's as old as others think, if it's setting was during the Patriarchs' time it was late in it since the Keturites have Tribes established already), then in Exodus 2 ("three months" in the KJV), but it doesn't become common till Deuteronomy.
And the Moon has an alternate Hebrew name unlike the Sun, Chodesh/Hodesh.
When an Earthly location later becomes known by a Genesis 10 name we Young Earth Creationists see significance in that, so why am I seemingly the first to consider this with the Moon?
The name of Abraham's father Terah/Terach is also viewed as a variant. It is linked to moon worship in non Biblical texts, and in Hebrew it's spelled the same as Yerach except starting with a different letter, and there are other examples of Hebrew words beginning with Yot having equivalent words that begin with Tav, like Yeshuah and Teshuah (Salvation). Either way it seems the Moon was named for a descendant of Heber, making any hypothetical Selenites/Lunarians possibly Hebrews. It's interesting to remember that Esau/Edom was a descendant of Terah.
Maybe the Yerachites traveled to another "star" but had to pit-stop on the Moon along the way and gave it their name. Or maybe they were just the first to reach it.
And Maybe it was a Yerachite Princess who was raised by a Japanese Bamboo Cutter who named her Kaguya and was romanced by the Emperor of Japan. And also a Yerachite Princess who raped the Greek Shepherd King Endymion.
Wow, did I just got really Nerdy.
Also however the Akkadian name for the moon was Sin (sometimes spelled Suen), suggesting a possible connection to the Sinite tribe of Canaan.
Update January 6th 2017.: I can't believe I forget to mention my theory that Enoch and Elijah were taken to another Planet.
Update January 23rd 2017: Well, I just noticed something I should have in the Song of Deborah, Judges 5, verses 20-23.
Now Rob Skiba might say this passage supports stars being Angels. But just before this it was talking about countries coming to battle (and some not) in similar terms. It's not talking about those geographical lands getting up and moving, but their people. This passage can be an argument for some Stars being inhabited.
Update October 7th 2018: Given how I've changed my mind on supporting the Edom=Rome identification. I'm now considering that maybe Edom's travel to outer-space was also in the past already.
Jeremiah doesn't describe a captivity and return for Edom in chapter 49 the way he does most other nations. But he does echo Obadiah's talk about Edom being as an Eagle. Edom proper disappears from the Historical biblical Record before the time of Hezekiah, with during Hezekiah's time being the last reference to Amalekites. I still agree with Bill Cooper then the Greco-Roman era Idumeans are the Ishmaelite tribe of Dumah not Edomites.
So if they weren't carried away into Captivity. why did they disappear?
"That then Yahuah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither Yahuah thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Yahuah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And Yahuah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers."This is repeated in Nehemiah 1:8-9.
Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, "If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations: But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there."Similar terminology is used in Matthew 24:31 and Mar 13:27. But I'd consider those less compelling because they're about The Rapture where Heaven is the destination of the Gathering.
In Obadiah when talking about Edom, God says in verse 4.
Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith Yahuah.It's interesting that when we landed on The Moon, Neal Armstrong said "The Eagle has Landed".
Then we can look at Isaiah 13 talking about the armies Yahuah will bring against Babylon. In verses 4 and 5.
The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: Yahuah of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even Yahuah, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.This isn't likely to be the army from the Heaven where God dwells, that army marches in Revelation 19 after Babylon's destruction is over. Rob Skiba seems to be obsessed with saying the term "Host of Heaven" can only refer to Angels. That is false, Host is a term commonly affiliated with armies.
There are three Heavens Biblically, the Sky where the birds Fly, where the Sun, Moon and Stars are. And the Third Heaven where God is. I talked about this when discussing the Firmament. Using the word Heaven(s) back to back tends to mean the Third Heaven where God is, like we see in Psalm 115:16, Deuteronomy 10:14 and Psalm 68:33.
I reject Dominionist theology and eschatology which says that The Church is supposed to take over the World to bring about the Second Coming. Right now the Dominion meant for Adam is usurped by Satan (The Archon of The Kosmos) until the events recorded in The Book of Revelation take place and Jesus sets up His Millennial reign.
But it's interesting to look at how Psalm 8 elaborates on the issue of Adam's Dominion over God's Creation. In verse 3 we are told the Moon and Stars are the works of Yahuah's fingers. And verse 6 says He made Adam to have dominion over all the works of his hands. Why exclude the Sun here? Maybe because it's not something we can walk or build things on?
Now it is popular in the modern Flat Earth movement to say Stars are Angels, not astronomical bodies we could potentially build things on. Stars and Angels are linked often and I believe that is more then just symbolically, I think each Star has an Angel that governs or stewards it.
Now Flat Eatherers are right that Biblcally "star" is not a synonym for "sun". Rather they refer to anything up there in the heavens, including Angels and UFOs, when they are seen up there as lights in the sky.
The Biblical concept of Stars for one thing indisputably includes the Planets, which we can now see with Telescopes are large round spherical objects, some with other large round objects orbiting them. Jude uses the specific Greek term "Planates Aster" (Wandering Star) which refereed to the five visible Planets in antiquity. Hebrew had no equivalent term specific for those. And most scholars agree that Chiun of Amos 5:26 refereed to as Remphan in Acts 7:43, was an ancient name for Saturn, which the same verse calls a Star.
And in Greek astronomy the Sun and Moon were included among the "Planates Asters".
Rob Skiba even goes so far as to use the fact that The Bible records people worshiping the Stars as evidence they are sentient beings. The Bible constantly makes a point out of how the false gods people worship are inanimate lifeless objects. Like in Daniel 5.
As far as Rob's point about Stars falling from Heaven in Bible Prophecy. Taking it as literally as he wants to is severely hurt by that it happens more then once in Revelation. They seemingly ALL fall in the Sixth Seal in chapter 2. Then two more fall during the Trumpets, while also a third of them are darkened. Then a third are cast down in Revelation 12. And everything in Revelation happens in Chronological order, that is what this Blog is mainly about.
That meteors and asteroids landing on the Earth were described as "falling stars" (asteroid comes from the Greek word for star) is a known documented part of ancient terminology. And if you're going to insist The Bible must be MORE literal then common usage was, then these modern Flat Earthers need to abandon their current position on if the Sun and Moon literally rise and set.
The idea that the star falling at the start of Revelation 9 is Satan, and that he is given the Key is easily refuted by the beginning of Revelation 20 where a different Angel has the key and locks Satan in The Pit. The Angel given the Key I think is the Angel who sounded the Fifth Trumpet, later in chapter 9 we see the Angel who sounds the Sixth Trumpet plays a role on how those events play out.
