I just read an article saying Joktan never went to Arabia

http://www.eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm

[Update: https://web.archive.org/web/20230208105643/http://eifiles.cn/oo-en.htm]

I've talked about descent from Joktan before.  On my Revised Chronology blog in the Queen of Sheba post, and the post about the Magi coming from Arabia.  And on my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty blog talking about Christianity in Pre-Islamic Arabia and Feminism in Pre-Islamic Arabia.  But this is a good opportunity to put my thoughts on this on record here.

This article first of all ignores that the Tower of Babel incident clearly took place before the events of Genesis 10, it's a prequel, and it's not the only place where Genesis isn't strictly chronological, just look at Genesis 25.  But this site argues Joktan's clan must have broke off and headed East before the others reached Shinar.

Some Bible scholars have offered an opinion that Joktan migrated into Arabia
because two of his sons, Sheba and Havilah, have the same names as two tribes
in Arabia.  But those Arabian tribes are of Cushite descent in the lineage of Ham
and are not in the lineage of Shem at all (see Gen. 10:6-7).  Arabia is part of the
migration route to Africa, the land of Cush; therefore the first peoples in Arabia
were Cushite, in the lineage of Ham. 

(Many Biblical names may occur multiple times in the different genealogies but
that does not confirm a genealogical kinship; only the context can indicate that.)

Now I do agree about there being Cushites in Arabia.  The problem here is they ignore Ophir, there is no Ophir among the descendants of Cush, and Arabain traditions frequently linked Ophir to Sheba and Havilah.  And The Bible does the same.

It is the Sheba descended from Cush who wound up East of the Euphrates, in India, (The name of the Indian deity Shiva no doubt comes from Sheba).  In India there are mountains called the Hindu Kush and there was an ancient Kushan empire.  The Sheba and Dedan from Cush were sons of Ramah.  In Indian mythology there was also a Rama who had two sons, but their names were changed to Kusha and Lava.

The Dedan in Arabia was most certainly the Dedan of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah, because we know that Dedan was located firmly within what was promised to Abraham, and is fairly consistent with where Josephus says the sons by Keturah were settled.  The Abrahamic Sheba is the one I'm most uncertain where to place.

The Cushite Havilah is probably in the Near East but further north.

Many of the Arabian tribes descended from Joktan are known as Qahtanite tribes.  Mount Shepher is mount Zafar in Yemen.  The Yemeni Hadramaut kingdom descended from Joktan's son Hazarmaveth.

Joktan had 13 sons.  So I'm fine with arguing they aren't limited to Arabia, that some went to Africa via Havilah.  And some may have become Native Americans, giving Joktan's name to the Yucatan peninsula. 

Many Mormon scholars have a theory that the Jared who founded the Book of Mormon's Jaredites is the same as Jerah son of Joktan.  I think that could be what Smith intended given how he played with Biblical names.  The unnamed brother was probably meant to be the firstborn Almodad since he seems to be depicted as having Firstborn authority.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon however.  What I do believe is Native Americans came here via Asia and Alaska.  I also believe the deported northern Israelites contributed a great deal to the populations of Asia east of the Euphrates and the Native Americans.

So as far as this article's desire to make a point out of how massive the populations of the far east are.  Rebecca was told she'd be an ancestor of Thousands of Millions (that's Billions), Reuben was told in Deuteronomy 33 that his men would not be few.  And Ephraim was told he would become the fullness of the nations.

The Pre-Babel language was obviously Hebrew.

The Second Captivity of Samaria?

When prophecies like Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 16 were foretelling the coming Babylonian Captivity of Jerusalem, they compared and contrasted it to the Assyrian Captivity of Samaria.  The thing I note about this is that Judah ultimately had two captivities and returns, while Samaria has thus far had one Captivity and not yet a return.

Meanwhile I also feel many difficult to fully understand Prophecies are implying a conflict between Ephraim and Judah in the End Times.  From Isaiah 28, (and possibly Isaiah 7-11 which may or may not have Eschatological significance).  And Jeremiah 4, and Zechariah 9-11.  Like how they were often at war during the divided Kingdom period.

Which is a problem for how Two House Theology and British Israelism like to see the Eschatological role of Ephraim.  I should also point out that Mormonism teaches a form of Two House Theology.

I'm not a Dispensationalist as that is usually defined, I agree that The Church is grafted into Israel.  But we're not grafted into a specific Tribe, Ezekiel 37 says Joseph and Judah both have companions joined to them.

Now people might ask, if the "Lost Tribes" returning is a part of the End Times, where is it in Revelation?

