Quantcast
Channel: Studies in Genesis 1-11
Viewing all 16 articles
Browse latest View live

The (correct) Structure and Form of Genesis One

$
0
0

A while ago I was reading an obscure book called 'Principia: or the Three Octaves of Creation' by Alfred Kennion (1890) and it struck me that he was on to something. In describing the historical cosmogony of our world in just 144 hours, the structure and literary form of Genesis one are perfect. This God-breathed, historic account of cosmogony contains divine words (commands), divine works (and it was so, and God made etc.) and divine seals (and God saw that it was good). Pondering this pattern, it struck me that there were nine 'words' and seven 'seals' in the creation account. The whole pattern was like a strange-loop octave.

Now, it is common to present Genesis one according to the schemata of 'six days', and the literary framework hypothesis does just that - suggesting that days 1-3 parallel days 3-6. When studied carefully, this hypothesis is found to be incorrect. To better understand the symmetric order of the chapter, the chiastic (X-shaped, ring shaped, concentric) pattern should rather revolve around God Himself - and the Royal words, works and seals of this Trinitarian, God-centred, covenantal account which He has graciously provided us:


A (-1(0) 1)‘Let there be light’ (Wave-particles, quantum strangeness)
(0 (1) 2)Let there be an expansion…’(Space without light-bearers)
(1 (2) 3)‘Let the waters be gathered…and…dry appear’ (Three earth spheres)
(2 (3) 4)‘Let the earth vegetate with vegetation…’ (Two 0D-sessile baramins)
B (3 (4) 5)‘Let there be light-bearers in the expansion…’ (Space complete)
(4 (5) 6)‘Let the waters swarm forth swarms’ (Two 3D-locomotory baramins)
(5 (6) 7)‘Let the earth swarm forth swarms’ (Three 2D-locomotory baramins)
(6 (7) 8)Let us make Man in our image…’ (Man without temple covenant)
A' (7 (8) 9)‘Observe, I have given you…’ (Covenant of works)


The mid-point of this A-B-A structure is here seen to be the light-bearers - for signs, seasons, days and lights in space, upon the Earth. This mid-point also contains a smaller chiasm.

Tune in later to find out what this symmetry implies for the structure and form of the cosmos itself...



Ancient History Revisited

$
0
0

Back to the Sources! – What Church Reformers Believed about
Ancient History and Why it Matters - By J.C.L. Powell


Introduction


   Have you ever wondered what the Reformer Martin Luther believed regarding the ancient history of our world? Surprisingly, he didn’t follow Herodotus (the so-called ‘Father of Histories’) but chose instead to critically accept considerable portions of a more detailed account which was alleged to come from Berosus the Chaldean Priest. Today, however, this account is widely considered totally spurious and Luther is believed to have been mistaken concerning its overall authenticity. In place of a biblically consistent history, a new inconsistent approach has since arisen that places the origin of humanity in the context of assumed ‘deep time’ (Shryock and Smail, 2011). This radical paradigm shift had its roots in an unorthodox study of the stone hand-axes of Hoxne in Suffolk by John Frere in 1797 ‒ and further interpretations of axes in the River Somme, France, some six decades later. It was then that Joseph Prestwich presented a paper to the Royal Society and John Evans introduced ‘deep time’ to the Society of Antiquaries (Renfrew, 1976:23). During the same year these men were advocating vast ages (i.e. 1859), Darwin published his Origin of Species – and the rest, they say, is history.
   In this article, however, I want to share with you some new evidence suggesting that Dr. Luther’s understanding was correct after all. Frere, Prestwich, Evans and Darwin have regrettably mislead generations of historians and anthropologists ever since. In place of deep time, we present a model to structure the synthesis of sources which have slowly been pieced together. Hopefully, a new generation of bible chronologists and archaeologists will be inspired to investigate this neglected archaic period for themselves - and come to similar conclusions!

Searching for the Beginning: Establishing a Numerical Time-Frame

   First, a sensible beginning for human history and coincidently the beginning of cosmic time itself must be sought. If you were to pick up any ‘authoritative’ work of history or archaeology these days, be it The Times Complete History of the World, Barry Cuncliffe’s Europe Between the Oceans or J. M. Roberts’ History of the World, you would be told that history began long, long ago in the pre-human past. 700,000 years have supposedly elapsed since the beginning of human activity (c.f. Stringer (2006) and Menzies (2011), with ‘hominid’ activity stretching back 9 million years before present. These figures contrast starkly with a beginning date calculated from the inerrant Word of God – the Holy Bible - which in fact is our onlysure foundation for historical knowledge. One such Scriptural approximation (valid from 2012 A.D.) is 6,274 years from the beginning of creation. This places Adam and Eve in 4266BC and the Global Cataclysm in 2610BC. How did this author arrive at these dates and how much weight should we attach to them? Well, more than 128 calculations from Scripture have at one time or another been proposed for the creation - and the arguments surrounding them are still ongoing today! The evolutionist H.G. Wells described Archbishop Ussher’s famous date of 4004BC as a ‘fantastically precise misconception’ founded upon ‘rather arbitrary theological assumptions’. In fact, Wells himself was far more arbitrary in his calculations than Ussher! Our approach at derivation probably isn’t the last word on the subject, but it did involve consulting dozens of experts and carefully weighing their arguments against numerous Scriptural references (using ‘direct equivalence’ in Hebrew translation) – so I shall try to limit an answer to just one sentence! The date 4266BC was obtained through a synthesis of authorities; concluding a superiority of the Masoretic text over the Septuagint (Jones, 2005 contra Setterfield, 1999); no gaps in the family lists of Genesis 5 and 11 (Niessen, 1982 contra Robinson, 1999); a long period of 430 years for Israel in Egypt[1](Bowden, 1998 contra Viccary, 2007); 594 years of sovereign theocracy from the Exodus to Solomon’s 4th year[2] - and a Persian period of just 123 years (Austin, 2008a, 2008b and 2011 contra Jones, 1993 and Ussher, 1658 trans. 2003).
   Having established a clear timeframe solely from the bestbiblical scholarship[3], the next logical step was to examine other reliable sources and carefully seek out any obvious synchronisms. Considering the wealth of contradictory yet so-called ‘reliable’ histories available at our fingertips, it was hard to know where to start! An old quotation swiftly answered this problem: “The one infallible connecting link between sacred and profane chronology is given in Jeremiah 25:1: ‘The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.’ If the events of history had been numbered forward from this point to the birth of Christ, or back from Christ to it, we should have a perfectly complete and satisfactory chronology.” (Anstey, 1913 in Mauro, 2001). Now according to Austin’s careful Scriptural synchronisation of the divided kingdoms of Judahand Israel, the forth year of Jehoiakim was 524BC - meaning that this is when Nebuchadnezzar II most probably began his Assyrian reign (Austin, 2011). So assuming a ‘short’ Persian period of 123 years, here was a significant synchronism ‘anchor point’ on which to build a larger, more reliable timeline (c.f. Figure 1).
   Meanwhile, many fragments of Ancient and Classical historians had been accrued and a long list of Assyrian/Babylonian rulers from Noah to Nebuchadnezzar’s Father[4] drawn up – a total of precisely 42 Monarchs[5](in most instances with their respective regnal years from Eusebius)[6]. These rulers are also listed in Figure 1, where alternative name spellings are separated via a comma. Numbering the events of history back from 524BC, it was now possible to offer a revised chronology of this most obscure period, independent from the (spurious) high dynastic chronology of Egypt. From this revived Assyrian/Babylonian chronology was pieced together a revised history of the ancient world using all the historical and archaeological knowledge gleaned along the way.
   In terms of references, the historical and archaeological reconstruction presented in this article has been drawn from a wide array of sources ancient and modern, but special attention has been paid to Richard Lynche’s ‘An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah into Europe’ (Lynche, 1601)[7]. This remarkable little book, which mentions giants like Goliath[8](9-11 feet tall), uses phrases such as ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ and faithfully maintains the multi-century life-spans and long virility that people reached in early times[9], has been criticised as deeply misconceived, poorly sourced, legendary and fictitious. To be fair, Lynche’s small volume is indeed heavily reliant upon the highly controversial work of an Italian Friar named Annius a.k.a. Giovanni Nanni[10](c. 1432-c. 1502), whom many scholars claim was a consummate fraudster. Nanni declared that his source, Berosus, had been the curator of the temple library at Babylon and had access to written records of human history back to the time of Adam. The chain of textual transmission had been Adam, Noah, Nimrod, Berosus, Turkish monks etc. Some scholars may therefore consider much of the following material rather worthless. However, the very latest historical and archaeological research now appears to be proving many of the so-called ‘fabulous’ or ‘outlandish’ claims astonishingly accurate and Nanni is gaining far greater recognition as an authentic source[11]! Knowing that mud does tend to stick to scholars once thrown – and those throwing the most of it (just after Nanni’s death) were actually secular humanists with large axes to grind, it became necessary to personally examine Lynche’s chronology with a fine tooth-comb.
   Does this eyebrow raising chronology really stack up? Can my revised chronology of Babylon shed any new light on Lynches timeline of events? I will leave the reader to make up their own mind about how well these questions have been answered. There is a complex diffusionist story yet to tell, which few will have heard before! In reading this rich and detailed account, bear in mind that the material you are about to consider suggests that if Nanni were a genuine source, Lynche was correct in many historical details, yet failed to accommodate his timeline to a robust numerical foundation (from either Scripture or the Assyrian-Median Empires). Having provided this foundation and added numerous details from modern sources, I personally believe this record is reasonably accurate.
  
Noah’s last 350 years: 2610 – 2260 BC
  
   Our account of ancient times begins in 2610BC[12] with just eight people and a whole lot of animals sixteen miles south-west of Mt. Ararat and 17 miles west-south-west from the volcano known as Tendürek - in Eastern Turkey (Fasold, 1988 and Nissen, 2004). Here the Ark, looking something like a giant vegetable gourd[13], had come to rest 100 yards from the twin-crests of Yigityatagi (‘the cradle/bed of the heros’ also called Mount Mashu[14], Wall of Heaven, the ‘twin peaks’[15], the Minoan ‘horns’, Mount Nizir, and the ‘Island of Flame’[16]) and its precious cargo had disembarked into Naxuan (Nachidsheuan, Noakh-Tsywn, ‘Place of First Descent’) – see Figure 3. Soon they discovered the Ark’s anchor stones and built a village there called Arzap (now Kazan) – where the Ark first came to rest. This became known as the ‘Place of the Eight’. After 25 years[17], Noah (a.k.a. Ouranos,  Oenotrus, Inachus, Nüwa, Nanna, Ianus, Argus, Nu, Nun, Geȋnos Autochthon, Janus, Olybarma, Oxygus, Arsa, Khasisadra, Xisuthrus, Patecatl, Manes) along with his wife Titea (a.k.a. Tytea, Tydia, Terra, Gaw Bo-lu-en, Nut, Naamah, Naunet, Vesta, Hestia, Aretia, Gaia, Moone, Kuvav, Kufav, Cybele, Kubaba, Kug-Bau) and family travelled north-east from the Ararat (Kurdish) mountains and using the Ark’s anchor stones built the megalithic monument Zorats Karer (Qarahunge) near Sisian in Turkey[18]. Next they travelled south-west and built Urfa(a corruption of Arsa[19]), establishing a sacrificial temple in Gobekli Tepe[20]. In 2573BC, Salah (Shelah) was born to Arphaxad (Arip-hurra, Arraphu, Arpachiya) the son of Shem and according to God’s command, Noah encouraged the chief heads of his family to disperse abroad into various lands. Disobeying his advice, many family members[21] instead travelled south-eastward and together they found a plain in the land of Shinar(Babylonia). There, to make a name for themselves, they began the construction of a city with a 600-foot ziggurat composing seven levels (and a pagan astrological temple at its pinnacle)[22]. Five years after Peleg was born[23], i.e. some 106 years after the Cataclysm, in 2504BC, God came down upon their ‘Tower of the Seven Lights of the Earth’ in a great whirlwind[24]and confused the people’s common language.
   Upon hearing news of this event, Noah, having already moved north with Shem to plant a vineyard near Tanais (now Nedvigovka village) on the north coast of the Sea of Asov (Lake Maeotis, Maeetis) in modern-day Russia[25], built the very first post-flood ships and set sail with his sons on a 10 year voyage[26]to establish boundaries. Sailing around the Seaof Asov and Black Sea, then through the Dardanelles (keeping the coastline always in view), he appointed all the lands of Asia to Shem (his middle child), all the tributaries of Africa to Ham (his younger) - and all the tributaries of Europeto Japheth (the elder). In this careful manner, at various key locations around the Mediterranean Sea, Noah left small language groups with minimal provisions (such as livestock, tools and seed). Returning to his vineyard in Armenia(Russia/Turkey), Noah then began to establish monarchies.
   Between 2478BC and 2465BC, 5 principal monarchies were established at Noah’s command[27]. Babylonia was established under the leadership of the young giant Nimrod (Nembroth, Ninus I, Nebrod, Nebros, Spotted-one, ‘Leopard-tamer’, Saturn) the son of Cush (Khum of Erech, Asbolus – who’s descendants inhabited Saudi Arabia). Germany (Almaign) was inhabited via the DanubeRiversettlements of Lepenski Vir and Vinča in Serbia‒ and was established under Tuyscon (Tuitsch[28]), Noah’s own son. He left Turkey with his sibling wife (Araxa the Great – Noah’s daughter) plus 31 others and built Koeln-Deutz (Cologne). Meanwhile, the chief sons of Japheth, who first founded the city of Aleppo (Magog) in Syria[29], were each given 3 monarchies in Europe. Kytim (Kittim, Italy) was established under Gomer (Cormerus Gallus) the son of Japheth. Spainwas established under Tubal the son of Japheth (together with Tarshish his cousin) - and Gallia-Samothea (Franceand Britain) under Meshech (Samothes Dis) the son of Japheth. This Meshech arrived in France in 2446BC aged 139 years old, where he was gladly accepted by the indigenous people Noah had first left there - who had begun to build woodland settlements. Britain and Northern Europeat this time were still inhospitably cold from the little ice age, and weren’t inhabited until many centuries later[30]. Javan (Iamanu, Yauna, Iawones, Iawan, Yuban) the son of Japheth, together with his son Elishah (Elisa), founded eastern parts of Greece (the Ionians[31]) and the Cyclades of the Aegean Sea, while Madai (Amada, Medai, Mada) founded the Medes in western Iran[32].
   Shem and his sons in the mid-third millennium BC also founded various settlements in Asia[33]. Elam (Elamtu, Elymais, Elymaei, Haltamti, Huju, Huz) founded Persia, Asshur founded Assyria and built the city of Ur[34], Arphaxad founded Chaldea, Lud founded western Asia Minor, Aram (Aramu) together with his sons Uz, Hul (Huleh, Ul, Hula), Gether (Gather) and Mash (Mashu, Msh’r, Mishal - from whom Damascus received its name) founded parts of Syria and modern-day Israel[35]. Meanwhile in eastern China - Ham (Kronus I, Amynus, Anu, Utu, Shamash, Belus I, Phoroneus i.e. ‘Apostate’, Ouranos II, Pan, Geb, Zoroast, Saturn, Æthiop, Atys, Attis, Hoshang, Esenus, Epigeius) instituted Feng Shan sacrifices at Mount Tai in modern day Shandong province, under his Chinese alias of Huang-Di[36](one of China’s ‘Three Sovereigns’ or ‘Fu Xi’ meaning ‘bottle gourd’ children[37], the other two being Jah-phu and Shennong, or Lo Shen). Ham’s other sons inhabited various lands: Put (Phut, Puta, Putiya, Pydw, Putu-iaman) founded North Africa near Carthage and Canaan (Kna’an, Kn’nw, Kyn’n.w, Kinnahu, Kinahne) settled in the land later given to Israel (Jacob) – south of the Aramaeans (Aramu).
    In 2440BC, Noah desired to visit his monarchs and so left Russia and Turkey under the leadership of Shem and his Nephew Sabatius Saga (son of Cush) and travelled to Hyrcania (Iran), Mesopotamia, Arabia Felix (Yemen) and Lybia (western Lower Egypt or the Nile Delta). From its first inhabitation in 2427BC, Egyptwas ruled jointly by 8 chiefs for 217 years and then 15 chiefs for 443 years[38]. Here in Egypt, Triton the son of Gog, grandson of Sabatius Saga (Sabah) and great grandson of Cushentertained him[39]. Only months afterward, Triton died leaving Hammon (Ammon) as chief of Lower Egypt. Noah gave a daughter named Rhea (Gē, Gaia, Nammu, Neith) in marriage to Hammon and promptly set sail for Spain to visit his grandson Tubal. By Rhea, Hammon had an heir named Dionysius (Kronus II)[40]. Meanwhile, in the 56th year of Jupiter Belus’s (Betylus) life (2367BC) – who later ruled Babylon - his father[41] Ham grew proud ruling in Lower Egypt and decided to invade Greece (where he united the scattered Argives into the city Phoronicum – later called Argos from Argus his grandson[42]– and then Italy, usurping the throne from Ashchenaz the son of Gomer and corrupting the youth with wicked practices. Noah – who had travelled from Spain to Italyto visit Gomer – found out about this transgression and expelled Ham’s tribe to the Island of Sicily[43]in the year 2342BC.
   In 2335BC, Noah built a city in Italy– where over two millennia afterward the Vatican was established[44]. Some 65 years past, without significant recorded incident, by which time Ham had grown powerful in Sicily. Noah, in collaboration with Hammon of Lower Egypt, sent three daughters (Rhea, Astarte and Dione) to the island in an attempt to overthrow him. Yet learning of their intentions, Ham gained power over them and forcefully took them as wives – along with two others (Eimarmene and Hora) who were sent later with troops to make war on him[45]. In 2264BC, Sabatius Saga, the former regent of Armenia(Turkey) who was then living in Italian exile with Noah, died. Noah himself – growing tired and frail – appointed Cranus Razenus as his successor in Italy. Subsequently, the Great Patriarch died in 2260BC, precisely 350 years after the Cataclysm (Genesis 9:28).

From Abraham to Moses: 2253 – 1537 BC

   Meanwhile, the perceived treachery of Hammon (Ham’s own descendent via Cush) filled Ham with guile. In plotting revenge on his father’s main ally, he began construction of a fleet of warships with his infamous son Typhon (Titan, Poseidon, Neptune). (The sons of Poseidon were feared giants who usurped kingdoms wherever they sailed[46]). Across from Sicily, in Mesopotamia at this time in the city of Ur, Terah fathered Abram (Abraham) (born in 2253BC[47]), who came from an idolatrous family but was later chosen by God to bless all nations through the promise of the Messiah who would be born from his lineage. Three years after the birth of Abram (Abraham), and ten years after his father’s death, Ham seized his opportunity to dominate and invaded Lower Egypt via its sea ports. Defeating Hammon, he banished him and his smaller ship-fleet – which fled to the Islandof Candia (later called Crete) to hide[48]. Centuries passed and the civilizations in Crete and Egypt began to flourish. Crete and the volcanic Island of Thera together with western Morocco (Ammonia) grew into the famous maritime civilization of Atlantis (Menzies, 2011), who’s chief city was Lixus (Maqom Semes). When Abram (Abraham) reached 100 years old, in 2153BC, he together with Sarah had Isaac – the child of God’s covenant promise. Salah the son of Arphaxad (the son of Shem) died 13 years afterward at the age of 433 years old. Eber his son survived him by 61 years, but lost his throne to Ham by the year 2079 BC, who by that time ruled all Persia as well as Africa.
   When Isaac reached 60 years old, he and his wife Rebecca had Jacob. This Jacob endured a great famine in the land of Canaan before entering Lower Egyptin 1963BC, under a regent of Ham named Timaus – possibly the Pharaoh who knew Joseph. Some 30 years later, his descendents – who were known as ‘Shepherds’ or ‘Hyk-shos’ i.e. ‘Shepherd-Kings’ - began to be oppressed and enslaved by the Egyptian nation (Genesis 15:13-14). The Israelite kings, also later called ‘Hapiru Captives’ or ‘Apiru’, continued after Joseph - Saites, Beon, Pachnan, Staan, Archles and Aphobis[49]. Nearly 100 years after Jacob’s entry, in 1869BC, Nimrod died at the age of 609[50] and was succeeded in Babylon by Jupiter Belus (Betylus) the son of Ham, who ruled a further 62 years. He was succeeded by the war-hungry Nynas (Ninus II) (1807-1755BC) of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, whose wife was Semyramis I[51]. In 1862BC, Meshech (Samothes Dis) of France died aged 723 years old and was succeeded by Magus his son. This Magus was the first ruler of France and Britain to found permanent stone townships and to tend flocks[52]. He gave his name to many ancient towns including Noviomagus, now called Neufchȃteau and Rhotomagus, now called Rouen. In 1811BC, Magus was succeeded by Sarron (Sydyk, Syduk, Sydic, Suduc, Sadykos, Apollo, Chiron) know as ‘The Just’. He married a daughter of Ham and had Asclepius (Eshmun, Imhotep, Tosorthrus – 2nd ruler of the 3rd(contemporary!) Dynasty of Egypt, a skilled healer). Sarron and his family founded universities and places of learning such as megalithic stone henges to carefully observe the stars - and he was Father of the Cabiri (8 sea-fearing brothers who discovered herbs, antidotes and charms and were venerated as healing gods throughout the Mediterranean, Asclepius being their youngest member)[53].
   In Germany, meanwhile, Tuyscon was succeeded by his son Mannus in 1978BC. Mannus had three sons who reined after him[54], Eingeb (Ing) from 1906BC, Ausstaeb (Istaev) from 1870BC and Herman from 1820BC. This former Eingeb had a Semitic general in his army named Brygus (Brigus, Phrygus, Castellum – the son of Mash, the son of Aramthe Syrian, the son of Shem in Genesis 10:23) - who in 1651BC became the 4thking of Spainafter the reigns of Tubal, Iberus and Eubalda (Inbalda) respectively[55]. The descendants of this King Brygus relocated to Turkeyand founded Phrygia, where the city of Dardania (Troy I) or Ilion (Troy II-VI) was later built. In Germany, Mers, the son of Herman, began his reign in the year 1757BC and after him Gambrivises (Gampar) reigned (1711-1667BC) as Germany’s seventh King[56].
   Casting our historical gaze back upon the idyllic civilization of Crete, the descendents of Hammon grew rich through a prosperous trade network of merchant-ship vessels – stretching even as far as western Morocco[57]and South America (via the trade winds)[58]. In 1767BC, Ham, now extremely old, forced Rhea (Gē) in Lower Egypt to give him his youngest son whom he named Mizraim[59](Osyris, Zeus, Apis, Serapis, Sesostris, Ammanemes, Misor, Misir, Mizru, Musri, Kronus III, Kumarbi, Demaroon, Dionysus II, Danaus, Jupiter Ammon, Jupiter of Acts 14:12, Hammurapi of Babylon?[60], Menes the Thinite, Bacchus, Aithiopais, Ramesses II, Misphragmuthosis, Alisphragmuthosis, Armesses, Armais, Epaphus, Epopeus, Enlil, Enki, Elus, Ea, Ilus, Thamus). The very next year, however, Dionysius (Kronus II) the aforementioned son of Hammon, sailed from Crete and took back Lower Egypt (Memphis, Avaris, Heliopolis etc) from Ham by siege. In the siege, baby Mizraim was seized and Dionysius adopted his infant half-brother as his own child. Being kindly towards Mizraim he appointed his elder brother Dagon (a skilled tutor also called Olympicus, Oannes, Siton) to train him[61]. Humiliated by defeat, Ham together with his infamous son Typhon (Set, Seth, Suphis, Sethos, Sethon, Sethosis, Poseidon, Ophion, Neptune, Chebros, Cheops, Ramesses I, Chembres, Chebres, Zu, Anzu, Imdugud) - from his first wife Noegla - fled to an obscure part of Upper Egypt (Nubia/Ethiopia – possibly Thebes). In 1755BC, the same year in which Semyramis I became Queen of Babylon[62], Ham had a daughter by Rhea whom he named Isis (Ceres, Iuno, Juno, Io, Frugisera, Legisera, Feronia). Soon afterward, he grew discontented in Ethiopia and left Typhon in charge so he could take leave to travel far-east once again and subdue the country of Bactria (Afghanistan). Before this, however, he had appointed a large area of Greece to his wife Astarte (Aphrodite, Venus, Ashteroth of Genesis 14:5, Inanna, Ishtar). The young Isis travelled from Upper Egypt to this Astarte in Greecevia the south-west Mediterranean trade current. There, she was made a Priestess of Hera in the city of Argos. In these days the Minoan/Pelasgian cult of the bull was popular in Egypt and throughout the Mediterranean, and Astarte, together with Isis, wore a replica bull’s head with horns as a mark of sovereignty whilst travelling – as is still attested by certain stone reliefs until this day[63].
   In 1705BC, after the death of Queen Semyramis I and in the 8th year of the reign of her son Ninus III (Ninyas, Zames, Zameis, Horus, Ninus the Younger) of Babylon, Mizraim unified Upper and Lower Egypt through a marriage contracted with his sister Isis – who was taken from Argosto be with him. A year later, they had their eldest son in Lower Egypt whom they called Lehabim (Hercules, Heracles, Lubicus, Sesosis II, Horus, Hermes Trismegistus, Athothes, Thoth, Taautus, Tantalus, Thoor, Thoyth, Teshub, Sandes, Dorsanes, Sol Deus, Samdan, Melicarthus, Melkarth, Melqart, Baal of Tyre, Marrhus, Marduk, Merodach, Moeris, Myris, Moloch of the sons of Ammon[64], Mercury, Mercurius of Acts 14:12, Ma-fors, Mavors, Osymandes, Ismandes, Mendes, Lachares, Orus, Athur, Oro, Odin, Ninurta, Ningirsu, Adad, Hadad, Asarluhhi, Ishkur, Pathrusim). This union and child angered Typhon (Titan) of Upper Egypt, who still saw Lower Egypt as his rightful inheritance. Fierce war between Lower (Olympian) and Upper (Titan) Egypt ensued for 19 years, Typhon engaging in successful border invasions (beginning the drawn-out ‘Ethiopic War’[65]) with his younger half-brother Mizraim - whom he despised as illegitimate. Mizraim (Apis), in turn, despised the foreign ‘Shepherds’ or ‘Hapiru/Apiru’ who were still inhabiting his kingdom and posing a potential foe. By this time he had forced them into the city of Avaris[66] (‘Sacred to Orus’, Athur, Athur-ai, Abur, Abaris, Cercasora) and enslaved them in his work-force for over 200 years, but they were growing both in strength and number. In 1685BC, Ham and Typhon together invaded Assyria and Babylonia from Bactria (Afghanistan) and Ethiopia, but their pincer attack was repelled by Ninus III and they were forced to retreat towards Phrygia and Lydia(western Turkey/Anatolia).
   Earlier that same year[67], Mizraim had sought to instruct foreign populations in the great learning of Lower Egypt and to establish his eldest son as heir of all Egypt. Setting off on a 9 year journey[68] with a large multi-national army lead by Lehabim, his eldest son, and Athena (Minerva, Myrina) his daughter (Queen of the Amazons[69]), he taught those in Palestine (under his elder brother Dagon)) advanced skills of agricultural farming, and thereafter set sail for Phutea (Ammonia, north-west Africa or Morocco) to subdue a rebellion and invasion of Egypt by the civilization of Atlantis (whose Moroccan civilisation - Ammonia - under Hammon had previously been usurped by one Antheus (Antaeus, Atlas) the tyrannical son of Ham and subsequently devastated by an Atlantic Tsunami - which had also destroyed Isis’s (Juno’s) Athenian fleet of Greeks who were then at war with them[70]). Here, Mizraim’s army was opposed by Antheus [71], yet he was defeated by Lehabim in single combat, during which battle he picked his opponent up, crushed him to death and threw him into a deep cavern in the earth and buried him with flints[72], after which their army passed quietly into Ethiopia, the Persian Gulf/Red Sea and then on into India (where on two mountains at the mouth of the Ganges they set up pillars). From there, they heard of Ham and Typhon’s attack on Assyria and so passed rapidly northwards into Babylonia. Hearing from Ninus III (Ninyas) about Ham and Typhon’s retreat towards Phrygia (Turkey), Mizraim, Lehabim and a contingent of Babylonian soldiers led by prince Arius (Agron, Argon[73]) the son of Ninyas pressed ahead and overtook Ham laying an ambush for his father near the spring of Eflatun Pinar (in central Turkey). There, having surrounded Ham (Atys, Attis) unawares, Mizraim castrated him - and his blood flowing into the spring, he died of the wound[74]. Moving into the city of Mansia, near MountSipylus(Olympus), Mizraim (Zeus) pursued after Typhon. Yet Mizraim’s tyrannical grandson Busiris (Belus, son of one Libya, who was a daughter of Ephaphus (Apophis)) was approaching from Syria(Phonecia, Canaan) in the South. In response to this, Mizraim appointed Lehabim’s son Balaneus (Alcaeus, Alcymus, Alciamus, Adrysus, Cleolaus, Lemnos, Agelaus) as regent of Mansia and accompanied an army of Lydians led by Ashkelon (Ascalon, the son of Hymenaeus who was Lehabim’s brother) to defeat the Syrians. Here Mizraim built a walled city and called it Byblos(modern-day Gebal) and prince Ashkelon built the city of that bore his name (Judges 1:18). In 1680BC, however, knowing Typhon had made use of the time bought by his ally Busiris, Mizraim returned to Manisa, which Typhon had under siege. There he subjugated his already half-defeated half-brother and gave Balaneus (Alcymus) charge of the city. From here, he sailed through the Dardanelles of Greece but was denied passage (past modern Istanbul) by Lycurgus who was Typhon’s son. At first, all approaches of the Egyptian fleet were repelled, but eventually they succeeded in breaching the city and Lycurgus was defeated in single combat – being replaced by a young Egyptian army commander named Maron (Oeagrus)[75].
   Throughout the year 1678BC, Mizraim was victorious over many more petty kings in Greece, where he appointed Macedon his son as sole regent. After these victories on the mainland, he sailed to the Island of Candia[76] (Crete) where he defeated Milinus and appointed a son from whom descended the Curetes[77]. From Crete, Mizraim and Lehabim journeyed to Noah’s Tanais[78](modern day Nedvigovka village) and Asov (Asgaard) on the Sea of Asov (Maeotis, Maeetis) in Russia and there ended their 9 year conquest. Here, they almost lost their army due to food shortages and the strong defences of the Scythian Castle Asgaard  – which took over 20 years to breach. Eventually, Lehabim’s younger half-brother Targitaus (Tanais, Tanaus) was appointed king of the city, from which it derived its name. Whist still besieging the powerful fortress near Tanais, however, Lehabim became enthralled in a romantic relationship with the Scythian Princess Araxa [79](Aruru, Ninhursag, Ninkharsag, ‘Lady of the SacredMountain’) the daughter of King Gambrivises (Gampar) of Germany[80]. Seeking her father’s permission in marriage, he began a long voyage with Mizraim through Hungary and towards her German home via the DanubeRiver. In 1672BC, they greeted Gambrivises in Germanyand built villages and cities on the banks of the Rhine, from which grew the famous House of Austria. The following years saw a long cross-cultural exchange take place between Germanyand Egypt, Mizraim (a.k.a. Apis) instructing the Germans in agriculture and the art of growing vines[81]. King Gambrivises was honoured to have such famed guests and soon accepted Lehabim as his son-in-law. Princess Araxa was given to be his wife and together they had a son called Tuscus. This Tuscus, later king of Italy, had a son called Altheus (born 1652), the father of Blascon (born 1612), the father of Camboblascon (born 1582), the father of the brothers Herperus (Isius, Jasius, Jason, Hespanus, Ephas, Ephah, Apher) and Ophren (Epher, Afran, Atlas Kittim, Jardanes, Iardanus, Dardanus – born 1552, who build the settlement of Dardania (Troy I) in the reign of Allobrox of France approximately 1320BC)[82].
   In 1575BC, Armatritis became the 9th king of Babylon (numbered from Nimrod c.f. Figure 1). In the very same year, Betus (Boetus) the son of Tagus Orma (Malot Tages, Tegarama, Takarma, son of Gomer) became the 6th king of Spain[83] (this Tagus was of the Italian dynasty and had usurped the Spanish dynasty from Brygus in 1605BC). In 1548BC, the inhabitants of Italy - who after the death of Cranus Razenus had been ruled by Aurunus (son of Aram), Tagus Orma  and Sicanus (son of Tagus) - sent messengers to Mizraim in Germany, asking for Egyptian help to overthrow the petty kings (Enachi Tyrants, Enakii Lukii) who were mercilessly oppressing them. Mizraim agreed to their pleas and invaded Italythat same year – defeating the tyrants and ruling there for 11 years in the city of Virerbe (or Vetulonia) where Lehabim built a fortified settlement[84]. In 1537BC, when Mizraim was 230 years old, he was challenged by Betus of Spain, who was outraged with the Egyptian attack on his Italian cousins. Thus, leaving a nephew named Lestrigo as regent of Italy (over the Ianigenes), Mizraim and Lehabim travelled through France on their way towards Spain (where in France one Celtic King Lucus then ruled, who was the son of Bardus II, the son of Longho, the son of Bardus I, the son of Drÿus, the son of aforementioned Sarron ‘The Just’[85]). With the aid of his Lybian regent Gerion Asex (Aureo, Auro, Aureus, Chryseos, Deabus – son of Hiarba the son of Hammon) from Lower Egypt, Mizraim defeated King Betus. This joint pincer-attack became known in Spanish histories as the African invasion, recorded in Greek myth as the war with the giants. In place of Betus, Mizraim allowed Gerion[86]as Spain’s 7th king to exploit its vast gold reserves[87] through slavery. Mizraim and Lehabim, however, founded the city of Barcelona[88]and then travelled to rule resplendently in the city of Argos, Greece– where his wife Isis had spent her childhood. About this time, Tnephachthus (Technatis) the petty king ruling over the Saite Nome of Egypt died and his son Bocchoris[89](Bakhor, Pehor, Rathos, Rathosis, Rhemphis, Rhampsinitus, Amasis, Asychis, Amenemhet III, Amos, Thummosis, Bakenranef, Wahkare, Lord of the Two Lands) was established as Pharaoh. He ruled in greed and heavy taxation for 6 years, acquiring the delta city of Tanis, before his entire army (and his personal horse) were destroyed in the Red Sea and he was captured by Sabacon (Sabacos, Shabaka, Aktisanes) the Ethiopian-Nubian-Kushite.

From the Exodus to the First Trojan War: 1533 – 1180 BC

   In 1533BC, the 4thyear of Belochus the 13th king of Babylon[90], the children of Israel(a.k.a. Jacob) were freed by God, under the leadership of Moses (born in 1613BC), from Egyptian bondage after 400 years of hard oppression under petty satraps of Ham, Dionysius and Mizraim[91]. After Pharaoh Bocchoris (whose large mud-straw-brick pyramid now stands near Huwara - next to the buried Labyrinth and ancient lake Moeris), his blind sister Anysis ruled Egypt for 2 years. After the 1st month of innundation, however, Sabacon burnt his captive Bocchoris alive and invaded Lower Egypt from Ethiopia. He ruled here over the Saite Nome[92] until an oracle spoke of Mizraim’s return from Argos– at which point he quietly (and wisely) left for Ethiopia. 24 years after the Exodus, Gerion died and his three giant sons, the Lomnimi, succeeded in 8thsuccession as joint commanders of Spain. After some 35 years of rule in Arges (Argos) of Peloponnese, i.e. the year 1502BC, Mizraim (Armais) returned to Lower Egyptwith great fame and built stone obelisks in commemoration of his many exploits abroad[93]. All, however, did not bode well, because his brother Typhon (Set) had also returned from Turkeyto ‘recover his stolen kingdom’ and was still jealously scheming revenge for his humiliating past defeat. It seems probable that Typhon secretly conspired with the Lomnimi and many other begrudging and jealous rulers (including his infamous sons) to make Mizraim’s planned assassination look like an accident. In 1502, when Mizraim left Argos for Egypt, Baleus (Tmolus, Timolus, Tipheus) usurped the throne of Mansia (Western Anatolia) from king Belochus (Cambletes, Camboblascon) the grandson of Balaneus (Alcymus, Altheus) and married Omphale the daughter of prince Ophren (Epher, Afran, Atlas Kittim, Dardanus Jardanes, Iardanus). During the reign of this Baleus (Tmolus) as the 11th High King (or 14th numbered from Noah), Typhon and his conspirators struck in Egypt. In the year 1469 BC they lured Mizraim into an ostensibly ‘accidental’ encounter with a hippopotamus[94]and he soon died from a wound inflicted by the animal[95]. His body was then cut into 26 pieces and distributed secretly as a trophy. At this time, Rollin[96] affirms that great chaos and anarchy swept across the whole of Egypt for 2 years as the Ethiopians invaded their land. Outraged, heartbroken, and mentally unstable, Isis the Queen of Egypt called a council and commanded all her kin to avenge her husband’s murder. In Greece, Lehabim (Hercules, Tantalus) together with the great men in his command, appointed Pelops his son as regent, ordered the building of the ship Argo and immediately made war on Typhon and his associates in Arabia, defeating them at personal cost to his army. His anger still unabated, he then ventured on a long journey of conquest to defeat the conspirators wherever he could find them. In place of his dead father and unstable mother, he established in Egypt 12 trusted and proven chiefs – who ruled 36 Egyptian Nomes and met in the 12 great halls of the Labyrinth[97]. These 12 chiefs each spoke a different language, and each had authority over a different language group[98]. One of these chiefs was eventually the Semitic Amenophis (Amenophthis, Memnon, Munon, Mennon) son of Thithonus, who was the son of Laomedon of Illion (Troy II-VI). In his days, many lepers were expelled from Egyptinto the eastern quarries – but they rebelled forming a covenant with the Israelites in Jerusalem. Finally, to placate the large hoard of Israelites and lepers, he gave them the city of Avaris (Saba), from where they had previously fled many years before[99]. Amenophis died trying to aid the Trojans in the first Trojan war of 1180 BC and was succeeded by Acherrhes (Akenchres, Ketna, Ketes, Proteus, Chennus, Mycerinus, Men-ka-ra, Menkaure, Kephren) Lehabim’s daughter, who ruled as queen for 12 years.
    Meanwhile, Lehabim’s first victory after Arabia (approx. 1465BC) was gained in Phoenicia(Canaan) over Busiris the Younger. Then in 1454BC he besieged Baleus (Tmolus, Timolus, Tipheus) of Mansia in Lydia (Turkey) and four years later, upon victory, married Omphale the despot’s former slave wife. With Omphale as Queen-regent of Lydia, he crowned their newborn son – Altades (Athus the Great) as king and added Ophren (Atlas Kittim, Epher, Japhran, Afran, Iardanus, Dardanus) the Queen’s father, to his chief army captains - together with Hespanus, Ophren's elder brother. Still intent on avenging the death of his own father, he mounted an expedition to Crete (where under the alias of Theseus he vanquished King Mylinus – the ‘Minotaur’) before returning once again to the ‘Isle of the Blessed’ in Phutea (north-west Africa or Morocco) which he renamed Lybia after his own name[100]. Here, he erected a column (possibly known today as ‘El Uted’ or ‘The Pointer’ which sits as a tall stone in the megalithic tumulus of Msoura or Mezorah). From Mezorah in Morocco, which was in those days a verdant island-garden-sanctuary full of quince fruit, 10 kilometres upriver from the sea-port of Lixus (Maqom Semes, ‘City of the Sun’) (Temple, 2011, pp. 375-434), he passed across the Straits of Gibraltar and on into Spain. Once landed, he single-handedly defeated the Three Gerions (Lomnimi) in combat (1445BC) and appointed Hispalus (Hispal, Hispalis of Seville) his son as 9thKing (from Tubal), who ruled Spainfor 17 years. During this interim, Lehabim immediately travelled to Samothea (France/Britain) for 19 years, where he married Galathea the daughter of King Jupiter Celtes (son of aforementioned Lucus) and had a son called Galates (born 1442BC). After warring with Albion (Maroticus) and Bergion[101] on the banks of the Rhine in France, and their brother Lestrigo across in Italy for a further 10 difficult years (until 1432BC), Lehabim finally had 20 years of peace in Italy – during which time he appointed Galates as the King of Samothea (France/Britain) and Tuscus as the King of Italy in a ceremony held in Viterbo (Vetulonia)[102]. Lehabim left Tuscus in Italyin 1386BC and returned to Spainin old age (where he was revered as the god Melqart[103]of the Phoenicians). There, since his son Hispalus had died, he began ruling jointly with his captain Hespanus (Isius, Jasius)(the 10th king of Spain) for 13 years (until 1373BC). He then became sole ruler for a further 19 years. Meanwhile, the Samothean (French) line of Lehabim’s dynastic rule continued after Galates: Harbon, Lugdus (who founded Lyon in the 14thyear of Aschalius of Babylon i.e. 1371BC) and Beligius, whose rule was followed by Hespanus (Iasius, Jasius)[104]. Lehabim’s death in Spain[105] in 1354BC, aged 350 years old, was greeted with great mourning and sadness, since he is believed to have committed suicide due to his blindness. The huge army in Spain, then led by Lehabim’s generals king Hespanus (Iasius, Jasius, Hesperus, Ephas, Ephah, Apher) and aforementioned Ophren[106](Atlas Kittim, Epher, Japhran, Afran, Iardanus, Dardanus) his younger brother, honoured their great leader by building a temple in Gadir and an enormous circular megalithic tumulus[107] for him on an island (now Mezorah of Morocco), below the Straits of Gibraltar, where Lehabim had many years previously set up his pillar to show the extent of his travels (and which still stands in relative obscurity near the city of Lixus). This circular island became known to Pliny (the 1st century A.D. historian) as the gardens of the Hesperides because the daughters of Atlas were known as Hesperides (the wives of Hesperus?). The site was also known as the ‘Pillars of Hercules’ for many years, before they were conflated with two mountains on the Straits[108]. After the death of Lehabim, his generals Hespanus and Ophren soon took up residence in Corythus in Italy where because of his popularity Hespanus became the envy of Ophren. They fell into a family quarrel[109] (possibly Ophren had an affair with Cybele who was Hespanus' wife - because she absconded with him) and their great army dispersed because of the confounding internal power struggle. Many became nomads wandering in Africa, while others lived under the hulls of their ships.[110]Some may have even passed across the Atlanticvia the Canary current to found the ancient Olmec civilisation of Meso-America, which also worshipped the sun god (Lehabim) (Heyerdahl, 1978). The seat of Egypt’s highest throne remained in Greece, where Pelops retained the royal sceptre or caduceus[111].
   In 1345BC, after the death of his elder brother Hespanus in Italy and during the reign of Allobrox of France, Ophren (Dardanus) sailed with Cybele - via the Island of Samothráki - to Phrygia (Turkey) where he was given permission from King Athus (Xanthos, Scamander) to build a city. He called it Dardania (known in archaeology as TroyI). The elders (Kings of Troy) followed in succession to the throne: Erichthonius, Tros (from whom the Trojans took their name), Ilus (who called Dardania Ilion), Laomedon (who built Troy II-VI and whose tomb is still supposedly intact under the great gate Scea) and Priam who was killed an old man in the Trojan War of 874-864BC. The earliest kings of the Anglo-Saxons may be traced back to Shem, who was the ancestor via Amenophis, Amenoph, Memnon, Munon (one of the 12 chiefs of Lehabim), who in his old age married Troan (Priam’s daughter), from which marriage came Tror and his descendents Loridi, Einridi, Vingethor, Vingener, Moda, Magi and Sceaf (Seskef, Scyf, Seth, Scef) (approx. 720 BC). Later, Sceaf’s distant descendent Woden (Wodden, UUoden, Voden, UUothen, Othin) (approx. 60BC) was born, from whence arose the House of Wessex and many other modern dynasties[112].
   By 1180BC, the city of Troy, based upon the 12 magisterial sectors renowned in Egypt’s Labyrinth, was known for great stature and wealth. However all that was to change with the arrival of Hercules the Grecian. Historians record that Isis, the Mother of Lehabim, was still alive at the time of the first sacking of Iliion – dying 40 years after the destruction of the city at 615 years old! (1140-39BC). Her funeral must then have taken place in the reign of Belochus (Belimus, Beleoun, Sardanapalus) the 23rd (and last) Monarch of the Hamitic Assyrian Empire who burnt himself to death and was succeeded by Arbaces the Mede[113], at a time synchronous with Elon’s judgeship of the children of Israel (Austin, 2008b). Isis was the last of those renowned ancients who were ignorantly deified and worshipped as ‘immortals’. Eleven hundred and thirty-five years later (5BC), though, life and immortality was brought to light through the Lord Jesus Christ, who in rising from the dead began the new creation!