The star described as "falling" to the Earth at the start of chapter 9 in the Greek can be read as just sort of descending but not totally landing. I still like my hunch that that star is Iapetus which has a lot of fringe theory speculation. But I no longer like the idea I flirted with before that the Abyss is actually inside Iapetus, the Abyss is inside The Earth, the Great Deep.
Wormwood in clearly an asteroid or comet of some sort that will poison the Earth's Water supply. Comets especially are known to have chemicals in them, not to mention the radiation any such object might bring. In Hebrew wormwood is an idiom of bitterness.
Genesis 22:17 and Hebrew 11:2 says the stars are as innumerable as the sands of the sea shore. The enclosed Dome model allows no more stars then what we can see, the sand in the sandbox I played in in my backyard as a kid dwarfs that number of stars. That model says the stars we can see are about all there are, we can number those fairly easily.
Now this hypothesis has the potential to hurt our bias for seeing these prophecies being fulfilled in our lifetime. But I also have suspicions that many of these could apply to during or after the Millennium. My one objection to Chis White's argument for Gog and Magog being Post-Millennial is his insistence that Technology will become primitive. I fully reject the idea that God would be against technological advancement.
I've actually argued before that the Regathering of Israel may not fully happen till near the end of or after the Millennium, in one of my first Lost Tribes posts. Only thing there I don't stand by anymore is the Mystery Babylon maybe being Samaria part. Some of those themes I may return to in a more refined form in the coming months. As well as the issue of Edom's eschatological destiny.
Update May 15th 2016.
What is below is not needed for this theory and gets really fringe. I'm not definitively arguing for any of it but I do find these implications interesting.
Since I'm into unconventional theories about the Ancient World having more technology then we normally think (but rejecting needing "Ancient Aliens" to explain it), as well as the possible scientific theories of Stargates/Wormholes. Maybe some of this colonization already happened?
Maybe some of the Lost Tribes went to a planet in another Solar System, a planet called Arzareth, taken from the Apocryphal 2 Esdras (sometimes IV Esdras) 13:45, which is said to be previously uninhabited by Mankind (Adamkind? or Enoshkind? we don't have it in Hebrew). While my main serious Lost Tribes theories have been based on them in Asia east of the Euphrates, (and maybe some coming to Japan and Pre-Colombian America). as an aspiring writer I've long thought of writing a SciFi/Fantasy story with this premise.
Schiller-Szinessy speculates the name Arsareth comes from a Hebrew phrase in Deuteronomy 29:28 (the Prophecy that started this study), "ereẓ aḦeret" translated in the KJV "another land". The "land" part is aHeret, a form of Erets, the Hebrew word for Earth, same one speculated to be etymologically related to the English "Earth", as well as many other Semitic and Germanic words for Earth, and from them Tolkien's Arda. Indeed the last part of Arzareth, "areth" sounds similar to Aerith, a Final Fantasy character who's name was meant to sound similar to the English "Earth".
So it could be translated "another Earth" though it does not need to mean that. Eretz is a word often used of specifically the Holy Land and other nations' homelands. But I've talked elsewhere on the Flat Earth issue that the references to the Four Corners of the Earth use Erets (and the Greek Ge) in a sense that means Eurasia+Africa. In that context the Americas can very much qualify as Another Erets, as could Australia and New Zealand, but applying that to Japan is a bit more of a stretch, Japan is the Eastern Corner I think (though Korean could also be argued to be the Eastern Corner). It is generally theories based on them going to Japan or the Americas that try to make the Arzareth reference a linchpin of the theory, Esdras is not Inspired Scripture anyway. I seem to be the first to get the idea that maybe it's not on Earth at all.
Apparently Joseph Smith said the Lost Tribes were taken from The Earth and to somewhere near the Pole Star.
It used to be considered plausible to speculate the Moon could be habitable or inhabited, just as much as Mars was. Lucian, Kepler, De Bergerec, McDermot, Washington Irving, George Tucker, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexandre Dumas, Hans Christian Anderson, H.G. Wells, C.L. Moore and C.S. Lewis all put intelligent life there, Jules Verne of all people however had it uninhabited. Now we know it's not inhabited and never was. (With Mars past in-habitation still seems possible. It is speculated Earth could become like Mars with the right disasters "Unless those days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved".)
If I were living when it was still plausible to speculate about life on the Moon. I'd make note of how a Genesis 10 Patriarch, Yerech ben Yacktan (Jerah of the KJV), has the same name The Hebrew Bible and other Semitic language texts call The Moon. One who's historical traces seem far fainter then some other sons of Joktan. The Mormon argument for affiliating him with the Jaredites of the Book of Mormon I find interesting, but I've talked about what's wrong with the BoM before.
In fact this patriarch predates the Moon being called that. In Genesis 1 the Sun and Moon don't have their names yet, they're just the greater and lesser lights. Yareach as a name for the Moon first appears in Genesis 37, during the lifetime of Joseph and Jacob, then Job (I'm not sure it's as old as others think, if it's setting was during the Patriarchs' time it was late in it since the Keturites have Tribes established already), then in Exodus 2 ("three months" in the KJV), but it doesn't become common till Deuteronomy.
And the Moon has an alternate Hebrew name unlike the Sun, Chodesh/Hodesh.
When an Earthly location later becomes known by a Genesis 10 name we Young Earth Creationists see significance in that, so why am I seemingly the first to consider this with the Moon?
The name of Abraham's father Terah/Terach is also viewed as a variant. It is linked to moon worship in non Biblical texts, and in Hebrew it's spelled the same as Yerach except starting with a different letter, and there are other examples of Hebrew words beginning with Yot having equivalent words that begin with Tav, like Yeshuah and Teshuah (Salvation). Either way it seems the Moon was named for a descendant of Heber, making any hypothetical Selenites/Lunarians possibly Hebrews. It's interesting to remember that Esau/Edom was a descendant of Terah.
Maybe the Yerachites traveled to another "star" but had to pit-stop on the Moon along the way and gave it their name. Or maybe they were just the first to reach it.
And Maybe it was a Yerachite Princess who was raised by a Japanese Bamboo Cutter who named her Kaguya and was romanced by the Emperor of Japan. And also a Yerachite Princess who raped the Greek Shepherd King Endymion.
Wow, did I just got really Nerdy.
Also however the Akkadian name for the moon was Sin (sometimes spelled Suen), suggesting a possible connection to the Sinite tribe of Canaan.
Update January 6th 2017.: I can't believe I forget to mention my theory that Enoch and Elijah were taken to another Planet.