Well it's in Chapter 16, in the Sixth Bowl of God's Wrath.  The Euphrates River is dried up to make way for the Kings of the East, East of the Euphrates is where Assyria first took them.  But it also describes people coming from all four corners of the Earth, just as Israel was ultimately scattered to all four corners.  And they are gathered at Megiddo, Northern Kingdom territory, in the valley of Jezreel which had been one of their capitals.

I think it's possible part of the point of The Millennium is so the Northern Kingdom can have a second Captivity.

Chris White talks about reasons that the Antichrist could resemble the Rabbinic expected Messiah Ben-Joseph, an idea that some Hebraic style Christians have also accepted.  But does so leaving the Lost Tribes aspect of that doctrine completely out of it.

I've been talking a lot about The Antichrist possibly ruling from Egypt.  How can that and a false Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant go together?

Well between lots of maps online confusing the Brook of Egypt with The Nile, thus expanding Israel's rightful borders to include much of Egypt.  And fringe history theories hijacking legit Revised Chronology research to say many Kings of Israel and Judah were really Pharaohs of Egypt.  And people trying to claim The Great Pyramid was built to honor Yahuah.  And my arguments that some nations believed to be of the Lost Tribes may really be of Exiled Egyptians (or perhaps both).  And Hosea foretelling that Ephraim would return to Egypt.  And that Jeroboam was a vassal of Shishak.  And Leviticus 24 talks about a Blasphemous Israelite who's mother was Danite and Father was an Egyptian  There is a lot to work with.

But also that Joseph himself, viewed as the first type of Messiah Ben-Joseph, was essentially placed Second in Command of Egypt by Pharaoh.  I think there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle I'm still trying to put together.  And Joshua 10:41 says Joshua conquered all the way to Goshen.  Either that's a different Goshen, or he conquered the same land they had lived in as slaves.  Whichever answer is true, a Messiah Ben-Joseph wanna be claiming to b a new Joshua could well use the latter interpretation.

The Mormon Doctrine of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers

First this is about LDS Mormonism specifically, groups like Temple Lot that reject the Cosmic Pluralism of Smith and Young's later teachings view Satan about the same as Protestants and Evangelicals who are KJV only do.

Here is a Mormon Website defending Mormonism against this accusation.

Yes it is true that this Mormon doctrine makes all Angels and Humans brothers of Jesus and Lucifer also.  And indeed The Bible also calls all Angels including Satan "Sons of God" in Job and Genesis 6.  And The New Testament calls Adam and all Believers "Sons of God".  And I thank this webpage for reminding me of Hebrews 12:9 and how that could be relevant to the Nephilim view vs Sethite view debate.  But also just like in The Bible, Satan has a certain seniority over the others besides Jesus who is the First Born.

My objection to the Mormon view of how Jesus and Satan are related is not so much that it elevates Satan (my view of Satan may well be a more powerful entity then the LDS view, he's the Archon of the Kosmos), it's that it subtly demotes Jesus.

On that very page, in it's answer to "Q. What about the Jesus and Satan being brothers claim?" They say "However, Jesus chose to honor and glorify his Father while Satan chose to rebel against and dishonor Him.  Jesus and Satan are polar opposites–literally as different as any two individuals can possibly be." Meaning they're arguing the difference between Jesus and Satan begins with the choices they made, they were equal in creation.  I believe Jesus is the ONLY Begotten Son of God, John 3:16, not just the First Born, though First Born of Creation is also one of his titles.  He is The Word made Flesh.

The LDS view of Jesus and Lucifer is not unlike Manwe and Melkor in Tolkien's cosmology.  All the Anuir were created from the thoughts of Eru Iluvatar, but Manwe and Melkor were twins essentially as the First Born of his thought, but it was the choices they made that made them opposites.

I doubt Tolkien was copying Mormonism specifically, he was drawing on mythological motifs that are common and Ancient.  From Thor and Loki as rival sons of Odin to Vishnu and Shiva of Hinudism.  And the Zurvanism form of Zoroastrianism has Zurvan in the Elohim role, and Ahura-Mazda and Angra Manyu as the good and evil rivals he created.

But the beginning of this motif is perhaps Enlil and Enki as the chief sons of Anu in Sumerian Mythology.  Just do a Google search with Enlil, Enki and either Satan or Lucifer as the main keywords and you'll find many websites and articles saying Enlil is like Yahuah/Yahweh (LDS Mormons believe Jesus is Jehovah while Elohim is God The Father) and Enki is The Serpent of Genesis 3.  Sometimes from Christians saying this is Satan's earliest corruption of the Biblical world view.  Meaning they're not saying it's okay to worship Enlil, but that Enlil was devised in some ways to reflect how Satan wants people to view Yahuah.  Rob Skiba has also talked about this subject.