Conclusions

   The great Reformer Martin Luther was a well read scholar and to dismiss his overall understanding of ancient history as a complete fabrication requires compelling evidence. Such compelling evidence is non-existent to the best knowledge of this author. Despite some major discrepancies in BC dates and some serious conflation of names in Nanni, our confluence of classical, ancient and modern witnesses all attest the same general flow of international events as has just been synthesised. In places, fragments from authentic chroniclers (still extant) support Lynche’s claims – suggesting Giovanni Nanni did notnecessarily fabricate or doctor his data. In other places, our more robust chronology of Babylonian monarchs together with the reasonably assumed longevity of Ham’s line allows us to confirmPolemo’s ancient claim that Mizraim (or Apis, Jupiter Ammon) was the ‘High King’ of the Israelite Oppression (and of the Exodus). Therefore, it is safe to say that Dr Martin Luther and his contemporaries, who believed much of Nanni’s Berosus to be genuine history, were probably correct in their judgement. In this paper, Frere, Prestwich, Evans and Darwin have been thoroughly refuted – for they cannot accommodate a global flood in 2610BC. Furthermore, Nanni’s history has been substantially verified by both authentic classical sources and modern archaeology. It almost goes without saying that if this is confirmed by further investigations, our modern interpretations of history will need to be significantly revised[114].
   As a final thought, the ‘Great Dark Age’ we have here been reconstructing (from the Old Testament and many authentic sources) is contradicted by at least two streams of modern scholarship. First, ‘alternative historians’ or ‘cult archaeologists’ are forever plugging dates for chronologies which disregard God’s book of sacred history and the chronology we derive from it. Their estimates for a ‘lost civilisation’ range from 15,000 to 10,000BC. Although valuable in places, their overall theses cannot be correct in the slightest. Secondly, the theses of ‘mainstream’ academic historians are just as dubious – since they have no qualms about glossing over all the ample evidence for a global cataclysm and subsequent global repopulation with a geologically uneventful Holocene epoch in the Upper Palaeolithic! From this ‘mainstream’ stance, not only is it impossible to explain why so many ancient cultures contain historical references to the global cataclysm, Noah, and his subsequent descendants; it is equally impossible to explain why human populations were so stunted during the 700,000 (!) years that we are supposed to have been the most capable species on this planet[115]. Where are the remains of their technology? Why did they remain on the verge of extinction for so long? Books on human ‘deep history’ are currently attempting to patch up these gaping holes in the speculative world of the secular ancient past - and modern Christians are in danger of forgetting what heritage we have left from the Reformation period histories that have been so heavily neglected by archaeologists.
   In response to these mild criticisms, many might reply that ‘giants’ with life-spans measured in centuries of years and a strict adherence to ‘ancient Hebrew folk-lore’ do not constitute a credible alternative to the hard archaeological data behind modern scholarship. Christian readers should therefore be left with a great challenge – if we do not academically overcome the incredulous spirit of our age regarding biblical history, how may we be said to be following the injunctions to be transformed by the renewing of our minds and always ready to give an answer for the hope within us? In these our days, surrounded by so much wilful ignorance and misinformation, we must recover a robust concept of creation history and make a stand for God’s Holy Word, just as Dr Luther did in his!

References:

Austin, D. (2008a). Is Darius, the King of Ezra 6:14-15, the Same King as the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1? Journal of Creation 22(2): 46-52.
Austin, D. (2008b). Three Chronological Periods of the Old Testament. Journal of Creation 22(3): 51-58.
Austin, D. (2011). Synchronisation of the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Journal of Creation 25(2): 67-73.
Bowden, M. (1998). True Science Agrees with the Bible. Kent: Sovereign Publications, pp. 151-153.
Fasold, D. (1988). The Ark of Noah. New York: Knightsbridge Publishing Company.
Inc. Book Sales. (2002). The Timechart of Biblical History. USA: Chartwell Books Inc.
Jones, F.N. (2005). The Chronology of the Old Testament. USA: Master Books.
Knight, C. and Butler, A. (2011). Before the Pyramids. London: Watkins Publishing.
Lynche, R. (1601). An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah into Europe. Available online at: [WWW] http://annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.pdf (Accessed on 14/06/11). Also see a modern English translation by Argyros Argyrou: [WWW] http://www.argyrou.eclipse.co.uk/myths/bible/Travels.htm.
Mauro, P. (2001). The Wonders of Bible Chronology. Virginia: Hess Publications.
Menzies, G. (2011). The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History’s Greatest Mystery Revealed. London: Swordfish.
Niessen, R. (1982). A Biblical Approach to Dating the Earth: a Case for the use of Genesis 5 and 11 as an exact chronology. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 60-66.
Nissen, H. (Trans. Skondin, T.) (2004). Noah’s ArkUncovered: An expedition into the ancient past. Copenhagen: Scandinavia.
Patten, D. (1981). The Longevity Accounts in Ancient History. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No 1. pp. 40-52.
Robinson, S. (1999). Genealogy is not Chronology. Origins, No. 26. Rugby: The Biblical Creation Society, pp. 15-21.
Siculus, D. (c. 35 B.C.). Bibliotheca historica or Library of History. Available Online at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/home.html (Accessed on 21/07/11).
Rohl, D. (2008). The Lords of Avaris. London: Arrow Books. 
Rudgley, R. (1998). Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age. London: Arrow Books, p. 28.
Setterfield, B. (1999). Ancient Chronology in Scripture. [WWW] http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm(Accessed on 17/10/11).
Stringer, C. (2006). Homo Britannicus: The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain. London: Penguin Books.
Temple, R. (2011). Egyptian Dawn: Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt. London: Arrow Books.
Ussher, J. (1658 trans. 2003). The Annals of the World. USA: Master Books.
Viccary, M. (2007). Biblical Chronology – Our Times are in His Hands. Journal of Creation 21(1): 62-66.

Further Reading:

The best resources on world history from a biblical perspective are:

Ashton, J. and Down, D. (2006). Unwrapping the Pharaohs. USA: Master Books.
Burgess, S. (2004). The Origin of Man.Leominster: Day One Publications.
Chittick, D. (2006). The Puzzle of Ancient Man.USA: Creation Compass.
Cooper, B. (1995). After the Flood: The Early Post-Flood History of EuropeTraced Back to Noah. Sussex: New Wine Press.
Eusebius of Caesarea. (c. 335). Chronicle (Trans. from classical Armenian). Available online at: [WWW] http://rbedrosian.com/euseb.html (Accessed on 20/08/11).
Gascoigne, M. (2002). Forgotten History of the Western People: From the Earliest Origin. Camberley: Anno Mundi Books.
Hoeh, H.L. (1967 and 1969) Compendium of World History. Volumes 1 and 2. Online: [WWW]
(Volume 1: http://www.cgca.net/coglinks/wcglit/hoehcompendium/hhc1toc.htm). (Volume 2: http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/HL%20Hoeh%20papers/Compendium%20vol2%20(tables%20format).pdf).
Hoerth, A.J. (1998). Archaeology & The Old Testament. USA: Baker Academic.
Jerome (a.k.a. Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) (c. 380). Chronicle. Available oneline at: [WWW] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#JeromeChronicle (Accessed on 18/08/11).
Oard, M. (2004). Frozen in time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age and the Bible. USA: Master Books.
Snelling, A. (2009). Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood. Volumes 1 and 2. USA: Institute for Creation Research.
Thong, C. and Fu, C. (2009). Finding God in Ancient China. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Useful sources used to a greater or lesser extent in constructing this history were:

Armour, R.A. (1992). Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: The AmericanUniversity in Cairo Press.
Aubet, M.E. (1993). The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bayle, P. (1737). The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle. Volume 4. London: J.J. and P. Knapton. (Available on Google Book Search).
Bimson, J. (2003). (When) Did it Happen? New Contexts for Old Testament History. Cambridge: Grove Books Ltd.
Blum, H. (1998). The Gold of Exodus: The Discovery of the Most Sacred Place on Earth. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Cawley, C. (2011). Medieval Lands, France, Gascony, Sires d'Albret. Chapter 1, C. (2) available at [WWW] http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MONFERRATO,%20SALUZZO,%20SAVONA.htm
(Accessed on 16/04/12) from the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy.
Clayton, R. (1753). A Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament. Volume 1. London: W. Bowyer. (Available via Google Book Search).
Cory, P. and Hodges, E.R. (1876 ed., republished 2003). Cory’s Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Writers. USA: Kessinger Publishing.
Cuncliffe, B. (2008). Europe Between the Oceans: Themes and Variations: 9000 BC – AD 1000. London: YaleUniversity Press.
Danielsson, O. (1992). Annius of Viterbo and the Swedish Historiographical Philosophy of the Sixteen and Seventeenth Centuries. Germany: UppsalaUniversity Press. (German Text Only).
Davidson, P. (2011). Atlas of Empires. London: New Holland Publishers.
Farrer, J.A. (1907). Literary Forgeries. London. Available for free download online.
Grafton, A. (1991). Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-1800. London: HarvardUniversityPress.
Herodotus, (Translated 1998, 2008). The Histories. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Heyerdahl, T. (1978). Early Man and the Ocean: the beginning of navigation and seaborn civilizations. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Jackson, P. W. (2006). The Chronologers’ Quest: The Search for the Age of the Earth. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
James, P. (1991). Centuries of Darkness. London: Pimlico.
James, P. (1995). The Sunken Kingdom: The Atlantis Mystery Solved. London: JonathanCape.
John, R.T. (1994). Fictive Ancient History and National Consciousness in Early Modern Europe: The Influence of Annius of Viterbo’s Antiquitates.London: Warburg Institute, University of London.
Johnson, K. (2010). Ancient Post-Flood History. Biblefacts.org
Kitchen, K.A. (2003). On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Leston, S. (2011). The Bible in World History. Ohio: Barbour Publishing.
Ligota, C.R. (1987). Annius of Viterbo and Historical Method. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, The Warburg Institute, Vol. 50, pp. 44-56.
Marinatos, N. (2010). Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine. Urbana, Chicago and Springfield: University of Illinois Press.
McCants, W.F. (2012). Founding Gods, Inventing Nations: Conquest and Culture Myths from Antiquity to Islam. Princeton and Oxford: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Minge, B. (2007). ‘Short’ sojourn comes up short? Journal of Creation21(3): 63.
Morris, H. (1966). World Population and Bible Chronology. Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 3(3). pp. 7-10.
Newgrosh, B. (2007). Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia. Leicester: Matador.
Palmer, T. (2003). Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism Through the Ages. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Parry, G. (2001). Berosus and the Protestants: Reconstructing Protestant Myth. Huntington Library Quarterly, University of CaliforniaPress, Vol. 64, No. 1/2, pp. 1-21.
Renfrew, C. (1976). Before Civilization. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
Roberts, J.M. (1993). History of the World. Oxford: HeliconPublishing.
Shryock, A. and Smail, D.L. (2011). Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shuckford, S. (1824). The Sacred and Profane History of the World, ConnectedPhiladelphia: William W. Woodward. (Available free from Google Books Reader).
Stephens, W. (1989). Giants in those Days: Folklore, Ancient History, and Nationalism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Stephens, W. (2004). When Pope Noah Ruled the Etruscans: Annius of Viterbo and His Forged “Antiquities”. MLN, The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, Vol. 119, No. 1, Italian Issue Supplement: Studia Humanitatis: Essays in Honor of Salvatore Camporeale, pp. S201-S223.  
Wiener, L. (2012, originally 1920). Contributions toward a History of Arabico-Gothic Culture. Volume III: Tacitus’ Germania and other Forgeries. Forgotten Books.
Willis, R. (ed.). (1993). World Mythology: The Illustrated Guide. London: BCA via Duncan Baird Publishers.



Figure 1: The Kings of Babylonfrom Noah to Nebuchadnezzar II or ’42 ages’

Figure 2: ‘De Ortu Regum Anglie’ King List from the Oxford Bodleian Library, MS Wood, The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, written approx. AD 1340


Figure 3: The SacredMountainor Twin Peaks – Yigityatagi – with Arkremnants in foreground (after Nissen, 2004)

Figure 4: The Egyptian Lehabim (Hercules) together with club and the circular Spanish tomb built for him near Lixus in Morocco(found in Cancho Roano, Spain). The circular glyph is not a warrior’s shield but a rendition of Mezorah in Morocco, the island of Atlantis. This ancient Spanish glyph corroborates Giovanni Nanni’s history.


Figure 5: Hercules Inscription at Ciutat Vella, BarcelonaCatalonia: See Endnote 86. The second line from the top contains evidence that Nanni did not invent his claim.


Table 1: Revisions to Synchronisms with Assyria
Major Suggested Revisions to Conventional Dates for Old Testament Synchronisms

SYNCHRONISM WITH ASSYRIA

USSHER/JONES

POWELL

Fall of Sardanapalus (Belochus) to Arbaces the Mede
747 BC
1135 BC
Conquest of Israel by Assyria/King Shalmaneser
721 BC
639 BC
Subjugation of Judah/Sennacherib invades Egypt
713-12 BC
633 BC
Fall of Nineveh/King Saraco (to General Narbopolassar)
626 BC
530 BC
Josiah killed by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt
610 BC
527 BC
Nebuchadnezzar Reigns in the 4th Year of
Jehoiakim and in Battle of Carchemish
destroys the army of Pharaoh Necho

606-605 BC

524-523 BC
Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonians) sacks Jerusalem
586 BC
506 BC

Table 2: Major Periods - Anno Mundi or ‘The Year of the World’
Period
Dates
Duration
1) Creation to the Cataclysm
AM 1-1656
1,656 years
2) Cataclysm to Promise to Abraham in Ur
AM 1656-2088
432 years
3) Promise to Abraham to the confirmation of said promise to Jacob
AM 2088-2303
215 years
4) Confirmation of covenant to the law (Ten Commandments)
AM 2303-2733
430 years
5) Law to the building of Solomon’s Temple
AM 2733-3327
594 years
6) Temple to the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar II
AM 3327-3759
432 years
7) Fall of Jerusalem to the return from captivity
AM 3759-3809
50 years
8) Restoration to Christ’s birth
AM 3809-4266
457 years

Table 3: Near Eastern Gods from Marinatos, (2010:192), identified after her cryptographic methods

Table 4: Hesiod’s ‘5 Ages of Man’ Revised – according to Nanni’s fragments of Berosus

Name of High Monarch:
Regnal Year BC
R.Y. Ended BC
Comments, inc. Ages of Man
1.       Noah
2610
2260
Golden Age 
2.       Ham, Belus
2610
1685
Tower of Babel
3.       Cush
2608
1925
Good climate
4.       Nimrod (Saturn)
2478
1869
Great longevity > 600 years
5.       Jupiter Belus
2423
1807
Relative peace – single combat resolution
Belus was a prince of study, inventor of the Chaldean astronomy (Pliny)
6.       Nynas
1807
1755
Established the Assyrian Empire by subjugating Babylon and Bactria
7.       Semyramis I (Queen)
1755
1713
Osyris and Isis born (approx)
Semyramis removed her court from Nineveh to Babylon (D. Siculus)
8.       Ninyas
1713
1675
Agriculture taught by Osyris (Mizraim)
9.       Arius, Agron in Herodotus (Histories 1.7)
1675
1645
Silver Age
Death of Ham (Pan). 
One line of Heraclidae (or Lydian
Royals) begin here for 22 generations - see Rohl (2008) and Herodotus
10.    Aralius, Amyrus, Altheus? (1st generation)
1645
1605
Large-scale warfare begins
11.    Balaneus, Balaeus, Xerxes, Alcymus, Alcaeus, Alciamus, Adrysus, Cleolaus, Lemnos, Agelaus, Blascon?  (2nd gen.) son of Lehabim - rules Anatolia
1605
1575
100 year human ‘motherhood’ before adulthood begins
12. Armatritis, Adramytis, Armamithres, Armamitres   (3)
1575
1537

13. Belochus, Cambletes, Camboblascon? (4)
1537
1502
Belochus probably married Electra a descendant of Gomer. 
He was usurped by Baleus.
14. Baleus, Balaeus, Tipheus (5)
1502
1450
Mizraim Assassinated by brother Typhon during this reign
15. Altades, Athus, Sethos, Zaztagus, Altallus, Altadas (6)
1450
1415
Lehabim/Hercules regains Lydia/Sardis and puts his son Altades on the throne
16. Mamythus, Mamynthus (7)
1415
1385

17. Aschalius, Macchaleus, Magchaleus (8)
1385
1355
Death of Lehabim in Spain/Morocco
18. Sphaerus (9)
1355
1335
Bronze Age
19. Mamylus (10)
1335
1305

20. Sparaethus, Spartheus, Spareus, Sparetus (11)
1305
1263

21. Ascatades, Dercetades (12)
1263
1225
Aka Dercatades/Dercetidis – the Father of Queen Attosa/Semyramis according to Ussher (Vol. 1, 363, pg 54)
22. Amyntes (13)
1225
1180

23. Belochus, Belimus, Beleoun, Sardanapalus (14)
1180
1135
Assyrian/Pelasgian male line fails after 1343 yrs.
Sardanapalus commits suicide by burning his palace down
Trojan War with Hercules the Grecian. Isis Dies.
24. Attosa, Tratre, Ak'urartist, Semyramis II (15)
1135
1128
Queen marries the royal gardener called Belesius or Beletares
25. Beletares, Balatores, Belesius, Narbonassarus, Nabu-nasir, Nebo-adon-Assur, Naminybrus, Nebuchadnezzar (16)
1128
1098
Heroic Age
Nebuchadnezzar I, satrap of Arbaces, marries Attosa and builds Bronze gates around Babylon. Second Empire begins.
26. Lamprides (17)
1098
1066
Men were prone to warfare
27. Sosares (18)
1066
1046

28. Lampares (19)
1046
1016

29. Panyas, Pannyas, Pannias (20)
1016
0974

30. Sosarmus (21)
0974
0952
Median king in Eusebius
31. Mithraeus, Myrsus in Herodotus (22)
0952
0917
This line of Heraclidae end with  Candaules, son of Myrsus. "[Cephalion] says that 1000 years had elapsed from Semiramis to King Mitraeus” (Eusebius). This statement only makes sense if we take that as Semiramis I.
32. Teutamus, Tudhaliya IV in Rohl (2008)
0917
0885
Hittites invade Western Anatolia - see Rohl (2008). Comtemp. with Agamemnon and Menelaeus. Priam was General of Phrygia at this point. Teutamus sent 10,000 Ethiopian troops to Troy.
33. Teutaeus, Telepinu(sh) in Rohl (2008)
0885
0841
Repels Achilles (possibly Asa of Judah - who had diseased feet). Teutaeus aids Troy VII but fails
34. Thinaeus, Theneus
0841
0811
Dorian Invasion of the Peloponnese
35. Dercylus, Deioces (Mede), Derusus
0811
0771
Iron Age
36. Empacmes, Eupalmes
0771
0733

37. Laosthenes
0733
0688
Men warlike, greedy and impious
38. Pertiades, Peritiades
0688
0658
Navigation and mining commonplace
39. Ophrataeus, Phraortes (Mede)
0658
0637

40. Ephecheres
0637
0585

41. Acraganes, Anakyndaraxes, Acrazanes, Cyaxares, Anabaxares, Ocrazapes, Cindaraxes, Chyniladon, Saracus, Sineladanos, Kinelanadan, Kandalanu, Merodachbaladan, Ben Merodach, Pul (the Mede)
0585
0543
Fought against Cyrus I and his own General Narbopolassar
42. Thonos Concolerus, Narbopolassar, Alyattes
0543
0524
T.C. was General Narbopolassar
43. Nebuchadnezzar II
0524
0481
Builds further upon the work of Sennacherib - establishing the HangingGardens in Nineveh for Amytis his wife


Figure 6: Synchronisms between Israel, Judah, Egyptand Assyria/Anatolia/Greece


Figure 7: Samothean King List

Samothea: 0. Japhet - 1. Samothes Dis - 2. Magus - 3. Sarronius - 4. Druiyus - 5. Bardus - 6. Longho - 7. Bardus Junior - 8. Lucus - 9. Jupiter Celtes - 10. Hercules (Lehabim) - 11. Galates - 12. Harbon - 13. Lugdus - 14. Beligius - 15. Iasius - 16. Allobrox - 17. Romus - 18. Paris - 19. Lemanus - 20. Olbius - 21. Galates II - 22. Nannes - 23. Remis - 24. Francus - 25. Pictus

Endnotes or Commentary on the Chronology:


[1] The covenant made with Abraham involved God telling him what would happen to his descendants (the children of Israel or Jacob) after his own death (cf. Genesis 15:13-14) in a land (singular) not theirs. It did not pertain to Isaac in Canaan, when Abraham was still alive. Isaac was forbidden to enter Egypt (Gen. 26:2). Moreover, God describes a period of 400 years of affliction (not an approximate number standing for 430 but an exact number cf. Acts 7:6-7) after which time the Egyptian nation whom they serve shall be judged and then they shall ‘come out with great possession’. Note that if Egyptand Canaan are meant here (as the LXX has it), then this phrase ‘shall come out’ would be erroneous – because with that reading they were stillin the land of affliction in Canaan where they fled. To maintain biblical truth, we must hold to a long dwelling in Egypt. How then, do we explain the period of Galatians 3:17? We have to understand that the covenant was only given to Abraham and then afterward confirmedin 1963 B.C. (as a statute in Christ) to Jacob on the very night before he entered Egypt to visit Joseph (cf. Genesis 12:4, Gen. 15:13, Gen. 46:2-7, Exodus 12:41, Psalm 105:10-11, Acts 7:6). This explains why Exodus 12:41 notes it was 430 years to the very day that the children of Israel left Egypt. Another line of evidence is that careful Scriptural study cannot establish that Judah’s genealogy supports a 215 year sojourn. It simply cannot be maintained that the Hur of 1 Chron. 2:19 and 2:50 (who are actually both the same person) was the same Hur who married Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron. The alleged linkage is too weak, since both Ruben and Judah both had sons called Hezron – and since Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite (Joshua 14:6) can hardly also be the son of Hezron! (1 Chron. 2:18). The chronologies do not give birth/death ages in these particular sections and so cannot be treated as exact as some would wish. The final line of evidence comes from the fact that the ancestry of Moses’ family in Exodus 6:16-20 is modestly abridged to tribe, clan and family (Minge, 2007:63). The ‘fourth generation’ return mentioned in Gen. 15:16 denotes a generation from Abraham’s perspective (i.e. about 100 years). In fact, there were eleven generations (of about 40 years) from Joseph to Joshua (1 Chron. 7:22-27) and eleven generations from Jacob to Elkanah (1 Chron. 6:33-38) in the genealogy of Heman, both consistent with the long sojourn period.
[2]Austin (2008:52) includes the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 as ‘Period 3a’ of his ‘Table 1’. Biblically, it can be proven that another 114 years of servitude ‘in metaphorical Egypt’ (‘Period 3b’) are necessary to do justice to Luke’s summary of this period in Acts 13. If the years of usurpation and servitude are totalled in this period they come to exactly 114 years. Therefore as Setterfield (1999) points out, the ‘Omission principle’, found elsewhere in Scripture, is also at work in this verse of 1 Kings.
[3] Although I knew of works by Edumnd Thiele and Prof. Kenneth Kitchen I also knew from Larry Pierce that Thiele had significant errors in his chronology where he had altered Scripture to accommodate archaeological discoveries. Kitchen, I had already discovered in James’s critique (1991:222), held to the high dynastic chronology of Egypt, which I knew for sure was spurious given the no-gaps chronologies of the Masoretic text (Genesis 5 and 11). Therefore I chose my sources carefully from those who held Scripture as their highest and best authority in chronological data.
[4] The 42ndruler, Thonos Concoleros, is called ‘Sardanapalus’ by Alexander Polyhistor as quoted by Eusebius (The Chaldean Chronicle, 9: From the same Alexander [Polyhistor] on the deeds and valor of Sennecherib and Nebuchadnezzar). He can therefore be equated with Narbopolassar the father of Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 506BC).
[5] This figure of precisely 42 previous Monarchs is given strong archaeological support from Nebuchadnezzar II’s own “Borsippa Inscription”, which says of the Tower of Babel: “A former king built it (they reckon forty-two ages ago), but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder has dispersed its sun-dried clay; the bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great lord, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site, nor did I take away the foundation stone. … As it had been in former times, so I founded, I made it; as it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.” Smith’s Bible Dictionary quoted in Inc. Book Sales (2002). This 'Borsippa Inscription' found on the base of a ziggurat was translated by a Professor Oppert, but later included with a new translation in the book: 'Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Sinai (London: James Nisbet, 1857) by William Kennett Loftus. It mentions the restoration of the Tower of Babel. You can see Nebuchadnezzar's other inscription of the Tower of Babel here: http://www.schoyencollection.com/historyBabylonian.html . What is truly remarkable, in our opinion, is that Nebuchadnezzar refers to "they reckon 42 ages ago". Who are "they" in the context of this inscription? It seems clear he must be referring to the priests or scholarly record keepers of Babylon itself. This is powerful independent confirmation that Nanni was using a genuine copy of Berosus the Chaldean Priest as a source, because without knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar's inscription (found long afterward), he still takes us back precisely 5 further rulers in his king list to Noah - i.e. from 37 'ages' (as recorded in Eusebius and St Jerome) to 42 'ages' as mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar himself regarding the Tower of Babel! I have not even begun to enter the debate surrounding the Assyrian Eponym lists, however scholars are beginning to realise that astronomical data used to ‘lock’ key chronological dates are actually quite unreliable (see Newgrosh, 2007).
[6] This unbroken list of rulers of the city of Babylonwas obtained through a synthesis of king lists: Lynche (1601), who gives – with a few exceptions - the first 14 rulers; together with Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius and St. Jerome who provide all those upto Thonos Concolerus (Sardanapalus) the 42nd ruler. It is noteworthy that in antiquity there were believed to have been four ‘Ages’ – Golden, Silver, Bronze and Iron. Eusebius and Jerome, following Ctesias and Berosus, begin their king list from the mid-Golden Age with Nynas or Ninus II (the sixth ruler), son of Belus and record Belochus as monarch number 18. The reigns that Nanni’s Berosus enumerates (from the mid-Golden Age to the first Trojan War against Hercules the Grecian) are identical in number – and again end with Belochus (their 18th and my 23rd) – who was Sardanapallus (under whom the Assyrian Empire fell and the ‘Heroic Age’ began). Lynche takes us back to the start of the Golden Age five more rulers - to Noah who established the Monarchy under Nimrod (according to Lynche’s sources). It is also noteworthy that Jerome placed the 42ndruler (Belochus) in 830BC which suggests he conflated Belochus (the 23rd ruler from Noah) with Thonos Concolerus the 42nd. Both these kings seem to have had the name Sardanapalus, but the former burnt himself to death (according to Diodorus) whereas the latter died naturally and was succeeded by Nebuchadnezzar II his son. Out of all these 42 rulers, only a handful are mentioned in Herodotus’ ‘The Histories’. The second, Bel (or Ham who is Belus), is mentioned as having both a ‘sanctuary’ (i.e. the Tower of Babel) and a gate in Babylon (Book 1: 181 and Book 3:158 respectively). The 24th, Semiramis II is mentioned as having a Babylonian gate (Book 3:155). The 35th monarch - Deioces, and the 39thPharotes - his descendent – plus the 41st Cyaraxes are all mentioned as Kings of the Medes, confirming Cephalion’s list of Median kings (found in Eusebius).
[7] For a translation into modern English see: [WWW] http://www.argyrou.eclipse.co.uk/myths/bible/Travels.htm (Accessed on 17/06/12).
[8] Giants are mentioned by Moses in Genesis 6:4. Lynche claims that Noah was a giant himself, along with many of his descendants (especially in the line of Ham). These giants are not of the fabulous sort (60 feet tall) but rather consistent with physical limits i.e. 8-11 feet tall (as was Goliath of Gath). Temple (2011:203) mentions that many Egyptian tombs are far larger than would be necessary for an average sized body. Sesokhris (Khasekhem) was stated by Manetho to have been 5 cubits and 3 palms high, “…which would be about 8 English feet, if the short cubit of 17.4 inches were used.” In fact, Manetho is probably referring to the royal Egyptian cubit!
[9] These truths are often overlooked in most assessments and reappraisals of ancient history, yet they have a truly revolutionary significance for scholarly research today. Long virility coupled with longevity meant that Mizraim the son of Ham was 1stgeneration post-flood - yet he was only born long after Abraham – the 10th generation from Shem, and lived (because of his genetic inheritance) until well after the death of Moses! If we discount Lynche’s claim, for instance, that Queen Isis (daughter of Ham and thus 1st generation post-flood) lived from approx. 1755BC until 1140BC, some 615 years, we must also discount the reputable Jewish historian Josephus who wrote: “Now I have for witnesses to what I have said all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians, for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian history, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean monuments, and Mochus, and Hestiaeus, and beside these, Hieronymus, the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician history, agree with what I here say: Hesiod also and Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus, and besides Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years; but as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit.” Patten (1981) comments that: “Josephus and his colleagues had read widely throughout the antiquities of the Mediterranean world, at that time under Rome. His mind-set was based in part on the collage of ancient international sources and their unanimity. There were no contradictions. The ancient longevity accounts with which he was acquainted extended far beyond the borders of his native Palestine. His sources came from no less than three continents. Such sources, when in unison, to Josephus far outweighed the contemporary rationalizations and cynics, however reasonable and well-intentioned. His sources came from areas which today include Africa, Asia and Europe […] one can sum up a total of 14 or 15 ancient sources, coming from three continents and at least 6 different ancient languages. Of these ancient sources familiar to Josephus other than the Biblical sources, only a few fragments and a few manuscripts survive. This may be one reason why modern academia is less impressed with this ancient tradition than was Josephus.” For more on this fascinating topic of longevity and its consequences for ancient records see Shuckford, S. (1824:226-233).
[10] Briefly, we shall establish the authenticity of Giovanni Nanni beyond reasonable doubt. First, let us consider the language that Nanni’s Berosus was originally written in. Ligota (1987:56) notes that Nanni frequently referred to Aramaic (ancient Hebrew/Arabic) words in Berosus and also suggests that it was this language Berosus wrote in. Ligota’s suggestion logically follows because Nanni obtained the fragments from two visiting Armenians of the Domincan Order of Monks (or Friars) – (Master Mathias and Master Georgius according to Farrer, 1907:76) – the latter of whom gave him the fragments as a gift in Genoa. The existence of this Master Georgius is no longer questioned, for it is certain that both the monks visited Genoa in the Summer of 1474 or the Spring of 1475 (Danielsson, O. (1992:10) and John, R.T. (1994:22)). That the Berosus fragments were originally written in Aramaic (ancient Chaldean) is confirmed by William Harrison in Parry (2001:11 – footnote 34) who revered the brevity of Nanni’s Berosus as an example of “the auncient forme of writing used by Antiquitie…untill the use of history came in place (or at lest was knowen among the gentiles)”. Moreover, a Hebrew Berosus further elucidates Nanni’s comments mentioned in Grafton (1991:90), namely that: “Annius could certainly borrow some texts from his Armenian confreres and ask advice on Hebrew and Aramaic from his Jewish friend the still unidentified ‘Samuel the Talmudist,’”. As Wiener (2012:203) counters: “…obviously [this was] Samuel Zarfati, the court physician of Alexander VI, a most learned Spanish Jew.” Therefore it is safe to conclude that Nanni studied the Latin translation given him with aid from a Jewish friend who knew Aramaic Hebrew. It is interesting that Nanni did not know who had first translated the fragments and found them hard to understand – making reference to “Berosus or his translator” (Ligota, 1987:55) in his ‘Commentaries” of 1498. This suggests the books were old when Nanni was first given them (as Harrison in Parry (p.10) comments: “thes bokes are at the lest 500 yeres olde…” [Parry adding] “for Godfrey of Viterbo [AD1120-1196] knew them centuries before Annius”. (Parry later states that Godfrey only mentions the genuine Berosus – but that remains to be determined). Indeed, the wider story appears to be precisely this: fragments of the three authentic books of Aramaic Berosus had survived the fire at the Library of Alexandria. Around AD378, a Spanish-born Bishop of Alexandria, named Lucius Valerius, relocated to Samosata (modern Samsat in Adiyaman Province, Turkey) with these various fragments, where he undertook a Latin recension into five parts. We learn this much from The Chronicle of (Pseudo)-Dexter (this being the disputed history chronicle of the bishop of Barcelona in Spain, Flavius Lucius Dexter, the son of Pacianus, who flourished approx AD395 according to his contemporary St. Jerome – see: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203/Page_384.html). Dexter’s work plus other Spanish ecclesiastical chronicles were claimed to have been rediscovered by the Jesuit J. Roman de la Higuera (1538-1611) in the library of the Benedictine Abbey of Fulda in Germany. If we take Dexter’s work as authentic and not a fabrication designed by Higuera, it neatly explains why Nanni had five books of Berosus (rather than the original three) given to him by Armenian (Turkish) Dominican Monks in Genoa.
   Secondly, Bayle recounts that Didimus Rapaligerus Livianus mounted a posthumous defence of Nanni in 1678BC saying that: “It is very well known…that Berosus was given him at Genoa, by Father George of Armenia a Dominican [Friar]; and that he found all the rest [i.e. fragments of Archilochus, Metasthenes, Cato, Fabius Pictor, Myrsilus, C. Sempronius, Philo, Xenophon and Antoninus Pius], except Manetho, at one Mr Williams’s of Mantua” (Bayle et al, 1737:299). Now, some fierce critics (e.g. Fumagalli) have tried to dismiss this ‘Mr Williams’ as a figment. Who exactly was he? The answer, it turns out, is quite simple. Nanni refers to him as “Guilelmus Mantuanus” and dates his collections to the year AD1315 in Mantua (Ligota, 1987:56). Now it so happens that Charles Cawley’s ‘Medieval Lands’ the encyclopaedia of territories in the medieval western world, found online at the web address referenced above, elucidates this mysterious Guilelmus. Cawley contains the following very interesting statement: “Matthew of Paris recounts that…Guglielmo VII Marchese di Monferrato [AD1240-1292]…was appointed Vicar-General in northern Italyby his father-in-law as candidate for the kingdomof Italy, and led the movement to oust Charles Comet d’Anjou from the kingdom of Sicily. He succeeded in depriving the latter of his possessions in Lombardyand captured and castrated his ambassadors [probably between AD 1272 and 1275]. He became head of the Ghibelin League formed by the Marchese di Saluzzo [Thomas I (AD 1239-1296) – Ed.] and contingents from Castilein the towns of Pavia, Asti, Mantua, Verona, Genoa, Milan, Alessandria and Ivrea.” Nanni visited Mantuawith the Most Reverend Cardinal Paul de Campo Fulgoso in the 1480’s, who he mentions in a letter to his brother Thomas. Clearly, Guglielmo later became known as Guilelmus of Mantua and his Collectanea(collection of ancient authors) was where Nanni obtained his fragments of the 9 lost authors. The collection of Guglielmo (which he must have repossessed from Charles I of Naples in Norther Italy) would have come originally from Sicily. Mantua library was probably opened to honour William’s name, in AD1315, by his close kinsman Theodore I, Marquess of Montferrat. This would neatly explain why Nanni in his Antiquities of 1498 makes mention of a learned Talmudist, Rabbi Moses, who is probably the Sicilian Moses of Palermo who lived in the second half of the 13thcentury and translated various works of old Arabic into Latin for Charles I of Naples. Charles d’Anjou, as he was know, was renowned for his love of learning and at that time had commissioned a number of Jewish scholars to translate Arabic works into Latin as part of the ‘Latin Renaissance’. Livianus cites a Lutheran saying of the fragments Nanni obtained in Mantua: “…they are all of them interpolated, castrated, imperfect, and neither translated with fidelity of judgement: and yet that they were anciently extracted from those true and legitimate authors, there are such arguments as can admit of no contradiction. To instance only in [the 22 fragments of] Cato. Examine it again and again, condemn it as you will, yet you must see and confess that it discovers the wit and style of the true Cato, which are not to be imitated or counterfeited by such sort of persons”.
   Let us then move now to consider the works impact on Protestant Theologians. It is noteworthy that eminent Reformers with a high view of Scriptural inspiration, together with other intellectual scholars just as capable, held Nanni (or Annius) in great esteem. Martin Luther “preferred Annius’s Berosus to Herodotus and his ilk” (Grafton, 1991:87) and found it his richest non-biblical source. Philipp Melanchthon used his history extensively, as did Melanchthon’s student Johann Funck, who considered Nanni’s Berosus “the most approved history of the Babylonians” yet rejected Nanni’s Metasthenes as inconsistent (Grafton, 1991:98). In Protestant Geneva he was also held in high esteem by the well respected Abraham Bucholzer who incorporated Nanni’s work into his Isagoge chronologica of 1577. And others, like Guillaume Postel and members of the intellectual FlorentineAcademy(such as Pier Francesco Giambullari), who were far less Scriptural yet just as erudite, also considered Nanni’s works genuine. Postel may have ‘touched it with a pin’ when he wrote that Nanni’s Berosus had a bad reputation because “he passed down to posterity an account similar to that in the sacred [books], and thus is despised and ridiculed by men poorly disposed toward divine things, because of the very quality for which he ought to be praised and preferred to all other authors”. He also noted that “Berosus sometimes told stories that redounded to the discredit of the Chaldeans, and a witness testifying against his own interest deserves belief” and again “Though Berosus the Chaldean is preserved in fragments, and is disliked by atheists or enemies of Moses, he is approved of by innumerable men and authors expert in every language and field of learning. Hence I grant him the faith deserved of any accurate author” (Grafton, 1991:82,95). Here, Postel is echoing a very significant truth. As John (1994:24) notes: “In the commentaries to his forged texts Annius referred to fifty-eight ancient authors whose works he might well have known at first hand. All of them, bar one -- the Orphic Argonautica -- had appeared in print by the mid-1490s, and those originally in Greek had been translated. The rangeof his reading is impressive. He drew on all the standard encyclopaedists: Pliny, Solinus, Aulus Gellius,Macrobius and Isidore of Seville. He was familiar with the historians one would expect to be relevant: Herodotus, Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, Sallust, Josephus,Eusebius, Trogus as epitomised by Justinus, Valerius Maximus, Quintus Curtius Rufus and Plutarch.He also used the geographers Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy, the mythographer Hyginus and the Christian apologist Lactantius. Rather surprising, however, was his dependence upon poets, who are almost as numerous as historians. They include Homer, Vergil, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Ovid, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius and Lucan. Inconjunction with these he used ancient commentaries on poets, most notably Servius on Vergil, but also the pseudo-Acron and Porphyrion on Horace.”
   As regards Nanni’s supposed fraudulent inscriptions and statuettes, Livianus in Bale also notes, from a source (Giornale VIII, de Letterati, 1678, p.122) that: “…He is accused of forging some tables of marble, whereof he has published an explanation. If therefore the truth deserves examining, this author clears Annius by substantial arguments from his adversaries charge of imposture, proving beyond contradiction, that two of those tables called Libiscillæ, from the place where they were found, had been dug up a long time before Annius was born…. And as to those two called Cibelariæ, and that called Longobarica, they were discovered by others and presented to [Pope] Alexander VI, to say nothing of that called Osiriana, which was brought before the time of Annius.” (Bayle et al, 1737:299). For more on these fascinating tablets and their history, see: Collins, A. (Renaissance Epigraphy and its Legitimating Potential: Annius of Viterbo, Etruscan Inscriptions, and the Origins of Civilization). The Tabula Maeonica Cybelica in the museum of Viterbo, Italy, records the marriage of Jasius Ianigena (Hespanus, Coritus) - king of Italy and France to Ipitis Cybele - a fair and rich princess (which wedding occasion the elderly Queen Isis attended). It refers to an even older tablet (now lost) which recorded the founding of ancient Viterbo (then called Vetulonia - found further north) by Janus (Noah) and his son Cameses - and a later fortified settlement established by Hercules (Lehabim) - probably during the years 1548-1537 BC. Annius believed the newer tablet to have been set up by Pupinus and Marsias - later rulers of the Etruscans. Furthermore, the tablet Decretum Desiderii was said by the 16th Century Domenico Bianchi to date from its discovery in 1219 AD. The 18th Century Etruscologist Mariani claimed it had been fixed to the top of the cathedral in Viterbo until 1380 AD - therefore Annius could not possibly have forged it. (This claim would certainly explain its dome-like shape). It records the founding of Viterbo from 3 previous smaller habitations called Longula, Turrhena and Vetulonia via a single large town wall. The final tablet - called the 'Herculean Tablet of Osyris' - is the most remarkable of all. It contains various glyphs Annius believed were Egyptian (Pelasgian) in origin, including a tree, a lizard, a growing vine with grape clusters, two birds eating grapes and possibly a goose nesting at the top with eggs. In fact, the lizard or gekko at the bottom of the tree matches precisely the Egyptian hieroglyph 'asha', meaning many, numerous or multitude. The two birds probably represent colonies founded by Osyris - who feed on the grape vines he was famous for growing. The nesting 'goose' at the top is another name for Iped or Isis (the wife of Osyris), also found (coincidentally) in the Turin Canon (fragment 41 and 42) along with other "wholly fictitious beings" or "fantastically named royalties" such as Apis - dismissed by incredulous scholars (see Rohl, 2008, pg 100). Third, and finally, none of the arguments used by his critics to discredit Annius have proven very persuasive to this author. Critics such as Eduardo Fumagalli, Beatus Rhenanus, Pietro Crinito, Juan Luis Vives, Francois Baudouin and Joannes Goropius Becanus were in many cases influenced by the spirit of secular humanism and provide weak, insubstantial claims against his works. We shall now instance some of these bogus arguments and provide a brief rebuttal of each. 1: Pseudo-Berosus evidences great harmony with the other fragments, which harmony can only be obtained through Nanni’s personal authorship and intervention. A: Ligota (1987:45), however, comments: “…the [supposedly] forged texts are set in a mosaic of references to authentic ones - a theoretical framework does emerge. Indeed, though the ancient texts Annius invented have a story to tell, their function, as the commentaries make clear, is as much to show why the story is true as to tell it, that is, to unfold the story as a demonstration of its veracity”. Then, Ligota notes in a footnote: “Telling this one story, which in the Judeo-Christian scheme is the only (true) story there is, allowing for no external point of view. As long as the scheme obtains, criteria for historical truth cannot be entirely abstracted from the specific history they are derived from because they are also an integral part of its content”. Thus we find that this ‘doctoring’ argument backfires and serves to show the remarkable unity between various authors which would be expected to obtain should they all have recorded what actually happened. 2: It is absurd to think that a Babylonian knew anything in detail about countries so far away, or that the art of navigation was so advanced in Noah’s time that he dared travel all over the world. A: The extraordinary cargo of the ship-wreck of Uluburun has proven that the ancients travelled far further than previously thought. Berosus would have had access to many merchant traders who visited Babylon. Noah did not travel all over the world. According to Berosus, he ventured only around the Mediterranean Sea and the countries surrounding it. 3. Pseudo-Berosus never mentions the Hebrews (the Assyrian’s close neighbours). A: It is well attested that all the kings of Assyriafrom Ninus to Belochus were dissolute individuals who hated war and conflict and remained permanently in their royal palaces to pursue every pleasure. Thus it is not surprising that they do not record encounters with the Hebrews.
[11]According to the detailed source study found in the Ph.D. thesis of learned Professor R.T. John (1994:23): “Since the work [of Annius] has almost always been dismissed as a collection of forgeries, rather than read as a history of primeval Europe, as Annius intended, no-one has attempted to analyse its ancient, medieval and modern sources. It has rather been assumed that he must have invented much of what he wrote, both in the texts and in the commentary. On close examination, it becomes apparent that this is not the case at all. Throughout the work Annius continually supported his spurious authors with the testimony of later genuine ones; he had sufficient historical awareness to point out that the later authors he cited were of course following his own much earlier, and therefore more reliable, historians.” The best external evidences (i.e. independent from the claims of the once well respected classical historians like Eusebius and Tacitus) are a few significant details which collectively persuaded me (J.Powell) of the veracity of Giovanni Nanni’s history: 1. Nebuchadnezzar II’s own statement (excavated in the 1800's, concerning '42 ages' - a fact I came across only after the synthesis of classical king lists back to Noah – who was clearly proven number one. 2. Temple's (2011) description of Mezorah of Morocco - which fits remarkably with Lynche's account of Hercules' circular tomb built by the Spanish. 3. Knight and Butler's work (based upon Thom) in the identical units of measurement used by the megalith builders across the globe and their claimed fascination with the stars. 4. Menzies (2011) work showing that international trade in ancient history was extensive and complex based upon the extraordinary cargo of the ship-wreck of Uluburun. 5. The warrior steles found in Spain which depict a circular megalithic tomb (which are clearly ancient renditions of the megalithic tomb of Mezorah in Morocco) – see Figure 4. And finally 6. The work of Nanno Marinatos (2010) who describes the culture of Crete as part of an international milieu which included cryptographic symbols of the Ark, the mountains of Ararat, the children of Noah etc. Many other, smaller details, were also borne out by reference to more ancient historical sources than Nanni himself.
[12] This is 293 years before Lynche’s date of 2317BC To arrive at this date I accept as correct David Austin’s claim for a short Persian period (Austin, 2008a) and his detailed, peer-reviewed and Scripturally validated calculations back until the Exodus in 1533BC (c.f. Austin, 2008b and 2011); however I do not accept his date for the entry of Jacob into Egypt. This occurred 430 years before the Exodus (in 1963BC) as we are told in Galatians 3:17 and as Bowden (1998: 151-153) has persuasively argued contra- Viccary (2007). This date is also consistent with Diodorus Siculus’s claim that the Assyrian Empire lasted more than 1300 years before the Mede’s took power under Arbaces. From the Tower of Babel (2504 B.C.) until the 23rdBabylonian monarch (Belochus or Sardanapalus – after whom the Line of Ham failed) is approx. 1350 years. This period is clearly the “time of the kings of Assyria” mentioned in Nehemiah 9:32.
[13] The Ark as described by Fasold (1988) and as represented by the sun disc and cosmic egg is consistent with both Scripture (Genesis 6:14-16) and with the general design features of the ancient Egyptian boats found buried at Giza. These Egyptian ‘sacred boats’ were involved in an elaborate ritual held outside the temples of Isis and Osyris (Temple, 2011), which remembered the cataclysm and the Arkin pagan cultish fashion. Similar ‘sacred boat’ processions were held around the Mediterranean. The Ark itself probably had an asymmetric centre of gravity and if Fasold’s fascinating reconstruction is correct it suggests that the cubits used were of the ancient Egyptian (royal cubit) variety, measuring 523-529 mm. To the ancient Chinese a vegetable gourd was their most immediate analogy for the Ark’s shape – thus the early Rulers of China were called ‘Fu Xi’ or children of the ‘bottle gourd’. 
[14] Line 37 of the cuneiform tablets of the Epic of Gilamesh calls this hill ‘Mount Mashu, which daily guards the rising and setting of the Sun, above which only the dome of the heavens reaches and whose flank reaches as far as the Netherworld below’ (Nissen, 2004:108). The village of Uzengili (originally Nazar or Nizir) is close to the village of Arzap (called the ‘Village of the Eight’ in the ‘Valley of the Eight’).
[15] Chapter 8 of Marinatos (2010) is most important in understanding this mountain. Marinatos (2010:107-113) notes this sacred mountain in East Mediterraneankoine: “The Egyptian symbol consists of two peaks that define the horizon between which the sun disc resides. On Akkadian seals of the third millennium we find a very similar rendition of the mountain represented as two scaly cones that signify “land”. In Syria and Anatolia, the twin peaks also symbolize a mountain, sometimes a double one. The twin peak mountain defines the edges of the cosmos. […] It has been previously mentioned that we do not see offerings (bread, meat, incense, etc.) between the peaks of the object that has been redefined as a mountain; therefore, its function cannot have been to sanctify offerings. Instead, the two peaks frame a tree, a double axe, or a god. All of these are symbols of cosmic significance and not votives that can be consecreated. […] In summary: the tree rising between the Minoan twin-peak mountain is not consecrated as an offering but constitutes the tree of life. This is the solar palm…” Clearly, this was where humanity began afresh.
[16] This name is found in the most ancient and important creation myth of Egypt, called the Ogdoad of Hermopolis (cf: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Ogdoad.html) and is given because the sun god was said to be born and to rise there for the first time. The story is believed to predate the cosmogony of Heliopolis, having been originally established by Thoth (i.e. Lehabim). Armour (1986:153-154) notes an early papyrus which records: “Salutations to you, you Five Great Gods, Who come out of the City of Eight, You who are not yet in heaven, You who are not yet upon the earth, You who are not yet illuminated by the sun”. “The poem tells how, on the Island of Flame, the primeval hill similar to the one on which Ra arose, the four gods came into being at the same time; they were seen as some sort of force that existed between heaven and earth…Each element brought with him his female component, giving the total of eight elements. The group included Nun…and his consort Naunet; Heh…with his consort Heket…; Kek…and his consort Keket;…and Amun with his consort Amaunet”. Armour amusingly suggests the story is “a mythical explanation of the ebbing of the Nile flood, which left behind it mounds of earth teeming with life”; yet it bears a striking resemblance to the landing of the Ark – especially since from the ‘Cosmic Egg’ the ‘bird of light’, an aspect of the sun god, burst out! The Egyptian Coffin Texts, spell 223, contain the note: “O Atum give me this sweet air which is your nostrils for I am this egg which is in the Great Cackler, I am the guardian of this great prop which separates the earth from the sky. If I live, it will live; if I grow old, it will grow old; if I breathe the air, it will breathe the air. I am he who splits iron, I have gone round about the egg, (even I) the Lord of Tomorrow.”
[17] Lynche (1601) records that Noah showed his sons their territories in the 100thyear after the flood. Before this, his family must have inhabited Turkey and built some of the most ancient monuments in that country. The 25 years is an approximation only during this period.
[18] Lynche (1601) mentions an ancient marble called the ‘Issue of Noah’ which he found and inscribed a history onto just after the flood. This marble may have once stood within the megalithic henge of Zorats Karer near Sisian. This observatory-tomb is very similar to others found in Europe and Morocco, suggesting a cultural link. One significant difference, however, is that some stones have well polished holes cut through them only here in Armenia. This is consistent with Fasold’s claim that such stones were used by Noah as anchor stones on the Ark. After the Cataclysm, these anchor stones were transported and reused to construct the world’s very first megalith (Fasold, 1988).
[19]Giovanni Nanni probably didn’t know that a place called Urfa existed, yet he mentioned that Noah was called Arsa and had many place names called after him. This is one argument in favour of his records being authentic.
[20] This is speculation on my part, but the claim is reasonable given the great antiquity of Gobekli Tepe and the fact that they travelled eastward to inhabit Babylonia (Genesis 11:2). Some interpret the word ‘eastward’ as ‘from the east’ i.e. ‘westward’. The same Hebew word is hard to translate, yet is given in Genesis 2:8 as ‘eastward’. Gobekli Tepe is unusual since the stone carvings found there are of species now completely foreign to Turkey.
[21] The reader interested in studying population growth after the flood is referred to Morris (1966). At the Tower of Babel incident there were probably 70 families of some 10-15 individuals – giving roughly 700-1500 people. By the entry of Abraham into Canaanaround the 10th generation, there would have been roughly 2,800,000 people in the world at a conservative estimate.
[22] C.f. Inc Book Sales (2002) where we are given a description of the Tower of Babel. Building of this tower probably began 80 years after the flood.
[23] Ussher (2003:22) notes that the Tower of Babel happened five years after the birth of Peleg according to Syncellus’ translation of the Book of Sothis by Manetho.
[24] Cory and Hodges (2003: 75) note a fragment from Alexander Polyhistor which contains this detail about a strong wind or whirlwind. The same detail is also contained in other more ancient sources. 1st: A damaged Assyrio-Babylonian Tablet now housed in the BritishMuseum reads: “…them the father. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil…the father of all the gods he turned from. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil…Babylon corruptly to sin went and small and great mingled on the mound. … Babyloncorruptly to sin went small and great mingled on the mound. The King of the holy mound…In front and Anu [i.e. Ham – Ed.] lifted up…to the good god of his father….Then his heart also…which carried a command…at that time also…which carried a command…At that time also…he lifted it up…Davkina. Their (work) all day they founded to their stronghold in the night entirely an end he made. In his anger also the secret council he poured out to scatter (abroad) his face he set he gave a command to make strange their speech…their progress he impeded…the altar…In (that day) he blew and…For future time the mountain…Nu-nam-nir went…Violently they fronted against him. He saw them and to the earth (descended). When a stop he did not make of the gods…Against the gods they revolted…violence…Violently they wept for Babylon very much they wept. And in the midst…”. 2nd: The Sibyl mentions: “When all men spoke a common language, certain of them built an exceeding high tower, thinking thereby to mount to heaven. But the gods sent winds against it and overturned the tower and gave to every man a peculiar language; whence it comes that the city was called Babylon.” Also c.f. the book of Job Chapter 38 vs 1.
[25] Lynche (1601) recounts Tanais as Noah’s point of departure on his first 10 year voyage to establish boundaries. It is reasonable to suggest that he planted a vineyard close to the habitation based upon ancient wine vessels found at this location and the tradition that Noah was the ‘giver of wine’.
[26] Lynche (1601) notes that Noah undertook at least two voyages around the Mediterranean, the first of which took 10 years.
[27] This information comes from Lynche (1601).
[28] This name comes from the historian Johannes Turmair (contemporary of the Reformer Martin Luther) who published a king list in his Annals of Bavaria. For more information see: [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_the_Angles (Accessed on 26/08/11).
[29] This detail comes from Shuckford, S. (1824). The Sacred and Profane History of the World… Book 3, p. 104.
[30] For more information about the post-Cataclysm ice-age, please see Oard (2004) and Snelling (2009:763-787).
[31] Another son of Javan was named Iobaath in the historian Nennius (Cooper, 1995:49), Ithobaal the ‘priest of Astarte’ in the Annals of Tyre (Aubet, 2001:148) and Jobhath in early Irish genealogy (Cooper, 1995:111-112).
[32]Shuckford, S. (1824). p. 103-115, Kitchen, K. (2003). p. 592-597 and Cooper, B. (1995). p. 170-204.
[33]According to the Iranian historian al-Tabarī (d. 310 AH/923 AD) in his Ta’rikh 1:326, translated in McCants (2012:109): “the first king to rule the earth [Persia] was Ōshahanj b. Eber b. Shelah b. Arphachshad b. Shem b. Noah.” This Ōshahanj is also called Ūshing, Ūshang, Hōshang – whom we have identified as Ham.
[34] Isaiah 23:13.
[35] Ibid endnote 30.
[36] This Huang-Di is recorded as the first to make sacrifices on MountTai in China– see Thong, C. and Fu, C. (2009:234).
[37] The full Chinese story of the children of the ‘bottle gourd’, the sole survivors of a great flood, is found in Willis (ed.) (1993:93). It was commonly recounted in the oral traditions of the Miao and Yao peoples of South China.
[38] This is Manetho’s record – who places 8 ‘demi-gods’ and ’15 heros’ (660 years) before the birth of king Mizraim.
[39] For this geneological information see Hoeh, H.L. (1967 and 1969) Compendium of World History. Volumes 1 and 2.
[40] Lynche (1601) makes Dionysius the son of Almanthea (another wife of Hammon). However, here we follow a fragment of Sanchoniathon (extracted from Eusebius), which can be found in Cory and Hodges (2003:13). Sanchoniathon calls Dionysus by the name of Kronus, but the same person which Lynche calls Dionysus is clearly meant (given the context).
[41] That Jupiter Belus was a son of Ham (Kronus) is found in a fragment of Sanchoniathon (extracted from Eusebius) and in a fragment of Eupolemus, both of whom are contained in Cory and Hodges (2003:14 and 82).
[42] Isaac Newton in his ‘Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms Amended’ cites the historian Pausanias (2nd cen. AD) for this information regarding Phoroneus and the Argives.
[43] Lynche (1601) here seems to be following Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60 – 7BC), who Sir Isaac Newton quoted in his ‘Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended’ as saying: “Oenotrus having found in the western parts of Italy a large region fit for pasturage and tillage, but yet for the most part uninhabited, and where it was inhabited, peopled but thinly; in a certain part of it, purged from the Barbarians, he built towns little and numerous in the mountains; which manner of building was familiar to the ancients…”. Newton also notes he wrote: “…seizing part of it, he built towns in the mountains, little and numerous…but after this colony grew numerous, and began to want room, they expelled the Siculi, compassed many cities with walls, and became possest of all the territory between the two rivers Liris and Tibre…”. “The Sicaneans were reputed the first inhabitants of Sicily, they built little Villages or Towns upon hills, and every Town had its own King; and by this means they spread over the country, before they formed themselves into larger governments with a common King: Philistus”.
[44] Lynche (1601) notes this interesting point, also suggesting that the Italians knew Noah under the alias of Janus. His date for the Flood (2317BC), however, places the founding of this city later in history. Here we must caution that Nanni (Lynche’s main source) was a Librarian of the Vaticancollections and therefore he may possibly have increased the antiquity of this city to please the Roman Catholics.
[45]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:13). In this part of the fragment, Ouranos is Noah and Kronus is Ham. However names in Sanchoniathon are inconsistent and generic and must be specified by the context of events.
[46] Lynche (1601) and other historians are admittedly confused about this person. Perhaps there were two people known as Poisedon or Neptune– the first was the son of Ham and the second was the son of Mizraim. Either way, their descendents were feared as tyrannical giants.
[47] This date for Abraham’s birth differs from many reputable scholars including Ussher and Jones, yet it is carefully based upon Scripture since according to Bowden’s revised timeline (Bowden, 1998:177-180), where he notes (based on Acts 7:4) that Terah was at least 130 years old when he had Abraham, Abraham was thus born in 2013 Anno Mundi. Given creation most likely took place in 4266BC based on the best scholarship; this means Abraham’s birth date was 2253BC according to these assumptions.
[48]Plutarch in his ‘De Iside et Osiride’, vol 2., p.354, notes that Amoun was called ‘The hidden God’. It is believed by some that he was hidden in a cave on Crete since Ham had many of his children executed or imprisoned.
[49] Manetho records these kings as the 15th Dynasty of Egypt.
[50] Nimrod must have been born before 2478BC because he was made Saturn of the Babylonian monarchy by Noah during that year (according to Lynche this was 132 years after the Cataclysm – which he makes to be 2185BC). Here, I have assumed that Nimrod was 609 at his death, meaning he was made Saturn of the Babylonians, by Noah, in the year of his birth (to Cush). Lynche also gives his reign in Babylonas 56 years, however this is totally incongruous with his total lifespan as judged by his Scriptural contemporaries in the line of Shem. 609 years is actually more reasonable!
[51] This Semiramis I repaired Babylonafter a damaging flood, and made war on the Indians as recorded by Diodorus Siculus. She was later conflated with Semiramis II (1135-1128BC) who married Beletares (Belesius, Nebuchadnezzar I) – the former keeper of the royal gardens (according to the king list of Eusebius and Hoeh (1967)).
[52] This detail is recorded by Lynche (1601).
[53] This account of the European kings is a synthesis of Lynche (1601) together with Turmair’s king list and a fragment of Sanchoniathon (the latter historian being found in Cory and Hodges (2003:9). In addition, Temple (2011) writes: “It is obvious that the megalith builders, whose stone rings were clearly used for astronomical observation purposes, were significantly advanced in astronomy and geometry. Because they were a maritime civilization, they must have been unrivalled navigators, and that may well be where their knowledge of astronomy and geometry received its original impetus.” Knight and Butler (2011) have done extensive and groundbreaking research into the units of measurement the megalith builders used in many different countries (the Megalithic Yard, Minoan foot etc.). It appears that the constellation Orion was mirrored on the ground in numerous locations across the globe, including Thornborough in England, Giza in Egypt and possibly Sanzhaocun near the ancient capital of Xi’an in China. The megalith builders were totally obsessed with the golden ratio in their geometric plans of the Giza plateau (Temple, 2011) - and coincidently David Fasold discovered the same golden ratio central to the design of what many think are the remains of Noah’s Ark (Fasold, 1988).
[54]Johannes Turmair (contemporary of the Reformer Martin Luther) who published a king list in his Annals of Bavaria. For more information see: [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_the_Angles (Accessed on 26/08/11).
[55] Lynche (1601) and Hoeh (1967) both note this.
[56] Compare Lynche (1601) with Johannes Turmair’s Bayerischeand Deutsche Chronik as in the endnote above. Both record Gampar as the 7th king of Germany. German kings continued after Gampar as follows: Schwab (1667-1621), Wandler (1621-1580), Deuto (1580-1553), Alman (1553-1489), Baier (1489-1429), Ingram (1429-1377), Adalger (1377-1328), Larein (1328-1277), Ylsing (1277-1224), Brenner I (1224-1186), Heccar (1186-1155) (who was the Hector of the Trojan War), Frank (1155-1114) etc.
[57]Heyerdahl (1978:323) notes: “The main Roman discovery on the Atlantic coast of Africa was the island city of Lixus, then known as Maqom Semes, ‘City of the Sun’ [Ed: i.e. Lehabim]. Its impressive sun-oriented, megalithic structures were already then so ancient that the Romans considered Lixus ‘The Eternal City’, older than any settlement inside the Mediterranean; in fact, the Romans associated the place with the demi-gods who preceded men on the earth, and ascribed the grave of Hercules to this islandof Lixus which overlooked the Atlantic Ocean. Today Lixus is no longer an island, and ships cannot get near the former warfs. The impressive ruins are now to be seen half-buried topping a headland, on a ridge surrounded on all sides by flat fields through which the LucusRiver undulates towards the Atlantic shore, now barely visible in the distance. Ships that were undoubtedly in proportion to the colossal structures ashore once docked at what was then an island coast; today not even the tiny four- to six-man reed boats, which have survived among local fishermen, are able to approach the foot of the landlocked hill. A large Roman mosaic of Neptunebears witness to former links with the Ocean, while the ruins of Arab mosques and Roman temples cover earlier Berber and Phoenician structures, refitted in turn from gigantic blocks hauled from far away by the unknown sun-worshippers who first chose the site.” Aubert (2001:162) notes that: “…Pliny adds that in Lixus, in Atlantic Morocco, there was a sanctuary to Heracles (Melqart) that was older than the one in Gadir and he places the mythical Garden of the Hesperides in this area (Pliny Nat. Hist. 19:63). Ancient Lixus, situated on the mouth of the modern Loukkos and in a well-sheltered bay, is close to present-day El Araich or Larache. According to the classical texts, it was apparently the most ancient Phoenician colony in the west, although, like Cadiz, it has not so far yielded any archaeological material earlier than the seventh century BC.”
[58] Menzies (2011) has presented a powerful thesis which shows that Crete was trading copper and drugs with Americafrom a very early date. Americabecame conflated with the volcanic island of Thera, which erupted in ancient times, producing Plato’s myth of the sunken Atlantis.
[59] James (1995, pg. 75) notes that: “Herodotus says that he was told by Egyptian priests that the reign of their first king Menes (i.e. the beginning of their civilization) fell 11, 340 years before the invasion of the Assyrian king Sennacherib…”. Now, it is widely suspected that an extra zero has somehow been added to this figure, meaning he meant 1,134 years. Now Lynche (1601) makes Mizraim (Osyris) about 60 years old when he married his Sister Isis and we also know from Lynche that Isis was born in the first regnal year of Queen Semiramis (i.e. 1755BC). If Mizraim (Menes), being some 10-12 years older than his wife when they married, was thus born in 1767BC (according to the relative chronology provided by Lynche he was born in the reign of Nynas or Ninus II i.e. between 1807-1755BC) and if the reigns of each ruler recorded by Eusebius are correct as we have charted them, this would place Sennacherib’s invasion of Egypt in 633BC - which turns out to be the exact same year (calculated backwards from Nebuchadnezzar’s 524BC ascension) that Sennacherib attempted to destroy Judah under Hezekiah’s kingship, straight after he had captured all the Egyptian and Nubian charioteers! This is only true, however, if we follow Austin and place the destruction of Jerusalemby Nebuchadnezzar in 506BC, some 80 years later than conventionally understood. Surely this precise correlation is more than a coincidence!
[60]Multiple lines of evidence suggest Mizraim was Hammurapi. The evidence is summarised: 1. Mizraim was widely known as Apis, or Jupiter (H)ammon, therefore Hammur-api is very close etymologically. 2. The Israelite slaves were known in Egypt as Hapiru or Apiru – the slaves of Apis. 3. Apis was well-known for his placement of pillars on his conquests, hence the stele of his law codes found in Persia as well as Diyarbekir in Turkey. 4. He arrived in Babylonia/Assyria from Indiaonce he discovered that his father Ham had tried (and failed) to conquer Babylonia for himself. 5. Isaiah 52:4 records ‘the Assyrian’ as the oppressor of God’s people. 6. He (Jupiter Ammon) was king of Greece at the time of the Exodus according to Tacitus. 7. The chronology of Egypt’s kings support this identification. 8. Many laws in Hammurapi’s code are similar to the laws given Moses. 9. The Israelites worshipped a golden calf/bull (Apis).
[61] Here it seems we have the first Olympic trainer! Dagon was an idol of the Philistines, the fish god (1 Samuel 5:4), who came out of the Red Sea (from Egypt) and taught much knowledge (hence Berosus describes Oannes as half man, half fish according to their pagan superstitions). The Olympic games must have begun under Mizraim or his son Lehabim about 1750BC. They were later adopted by the Greeks and the first Olympiad there began roughly 776BC Eusebius wrote: “From [Sardanapallus] until the first Olympiad, 40 years elapsed.” I believe this is a copying error and the figure should be 400 years, since Sardanapallus began his rule in 1180BC and 400 years afterward the first Greek Olympiad occurred in roughly 776BC.
[62] Working back from Nebuchadnezzar II who began in 523-4BC we have an unbroken line of Assyrian/Anatolian rulers together with their lengths of reign from Eusebius. This list suggests Semiramis I began her rule in 1755BC This date is also consistent with the history of Queen Isis, who is said (by Lynche) to have been born in the first year of Semiramis I and to have died some 40 years after the first destruction of Troy (i.e. 1140BC) at 615 years old.
[63] For an amazing confirmation of this point, see Marinatos (2010:114-196), where through a study of Minoan art and iconography she establishes a standard shared set of cultural assumptions about the Solar Dynasty of Ham, Mizraim, Isis and Lehabim in the ancient Near East. The Solar Dynasty were sons and daughters of Ham - the sun god. His African/Egyptian dynasty were represented in iconography all over the near eastern world by the ox head, the double-axe, the rosette and split-rosette, the omega-shaped crown, the ankh sacred knot and the incurved altar (which represented the sacred twin-crests of Mt. Yigityatagi where the ark had rested and the sun god had arisen for the first time). Menzies (2011) points out that the Cult of the (Apis) Bull stretched across the ancient world. A Mycean dagger was found inscribed on Stonehenge in Avon, UK. Furthermore, Crete had strong links with Egypt, where the Apis bulls were considered sacred. All this evidence relates to the period here described.
[64] The children of Ammon were the same peoples as the Lubims of II Chronicles 12:3, who fought for pharaoh Shishak.
[65]According to Josephus and Manetho, the Ethiopic war between Mizraim (Kronus, Osyris) and Typhon (Titan) continued for hundreds of years, resulting in the destruction of many descendants of Mizraim, and Moses was one of the last generals to defeat the Ethiopians – shutting them up in a city called Saba or Meroe or Avaris. Plutarch recounts that Typhon (Titan) had the aid of a famous queen of Ethiopia by the name of Aso when he fought against Osyris.
[66] Rohl (1995:268-273) notes: “Avaris was built on a series of sandy hillocks…surrounded by swamplands to the east and south and the river to the west and north. […] Bietak made the startling discovery that the grave goods associated with the majority of these tombs were of Asiatic origin. The people who had populated the sprawling city of Avarisoriginated from Palestine and Syria! […] an anthropological analysis of the skeletal remains by Eike-Meinrad Winkler and Harald Wilfing shows that more adult women were buried in the settlement than adult men [and] sixty-five per cent of all the burials were those of children under the age of eighteen months. Based on modern statistical evidence obtained from pre-modern societies we would expect the infant mortality rate to be around twenty to thirty per cent. Could this also be explained by the slaughter of the Israelite infant males by the Egyptians? […] In the graves of Stratum G the Austrians found…dismembered sheep, the latter undoubtedly funeral offerings. Analysis of the sheep remains has shown that they were of the long-haired variety. The Asiatic folk of early Avaris introduced the Levantine long-haired sheep into Egyptclearly indicating their pastoralist origins” (cf. Genesis 46:6).
[67] A synchronism was noted here – in that both the invasion of Assyria by Ham and Typhon together with the march of Mizraim’s troops through India and then Assyria and then Turkey occurred chronologically very close. This would suggest Mizraim was in the same area at the same time as his farther Ham, and leads us to the story about Ham’s castration by his son which is normally attributed (wrongly) to Noah.
[68] This 9 year journey comes from Manetho’s account of the Twelfth Dynasty in Egypt. Ammanemes was probably Mizraim and Sesostris was Lehabim or Hercules.
[69] For more recent evidence of this tribe of women warriors, see: Ascherson, N. (2007). Black Sea: The Birthplace of Civilisation and Barbarism. London: Vintage Books. pp. 111-124.
[70] The Poem of Solon
[71]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:11). Atlas is also described as the High King of Atlantis in the Poem of Solon.
[72]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:12). These flints can still be found in Mezorah of Morocco.
[73]Herodotus ‘The Histories’ 1:7 mentions king Agron (also called Argon) the Lydian who was the “son of Ninus, the grandson of Belus, the great grandson of Alcaeus (the son of Hercules)”. Clearly this has been corrupted. It should be read that Argon (Arius) was the son of Ninyas, who was himself the grandson of Jupiter Belus yet also the grandfatherof Balanaeus (Alcaeus) the son of Hercules (Lehabim) through Argon’s daughter. This is clear from the king list provided by Berosus and Eusebius and the chronology of international events deciphered. As Herodotus notes, exactly 22 generations follow on from this Agron or Argon, ending with Candaules the son of Myrsus (who was clearly king Mithraeus in the king list of Eusebius). Candaules was usurped by Gyges – another descendant of Lehabim (Hercules) – leading to the dynasty of the Mermnads. This dynasty continued after Gyges: Ardys II, Sadyattes, Alyattes II and Croesus (Kroisos) - who was defeated by the Persians under Cyrus the Great.
[74]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:15). “Kronus, having laid an ambuscade for his father Ouranos in a certain place in the middle of the earth, and having gotten him into his hands, cuts off his private parts near fountains and rivers. There Ouranos was consecrated [deified], and his spirit was separated, and the blood of his private parts dropped into the fountains and the waters of the rivers; and the place is shewn even to this day.” These days, the large blocks of the Turkish stone monument at Eflatun Pinar, meaning "lilac-coloured spring", are believed to be Hittite in origin, although it was once known as Plato’s Spring (see James, 1995, pg. 199). It is strongly reminiscent of Sanchoniathon’s description of Ham’s execution place. Sanchoniathon also notes: “But when Kronus came to man’s estate, by the advice and assistance of Hermes Trismegistus, who was his secretary, he opposed his father Ouranos, avenging his mother [Gē]”. Isaac Newton also records how in the records of the Cretans: “Saturn was expelled his Kingdom and castrated by his son Jupiter.” Gascoigne (2002, pg. 59) notes “The Greeks also say: “She [Gaia i.e. Rhea the bitter wife] provided Kronus with the adamantine sickle and he castrated him.”
[75] Lynche (1601) and Newton’s ‘Chronology of the AncientKingdom’s Amended’.
[76] Lynche (1601).
[77] This name Curetes comes from a fragment of Euemerus recorded in Eusebius and contained in Cory and Hodges (2003:173). There, ‘the Curetes’ are described as ‘Priests of Jupiter in the island of Crete, and of the goddess Cybeles – Noah’s wife.
[78] The name Tanais stems from king Targitaus (Tanais) of Scythia, apparently the son of Mizraim (Scythian: Zeus) who took a daughter of the BorysthenesRiveras his concubine. “…they say altogether, from their first king Targitaus until the invasion of Darius roughly a thousand years passed” (Herodotus, The Histories, Book 4, 5., pp. 236-237). This date agrees with the time which I have placed Mizraim in Tanais from other sources. Targitaus, the first Egyptian king of Scythia, must then have ended his reign in Tanais roughly 1450BC. This is corroborated by Justin (Marcus Justinus) in Book 1 of his Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, English Trans. John Selby Watson (1853), where “Sesostris” and “Tanaus” are princes who engaged in ancient wars before the time of Ninus.
[79] The Araxes (today Aras) river which constitutes the border between Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijani and Iranwas probably named after this Queen Araxa. Incidently, the Norwegian scientist, Thor Heyrdahl, believed that the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon peoples came from the area of Caucasus – not far from the Arklanding site. Heyrdahl followed the Islandic historian Snorre Sturlason (AD1200) and discovered that Odin’s heavenly castle Asgaard was actually the Russian town of Asov, where the river Don flows into the Sea of Asov. The Semitic ruler (according to Walter Monington in the Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, MSS Wood, Bodleian Library, Oxford), whose name was Woden (Wodden, UUoden, Voden, UUothen, Othin) was the chief of the Aesir (‘fire worshippers’) who had a castle in Asov before the Romans caused them to flee for Sweden in 60BC. The As-ov, As-gaard (in Danish) or As-gorod (in Russian) was the castle of the Aesir. As evidence, Heyrdahl noted that ancient metal belt holders, rings and armbands from AD 100-200 found near the mouth of the Don River were almost identical to Viking equivalents found in Sweden some 800 years later. Many place names in Snorre’s sagas, such as Tanais, matched the ancient Greek names for places around the Sea of Asov. The Odin-people or Udin people, now found in the Caucasus Mountains of Azerbaidjan, stayed behind when the others escaped north (Nissen, 2004). For more fascinating information on the Anglo-Saxons, see Cooper (1995).
[80] Hoeh (1969) in his Compendium of World HistoryVolume 2, Chapter II, mentions Araxa as the daughter of king Gampar. She is said to have married Libys the son of Oryz (clearly names of Lehabim and Osyris or Mizraim). Herodotus (The Histories, Book 4, 20-22) mentions that the Kingdom of the ‘Royal Scythians’ (who regard all other Scythians as their slaves) was centred near Lake Maeetis (a former name for the Sea of Asov). This agrees with Lynche, who records that Queen Araxa and Tuscus, the wife and son of Lehabim, had their royal residence in Tanais near the mouth of the River Don.
[81] By this time, Mizraim and his wife Isis were particularly skilled in agriculture (which they first began in Lower Egypt according to Lynche). Also noteworthy is the fact that Tanais, their previous habitation before Germany, was a centre of wine production and vine growing - established by Noah himself. The ApennineMountainsof peninsular Italyare apparently named after King Apis.
[82] Lynche (1601) speaks of Dardanus founding Troyand Laomedon later fortifying it with two large walls (c.f. James, 1991 - who notes that these two walls have now been found!). Priam probably added to Laomedon’s great work under his rule (establishing what is known as Troy VII). It is certainly possible that there was more than one destruction of Troy. The first may have been under Hercules the Grecian in the 12th Century and the second under Agamemnon in the 9th Century, with other less famous wars a distinct possibility.
[83] Lynche (1601) and Hoeh (1969) recount this Betus son of Tagus Orma (who is the Togarmah of Genesis 10:3, a son of Gomer. Italy– the house of Togarmah – traded in Italian horses with the sea-port city of Tyre c.f. Ezekiel 27:14).
[84]Giovanni Nanni who was the controversial source used by Lynche, is believed to have found evidential remains of Mizraim’s habitation in this city (which was his native city in Italy). The evidence was alleged by some later critics to have been planted in the ground and Nanni was considered a fraudulent disgrace (see endnote 10). This author holds no strong position on this sordid dispute, but has presented a brief defence in the endnote cited above.
[85] Lynche (1601) but also see Gascoigne (2002:81-84) for a description of these first kings of Samothea. Hoeh (1967) also lists these kings, but he assigns B.C. dates to them which are inconsistent with the wider international chronology of events. Dating many of these kings was extremely difficult, therefore only some have dates associated.
[86] Lynche (1601) recounts that Gerion reigned until the 28th year of Belochus the 10th king of Babylon(which he numbers from Nimrod the ‘Saturn’ of the Empire rather than from Noah). John (1994:47) recounts that in Chaldean his name meant ‘stranger’, while in Greek he was called Chryseos and in Latin Aureus – because of the great treasure he accumulated.
[87] Lynche (1601) notes that Tagus Orma gave his name to the river Tagus in Spain, in which large heaps of gold rich sands were found.
[88] John (1994:63) writes: “Jerónimo Pujades (1568-1635), professor of canon law at the University of Barcelona, provided further support for this theory in his Coronica universal del principal de Cathalunya (1609). There was an inscription, he noted, near the church of S. Jaime which read: "BARCINO AB HERCULE CONDITA". See Figure 5.
[89] Of the 24th Dynasty of Egypt according to Manetho in Cory and Hodges (2003). Accordingly, in his reign a miracle was said to have occurred, in that “a sheep spoke”. This is most probably a derogatory reference to the Israelite Prince Moses standing before Pharaoh.
[90] Clayton (1753:124) states that Nanni’s Berosus places the Exodus in the reign of Ascatades of Babylon, 794 years after the Flood. According to Lynche and Nanni’s 2317BC Flood date, this would be approx. 1523BC, and accordingly Nanni places Isius and Dardanus and the 16th king of Spain at the time of the Exodus which he seems to have reckoned corresponded to their lifetimes. Perhaps it did. I believe, based on the death of Hercules in 1354BC and his 5thsuccessor being Isius, that Isius and Dardanus must have had very long lifespans of approx 250 years. This would makes sense because they were the 8th generation from Ham. Abraham was the 10th generation from Shem, and lived to 175 years old. Terah his father (9th gen.) lived over 200 years. Nevertheless, the king of Babylon at the time of the Exodus (1533BC) was actually Belochus the 13th king of Assyria from Noah, not Ascatades the 21st
[91] Polemo (extracted from Africanus, as quoted by Eusebius) in Cory and Hodges (2003:146) notes: ‘that in the reign of Apis, the son of Phoroneus, a part of the Egyptian army deserted from Egypt, and took up their habitation in that part of Syria which is called Palestine, not far from Arabia.’ Mizraim (Apis, Jupiter Ammon) don’t forget, perished in an assassination in 1469BC. Furthermore, Tacitus (The Histories, Book 5) states: “Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries… Most writers, however, agree in stating that once Egypt was over-run by a pestilential disease, contaminating living bodies, and very foul to behold; Bocchoris [Boccharis] the king, applying for a Remedy to the Oracle of Jupiter Ammon, was ordered to purge his Kingdom, and to remove, into another country, that Generation of Men, so detested by the Deities.” (Tacitus extracted from Clayton (1753:132)). Jupiter Ammon was clearly the High King - Mizraim (inhabiting Argos in Greece) and Boccharis was a petty king or ‘pharaoh’ under his rule at the time. Isis was also reigning as the wife of Jupiter Ammon, yet we are not sure where – probably Thebes. Mount Sinai (incidently) can be located in Arabia (Galatians 4:25) and is today called Jabal al Lawz in Saudi Arabia(Blum, 1998). The Golden Calf makes a whole lot more sense when we consider the Apis bulls were venerated gods of the Egyptians at that time. Stone carvings of bulls have been found on the natural stone altar below Jabal al Lawz. Furthermore, Cushwas the land of Saudi Arabia (Numbers 12:1 should read Cushite woman not Ethiopian because Zipporah the daughter of Jethro the Priest of Midian was from Saudi Arabia or Cush).
[92]Josephus calls the city of Avaris by the name of Saba– probably named after this king Sabacon. It was later conquered and inhabited again by a league of Israelites together with Egyptian outcasts.
[93] Lynche (1601).
[94] Mizraim was Menes the Thinite of the ‘First Dynasty’ who Manetho records ‘perished by a wound received from a hippopotamus’. Other sources such as Plutarch suggest a crocodile killed him. Since Manetho’s list of Dynasties was actually understood correctly by Eusebius to be various lists of near contemporary rulers (perhaps of each Egyptian Nome in some cases) Mizraim was also recorded as Ammanemes of the ‘Twelfth Dynasty’ who was ‘slain by his eunuchs’; and both Misphragmuthosis and Armesses or Armais of the ‘Eighteenth Dynasty’. This can only be true if the longevity of Mizraim (and thus the authenticity of the Genesis account of history) is taken as given.
[95] Eudoxus of Cnidus (408BC – 347BC), according to Isaac Newton’s ‘The Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms Amended’, recorded that Bacchus was slain by Typhon.
[96] See Anon (1841). History of the Egyptians: From Rollin, and other authentic sources, both ancient and modern. London: The Religious Tract Society. [WWW] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3wwGAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA49&ots=9teA-8Oggv&dq=Bocchoris%2C%20Tnephachthus&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=true
[97] For more information on the Labyrinth and these 12 halls, see: [WWW] http://www.labyrinthofegypt.com/ (Accessed on 20/01/12). Shuckford (1824:113) recounts that after Mizraim’s death Egypt was divided into three by his three sons Ananim king of Tanis, Naphtuhim king of Naph (Memphis) and Pathrusim king of Pathros (Thebes). These three may have been among the twelve.
[98] See Gascoigne (2002:129) where the work of Viktor Rydberg’s Teutonic Mythology is summarised.
[99] From Josephus against Apion, extracted from Cory and Hodges (2003:134-135). David Rohl (1995:271) corroborates this with archaeology saying: “Bietak notes that the early Asiatics [found in Avaris] were highly ‘Egyptianised’. The later Asiatics, whom I shall subsequently identify with the Hyksos invaders…were very different. According to Bietak the tombs of this group were ‘purely Canaanite…and showed little Egyptian influence’ – in other words newcomers from the Levant.”
[100] This detail is found in Josephus who wrote in his Antiquities of the Jews: ‘As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cepthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war, which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown.’
[101] For more detail of this historic battle on the Rhinefrom Holinshed’s Chronicles, see Gascoigne (2002:87).
[102] Tuscus was called for this coronation ceremony (approx. 1415BC) from Lehabim’s (i.e. Odin’s) Tanais or Asov (Asgaard) in modern day Russia, where his mother Queen Araxa (Aruru, Ninhurshag) clearly had her palace of residence. The line of Italian kings continued: 1. Altheus 2. Blascon 3. Camboblascon (Coribantus of Italy not France - whom Morges the son of Ophren relinquished the throne to as a sign of remorse).
[103] Aubet (1993:154) notes: “On the coins from Tyre [found in Spain], Melqart appears as a sea god, mounted on a hippocampus” [Ed: a chimera of horse and fish]. … “Phoenician trade in the west, then, began under the aegis of Melqart, that is to say of the king of Tyre”.
[104] After Hesperus (Isius, Jasius) was killed by Ophren (Dardanus) his younger brother, Tyrrhenus the son of Lehabim travelled from Western Anatolia to Italyto form the Etruscans under 12 provinces. There was also an interregnum of some time before Allobrox was made king of Franceand Britain. Then followed in Samothea: 1. Romus (Romanessos?), 2. Paris, 3. Lemanus, 4. Olbius, 5. Galates II, 6. Nannes, 7. Remis, 8. Francus, 9. Pictus and 10. Brutus or Brute (who is believed by some to have arrived in Britainaround 1127 BC to found Trojovinium or New Troy – aka London). From Ophren (Dardanus) the line of Trojan kings continued: 1. Erichthonius, 2. Trous, 3. Assaracus, 4. Anchises, 5. Aeneas (Dardans - who fled from burning Troy, killed Turnus king of the Rutulians and married Lavinia daughter of Latinus in Italy), 6. Silvius and 7. Brutus who invaded Britain. In my scheme, and the New Chronology of James and Rohl this would place Brutus around 820 BC. 
[105]Attested by Sallust, Bell. Jug. 1:8, 3 and Mela 3:46 together with Egyptian archaeological iconography just recently found in Spain. See endnote 106.
[106] This Ophren (Iardanus) had a daughter called Omphale who married Lehabim and gave him a son – Athus the Great.
[107] An ancient, uniquely Egyptian symbol of holy metallurgy, plus a stone depiction of Hercules’ circular island of Mezorah near Lixus (together with Hercules standing next to it) has been found by Spanish archaeologists in Cancho Roano, 250 km from the coast of Spain. The market of ancient Tarsessos (biblical Tarshish) has also been found in the old Huelvaharbour area on this coast. See TV production: ‘Finding Atlantis’ (2011) by National Geographic. Cf. Figure 3. Many other ancient Spanish artefacts prove beyond doubt that the Spanish buried a famous warrior within a grand circular tomb on an island. For instance, see: The Solana de Cabanas Stele.
[108] Aubet (2001:153) notes: “Some authors have hinted at a direct link between the two pillars of the temple in Tyre and the Pillars of Hercules at the other end of the Phoenician world in the city of Gadir (Arrian 2:17, 1-4).”
[109] Ophren usurped the throne from Hesperus (Hespanus) and gave a daughter called Electra (Roma) to Coritus (Corybantus) in marriage. He then fled to Turkey and founded Dardania (Troy I) under the oversight of Xanthos (Scarmander).
[110] This information is confirmed by Idjennaden (The Kings of Mauretania – Kindle Edition) where he notes: “Another tradition, reported by Sallust, who took it from the books of the Numidian king Hiempsal, says that the Medes (from Media, a country north from Persia), the Armenians and the Persians, all belonging to the army that Hercules led to Spain, had moved in Africa after the death of this hero. The first two peoples would have mixed with the Lybians living on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, while the Persians settled farther west, near the Atlantic Ocean. The peoples resulting from the merger with the autochthonous people resulted in the ancestors of the Numidians for the first group, and in the Maures for the second. The tradition of Hercules in Iberialeading a large army made of different nations, would be a myth behind which there is a truth: the installation of many Phoenician colonies in Spain led by a Melqart, a god worshipped by the Phoenicians and who is the counterpart of the Greek god Hercules.” If this were true, it would explain why Pharaoh Shishak had such a large multi-national army when he invaded Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25). 
[111]“Agamemnon’s sceptre was made by Vulcan, and by Vulcan given to Jupiter, by Jupiter to Mercury, by Mercury to Pelops, by Pelops to Atreus, by Atreus to Thyestes, and by Thyestes to Agamemnon” (Shuckford, (1824:302)).
[112] See Cooper (1995:84-85) and Gascoigne (2002: 126-130). Woden fled from Asgaard to Swedenwhen the Romans invaded and hence arose the Anglo-Saxon line.
[113]Eusebius writes: “Sardanapallus… became the final king of the Assyrians. He surpassed all his predecessors in luxurious living and laziness. After a bit [Diodorus] informs that [Sardanapallus] was so dissolute that not only did he ruin his own life, but he wreaked the entire Assyrian state which had endured from time immemorial. Now it happened that there was a certain Arbaces of Median nationality, a virtuous stout-hearted man who was a general of the Medes who were sent each year to Ninus' city. In the course of his military duties, he became friendly with the commander-in-chief of the Median army, who beseeched him to overthrow the Assyrian government. This is what Diodorus relates in book two of the Historical Library.” Indeed, Arbaces the Mede, destroyed the power of the Assyrians and transferred rule to the Medes. Under his rule, keeper of the RoyalGardens(Belesius) intermarries and rules in Babylon as a petty king or satrap - building the HangingGardensfor his Hammitic wife Attosa. Some of the succeeding Kings of the Medes after Arbaces are named by Cephalion (in Eusebius) as: Maudaces, Sosarmus (974-952BC), Artycas, Deioces (811-771BC), Phraortes (658-637BC), Cyaxares (585-543BC) and Ashdahak (Astyages, Assuerus, Ahasuerus of Dan. 9:1), the latter being contemporary with both Cyrus I King of Persia and Acraganes (Saracus) of Babylon who was betrayed by his rebellious usurper general Thonos Concolerus (Narbopalassar). Is there any biblical confirmation for this revision of the Median Empire? Yes there is. Isaac Newton wrote that: “After the days of Nimrod, we hear no more of an Assyrian Empire ‘till the days of Pul”. Given what we have discovered since Newton’s wrote these words, his statement no longer holds water. There were many kings before Pul. In fact, Nehemiah 9:32 states regarding the Jews: “Now therefore our God, - let not all the trouble seem little before thee that hath come upon us, on our Kings, on our Princes, and on our Priests, and on our Prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the Kings of Assyria, unto this day”. By the context of this passage, it is clear that the trouble that Nehemiah is referring to began in the time of their fathers who were given the promised land i.e.  Judges (1140BC) when the Hamitic Assyrian kings failed in the reign of  dissolute king Sardanapallus, not 400 years later with the rise of the Assyrian king Pul (Tiglath-Pileser III) in the 6thC.BC. It is not the rise of the kings of Assyria that this verse refers to at all, it is the end of their ancient rule from Nimrod (the mighty hunter) until Sardanapallus – some 1300 years that this verse speaks of, as many reliable ancient historians clearly also corroborate.
[114] Today, traditional Protestant history is considered little more than ancient euhemeristic mythography (reducing pagan mythology to ‘distorted echoes’ of Hebrew truths and belittling pagan gods as mortal men). The modern alternative to Nanni, i.e. cuneiform studies and ‘deep history’, suggest that the oldest pottery in the world (to date) has a radiometric age of 12,700BC (Rudgley, 1999). This dates, in most biblical chronologies, to roughly 6,426 years older than the very inception of cosmic time itself! Human pottery existing ‘before the beginning of the universe’ is nothing short of farcical. It belongs in a Douglas Adams novel. Yet this is where secular humanism has inevitably led historical scholarship, because nothing in history makes sense, except in the light of creation and the Judeo-Christian Tanakh (Old Testament). Cuneiform tablets are enormously useful for answering certain biogeographical questions, yet their value in establishing an absolute chronology is presently rather limited.
[115]Burgess (2004:125) writes: “Evolutionists have made great efforts to find evidence of such gradual development of technology but with no success…. There are claims of simple weapons like spears and axes being older than 10,000 years but the origin and age of these is very debatable…. If man had evolved, there would have been very intelligent people around for a period of more than 100.000 years because intelligence would not have changed significantly over such a period…. If man had been around for the last 100,000 years, there would have been people with the ability of Newtonliving in virtually every generation. To propose that there was a period of at least 100,000 years where very intelligent people did not make any significant inventions is absurd in the extreme.”