Update January 23rd 2017: Well, I just noticed something I should have in the Song of Deborah, Judges 5, verses 20-23.
"They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength. Then were the horsehoofs broken by the means of the prancings, the prancings of their mighty ones. Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of Yahuah, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of Yahuah, to the help of Yahuah against the mighty."The Talmud says that Meroz is a Star in Moed Katan 16a.
Now Rob Skiba might say this passage supports stars being Angels. But just before this it was talking about countries coming to battle (and some not) in similar terms. It's not talking about those geographical lands getting up and moving, but their people. This passage can be an argument for some Stars being inhabited.
Update October 7th 2018: Given how I've changed my mind on supporting the Edom=Rome identification. I'm now considering that maybe Edom's travel to outer-space was also in the past already.
Jeremiah doesn't describe a captivity and return for Edom in chapter 49 the way he does most other nations. But he does echo Obadiah's talk about Edom being as an Eagle. Edom proper disappears from the Historical biblical Record before the time of Hezekiah, with during Hezekiah's time being the last reference to Amalekites. I still agree with Bill Cooper then the Greco-Roman era Idumeans are the Ishmaelite tribe of Dumah not Edomites.
So if they weren't carried away into Captivity. why did they disappear?
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Mormon views on Native Americans being Israelites
There is a tendency for the claims of the Book of Mormon to come up any time theories about Israelites coming to the Americas in any form are discussed.
Even when it comes up in completely secular contexts like on Coast to Coast AM just talking about Pre-Colombian contact in general, someone will say "maybe we shouldn't write off the Mormons' claims", but The Book of Mormon actually makes a point out of the new world civilizations NOT having contact with the Old World. Part of God's Promise to Lehi was that God would protect his land from being found by the Nations. So at least from when Lehi arrives in the 6th century BC to when the narrative of the Book of Mormon ends in 422 AD, there can be no trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific contact according to Mormonism, but I believe there certainly was.
And when a History channel show like America Unearthed discusses the possibility without bringing up the Book of Mormon, Mormons see it as some kind of anti-Mormon conspiracy and so make a video mocking Scott Wolter (who is easy to mock, he's a clown who thinks he's Indiana Jones).
Many of my fellow Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura Christians feel the need to oppose the idea of any Israelite contribution to Pre-Columbian American History simply for the sake of opposing Mormonism. This unfortunately I feel makes them come off not unlike the Bible skeptics we like to make fun of, who essentially feel "if The Bible said it happened it can't possibly be even remotely true".
But there are Mormons in the public eye who don't advertise their Mormonism, bringing the subject of Israelites in America up without telling people the Book of Mormon is the reason for their interest in the subject. Like Glenn Beck. So concern that this subject could be a gateway drug to Mormonism is a legit concern.
First of all The Book of Mormon is NOT about the Lost Tribes or deported Northern Israelites.
Lehi's tribal identity may be identified as Manasseh, but he didn't leave the Holy Land till the fall of Jerusalem. Some Northern Israelites were left behind, especially in West Manasseh, Lehi's family may have been meant to be among those who migrated South for Josiah or Hezekiah's Passovers.
In fact one Mormon blog I've looked at called the NephiCode makes a point of distinguishing between the House of Lehi and their promises/destiny, and the Diaspora of either Kingdom. In fact it's not uncommon for Mormons to believe in British Israelism. But also Joseph Smith had claimed that at least some of the Lost Tribes were taken to another planet. I'm in no position to mock that view since I've argued something similar for my own totally separate reasons.
And Lehi left by sea (as did the Jaredites) in Arabia, because Joseph Smith imagined all this before the bearing strait hypothesis became the standard.
So the genetic affinity Native Americans have to East Asia, in both their Y-Chormosone and Mithocondrial DNA Haplogroups is a problem for the Book of Mormon.
But not for me since I don't think Israelites were the only people involved. And because I believe they traveled across Asia, intermingled with East Asian populations, and became ancestral to people groups in East Asia, before some of them came to the Americas and mingled with people already here. I talk about my theories on Israelite DNA here.
Many Mormons now insist the Book of Mormon does leave room for other populations, this mostly correlates to if they hold a Limited Geography interpretation rather then a Hemispheric one.
If a limited Geography model were the correct interpretation, only the Heartland Model would be plausible, because Joseph Smith's intent was definitely entirely about making special the land he lived in, drawing on prior speculation about the Missipian Mound Builders.
But the only DNA support the Heartlanders have cited is mtDNA Haplogroup X, which is mater-lineal and the least common of ones fond among Native Americans.
The NephiCode blog I mentioned stands by believing all Native Americans of both continents are Lamanites. And their answer to the DNA issue? That when God changed the skin color of the Lamanites to punish them making them look how modern Native Americans look (yes this was brought up on a Mormon blog talking to Mormons, it's not something the Godmakers made up), God also changed their DNA.
That is of course absurd. The parts of DNA used for ancestry studies are completely separate from the parts related to skin tone and eye muscle (the reason East Asians peoples' eyes look "slanted' is really because they have more eye muscle) and other ethnic features.
But if God supernaturally changed their DNA to erase their Hebrewness. They should simply have completely unique Haplogroups. Instead this Mormon blog asserted God changed their DNA to PUNISH them by making them genetically similar to East Asians. So a Mormon doctrine that was once only racist against Native Americans is now racist against East Asians too. Great work guys.
Second of all, The Book of Mormon claims the Nephites practiced strict Mosiac Judaism, but not the Lamanites.
I believe it's clearly stated in II Kings that the Lost Tribes ceased following Yahweh and lost their Israelite identity. A few remnants may have been different, and such groups have been found in Asia. So some Hebraic or Mosaic clues could have come with them, but mostly I expect to see the Lost Tribes being polytheistic pagans until they encountered Christianity, and that the vast majority stopped even speaking Hebrew before they came here.
Once again my view is more compatible with the Evidence. Because while the occasional random controversial seemingly Hebrew relic has been found, most of the Native Americans, including the Mississippian culture (who the Heartland model sees as the Nephites) were polytheistic pagans, many of whom practiced Human Sacrifice. And the languages spoken were not Semitic.
Third of all, the Israelites in America issue isn't the Book of Mormon's real doctrinal problem.
On a different blog I'll maybe some day talk about how the Book of Mormon doesn't even agree with later developed LDS doctrine, often agreeing with The Bible over it. But the Book of Mormon is definitely heretical.
First and foremost, Nephi prophesied that the Bible will be a "stumbling block". Now many Mormons disagree on how harsh this is to The Bible. Some off shoots like Temple Lot say they believe the King James Bible "so far as it has been translated correctly" implying they see the problem only in how it's translated not in the actual Masoretic or Textus Receptus texts.