There is definitely a subtext to the Sumerian myths that present Enlil as bad compared to Enki.  Also the earliest Temple of Eridu (the original Babel) was devoted to Enki.  Enki is presented as the one who gave Mankind knowledge and civilization.  Enlil is presented as sending the Flood while Enki warned the Noah figure.  In Akkadian and some other Semitic Mesopotamian texts Enki is called Ea.

I wonder if Tolkien's account of how Luthien puts Morgoth to sleep to take one of his Silmarils could be his puerile re-imagining of the myth of how Inanna obtained Enki's me.

In the Baal Cycle and other texts of Ugarit, the Enlil role seems to be played by Baal (sometimes also called Hadad/Hadar/Adad/Adar) and the Enki role by Yam and maybe also Lotan, scholars disagree on if Lotan is Yam or an instrument of Yam.  And the role of Anu is played by El.

Baal worship is probably the most frequently condemned false Worship in the Hebrew Bible.  But remember God dislikes being identified with a Pagan god just as much as being rejected altogether, we see that in the Golden Calf incident where they called the Calf Yahuah.

Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like.  Of course the main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.  So I see this as mainly being about how the marriage of Genesis 3 will be done away with in favor of the marriage of Genesis 2.

The devout Baal worshipers Ahab and Jezebel named at least three of their children YHWH theophoric names, Athaliah, Ahaziah and Jehoram.

Zachariah 12, I have already mentioned before as possibly using Hadad-Rimmon as a title or idiom of Christ Crucified.

The Tel Dan Stele was made either by Hazael of Aram-Damascus or by Jehu, both were anointed Kings by Elisha on instructions originally given to Elijah by Yahuah.  Both should have known full well that Yahuah made them King, but the author of the Stele says Hadad made him King.  Jehu did continue the Sins of Jeroboam.

 In Hebrew Lotan could come from putting a Lamed as a prefix before Tan, the basic root word for Dragon, which would mean "To the Dragon".  Some have connected the Ugarit Lotan to the Biblical Leviathan.  The name Lotan does occur in Genesis 36 in the Horite genealogy.

Isaiah 27:1 has a phrase translated "the dragon that is in the sea".  But in the Hebrew this is only three words.  "Tanyin asher Yam", Yam being the Hebrew word for the Sea.  It could be this whole phrase is a name or title of Satan and that we have a Biblical basis for using Yam as a name for Satan.   I notice this could parallel Ehyeh asher Ehyeh "I Am that I Am", maybe it could be "The Dragon that is Yam"?

Psalm 74:13 could also be interesting in this context, and also Ezekiel 29:3.  Or Ezekiel 32:2 where the word for Dragon is translated "Whale" in the KJV.

Some Canaanite texts call Yam Judge-Nahar (Nahar being interpreted to mean river) Nahar is a name that could easily be related to Nahash, the word for Serpent in Genesis 3 and 49 and other places.   Rivers are Serpent like in a sense.

There is some evidence that Chemosh and Moloch were just the Moabite and Ammonite forms of the same deity.  Since Chemosh seems to have been depicted as a Fish god I'd say they're more likely a Yam/Enki figure.  And that the Philistine Dagon is the same as them also, Dagon comes from the Hebrew word for fish.

In Egyptian mythology the rival brothers are Osiris and Set.

While we're used to thinking of Set as the Satan figure particularly thanks to Aquino's Temple of Set.  In the context of the mythical motifs I'm discussing here, it should be noted that Set slew the Egyptian Lotan figure, the coiling Serpent Apep.  And that the Hycsos who came from the Levant seemed to favor Set because he was the easiest to identify with Baal being a storm god, albeit of sand storms.  Perhaps the Genesis 36 name Shobal is a shortening of Seth-Baal?

Maybe originally Osiris and Apep were the same or linked, but in time the enemy of the heroic Set and the enemy of the villainous Set were separated.  Osiris is often depicted as having Green skin, scholars usually explain this as being because he was a Vegetation god.  But I know of no direct connection with vegetation besides that modern comparative mythology logic seems to see every "dying and rising god" as either a vegetation god if now a solar one.

The fact that Osiris and Horus are so firmly linked to the person of the Pharaoh himself, makes the possibly of Osiris as a Serpent god interesting in light of Ezekiel 29 and 32.  And Egypt is also mentioned in Isaiah 27.  And also how Rahab (who is unfortunately sometimes transliterated the same as Rachab) is often interpreted as both a Lotan figure and as a name for Egypt or whoever rules it.

Orisis also has overlooked aspects of being a Goat god, from his connection to The Goat of Mendes, to his name being connected to the Hebrew Seir/Sayir.  How does that fit with my having just argued he's a Sea Serpent god?  Well the constellation Capricorn is depicted as Half Goat and Half Fish, and it's been depicted that way for over 3000 years.  The History and Mythology section of it's Wikipedia page says the Babylonians viewed Capricorn as a depiction of Ea aka Enki.