Why Bill Nye is WRONG regarding Teaching Creation!

$
0
0

Ok - the much admired Bill Nye the Science Guy of Disney Channel fame has recently waded into the origins controversy with a short 'talking head' slot on the 'Big Think'YouTube Channel.

Sadly, given Bill's great pedagogic skill of packing wacky facts into short memorable soundbites, two and a half minutes are more than enough time for him to expose considerable 'custard-brains' on this particular subject!

His very first sentence is a blatant fallacy which betrays astonishing misconceptions of the creation/evolution controversy:

Bill Nye: "Denial of evolution is unique to the United States..."

Hmmm...regrettably that is:

ABSURDLY WRONG! Historically, protesting against the ideology of evolutionary humanism actually began long ago in the Mediterranean Middle-East where some of the first recorded rationalistic philosophies were constructed. This protest set a deep and rich historical precedent in the second and third centuries anno Domini - which heavily influenced subsequent centuries.

Using Holy Scripture, the early church fathers utterly refuted the Ionian Greek philosophers who often argued (via proto-evolutionary notions) that the world was ancient or even eternal. These creation apologists included: Barnabas  (b. AD 100), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca AD 120-202), Clement of Alexandria (c AD 150-215), Julius Africanus (c AD 160-240), Hippoplytus of Rome (AD 170-236), Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180), Origen (AD 185-253), Methodius (AD 260-312), Lactantius (ca AD 260-330), Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263-339), Victorinus of Pettau (d. ca AD 304), Ephrem the Syrian (AD 306-373), Epiphanius of Salamis (AD 315-403), Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-379), Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. AD 387), Ambrose of Milan (AD 339-397), Bede of Northumbria (AD 673-735) and John of Damascus (ca AD 675-749). ALL these teachers understood the seven days of the creation week as EITHER normal, literal 24ish-hour days OR corresponding (in an eschatological-typological sense) to seven ages of a 7,000 year world history. ALL these early teachers, therefore, without exception, were explicitly and unequivocally Young-Earth Creationists - contrary to the fatuously ignorant (and often pernicious) claims of old-earth heretics.

During the Middle Ages the received biblical tradition (clearly taught by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19-20 and Luke 11:50-51)) of a Young Cosmos was maintained by (among others) Peter Lombard of Paris (d. AD 1164), Hugo of St. Victor (AD 1097-1141), Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274) and Giacomo Filippo Foresti da Bergamo (AD 1434-1520).

During the Ages of Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment (including the Early Modern Period), a full-bodied Young Earth Creationist doctrine was faithfully maintained by many authorities of repute in Science and Theology.

These included: Johannes Werner (AD 1468-1522), Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546), Wolfgang Musculus (AD 1497-1563), Philip Melanchthon (AD 1497-1560), Peter Martyr (AD 1499-1562), Heinrich Bullinger (AD 1504-1575), John Calvin (AD 1509-1564), Rodolphus Gualterus (AD 1519-1586), Francois Hotman (AD 1524-1590), Benito Arias Montano of Spain (AD 1527-1598), Zacharias Ursinus (AD 1534-1583), Joseph Scaliger (AD 1540-1609), Guillaume Salluste DuBartas (b AD 1544), Francisco Suarez (AD 1548-1617), Hugh Broughton (AD 1549-1612), Gervase Babington (AD 1550-1610), Lancelot Andrewes (AD 1555-1626), William Perkins (AD 1558-1602), Annotations from the Geneva Bible of AD 1562, Andrew Willet (AD 1562-1621), Johannes Polyander (AD 1568-1646), Johannes Kepler (AD 1571-1630), Henry Ainsworth (AD 1571-1622), Thomas Gataker (AD 1574-1654), William Ames (AD 1576-1633), John Diodati (AD 1576-1649), Rabbi Lipman (AD 1579-1654), John Richardson (AD 1580-1654), James Ussher (AD 1581-1656), Petavius of France (AD 1583-1652), the Irish Articles of AD 1600, John Trapp (AD 1601-1669), John Lightfoot (AD 1602-1675), George Hughes (AD 1603-1667), Roger Drake (AD 1608-1669), Francis Roberts (AD 1609-1669), John Owen (AD 1616-1683), the Annotations of Dordt of AD 1619, Thomas Manton (AD 1620-1677), Thomas Watson (AD 1620-1686), Francis Turretin (AD 1623-1687), the Dordrecht Confession of 1632, Ezekiel Hopkins (AD 1633-1689), Thomas Vincent (AD 1634-1678), the Haak Bible of AD 1637, William Beveridge (AD 1637-1708), Niels Steensen of the Netherlands (AD 1638-1686), Isaac Newton (AD 1643-1727), the Westminster Confession of Faith of AD 1646, the Westminster Annotations of 1657, Johann Osiander of Germany (AD 1657-1724), the Congregational Savoy Declaration of AD 1658, Mathew Henry (AD 1662-1714), John Woodward (AD 1665-1722), Thomas Ridgeley (AD 1667-1734), Thomas Boston (AD 1676-1732), the Baptist London Confession of AD 1689, John Gill (AD 1697-1771), John Wesley (AD 1701-1791), Johann Lehmann (AD 1719-1767) and Alexander Catcott (AD 1725-1779).

In the Modern Age, orthodox Young Earth Creationist teaching continued with tenured, erudite Scientists and Theologians such as: Richard Kirwan (AD 1733-1812), Thomas Scott (AD 1747-1821), Andrew Fuller (AD 1754-1815), Thomas Gisborne (AD 1758-1846), Granville Penn (AD 1761-1844), George Bugg (AD 1769-1851), Adam Clarke (AD 1772-1832), Richard Mant (AD 1776-1848), George Young (AD 1777-1848), George D'Oyly (AD 1778-1846), Andrew Ure (AD 1778-1857), John Murray (AD 1786-1851), George Fairholme (AD 1789-1846), Michael Faraday (AD 1791-1867), William Rhind (AD 1797-1874), Franz Pieper (AD 1852-1931), George McReady-Price (AD 1870-1963), Louis Berkhof (AD 1873-1957), Valentine Hepp (AD 1879-1950), Herman Hoeksema (AD 1886-1965), and Henry M. Morris (AD 1918-2006).

Present-day Scientists and Theologians who protest evolutionary deep time all over the world are too many to list on a short blog article such as this! Furthermore, individual protests have multiplied such that since the year 1865, when the Victoria Institute began a powerful critique of Darwinism in England, a whole variety of scientific institutions, charities and think-tanks have arisen to critique evolutionary theory across the globe. One of the first was the Evolution Protest Movement founded in 1932:

(see: https://www.csm.org.uk/whoweare.php for further information).

A list of just some of the more recent groups providing counter-evidence and alternative explanations can be found online here:

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/links_to_other_sites.html#creationandorigins


Bill Nye: "Once in a while I get people that really...or that claim, they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is why not? - really - why not? Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution..."

Answer: Well, Bill, quite apart from the illustrious heritage of Bible believing saints, scholars and hard-nosed empirical scientists outlined above (all of whom rejected evolutionary history with its logical positivist or Hegelian historicist world-views) there is a large and growing body of evidence that suggests evolution over billions of years never actually happened!

Personally, I think a potentially fantastically complicated world-view (such as orthodox Christian Theism can become given hard study of both natural and special revelation) is a rather exciting prospect for any student to consider in Science class! A 'world-view' is, after all, meant to be a view of the 'whole world' isn't it? And this planet is a rather complex and diverse place to live on don't you think?!

WOWZERS BILL!!

Let's allow parents, teachers and students a little freedom to ponder these great issues no?!? The History of Science certainly has something to teach us all! Or are your motives, along with Sagan, more ideologically-driven than you really make out? :-) Go figure...

Sources:

Jackson, P.W. (2006:14-19). The Chronologers' Quest: The Search for the Age of the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kulikovsky, A.S. (2009:59-84). Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation. Scotland: Christian Focus Publications.

Mortenson, T. and Ury, T. (2008:53-89). Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Arizona: Master Books.

Sarfati, J. (2004:107-139). Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism". Arizona: Master Books.






Joanna Lumley: The Search for Noah's Ark (Review)

$
0
0
This documentary aired on ITV-1 at 9:00pm on Sunday 23rd of December. The production was an interesting, reasonably balanced and informative account of what many people believe are the remains of Noah's Ark - but the detail was rather lacking. I have just a few points to make. First, as you will discover from the ancient history paper posted previously on this blog, Mount Yigityatagi in south-east Turkey, taken as the real location of the Ark's landing place, is confirmed through a study of ancient near eastern iconography. The cosmic twin-peaked mountain was where the 'cosmic egg' and 'tree of life' first resided. The sacred mountain was seen as a prop which separated 'heaven and earth', and on this hill 4 elements arose along with their 4 consorts. Comparison of ancient Minoan, Egyptian and Syrian icons and texts suggests that what Fasold and Wyatt discovered in the mud-flow probably is the Ark, having been transported in the mud from the twin peaks. That remnants of the Ark were still visible in the first and second centuries is confirmed by historians such as Josephus, who mentioned pilgrims scraping off bits of it as talismans. Second, the Scriptures clearly teach that the flood of Noah was a global cataclysm lasting over a year. There would be no rationale to include birds on the Ark, or to emphasize that all the high hills under the whole heaven were inundated, if it were only a local catastrophe. For more in-depth information on this whole topic, I would recommend the books Earth's Catastrophic Past Volumes 1 and 2, written by Dr. Andrew Snelling and Nissen, H. (Trans. Skondin, T.) (2004). Noah’s Ark Uncovered: An expedition into the ancient past

From Noah to Hercules

$
0
0
Historian Brian Forbes has conducted a study of ancient history which is remarkably complementary to my own, although both are independent studies. You can read his published study in his excellent book: "From Noah to Hercules" (2010), which I discovered on a creationist website just days ago. Exciting times for biblical ancient history!

Can Pharaoh Shishak be identified with Seti I? What is the Evidence?

$
0
0

1. At Thebes in Egypt, on the wall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak we find: "The Shasu-bedouin [i.e. Semitic foot wanderers] are plotting rebellion. Their chiefs have gathered together in the hills of Kharu (= Syria-Palestine). They have fallen into chaos and are fighting and each one is slaying the other. They do not obey the laws of the Palace!" - This would seem to refer to the in-fighting between Judah and Israel under kings Rehoboam and Jeroboam.


2. "Presentation of tribute by His Majesty to his father Amen...consisting of silver, gold, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, red jasper and every sort of precious stone. The chiefs of the hill countries are in his grasp to fill the workshops of his father Amen." - This would seem to refer to the vast gold, silver and precious stones given to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:10), which Shishak plundered from what he calls ‘God’s land’ and its capital ‘Pekanon’ - possibly Jerusalem or Samaria. The great riches plundered would soon be melted down and used to establish Ramses II as one of the greatest builders of temples/monuments in Egyptian history!


3. Seti wrote about himself on his Beth Shan Stela: "He causes to retreat the princes of Syria (Kharu), all the boastfulness of whose mouth was (so) great. Every foreign country of the ends of the earth, their princes say: "Where shall we go?" They spend the night giving testimony in his name, saying: "Behold it, behold it? in their hearts." - This could be a reference to the wisdom of Solomon 'whose mouth was so great'. He had the admiration of 'every foreign country of the ends of the earth'. In fact, the Lord Jesus Christ noted that the Queen of Sheba came from 'the ends of the earth' to visit Solomon because of his fame.


4. The Merneptah Stele says: "Israel is devastated, it has no more seed". Under David Austin's new chronology, this seems to refer to the reign of Queen Athaliah in Judah - the point at which the tribe of Judah lost all but one of its kings to the Queen's rage. The Memeptah Stele even records the name 'Israel' with an Egyptian prefix meaning 'tribe of Israel' - not the whole nation. The reign of Seti I under the chronology of Velikovsky is approx. 729-714 BC. Add to this 168 years and you obtain what is probably the 5th year of Rehoboam (897 BC) in the New Chronology of David Austin. If you also add 168 years onto the reign of Merneptah as suggested in Velikovsky (i.e. 647-637 BC) it is right bang in the middle of Athaliah's reign (i.e. 808 BC). This means that Merneptah is very probably referring to the murder of the heirs of Judah under Athaliah's wicked reign . This frame-shift of 168 years gave me the identification of Pharaoh Shishak as Seti I, since Merneptah probably wrote his stele 89 years after Seti I's campaign into Israel and Judah. This was the point in my studies when I checked the bas-reliefs on the north wall of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak in Thebes, Egypt, and identified the other evidence for his invasion under king Rehoboam.


5. A Scarab with the cartouche of Seti I was found in an Egyptian-style tome in Jerusalem - probably the house which Solomon built for his Egyptian wife (D. Rohl, The Lost Testament). This proves Seti (or his soldiers) were in Jerusalem - just as Scripture says.


6. Seti I would have invaded Judea from the 'Ways of Horus' (defeating the fortified cities of the Shasu (ancient Jews) on the way). He would have done this in the first year of his reign (897-882 BC) under David Austin's New Chronology.


7. In this first campaign, precious stones were plundered (given to Solomon in 1 Kings 10:10), a series of forts - each with a well - were taken captive on the way to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 12:4) and the workshops of Amun were filled with booty. We must also remember that Karnak records this Seti also invaded Lebanon - and Solomon's 'House of the Forest of Lebanon' where Shishak plundered the 300 golden shields may have been located in Lebanon rather than being misidentified as the Temple of Jerusalem. I'm convinced the 'House of the Forest of Lebanon' is shown as the town of 'Yenoam' in Canaan at Karnak, which is surrounded by trees (as in a forest setting). When I first saw this relief, I didn't notice a detail which is astonishing confirmation. If you look closely, the top of the relief shows those overwhelmed guards holding rectangular shields. These are some of the very same golden shields the Scriptures mention in the plunder taken by Seti I! Also, comparing this image with the one of the 'town of Canaan' (i.e. Jerusalem) on the bas-relief, you notice that one of the same trees (a cedar of Lebanon I believe) is found next to the House of the Lord or Temple of Solomon in what looks like the City of David - high on an acropolis.


8. The victory stelae at Bethshan also notes a messenger who tell's Seti: "The despicable foe who hails from the town of Hamath has gathered a large force, capturing the town of Bethshan, and in league with the people of Pahil he has prevented the chief of Rehob from getting out. So his majesty dispatched the first division..." - This probably has reference to Hadoram, who was the chief tax collector for king Rehoboam. In 2 Chronicles 10:18 he is stoned by the people (prevented the chief of Rehob from getting out) and Rehoboam escapes to Jerusalem by chariot where he quickly raised an army of 180,000 chosen warriors. This is the event that made Seti I invade the land of Israel and Lebanon.


9. In 2008, in the largest tomb of the Valley of the Kings - that of Seti I, archaeologists also found clay vessels, fragments of the tomb's painted wall reliefs, and a quartzite ushabti figure. These appear to date from between 1090 and 945 BC, confirming that Seti probably reigned far later than the orthodox chronology suggests.

Noah’s Ark in Ancient History: An International ‘Cultural Koine’

$
0
0


ABSTRACT

In this article, symbols, icons and cosmogonies of the Egyptian theocratic system will be analysed and compared to those of Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Indiaand Crete. Many visual riddles will be unlocked by viewing such iconography through a ‘grid’, ‘lens’ or ‘cultural koine’ which Professor Nanno Marinatos[1]defines as a standard set of cultural assumptions which circulated throughout the Ancient Near East (henceforth ANE) and Eastern Mediterranean. This historical grid or international milieu will allow us to infer what could be the Ark’s true location, confirming previous claims that the Arkmay have already been discovered, yet never properly excavated. Evidence from numerous seal cylinders, ring impressions, wall reliefs, paintings and papyri across the ancient world is presented and interpreted via the koine, showing that the Ark’s specific location appears to have been both known and revered in ancient antiquity. Remarkably, the Ark’s location as suggested by ANE iconography is still recognizable today - as are the surprising remains of what could be the Arkitself!

KEYWORDS

Koine, Ark, Location, Ararat, Iconography, Babel


INTRODUCTION:

   Judging by the recent film ‘Noah’ directed by Darren Aronofsky and starring Russell Crowe, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson et al., you could be forgiven for thinking that the entire story of Noah’s Ark is a solemn yet fanciful myth. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth!   In their 1976 book, ‘The Ark on Ararat’, Dr. John D. Morris and Tim F. LaHaye note a non-exhaustive list of over 212 flood accounts from across the globe. Bill Cooper confirms the universal extent of flood accounts worldwide by noting: “Even the remotest peoples, separated from the rest of the world by immense distances and time, have preserved among themselves recognisable memories of the Flood of Noah, sometimes in the most startling detail, lending a remarkable corroboration to what we read in the Book of Genesis.”[2]

   Gleaning precious information from all these accounts regarding the specific location where the Arkfinally came to land has previously yielded little conclusive evidence (c.f. Humphreys[3], who examines the biblical clues in particular and Habermehl[4], who examines a number of claimed possible landing sites). To the question ‘where are the Ark’s remains now?’ most scholars have had to reply ‘we simply do not know’ or ‘it must have been dismantled’. Nevertheless, a close examination of some of the more obscure flood accounts serves to elucidate tantalizing clues, which together with recent advances in ancient iconography may have a revolutionary impact upon both the Ark Studies Project and the study of all Ancient History. Let us begin our examination with the testimony of ancient historians:
  

WHERE THE ARK NOW RESIDES: THE TESTIMONY OF ANCIENT HISTORIANS

As Crouse and Franz note: “…if such an Ark vessel once really existed, with the Scriptural dimensions of nearly 500 feet in length and being built of a durable wood and coated with a preservative such as tar, wouldn’t it make sense that it would have taken centuries, even millennia, to decay, and that everyone in the general vicinity would know where such a hulk would lie? We are not talking about a small relic that cannot be readily seen by the general populace. Over the centuries, indeed millennia, people would know about it; it would be a topic of conversation and people would want to see it.”[5]

Indeed we learn this much from various ancient historians, as follows:

  • Berosus extracted from Abydenus
The history of a Chaldean priest named Berosus has been preserved in a number of later sources still extant. The Greek historian Abydenus, who probably lived around 200 B.C., was one of those who recounted Berosus’ history. Abydenus relates regarding the Ark of Noah: “With respect to the vessel, which yet remains in Armenia, it is a custom of the inhabitants to form bracelets and amulets of its wood.”[6]

  • Berosus extracted from Alexander Polyhistor
Another fragment from Berosus was preserved by the historian Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished in the first half of the first century B.C. He noted that:

“…the vessel was driven to the side of a mountain…” and “…the vessel, being thus stranded in Armenia, some part of it yet remains in the Gordyaean mountains in Armenia; and the people scrape off the bitumen, with which it had been outwardly coated, and make use of it by way of an alexipharmic and amulet.”[7]

  • Benjamin of Tudela
A Medieval Jewish traveller, writing in the 12th century, records that he travelled two days to an island in the Tigris on the foot of Mt.Araraton which the ark rested. As Crouse and Franz record: “Omar Ben al-Khatab removed the Arkfrom the summit of the two mountains and made a mosque of it…”[8]

  • Various authors extracted from Josephus
Finally, for the purposes of this argument, the Jewish historian Josephus refers to numerous historical sources which attest that the Arkwas freely accessible and indeed venerated in their times:

"However, the Armenians call this place, The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day…”

“Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris [i.e. a ship], upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved."[9]

Notice here in Josephus the very intriguing observation that the mountain itself was called “Baris” from the Greek word baris - which is a term for an "Egyptian boat", (probably deriving from the Egyptian ba-y-r for "basket-shaped boat")[10]. This might be a significant clue about the shape of the mountain, as we shall more fully appreciate later on. Meanwhile, carefully note that the Armenians themselves called the landing site “The Place of Descent”.

This is corroborated by the Indian flood account of Manu and the Seven Sages. Julius Eggeling translates this flood account from the first ‘kânda’ of the Ṡatapatha Brāhmaṇa thus:“As the water subsides, thou mayest gradually descend!’ Accordingly, he gradually descended, and hence that (slope) of the northern mountain is called ‘Manu’s descent’!”[11]

Here in the Indian Sanskrit account of the great flood we learn a further interesting morsel of information, namely that the Arklanded on a north facing slope and gradually sank down.

Moreover, in the Atharva Veda, Book 19, Hymn 39, Verse 8, Ralph Griffith’s translation reads:

“In the third heaven above us stands the Asvattha tree, the seat of Gods: There is embodiment of life that dies not: thence was Kushtha born. There moved through heaven a golden ship, a ship with cordage wrought of gold: There is embodiment of life that dies not; thence was Kushtha born. Where is the Sinking of the Ship, the summit of the Hill of Snow, There is embodiment of life that dies not: thence was Kustha born.”[12]

Why all these seemingly obscure observations from Hindu Sanskrit records should be considered significant to the Ark’s current location will be gradually revealed as we consider the testimony of other nations to this strange ‘Place of Descent’.

THE TESTIMONY OF MESOPOTAMIA

The Mesopotamian flood accounts (including the Epic of Gilgamesh, Fragment CBM 13532 from the TempleLibrary of Nippur and the Epic of Atram-Hasis) are some of the most detailed of all extra-biblical sources. Here I want to make five important observations regarding them.

First, a recently discovered tablet of the Epic of Atram-Hasis[13]has revealed that the Amorites who wrote the Epic believed the Ark to be circular in shape. As Maev Kennedy, writing in the British Newspaper ‘The Guardian’ reports, cuneiform expert Irving Finkel’s translation makes this plain:

 "Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build a boat; despise possessions And save life! Draw out the boat that you will build with a circular design; Let its length and breadth be the same."

A circular Arkmight sound like an obvious pagan corruption unworthy of further consideration, yet although the Arkclearly wasn’t a circular coracle, Finkel’s ‘Ark Tablet’ does actually bear wider significance for our interpretation of ANE iconography.

Second, Kennedy also notes that “…the tablet goes on to command the use of plaited palm fibre, waterproofed with bitumen, before the construction of cabins for the people and wild animals.”

Note carefully the use of plaited palm fibre in the Ark’s construction. (White palm fibre is one of the few strong natural fibres which is resistant to saltwater – a fact which explains its use in the manufacture of fishing nets). The palm tree itself will also become significant as we examine relevant ANE icons and symbols depicting the so-called ‘tree of life’ in our next subsection.

Third, however, consider an image depicted on the side of an alabaster trough from Uruk in Iraq.

Figure 1:Alabaster (or gypsum) trough from Uruk in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) (Courtesy of The British Museum. WA 120000, neg. 252077).


Two large reed standards frame what appears to be a reed house (or mudhif), into which animals are going two by two. Eight ‘life-forces’ can be seen springing from the top covering of the house.

Compare this image with Fragment CBM 13532 from the TempleLibrary of Nippur (discovered by Professor Hermann Hilprecht from the University of Pennsylvania) which recounts:

“Build a great ship and … total height shall be its structure. …it shall be a houseboat carrying what has been saved of life. … with a strong deck cover (it). [The ship] which thou shalt make [into it br]ing the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven…”[14]

As Bill Cooper[15]points out, the term ‘houseboat’ translates as ‘ma-gurgurrum’ (or a boat which can be closed by a door), which is related to an old Semitic word, ‘ma-kurru’, meaning ark.

Forth, consider if you will a few enigmatic sections from the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh. As Fasold notes: “The landing site of the ship of Utnapishtim appears in tablet 11 in successive lines 140 through 144 five times. It is translated ‘Mount Nisir’. … The interesting thing about working with three root consonants is that nṣr can be related to nšr, msr, mṣr and mzr. The most obvious would then be nạsāru, ‘to keep something under guard.’[16]

Importantly, cuneiform expert Irving Finkel corroborates this interpretation of the etymology of Niṣir in noting that: “…I still prefer Mount Niṣir because this is the Mesopotamian name for the mountain and the Babylonian root behind it, naṣāru, ‘to guard, protect’, makes very good sense given the emphasis in this very Gilgameshpassage on how the mountain holds the Ark fast and will not let it move.”[17]

Intriguingly, in line 37 of the Epic, the ‘hero’ Gilgamesh finds himself by MountMashu(or possibly Manu) as he journeys to meet Utnapishtim [who is the Babylonian equivalent of Noah in the Holy Bible[18]]. Henri Nissen relates from the Epic that:

“The mountain is called Mashu. Then he reached Mount Mashu, which daily guards the rising and setting of the Sun, above which only the dome of the heavens reaches, and whose flank reaches as far as the Netherworld below, there were Scorpion-beings watching over its gate. Trembling terror they inspire, the sight of them is death, their frightening aura sweeps over the mountains, At the rising and setting they watch over the Sun.”[19]

Nissen further notes that “…to the Sumerians, Mashu was a sacred mountain. Its name means ‘twin’ in Akkadian, and thus was it portrayed on Babylonian cylinder seals – a twin-peaked mountain, described by poets as both the seat of the gods, and the underworld.”[20]Compare fully Figure 2 from Professor Marinatos.

 Figure 2: Shamash the ‘Sun-god’ arising from between the twin peaks (note the two-faced ‘Janus’ bottom right, who may represent Noah) (from Marinatos, 2010)

Professor Nanno Marinatos also makes a very important connection here: “On Akkadian seals, [she writes] the sun god Shamash habitually rises between the twin peaks of a mountain ... the morphology of the sign is almost universal and designates the twin peaks of a cosmic mountain."[21]

She, independently from Nissen, also finds correlation with the Epic of Gilgamesh:

"Gilgamesh...travels in search of...Utnapishtim. ... He comes to the cosmic mountMashu'which daily guards the ascent and descent of the sun'. ... This passage is a goldmine of information about Mesopotamian cosmology. First, we learn that Mashu is a cosmic mountain, the root of which is located in the underworld, where its peak reaches heaven. We also learn that the sun uses the mountain as a gate. This is important because it corresponds exactly to the images of the sun god rising between the mountain peaks engraved on the Akkadian seals."

Fifth, according to Marinatos this twin-peaked ‘cosmic mountain’, detailed as two peaks separated by a curved escarpment, is one of the central elements within an international ‘cultural koine’ which extended from the very earliest periods of recorded history to the very end of the ancient world. This distinctive and uniquely formed mountain is inseparably connected with the winged sun disc or circle – over which it was considered a ‘guardian’. The mountain therefore guards the embodiment of life. Recall that the Amorites in the Epic of Atra-Hasis spoke of the Ark’s plan as if it were ‘drawn out on a circle design’.
   Could the Egyptian winged sun disc and the Ark be morphologically cognate icons? Could the ‘Place of Descent’ recorded in Josephus as the Ark landing site also imply sinking into the ‘Underworld’ as the Atharva Veda seems to imply? Indeed, could this twin-peaked mount actually be the very ‘mountains of Ararat’ mentioned in Genesis 8:4? Consider for a moment the many relevant seal cylinders which Elliot G. Smith[22]has collated together from W. Hayes Ward’s book ‘The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia’ (1910) – Figure 3 (a)-(m). See Footnote [1] below.



Figure 3:Collated cylinder seals from across Western Asia(courtesy of Smith, 2007)

Here in this compilation of ancient seals we can observe a number of relevant correlations which are highly suggestive of this thesis. In (a) we note that the sun disc resides between twin peaks, with cobras [scorpion beings?] on either side and wings extending to the horizon. Again, comparing icons (b) through to (d) we may note that the winged sun disc is positioned atop stylized icons of a solar palm or tree of life. In (e) this tree is more clearly a palm standard between the twin-peaked mountain, together with a sacred bird; whilst in (f) a morphologically cognate bird is found perched atop the Minoan Double Axe. Marinatos notes regarding this type of imagery: “We may easily understand why birds are associated with the sun. They are the first to wake up in the morning and greet the emerging disc; their presence on the same scene as the rising axe is thus quite meaningful.”[23] Icons (i) and (k), on the other hand, are noteworthy because the former shows a winged gate from Chaldea - and the latter shows a ‘god’ figure riding the Persian winged disc-boat above a fire-altar - suggestive of the twin-peaked mountain of dawn. Compare all these with (m) where the ‘god’ now arises from a crescent-shaped icon above the ‘tree of life’. All these correlations are suggestive of what Professor Marinatos herself describes as a shared international religious milieu or ‘cultural koine’ which acts as a lens through which the culture of the ANE can be better understood.

THE TESTIMONY OF CRETE

Nanno Marinatos is, in fact, a world expert in Minoan cultural art from the isle of Crete. Her remarkable thesis, recorded in ‘Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess’ (2010) deserves further summary at this point because of its significance for the Ark Studies Project.

In Chapter 4 of her extended thesis, Marinatos notes that the thrones or throne rooms of Minoan solar god-royalties are usually associated with griffins and palm trees.

“The first observation is that both griffin and palm are associated with the sun in Syrian glyptic. The palm is often linked with a winged rosette disc, a Levantine idiom of the Egyptian winged sun disc. We may draw further inference, which is of some consequence, that there existed stylized, human-made, wooden cult standards imitating the palm. This would explain why the solar disc (also part of the object) was attached on top…. Beatrice Teissier says: ‘The association of the sun with the palm was both an Egyptian and Mesopotamian concept but Syrian imagery was derived from the latter. In Egyptthe palm was considered to be one of the seats of Re at his rising.”[24]



Figures 4 and 5: Royal griffin and palm were closely
associated with the winged sun disc (from Marinatos, 2010)

In Chapter 5, it is noted that Cretan ‘houses of god’ were not necessarily independent structures but were integrated within larger buildings or they constituted an open-air sanctuary. Furthermore, these ‘divine dwellings’ contained symbolic architecture – in particular they incorporated ‘mountain-gate’ architecture (c.f. Figures 6 and 7).