LDS Mormons debate back and forth. Some saying the only things in The Bible that Mormons should agree with are what the Book of Mormon or other Mormon Scriptures explicitly endorse. Others saying all the potential "stumbling block" issues are what modern Mormon Revelations have addressed so anything in The Bible not in conflict with other Mormon scripture should be taken as God's Word. Essentially Mormons treat The Bible how Biblical Christians sometimes treat Apocryphal books that interest us.
Point remains however, the seed for doubting God's word is planted, and from that all kinds of heretical madness has developed that the Book of Mormon itself didn't talk about. Like Cosmic Pluralism and Polytheism.
But the reason this post is relevant for my Prophecy Blog is because of Mormon Eschatology.
The ancient Nephite Prophets of The Book of Mormon foretell The United States of America, referring to it as a Great Nation appointed by God to do his will. In other words, American Exceptionalism, Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny, all those ideas Christians should condemn as Patriotic Idolatry but instead fully support, that is all Canonical Scripture for Mormons.
Mormons believe America is the Promised Land, but not as a replacement for Israel. They believe Israel still has it's destiny (Joseph Smith actually was an early Christian Zionist), but they believe New Jerusalem will be in America. Old Jerusalem for the Old World and New Jerusalem for the New World. And because most modern Futurist Premillenial Evangelicals also believe New Jerusalem is distinct from Yahweh-Shammah of Ezekiel, they aren't adequately prepared to refute that false doctrine.
I have shown on this blog that New Jerusalem/Heavenly Zion is the same as Yahweh-Shammah and will be in Israel, where the current Jerusalem is.
Add to that Joseph Smith's separate Prophecies about "One Mighty and Strong" and the White Horse Prophecy. And the potential for the Mormon church to be a seed for an American Antichrist is something to be concerned about. And I also have my suspicions that Revelation 9 may begin with a counterfeit of the descend of New Jerusalem.
Even when it comes up in completely secular contexts like on Coast to Coast AM just talking about Pre-Colombian contact in general, someone will say "maybe we shouldn't write off the Mormons' claims", but The Book of Mormon actually makes a point out of the new world civilizations NOT having contact with the Old World. Part of God's Promise to Lehi was that God would protect his land from being found by the Nations. So at least from when Lehi arrives in the 6th century BC to when the narrative of the Book of Mormon ends in 422 AD, there can be no trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific contact according to Mormonism, but I believe there certainly was.
And when a History channel show like America Unearthed discusses the possibility without bringing up the Book of Mormon, Mormons see it as some kind of anti-Mormon conspiracy and so make a video mocking Scott Wolter (who is easy to mock, he's a clown who thinks he's Indiana Jones).
Many of my fellow Fundamentalist Sola Scriptura Christians feel the need to oppose the idea of any Israelite contribution to Pre-Columbian American History simply for the sake of opposing Mormonism. This unfortunately I feel makes them come off not unlike the Bible skeptics we like to make fun of, who essentially feel "if The Bible said it happened it can't possibly be even remotely true".
But there are Mormons in the public eye who don't advertise their Mormonism, bringing the subject of Israelites in America up without telling people the Book of Mormon is the reason for their interest in the subject. Like Glenn Beck. So concern that this subject could be a gateway drug to Mormonism is a legit concern.
First of all The Book of Mormon is NOT about the Lost Tribes or deported Northern Israelites.
Lehi's tribal identity may be identified as Manasseh, but he didn't leave the Holy Land till the fall of Jerusalem. Some Northern Israelites were left behind, especially in West Manasseh, Lehi's family may have been meant to be among those who migrated South for Josiah or Hezekiah's Passovers.
In fact one Mormon blog I've looked at called the NephiCode makes a point of distinguishing between the House of Lehi and their promises/destiny, and the Diaspora of either Kingdom. In fact it's not uncommon for Mormons to believe in British Israelism. But also Joseph Smith had claimed that at least some of the Lost Tribes were taken to another planet. I'm in no position to mock that view since I've argued something similar for my own totally separate reasons.
And Lehi left by sea (as did the Jaredites) in Arabia, because Joseph Smith imagined all this before the bearing strait hypothesis became the standard.
So the genetic affinity Native Americans have to East Asia, in both their Y-Chormosone and Mithocondrial DNA Haplogroups is a problem for the Book of Mormon.
But not for me since I don't think Israelites were the only people involved. And because I believe they traveled across Asia, intermingled with East Asian populations, and became ancestral to people groups in East Asia, before some of them came to the Americas and mingled with people already here. I talk about my theories on Israelite DNA here.
Many Mormons now insist the Book of Mormon does leave room for other populations, this mostly correlates to if they hold a Limited Geography interpretation rather then a Hemispheric one.
If a limited Geography model were the correct interpretation, only the Heartland Model would be plausible, because Joseph Smith's intent was definitely entirely about making special the land he lived in, drawing on prior speculation about the Missipian Mound Builders.
But the only DNA support the Heartlanders have cited is mtDNA Haplogroup X, which is mater-lineal and the least common of ones fond among Native Americans.
The NephiCode blog I mentioned stands by believing all Native Americans of both continents are Lamanites. And their answer to the DNA issue? That when God changed the skin color of the Lamanites to punish them making them look how modern Native Americans look (yes this was brought up on a Mormon blog talking to Mormons, it's not something the Godmakers made up), God also changed their DNA.
That is of course absurd. The parts of DNA used for ancestry studies are completely separate from the parts related to skin tone and eye muscle (the reason East Asians peoples' eyes look "slanted' is really because they have more eye muscle) and other ethnic features.
But if God supernaturally changed their DNA to erase their Hebrewness. They should simply have completely unique Haplogroups. Instead this Mormon blog asserted God changed their DNA to PUNISH them by making them genetically similar to East Asians. So a Mormon doctrine that was once only racist against Native Americans is now racist against East Asians too. Great work guys.
Second of all, The Book of Mormon claims the Nephites practiced strict Mosiac Judaism, but not the Lamanites.
I believe it's clearly stated in II Kings that the Lost Tribes ceased following Yahweh and lost their Israelite identity. A few remnants may have been different, and such groups have been found in Asia. So some Hebraic or Mosaic clues could have come with them, but mostly I expect to see the Lost Tribes being polytheistic pagans until they encountered Christianity, and that the vast majority stopped even speaking Hebrew before they came here.