That can be interesting in light of my argument that every use of "Lamb" in Revelation is perhaps really Goat.  We'd have the Second Beast having Goat like Horns but speaking with a Dragon's voice.

Horus could then be equated to Marduk, the son of Enki who in the Enuma Elis takes on the position previously held by Enlil in earlier myths.

However Egyptian mythology can be confusing, partly because it changed over time, and much of it was different tradition of the Upper and Lower kingdoms being fused together. As such another Enki/Yam figure could be Sobek, who was depicted as a Crocodile, and also viewed an an embodiment of The Nile (paralleling Yam as Nahar).  And came to be linked to the Pharonic power similarly to Horus and Osiris.  And another Enlil/Baal figure could be Amon, who in Carthage was identified with Baal as Baal Hamon, (and with Zeus by the Greeks as Zeus-Amon).  And another Anu figure could be Atum.

And then there is that one Masonic ritual where the secret word is JaBalOm which is a merging together of the names of Jehovah, Baal and Amon into a single name.

Geb/Seb/Keb is also sometimes depicted as a Crocodile or Snake. And he is also described as the Father of Snakes, like Nehebkau.  He was the father of Osiris and Isis and Set and Nebthet.  Geb is also considered a god of the Earth, and Enki means "Lord of The Earth".

Perhaps Geb and Sobek were originally the same.  Of the sons of Enki, Marduk who went on to take aspects of Enlil could be equated to Set.  Dumuzid/Tammuz father is never directly stated, but his sister Ngeshtin-ana is called a daughter of Enki and Ninhurshag.  Hislop derived mythology makes Tammuz sound like Horus, but he was actually more like Osiris.

In the Sumerian poem Inana and Bilulu, one figure Inana gets revenge on for being involved in the killing of Dumuzi/Dumuzid is Jirjire, the son of Bilulu. Jirjire is turned into a Desert god of bad weather, making him a lot like Set, a god associated with the Desert and Sand Storms and other bad whether, which is why the Greeks sometimes identified him with Typhon.  Marduk seems like a god we only know by the name the Semitic Mesopotamians called him, as if he doesn't go all the way back to Summer.  Perhaps Jirjire became Marduk?

Set has somewhat of a minor solar deity association via his riding in Ra's Chariot to battle Apep. Marduk too however is while not the main sun god a name that meant "Solar Bull".

Inanna's position in the Anunnaki genealogy is often confused.  And I think this comes from the attempts to give aspects of Enlil to Marduk.  She is both the direct daughter of Anu, fitting Ashteroth/Astarte of the Canaanite panethon.  And a daughter of Ningal and Nanna, perhaps explaining the Greek Asteria who has a name related to Astarte and is a daughter of lunar deities.  And her being a twin Sister of Utu may relate her to the Eye of Ra or other feminine solar deities.  And she's sometimes a daughter of Enki, making her a sibling possibly of Ngeshtin-ana and possibly Dumuzi, making her fit Isis relationship to Osiris.  But I think Isis isn't the only Egyptian goddess who's a reflection of Innana, I think so is Iusaaset and possibly Hathor.

Because Greek mythology (which the Romans copied) did a lot of splitting up mythological roles.  The Sea-god (Pontus, Oceanos, Nereus, Poseiden, Triton, Neptune) and the Dragon/Monster to be slain (Typhon, Ophion, Ladon, Hydra, Cetus) figures become firmly separated.  So that in Tolkien, Ulmo and Osse are separate from Morgoth, Glaurung and Ancalagon.  Meanwhile Enki's status as a god of Wisdom and Prophecy gets taken by Apollo/Asclepius and Hermes/Mercury.  Mercury seems to have also been the Planet that Enki was associated with in Sumerian astrology.  And Apollo has a surprising number of Serpent associations, like Python, the "Spirit of Divination" in Acts 16.

Zeus seems to be both the Anu/El role and Enlil/Baal role depending on the context of the myth, same with Cronos, and Ouranos is the one who's name has the same meaning as Anu, the Heavens.  The original from of Zeus/s name was Dios, which like El also becomes a word for god in various forms in various languages, including Theos and Deus.  This caries over to the Roman mythology, where Zeus is identified with Jove and Jupiter.  I've argued before that the name Jove may be a corruption of Yahuah/Jehovah.  Dionysus/Bacchus/Bromis descends from Hadad's vegetation and fertility god aspects.