Figures 6 and 7:Minoan ‘House of god’ – stone rhyton from Zakros (left) and clay votive model of a sanctuary from East Crete (right) (from Marinatos, 2010)

This gate architecture is intimately associated with the ‘underworld’. As the Professor carefully relates to those of us who are uninitiated to ANE lore: “Mountains are gates. Strange as this may seem to us, it was a common concept in Near Eastern mythology… The gate to the beyond is conceived as a double-peak mountain, sometimes guarded by lions … The idea that the mountain is a gate to the netherworld is supported by linguistic evidence. The Sumerian word kurmeans both ‘mountain’ and ‘underworld’.”[25]

Chapter 8 of Marinatos’ thesis is particularly significant for the Ark Studies Project. Marinatos begins by redefining the meaning of a Minoan hieroglyph:

"Generations of scholars have relied on these two giants of Minoan religion [Evans and Nilsson - ed.] for the interpretation of the sign [Minoan hieroglyph 37 of the old palace period] as bull's horns...[yet other theories came from] Dutch scholar W.B. Kristensen and the German scholar W. Gaerte, who both regarded the so-called horns as mountains, pointing to the similarity with the equivalent Egyptian ideogram...”

Indeed, this identification of the horns of consecration with this twin-peaked mountain was made by Professor Newberry[26] of Liverpool as early as 1908.

Marinatos continues: “Barry Powell demonstrated it in 1977... in more recent years, Alexander MacGillivray and Vance Watrous have also returned to this view. I endorse it here as well and will add additional visual evidence that makes it unlikely that the symbol is anything but the twin peak mountain depicting the east and west points of the horizon. ... the Minoan symbol is almost identical to the Egyptian cosmic mountain. The Egyptian symbol consists of two peaks that define the horizon between which the sun disc rises…On Akkadian seals of the third millennium we find a very similar rendition of the mountain represented as two scaly cones that signify ‘land’…In Syria and Anatolia, the twin peaks also symbolize a mountain, sometimes a double one… The twin peak mountain defines the edges of the cosmos. … A symbol so common to Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia, and Egypt and designating ‘mountain’ must have had a similar meaning in Crete… It has previously been mentioned that we do not see offerings (bread, meat, incense, etc.) between the peaks of the object that has been redefined as a mountain; therefore, its function cannot have been to sanctify offerings. Instead, the two peaks frame a tree…a double axe…or a god… All of these are symbols of cosmic significance and not votives that can be consecrated.”

 Figure 8: a) Minoan b) Egyptian c) Akkadian and d) Syrian representations (from Marinatos, 2010)

The full evidence Marinatos gathers is highly persuasive. Some icons clearly depict a curved escarpment between two rounded peaks whilst others simplify the image as two separate hillocks or two more pointed ‘knife like’ objects [Figure 9].

Figure 9: Bronze votive tablet from the cave of Psychro showing the twin-peaked mountain as two ‘knife-like’ peaks (from Marinatos, 2010, pg. 108)

 Yet the central motif always remains the same:

“On a seal from Vapheio [she continues] a tree rises between the two peaks of the mountain...” [Figure 10] … “In summary: the tree rising between the Minoan twin-peak mountain is not consecrated as an offering but constitutes the tree of life. This is the solar palm...”

Figures 10 and 11:A seal from Vapheio (left) and a Minoan seal from Kydonia (right) (from Marinatos, 2010)

And again: “On a seal from Cretan Kydonia we meet something even more striking: instead of a tree there is a god standing between the mountain peaks and receiving homage from a Minoan demon and a goat.” [Figure 11].

Later, in chapters 9 through 14 of her book, Professor Marinatos focuses upon a number of long-standing riddles in Minoan iconography. These riddles concern some perplexing questions such as ‘why does the [Minoan] double axe rise from the cosmic mountain?’; ‘why does the double axe appear between the horns of a bovine head?’; ‘why does the double axe turn into a lily?’ and ‘why is the double axe both in the underworld and the sky?’

Her conclusions are equally remarkable! “The double axe is a regenerative symbol suggesting growth or development. It is the visual manifestation of the Egyptian concept of ‘coming forth by day’ and the equivalent of the lotus giving birth to the primeval sun/child…”[27]

“The sacred mountain with its twin peaks, the incurved altar, the rosette, and the double axe are either landmarks in the sun’s journey or allomorphs of the sun disc itself. … The key to their meaning is the symmetry of their form, which reflects the dual world traversed by the sun in its journey in the sky and underworld respectively. ...the Minoans intended a deliberate ambiguity between ‘horns’ and ‘mountain peaks’ because both the ox or cow and the mountain embrace the sun in mythical thinking; in some ways they give birth to it. The Minoans deliberately played with the form: horns look like mountain peaks… The Egyptians did the same, as we see on a ceiling from the palace of Malkata”.[28][Figures 12 and 13].

    

Figures 12 and 13:The Minoan Calf with Double Axe (left) and a ceiling painting from the palace of Malkata (from Marinatos, 2010)

What are we to make of all this? Is there any further evidence that the sun disc and the Ark are morphologically cognate icons? Could the sacred twin-peaked mountain really be equivalent to the ‘mountains of Ararat’? As we shall now see, the forgotten solar cult teachings of the Old Kingdom of Egypt hold a highly probable answer to these questions.

THE TESTIMONY OF EGYPT

Bill Cooper sums up previous interpretations of Egyptian origins when he writes:

“Concerning any distinct memories of the Great Flood amongst the Egyptians, we have to say that almost all trace of them is lost – or dimmed almost to the point of obliteration. Records discovered so far make no mention of it – assuming there are no more surprises in store…”[29]

Well it seems that a huge surprise is, in fact, in store! For it appears that not only did the early Egyptians record the story of the Great Flood in great detail on their temple walls and papyri, they also venerated the Ark and the cosmic twin-peaked mountain to the extent that the whole Giza plateau with its central twin-pyramids and sphinx could be one vast enigmatic representation of it - garbed in complex geometry!

To explain this bold supposition, we must begin with some of the most ancient cosmogonies of Egypt– from the four cult centres of Heliopolis, Memphis, Hermopolis and Thebes.

In general, all four cosmogonies relate the same story in different ways. The oldest and purist of the four cosmogonies belongs to Thoth’s cult centre of Hermopolis.

Robert Armour[30]notes an early papyrus which records of the ‘Ogdoad [or Eight] of Hermopolis’ account: “Salutations to you, you Five Great Gods, Who come out of the City of Eight, You who are not yet in heaven, You who are not yet upon the earth, You who are not yet illuminated by the sun”.

  


Figures 14 and 15:The Ogdoad of Hermopolis depicted in Ancient Egyptian Icons (left) from Ancient Egypt, edited by David P. Silverman, p. 121; photograph from the Book of the Dead of Khensumose (right) Detail from the Astronomical Ceiling at the Temple of Hathor at Iunet, first strip west (© Olaf Tausch)


He continues:

“The poem tells how, on the Island of Flame, the primeval hill similar to the one on which Ra arose, the four gods came into being at the same time; they were seen as some sort of force that existed between heaven and earth…Each element brought with him his female component, giving the total of eight elements. The group included Nun, the god of the primeval ocean already seen in the mythology of Heliopolis, and his consort Naunet; Heh, the god of the immeasurable, who with his consort Heket was responsible for raising the sun; Kek, the god of darkness, and his consort Keket gave the world the darkness of night so that the sun would have a place to shine; and Amun, the god of mystery, the hidden, and nothingness, who with his consort Amaunet brought the air which breathed life into everything. The four males were depicted as frogs and the females as serpents swimming around in the mud and slime of chaos…Eventually the eight elements came together and out of their union came the primeval egg which could not be seen because it existed before there was light. Out of the egg came the light of the sun which the eight raised up into the sky”.

Veronica Ions adds more important detail to the Ogdoad ‘cosmogony’ which we quote in extenso:

“The four male deities of the Ogdoad were depicted in Egyptian art with frogs’ heads, and the four female deities had serpents’ heads. This would seem to derive from another tradition in Hermopolis which likened the eight primordial gods to the amphibious life which swarmed…in the mud left behind by the annually receding Nilefloodwaters. Thus instead of creating the primeval mound, the Eight would be conceived as hatching out on to it. As in the other cult centres, the city was declared to be on the site of the primeval hill. In a park attached to the temple was a sacred lake called the ‘Sea of the Two Knives’ from which emerged the ‘Isle of Flames’. This island was said to be the primeval hill and was a great place of pilgrimage and the setting for much ritual. Four variants of the creation myth as told at Hermopolis were connected with this lake and this island. In the first, the world was said to have originated in a cosmic egg…this was laid by the celestial goose which first broke the silence of the world and was known as the ‘Great Cackler’. The egg, laid on the primeval mound, contained the bird of light, Ra, who was to be creator of the world. Other sources said that the egg contained air – a tradition more in keeping with the Ogdoad legend. The remains of the egg were shown to pilgrims at Hermopolis. The second version was similar to the first, except that in this case the egg was laid by an ibis – the bird representing Thoth, god of the moon and of wisdom… The third variant of the Hermopolitan doctrine reverted to the imagery of creation out of the waters, and was exceptionally poetic. According to this version, a lotus flower rose out of the waters of the ‘Sea of the Two Knives’. When its petals opened the calyx of the flower was seen to bear a divine child, who was Ra. The forth version of this legend was that the lotus opened to reveal a scarab beetle (symbol of the sun); the scarab then transformed itself into the boy… Indeed in Hermopolis the lotus was sometimes specifically identified with the Eye of Ra. The lotus is a flower which opens and closes every day: it could therefore easily be associated with the cult of the sun god, which it bore within its petals. By opening his Eye, Ra was said to separate day from night… The Ogdoad were said…to have created the lotus bearing the sun-god, and this lotus rose out of the waters…”[31]

These accounts contain some highly significant information derived from diverse Egyptian hieroglyphic texts (principally the Papyrus Leiden 1350 (New Kingdomcirca 1567-1085 BC). First, note from Armour that the myth concerns the ‘Eight elements’ – four males and four females – the ‘ancestors of the gods’. This bears a striking parallel to the biblical account of Noah and his family of seven. Second, note the symbolism associated with each of the eight – Nun the ‘primeval ocean’. Of this same Nun ‘god’, Egyptologist Sung Hwan Yoo notes:

“In ancient Egypt the sky was often thought of as a watery region, and Nut was closely associated with Mehet-Weret (mhjjt wrt) “Great Flood,” a female counterpart of Nun. Sometimes envisioned as a cow astride the earth, Nut was paired or even identified with Mehet-Weret who was shown as a cow-headed woman or a cow carrying a child (J. Allen 1989: 16; B. Lesko 1999: 23-24; Pinch 2002: 163). In this connection, Mehet-Weret stands as a primeval cow goddess who gave birth to the sun-god. It is interesting to note that Mehet-Weret gave birth to the sun in the form of a calf, as mentioned in the Pyramid Texts Spell 485A (Pyr. § 1029a-b) … “This Pepi has come to you, Re, a calf of gold to whom Nut gave birth, a fatted calf of gold whom Hezat created” (Barta 1984: 167). The statement calls to mind the fact that Ihy, regarded as one of the sun-children, is born as a calf (Hoenes 1980: 125).”[32]

This is the same sacred animal found in ‘The Book of the Heavenly Cow[33], inscribed in the tombs of Seti I, Ramesses II and Ramesses III, which book contains numerous parallels to the biblical flood.[34]



Figure 16: Mehet-Weret (mhjjt wrt [35] meaning “Great Flood,” along with the solar barque (boat) of Ra underneath her leg and Shu holding up the heavens[36]

Also note the ‘coming forth by day’ or the rising of the sun, the darkness of night and the reference to life – signified in many other accounts by the solar palm or tree of life.

Third, note the sacred lake called ‘The Sea of Two Knives’ and the ‘Isle of Flames’. This may be paralleled with the twin-peaked mountain, as depicted in the form previously seen in Figure 9. It may also bear significance for the waters of the flood and the first land peaks seen after the waters receded:

“And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.” Genesis 8:5

Here we learn that the ‘Isle of Flames’ was more like a ‘primeval hill’ or twin-peaked ‘mud mound’ rather than a large volcanic mountain like Mount Ararat itself. At the same time, we learn that it may have been called ‘The Great Cackler’ because it appears to have acted as a natural harbour-nest or ‘guardian’ for the cosmic egg (or Ark) – hence the bird imagery we have encountered previously.

Finally we learn two other important facts which may bear deeper meaning:

In the first instance, we discover from Ion’s text that the biconvex shape of the Eye of Ra was “specifically identified” with the lotus flower in Hermopolis - and hence the sun disc also because of the koine established by Marinatos. Therefore, of large consequence is the fact that the Eye of Ra is another allomorph of the Arkitself. This is corroborated by Professor Finkel, who adds regarding the shape of the Ark in various cuneiform tablets:

“We can identify the characteristic shape of the makurru [i.e. ark] with the help of a geometrical diagram from the world of cuneiform educational mathematics…. This shows two circles, drawn with one overlapping the other. Here a Babylonian teacher is expounding the mathematical properties of the pointed almond or biconvex shape generated by such intimate circles. We learn from him at the same time that this shape is called makurru, which will therefore evoke or correspond to the outline of a contemporary makurru boat, seen from above.[37]



In the second instance, we discover that this entire Ogdoad ‘cosmogony’ was the subject of much ritual and pilgrimage in the Old Kingdom. This could be, remarkably, the interpretive key to the whole of the Giza plateau and the ancient pyramids.

Some explanatory background in the euhemeristic interpretation of mythology is necessary here. In 1807, Jacob Bryant published ‘A New System; Or, An Analysis of Ancient Mythology’. In this work, Bryant made some logical inferences of considerable importance for the Ark Studies Project. He noted that:

“Such was the Gentile history of the Deluge: varied indeed, and in some measure adapted to the prejudices of those who wrote; yet containing all the grand circumstances with which that catastrophe was attended. The story had been so inculcated, and the impressions left upon the minds of men were so strong, that they seem to have referred to it continually; and to have made it the principal subject of their religious institutions. I have taken notice of a custom among the priests of Amon, who at particular seasons used to carry in procession a boat, in which was an oracular shrine, held in great veneration. They were said to have been eighty in number; and to have carried the sacred vessel about, just as they were directed by the impulse of the Deity. … I mentioned at the same time, that this custom of carrying the Deity in an ark or boat was in use among the Egyptians, as well as the people of Ammonia. … The ship of Isis is well known; and the celebrity among the Egyptians, whenever it was carried in public. The name of this, and of all the navicular shrines was Baris: which is very remarkable; for it was the very name of the mountain, according to Nicolaus Damascenus, on which the ark of Noah rested; the same as Ararat in Armenia. … We may be assured then that the ship of Isiswas a sacred emblem; in honour of which there was among the Egyptians an annual festival. It was in aftertimes admitted among the Romans, and set down in their Calendar for the month of March. The former in their descriptions of the primary deities have continually some reference to a ship or float. … They oftentimes, says Porphyry, describe the sun in the character of a man sailing on a float. And Plutarch observes to the same purpose, that they did not represent the sun and the moon in chariots; … but wafted about upon floating machines. In doing which they did not refer to the luminaries; but to a personage represented under those titles. The Sun, or Orus, is likewise described by Iamblichus as sitting upon the lotus, and sailing in a vessel. … The same memorial is to be observed in other countries, where an ark, or ship, was introduced in their mysteries, and often carried about upon their festivals. Pausanias gives a remarkable account of a templeof Hercules at Eruthra in Ionia; which he mentions as of the highest of antiquity, and very like those in Egypt. The Deity was represented upon a float; and was supposed to have come thither in this manner from Phenicia. … Aristides mentions, that at Smyrna, upon the feast called Dionusia, a ship used to be carried in procession. The same custom prevailed among the Athenians at the Panathenæa; when what was termed the sacred ship was borne with great reverence through the city to the temple of Damaterof Elusis. … I think it is pretty plain, that all these emblematical representations, of which I have given so many instances, related to the history of the Deluge, and the conservation of one family in the ark. I have before taken notice, that this history was pretty recent when these works were executed inEgypt, and when these rites were first established: and there is reason to think, that in early times most shrines among the Mizraim were formed under the resemblance of a ship, in memory of this great event. … in the ancient mythology of Egypt, there were precisely eight Gods: of these the Sun was the chief, and was said first to have reigned. … And as in the histories of their kings, the Egyptians were able to trace the line of their descent upwards to these ancient personages; the names of the latter were by these means prefixed to those lists: and they were in aftertimes thought to have reigned in that country. This was the celebrated Ogdoas of Egypt, which their posterity held in such veneration, that they exalted them to the heavens, and made their history the chief subject of the sphere. This will appear very manifest in their symbolical representation of the solar system. … Thus we find that they esteemed the ark an emblem of the system of the heavens. … The vessel in the celestial sphere, which the Grecians call the Argo, is a representation of the ship of Osiris, which out of reverence has been placed in the heavens. The original therefore must be looked for in Egypt. The very name of the Argo shews, what it alluded to; for Argus, as it should truly be expressed, signified precisely an ark, and was synonymous to Theba. … The principal terms, by which the ancients distinguished the Ark, were Theba, Baris, Arguz, Argus, Aren, Arene, Arne, Laris, Boutus, Bœotus, Cibotus.”[38]

 Following Bryant’s pioneering euhemeristic analysis of mythology, in Figure 16 we may recall that the cow Mehet-Weret, representing the ‘Great Flood’ is ridden out by the solar barque of Ra (or Sokar). Depictions of the Egyptian solar funerary barque vary in detail yet contain fascinating information. Marinatos also makes the connection between Egyptian barques and the solar deity in a different context altogether. “Consider one example on an Egyptian Nineteenth Dynasty sarcophagus [of Seti I – ed.] that shows the journey of the elongated polelike sun bark. It ends in two ox heads and is pulled by deities. … Here, the ox heads define the east and west axis of the pole. Thus, in Egyptian imagery the ox heads envelop the sun’s course between east and west.”[39] In Figures 17-20 are shown some different renditions of this solar barque in association with what might be the cosmic twin-peaked mountain:


Figures 17: The Solar Barque of the Ogdoad – from the papyrus of Anhai (or Ani)



Figure 18: The Funerary Barque of Sokar – from the temple complex of Dendera, Egypt
Note the falcon atop the palm standard.


Figure 19: Sokar Barque in the Bull Hall of the Temple of Ramesses II at Abydos
Note the Eight are here depicted in the form of birds – two larger, six smaller.


Figure 20: The Sokar/Seker/Sokaris or Henu Barque of the Underworld – or divine boat of Nu from the Papyrus of Anhai (Ani). Note (right) the falcon or sparrow-hawk atop the hieroglyph for ‘west’ 
positioned between the peaks of the cosmic mountain

We may note from these reliefs and glyphs a number of significant observations. First, the solar barque shown in Figure 17 (from the papyrus of Ani) has Eight people standing within the barque and one of them (the sun-god Heh or Kheper-Ra) is represented as a scarab beetle lifting up the Sun. Another large ‘god-figure’ (Shu or Nun) stands in a pose with their two arms either end of the barque supporting it. This pose may be considered morphologically cognate to the twin peaks of the cosmic mountain arising from the waters.

Second, note in Figure 18 from the Temple of Dendera that a falcon is standing atop the binary symbol of a solar palm standard (which also doubles as a fish stood on its mouth). Compare this with Figure 20 from the papyrus of Ani, where the falcon (Sokar/Seker) is portrayed in the solar barque in a recumbent position covered in white mummy bindings – possibly a recollection of the plaited palm fibre which the Epic of Atram-Hasis mentioned was used in the ark’s construction? What is the significance of the bird imagery? This seems to elucidate Ion’s comment on the Ogdoad story that: “…the egg, laid on the primeval mound, contained the bird of light, Ra, who was to be creator of the world.” It also sheds light on why the sun disc is often associated with a winged bird, a tradition carried into Greecevia the Sun Bird or Phoenix.

Also notice that from the back of the barque in Figure 20 arise what appear to be lines of rope holding what could be interpreted to be approximately 20 drogue stones. This is significant, as we shall discover in our final section on potential Ark field data. Finally, observe that the entire cult teaching of ancient Egyptwas centred around these ritual barques – meaning that the Arkand its allomorphs probably have significance for the geometry of the Giza plateau itself.

Egyptologist Robert Temple has clearly identified two geometric squares on the Gizaplateau, which he terms the ‘Shadow Square’ and the ‘Perfect Square’.  The Shadow Square was used to make the Perfect Square. Both are associated with the sun, solar deities - and with the enigmatic hiding of cultic dogma.
  

Figure 21: The ‘Eye of Ra’ (or Arkmakurru’ shape) geometrical hieroglyph superimposed on Giza plateau satellite image (courtesy of Temple, 2011, pg. 34. Also see footnote [2] below)

He observes that: “The first thing one can do with the Perfect Square of Gizais to construct a giant Eye of Ra gazing upwards at the sky. It is a purely geometrical design, which is not physically represented on the ground. However, it is not just an arbitrary Eye of Ra, but is one which is constructed of two arcs and a circle, each of which intersects key points of the Giza monuments…This inscribed hieroglyph intersects (1) the apex of the Great Pyramid, (2) the southeast corner of the Great Pyramid, (3) the midpoint of the waist of the Sphinx, (4) the midpoint of the base of the western face of the Pyramid of Chephren. If you take a compass point and put it on the centre of the Perfect Square, point O, and draw a circle of radius OP, it intersects both point P (the midpoint of the base of the southern face of the Great Pyramid) and the midpoint of the base of the northern face of the Pyramid of Chephren. The ‘Eye of Ra’ thus intersects six key points of the monuments within the Perfect Square of Giza.”[40]

What immediately strikes one about the ‘Eye of Ra’ secretly inscribed upon the Giza plateau underneath layers of geometry is that the centre of the eye is precisely located in between the two larger pyramids – in the same manner as other cosmic allomorphs of the Ark have been too in our study of the koine. This location matches precisely a real life location which David Deal[41]has proposed for the initial landing site of the Arknear MountYigiturtagi in South-Eastern Turkey, based upon a mud imprint which looks like the Durupinar boat-shaped object yet is narrower. This imprint, seen via aerial photograph, is not central to the twin-peak, but slightly off-set towards the peak on the left.

THE CITY AND TOWER OF BABEL ON THE GIZA PLATEAU?

Here, therefore, at Giza - we appear to have a codified cult rendition of the cosmic ‘landscape of the gods’ found in the koine– complete with the twin-peaked mountain (the Great Pyramid of Cheops and the Pyramid of Chephren), the Underworld or ‘mud sunken ark’ (represented by the shaft of Osiris which is slanted at the golden angle of 26° 33̍ 54̎ - the angle David Fasold also found to be a central design feature of his boat-shaped object) and subsequently the passage of the Ark through the Underworld (represented by the Causeway of Chephren leading towards the Sphinx).

What we have represented by the Giza monuments is clearly a ‘gate of the gods’ or in Akkadian itself ‘Bāb-ilu’, literally: gate of god. This is true because the two larger pyramids strongly seem to represent the cosmic twin-peaked mountain of Mashu or Nisir and the Summer Solstice repeats annually the descent of the sun disc from the waters of the Great Flood into the Underworld. Such a hypothesis would also suggest that the original city of Babel in Genesis 11 has been misidentified as that famous city of Sumerian Mesopotamia. Remarkably, Coptic Cairo (next to the Giza plateau) was in Persian times (6th century B.C.) known as Babylon[42]. Further, the text of Genesis 11:3-4 reads:

“And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [is] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

It is tempting to postulate that the city and tower with its “top unto heaven” mentioned in Genesis 11:4 could well refer to the Eye of Ra or Ark hieroglyph geometrically inscribed upon the plateau. The Hebrew word for ‘tower’ is migdal (MG-DL) – figuratively defined in Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon as a ‘pyramidal bed of flowers’.[43] If this supposition is correct, we might expect the Holy Bible to suggest this location – and it does appear to. Genesis 11: 2 states:

“And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar…”.

This verse has been the subject of much debate because the most obvious reading of the Hebrew word miqqedem, ‘from the east’, is highly precise. Theologian John Gill comments that: “…it seems a little difficult how to interpret this phrase, "from the east", since if they came from Ararat in Armenia, where the ark rested, as that lay north of Shinar or Babylon, they might rather be said to come from the north than from the east, and rather came to it than from it: so some think the phrase should be rendered, "to the east" (b), or eastward, as in Genesis 13:11. Jarchi thinks this refers to Genesis 10:30 "and their dwelling was", &c. at "the mountain of the east"…”[44]. Yet as Humphreys notes: “The noun qedem, in a geographic sense, means ‘east’, or sometimes ‘front’ (the front of the tabernacle was its east side). According to lexicons, the Hebrew prefix mi (short for min) most often means ‘from’ (including when used as a prefix to another Hebrew word). Hence we have ‘from [the] east’. Occasionally the phrase may mean ‘to the east’, as is faintly possible in Genesis 13:11. But I think use of a different preposition, l e, meaning ‘to’, would have been more likely had that been the case. Very often, however, ‘eastward’ is a different word, qēdemah, as in Genesis 13:14, 25:6, Leviticus 1:16, Numbers 3:38, etc. So our first hypothesis should be to take the phrase in Genesis 11:2 as meaning the Flood survivors traveled from some point in the east, i.e. they travelled westward.[45]

This clear and straightforward interpretation creates a riddle, however, because assuming the mountains of Ararat have been identified correctly, to reach Babylon of Mesopotamian ‘Shinar’ they would need to have travelled directly south for approximately 447 miles. So unless the growing family travelled south and then entered the Sumerian plain from the eastern Zagros Mountains this verse really cannot be understood straightforwardly. Yet if it refers to crossing the Sinai Peninsula and arriving at the Gizaplateau it can be understood far more naturally.
   Is there further evidence for this interpretation? Indeed, for John Gill continues: “…they found a plain in the land of Shinar; which the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases the land of Babylon; and Hestiaeus (c), a Phoenician historian, calls it Sennaar of Babylon; there are plain traces of this name in the Singara of Ptolemy (d) and Pliny (e), the Hebrew letter being sometimes pronounced as "G", as in Gaza…”[46]. It is really not a far stretch from this to our modern name of ‘Giza’! “Sin-gara” may even have reference to the moon god ‘Sin’, who also occurs as the high deity in Finkel’s Ark Tablet[47].

Indeed, a mud-brick lost city area (known locally as Gebel Qibli) associated with the Giza plateau, where those who actually constructed the pyramid monuments lived and ate, had a population of approximately 20,000. These 20,000 appear to have built the complex entirely voluntarily[48]. This would fit naturally with the population increase after the Flood from the Eight aboard the Arkas they freely conspired to unify themselves under one banner. There even seems good archaeological evidence that the settlement was abandoned in a rapid salvage operation:

“Beneath the sandy layer lies a compact surface of gray soil, which resulted from a rapid, seemingly intentional, toppling of mud brick settlement walls. Inhabitants abandoned the settlement and stripped nearly everything of value: wooden columns, stone doorsteps, even many mud bricks.”[49]

This is just as Genesis 11:8 notes: “So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.”

Observe, moreover, that the Sphinx guardian (possibly representing Sothis) is facing Eastwards toward the sunrise and for interest compare Figure 21 – a photograph of the sphinx – with what Smith describes of Figure 23: “An Egyptian picture of Hathor between the mountains of the horizon (on which trees are growing) (after Budge, "Gods of the Egyptians," Vol. II, p. 101). [This is a part only of a scene in which the goddess Nut is giving birth to the sun, whose rays illuminate Hathor on the horizon, as Sothis, the "Opener of the Way" for the sun.]”[50]The correspondence is of considerable consequence – especially when one understands that Hathor was often depicted with the sun disc between her bovine horns (morphologically similar to the Minoan double axe of Crete).



Figure 21: The Sphinx between the twin peaks (from The image of the East : nineteenth-century Near Eastern photographs by Bonfils, Carney E.S. Gavin; edited by Ingeborg Endter O'Reilly, 
Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1982)
  

Figure 22: The Summer Solstice sunset behind the Sphinx (© Juan Antonio Belmonte) taken from ‘Area A’ – the lost workers’ city of Gebel Qibli.Note the Sphinx is slightly off-set from central - towards the pyramid on the left.


Figure 23: The cow goddess Hathor between the twin peaks and framed by a gate to the underworld 
(from Smith, 2007, Figure 26, pg. 189)

Viewing Giza as an artificial ‘mountain-gate’, as the ANE koine dictates, also has consequence for our interpretation of Egyptian mythology. According to Ions: “From the time when Ra returned to the heavens, an immutable order was established for him. The world was bounded by mountains which supported the sky and at whose foot was Naunet, the consort of Nun in Hermopolitan doctrine. The sun was therefore reborn daily either from the watery abyss or alternatively as son of the sky-goddess. He emerged in the east from behind Manu, the mountain of sunrise, and passing between two sycamores, began his journey across the sky in what was called the Manjet-boat, or ‘Barque of Millions of Years’.”[51]

It seems that early post-flood peoples of Babelwanted to make a name for themselves as ‘children of the ark’. They wanted to represent the journey of the ‘life-saver’ Arkand the depth of the global flood, which they did via comparison with the ‘life-giving’ Sun disc, sailing across the deep blue sky, beginning from the natural twin-peaked mountain in the east and descending to the underworld via the artificial twin-peaked mountain in the west (i.e. the Giza monuments).

Consider moreover that at the foot of the Sphinx, behind which the Summer Solstice sun sets, we have two temples – called the Sphinx and ValleyTemples today. In ancient times these probably belonged to Osiris (the god of ‘resurrection’) and Isis - and were located near water (as evidenced by erosion). Inside these temples were sacred artificial lakes and cultic boat relics. As Robert Temple notes, a golden solar boat procession would proceed all around the Giza area during the Festival of Sokar, which we may understand as a pagan remembrance of the Great Flood[52]. Many boat pits have in fact since been discovered beneath the Giza plateau, indicating that Robert Temple cannot be far wrong in his reasoning.[53]

A LOCATION REVISTED: DURUPINAR’S BOAT MAY BE NOAH’S ARK

From our study of Noah’s Ark in ancient history, we have discovered much new information regarding what the ancients believed about the location of the Ark, its construction - and possibly how it actually looked to them. There are, to date, four main contenders for where the Arklanded.

  1. Mount Ararat itself
  2. Durupinar
  3. North-West Iran, (Sahand or Sabalan)
  4. Cudi Dagh (Eastern or Central)
Mount Araratis an enormous volcanic mountain that contains many perils – therefore it is unlikely to be the landing place. Sites three and four are unlikely due to other reasons we shall not go into here. This study of the ANE koine, however, strongly suggests that the northern slope of the twin-peaked MountYigiturtagi(background of Figure 24), near the Durupinar Egyptian boat-shaped object analysed by David Fasold, is the most probable location for the rebirth of humankind.


Figure 24: In the distance - distinctive mountYigiturtagi (possibly called Baris or Nisir) – the cosmic twin-peaked mountain with apparent Egyptian basket-boat object in the foreground mud-flow (from Nissen, 2004)


 
Figure 25: Life Magazine first published the Airborne Photograph of the biconvex makurru boat-shape in 1960 (Image courtesy of Nissen, 2004, pg. 194)


Figure 26: The Ark as reconstructed by Fasold had many ‘Egyptian’ features including a 1 acre or 'iku' deck area - see Footnote [3] below, and the natural golden angle in its curved bow and stern (Image courtesy of Fasold, 1988). This boat-shaped object now deserves the benefit of the doubt since despite some believing it a doubly plunging syncline formation this does not explain the geometry of the object described here by S.R. Windsor: [WWW] http://www.creationism.org/patten/WindsorNoahsArkGeometry.html (Accessed on 08/02/14)

Important in corroborating this particular twin-peaked mountain even further is the Babylonian map of the World known as mappa mundi. Surrounding the outer portion of this map were originally eight mountain icons in the shape of triangles. These are known as nagûs. Professor Irving Finkel notes that the cuneiform on mountain or Nagû V (which points towards the Urartu area of the MountYigiturtagi region) reads:

“[To the fift]h, to which you must travel seven Leagues, […]. [The Great Wall,] its height is 840 cubits; […].[54]

This map is reconstructed by Finkel on page 296, where the cuneiform is translated:

“Great Wall, 6 leagues in between, where the sun is not seen”

Interestingly, this name corresponds directly to the description “wall of heaven” in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where this same ‘wall’ is identified with MountMashu’s twin peaks which guard the rising and setting of the sun.

Additionally, eleven apparent drogue stones (used to create drag in the water) found nearby to the boat-shaped formation correspond with images of the solar barque made in ancient Egypt. Although there is some dispute about whether these stones are ancient drogue stones, their apparent correspondence with the Egyptian bark of Sokar is suggestive.

The Ark of Noah, then, appears to have come to rest between Yigiturtagi’s twin peaks (the geographically western peak being known as Ziyaret Dag or Pilgrim’s Mount and the eastern peak being known as Al Cudi – similar to Noah’s landing place ‘Al Judi’ in the Koran) and been sheltered by the curved escarpment in between as the waters gradually descended (this curved escarpment is a unique feature of the mount only truly appreciated when viewed from the northern mud-flow). Only this explanation can fully account for all the relevant twin-peak cosmic mountain iconography across the whole ANE, Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.

At some point soon after landfall, the Ark appears to have been enveloped in the large mud flow (visible in Figure 24) which buried the reed, palm and wood structure underground so as to transform the Lily/Lotus/Eye/Double Axe/Rosette or Cosmic Egg into the Underworld ‘Place of Descent’ of ANE mythology. The Egyptians, at Giza, probably captured the passage of the Arkthrough the mudflow geometrically by building the Chephren Causeway between the pyramids to represent where the Arkfirst landed and where it later flowed to under gravity. Recall that the Causeway ends in the Temple of Osiris (the god of resurrection) which was built in front of the sphinx.
   At this point, the Egyptian model of the MountYigiturtagiarea corresponds in striking fashion, since right next to where the boat-shaped object became more pronounced in AD 1948 is an area known by the name of ‘Mashur’[55]meaning ‘Resurrection’. Additionally, 13 miles away from Mount Ararat is the area known as Doğubayazit, which during the Middle Ages was known as ‘Terra Thamanin’, or the ‘Region (or Valley) of the Eighty’[56]. Is it sheer coincidence that this number precisely corresponds with the eighty Egyptian priests of Amon, who Jacob Bryant has previously informed us used to carry a sacred boat object in procession? It seems in all likelihood that this figure precisely corresponds in Egyptian history and the etymology of ancient Doğubayazit because the eighty priests were once associated with that specific locality in South-Eastern Turkey.

CONCLUSION

   This thesis, based upon the ANE koineinferred through the complex comparison of ancient icons from diverse locations, accounts for the bizarre nature of the Egyptian cult system, which was concerned with the symmetry of the heavens being replicated as in a mirror on the ground – and the passage of the pharaoh’s soul after death. The cosmic mountain (pyramids) at Babel acted as a ‘gate’ and ‘guardian’ for the Sun (Ark), and when the Sun sank from the ‘Great Flood’ (cow) it passed into the Underworld (mudflow) before being ‘reborn’ when Ra opened his Eye again (earthquake or such like). Peer reviewed archaeological and scientific evidence for the Durupinar site has so farbeen less than adequate to make a firm objective decision either way about the boat-shaped object. Archaeologically the site has yielded little firm evidence which can be independently confirmed. Nevertheless, judging by the koine of ancient iconography we may safely say the Ark of Noah has already been found – and verification of the boat shaped object through excavation is now essential to settle the matter conclusively.

Footnotes 1-3:



[1] Key to Smith’s images in Figure 3: “(a) Winged Disk from the Temple of ThothmesI.
(b) Persian design of Winged Disk above the Tree of Life (Ward, … Fig. 1109).
(c) Assyrian or Syro-Hittite design of the Winged Disk and Tree of Life in an extremely conventionalized form (Ward, Fig. 1310). i.e. W. Hayes Ward ‘The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia’. 1910
(d) Assyrian conventionalized Winged Disk and Tree of Life, from the design upon the dress of Assurnazipal (Ward, Fig. 670).
(e) Part of the design from a tablet of the time of Dungi (Ward, Fig. 663). The Tree of Life (or the Great Mother) between the two mountains: alongside the tree is the heraldic eagle.
(f) Design on a Cretan sarcophagus from Hagia Triada (Blinckenberg, Fig. 9). The Tree of Life has now become the handle of the Double Axe, into which the Winged Disk has been transformed. But the bird which was the prototype of the Winged Disk has been added.
(g) Double axe from a gold signet from Acropolis Treasure, Mycenæ (after Sir Arthur Evans, "Mycenæan Tree and Pillar Cult," p. 10).
(h) Assyrian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 608) showing reduplication of the wing-pattern, possibly suggesting the doubling of each axe-blade in g.
(i) "Primitive Chaldean Winged Gate" (Ward, Fig. 349). The Gate as the Goddess of the Portal.
(k) Persian Winged Disk (Ward, Fig. 1144) above a fire-altar in the form suggestive of the mountains of dawn…
(l) An Assyrian Tree of Life and Winged Disk crudely conventionalized (Ward, Fig. 691).
(m) Assyrian Tree of Life and "Winged Disk" in which the god is riding in a crescent replacing the Disk (Ward, Fig. 695)”
[2] Also see: [WWW] http://www.egyptiandawn.info/chapter1.html (Accessed on 10/2/14).
[3] Fasold, ibid, 1988, pg. 130 and Finkel, I. ibid, 2014, pg. 359.



References and Endnotes:




[1]Marinatos, N. Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine. USA: University of Illinois Press, 2010.
[2] Cooper, B. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis, Creation Science Movement,  p.162, 2011.
[3]Humphreys, R. Where is Noah’s Ark? – a closer look at the biblical clues, J. Creation25(3):6-8, 2011.
[4]Habermehl, A. A Review of the Search for Noah’s Ark, in Snelling, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Creationism (Pittsburg, PA; Dallas, TX: Creation Science Fellowship; Institute for Creation Research, 2008), p.485-502. Also see: [WWW] http://www.creationsixdays.net/ICC6-41.pdf (Accessed on 15/02/14).
[5] Crouse, B. and Franz, G. Mount Cudi – True Mountain of Noah’s Ark. Bible and Spade 19.4, pp. 99-111, 2006.
[6] Cory, P. and Hodges, E.R. Cory’s Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Writers, p 54. 2003.
[7] Ibid. pp. 62-63
[8] Crouse, B. and Franz, G. ibid, 2006, p. 105
[9]Josephus, F. Antiquities' Book 1, chapter 3.
[10]Budge, E.A.W.An Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary: with an index of English words, Dover Publications, 1978.
[11]Eggeling, J. in Müller, F.M. The Sacred Books of the East, Volume XII, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1882, p. 218.
[12]Griffith, R. T. H. The Hymns of the Atharva Veda, Volume 1, Book 19, Hymn 39, (1916), Kessinger Publishing Reprint, 2010.
[13] [WWW] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/01/noahs-ark-was-circular (Accessed 09/01/14)
[14] Cooper, B. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis, pp. 390-396, 2011.
[15] Cooper, Ibid, p. 396, 2011.
[16] Fasold, D. The Arkof Noah, New York: Knightsbridge Publishing Company, p. 284, 1988.
[17] Finkel, I. . The ArkBefore Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, Hodder and Stoughton, London, p. 280, 2014.
[18] Heidel, A. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1949, p. 227. [Also via: [WWW] http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/misc_gilgamesh.pdf] (Accessed on 03/02/2014).
[19] Nissen, H. Noah’s Ark Uncovered, Copenhagen: Scandinavia Publishing House, p. 108, 2004.
[20] Nissen, H. ibid. p. 252, footnote 5, 2004.
[21]Marinatos, N. ibid, p. 112, 2010.
[22] Smith, G. E. The Evolution of the Dragon. 2007.
[23]Marinatos, ibid, 2010, pp. 115-116.
[24]Marinatos, ibid, 2010, pp. 60-62.
[25]Marinatos, N. ibid, pp. 110-111.
[26]Newberry, Two Cults of the Old Kingdom," Annals of Archæology and Anthropology, Liverpool, Vol. I, 1908, p. 28.
[27]Marinatos, ibid, p. 122, 2010.
[28]Marinatos, ibid, p. 194, 2010.
[29] Cooper, B. ibid, p.214, 2011.
[30] Armour, R.A. Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt, Cairo: The AmericanUniversityin Cairo Press, pp. 153-154, 1986.
[31] Ions, V. Egyptian Mythology: The Library of the World’s Myths and Legends, Chancellor Press, pp. 29-30, 1997.
[32] Yoo, Sung Hwan. Patterns of Ancient Egyptian Child Deities. Ph.D. Thesis, p. 126, 2012.
[33]Mastaff, R. Egypt: The Book of the Heavenly Celestial Cow. [WWW] http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/celestrialcow.htm (Accessed on 10/2/14).
[34]Hornung, E. (translated by Lorton, D.) The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, CornellUniversityPress, 1999.
[35] Erman, A. & Grapow, H. Wörterbuch der Sprache Aegyptischen. , Im Auftrag der Deutschen Akademie (Egyptian and German), Berlin: Akademie Verlag , Volume II, p.122, 1971.
[36]Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. p. 174, 2003.
[37] Finkel, I. ibid, 2014. p. 121.
[38] Bryant, J. A New System; Or, An Analysis of Ancient Mythology: Wherein an Attempt Is Made to Divest Tradition of Fable; And to Reduce the Truth, Vol. III, London: J. Walker et al., pp. 30-73, 1807. Also see: [WWW] http://www.annomundi.com/history/bryant.pdf (Accessed on 8/02/14).
[39]Marinatos, ibid, 2010, pp. 116-117.
[40]Temple, R. Egyptian Dawn: Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt, pps. 33-34, 2011.
[41] Deal, D. in Nissen, H. Noah’s Ark Uncovered, Scandinavia Publishing House, Copenhagen, p. 285, 2004.
[42]Beattie, A. Cairo: A Cultural History, Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress, 2005, pp. 2-3, 64, 66, 95.
[43]Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, The Online Bible, Larry Pierce, 2013. [WWW] http://onlinebible.net/dictionaries (Accessed on 03/02/14).
[44] Gill, J. An Exposition of the Old Testament, Volume 1, Genesis, Chapter 11, 1748.
[45]Humphreys, R. ibid, 2011, p. 7.
[46] Gill, J. ibid, 1748.
[47] Finkel, I. ibid, 2014, p. 364-365.
[48]Egyptian Pyramids – LostCity of the Pyramid Builders – AERA found at:
[WWW] http://www.aeraweb.org/projects/lost-city (Accessed on 03/02/14).
[49] Lehner, M. The Pyramid Age Settlement of the Southern Mount at Giza, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt39,pp.27-74, 2002.
[50] Smith, ibid, 2007, p. 189.
[51] Ions, V. ibid, 1997, p. 40.
[52]Temple, R. ibid, 2011, p. 321.
[53] Ancient Egyptian Solar Ships. [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_solar_ships (Accessed on 03/02/14).
[54] Finkel, I. ibid. 2014, p. 272.
[55] Nissen, ibid, 2004, p. 252.
[56] Fasold, D. ibid, 1988, p. 229.