Once again my view is more compatible with the Evidence. Because while the occasional random controversial seemingly Hebrew relic has been found, most of the Native Americans, including the Mississippian culture (who the Heartland model sees as the Nephites) were polytheistic pagans, many of whom practiced Human Sacrifice. And the languages spoken were not Semitic.
Third of all, the Israelites in America issue isn't the Book of Mormon's real doctrinal problem.
On a different blog I'll maybe some day talk about how the Book of Mormon doesn't even agree with later developed LDS doctrine, often agreeing with The Bible over it. But the Book of Mormon is definitely heretical.
First and foremost, Nephi prophesied that the Bible will be a "stumbling block". Now many Mormons disagree on how harsh this is to The Bible. Some off shoots like Temple Lot say they believe the King James Bible "so far as it has been translated correctly" implying they see the problem only in how it's translated not in the actual Masoretic or Textus Receptus texts.
LDS Mormons debate back and forth. Some saying the only things in The Bible that Mormons should agree with are what the Book of Mormon or other Mormon Scriptures explicitly endorse. Others saying all the potential "stumbling block" issues are what modern Mormon Revelations have addressed so anything in The Bible not in conflict with other Mormon scripture should be taken as God's Word. Essentially Mormons treat The Bible how Biblical Christians sometimes treat Apocryphal books that interest us.
Point remains however, the seed for doubting God's word is planted, and from that all kinds of heretical madness has developed that the Book of Mormon itself didn't talk about. Like Cosmic Pluralism and Polytheism.
But the reason this post is relevant for my Prophecy Blog is because of Mormon Eschatology.
The ancient Nephite Prophets of The Book of Mormon foretell The United States of America, referring to it as a Great Nation appointed by God to do his will. In other words, American Exceptionalism, Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny, all those ideas Christians should condemn as Patriotic Idolatry but instead fully support, that is all Canonical Scripture for Mormons.
Mormons believe America is the Promised Land, but not as a replacement for Israel. They believe Israel still has it's destiny (Joseph Smith actually was an early Christian Zionist), but they believe New Jerusalem will be in America. Old Jerusalem for the Old World and New Jerusalem for the New World. And because most modern Futurist Premillenial Evangelicals also believe New Jerusalem is distinct from Yahweh-Shammah of Ezekiel, they aren't adequately prepared to refute that false doctrine.
I have shown on this blog that New Jerusalem/Heavenly Zion is the same as Yahweh-Shammah and will be in Israel, where the current Jerusalem is.
Add to that Joseph Smith's separate Prophecies about "One Mighty and Strong" and the White Horse Prophecy. And the potential for the Mormon church to be a seed for an American Antichrist is something to be concerned about. And I also have my suspicions that Revelation 9 may begin with a counterfeit of the descend of New Jerusalem.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
About the Americas and The Lost Tribes
In terms of all the arguments that make up the peculiar Britam variety of British-Israelism, the thematic reasons (rather then historical and genealogical reasons) for associating America with Manasseh were always the most compelling to me.
I addressed this briefly in the American Antichrist post. I'll go over them again, probably in more detail.
The continental United States like the land allotted to Manasseh is divided between East and West by a major River (Mississippi/Jordan).
People have suggested a possible etymological connection between HaMakir (Makir/Machir was the first born son of Manasseh) and America. The only issue I have there is how the k/c and the r became switched around. It's been suggested the concept of Representative democracy is implied in the very name of Manasseh, as well as Machir. Those claims seem questionable to me however.
What's most interesting is how I felt long before I heard of British Israelism that George Washington had a lot in common with Gideon. Both were military leaders of successful rebellions, both were offered to be King but declined the Crown, and both become symbolically represented by a Tree.
Now I'm not a believer in British-Israelism. I think rather that the deported Northern Israelites went East rather then West. But that could potentially include them coming to the Americas and contributing to the Native American gene pool. I also think well before the deportation the Israelites had awareness of the Americas via their complex relationship with Tyre and the Phoenicians. I highly recommend the book America BC for documenting much evidence of the Phoenicians being among the Pre-Colombian travelers to the Americas.
Lots of intermingling between Native Americans and the Western colonists went on, really a majority of even "white" people in America today likely have some degree of Naive American ancestry. That does not take away that by looking White we still have White privilege.
In Genesis 48:19 Jacob Prophesied that a Great Nation would come out of Manasseh and that many nations would come out of Ephraim.
Making America Manasseh in the context of Western Nations as the Lost Tribes usually goes with making Ephraim the British Isles and the other Commonwealth nations, Queen Elizabeth II is in fact the Queen of 16 different nations. However I only see Edom and Dan when I look at England, (well also some Japheth clearly). The Lion as a symbol of theirs is used to justify connecting them to Judah/David, but in Deuteronomy 33 Dan was also called a Lion's Whelp, and the current British Royal family is really Danish, both the Queen and her consort descent from different children of King Christian IX. And before that the Angles and Saxons came from Denmark.
However if it's through Native Americans that the United States could possibly claim Manassehite heritage, then perhaps Mesoamerica/Latin America (Mexico, Central and South America, and some of the Caribbean Islands) is Ephraim. Mexico is to the south of the Western United States just like Ephraim was to Western Manasseh.
There seemed to be some shifts at different times in terms of what was Manasseh and what was Ephraim, Shechem and possibly Samaria seemed to be affiliated with both. That area was originally allotted to Ephraim in the time of Joshua, but in Gideon's time it seemed like the capital of Western Manasseh. But it seems to be Ephraim again by the time of Jeroboam.
Likewise the Southwestern United States once belonged to Mexico.
In the American Antichrist post I made a thing out of the Bald Eagle being associated with Samaria in Micah chapter 1. Well Mexico has an Eagle on it's Flag derived from Aztec legend. Aztlan is frequently speculated to have been in the American South West. It's interesting that the South West is where the LDS Church ultimately set up it's headquarters. Mormonism uses and twists for their own purposes the idea of the Native Americans being Israelites, in particular of Manasseh, yet at the same time identifies itself with Ephraim.
Shiloh and Bethel were both in what was pretty consistently Ephraim. Perhaps the analogue to Shiloh which was Israel's capital often during the Judges period is Mexico City. And Bethel's would be Teotihuacan. Or visa versa.
On the subject of Manasseh and the Jordan/Mississippi connection. Since I now support a north of the Dead Sea location for Sodom and Gomorrah, it might amuse some to know that puts them in relation to the Jordan about where New Orleans is in relation to the Mississippi.