Gnosticism takes this basic mythological pattern and further complicated it with Platonic Philosophical concepts.   Often by identifying Yahuah/Yahweh with the Demiurge/Ialdobath, and the Serpent of Genesis 3 with Jesus.

In Vedic mythology Enlil/Baal is Indra, Enki/Yam is Vaurna, Anu/El is Dyaus, and the Lotan figure is Vritra.

I've talked before about how in Shinto mythology Susanoo can be viewed as Baal.  In that context Orochi is Lotan, but I also think Yam can be equated to Ryujin, the Sea-Dragon god ruling from his undersea palace Ryugu-jo.  The theory about the Ningi-Jimmu genealogy that suggests it's based on Jacob and Joseph puts Ryujin in the position of the Egyptian Priest of On, father of Asenath.  Which could be interesting in light of Egypt's relevance so far.

Other Far Eastern mythologies have Dragon King gods as well.  From the Arabian Knights, the tale of "Abdullah the Fisherman and Abdullah the Merman" also involves an undersea civilization.  Job 26:5 says "Raphaim are formed under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof".  Which can be interesting to compare to Psalm 74:13.

Rob Skiba talks about understanding The Bible from a mythological POV.  Much of where he goes with that I disagree with, but perhaps we should consider that the Beast "rising out of the sea" might be more literal then we at first assume?

The Greek word translated Sea in Revelation 13:1 is Thalassa, which in mythology is the name of the wife of Pontus, the most primordial sea god.  Thalassa was identified with Tiamat by Berossus, in which context Pontus is equated to Abzu of the Enuma Elis, in which Tiamat is slain by Marduk son of Enki.  But originally Abzu was just the name for the Abyss, the Enki Temple in Eridu was called the E-Abzu.  Thorkild Jacobsen has hypothesized that Abzu was an early form of Enki.

Pontus happens to also be very phonetically similar to the name of a Kingdom in northern Turkey who's royal family in the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman period was mingled with the Seleucid Dynasty.

Most assume the "Seat of Satan" in Pergamon/Pergamos was the Altar of Zeus, but I've argued on this Blog it was the Temple to Serapis.  Serapis was a Hellenistic cult that combined the Egyptian gods Osiris and Apis.  But Samuel Noah Kramer argued that Serapis was Enki.

While this kind of comparative mythology research is fun, it's important never to forget that The Bible is strictly monotheistic.  God The Father and God The Son are the same Person along with The Holy Spirit. But Satan is merely a created being, the most powerful created being perhaps, but still merely created.

Update June 12th 2017: I'm aware that counterarguments can exist for identifying YHWH with Enki/Yam rather then Enlil/Baal.  I want to address those.

 Saying Enlil and Baal are Satan I am fine with in the sense that all false worship serves the interest of Satan, and Satan can appear as any god if that's the best god to appear as in a given situation.

My problem with arguing for Enki/Yam as being the Pagan names for YHWH is how I fear that could serve the interests of a deception predicated on claiming Jesus is Baal and the New Testament Satan is YHWH and the Old Testament Satan wasn't evil.  There are ways to misuse viewing Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20 as describing the same invasion to back that up.

There could be two sides to that hypothetical deception.  One is a Gnostic like cosmology being Pro-Jesus with it. But it could also be a False Jewish Messiah Claimant seeking to vilify Jesus and The New Testament.

The argument might start with the Son of Rehoboam who succeeded him as King of Judah being named both Abijah ad Abijam, a Yah theophoric name and a Yam theophoric name.  Being used to support them being names of the same being.  Abijah I think was born while Solomon was king, maybe even in the first half of his reign before he started going off course, since Rehoboam was a year old already when Solomon started his 40 year reign.  So I think he was named Abijah at birth.  But he was an idolator during his reign as King and so may have changed his theophoric to Yam to reflect his Polytheism.

One Ugrarit text says Yaw in place of Yam, which seems to be a scribal error, yet people try to use this to support saying Yam was YHWH anyway.  And it's been argued the Akadian name of Enki, Ea, could be how Yah would be appear in the Akkadian alphabet.  But that's about as valid as the theory of connecting Yah to the Egyptian name for the Moon.

The Bible does call Yahuah the "Lord of The Earth" which can equate to the meaning of Enki, En meaning Lord and Ki meaning Earth.  (Baal of course also means Lord, Adonai and Baal could be used as synonyms).  But that is because The Bible is Monothestic and not Polytheistic. Yahuah is the ultimate Lord of everything, but the New Testament does depict Satan as the current Archon of the Kosmos, who offered the Kingdoms of the World to Jesus and will in Revelation 13 give them to The Beast.  Yahuah being depicted as riding on Clouds fits Canaanite Baal imagery and the meaning of Enlil, Lord of the Sky.