Upcoming Event: UK Mega Conference 2014


The (correct) Structure and Form of Genesis One

$
0
0

A while ago I was reading an obscure book called 'Principia: or the Three Octaves of Creation' by Alfred Kennion (1890) and it struck me that he was on to something. In describing the historical cosmogony of our world in just 144 hours, the structure and literary form of Genesis one are perfect. This God-breathed, historic account of cosmogony contains divine words (commands), divine works (and it was so, and God made etc.) and divine seals (and God saw that it was good). Pondering this pattern, it struck me that there were nine 'words' and seven 'seals' in the creation account. The whole pattern was like a strange-loop octave.

Now, it is common to present Genesis one according to the schemata of 'six days', and the literary framework hypothesis does just that - suggesting that days 1-3 parallel days 3-6. When studied carefully, this hypothesis is found to be incorrect. To better understand the symmetric order of the chapter, the chiastic (X-shaped, ring shaped, concentric) pattern should rather revolve around God Himself - and the Royal words, works and seals of this Trinitarian, God-centred, covenantal account which He has graciously provided us:


A (-1(0) 1)‘Let there be light’ (Wave-particles, quantum strangeness)
(0 (1) 2)Let there be an expansion…’(Space without light-bearers)
(1 (2) 3)‘Let the waters be gathered…and…dry appear’ (Three earth spheres)
(2 (3) 4)‘Let the earth vegetate with vegetation…’ (Two 0D-sessile baramins)
B (3 (4) 5)‘Let there be light-bearers in the expansion…’ (Space complete)
(4 (5) 6)‘Let the waters swarm forth swarms’ (Two 3D-locomotory baramins)
(5 (6) 7)‘Let the earth swarm forth swarms’ (Three 2D-locomotory baramins)
(6 (7) 8)Let us make Man in our image…’ (Man without temple covenant)
A' (7 (8) 9)‘Observe, I have given you…’ (Covenant of works)


The mid-point of this A-B-A structure is here seen to be the light-bearers - for signs, seasons, days and lights in space, upon the Earth. This mid-point also contains a smaller chiasm.

Tune in later to find out what this symmetry implies for the structure and form of the cosmos itself...


Ancient History Revisited

$
0
0

Back to the Sources! – What Church Reformers Believed about
Ancient History and Why it Matters - By J.C.L. Powell


Introduction


   Have you ever wondered what the Reformer Martin Luther believed regarding the ancient history of our world? Surprisingly, he didn’t follow Herodotus (the so-called ‘Father of Histories’) but chose instead to critically accept considerable portions of a more detailed account which was alleged to come from Berosus the Chaldean Priest. Today, however, this account is widely considered totally spurious and Luther is believed to have been mistaken concerning its overall authenticity. In place of a biblically consistent history, a new inconsistent approach has since arisen that places the origin of humanity in the context of assumed ‘deep time’ (Shryock and Smail, 2011). This radical paradigm shift had its roots in an unorthodox study of the stone hand-axes of Hoxne in Suffolk by John Frere in 1797 ‒ and further interpretations of axes in the River Somme, France, some six decades later. It was then that Joseph Prestwich presented a paper to the Royal Society and John Evans introduced ‘deep time’ to the Society of Antiquaries (Renfrew, 1976:23). During the same year these men were advocating vast ages (i.e. 1859), Darwin published his Origin of Species – and the rest, they say, is history.
   In this article, however, I want to share with you some new evidence suggesting that Dr. Luther’s understanding was correct after all. Frere, Prestwich, Evans and Darwin have regrettably mislead generations of historians and anthropologists ever since. In place of deep time, we present a model to structure the synthesis of sources which have slowly been pieced together. Hopefully, a new generation of bible chronologists and archaeologists will be inspired to investigate this neglected archaic period for themselves - and come to similar conclusions!

Searching for the Beginning: Establishing a Numerical Time-Frame

   First, a sensible beginning for human history and coincidently the beginning of cosmic time itself must be sought. If you were to pick up any ‘authoritative’ work of history or archaeology these days, be it The Times Complete History of the World, Barry Cuncliffe’s Europe Between the Oceans or J. M. Roberts’ History of the World, you would be told that history began long, long ago in the pre-human past. 700,000 years have supposedly elapsed since the beginning of human activity (c.f. Stringer (2006) and Menzies (2011), with ‘hominid’ activity stretching back 9 million years before present. These figures contrast starkly with a beginning date calculated from the inerrant Word of God – the Holy Bible - which in fact is our onlysure foundation for historical knowledge. One such Scriptural approximation (valid from 2012 A.D.) is 6,274 years from the beginning of creation. This places Adam and Eve in 4266BC and the Global Cataclysm in 2610BC. How did this author arrive at these dates and how much weight should we attach to them? Well, more than 128 calculations from Scripture have at one time or another been proposed for the creation - and the arguments surrounding them are still ongoing today! The evolutionist H.G. Wells described Archbishop Ussher’s famous date of 4004BC as a ‘fantastically precise misconception’ founded upon ‘rather arbitrary theological assumptions’. In fact, Wells himself was far more arbitrary in his calculations than Ussher! Our approach at derivation probably isn’t the last word on the subject, but it did involve consulting dozens of experts and carefully weighing their arguments against numerous Scriptural references (using ‘direct equivalence’ in Hebrew translation) – so I shall try to limit an answer to just one sentence! The date 4266BC was obtained through a synthesis of authorities; concluding a superiority of the Masoretic text over the Septuagint (Jones, 2005 contra Setterfield, 1999); no gaps in the family lists of Genesis 5 and 11 (Niessen, 1982 contra Robinson, 1999); a long period of 430 years for Israel in Egypt[1](Bowden, 1998 contra Viccary, 2007); 594 years of sovereign theocracy from the Exodus to Solomon’s 4th year[2] - and a Persian period of just 123 years (Austin, 2008a, 2008b and 2011 contra Jones, 1993 and Ussher, 1658 trans. 2003).
   Having established a clear timeframe solely from the bestbiblical scholarship[3], the next logical step was to examine other reliable sources and carefully seek out any obvious synchronisms. Considering the wealth of contradictory yet so-called ‘reliable’ histories available at our fingertips, it was hard to know where to start! An old quotation swiftly answered this problem: “The one infallible connecting link between sacred and profane chronology is given in Jeremiah 25:1: ‘The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.’ If the events of history had been numbered forward from this point to the birth of Christ, or back from Christ to it, we should have a perfectly complete and satisfactory chronology.” (Anstey, 1913 in Mauro, 2001). Now according to Austin’s careful Scriptural synchronisation of the divided kingdoms of Judahand Israel, the forth year of Jehoiakim was 524BC - meaning that this is when Nebuchadnezzar II most probably began his Assyrian reign (Austin, 2011). So assuming a ‘short’ Persian period of 123 years, here was a significant synchronism ‘anchor point’ on which to build a larger, more reliable timeline (c.f. Figure 1).
   Meanwhile, many fragments of Ancient and Classical historians had been accrued and a long list of Assyrian/Babylonian rulers from Noah to Nebuchadnezzar’s Father[4] drawn up – a total of precisely 42 Monarchs[5](in most instances with their respective regnal years from Eusebius)[6]. These rulers are also listed in Figure 1, where alternative name spellings are separated via a comma. Numbering the events of history back from 524BC, it was now possible to offer a revised chronology of this most obscure period, independent from the (spurious) high dynastic chronology of Egypt. From this revived Assyrian/Babylonian chronology was pieced together a revised history of the ancient world using all the historical and archaeological knowledge gleaned along the way.
   In terms of references, the historical and archaeological reconstruction presented in this article has been drawn from a wide array of sources ancient and modern, but special attention has been paid to Richard Lynche’s ‘An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah into Europe’ (Lynche, 1601)[7]. This remarkable little book, which mentions giants like Goliath[8](9-11 feet tall), uses phrases such as ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ and faithfully maintains the multi-century life-spans and long virility that people reached in early times[9], has been criticised as deeply misconceived, poorly sourced, legendary and fictitious. To be fair, Lynche’s small volume is indeed heavily reliant upon the highly controversial work of an Italian Friar named Annius a.k.a. Giovanni Nanni[10](c. 1432-c. 1502), whom many scholars claim was a consummate fraudster. Nanni declared that his source, Berosus, had been the curator of the temple library at Babylon and had access to written records of human history back to the time of Adam. The chain of textual transmission had been Adam, Noah, Nimrod, Berosus, Turkish monks etc. Some scholars may therefore consider much of the following material rather worthless. However, the very latest historical and archaeological research now appears to be proving many of the so-called ‘fabulous’ or ‘outlandish’ claims astonishingly accurate and Nanni is gaining far greater recognition as an authentic source[11]! Knowing that mud does tend to stick to scholars once thrown – and those throwing the most of it (just after Nanni’s death) were actually secular humanists with large axes to grind, it became necessary to personally examine Lynche’s chronology with a fine tooth-comb.
   Does this eyebrow raising chronology really stack up? Can my revised chronology of Babylon shed any new light on Lynches timeline of events? I will leave the reader to make up their own mind about how well these questions have been answered. There is a complex diffusionist story yet to tell, which few will have heard before! In reading this rich and detailed account, bear in mind that the material you are about to consider suggests that if Nanni were a genuine source, Lynche was correct in many historical details, yet failed to accommodate his timeline to a robust numerical foundation (from either Scripture or the Assyrian-Median Empires). Having provided this foundation and added numerous details from modern sources, I personally believe this record is reasonably accurate.
  
Noah’s last 350 years: 2610 – 2260 BC
  
   Our account of ancient times begins in 2610BC[12] with just eight people and a whole lot of animals eighteen miles south of Mt. Ararat (Agri Dagi) - in Eastern Turkey (Fasold, 1988 and Nissen, 2004). Here the Ark, looking something like a giant vegetable gourd[13], had come to rest 100 yards from the twin-crests of Yigityatagi (‘the cradle/bed of the heros’ also called Mount Mashu[14], Wall of Heaven, the ‘twin peaks’[15], the Minoan ‘horns’, Mount Nizir, and the ‘Island of Flame’[16]) and its precious cargo had disembarked into Naxuan (Nachidsheuan, Noakh-Tsywn, ‘Place of First Descent’) – see Figure 3. Soon they discovered the Ark’s anchor stones and built a village there called Arzap (now Kazan) – where the Ark first came to rest. This became known as the ‘Place of the Eight’. After 25 years[17], Noah (a.k.a. Ouranos,  Oenotrus, Inachus, Nüwa, Nanna, Ianus, Argus, Nu, Nun, Geȋnos Autochthon, Janus, Olybarma, Oxygus, Arsa, Khasisadra, Xisuthrus, Patecatl, Manes) along with his wife Titea (a.k.a. Tytea, Tydia, Terra, Gaw Bo-lu-en, Nut, Naamah, Naunet, Vesta, Hestia, Aretia, Gaia, Moone, Kuvav, Kufav, Cybele, Kubaba, Kug-Bau) and family travelled north-east from the Ararat (Kurdish) mountains and using the Ark’s anchor stones built the megalithic monument Zorats Karer (Qarahunge) near Sisian in Turkey[18]. Next they travelled south-west and built Urfa(a corruption of Arsa[19]), establishing a sacrificial temple in Gobekli Tepe[20]. In 2573BC, Salah (Shelah) was born to Arphaxad (Arip-hurra, Arraphu, Arpachiya) the son of Shem and according to God’s command, Noah encouraged the chief heads of his family to disperse abroad into various lands. Disobeying his advice, many family members[21] instead travelled south-eastward and together they found a plain in the land of Shinar(Babylonia). There, to make a name for themselves, they began the construction of a city with a 600-foot ziggurat composing seven levels (and a pagan astrological temple at its pinnacle)[22]. Five years after Peleg was born[23], i.e. some 106 years after the Cataclysm, in 2504BC, God came down upon their ‘Tower of the Seven Lights of the Earth’ in a great whirlwind[24]and confused the people’s common language.
   Upon hearing news of this event, Noah, having already moved north with Shem to plant a vineyard near Tanais (now Nedvigovka village) on the north coast of the Sea of Asov (Lake Maeotis, Maeetis) in modern-day Russia[25], built the very first post-flood ships and set sail with his sons on a 10 year voyage[26]to establish boundaries. Sailing around the Seaof Asov and Black Sea, then through the Dardanelles (keeping the coastline always in view), he appointed all the lands of Asia to Shem (his middle child), all the tributaries of Africa to Ham (his younger) - and all the tributaries of Europeto Japheth (the elder). In this careful manner, at various key locations around the Mediterranean Sea, Noah left small language groups with minimal provisions (such as livestock, tools and seed). Returning to his vineyard in Armenia(Russia/Turkey), Noah then began to establish monarchies.
   Between 2478BC and 2465BC, 5 principal monarchies were established at Noah’s command[27]. Babylonia was established under the leadership of the young giant Nimrod (Nembroth, Ninus I, Nebrod, Nebros, Spotted-one, ‘Leopard-tamer’, Saturn) the son of Cush (Khum of Erech, Asbolus – who’s descendants inhabited Saudi Arabia). Germany (Almaign) was inhabited via the DanubeRiversettlements of Lepenski Vir and Vinča in Serbia‒ and was established under Tuyscon (Tuitsch[28]), Noah’s own son. He left Turkey with his sibling wife (Araxa the Great – Noah’s daughter) plus 31 others and built Koeln-Deutz (Cologne). Meanwhile, the chief sons of Japheth, who first founded the city of Aleppo (Magog) in Syria[29], were each given 3 monarchies in Europe. Kytim (Kittim, Italy) was established under Gomer (Cormerus Gallus) the son of Japheth. Spainwas established under Tubal the son of Japheth (together with Tarshish his cousin) - and Gallia-Samothea (Franceand Britain) under Meshech (Samothes Dis) the son of Japheth. This Meshech arrived in France in 2446BC aged 139 years old, where he was gladly accepted by the indigenous people Noah had first left there - who had begun to build woodland settlements. Britain and Northern Europeat this time were still inhospitably cold from the little ice age, and weren’t inhabited until many centuries later[30]. Javan (Iamanu, Yauna, Iawones, Iawan, Yuban) the son of Japheth, together with his son Elishah (Elisa), founded eastern parts of Greece (the Ionians[31]) and the Cyclades of the Aegean Sea, while Madai (Amada, Medai, Mada) founded the Medes in western Iran[32].
   Shem and his sons in the mid-third millennium BC also founded various settlements in Asia[33]. Elam (Elamtu, Elymais, Elymaei, Haltamti, Huju, Huz) founded Persia, Asshur founded Assyria and built the city of Ur[34], Arphaxad founded Chaldea, Lud founded western Asia Minor, Aram (Aramu) together with his sons Uz, Hul (Huleh, Ul, Hula), Gether (Gather) and Mash (Mashu, Msh’r, Mishal - from whom Damascus received its name) founded parts of Syria and modern-day Israel[35]. Meanwhile in eastern China - Ham (Kronus I, Amynus, Anu, Utu, Shamash, Belus I, Phoroneus i.e. ‘Apostate’, Ouranos II, Pan, Geb, Zoroast, Saturn, Æthiop, Atys, Attis, Hoshang, Esenus, Epigeius) instituted Feng Shan sacrifices at Mount Tai in modern day Shandong province, under his Chinese alias of Huang-Di[36](one of China’s ‘Three Sovereigns’ or ‘Fu Xi’ meaning ‘bottle gourd’ children[37], the other two being Jah-phu and Shennong, or Lo Shen). Ham’s other sons inhabited various lands: Put (Phut, Puta, Putiya, Pydw, Putu-iaman) founded North Africa near Carthage and Canaan (Kna’an, Kn’nw, Kyn’n.w, Kinnahu, Kinahne) settled in the land later given to Israel (Jacob) – south of the Aramaeans (Aramu).
    In 2440BC, Noah desired to visit his monarchs and so left Russia and Turkey under the leadership of Shem and his Nephew Sabatius Saga (son of Cush) and travelled to Hyrcania (Iran), Mesopotamia, Arabia Felix (Yemen) and Lybia (western Lower Egypt or the Nile Delta). From its first inhabitation in 2427BC, Egyptwas ruled jointly by 8 chiefs for 217 years and then 15 chiefs for 443 years[38]. Here in Egypt, Triton the son of Gog, grandson of Sabatius Saga (Sabah) and great grandson of Cushentertained him[39]. Only months afterward, Triton died leaving Hammon (Ammon) as chief of Lower Egypt. Noah gave a daughter named Rhea (Gē, Gaia, Nammu, Neith) in marriage to Hammon and promptly set sail for Spain to visit his grandson Tubal. By Rhea, Hammon had an heir named Dionysius (Kronus II)[40]. Meanwhile, in the 56th year of Jupiter Belus’s (Betylus) life (2367BC) – who later ruled Babylon - his father[41] Ham grew proud ruling in Lower Egypt and decided to invade Greece (where he united the scattered Argives into the city Phoronicum – later called Argos from Argus his grandson[42]– and then Italy, usurping the throne from Ashchenaz the son of Gomer and corrupting the youth with wicked practices. Noah – who had travelled from Spain to Italyto visit Gomer – found out about this transgression and expelled Ham’s tribe to the Island of Sicily[43]in the year 2342BC.
   In 2335BC, Noah built a city in Italy– where over two millennia afterward the Vatican was established[44]. Some 65 years past, without significant recorded incident, by which time Ham had grown powerful in Sicily. Noah, in collaboration with Hammon of Lower Egypt, sent three daughters (Rhea, Astarte and Dione) to the island in an attempt to overthrow him. Yet learning of their intentions, Ham gained power over them and forcefully took them as wives – along with two others (Eimarmene and Hora) who were sent later with troops to make war on him[45]. In 2264BC, Sabatius Saga, the former regent of Armenia(Turkey) who was then living in Italian exile with Noah, died. Noah himself – growing tired and frail – appointed Cranus Razenus as his successor in Italy. Subsequently, the Great Patriarch died in 2260BC, precisely 350 years after the Cataclysm (Genesis 9:28).

From Abraham to Moses: 2253 – 1537 BC

   Meanwhile, the perceived treachery of Hammon (Ham’s own descendent via Cush) filled Ham with guile. In plotting revenge on his father’s main ally, he began construction of a fleet of warships with his infamous son Typhon (Titan, Poseidon, Neptune). (The sons of Poseidon were feared giants who usurped kingdoms wherever they sailed[46]). Across from Sicily, in Mesopotamia at this time in the city of Ur, Terah fathered Abram (Abraham) (born in 2253BC[47]), who came from an idolatrous family but was later chosen by God to bless all nations through the promise of the Messiah who would be born from his lineage. Three years after the birth of Abram (Abraham), and ten years after his father’s death, Ham seized his opportunity to dominate and invaded Lower Egypt via its sea ports. Defeating Hammon, he banished him and his smaller ship-fleet – which fled to the Islandof Candia (later called Crete) to hide[48]. Centuries passed and the civilizations in Crete and Egypt began to flourish. Crete and the volcanic Island of Thera together with western Morocco (Ammonia) grew into the famous maritime civilization of Atlantis (Menzies, 2011), who’s chief city was Lixus (Maqom Semes). When Abram (Abraham) reached 100 years old, in 2153BC, he together with Sarah had Isaac – the child of God’s covenant promise. Salah the son of Arphaxad (the son of Shem) died 13 years afterward at the age of 433 years old. Eber his son survived him by 61 years, but lost his throne to Ham by the year 2079 BC, who by that time ruled all Persia as well as Africa.
   When Isaac reached 60 years old, he and his wife Rebecca had Jacob. This Jacob endured a great famine in the land of Canaan before entering Lower Egyptin 1963BC, under a regent of Ham named Timaus – possibly the Pharaoh who knew Joseph. Some 30 years later, his descendents – who were known as ‘Shepherds’ or ‘Hyk-shos’ i.e. ‘Shepherd-Kings’ - began to be oppressed and enslaved by the Egyptian nation (Genesis 15:13-14). The Israelite kings, also later called ‘Hapiru Captives’ or ‘Apiru’, continued after Joseph - Saites, Beon, Pachnan, Staan, Archles and Aphobis[49]. Nearly 100 years after Jacob’s entry, in 1869BC, Nimrod died at the age of 609[50] and was succeeded in Babylon by Jupiter Belus (Betylus) the son of Ham, who ruled a further 62 years. He was succeeded by the war-hungry Nynas (Ninus II) (1807-1755BC) of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, whose wife was Semyramis I[51]. In 1862BC, Meshech (Samothes Dis) of France died aged 723 years old and was succeeded by Magus his son. This Magus was the first ruler of France and Britain to found permanent stone townships and to tend flocks[52]. He gave his name to many ancient towns including Noviomagus, now called Neufchȃteau and Rhotomagus, now called Rouen. In 1811BC, Magus was succeeded by Sarron (Sydyk, Syduk, Sydic, Suduc, Sadykos, Apollo, Chiron) know as ‘The Just’. He married a daughter of Ham and had Asclepius (Eshmun, Imhotep, Tosorthrus – 2nd ruler of the 3rd(contemporary!) Dynasty of Egypt, a skilled healer). Sarron and his family founded universities and places of learning such as megalithic stone henges to carefully observe the stars - and he was Father of the Cabiri (8 sea-fearing brothers who discovered herbs, antidotes and charms and were venerated as healing gods throughout the Mediterranean, Asclepius being their youngest member)[53].
   In Germany, meanwhile, Tuyscon was succeeded by his son Mannus in 1978BC. Mannus had three sons who reined after him[54], Eingeb (Ing) from 1906BC, Ausstaeb (Istaev) from 1870BC and Herman from 1820BC. This former Eingeb had a Semitic general in his army named Brygus (Brigus, Phrygus, Castellum – the son of Mash, the son of Aramthe Syrian, the son of Shem in Genesis 10:23) - who in 1651BC became the 4thking of Spainafter the reigns of Tubal, Iberus and Eubalda (Inbalda) respectively[55]. The descendants of this King Brygus relocated to Turkeyand founded Phrygia, where the city of Dardania (Troy I) or Ilion (Troy II-VI) was later built. In Germany, Mers, the son of Herman, began his reign in the year 1757BC and after him Gambrivises (Gampar) reigned (1711-1667BC) as Germany’s seventh King[56].
   Casting our historical gaze back upon the idyllic civilization of Crete, the descendents of Hammon grew rich through a prosperous trade network of merchant-ship vessels – stretching even as far as western Morocco[57]and South America (via the trade winds)[58]. In 1767BC, Ham, now extremely old, forced Rhea (Gē) in Lower Egypt to give him his youngest son whom he named Mizraim[59](Osyris, Zeus, Apis, Serapis, Sesostris, Ammanemes, Misor, Misir, Mizru, Musri, Kronus III, Kumarbi, Demaroon, Dionysus II, Danaus, Jupiter Ammon, Jupiter of Acts 14:12, Hammurapi of Babylon?[60], Menes the Thinite, Bacchus, Aithiopais, Ramesses II, Misphragmuthosis, Alisphragmuthosis, Armesses, Armais, Epaphus, Epopeus, Enlil, Enki, Elus, Ea, Ilus, Thamus). The very next year, however, Dionysius (Kronus II) the aforementioned son of Hammon, sailed from Crete and took back Lower Egypt (Memphis, Avaris, Heliopolis etc) from Ham by siege. In the siege, baby Mizraim was seized and Dionysius adopted his infant half-brother as his own child. Being kindly towards Mizraim he appointed his elder brother Dagon (a skilled tutor also called Olympicus, Oannes, Siton) to train him[61]. Humiliated by defeat, Ham together with his infamous son Typhon (Set, Seth, Suphis, Sethos, Sethon, Sethosis, Poseidon, Ophion, Neptune, Chebros, Cheops, Ramesses I, Chembres, Chebres, Zu, Anzu, Imdugud) - from his first wife Noegla - fled to an obscure part of Upper Egypt (Nubia/Ethiopia – possibly Thebes). In 1755BC, the same year in which Semyramis I became Queen of Babylon[62], Ham had a daughter by Rhea whom he named Isis (Ceres, Iuno, Juno, Io, Frugisera, Legisera, Feronia). Soon afterward, he grew discontented in Ethiopia and left Typhon in charge so he could take leave to travel far-east once again and subdue the country of Bactria (Afghanistan). Before this, however, he had appointed a large area of Greece to his wife Astarte (Aphrodite, Venus, Ashteroth of Genesis 14:5, Inanna, Ishtar). The young Isis travelled from Upper Egypt to this Astarte in Greecevia the south-west Mediterranean trade current. There, she was made a Priestess of Hera in the city of Argos. In these days the Minoan/Pelasgian cult of the bull was popular in Egypt and throughout the Mediterranean, and Astarte, together with Isis, wore a replica bull’s head with horns as a mark of sovereignty whilst travelling – as is still attested by certain stone reliefs until this day[63].
   In 1705BC, after the death of Queen Semyramis I and in the 8th year of the reign of her son Ninus III (Ninyas, Zames, Zameis, Horus, Ninus the Younger) of Babylon, Mizraim unified Upper and Lower Egypt through a marriage contracted with his sister Isis – who was taken from Argosto be with him. A year later, they had their eldest son in Lower Egypt whom they called Lehabim (Hercules, Heracles, Lubicus, Sesosis II, Horus, Hermes Trismegistus, Athothes, Thoth, Taautus, Tantalus, Thoor, Thoyth, Teshub, Sandes, Dorsanes, Sol Deus, Samdan, Melicarthus, Melkarth, Melqart, Baal of Tyre, Marrhus, Marduk, Merodach, Moeris, Myris, Moloch of the sons of Ammon[64], Mercury, Mercurius of Acts 14:12, Ma-fors, Mavors, Osymandes, Ismandes, Mendes, Lachares, Orus, Athur, Oro, Odin, Ninurta, Ningirsu, Adad, Hadad, Asarluhhi, Ishkur, Pathrusim). This union and child angered Typhon (Titan) of Upper Egypt, who still saw Lower Egypt as his rightful inheritance. Fierce war between Lower (Olympian) and Upper (Titan) Egypt ensued for 19 years, Typhon engaging in successful border invasions (beginning the drawn-out ‘Ethiopic War’[65]) with his younger half-brother Mizraim - whom he despised as illegitimate. Mizraim (Apis), in turn, despised the foreign ‘Shepherds’ or ‘Hapiru/Apiru’ who were still inhabiting his kingdom and posing a potential foe. By this time he had forced them into the city of Avaris[66] (‘Sacred to Orus’, Athur, Athur-ai, Abur, Abaris, Cercasora) and enslaved them in his work-force for over 200 years, but they were growing both in strength and number. In 1685BC, Ham and Typhon together invaded Assyria and Babylonia from Bactria (Afghanistan) and Ethiopia, but their pincer attack was repelled by Ninus III and they were forced to retreat towards Phrygia and Lydia(western Turkey/Anatolia).
   Earlier that same year[67], Mizraim had sought to instruct foreign populations in the great learning of Lower Egypt and to establish his eldest son as heir of all Egypt. Setting off on a 9 year journey[68] with a large multi-national army lead by Lehabim, his eldest son, and Athena (Minerva, Myrina) his daughter (Queen of the Amazons[69]), he taught those in Palestine (under his elder brother Dagon)) advanced skills of agricultural farming, and thereafter set sail for Phutea (Ammonia, north-west Africa or Morocco) to subdue a rebellion and invasion of Egypt by the civilization of Atlantis (whose Moroccan civilisation - Ammonia - under Hammon had previously been usurped by one Antheus (Antaeus, Atlas) the tyrannical son of Ham and subsequently devastated by an Atlantic Tsunami - which had also destroyed Isis’s (Juno’s) Athenian fleet of Greeks who were then at war with them[70]). Here, Mizraim’s army was opposed by Antheus [71], yet he was defeated by Lehabim in single combat, during which battle he picked his opponent up, crushed him to death and threw him into a deep cavern in the earth and buried him with flints[72], after which their army passed quietly into Ethiopia, the Persian Gulf/Red Sea and then on into India (where on two mountains at the mouth of the Ganges they set up pillars). From there, they heard of Ham and Typhon’s attack on Assyria and so passed rapidly northwards into Babylonia. Hearing from Ninus III (Ninyas) about Ham and Typhon’s retreat towards Phrygia (Turkey), Mizraim, Lehabim and a contingent of Babylonian soldiers led by prince Arius (Agron, Argon[73]) the son of Ninyas pressed ahead and overtook Ham laying an ambush for his father near the spring of Eflatun Pinar (in central Turkey). There, having surrounded Ham (Atys, Attis) unawares, Mizraim castrated him - and his blood flowing into the spring, he died of the wound[74]. Moving into the city of Mansia, near MountSipylus(Olympus), Mizraim (Zeus) pursued after Typhon. Yet Mizraim’s tyrannical grandson Busiris (Belus, son of one Libya, who was a daughter of Ephaphus (Apophis)) was approaching from Syria(Phonecia, Canaan) in the South. In response to this, Mizraim appointed Lehabim’s son Balaneus (Alcaeus, Alcymus, Alciamus, Adrysus, Cleolaus, Lemnos, Agelaus) as regent of Mansia and accompanied an army of Lydians led by Ashkelon (Ascalon, the son of Hymenaeus who was Lehabim’s brother) to defeat the Syrians. Here Mizraim built a walled city and called it Byblos(modern-day Gebal) and prince Ashkelon built the city of that bore his name (Judges 1:18). In 1680BC, however, knowing Typhon had made use of the time bought by his ally Busiris, Mizraim returned to Manisa, which Typhon had under siege. There he subjugated his already half-defeated half-brother and gave Balaneus (Alcymus) charge of the city. From here, he sailed through the Dardanelles of Greece but was denied passage (past modern Istanbul) by Lycurgus who was Typhon’s son. At first, all approaches of the Egyptian fleet were repelled, but eventually they succeeded in breaching the city and Lycurgus was defeated in single combat – being replaced by a young Egyptian army commander named Maron (Oeagrus)[75].
   Throughout the year 1678BC, Mizraim was victorious over many more petty kings in Greece, where he appointed Macedon his son as sole regent. After these victories on the mainland, he sailed to the Island of Candia[76] (Crete) where he defeated Milinus and appointed a son from whom descended the Curetes[77]. From Crete, Mizraim and Lehabim journeyed to Noah’s Tanais[78](modern day Nedvigovka village) and Asov (Asgaard) on the Sea of Asov (Maeotis, Maeetis) in Russia and there ended their 9 year conquest. Here, they almost lost their army due to food shortages and the strong defences of the Scythian Castle Asgaard  – which took over 20 years to breach. Eventually, Lehabim’s younger half-brother Targitaus (Tanais, Tanaus) was appointed king of the city, from which it derived its name. Whist still besieging the powerful fortress near Tanais, however, Lehabim became enthralled in a romantic relationship with the Scythian Princess Araxa [79](Aruru, Ninhursag, Ninkharsag, ‘Lady of the SacredMountain’) the daughter of King Gambrivises (Gampar) of Germany[80]. Seeking her father’s permission in marriage, he began a long voyage with Mizraim through Hungary and towards her German home via the DanubeRiver. In 1672BC, they greeted Gambrivises in Germanyand built villages and cities on the banks of the Rhine, from which grew the famous House of Austria. The following years saw a long cross-cultural exchange take place between Germanyand Egypt, Mizraim (a.k.a. Apis) instructing the Germans in agriculture and the art of growing vines[81]. King Gambrivises was honoured to have such famed guests and soon accepted Lehabim as his son-in-law. Princess Araxa was given to be his wife and together they had a son called Tuscus. This Tuscus, later king of Italy, had a son called Altheus (born 1652), the father of Blascon (born 1612), the father of Camboblascon (born 1582), the father of the brothers Herperus (Isius, Jasius, Jason, Hespanus, Ephas, Ephah, Apher) and Ophren (Epher, Afran, Atlas Kittim, Jardanes, Iardanus, Dardanus – born 1552, who build the settlement of Dardania (Troy I) in the reign of Allobrox of France approximately 1320BC)[82].
   In 1575BC, Armatritis became the 9th king of Babylon (numbered from Nimrod c.f. Figure 1). In the very same year, Betus (Boetus) the son of Tagus Orma (Malot Tages, Tegarama, Takarma, son of Gomer) became the 6th king of Spain[83] (this Tagus was of the Italian dynasty and had usurped the Spanish dynasty from Brygus in 1605BC). In 1548BC, the inhabitants of Italy - who after the death of Cranus Razenus had been ruled by Aurunus (son of Aram), Tagus Orma  and Sicanus (son of Tagus) - sent messengers to Mizraim in Germany, asking for Egyptian help to overthrow the petty kings (Enachi Tyrants, Enakii Lukii) who were mercilessly oppressing them. Mizraim agreed to their pleas and invaded Italythat same year – defeating the tyrants and ruling there for 11 years in the city of Virerbe (or Vetulonia) where Lehabim built a fortified settlement[84]. In 1537BC, when Mizraim was 230 years old, he was challenged by Betus of Spain, who was outraged with the Egyptian attack on his Italian cousins. Thus, leaving a nephew named Lestrigo as regent of Italy (over the Ianigenes), Mizraim and Lehabim travelled through France on their way towards Spain (where in France one Celtic King Lucus then ruled, who was the son of Bardus II, the son of Longho, the son of Bardus I, the son of Drÿus, the son of aforementioned Sarron ‘The Just’[85]). With the aid of his Lybian regent Gerion Asex (Aureo, Auro, Aureus, Chryseos, Deabus – son of Hiarba the son of Hammon) from Lower Egypt, Mizraim defeated King Betus. This joint pincer-attack became known in Spanish histories as the African invasion, recorded in Greek myth as the war with the giants. In place of Betus, Mizraim allowed Gerion[86]as Spain’s 7th king to exploit its vast gold reserves[87] through slavery. Mizraim and Lehabim, however, founded the city of Barcelona[88]and then travelled to rule resplendently in the city of Argos, Greece– where his wife Isis had spent her childhood. About this time, Tnephachthus (Technatis) the petty king ruling over the Saite Nome of Egypt died and his son Bocchoris[89](Bakhor, Pehor, Rathos, Rathosis, Rhemphis, Rhampsinitus, Amasis, Asychis, Amenemhet III, Amos, Thummosis, Bakenranef, Wahkare, Lord of the Two Lands) was established as Pharaoh. He ruled in greed and heavy taxation for 6 years, acquiring the delta city of Tanis, before his entire army (and his personal horse) were destroyed in the Red Sea and he was captured by Sabacon (Sabacos, Shabaka, Aktisanes) the Ethiopian-Nubian-Kushite.