Britam's desire to affiliate Ephriam with monarchical form of Government is also weak. They talk like all the Kings of the Northern Kingdom were of Ephriam or at least Joseph, but really only Jeroboam is confirmed, Bassha we know was Issachar and there is evidence Menahem came from Gad. Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 gives Royal Promises only to Judah and Gad, and maybe Dan and Asher. Samuel was of Ephriam and voiced a strong anti-royalist sentiment.
None of this takes away the Edomite Heritage that the modern American Nations have via Europe/Rome. In the days of Gideon the Amalakites had a fortress in the Mountains of Ephriam. And a connection between Ephriam and Edom is implied is implied in Obadiah as well.
Another thing I think Britam might be right on is Moab and Ammon being Spain and Portugal, Moab is also affiliated with Eagle imagery in Jeremiah. Britam however wants to take from that expanding it to Latin America. But Moab and Ammon were among the nations that oppressed the Israelites during the Judges period. So perhaps Ephraim was under the yoke of Moab and Ammon for centuries, but then after the American Revolution (because Manasseh was the first born) Ephraim started throwing off the yoke of Moab and Ammon under leaders like Simon Bolivar.
One thing I want to make clear is my speculating on Northern Israelite heritage for any Asian or Native American peoples does not take away that other people were there first, with possible Genesis 10 ancestry independent of Shem much less Abraham. But after the deportation most of the northern Israelites lost their identity and were absorbed into and intermingled with various other peoples.
Update December 1st 2017:
First of all, it seems from my research since I made this, that it was chiefly and possibly just Shechem that was affiliated with both Ephraim and Manasseh. Shechem is also where Joseph was buried. Samaria being usually placed north of Shechem is most likely Manasseh territory. It seems the confusion is added to because the mountain range called the "Mountains of Ephraim" (Sometimes translated as if it were singular in English) extend into Manasseh's territory.
Given the elaborations that have since been made to my Lost Tribes views. I no longer think Native Americans are the only means by which Manasseh came to America. It was those carried away by Assyria that were taken East and wound up in the Mississippi region.
In a future post I'll be talking more on what I think about the fates of the Northern Israelites who weren't carried away by Assyria. Where I will explain that I think descendants of Western Manasseh (and to an extent other tribes) wound up in America via Irish&Scottish Immigrants (Welsh and Bretans as well) and African Slaves (and also Irish Slaves).
Deuteronomy 23:7-8 says that Edomites and Mizraimites who come to dwell among the Israelites should be let into the congregation after the third generation. By the American Revolution quite a few colonists had been here for more then three generations.
I've argued on this Blog that the Scandanavins, and other Germanic Tribes including the Anglo-Saxons and Dutch chiefly descend from Dan and Mizraim (Jeremiah foretold Mizraim winding up in the North). There is also likely a strong Danite element still in Greece.
I also still feel inclined towards identifying Edom with Rome, in-spite of that recent Daniel 7 post I made. Rome contributed to the population of the British Isles and other parts of Europe, but they would chiefly be Italians (and Corsicans). There were some Italians already here before the Revolution, they mostly came from northern Italy, the waves of Italian Immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s were chiefly from southern Italy and Sicily.
I addressed this briefly in the American Antichrist post. I'll go over them again, probably in more detail.
The continental United States like the land allotted to Manasseh is divided between East and West by a major River (Mississippi/Jordan).
People have suggested a possible etymological connection between HaMakir (Makir/Machir was the first born son of Manasseh) and America. The only issue I have there is how the k/c and the r became switched around. It's been suggested the concept of Representative democracy is implied in the very name of Manasseh, as well as Machir. Those claims seem questionable to me however.
What's most interesting is how I felt long before I heard of British Israelism that George Washington had a lot in common with Gideon. Both were military leaders of successful rebellions, both were offered to be King but declined the Crown, and both become symbolically represented by a Tree.
Now I'm not a believer in British-Israelism. I think rather that the deported Northern Israelites went East rather then West. But that could potentially include them coming to the Americas and contributing to the Native American gene pool. I also think well before the deportation the Israelites had awareness of the Americas via their complex relationship with Tyre and the Phoenicians. I highly recommend the book America BC for documenting much evidence of the Phoenicians being among the Pre-Colombian travelers to the Americas.
Lots of intermingling between Native Americans and the Western colonists went on, really a majority of even "white" people in America today likely have some degree of Naive American ancestry. That does not take away that by looking White we still have White privilege.
In Genesis 48:19 Jacob Prophesied that a Great Nation would come out of Manasseh and that many nations would come out of Ephraim.
Making America Manasseh in the context of Western Nations as the Lost Tribes usually goes with making Ephraim the British Isles and the other Commonwealth nations, Queen Elizabeth II is in fact the Queen of 16 different nations. However I only see Edom and Dan when I look at England, (well also some Japheth clearly). The Lion as a symbol of theirs is used to justify connecting them to Judah/David, but in Deuteronomy 33 Dan was also called a Lion's Whelp, and the current British Royal family is really Danish, both the Queen and her consort descent from different children of King Christian IX. And before that the Angles and Saxons came from Denmark.
However if it's through Native Americans that the United States could possibly claim Manassehite heritage, then perhaps Mesoamerica/Latin America (Mexico, Central and South America, and some of the Caribbean Islands) is Ephraim. Mexico is to the south of the Western United States just like Ephraim was to Western Manasseh.
There seemed to be some shifts at different times in terms of what was Manasseh and what was Ephraim, Shechem and possibly Samaria seemed to be affiliated with both. That area was originally allotted to Ephraim in the time of Joshua, but in Gideon's time it seemed like the capital of Western Manasseh. But it seems to be Ephraim again by the time of Jeroboam.
Likewise the Southwestern United States once belonged to Mexico.
In the American Antichrist post I made a thing out of the Bald Eagle being associated with Samaria in Micah chapter 1. Well Mexico has an Eagle on it's Flag derived from Aztec legend. Aztlan is frequently speculated to have been in the American South West. It's interesting that the South West is where the LDS Church ultimately set up it's headquarters. Mormonism uses and twists for their own purposes the idea of the Native Americans being Israelites, in particular of Manasseh, yet at the same time identifies itself with Ephraim.
Shiloh and Bethel were both in what was pretty consistently Ephraim. Perhaps the analogue to Shiloh which was Israel's capital often during the Judges period is Mexico City. And Bethel's would be Teotihuacan. Or visa versa.
On the subject of Manasseh and the Jordan/Mississippi connection. Since I now support a north of the Dead Sea location for Sodom and Gomorrah, it might amuse some to know that puts them in relation to the Jordan about where New Orleans is in relation to the Mississippi.