Ahab and Jezebel broke with most Northern Kingdom rulers by worshiping Baal under that name and Astarte.  But at the same time they also continued the Sins of Jeroboam, they didn't view that is in conflict with the Baal religion.

When Enki and Yam are depicted as Animals rather then Human, it's usually as Aquatic, Amphibious Serpentine or Reptilian creatures, rarely as any Mammals.  The only Biblical basis for YHWH being seen that way is Jesus using the Brazen Serpent as a symbol of himself in John 3.

Usually when Israelites worshiped the Name of YHWH in an Idolatrous and Polytheistic fashion, it was as a Calf or Bull.  The Golden Calf in Exodus, and then the Calf Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel.  I've come to agree with Jeroboam's Dan being Baalbek.  Showing that Idol had the name of Baal applied to it.  This Calf imagery also appears in the Baal cycle of Ugarit when Baal fakes his death using the body of a Calf.

I repeat, I am NOT!!! arguing for it being okay to worship Baal.  We worship YHWH only under that name or the YHW Theophoric name of Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus, "Yahuah is Salvation".

The point is the mythology of Baal is tied to Satan's desire to vilify God.  Even the Baal cycle of Ugarit ostensibly written by people who worshiped Baal as their Patron Deity, depicts him as a usurper, El meant for Yam to rule.  Plenty have talked about how Enlil looks bad in the Sumerian stories.  And Japanese mythology mostly vilifies Susanoo, at least compared to their Matron Megami Amaterasu.

The primary basis for identifying Satan with Enlil is Ephesian 2:2 saying "Prince of the Power of the Air".  Thing is, there is no proof that is about Satan, it takes more then just being apparently about an evil spiritual entity.  Revelation 12 verifies that Satan, The Devil, the Old Serpent, The Great Dragon, and the leader cast out of Heaven in Isaiah 14 are all the same.  I think that Belzebub for example is probably distinct, Belzebub is the chief of the Demon, entities without physical forms of their own which Satan doesn't qualify as.

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.

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.

The Lost Tribes went to The East not The West

I've flirted with the Lost Tribes in the West theories before, even very recently.  And I still think Dan had some influence on the west, with part of Dan breaking off before the Kingdom period.  And I definitely still think the claim of the west being the Lost Tribes could be something the Antichrist uses.

But II Kings 17 clearly describes them being settled East of the Euphrates River.  In part of Assyria and in the cities of The Medes.  The same area The Kurds are now.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book Chapter 5 Section 2 says.

the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.

Adiabene and Osroene and some other Mesopotamian client kingdoms of the Parthian Empire existed in this region and many became Proselytes to Judaism or Christians during the New Testament era.  And some have pointed out that the Parthians themselves don't seem to show up in history till after the deportation of the Northern Kingdom, and near the Medes.

Daniel was placed in charge of the Median Magi after the Lion's Den incident.  And I like Chuck Missler believe The Magi who presented gifts to Jesus after he was born were a sub group entrusted with the knowledge of what to look for by Daniel.  I also think they could have had northern Israelite ancestry.

Some also think the Eranites from Eran grandson of Ephraim in Numbers 26:36 could have became the Aryans/Iranians.  The Aryans have nothing to do with the West, that was invented by Nazi mythology, they are purely an Indian concept.

Going further East, there are theories about the Kashmiri and Pashtun.  Sanskrit mythology has the Danavas.  And there is a Danu people among the Bamar in Burma.

Most controversially is the theories about the the Lost Tribes going to Japan.  I do find it interesting that even Japan's mythology has them so much younger then China and Korea, their first Emperor was born in 711 BC and began his reign about 660 BC.

One could even count under this, theories about them winding up among the Native Americans, since the Native Americans definitely came (in different waves) from East Asia.  Besides the Olmecs (who I believe had strong ties to the Phoenicians) and some sites in Peru.  All the major civilizations of the American continents didn't show up until after the deportation of the Northern Kingdom.  That includes all the Ziggurat like Meso-American Pyramids.  I could very well see some of the Northern Israelites being inspired by seeing the ruins of the Tower of Babel's imitators while they were in Mesopotamia.

None of that means I'm endorsing The Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon has a very specific narrative that is nonsensical.

Most people don't see where in Revelation the return of the Lost Tribes to the land is, because they're either rejecting the Lost Tribes idea altogether or looking to The West.  It happens in Revelation 16, in the Sixth Bowl.

The Euphrates is dried up to allow the King of The East to cross it.  And they're gathered at Armageddon, in the valley of Jezreel, Northern Kingdom territory.  In Hosea God says he will avenge the Blood of Jezreel against the House of Jehu.