Britam's desire to affiliate Ephriam with monarchical form of Government is also weak. They talk like all the Kings of the Northern Kingdom were of Ephriam or at least Joseph, but really only Jeroboam is confirmed, Bassha we know was Issachar and there is evidence Menahem came from Gad. Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 gives Royal Promises only to Judah and Gad, and maybe Dan and Asher. Samuel was of Ephriam and voiced a strong anti-royalist sentiment.
None of this takes away the Edomite Heritage that the modern American Nations have via Europe/Rome. In the days of Gideon the Amalakites had a fortress in the Mountains of Ephriam. And a connection between Ephriam and Edom is implied is implied in Obadiah as well.
Another thing I think Britam might be right on is Moab and Ammon being Spain and Portugal, Moab is also affiliated with Eagle imagery in Jeremiah. Britam however wants to take from that expanding it to Latin America. But Moab and Ammon were among the nations that oppressed the Israelites during the Judges period. So perhaps Ephraim was under the yoke of Moab and Ammon for centuries, but then after the American Revolution (because Manasseh was the first born) Ephraim started throwing off the yoke of Moab and Ammon under leaders like Simon Bolivar.
One thing I want to make clear is my speculating on Northern Israelite heritage for any Asian or Native American peoples does not take away that other people were there first, with possible Genesis 10 ancestry independent of Shem much less Abraham. But after the deportation most of the northern Israelites lost their identity and were absorbed into and intermingled with various other peoples.
Update December 1st 2017:
First of all, it seems from my research since I made this, that it was chiefly and possibly just Shechem that was affiliated with both Ephraim and Manasseh. Shechem is also where Joseph was buried. Samaria being usually placed north of Shechem is most likely Manasseh territory. It seems the confusion is added to because the mountain range called the "Mountains of Ephraim" (Sometimes translated as if it were singular in English) extend into Manasseh's territory.
Given the elaborations that have since been made to my Lost Tribes views. I no longer think Native Americans are the only means by which Manasseh came to America. It was those carried away by Assyria that were taken East and wound up in the Mississippi region.
In a future post I'll be talking more on what I think about the fates of the Northern Israelites who weren't carried away by Assyria. Where I will explain that I think descendants of Western Manasseh (and to an extent other tribes) wound up in America via Irish&Scottish Immigrants (Welsh and Bretans as well) and African Slaves (and also Irish Slaves).
Deuteronomy 23:7-8 says that Edomites and Mizraimites who come to dwell among the Israelites should be let into the congregation after the third generation. By the American Revolution quite a few colonists had been here for more then three generations.
I've argued on this Blog that the Scandanavins, and other Germanic Tribes including the Anglo-Saxons and Dutch chiefly descend from Dan and Mizraim (Jeremiah foretold Mizraim winding up in the North). There is also likely a strong Danite element still in Greece.
I also still feel inclined towards identifying Edom with Rome, in-spite of that recent Daniel 7 post I made. Rome contributed to the population of the British Isles and other parts of Europe, but they would chiefly be Italians (and Corsicans). There were some Italians already here before the Revolution, they mostly came from northern Italy, the waves of Italian Immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s were chiefly from southern Italy and Sicily.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Could The Antichrist be American?
Disclaimer: This is NOT in any way me trying to defend the Barack Obama as the Antichrist nonsense. Quite the contrary what has largely inspired this post is my suspicion that the Antichrist will probably come from the political right (and America is still the most conservative western nation). That he'll convince many Evangelicals he's one of us, or at least be the kind of politician too many of us tend to be too easily suckered in by. Obama is horrible, but not in my view Antichrist material.
This post is kind of a follow up to The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy. Which was itself a follow up to earlier posts of this blog. Thing is, if The Antichrist is the head of a western nation that comes to Israel's aid (being her ally at first but turning on her later) like Chris White and I in different ways suspect. Right now it seems the United States of America is the by far the most likely nation to do that. That doesn't prove anything because circumstances could change, but it's worth looking at.
Objections to the idea of The Antichrist being a United States President, or American in anyway, that are actually Biblical, tend to come purely down to passages taken as proving he does come from somewhere else.
I agree with Chris White's arguments against the Assyrian Antichrist. but not with his arguments against a Roman Antichrist. However America does have a Roman legacy as much as Europe. I think it's possible that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 isn't just the individual of The Antichrist, but also an 11th Nation. The U.S. as that 11th Nation could work quite well.
Chris White also insists Daniel 8 proves The Antichrist must come from the region of the nations conquered by Alexander The Great. But as I've argued elsewhere I believe that connection is genealogical not geographical. (Though it is interesting the exiled Royal Family of modern Greece is living in New York, the youngest members of it including the current second in line to the throne were born here and thus under the 14th Amendment have American citizenship. But at this point I see no solid reason to accuse any of them, it seems unlikely any would seek to run for an American political office.)
So I see no solid reason to limit where he could come from.
In terms of the potential relationship to the Hersey that Western Nations are the inheritors of the Northern Kingdom. Britam (drawing on earlier ideas) affiliates the U.S. with Manasseh and the U.K. with Ephraim. It's interesting that the Continental United States is divided between east and west by a major river (Mississippi) just as the lands allotted to Manasseh were by the Jordan.
But a stronger thematic connection is that Gideon (the greatest hero of the Tribe of Manasseh) can be compared to George Washington. Both men after being the military leaders of successful rebellions were offered Kingship but turned it down. And also both later became symbolically affiliated with a Tree.
It's interesting then to return to the role both White and I feel the false Psalm 83 War belief could play. Psalm 83 makes an allusion to the narrative of Gideon, which leads to a desire to affiliate that Psalm with a call for a "New Gideon", which plays into the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept quite well.
(Update: I've done another post on the Manasseh connection.)
In the Edom=Rome study I talk about how the Eagle was a major Symbol of Rome and became a major Western Symbol from that. I also talked about how UnBiblical the idea of the Eagle being linked to Dan is, and pointed to passages linking it to Edom. There is however one interesting Bible Prophecy that can justify linking the Eagle to the Northern Kingdom. Micah chapter 1 is a Prophecy mainly against Samaria. At the end in verse 16 it says.
So I'm not saying The Antichrist certainly will be American, but I think Believers need to be more open to the possibility that he could be.
Satan I believe has been laying the groundwork for every possible option. And that American politically conservative Christians tend to marry their Faith and their Patriotism is something I consider a major problem. I call it Patriotic Idolatry, and definitely a form of the Sin of Pergamos.
And while Evangelicals love to preach against Mormon Hersey, they are very surprisingly willing to jump into bed with Mormons politically, when it comes to "Family Values" and other things. Mormons meanwhile have their Prophecy of a Rider on a White Horse, who'll become both President of the U.S. and Prophet of the Mormon Church at the same time, and "Save" the Constitution when it "hangs by a thread" by creating a Mormon Theocracy. Regardless of those concerns Evangelicals got behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and I fear may again in 2016. The Mormons also in-cooperate seeing America as Manasseh into their doctrine, and have even used the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept in their own weird way.
That rant doesn't mean I think it must be a Mormon who becomes an American Antichrist. That's just one option.
Back during the period just before and after 2000 there was a popular trend of making many independently produced Christian movies depicting the End Times (almost all with Pre-Trib suppositions), and with them were also books. These works also reflected this dangerous marrying of faith and patriotism, which I've already complained about. By having the U.S. be one of the few countries who manages to rebel against The Antichrist.
Two of those films go so far as to feature a President of the United States as a Hero standing up against The Antichrist.
First is Megiddo: The Omega Code 2, (a Sequel to the first movie only in having the same actor as it's Antichrist). That movie even makes it's hero the Antichrist's brother. Somehow one brother becomes President of the E.U. and the other President of the U.S.
In Left Behind: World At War (based on left over plot-lines of the second book), the President is African American, which I give them credit for. But also this time he does in fact die in his battle with The Antichrist.
Reason this is significant is that I think there will be a decoy Antichrist (maybe more then one) who will have an adversarial relationship with the real one. He's The Terrible of The Nations in Ezekiel. And I argued in my Four Horseman study that I think this individual could be who gives The Antichrist his mortal wound.
I know these authors might hate to think their own works may unwittingly help The Antichrist. But I'm afraid that may very well happen.
This post is kind of a follow up to The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy. Which was itself a follow up to earlier posts of this blog. Thing is, if The Antichrist is the head of a western nation that comes to Israel's aid (being her ally at first but turning on her later) like Chris White and I in different ways suspect. Right now it seems the United States of America is the by far the most likely nation to do that. That doesn't prove anything because circumstances could change, but it's worth looking at.
Objections to the idea of The Antichrist being a United States President, or American in anyway, that are actually Biblical, tend to come purely down to passages taken as proving he does come from somewhere else.
I agree with Chris White's arguments against the Assyrian Antichrist. but not with his arguments against a Roman Antichrist. However America does have a Roman legacy as much as Europe. I think it's possible that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 isn't just the individual of The Antichrist, but also an 11th Nation. The U.S. as that 11th Nation could work quite well.
Chris White also insists Daniel 8 proves The Antichrist must come from the region of the nations conquered by Alexander The Great. But as I've argued elsewhere I believe that connection is genealogical not geographical. (Though it is interesting the exiled Royal Family of modern Greece is living in New York, the youngest members of it including the current second in line to the throne were born here and thus under the 14th Amendment have American citizenship. But at this point I see no solid reason to accuse any of them, it seems unlikely any would seek to run for an American political office.)
So I see no solid reason to limit where he could come from.
In terms of the potential relationship to the Hersey that Western Nations are the inheritors of the Northern Kingdom. Britam (drawing on earlier ideas) affiliates the U.S. with Manasseh and the U.K. with Ephraim. It's interesting that the Continental United States is divided between east and west by a major river (Mississippi) just as the lands allotted to Manasseh were by the Jordan.
But a stronger thematic connection is that Gideon (the greatest hero of the Tribe of Manasseh) can be compared to George Washington. Both men after being the military leaders of successful rebellions were offered Kingship but turned it down. And also both later became symbolically affiliated with a Tree.
It's interesting then to return to the role both White and I feel the false Psalm 83 War belief could play. Psalm 83 makes an allusion to the narrative of Gideon, which leads to a desire to affiliate that Psalm with a call for a "New Gideon", which plays into the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept quite well.
(Update: I've done another post on the Manasseh connection.)
In the Edom=Rome study I talk about how the Eagle was a major Symbol of Rome and became a major Western Symbol from that. I also talked about how UnBiblical the idea of the Eagle being linked to Dan is, and pointed to passages linking it to Edom. There is however one interesting Bible Prophecy that can justify linking the Eagle to the Northern Kingdom. Micah chapter 1 is a Prophecy mainly against Samaria. At the end in verse 16 it says.
"Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee."The Eagle as I said has been a symbol of The West for centuries. But the sub-species known as the Bald Eagle is indigenous to the New World, which is why it was chosen to be a specific symbol of the United States of America. Yet we have here Samaria being represented as a bald eagle in a time long before Columbus.
So I'm not saying The Antichrist certainly will be American, but I think Believers need to be more open to the possibility that he could be.
Satan I believe has been laying the groundwork for every possible option. And that American politically conservative Christians tend to marry their Faith and their Patriotism is something I consider a major problem. I call it Patriotic Idolatry, and definitely a form of the Sin of Pergamos.
And while Evangelicals love to preach against Mormon Hersey, they are very surprisingly willing to jump into bed with Mormons politically, when it comes to "Family Values" and other things. Mormons meanwhile have their Prophecy of a Rider on a White Horse, who'll become both President of the U.S. and Prophet of the Mormon Church at the same time, and "Save" the Constitution when it "hangs by a thread" by creating a Mormon Theocracy. Regardless of those concerns Evangelicals got behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and I fear may again in 2016. The Mormons also in-cooperate seeing America as Manasseh into their doctrine, and have even used the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept in their own weird way.
That rant doesn't mean I think it must be a Mormon who becomes an American Antichrist. That's just one option.
Back during the period just before and after 2000 there was a popular trend of making many independently produced Christian movies depicting the End Times (almost all with Pre-Trib suppositions), and with them were also books. These works also reflected this dangerous marrying of faith and patriotism, which I've already complained about. By having the U.S. be one of the few countries who manages to rebel against The Antichrist.
Two of those films go so far as to feature a President of the United States as a Hero standing up against The Antichrist.
First is Megiddo: The Omega Code 2, (a Sequel to the first movie only in having the same actor as it's Antichrist). That movie even makes it's hero the Antichrist's brother. Somehow one brother becomes President of the E.U. and the other President of the U.S.
In Left Behind: World At War (based on left over plot-lines of the second book), the President is African American, which I give them credit for. But also this time he does in fact die in his battle with The Antichrist.
Reason this is significant is that I think there will be a decoy Antichrist (maybe more then one) who will have an adversarial relationship with the real one. He's The Terrible of The Nations in Ezekiel. And I argued in my Four Horseman study that I think this individual could be who gives The Antichrist his mortal wound.
I know these authors might hate to think their own works may unwittingly help The Antichrist. But I'm afraid that may very well happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)