Scholars have constantly disagreed about the Kings of The East's role. The same passage also refers to all the kingdoms of the Earth, are the Kings of The East merely part of that or are they distinct?  Are they for or against The Beast?  We know the Beast is manipulating this, but do they know they're doing what he wants?

I don't think this correlation to the fate of the Northern Kingdom is a coincidence.

Looking for The Lost Tribes in the East is in mainstream scholarship limited to isolated peoples who have in fact maintained Moasic Faith.  Like the Bukharan of Persia or the Bene Israel of Pakistan, or the Bnei Menashe and Bene Ephraim in India.  But II Kings 17 makes clear the majority of the deported Israelites no longer Feared YHWH (they did fear him in the land even though they were idolatrous) and lost their Israelite identity.

None of this suggests any of these people were purely Israelite in origin.  There were certainly many people there long before the deportation, with whom these deported Israelite intermingled.  I talk a lot about my views on The Table of Nations here.

Follow Up Post

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.

"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.

The Four Horsemen of Revelation 6

This is not gonna be your typical Four Horsemen study.  I'm not going to go equally in depth into each one.  I'm gonna elaborate on my own thoughts on what I feel others commonly get wrong, while adding unique observations of my own.  Rather then rehash what countless other teachers have gone over.

Even though I disagree with his Pre-Trib assumptions I recommend Chuck Missler's seminars and related articles on them from his Website, the last three at least.  And to elaborate on the issues connected to the Third Horseman I recommend the documentaries The Money Masters, America Freedom to Fascism, and Fall of The Republic.  On on the issues connected to the Fourth Horsemen I recommend Endgame:Blueprint for Global Enslavement, and various of Chris White's videos on YouTube dealing with The New Age Movement.

[[Update: My endorsements of Alex Jones documentaries I now greatly regret since he's become a Trump supporter.]]

First I want to discus the common notion that they're perfectly analogous with Matthew 24:5-7.  As I explain in my Olivte Discourse Study, these are the Non Signs, they're characteristic of all History and Jesus' whole point here was it is fallacy to cite those vague things as Signs.

I'm not saying the Horsemen have no connection to these trends, I wouldn't have recommend those documentaries if I felt that way.  In a sense they are these common trends of history coming to their true commencement.  But to cite that part of the Olivte Discourse as specifically End Times is to give a middle finger to what Jesus actually said.

Verse 7 says these things are the "Beginning of Sorrows", that doesn't contradict my point.  What Preterists miss is that in a sense the entirety of the Church Age is the Time of the End.

With that out of the way, I want to get into to how they relate to the issue of The Antichrist.  The most common view is The White Horseman is The Antichrist, which I consider possibly true in a sense, I'll get to that.

Some like to say all four horses have the same rider, and that's The Antichrist.  The problem with that is the Fourth Rider is identified in Revelation 6 itself as Death.  Revelation 20 reveals that Death is sent into the lake of Fire after the Millennium, after Satan even.  The Beast and The False Prophet are sent there before The Millennium.

So IF all four have the same rider, that goes against the rider being The Antichrist.

Is it possible Death rides all four not just the Fourth?  Would seem weird not to identify him earlier, but things affiliated with earlier horsemen are repeated for the Pale Horse.  However looking at Zechariah 6 which is linked to the Four Horseman issue, I'm inclined to view them as separate riders.

Not all agree The White Horseman is The Antichrist.  First objection might be, why is this the only time in Revelation that The Antichrist isn't "the beast"?  Other books of The Bible use various titles for him, but Revelation is everywhere else far more consistent.  Well, the second beast of Chapter 13 is called by a far more human title elsewhere, The False Prophet, so why not the first?

But also I feel he doesn't become The Beast until he ascends out of the Bottomless Pit, when his Mortal Wound is healed.  The first reference to The Beast is in Chapter 11, when The Witnesses are killed, 3.5 years into the 70th Week.  The Rider on the White horse I view as the Human being who later becomes The Beast.

This isn't something to build doctrine on, but the fact that so many awaited Messianic Figures of false religions also ride White Horses, (like Kalki, the future Avatar of Vishnu in Hinduism), I feel backs up this being The Antichrist.  Doesn't prove The Antichrist will actually claim to be those individuals either, I believe Satan has planted many seeds for the End Time deception, and that even he isn't 100% sure how things will play out.  Example, while I've come to reject the theory that The Antichrist will claim to be the Mahdi of Islam, I do not doubt at all Satan created that Prophetic tradition for the purpose of being a possible option for The Antichrist.

The Rider on the White Horse is often interpreted as a positive figure.  Confusing him with the White Horseman of Revelation 19 is the root of that.  But not all interpretations making him a good guy make him Jesus.

I've seen this Horseman argued to be The Church.  I feel that view is not sufficiently backed up by any other terminology used of The Church.

Some Muslim scholars have identified their Mahdi with this part of Revelation, which only lends fuel to Christians who are obsessed with an Islamic Antichrist.  I don't know if current Mormons have actually connected their White Horse prophecy to the First Horseman.  But I feel like Revelation 6 must have inspired Joseph Smith or whoever really originated it.

The Fourth Horseman we know winds up in the lake of fire, but does that prove they're all villains?  Death is an Angelic being clearly while the first I view as Human, so there can be differences between what kinds of personages they are.

Perhaps it's not either/or, perhaps he is a good guy at first, but makes a deal with the Devil latter.  There are Biblical precedents for a leader anointed by a True Prophet of God's orders winding up a villain.  Saul, Jeroboam, Jehu, and yes even Solomon.  Not to mention Jesus personally choose Judas, yet he was a Devil (John 6:70).

I and Chris White think he may claim to be, or be claimed by others to be, the Rabbinic Jewish figure of Messiah Ben-Joseph.  And with what I suggested above, maybe that wouldn't even be entirely a wrong claim.  Three out of those four Old Testament examples are people viewed in one way or another as a type of Ben-Joseph by those who believe in that concept.

I talked in that post I made on White's theory about how even some Christians accept this idea of a Messiah Ben Joseph separate from Jesus.  I'm kind of surprised I haven't yet seen any of those Christians link Messiah Ben-Joseph to the White Horseman.

The rider on the White Horse has a Bow and is given a Crown.  Genesis 49:24 Jacob says of Joseph "But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob".  And Zechariah 9:13 says "When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons O Javan".  And Isaiah 28 "Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim".

Those who look for astronomical correlations to the imagery in Revelation, inevitably see Sagittarius as the Rider on the White Horse.  He is a Horseman, he has a Bow, and is sort of holding the Corona Borealis (a Crown).

Different Mazzaroth/Gospel in The Stars researchers have different theories on how to align the 12 Zodiac signs with the 12 tribes.  Leo as Judah and Scorpio as Dan are the most universal.  But maybe more then one such theory is equally true, because the 12 Tribes are defined differently in different Biblical passages.  Even on the near universal two I mentioned, Deuteronomy 33 has Dan as the Lion's Whelp.

The same Biblical references that could connect Joseph/Ephraim to the White Horseman, have caused some Mazzaroth sites to make him Sagittarius.  Sagittarius being next to Scorpio is interesting, Dan and Ephraim are the two names left out of Revelation 7's account of the sealing of the 144,000.  It is Genesis 49 that makes Dan a Serpent (Scorpion fits the Biblical definition of a Serpent, and Scorpio is linked to Ophiuchus and Serpens) and Judah the Lion.  That Chapter's description of Joseph can only make him Sagittarius, not Taurus or Aquarius.

Generally the first and last Horsemen are the only ones identified with specific personages.  Death and The Antichrist.  What about the two in between?  Certainly those evils can have villains in charge of them too.  But as far as other Biblical Prophetic personages to identify them with goes, I can't think of anyone for the Black Horseman.  For the Red Horseman however, someone who goes to War with The Antichrist seems logical.

The King of The South or King of The North of Daniel 11:40 perhaps.  But I've discussed elsewhere how The Terrible of The Nations in Ezekiel seems to be the one who gives the beast his Mortal Wound.  And he does so with a Sword, and The Rider on The Red Horse has a Sword.

Lastly I want to address Chris White's claim that the "wild beasts of the earth" from the Fourth Horseman's description are the beasts of Revelation 13, and so he can therefore place the Abomination of Desolation in the Fourth Seal thus helping the Pre-Wrath position.

True, it's technically the same Greek word used for beast, and only here in Revelation is "wild" added to try and make it seem like it's clearly wild animals, but it is rendered "wild beasts" elsewhere outside Revelation.  And in Revelation this is also the only time it's plural.  The Beasts of Revelation 13 are never refereed to with the plural form of the word, when it's necessary to refer to both in the same breath, the second becomes The False Prophet.

His argument about the grammar of the verse is true however.  The Greek text does imply these beasts are controlling the famines and wars and earthquakes mentioned before.  So I do think the word is being used here in a way related to Daniel 7 and 8, as imperialistic nation states.  But it's not the Chapter 13 Beasts yet.

They could possibly be the current Globalist Agenda carrying out their planned Eugenics operations.  I think, drawing on White's own theories about The Antichrist, that The Antichrist may present himself as saving the world from their evil operations.

Or maybe they're the first three beasts of Daniel 7, before the Fourth Beast conquers them.  Which also lends itself to other theories of White's, which I partly agree and partly disagree with.