From the Exodus to the First Trojan War: 1533 – 1180 BC

   In 1533BC, the 4thyear of Belochus the 13th king of Babylon[90], the children of Israel(a.k.a. Jacob) were freed by God, under the leadership of Moses (born in 1613BC), from Egyptian bondage after 400 years of hard oppression under petty satraps of Ham, Dionysius and Mizraim[91]. After Pharaoh Bocchoris (whose large mud-straw-brick pyramid now stands near Huwara - next to the buried Labyrinth and ancient lake Moeris), his blind sister Anysis ruled Egypt for 2 years. After the 1st month of innundation, however, Sabacon burnt his captive Bocchoris alive and invaded Lower Egypt from Ethiopia. He ruled here over the Saite Nome[92] until an oracle spoke of Mizraim’s return from Argos– at which point he quietly (and wisely) left for Ethiopia. 24 years after the Exodus, Gerion died and his three giant sons, the Lomnimi, succeeded in 8thsuccession as joint commanders of Spain. After some 35 years of rule in Arges (Argos) of Peloponnese, i.e. the year 1502BC, Mizraim (Armais) returned to Lower Egyptwith great fame and built stone obelisks in commemoration of his many exploits abroad[93]. All, however, did not bode well, because his brother Typhon (Set) had also returned from Turkeyto ‘recover his stolen kingdom’ and was still jealously scheming revenge for his humiliating past defeat. It seems probable that Typhon secretly conspired with the Lomnimi and many other begrudging and jealous rulers (including his infamous sons) to make Mizraim’s planned assassination look like an accident. In 1502, when Mizraim left Argos for Egypt, Baleus (Tmolus, Timolus, Tipheus) usurped the throne of Mansia (Western Anatolia) from king Belochus (Cambletes, Camboblascon) the grandson of Balaneus (Alcymus, Altheus) and married Omphale the daughter of prince Ophren (Epher, Afran, Atlas Kittim, Dardanus Jardanes, Iardanus). During the reign of this Baleus (Tmolus) as the 11th High King (or 14th numbered from Noah), Typhon and his conspirators struck in Egypt. In the year 1469 BC they lured Mizraim into an ostensibly ‘accidental’ encounter with a hippopotamus[94]and he soon died from a wound inflicted by the animal[95]. His body was then cut into 26 pieces and distributed secretly as a trophy. At this time, Rollin[96] affirms that great chaos and anarchy swept across the whole of Egypt for 2 years as the Ethiopians invaded their land. Outraged, heartbroken, and mentally unstable, Isis the Queen of Egypt called a council and commanded all her kin to avenge her husband’s murder. In Greece, Lehabim (Hercules, Tantalus) together with the great men in his command, appointed Pelops his son as regent, ordered the building of the ship Argo and immediately made war on Typhon and his associates in Arabia, defeating them at personal cost to his army. His anger still unabated, he then ventured on a long journey of conquest to defeat the conspirators wherever he could find them. In place of his dead father and unstable mother, he established in Egypt 12 trusted and proven chiefs – who ruled 36 Egyptian Nomes and met in the 12 great halls of the Labyrinth[97]. These 12 chiefs each spoke a different language, and each had authority over a different language group[98]. One of these chiefs was eventually the Semitic Amenophis (Amenophthis, Memnon, Munon, Mennon) son of Thithonus, who was the son of Laomedon of Illion (Troy II-VI). In his days, many lepers were expelled from Egyptinto the eastern quarries – but they rebelled forming a covenant with the Israelites in Jerusalem. Finally, to placate the large hoard of Israelites and lepers, he gave them the city of Avaris (Saba), from where they had previously fled many years before[99]. Amenophis died trying to aid the Trojans in the first Trojan war of 1180 BC and was succeeded by Acherrhes (Akenchres, Ketna, Ketes, Proteus, Chennus, Mycerinus, Men-ka-ra, Menkaure, Kephren) Lehabim’s daughter, who ruled as queen for 12 years.
    Meanwhile, Lehabim’s first victory after Arabia (approx. 1465BC) was gained in Phoenicia(Canaan) over Busiris the Younger. Then in 1454BC he besieged Baleus (Tmolus, Timolus, Tipheus) of Mansia in Lydia (Turkey) and four years later, upon victory, married Omphale the despot’s former slave wife. With Omphale as Queen-regent of Lydia, he crowned their newborn son – Altades (Athus the Great) as king and added Ophren (Atlas Kittim, Epher, Japhran, Afran, Iardanus, Dardanus) the Queen’s father, to his chief army captains - together with Hespanus, Ophren's elder brother. Still intent on avenging the death of his own father, he mounted an expedition to Crete (where under the alias of Theseus he vanquished King Mylinus – the ‘Minotaur’) before returning once again to the ‘Isle of the Blessed’ in Phutea (north-west Africa or Morocco) which he renamed Lybia after his own name[100]. Here, he erected a column (possibly known today as ‘El Uted’ or ‘The Pointer’ which sits as a tall stone in the megalithic tumulus of Msoura or Mezorah). From Mezorah in Morocco, which was in those days a verdant island-garden-sanctuary full of quince fruit, 10 kilometres upriver from the sea-port of Lixus (Maqom Semes, ‘City of the Sun’) (Temple, 2011, pp. 375-434), he passed across the Straits of Gibraltar and on into Spain. Once landed, he single-handedly defeated the Three Gerions (Lomnimi) in combat (1445BC) and appointed Hispalus (Hispal, Hispalis of Seville) his son as 9thKing (from Tubal), who ruled Spainfor 17 years. During this interim, Lehabim immediately travelled to Samothea (France/Britain) for 19 years, where he married Galathea the daughter of King Jupiter Celtes (son of aforementioned Lucus) and had a son called Galates (born 1442BC). After warring with Albion (Maroticus) and Bergion[101] on the banks of the Rhine in France, and their brother Lestrigo across in Italy for a further 10 difficult years (until 1432BC), Lehabim finally had 20 years of peace in Italy – during which time he appointed Galates as the King of Samothea (France/Britain) and Tuscus as the King of Italy in a ceremony held in Viterbo (Vetulonia)[102]. Lehabim left Tuscus in Italyin 1386BC and returned to Spainin old age (where he was revered as the god Melqart[103]of the Phoenicians). There, since his son Hispalus had died, he began ruling jointly with his captain Hespanus (Isius, Jasius)(the 10th king of Spain) for 13 years (until 1373BC). He then became sole ruler for a further 19 years. Meanwhile, the Samothean (French) line of Lehabim’s dynastic rule continued after Galates: Harbon, Lugdus (who founded Lyon in the 14thyear of Aschalius of Babylon i.e. 1371BC) and Beligius, whose rule was followed by Hespanus (Iasius, Jasius)[104]. Lehabim’s death in Spain[105] in 1354BC, aged 350 years old, was greeted with great mourning and sadness, since he is believed to have committed suicide due to his blindness. The huge army in Spain, then led by Lehabim’s generals king Hespanus (Iasius, Jasius, Hesperus, Ephas, Ephah, Apher) and aforementioned Ophren[106](Atlas Kittim, Epher, Japhran, Afran, Iardanus, Dardanus) his younger brother, honoured their great leader by building a temple in Gadir and an enormous circular megalithic tumulus[107] for him on an island (now Mezorah of Morocco), below the Straits of Gibraltar, where Lehabim had many years previously set up his pillar to show the extent of his travels (and which still stands in relative obscurity near the city of Lixus). This circular island became known to Pliny (the 1st century A.D. historian) as the gardens of the Hesperides because the daughters of Atlas were known as Hesperides (the wives of Hesperus?). The site was also known as the ‘Pillars of Hercules’ for many years, before they were conflated with two mountains on the Straits[108]. After the death of Lehabim, his generals Hespanus and Ophren soon took up residence in Corythus in Italy where because of his popularity Hespanus became the envy of Ophren. They fell into a family quarrel[109] (possibly Ophren had an affair with Cybele who was Hespanus' wife - because she absconded with him) and their great army dispersed because of the confounding internal power struggle. Many became nomads wandering in Africa, while others lived under the hulls of their ships.[110]Some may have even passed across the Atlanticvia the Canary current to found the ancient Olmec civilisation of Meso-America, which also worshipped the sun god (Lehabim) (Heyerdahl, 1978). The seat of Egypt’s highest throne remained in Greece, where Pelops retained the royal sceptre or caduceus[111].
   In 1345BC, after the death of his elder brother Hespanus in Italy and during the reign of Allobrox of France, Ophren (Dardanus) sailed with Cybele - via the Island of Samothráki - to Phrygia (Turkey) where he was given permission from King Athus (Xanthos, Scamander) to build a city. He called it Dardania (known in archaeology as TroyI). The elders (Kings of Troy) followed in succession to the throne: Erichthonius, Tros (from whom the Trojans took their name), Ilus (who called Dardania Ilion), Laomedon (who built Troy II-VI and whose tomb is still supposedly intact under the great gate Scea) and Priam who was killed an old man in the Trojan War of 874-864BC. The earliest kings of the Anglo-Saxons may be traced back to Shem, who was the ancestor via Amenophis, Amenoph, Memnon, Munon (one of the 12 chiefs of Lehabim), who in his old age married Troan (Priam’s daughter), from which marriage came Tror and his descendents Loridi, Einridi, Vingethor, Vingener, Moda, Magi and Sceaf (Seskef, Scyf, Seth, Scef) (approx. 720 BC). Later, Sceaf’s distant descendent Woden (Wodden, UUoden, Voden, UUothen, Othin) (approx. 60BC) was born, from whence arose the House of Wessex and many other modern dynasties[112].
   By 1180BC, the city of Troy, based upon the 12 magisterial sectors renowned in Egypt’s Labyrinth, was known for great stature and wealth. However all that was to change with the arrival of Hercules the Grecian. Historians record that Isis, the Mother of Lehabim, was still alive at the time of the first sacking of Iliion – dying 40 years after the destruction of the city at 615 years old! (1140-39BC). Her funeral must then have taken place in the reign of Belochus (Belimus, Beleoun, Sardanapalus) the 23rd (and last) Monarch of the Hamitic Assyrian Empire who burnt himself to death and was succeeded by Arbaces the Mede[113], at a time synchronous with Elon’s judgeship of the children of Israel (Austin, 2008b). Isis was the last of those renowned ancients who were ignorantly deified and worshipped as ‘immortals’. Eleven hundred and thirty-five years later (5BC), though, life and immortality was brought to light through the Lord Jesus Christ, who in rising from the dead began the new creation!

Conclusions

   The great Reformer Martin Luther was a well read scholar and to dismiss his overall understanding of ancient history as a complete fabrication requires compelling evidence. Such compelling evidence is non-existent to the best knowledge of this author. Despite some major discrepancies in BC dates and some serious conflation of names in Nanni, our confluence of classical, ancient and modern witnesses all attest the same general flow of international events as has just been synthesised. In places, fragments from authentic chroniclers (still extant) support Lynche’s claims – suggesting Giovanni Nanni did notnecessarily fabricate or doctor his data. In other places, our more robust chronology of Babylonian monarchs together with the reasonably assumed longevity of Ham’s line allows us to confirmPolemo’s ancient claim that Mizraim (or Apis, Jupiter Ammon) was the ‘High King’ of the Israelite Oppression (and of the Exodus). Therefore, it is safe to say that Dr Martin Luther and his contemporaries, who believed much of Nanni’s Berosus to be genuine history, were probably correct in their judgement. In this paper, Frere, Prestwich, Evans and Darwin have been thoroughly refuted – for they cannot accommodate a global flood in 2610BC. Furthermore, Nanni’s history has been substantially verified by both authentic classical sources and modern archaeology. It almost goes without saying that if this is confirmed by further investigations, our modern interpretations of history will need to be significantly revised[114].
   As a final thought, the ‘Great Dark Age’ we have here been reconstructing (from the Old Testament and many authentic sources) is contradicted by at least two streams of modern scholarship. First, ‘alternative historians’ or ‘cult archaeologists’ are forever plugging dates for chronologies which disregard God’s book of sacred history and the chronology we derive from it. Their estimates for a ‘lost civilisation’ range from 15,000 to 10,000BC. Although valuable in places, their overall theses cannot be correct in the slightest. Secondly, the theses of ‘mainstream’ academic historians are just as dubious – since they have no qualms about glossing over all the ample evidence for a global cataclysm and subsequent global repopulation with a geologically uneventful Holocene epoch in the Upper Palaeolithic! From this ‘mainstream’ stance, not only is it impossible to explain why so many ancient cultures contain historical references to the global cataclysm, Noah, and his subsequent descendants; it is equally impossible to explain why human populations were so stunted during the 700,000 (!) years that we are supposed to have been the most capable species on this planet[115]. Where are the remains of their technology? Why did they remain on the verge of extinction for so long? Books on human ‘deep history’ are currently attempting to patch up these gaping holes in the speculative world of the secular ancient past - and modern Christians are in danger of forgetting what heritage we have left from the Reformation period histories that have been so heavily neglected by archaeologists.
   In response to these mild criticisms, many might reply that ‘giants’ with life-spans measured in centuries of years and a strict adherence to ‘ancient Hebrew folk-lore’ do not constitute a credible alternative to the hard archaeological data behind modern scholarship. Christian readers should therefore be left with a great challenge – if we do not academically overcome the incredulous spirit of our age regarding biblical history, how may we be said to be following the injunctions to be transformed by the renewing of our minds and always ready to give an answer for the hope within us? In these our days, surrounded by so much wilful ignorance and misinformation, we must recover a robust concept of creation history and make a stand for God’s Holy Word, just as Dr Luther did in his!

References:

Austin, D. (2008a). Is Darius, the King of Ezra 6:14-15, the Same King as the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1? Journal of Creation 22(2): 46-52.
Austin, D. (2008b). Three Chronological Periods of the Old Testament. Journal of Creation 22(3): 51-58.
Austin, D. (2011). Synchronisation of the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Journal of Creation 25(2): 67-73.
Bowden, M. (1998). True Science Agrees with the Bible. Kent: Sovereign Publications, pp. 151-153.
Fasold, D. (1988). The Ark of Noah. New York: Knightsbridge Publishing Company.
Inc. Book Sales. (2002). The Timechart of Biblical History. USA: Chartwell Books Inc.
Jones, F.N. (2005). The Chronology of the Old Testament. USA: Master Books.
Knight, C. and Butler, A. (2011). Before the Pyramids. London: Watkins Publishing.
Lynche, R. (1601). An Historical Treatise of the Travels of Noah into Europe. Available online at: [WWW] http://annomundi.com/history/travels_of_noah.pdf (Accessed on 14/06/11). Also see a modern English translation by Argyros Argyrou: [WWW] http://www.argyrou.eclipse.co.uk/myths/bible/Travels.htm.
Mauro, P. (2001). The Wonders of Bible Chronology. Virginia: Hess Publications.
Menzies, G. (2011). The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History’s Greatest Mystery Revealed. London: Swordfish.
Niessen, R. (1982). A Biblical Approach to Dating the Earth: a Case for the use of Genesis 5 and 11 as an exact chronology. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 60-66.
Nissen, H. (Trans. Skondin, T.) (2004). Noah’s ArkUncovered: An expedition into the ancient past. Copenhagen: Scandinavia.
Patten, D. (1981). The Longevity Accounts in Ancient History. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No 1. pp. 40-52.
Robinson, S. (1999). Genealogy is not Chronology. Origins, No. 26. Rugby: The Biblical Creation Society, pp. 15-21.
Siculus, D. (c. 35 B.C.). Bibliotheca historica or Library of History. Available Online at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/home.html (Accessed on 21/07/11).
Rohl, D. (2008). The Lords of Avaris. London: Arrow Books. 
Rudgley, R. (1998). Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age. London: Arrow Books, p. 28.
Setterfield, B. (1999). Ancient Chronology in Scripture. [WWW] http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm(Accessed on 17/10/11).
Stringer, C. (2006). Homo Britannicus: The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain. London: Penguin Books.
Temple, R. (2011). Egyptian Dawn: Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt. London: Arrow Books.
Ussher, J. (1658 trans. 2003). The Annals of the World. USA: Master Books.
Viccary, M. (2007). Biblical Chronology – Our Times are in His Hands. Journal of Creation 21(1): 62-66.

Further Reading:

The best resources on world history from a biblical perspective are:

Ashton, J. and Down, D. (2006). Unwrapping the Pharaohs. USA: Master Books.
Burgess, S. (2004). The Origin of Man.Leominster: Day One Publications.
Chittick, D. (2006). The Puzzle of Ancient Man.USA: Creation Compass.
Cooper, B. (1995). After the Flood: The Early Post-Flood History of EuropeTraced Back to Noah. Sussex: New Wine Press.
Eusebius of Caesarea. (c. 335). Chronicle (Trans. from classical Armenian). Available online at: [WWW] http://rbedrosian.com/euseb.html (Accessed on 20/08/11).
Gascoigne, M. (2002). Forgotten History of the Western People: From the Earliest Origin. Camberley: Anno Mundi Books.
Hoeh, H.L. (1967 and 1969) Compendium of World History. Volumes 1 and 2. Online: [WWW]
(Volume 1: http://www.cgca.net/coglinks/wcglit/hoehcompendium/hhc1toc.htm). (Volume 2: http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/HL%20Hoeh%20papers/Compendium%20vol2%20(tables%20format).pdf).
Hoerth, A.J. (1998). Archaeology & The Old Testament. USA: Baker Academic.
Jerome (a.k.a. Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) (c. 380). Chronicle. Available oneline at: [WWW] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#JeromeChronicle (Accessed on 18/08/11).
Oard, M. (2004). Frozen in time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age and the Bible. USA: Master Books.
Snelling, A. (2009). Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation and the Flood. Volumes 1 and 2. USA: Institute for Creation Research.
Thong, C. and Fu, C. (2009). Finding God in Ancient China. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Useful sources used to a greater or lesser extent in constructing this history were:

Armour, R.A. (1992). Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt. Cairo: The AmericanUniversity in Cairo Press.
Aubet, M.E. (1993). The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bayle, P. (1737). The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle. Volume 4. London: J.J. and P. Knapton. (Available on Google Book Search).
Bimson, J. (2003). (When) Did it Happen? New Contexts for Old Testament History. Cambridge: Grove Books Ltd.
Blum, H. (1998). The Gold of Exodus: The Discovery of the Most Sacred Place on Earth. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Cawley, C. (2011). Medieval Lands, France, Gascony, Sires d'Albret. Chapter 1, C. (2) available at [WWW] http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MONFERRATO,%20SALUZZO,%20SAVONA.htm
(Accessed on 16/04/12) from the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy.
Clayton, R. (1753). A Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament. Volume 1. London: W. Bowyer. (Available via Google Book Search).
Cory, P. and Hodges, E.R. (1876 ed., republished 2003). Cory’s Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Writers. USA: Kessinger Publishing.
Cuncliffe, B. (2008). Europe Between the Oceans: Themes and Variations: 9000 BC – AD 1000. London: YaleUniversity Press.
Danielsson, O. (1992). Annius of Viterbo and the Swedish Historiographical Philosophy of the Sixteen and Seventeenth Centuries. Germany: UppsalaUniversity Press. (German Text Only).
Davidson, P. (2011). Atlas of Empires. London: New Holland Publishers.
Farrer, J.A. (1907). Literary Forgeries. London. Available for free download online.
Grafton, A. (1991). Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-1800. London: HarvardUniversityPress.
Herodotus, (Translated 1998, 2008). The Histories. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Heyerdahl, T. (1978). Early Man and the Ocean: the beginning of navigation and seaborn civilizations. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Jackson, P. W. (2006). The Chronologers’ Quest: The Search for the Age of the Earth. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
James, P. (1991). Centuries of Darkness. London: Pimlico.
James, P. (1995). The Sunken Kingdom: The Atlantis Mystery Solved. London: JonathanCape.
John, R.T. (1994). Fictive Ancient History and National Consciousness in Early Modern Europe: The Influence of Annius of Viterbo’s Antiquitates.London: Warburg Institute, University of London.
Johnson, K. (2010). Ancient Post-Flood History. Biblefacts.org
Kitchen, K.A. (2003). On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Leston, S. (2011). The Bible in World History. Ohio: Barbour Publishing.
Ligota, C.R. (1987). Annius of Viterbo and Historical Method. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, The Warburg Institute, Vol. 50, pp. 44-56.
Marinatos, N. (2010). Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine. Urbana, Chicago and Springfield: University of Illinois Press.
McCants, W.F. (2012). Founding Gods, Inventing Nations: Conquest and Culture Myths from Antiquity to Islam. Princeton and Oxford: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Minge, B. (2007). ‘Short’ sojourn comes up short? Journal of Creation21(3): 63.
Morris, H. (1966). World Population and Bible Chronology. Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 3(3). pp. 7-10.
Newgrosh, B. (2007). Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia. Leicester: Matador.
Palmer, T. (2003). Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism Through the Ages. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Parry, G. (2001). Berosus and the Protestants: Reconstructing Protestant Myth. Huntington Library Quarterly, University of CaliforniaPress, Vol. 64, No. 1/2, pp. 1-21.
Renfrew, C. (1976). Before Civilization. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
Roberts, J.M. (1993). History of the World. Oxford: HeliconPublishing.
Shryock, A. and Smail, D.L. (2011). Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shuckford, S. (1824). The Sacred and Profane History of the World, ConnectedPhiladelphia: William W. Woodward. (Available free from Google Books Reader).
Stephens, W. (1989). Giants in those Days: Folklore, Ancient History, and Nationalism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Stephens, W. (2004). When Pope Noah Ruled the Etruscans: Annius of Viterbo and His Forged “Antiquities”. MLN, The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, Vol. 119, No. 1, Italian Issue Supplement: Studia Humanitatis: Essays in Honor of Salvatore Camporeale, pp. S201-S223.  
Wiener, L. (2012, originally 1920). Contributions toward a History of Arabico-Gothic Culture. Volume III: Tacitus’ Germania and other Forgeries. Forgotten Books.
Willis, R. (ed.). (1993). World Mythology: The Illustrated Guide. London: BCA via Duncan Baird Publishers.



Figure 1: The Kings of Babylonfrom Noah to Nebuchadnezzar II or ’42 ages’

Figure 2: ‘De Ortu Regum Anglie’ King List from the Oxford Bodleian Library, MS Wood, The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, written approx. AD 1340


Figure 3: The SacredMountainor Twin Peaks – Yigityatagi – with Arkremnants in foreground (after Nissen, 2004)

Figure 4: The Egyptian Lehabim (Hercules) together with club and the circular Spanish tomb built for him near Lixus in Morocco(found in Cancho Roano, Spain). The circular glyph is not a warrior’s shield but a rendition of Mezorah in Morocco, the island of Atlantis. This ancient Spanish glyph corroborates Giovanni Nanni’s history.


Figure 5: Hercules Inscription at Ciutat Vella, BarcelonaCatalonia: See Endnote 86. The second line from the top contains evidence that Nanni did not invent his claim.


Table 1: Revisions to Synchronisms with Assyria
Major Suggested Revisions to Conventional Dates for Old Testament Synchronisms

SYNCHRONISM WITH ASSYRIA

USSHER/JONES

POWELL

Fall of Sardanapalus (Belochus) to Arbaces the Mede
747 BC
1135 BC
Conquest of Israel by Assyria/King Shalmaneser
721 BC
639 BC
Subjugation of Judah/Sennacherib invades Egypt
713-12 BC
633 BC
Fall of Nineveh/King Saraco (to General Narbopolassar)
626 BC
530 BC
Josiah killed by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt
610 BC
527 BC
Nebuchadnezzar Reigns in the 4th Year of
Jehoiakim and in Battle of Carchemish
destroys the army of Pharaoh Necho

606-605 BC

524-523 BC
Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonians) sacks Jerusalem
586 BC
506 BC

Table 2: Major Periods - Anno Mundi or ‘The Year of the World’
Period
Dates
Duration
1) Creation to the Cataclysm
AM 1-1656
1,656 years
2) Cataclysm to Promise to Abraham in Ur
AM 1656-2088
432 years
3) Promise to Abraham to the confirmation of said promise to Jacob
AM 2088-2303
215 years
4) Confirmation of covenant to the law (Ten Commandments)
AM 2303-2733
430 years
5) Law to the building of Solomon’s Temple
AM 2733-3327
594 years
6) Temple to the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar II
AM 3327-3759
432 years
7) Fall of Jerusalem to the return from captivity
AM 3759-3809
50 years
8) Restoration to Christ’s birth
AM 3809-4266
457 years

Table 3: Near Eastern Gods from Marinatos, (2010:192), identified after her cryptographic methods

Table 4: Hesiod’s ‘5 Ages of Man’ Revised – according to Nanni’s fragments of Berosus

Name of High Monarch:
Regnal Year BC
R.Y. Ended BC
Comments, inc. Ages of Man
1.       Noah
2610
2260
Golden Age 
2.       Ham, Belus
2610
1685
Tower of Babel
3.       Cush
2608
1925
Good climate
4.       Nimrod (Saturn)
2478
1869
Great longevity > 600 years
5.       Jupiter Belus
2423
1807
Relative peace – single combat resolution
Belus was a prince of study, inventor of the Chaldean astronomy (Pliny)
6.       Nynas
1807
1755
Established the Assyrian Empire by subjugating Babylon and Bactria
7.       Semyramis I (Queen)
1755
1713
Osyris and Isis born (approx)
Semyramis removed her court from Nineveh to Babylon (D. Siculus)
8.       Ninyas
1713
1675
Agriculture taught by Osyris (Mizraim)
9.       Arius, Agron in Herodotus (Histories 1.7)
1675
1645
Silver Age
Death of Ham (Pan). 
One line of Heraclidae (or Lydian
Royals) begin here for 22 generations - see Rohl (2008) and Herodotus
10.    Aralius, Amyrus, Altheus? (1st generation)
1645
1605
Large-scale warfare begins
11.    Balaneus, Balaeus, Xerxes, Alcymus, Alcaeus, Alciamus, Adrysus, Cleolaus, Lemnos, Agelaus, Blascon?  (2nd gen.) son of Lehabim - rules Anatolia
1605
1575
100 year human ‘motherhood’ before adulthood begins
12. Armatritis, Adramytis, Armamithres, Armamitres   (3)
1575
1537

13. Belochus, Cambletes, Camboblascon? (4)
1537
1502
Belochus probably married Electra a descendant of Gomer. 
He was usurped by Baleus.
14. Baleus, Balaeus, Tipheus (5)
1502
1450
Mizraim Assassinated by brother Typhon during this reign
15. Altades, Athus, Sethos, Zaztagus, Altallus, Altadas (6)
1450
1415
Lehabim/Hercules regains Lydia/Sardis and puts his son Altades on the throne
16. Mamythus, Mamynthus (7)
1415
1385

17. Aschalius, Macchaleus, Magchaleus (8)
1385
1355
Death of Lehabim in Spain/Morocco
18. Sphaerus (9)
1355
1335
Bronze Age
19. Mamylus (10)
1335
1305

20. Sparaethus, Spartheus, Spareus, Sparetus (11)
1305
1263

21. Ascatades, Dercetades (12)
1263
1225
Aka Dercatades/Dercetidis – the Father of Queen Attosa/Semyramis according to Ussher (Vol. 1, 363, pg 54)
22. Amyntes (13)
1225
1180

23. Belochus, Belimus, Beleoun, Sardanapalus (14)
1180
1135
Assyrian/Pelasgian male line fails after 1343 yrs.
Sardanapalus commits suicide by burning his palace down
Trojan War with Hercules the Grecian. Isis Dies.
24. Attosa, Tratre, Ak'urartist, Semyramis II (15)
1135
1128
Queen marries the royal gardener called Belesius or Beletares
25. Beletares, Balatores, Belesius, Narbonassarus, Nabu-nasir, Nebo-adon-Assur, Naminybrus, Nebuchadnezzar (16)
1128
1098
Heroic Age
Nebuchadnezzar I, satrap of Arbaces, marries Attosa and builds Bronze gates around Babylon. Second Empire begins.
26. Lamprides (17)
1098
1066
Men were prone to warfare
27. Sosares (18)
1066
1046

28. Lampares (19)
1046
1016

29. Panyas, Pannyas, Pannias (20)
1016
0974

30. Sosarmus (21)
0974
0952
Median king in Eusebius
31. Mithraeus, Myrsus in Herodotus (22)
0952
0917
This line of Heraclidae end with  Candaules, son of Myrsus. "[Cephalion] says that 1000 years had elapsed from Semiramis to King Mitraeus” (Eusebius). This statement only makes sense if we take that as Semiramis I.
32. Teutamus, Tudhaliya IV in Rohl (2008)
0917
0885
Hittites invade Western Anatolia - see Rohl (2008). Comtemp. with Agamemnon and Menelaeus. Priam was General of Phrygia at this point. Teutamus sent 10,000 Ethiopian troops to Troy.
33. Teutaeus, Telepinu(sh) in Rohl (2008)
0885
0841
Repels Achilles (possibly Asa of Judah - who had diseased feet). Teutaeus aids Troy VII but fails
34. Thinaeus, Theneus
0841
0811
Dorian Invasion of the Peloponnese
35. Dercylus, Deioces (Mede), Derusus
0811
0771
Iron Age
36. Empacmes, Eupalmes
0771
0733

37. Laosthenes
0733
0688
Men warlike, greedy and impious
38. Pertiades, Peritiades
0688
0658
Navigation and mining commonplace
39. Ophrataeus, Phraortes (Mede)
0658
0637

40. Ephecheres
0637
0585

41. Acraganes, Anakyndaraxes, Acrazanes, Cyaxares, Anabaxares, Ocrazapes, Cindaraxes, Chyniladon, Saracus, Sineladanos, Kinelanadan, Kandalanu, Merodachbaladan, Ben Merodach, Pul (the Mede)
0585
0543
Fought against Cyrus I and his own General Narbopolassar
42. Thonos Concolerus, Narbopolassar, Alyattes
0543
0524
T.C. was General Narbopolassar
43. Nebuchadnezzar II
0524
0481
Builds further upon the work of Sennacherib - establishing the HangingGardens in Nineveh for Amytis his wife


Figure 6: Synchronisms between Israel, Judah, Egyptand Assyria/Anatolia/Greece


Figure 7: Samothean King List

Samothea: 0. Japhet - 1. Samothes Dis - 2. Magus - 3. Sarronius - 4. Druiyus - 5. Bardus - 6. Longho - 7. Bardus Junior - 8. Lucus - 9. Jupiter Celtes - 10. Hercules (Lehabim) - 11. Galates - 12. Harbon - 13. Lugdus - 14. Beligius - 15. Iasius - 16. Allobrox - 17. Romus - 18. Paris - 19. Lemanus - 20. Olbius - 21. Galates II - 22. Nannes - 23. Remis - 24. Francus - 25. Pictus

Endnotes or Commentary on the Chronology:


[1] The covenant made with Abraham involved God telling him what would happen to his descendants (the children of Israel or Jacob) after his own death (cf. Genesis 15:13-14) in a land (singular) not theirs. It did not pertain to Isaac in Canaan, when Abraham was still alive. Isaac was forbidden to enter Egypt (Gen. 26:2). Moreover, God describes a period of 400 years of affliction (not an approximate number standing for 430 but an exact number cf. Acts 7:6-7) after which time the Egyptian nation whom they serve shall be judged and then they shall ‘come out with great possession’. Note that if Egyptand Canaan are meant here (as the LXX has it), then this phrase ‘shall come out’ would be erroneous – because with that reading they were stillin the land of affliction in Canaan where they fled. To maintain biblical truth, we must hold to a long dwelling in Egypt. How then, do we explain the period of Galatians 3:17? We have to understand that the covenant was only given to Abraham and then afterward confirmedin 1963 B.C. (as a statute in Christ) to Jacob on the very night before he entered Egypt to visit Joseph (cf. Genesis 12:4, Gen. 15:13, Gen. 46:2-7, Exodus 12:41, Psalm 105:10-11, Acts 7:6). This explains why Exodus 12:41 notes it was 430 years to the very day that the children of Israel left Egypt. Another line of evidence is that careful Scriptural study cannot establish that Judah’s genealogy supports a 215 year sojourn. It simply cannot be maintained that the Hur of 1 Chron. 2:19 and 2:50 (who are actually both the same person) was the same Hur who married Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron. The alleged linkage is too weak, since both Ruben and Judah both had sons called Hezron – and since Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite (Joshua 14:6) can hardly also be the son of Hezron! (1 Chron. 2:18). The chronologies do not give birth/death ages in these particular sections and so cannot be treated as exact as some would wish. The final line of evidence comes from the fact that the ancestry of Moses’ family in Exodus 6:16-20 is modestly abridged to tribe, clan and family (Minge, 2007:63). The ‘fourth generation’ return mentioned in Gen. 15:16 denotes a generation from Abraham’s perspective (i.e. about 100 years). In fact, there were eleven generations (of about 40 years) from Joseph to Joshua (1 Chron. 7:22-27) and eleven generations from Jacob to Elkanah (1 Chron. 6:33-38) in the genealogy of Heman, both consistent with the long sojourn period.
[2]Austin (2008:52) includes the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 as ‘Period 3a’ of his ‘Table 1’. Biblically, it can be proven that another 114 years of servitude ‘in metaphorical Egypt’ (‘Period 3b’) are necessary to do justice to Luke’s summary of this period in Acts 13. If the years of usurpation and servitude are totalled in this period they come to exactly 114 years. Therefore as Setterfield (1999) points out, the ‘Omission principle’, found elsewhere in Scripture, is also at work in this verse of 1 Kings.
[3] Although I knew of works by Edumnd Thiele and Prof. Kenneth Kitchen I also knew from Larry Pierce that Thiele had significant errors in his chronology where he had altered Scripture to accommodate archaeological discoveries. Kitchen, I had already discovered in James’s critique (1991:222), held to the high dynastic chronology of Egypt, which I knew for sure was spurious given the no-gaps chronologies of the Masoretic text (Genesis 5 and 11). Therefore I chose my sources carefully from those who held Scripture as their highest and best authority in chronological data.
[4] The 42ndruler, Thonos Concoleros, is called ‘Sardanapalus’ by Alexander Polyhistor as quoted by Eusebius (The Chaldean Chronicle, 9: From the same Alexander [Polyhistor] on the deeds and valor of Sennecherib and Nebuchadnezzar). He can therefore be equated with Narbopolassar the father of Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 506BC).
[5] This figure of precisely 42 previous Monarchs is given strong archaeological support from Nebuchadnezzar II’s own “Borsippa Inscription”, which says of the Tower of Babel: “A former king built it (they reckon forty-two ages ago), but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder has dispersed its sun-dried clay; the bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great lord, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site, nor did I take away the foundation stone. … As it had been in former times, so I founded, I made it; as it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.” Smith’s Bible Dictionary quoted in Inc. Book Sales (2002). This 'Borsippa Inscription' found on the base of a ziggurat was translated by a Professor Oppert, but later included with a new translation in the book: 'Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Sinai (London: James Nisbet, 1857) by William Kennett Loftus. It mentions the restoration of the Tower of Babel. You can see Nebuchadnezzar's other inscription of the Tower of Babel here: http://www.schoyencollection.com/historyBabylonian.html . What is truly remarkable, in our opinion, is that Nebuchadnezzar refers to "they reckon 42 ages ago". Who are "they" in the context of this inscription? It seems clear he must be referring to the priests or scholarly record keepers of Babylon itself. This is powerful independent confirmation that Nanni was using a genuine copy of Berosus the Chaldean Priest as a source, because without knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar's inscription (found long afterward), he still takes us back precisely 5 further rulers in his king list to Noah - i.e. from 37 'ages' (as recorded in Eusebius and St Jerome) to 42 'ages' as mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar himself regarding the Tower of Babel! I have not even begun to enter the debate surrounding the Assyrian Eponym lists, however scholars are beginning to realise that astronomical data used to ‘lock’ key chronological dates are actually quite unreliable (see Newgrosh, 2007).
[6] This unbroken list of rulers of the city of Babylonwas obtained through a synthesis of king lists: Lynche (1601), who gives – with a few exceptions - the first 14 rulers; together with Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius and St. Jerome who provide all those upto Thonos Concolerus (Sardanapalus) the 42nd ruler. It is noteworthy that in antiquity there were believed to have been four ‘Ages’ – Golden, Silver, Bronze and Iron. Eusebius and Jerome, following Ctesias and Berosus, begin their king list from the mid-Golden Age with Nynas or Ninus II (the sixth ruler), son of Belus and record Belochus as monarch number 18. The reigns that Nanni’s Berosus enumerates (from the mid-Golden Age to the first Trojan War against Hercules the Grecian) are identical in number – and again end with Belochus (their 18th and my 23rd) – who was Sardanapallus (under whom the Assyrian Empire fell and the ‘Heroic Age’ began). Lynche takes us back to the start of the Golden Age five more rulers - to Noah who established the Monarchy under Nimrod (according to Lynche’s sources). It is also noteworthy that Jerome placed the 42ndruler (Belochus) in 830BC which suggests he conflated Belochus (the 23rd ruler from Noah) with Thonos Concolerus the 42nd. Both these kings seem to have had the name Sardanapalus, but the former burnt himself to death (according to Diodorus) whereas the latter died naturally and was succeeded by Nebuchadnezzar II his son. Out of all these 42 rulers, only a handful are mentioned in Herodotus’ ‘The Histories’. The second, Bel (or Ham who is Belus), is mentioned as having both a ‘sanctuary’ (i.e. the Tower of Babel) and a gate in Babylon (Book 1: 181 and Book 3:158 respectively). The 24th, Semiramis II is mentioned as having a Babylonian gate (Book 3:155). The 35th monarch - Deioces, and the 39thPharotes - his descendent – plus the 41st Cyaraxes are all mentioned as Kings of the Medes, confirming Cephalion’s list of Median kings (found in Eusebius).
[7] For a translation into modern English see: [WWW] http://www.argyrou.eclipse.co.uk/myths/bible/Travels.htm (Accessed on 17/06/12).
[8] Giants are mentioned by Moses in Genesis 6:4. Lynche claims that Noah was a giant himself, along with many of his descendants (especially in the line of Ham). These giants are not of the fabulous sort (60 feet tall) but rather consistent with physical limits i.e. 8-11 feet tall (as was Goliath of Gath). Temple (2011:203) mentions that many Egyptian tombs are far larger than would be necessary for an average sized body. Sesokhris (Khasekhem) was stated by Manetho to have been 5 cubits and 3 palms high, “…which would be about 8 English feet, if the short cubit of 17.4 inches were used.” In fact, Manetho is probably referring to the royal Egyptian cubit!
[9] These truths are often overlooked in most assessments and reappraisals of ancient history, yet they have a truly revolutionary significance for scholarly research today. Long virility coupled with longevity meant that Mizraim the son of Ham was 1stgeneration post-flood - yet he was only born long after Abraham – the 10th generation from Shem, and lived (because of his genetic inheritance) until well after the death of Moses! If we discount Lynche’s claim, for instance, that Queen Isis (daughter of Ham and thus 1st generation post-flood) lived from approx. 1755BC until 1140BC, some 615 years, we must also discount the reputable Jewish historian Josephus who wrote: “Now I have for witnesses to what I have said all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians, for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian history, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean monuments, and Mochus, and Hestiaeus, and beside these, Hieronymus, the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician history, agree with what I here say: Hesiod also and Hecataeus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus, and besides Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years; but as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit.” Patten (1981) comments that: “Josephus and his colleagues had read widely throughout the antiquities of the Mediterranean world, at that time under Rome. His mind-set was based in part on the collage of ancient international sources and their unanimity. There were no contradictions. The ancient longevity accounts with which he was acquainted extended far beyond the borders of his native Palestine. His sources came from no less than three continents. Such sources, when in unison, to Josephus far outweighed the contemporary rationalizations and cynics, however reasonable and well-intentioned. His sources came from areas which today include Africa, Asia and Europe […] one can sum up a total of 14 or 15 ancient sources, coming from three continents and at least 6 different ancient languages. Of these ancient sources familiar to Josephus other than the Biblical sources, only a few fragments and a few manuscripts survive. This may be one reason why modern academia is less impressed with this ancient tradition than was Josephus.” For more on this fascinating topic of longevity and its consequences for ancient records see Shuckford, S. (1824:226-233).
[10] Briefly, we shall establish the authenticity of Giovanni Nanni beyond reasonable doubt. First, let us consider the language that Nanni’s Berosus was originally written in. Ligota (1987:56) notes that Nanni frequently referred to Aramaic (ancient Hebrew/Arabic) words in Berosus and also suggests that it was this language Berosus wrote in. Ligota’s suggestion logically follows because Nanni obtained the fragments from two visiting Armenians of the Domincan Order of Monks (or Friars) – (Master Mathias and Master Georgius according to Farrer, 1907:76) – the latter of whom gave him the fragments as a gift in Genoa. The existence of this Master Georgius is no longer questioned, for it is certain that both the monks visited Genoa in the Summer of 1474 or the Spring of 1475 (Danielsson, O. (1992:10) and John, R.T. (1994:22)). That the Berosus fragments were originally written in Aramaic (ancient Chaldean) is confirmed by William Harrison in Parry (2001:11 – footnote 34) who revered the brevity of Nanni’s Berosus as an example of “the auncient forme of writing used by Antiquitie…untill the use of history came in place (or at lest was knowen among the gentiles)”. Moreover, a Hebrew Berosus further elucidates Nanni’s comments mentioned in Grafton (1991:90), namely that: “Annius could certainly borrow some texts from his Armenian confreres and ask advice on Hebrew and Aramaic from his Jewish friend the still unidentified ‘Samuel the Talmudist,’”. As Wiener (2012:203) counters: “…obviously [this was] Samuel Zarfati, the court physician of Alexander VI, a most learned Spanish Jew.” Therefore it is safe to conclude that Nanni studied the Latin translation given him with aid from a Jewish friend who knew Aramaic Hebrew. It is interesting that Nanni did not know who had first translated the fragments and found them hard to understand – making reference to “Berosus or his translator” (Ligota, 1987:55) in his ‘Commentaries” of 1498. This suggests the books were old when Nanni was first given them (as Harrison in Parry (p.10) comments: “thes bokes are at the lest 500 yeres olde…” [Parry adding] “for Godfrey of Viterbo [AD1120-1196] knew them centuries before Annius”. (Parry later states that Godfrey only mentions the genuine Berosus – but that remains to be determined). Indeed, the wider story could be this: fragments of the three authentic books of Aramaic Berosus had survived the fire at the Library of Alexandria. Around AD378, a Spanish-born Bishop of Alexandria, named Lucius Valerius, relocated to Samosata (modern Samsat in Adiyaman Province, Turkey) with these various fragments, where he undertook a Latin recension into five parts. We learn this much from The Chronicle of (Pseudo)-Dexter (this being the disputed history chronicle of the bishop of Barcelona in Spain, Flavius Lucius Dexter, the son of Pacianus, who flourished approx AD395 according to his contemporary St. Jerome – see: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203/Page_384.html). Dexter’s work plus other Spanish ecclesiastical chronicles were claimed to have been rediscovered by the Jesuit J. Roman de la Higuera (1538-1611) in the library of the Benedictine Abbey of Fulda in Germany. If we take Dexter’s work as authentic and not a fabrication designed by Higuera, it neatly explains why Nanni had five books of Berosus (rather than the original three) given to him by Armenian (Turkish) Dominican Monks in Genoa. Alternatively, Nanni's copy of Berosus may have been preserved via a lost translation made into Armenian by the Syrian scholar Mar Abas Catina (late 2nd century BC), part of which (relating to Armenia alone) was copied by Moses of Khorene (approx 8th centry AD).
   Secondly, Bayle recounts that Didimus Rapaligerus Livianus mounted a posthumous defence of Nanni in 1678BC saying that: “It is very well known…that Berosus was given him at Genoa, by Father George of Armenia a Dominican [Friar]; and that he found all the rest [i.e. fragments of Archilochus, Metasthenes, Cato, Fabius Pictor, Myrsilus, C. Sempronius, Philo, Xenophon and Antoninus Pius], except Manetho, at one Mr Williams’s of Mantua” (Bayle et al, 1737:299). Now, some fierce critics (e.g. Fumagalli) have tried to dismiss this ‘Mr Williams’ as a figment. Who exactly was he? The answer, it turns out, is quite simple. Nanni refers to him as “Guilelmus Mantuanus” and dates his collections to the year AD1315 in Mantua (Ligota, 1987:56). Now it so happens that Charles Cawley’s ‘Medieval Lands’ the encyclopaedia of territories in the medieval western world, found online at the web address referenced above, elucidates this mysterious Guilelmus. Cawley contains the following very interesting statement: “Matthew of Paris recounts that…Guglielmo VII Marchese di Monferrato [AD1240-1292]…was appointed Vicar-General in northern Italyby his father-in-law as candidate for the kingdomof Italy, and led the movement to oust Charles Comet d’Anjou from the kingdom of Sicily. He succeeded in depriving the latter of his possessions in Lombardyand captured and castrated his ambassadors [probably between AD 1272 and 1275]. He became head of the Ghibelin League formed by the Marchese di Saluzzo [Thomas I (AD 1239-1296) – Ed.] and contingents from Castilein the towns of Pavia, Asti, Mantua, Verona, Genoa, Milan, Alessandria and Ivrea.” Nanni visited Mantuawith the Most Reverend Cardinal Paul de Campo Fulgoso in the 1480’s, who he mentions in a letter to his brother Thomas. Clearly, Guglielmo later became known as Guilelmus of Mantua and his Collectanea(collection of ancient authors) was where Nanni obtained his fragments of the 9 lost authors. The collection of Guglielmo (which he must have repossessed from Charles I of Naples in Norther Italy) would have come originally from Sicily. Mantua library was probably opened to honour William’s name, in AD1315, by his close kinsman Theodore I, Marquess of Montferrat. This would neatly explain why Nanni in his Antiquities of 1498 makes mention of a learned Talmudist, Rabbi Moses, who is probably the Sicilian Moses of Palermo who lived in the second half of the 13thcentury and translated various works of old Arabic into Latin for Charles I of Naples. Charles d’Anjou, as he was know, was renowned for his love of learning and at that time had commissioned a number of Jewish scholars to translate Arabic works into Latin as part of the ‘Latin Renaissance’. Livianus cites a Lutheran saying of the fragments Nanni obtained in Mantua: “…they are all of them interpolated, castrated, imperfect, and neither translated with fidelity of judgement: and yet that they were anciently extracted from those true and legitimate authors, there are such arguments as can admit of no contradiction. To instance only in [the 22 fragments of] Cato. Examine it again and again, condemn it as you will, yet you must see and confess that it discovers the wit and style of the true Cato, which are not to be imitated or counterfeited by such sort of persons”.
   Let us then move now to consider the works impact on Protestant Theologians. It is noteworthy that eminent Reformers with a high view of Scriptural inspiration, together with other intellectual scholars just as capable, held Nanni (or Annius) in great esteem. Martin Luther “preferred Annius’s Berosus to Herodotus and his ilk” (Grafton, 1991:87) and found it his richest non-biblical source. Philipp Melanchthon used his history extensively, as did Melanchthon’s student Johann Funck, who considered Nanni’s Berosus “the most approved history of the Babylonians” yet rejected Nanni’s Metasthenes as inconsistent (Grafton, 1991:98). In Protestant Geneva he was also held in high esteem by the well respected Abraham Bucholzer who incorporated Nanni’s work into his Isagoge chronologica of 1577. And others, like Guillaume Postel and members of the intellectual FlorentineAcademy(such as Pier Francesco Giambullari), who were far less Scriptural yet just as erudite, also considered Nanni’s works genuine. Postel may have ‘touched it with a pin’ when he wrote that Nanni’s Berosus had a bad reputation because “he passed down to posterity an account similar to that in the sacred [books], and thus is despised and ridiculed by men poorly disposed toward divine things, because of the very quality for which he ought to be praised and preferred to all other authors”. He also noted that “Berosus sometimes told stories that redounded to the discredit of the Chaldeans, and a witness testifying against his own interest deserves belief” and again “Though Berosus the Chaldean is preserved in fragments, and is disliked by atheists or enemies of Moses, he is approved of by innumerable men and authors expert in every language and field of learning. Hence I grant him the faith deserved of any accurate author” (Grafton, 1991:82,95). Here, Postel is echoing a very significant truth. As John (1994:24) notes: “In the commentaries to his forged texts Annius referred to fifty-eight ancient authors whose works he might well have known at first hand. All of them, bar one -- the Orphic Argonautica -- had appeared in print by the mid-1490s, and those originally in Greek had been translated. The rangeof his reading is impressive. He drew on all the standard encyclopaedists: Pliny, Solinus, Aulus Gellius,Macrobius and Isidore of Seville. He was familiar with the historians one would expect to be relevant: Herodotus, Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, Sallust, Josephus,Eusebius, Trogus as epitomised by Justinus, Valerius Maximus, Quintus Curtius Rufus and Plutarch.He also used the geographers Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy, the mythographer Hyginus and the Christian apologist Lactantius. Rather surprising, however, was his dependence upon poets, who are almost as numerous as historians. They include Homer, Vergil, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Ovid, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius and Lucan. Inconjunction with these he used ancient commentaries on poets, most notably Servius on Vergil, but also the pseudo-Acron and Porphyrion on Horace.”
   As regards Nanni’s supposed fraudulent inscriptions and statuettes, Livianus in Bale also notes, from a source (Giornale VIII, de Letterati, 1678, p.122) that: “…He is accused of forging some tables of marble, whereof he has published an explanation. If therefore the truth deserves examining, this author clears Annius by substantial arguments from his adversaries charge of imposture, proving beyond contradiction, that two of those tables called Libiscillæ, from the place where they were found, had been dug up a long time before Annius was born…. And as to those two called Cibelariæ, and that called Longobarica, they were discovered by others and presented to [Pope] Alexander VI, to say nothing of that called Osiriana, which was brought before the time of Annius.” (Bayle et al, 1737:299). For more on these fascinating tablets and their history, see: Collins, A. (Renaissance Epigraphy and its Legitimating Potential: Annius of Viterbo, Etruscan Inscriptions, and the Origins of Civilization). The Tabula Maeonica Cybelica in the museum of Viterbo, Italy, records the marriage of Jasius Ianigena (Hespanus, Coritus) - king of Italy and France to Ipitis Cybele - a fair and rich princess (which wedding occasion the elderly Queen Isis attended). It refers to an even older tablet (now lost) which recorded the founding of ancient Viterbo (then called Vetulonia - found further north) by Janus (Noah) and his son Cameses - and a later fortified settlement established by Hercules (Lehabim) - probably during the years 1548-1537 BC. Annius believed the newer tablet to have been set up by Pupinus and Marsias - later rulers of the Etruscans. Furthermore, the tablet Decretum Desiderii was said by the 16th Century Domenico Bianchi to date from its discovery in 1219 AD. The 18th Century Etruscologist Mariani claimed it had been fixed to the top of the cathedral in Viterbo until 1380 AD - therefore Annius could not possibly have forged it. (This claim would certainly explain its dome-like shape). It records the founding of Viterbo from 3 previous smaller habitations called Longula, Turrhena and Vetulonia via a single large town wall. The final tablet - called the 'Herculean Tablet of Osyris' - is the most remarkable of all. It contains various glyphs Annius believed were Egyptian (Pelasgian) in origin, including a tree, a lizard, a growing vine with grape clusters, two birds eating grapes and possibly a goose nesting at the top with eggs. In fact, the lizard or gekko at the bottom of the tree matches precisely the Egyptian hieroglyph 'asha', meaning many, numerous or multitude. The two birds probably represent colonies founded by Osyris - who feed on the grape vines he was famous for growing. The nesting 'goose' at the top is another name for Iped or Isis (the wife of Osyris), also found (coincidentally) in the Turin Canon (fragment 41 and 42) along with other "wholly fictitious beings" or "fantastically named royalties" such as Apis - dismissed by incredulous scholars (see Rohl, 2008, pg 100). Third, and finally, none of the arguments used by his critics to discredit Annius have proven very persuasive to this author. Critics such as Eduardo Fumagalli, Beatus Rhenanus, Pietro Crinito, Juan Luis Vives, Francois Baudouin and Joannes Goropius Becanus were in many cases influenced by the spirit of secular humanism and provide weak, insubstantial claims against his works. We shall now instance some of these bogus arguments and provide a brief rebuttal of each. 1: Pseudo-Berosus evidences great harmony with the other fragments, which harmony can only be obtained through Nanni’s personal authorship and intervention. A: Ligota (1987:45), however, comments: “…the [supposedly] forged texts are set in a mosaic of references to authentic ones - a theoretical framework does emerge. Indeed, though the ancient texts Annius invented have a story to tell, their function, as the commentaries make clear, is as much to show why the story is true as to tell it, that is, to unfold the story as a demonstration of its veracity”. Then, Ligota notes in a footnote: “Telling this one story, which in the Judeo-Christian scheme is the only (true) story there is, allowing for no external point of view. As long as the scheme obtains, criteria for historical truth cannot be entirely abstracted from the specific history they are derived from because they are also an integral part of its content”. Thus we find that this ‘doctoring’ argument backfires and serves to show the remarkable unity between various authors which would be expected to obtain should they all have recorded what actually happened. 2: It is absurd to think that a Babylonian knew anything in detail about countries so far away, or that the art of navigation was so advanced in Noah’s time that he dared travel all over the world. A: The extraordinary cargo of the ship-wreck of Uluburun has proven that the ancients travelled far further than previously thought. Berosus would have had access to many merchant traders who visited Babylon. Noah did not travel all over the world. According to Berosus, he ventured only around the Mediterranean Sea and the countries surrounding it. 3. Pseudo-Berosus never mentions the Hebrews (the Assyrian’s close neighbours). A: It is well attested that all the kings of Assyriafrom Ninus to Belochus were dissolute individuals who hated war and conflict and remained permanently in their royal palaces to pursue every pleasure. Thus it is not surprising that they do not record encounters with the Hebrews.
[11]According to the detailed source study found in the Ph.D. thesis of learned Professor R.T. John (1994:23): “Since the work [of Annius] has almost always been dismissed as a collection of forgeries, rather than read as a history of primeval Europe, as Annius intended, no-one has attempted to analyse its ancient, medieval and modern sources. It has rather been assumed that he must have invented much of what he wrote, both in the texts and in the commentary. On close examination, it becomes apparent that this is not the case at all. Throughout the work Annius continually supported his spurious authors with the testimony of later genuine ones; he had sufficient historical awareness to point out that the later authors he cited were of course following his own much earlier, and therefore more reliable, historians.” The best external evidences (i.e. independent from the claims of the once well respected classical historians like Eusebius and Tacitus) are a few significant details which collectively persuaded me (J.Powell) of the veracity of Giovanni Nanni’s history: 1. Nebuchadnezzar II’s own statement (excavated in the 1800's, concerning '42 ages' - a fact I came across only after the synthesis of classical king lists back to Noah – who was clearly proven number one. 2. Temple's (2011) description of Mezorah of Morocco - which fits remarkably with Lynche's account of Hercules' circular tomb built by the Spanish. 3. Knight and Butler's work (based upon Thom) in the identical units of measurement used by the megalith builders across the globe and their claimed fascination with the stars. 4. Menzies (2011) work showing that international trade in ancient history was extensive and complex based upon the extraordinary cargo of the ship-wreck of Uluburun. 5. The warrior steles found in Spain which depict a circular megalithic tomb (which are clearly ancient renditions of the megalithic tomb of Mezorah in Morocco) – see Figure 4. And finally 6. The work of Nanno Marinatos (2010) who describes the culture of Crete as part of an international milieu which included cryptographic symbols of the Ark, the mountains of Ararat, the children of Noah etc. Many other, smaller details, were also borne out by reference to more ancient historical sources than Nanni himself.
[12] This is 293 years before Lynche’s date of 2317BC To arrive at this date I accept as correct David Austin’s claim for a short Persian period (Austin, 2008a) and his detailed, peer-reviewed and Scripturally validated calculations back until the Exodus in 1533BC (c.f. Austin, 2008b and 2011); however I do not accept his date for the entry of Jacob into Egypt. This occurred 430 years before the Exodus (in 1963BC) as we are told in Galatians 3:17 and as Bowden (1998: 151-153) has persuasively argued contra- Viccary (2007). This date is also consistent with Diodorus Siculus’s claim that the Assyrian Empire lasted more than 1300 years before the Mede’s took power under Arbaces. From the Tower of Babel (2504 B.C.) until the 23rdBabylonian monarch (Belochus or Sardanapalus – after whom the Line of Ham failed) is approx. 1350 years. This period is clearly the “time of the kings of Assyria” mentioned in Nehemiah 9:32.
[13] The Ark as described by Fasold (1988) and as represented by the sun disc and cosmic egg is consistent with both Scripture (Genesis 6:14-16) and with the general design features of the ancient Egyptian boats found buried at Giza. These Egyptian ‘sacred boats’ were involved in an elaborate ritual held outside the temples of Isis and Osyris (Temple, 2011), which remembered the cataclysm and the Arkin pagan cultish fashion. Similar ‘sacred boat’ processions were held around the Mediterranean. The Ark itself probably had an asymmetric centre of gravity and if Fasold’s fascinating reconstruction is correct it suggests that the cubits used were of the ancient Egyptian (royal cubit) variety, measuring 523-529 mm. To the ancient Chinese a vegetable gourd was their most immediate analogy for the Ark’s shape – thus the early Rulers of China were called ‘Fu Xi’ or children of the ‘bottle gourd’. 
[14] Line 37 of the cuneiform tablets of the Epic of Gilamesh calls this hill ‘Mount Mashu, which daily guards the rising and setting of the Sun, above which only the dome of the heavens reaches and whose flank reaches as far as the Netherworld below’ (Nissen, 2004:108). The village of Uzengili (originally Nazar or Nizir) is close to the village of Arzap (called the ‘Village of the Eight’ in the ‘Valley of the Eight’).
[15] Chapter 8 of Marinatos (2010) is most important in understanding this mountain. Marinatos (2010:107-113) notes this sacred mountain in East Mediterraneankoine: “The Egyptian symbol consists of two peaks that define the horizon between which the sun disc resides. On Akkadian seals of the third millennium we find a very similar rendition of the mountain represented as two scaly cones that signify “land”. In Syria and Anatolia, the twin peaks also symbolize a mountain, sometimes a double one. The twin peak mountain defines the edges of the cosmos. […] It has been previously mentioned that we do not see offerings (bread, meat, incense, etc.) between the peaks of the object that has been redefined as a mountain; therefore, its function cannot have been to sanctify offerings. Instead, the two peaks frame a tree, a double axe, or a god. All of these are symbols of cosmic significance and not votives that can be consecreated. […] In summary: the tree rising between the Minoan twin-peak mountain is not consecrated as an offering but constitutes the tree of life. This is the solar palm…” Clearly, this was where humanity began afresh.
[16] This name is found in the most ancient and important creation myth of Egypt, called the Ogdoad of Hermopolis (cf: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Ogdoad.html) and is given because the sun god was said to be born and to rise there for the first time. The story is believed to predate the cosmogony of Heliopolis, having been originally established by Thoth (i.e. Lehabim). Armour (1986:153-154) notes an early papyrus which records: “Salutations to you, you Five Great Gods, Who come out of the City of Eight, You who are not yet in heaven, You who are not yet upon the earth, You who are not yet illuminated by the sun”. “The poem tells how, on the Island of Flame, the primeval hill similar to the one on which Ra arose, the four gods came into being at the same time; they were seen as some sort of force that existed between heaven and earth…Each element brought with him his female component, giving the total of eight elements. The group included Nun…and his consort Naunet; Heh…with his consort Heket…; Kek…and his consort Keket;…and Amun with his consort Amaunet”. Armour amusingly suggests the story is “a mythical explanation of the ebbing of the Nile flood, which left behind it mounds of earth teeming with life”; yet it bears a striking resemblance to the landing of the Ark – especially since from the ‘Cosmic Egg’ the ‘bird of light’, an aspect of the sun god, burst out! The Egyptian Coffin Texts, spell 223, contain the note: “O Atum give me this sweet air which is your nostrils for I am this egg which is in the Great Cackler, I am the guardian of this great prop which separates the earth from the sky. If I live, it will live; if I grow old, it will grow old; if I breathe the air, it will breathe the air. I am he who splits iron, I have gone round about the egg, (even I) the Lord of Tomorrow.”
[17] Lynche (1601) records that Noah showed his sons their territories in the 100thyear after the flood. Before this, his family must have inhabited Turkey and built some of the most ancient monuments in that country. The 25 years is an approximation only during this period.
[18] Lynche (1601) mentions an ancient marble called the ‘Issue of Noah’ which he found and inscribed a history onto just after the flood. This marble may have once stood within the megalithic henge of Zorats Karer near Sisian. This observatory-tomb is very similar to others found in Europe and Morocco, suggesting a cultural link. One significant difference, however, is that some stones have well polished holes cut through them only here in Armenia. This is consistent with Fasold’s claim that such stones were used by Noah as anchor stones on the Ark. After the Cataclysm, these anchor stones were transported and reused to construct the world’s very first megalith (Fasold, 1988).
[19]Giovanni Nanni probably didn’t know that a place called Urfa existed, yet he mentioned that Noah was called Arsa and had many place names called after him. This is one argument in favour of his records being authentic.
[20] This is speculation on my part, but the claim is reasonable given the great antiquity of Gobekli Tepe and the fact that they travelled eastward to inhabit Babylonia (Genesis 11:2). Some interpret the word ‘eastward’ as ‘from the east’ i.e. ‘westward’. The same Hebew word is hard to translate, yet is given in Genesis 2:8 as ‘eastward’. Gobekli Tepe is unusual since the stone carvings found there are of species now completely foreign to Turkey.
[21] The reader interested in studying population growth after the flood is referred to Morris (1966). At the Tower of Babel incident there were probably 70 families of some 10-15 individuals – giving roughly 700-1500 people. By the entry of Abraham into Canaanaround the 10th generation, there would have been roughly 2,800,000 people in the world at a conservative estimate.
[22] C.f. Inc Book Sales (2002) where we are given a description of the Tower of Babel. Building of this tower probably began 80 years after the flood.
[23] Ussher (2003:22) notes that the Tower of Babel happened five years after the birth of Peleg according to Syncellus’ translation of the Book of Sothis by Manetho.
[24] Cory and Hodges (2003: 75) note a fragment from Alexander Polyhistor which contains this detail about a strong wind or whirlwind. The same detail is also contained in other more ancient sources. 1st: A damaged Assyrio-Babylonian Tablet now housed in the BritishMuseum reads: “…them the father. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil…the father of all the gods he turned from. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil…Babylon corruptly to sin went and small and great mingled on the mound. … Babyloncorruptly to sin went small and great mingled on the mound. The King of the holy mound…In front and Anu [i.e. Ham – Ed.] lifted up…to the good god of his father….Then his heart also…which carried a command…at that time also…which carried a command…At that time also…he lifted it up…Davkina. Their (work) all day they founded to their stronghold in the night entirely an end he made. In his anger also the secret council he poured out to scatter (abroad) his face he set he gave a command to make strange their speech…their progress he impeded…the altar…In (that day) he blew and…For future time the mountain…Nu-nam-nir went…Violently they fronted against him. He saw them and to the earth (descended). When a stop he did not make of the gods…Against the gods they revolted…violence…Violently they wept for Babylon very much they wept. And in the midst…”. 2nd: The Sibyl mentions: “When all men spoke a common language, certain of them built an exceeding high tower, thinking thereby to mount to heaven. But the gods sent winds against it and overturned the tower and gave to every man a peculiar language; whence it comes that the city was called Babylon.” Also c.f. the book of Job Chapter 38 vs 1.
[25] Lynche (1601) recounts Tanais as Noah’s point of departure on his first 10 year voyage to establish boundaries. It is reasonable to suggest that he planted a vineyard close to the habitation based upon ancient wine vessels found at this location and the tradition that Noah was the ‘giver of wine’.
[26] Lynche (1601) notes that Noah undertook at least two voyages around the Mediterranean, the first of which took 10 years.
[27] This information comes from Lynche (1601).
[28] This name comes from the historian Johannes Turmair (contemporary of the Reformer Martin Luther) who published a king list in his Annals of Bavaria. For more information see: [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_the_Angles (Accessed on 26/08/11).
[29] This detail comes from Shuckford, S. (1824). The Sacred and Profane History of the World… Book 3, p. 104.
[30] For more information about the post-Cataclysm ice-age, please see Oard (2004) and Snelling (2009:763-787).
[31] Another son of Javan was named Iobaath in the historian Nennius (Cooper, 1995:49), Ithobaal the ‘priest of Astarte’ in the Annals of Tyre (Aubet, 2001:148) and Jobhath in early Irish genealogy (Cooper, 1995:111-112).
[32]Shuckford, S. (1824). p. 103-115, Kitchen, K. (2003). p. 592-597 and Cooper, B. (1995). p. 170-204.
[33]According to the Iranian historian al-Tabarī (d. 310 AH/923 AD) in his Ta’rikh 1:326, translated in McCants (2012:109): “the first king to rule the earth [Persia] was Ōshahanj b. Eber b. Shelah b. Arphachshad b. Shem b. Noah.” This Ōshahanj is also called Ūshing, Ūshang, Hōshang – whom we have identified as Ham.
[34] Isaiah 23:13.
[35] Ibid endnote 30.
[36] This Huang-Di is recorded as the first to make sacrifices on MountTai in China– see Thong, C. and Fu, C. (2009:234).
[37] The full Chinese story of the children of the ‘bottle gourd’, the sole survivors of a great flood, is found in Willis (ed.) (1993:93). It was commonly recounted in the oral traditions of the Miao and Yao peoples of South China.
[38] This is Manetho’s record – who places 8 ‘demi-gods’ and ’15 heros’ (660 years) before the birth of king Mizraim.
[39] For this geneological information see Hoeh, H.L. (1967 and 1969) Compendium of World History. Volumes 1 and 2.
[40] Lynche (1601) makes Dionysius the son of Almanthea (another wife of Hammon). However, here we follow a fragment of Sanchoniathon (extracted from Eusebius), which can be found in Cory and Hodges (2003:13). Sanchoniathon calls Dionysus by the name of Kronus, but the same person which Lynche calls Dionysus is clearly meant (given the context).
[41] That Jupiter Belus was a son of Ham (Kronus) is found in a fragment of Sanchoniathon (extracted from Eusebius) and in a fragment of Eupolemus, both of whom are contained in Cory and Hodges (2003:14 and 82).
[42] Isaac Newton in his ‘Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms Amended’ cites the historian Pausanias (2nd cen. AD) for this information regarding Phoroneus and the Argives.
[43] Lynche (1601) here seems to be following Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60 – 7BC), who Sir Isaac Newton quoted in his ‘Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended’ as saying: “Oenotrus having found in the western parts of Italy a large region fit for pasturage and tillage, but yet for the most part uninhabited, and where it was inhabited, peopled but thinly; in a certain part of it, purged from the Barbarians, he built towns little and numerous in the mountains; which manner of building was familiar to the ancients…”. Newton also notes he wrote: “…seizing part of it, he built towns in the mountains, little and numerous…but after this colony grew numerous, and began to want room, they expelled the Siculi, compassed many cities with walls, and became possest of all the territory between the two rivers Liris and Tibre…”. “The Sicaneans were reputed the first inhabitants of Sicily, they built little Villages or Towns upon hills, and every Town had its own King; and by this means they spread over the country, before they formed themselves into larger governments with a common King: Philistus”.
[44] Lynche (1601) notes this interesting point, also suggesting that the Italians knew Noah under the alias of Janus. His date for the Flood (2317BC), however, places the founding of this city later in history. Here we must caution that Nanni (Lynche’s main source) was a Librarian of the Vaticancollections and therefore he may possibly have increased the antiquity of this city to please the Roman Catholics.
[45]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:13). In this part of the fragment, Ouranos is Noah and Kronus is Ham. However names in Sanchoniathon are inconsistent and generic and must be specified by the context of events.
[46] Lynche (1601) and other historians are admittedly confused about this person. Perhaps there were two people known as Poisedon or Neptune– the first was the son of Ham and the second was the son of Mizraim. Either way, their descendents were feared as tyrannical giants.
[47] This date for Abraham’s birth differs from many reputable scholars including Ussher and Jones, yet it is carefully based upon Scripture since according to Bowden’s revised timeline (Bowden, 1998:177-180), where he notes (based on Acts 7:4) that Terah was at least 130 years old when he had Abraham, Abraham was thus born in 2013 Anno Mundi. Given creation most likely took place in 4266BC based on the best scholarship; this means Abraham’s birth date was 2253BC according to these assumptions.
[48]Plutarch in his ‘De Iside et Osiride’, vol 2., p.354, notes that Amoun was called ‘The hidden God’. It is believed by some that he was hidden in a cave on Crete since Ham had many of his children executed or imprisoned.
[49] Manetho records these kings as the 15th Dynasty of Egypt.
[50] Nimrod must have been born before 2478BC because he was made Saturn of the Babylonian monarchy by Noah during that year (according to Lynche this was 132 years after the Cataclysm – which he makes to be 2185BC). Here, I have assumed that Nimrod was 609 at his death, meaning he was made Saturn of the Babylonians, by Noah, in the year of his birth (to Cush). Lynche also gives his reign in Babylonas 56 years, however this is totally incongruous with his total lifespan as judged by his Scriptural contemporaries in the line of Shem. 609 years is actually more reasonable!
[51] This Semiramis I repaired Babylonafter a damaging flood, and made war on the Indians as recorded by Diodorus Siculus. She was later conflated with Semiramis II (1135-1128BC) who married Beletares (Belesius, Nebuchadnezzar I) – the former keeper of the royal gardens (according to the king list of Eusebius and Hoeh (1967)).
[52] This detail is recorded by Lynche (1601).
[53] This account of the European kings is a synthesis of Lynche (1601) together with Turmair’s king list and a fragment of Sanchoniathon (the latter historian being found in Cory and Hodges (2003:9). In addition, Temple (2011) writes: “It is obvious that the megalith builders, whose stone rings were clearly used for astronomical observation purposes, were significantly advanced in astronomy and geometry. Because they were a maritime civilization, they must have been unrivalled navigators, and that may well be where their knowledge of astronomy and geometry received its original impetus.” Knight and Butler (2011) have done extensive and groundbreaking research into the units of measurement the megalith builders used in many different countries (the Megalithic Yard, Minoan foot etc.). It appears that the constellation Orion was mirrored on the ground in numerous locations across the globe, including Thornborough in England, Giza in Egypt and possibly Sanzhaocun near the ancient capital of Xi’an in China. The megalith builders were totally obsessed with the golden ratio in their geometric plans of the Giza plateau (Temple, 2011) - and coincidently David Fasold discovered the same golden ratio central to the design of what many think are the remains of Noah’s Ark (Fasold, 1988).
[54]Johannes Turmair (contemporary of the Reformer Martin Luther) who published a king list in his Annals of Bavaria. For more information see: [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_the_Angles (Accessed on 26/08/11).
[55] Lynche (1601) and Hoeh (1967) both note this.
[56] Compare Lynche (1601) with Johannes Turmair’s Bayerischeand Deutsche Chronik as in the endnote above. Both record Gampar as the 7th king of Germany. German kings continued after Gampar as follows: Schwab (1667-1621), Wandler (1621-1580), Deuto (1580-1553), Alman (1553-1489), Baier (1489-1429), Ingram (1429-1377), Adalger (1377-1328), Larein (1328-1277), Ylsing (1277-1224), Brenner I (1224-1186), Heccar (1186-1155) (who was the Hector of the Trojan War), Frank (1155-1114) etc.
[57]Heyerdahl (1978:323) notes: “The main Roman discovery on the Atlantic coast of Africa was the island city of Lixus, then known as Maqom Semes, ‘City of the Sun’ [Ed: i.e. Lehabim]. Its impressive sun-oriented, megalithic structures were already then so ancient that the Romans considered Lixus ‘The Eternal City’, older than any settlement inside the Mediterranean; in fact, the Romans associated the place with the demi-gods who preceded men on the earth, and ascribed the grave of Hercules to this islandof Lixus which overlooked the Atlantic Ocean. Today Lixus is no longer an island, and ships cannot get near the former warfs. The impressive ruins are now to be seen half-buried topping a headland, on a ridge surrounded on all sides by flat fields through which the LucusRiver undulates towards the Atlantic shore, now barely visible in the distance. Ships that were undoubtedly in proportion to the colossal structures ashore once docked at what was then an island coast; today not even the tiny four- to six-man reed boats, which have survived among local fishermen, are able to approach the foot of the landlocked hill. A large Roman mosaic of Neptunebears witness to former links with the Ocean, while the ruins of Arab mosques and Roman temples cover earlier Berber and Phoenician structures, refitted in turn from gigantic blocks hauled from far away by the unknown sun-worshippers who first chose the site.” Aubert (2001:162) notes that: “…Pliny adds that in Lixus, in Atlantic Morocco, there was a sanctuary to Heracles (Melqart) that was older than the one in Gadir and he places the mythical Garden of the Hesperides in this area (Pliny Nat. Hist. 19:63). Ancient Lixus, situated on the mouth of the modern Loukkos and in a well-sheltered bay, is close to present-day El Araich or Larache. According to the classical texts, it was apparently the most ancient Phoenician colony in the west, although, like Cadiz, it has not so far yielded any archaeological material earlier than the seventh century BC.”
[58] Menzies (2011) has presented a powerful thesis which shows that Crete was trading copper and drugs with Americafrom a very early date. Americabecame conflated with the volcanic island of Thera, which erupted in ancient times, producing Plato’s myth of the sunken Atlantis.
[59] James (1995, pg. 75) notes that: “Herodotus says that he was told by Egyptian priests that the reign of their first king Menes (i.e. the beginning of their civilization) fell 11, 340 years before the invasion of the Assyrian king Sennacherib…”. Now, it is widely suspected that an extra zero has somehow been added to this figure, meaning he meant 1,134 years. Now Lynche (1601) makes Mizraim (Osyris) about 60 years old when he married his Sister Isis and we also know from Lynche that Isis was born in the first regnal year of Queen Semiramis (i.e. 1755BC). If Mizraim (Menes), being some 10-12 years older than his wife when they married, was thus born in 1767BC (according to the relative chronology provided by Lynche he was born in the reign of Nynas or Ninus II i.e. between 1807-1755BC) and if the reigns of each ruler recorded by Eusebius are correct as we have charted them, this would place Sennacherib’s invasion of Egypt in 633BC - which turns out to be the exact same year (calculated backwards from Nebuchadnezzar’s 524BC ascension) that Sennacherib attempted to destroy Judah under Hezekiah’s kingship, straight after he had captured all the Egyptian and Nubian charioteers! This is only true, however, if we follow Austin and place the destruction of Jerusalemby Nebuchadnezzar in 506BC, some 80 years later than conventionally understood. Surely this precise correlation is more than a coincidence!
[60]Multiple lines of evidence suggest Mizraim was Hammurapi. The evidence is summarised: 1. Mizraim was widely known as Apis, or Jupiter (H)ammon, therefore Hammur-api is very close etymologically. 2. The Israelite slaves were known in Egypt as Hapiru or Apiru – the slaves of Apis. 3. Apis was well-known for his placement of pillars on his conquests, hence the stele of his law codes found in Persia as well as Diyarbekir in Turkey. 4. He arrived in Babylonia/Assyria from Indiaonce he discovered that his father Ham had tried (and failed) to conquer Babylonia for himself. 5. Isaiah 52:4 records ‘the Assyrian’ as the oppressor of God’s people. 6. He (Jupiter Ammon) was king of Greece at the time of the Exodus according to Tacitus. 7. The chronology of Egypt’s kings support this identification. 8. Many laws in Hammurapi’s code are similar to the laws given Moses. 9. The Israelites worshipped a golden calf/bull (Apis).
[61] Here it seems we have the first Olympic trainer! Dagon was an idol of the Philistines, the fish god (1 Samuel 5:4), who came out of the Red Sea (from Egypt) and taught much knowledge (hence Berosus describes Oannes as half man, half fish according to their pagan superstitions). The Olympic games must have begun under Mizraim or his son Lehabim about 1750BC. They were later adopted by the Greeks and the first Olympiad there began roughly 776BC Eusebius wrote: “From [Sardanapallus] until the first Olympiad, 40 years elapsed.” I believe this is a copying error and the figure should be 400 years, since Sardanapallus began his rule in 1180BC and 400 years afterward the first Greek Olympiad occurred in roughly 776BC.
[62] Working back from Nebuchadnezzar II who began in 523-4BC we have an unbroken line of Assyrian/Anatolian rulers together with their lengths of reign from Eusebius. This list suggests Semiramis I began her rule in 1755BC This date is also consistent with the history of Queen Isis, who is said (by Lynche) to have been born in the first year of Semiramis I and to have died some 40 years after the first destruction of Troy (i.e. 1140BC) at 615 years old.
[63] For an amazing confirmation of this point, see Marinatos (2010:114-196), where through a study of Minoan art and iconography she establishes a standard shared set of cultural assumptions about the Solar Dynasty of Ham, Mizraim, Isis and Lehabim in the ancient Near East. The Solar Dynasty were sons and daughters of Ham - the sun god. His African/Egyptian dynasty were represented in iconography all over the near eastern world by the ox head, the double-axe, the rosette and split-rosette, the omega-shaped crown, the ankh sacred knot and the incurved altar (which represented the sacred twin-crests of Mt. Yigityatagi where the ark had rested and the sun god had arisen for the first time). Menzies (2011) points out that the Cult of the (Apis) Bull stretched across the ancient world. A Mycean dagger was found inscribed on Stonehenge in Avon, UK. Furthermore, Crete had strong links with Egypt, where the Apis bulls were considered sacred. All this evidence relates to the period here described.
[64] The children of Ammon were the same peoples as the Lubims of II Chronicles 12:3, who fought for pharaoh Shishak.
[65]According to Josephus and Manetho, the Ethiopic war between Mizraim (Kronus, Osyris) and Typhon (Titan) continued for hundreds of years, resulting in the destruction of many descendants of Mizraim, and Moses was one of the last generals to defeat the Ethiopians – shutting them up in a city called Saba or Meroe or Avaris. Plutarch recounts that Typhon (Titan) had the aid of a famous queen of Ethiopia by the name of Aso when he fought against Osyris.
[66] Rohl (1995:268-273) notes: “Avaris was built on a series of sandy hillocks…surrounded by swamplands to the east and south and the river to the west and north. […] Bietak made the startling discovery that the grave goods associated with the majority of these tombs were of Asiatic origin. The people who had populated the sprawling city of Avarisoriginated from Palestine and Syria! […] an anthropological analysis of the skeletal remains by Eike-Meinrad Winkler and Harald Wilfing shows that more adult women were buried in the settlement than adult men [and] sixty-five per cent of all the burials were those of children under the age of eighteen months. Based on modern statistical evidence obtained from pre-modern societies we would expect the infant mortality rate to be around twenty to thirty per cent. Could this also be explained by the slaughter of the Israelite infant males by the Egyptians? […] In the graves of Stratum G the Austrians found…dismembered sheep, the latter undoubtedly funeral offerings. Analysis of the sheep remains has shown that they were of the long-haired variety. The Asiatic folk of early Avaris introduced the Levantine long-haired sheep into Egyptclearly indicating their pastoralist origins” (cf. Genesis 46:6).
[67] A synchronism was noted here – in that both the invasion of Assyria by Ham and Typhon together with the march of Mizraim’s troops through India and then Assyria and then Turkey occurred chronologically very close. This would suggest Mizraim was in the same area at the same time as his farther Ham, and leads us to the story about Ham’s castration by his son which is normally attributed (wrongly) to Noah.
[68] This 9 year journey comes from Manetho’s account of the Twelfth Dynasty in Egypt. Ammanemes was probably Mizraim and Sesostris was Lehabim or Hercules.
[69] For more recent evidence of this tribe of women warriors, see: Ascherson, N. (2007). Black Sea: The Birthplace of Civilisation and Barbarism. London: Vintage Books. pp. 111-124.
[70] The Poem of Solon
[71]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:11). Atlas is also described as the High King of Atlantis in the Poem of Solon.
[72]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:12). These flints can still be found in Mezorah of Morocco.
[73]Herodotus ‘The Histories’ 1:7 mentions king Agron (also called Argon) the Lydian who was the “son of Ninus, the grandson of Belus, the great grandson of Alcaeus (the son of Hercules)”. Clearly this has been corrupted. It should be read that Argon (Arius) was the son of Ninyas, who was himself the grandson of Jupiter Belus yet also the grandfatherof Balanaeus (Alcaeus) the son of Hercules (Lehabim) through Argon’s daughter. This is clear from the king list provided by Berosus and Eusebius and the chronology of international events deciphered. As Herodotus notes, exactly 22 generations follow on from this Agron or Argon, ending with Candaules the son of Myrsus (who was clearly king Mithraeus in the king list of Eusebius). Candaules was usurped by Gyges – another descendant of Lehabim (Hercules) – leading to the dynasty of the Mermnads. This dynasty continued after Gyges: Ardys II, Sadyattes, Alyattes II and Croesus (Kroisos) - who was defeated by the Persians under Cyrus the Great.
[74]Fragment of Sanchoniathon in Cory and Hodges (2003:15). “Kronus, having laid an ambuscade for his father Ouranos in a certain place in the middle of the earth, and having gotten him into his hands, cuts off his private parts near fountains and rivers. There Ouranos was consecrated [deified], and his spirit was separated, and the blood of his private parts dropped into the fountains and the waters of the rivers; and the place is shewn even to this day.” These days, the large blocks of the Turkish stone monument at Eflatun Pinar, meaning "lilac-coloured spring", are believed to be Hittite in origin, although it was once known as Plato’s Spring (see James, 1995, pg. 199). It is strongly reminiscent of Sanchoniathon’s description of Ham’s execution place. Sanchoniathon also notes: “But when Kronus came to man’s estate, by the advice and assistance of Hermes Trismegistus, who was his secretary, he opposed his father Ouranos, avenging his mother [Gē]”. Isaac Newton also records how in the records of the Cretans: “Saturn was expelled his Kingdom and castrated by his son Jupiter.” Gascoigne (2002, pg. 59) notes “The Greeks also say: “She [Gaia i.e. Rhea the bitter wife] provided Kronus with the adamantine sickle and he castrated him.”
[75] Lynche (1601) and Newton’s ‘Chronology of the AncientKingdom’s Amended’.
[76] Lynche (1601).
[77] This name Curetes comes from a fragment of Euemerus recorded in Eusebius and contained in Cory and Hodges (2003:173). There, ‘the Curetes’ are described as ‘Priests of Jupiter in the island of Crete, and of the goddess Cybeles – Noah’s wife.
[78] The name Tanais stems from king Targitaus (Tanais) of Scythia, apparently the son of Mizraim (Scythian: Zeus) who took a daughter of the BorysthenesRiveras his concubine. “…they say altogether, from their first king Targitaus until the invasion of Darius roughly a thousand years passed” (Herodotus, The Histories, Book 4, 5., pp. 236-237). This date agrees with the time which I have placed Mizraim in Tanais from other sources. Targitaus, the first Egyptian king of Scythia, must then have ended his reign in Tanais roughly 1450BC. This is corroborated by Justin (Marcus Justinus) in Book 1 of his Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, English Trans. John Selby Watson (1853), where “Sesostris” and “Tanaus” are princes who engaged in ancient wars before the time of Ninus.
[79] The Araxes (today Aras) river which constitutes the border between Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijani and Iranwas probably named after this Queen Araxa. Incidently, the Norwegian scientist, Thor Heyrdahl, believed that the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon peoples came from the area of Caucasus – not far from the Arklanding site. Heyrdahl followed the Islandic historian Snorre Sturlason (AD1200) and discovered that Odin’s heavenly castle Asgaard was actually the Russian town of Asov, where the river Don flows into the Sea of Asov. The Semitic ruler (according to Walter Monington in the Great Chartulary of Glastonbury, MSS Wood, Bodleian Library, Oxford), whose name was Woden (Wodden, UUoden, Voden, UUothen, Othin) was the chief of the Aesir (‘fire worshippers’) who had a castle in Asov before the Romans caused them to flee for Sweden in 60BC. The As-ov, As-gaard (in Danish) or As-gorod (in Russian) was the castle of the Aesir. As evidence, Heyrdahl noted that ancient metal belt holders, rings and armbands from AD 100-200 found near the mouth of the Don River were almost identical to Viking equivalents found in Sweden some 800 years later. Many place names in Snorre’s sagas, such as Tanais, matched the ancient Greek names for places around the Sea of Asov. The Odin-people or Udin people, now found in the Caucasus Mountains of Azerbaidjan, stayed behind when the others escaped north (Nissen, 2004). For more fascinating information on the Anglo-Saxons, see Cooper (1995).
[80] Hoeh (1969) in his Compendium of World HistoryVolume 2, Chapter II, mentions Araxa as the daughter of king Gampar. She is said to have married Libys the son of Oryz (clearly names of Lehabim and Osyris or Mizraim). Herodotus (The Histories, Book 4, 20-22) mentions that the Kingdom of the ‘Royal Scythians’ (who regard all other Scythians as their slaves) was centred near Lake Maeetis (a former name for the Sea of Asov). This agrees with Lynche, who records that Queen Araxa and Tuscus, the wife and son of Lehabim, had their royal residence in Tanais near the mouth of the River Don.
[81] By this time, Mizraim and his wife Isis were particularly skilled in agriculture (which they first began in Lower Egypt according to Lynche). Also noteworthy is the fact that Tanais, their previous habitation before Germany, was a centre of wine production and vine growing - established by Noah himself. The ApennineMountainsof peninsular Italyare apparently named after King Apis.
[82] Lynche (1601) speaks of Dardanus founding Troyand Laomedon later fortifying it with two large walls (c.f. James, 1991 - who notes that these two walls have now been found!). Priam probably added to Laomedon’s great work under his rule (establishing what is known as Troy VII). It is certainly possible that there was more than one destruction of Troy. The first may have been under Hercules the Grecian in the 12th Century and the second under Agamemnon in the 9th Century, with other less famous wars a distinct possibility.
[83] Lynche (1601) and Hoeh (1969) recount this Betus son of Tagus Orma (who is the Togarmah of Genesis 10:3, a son of Gomer. Italy– the house of Togarmah – traded in Italian horses with the sea-port city of Tyre c.f. Ezekiel 27:14).
[84]Giovanni Nanni who was the controversial source used by Lynche, is believed to have found evidential remains of Mizraim’s habitation in this city (which was his native city in Italy). The evidence was alleged by some later critics to have been planted in the ground and Nanni was considered a fraudulent disgrace (see endnote 10). This author holds no strong position on this sordid dispute, but has presented a brief defence in the endnote cited above.
[85] Lynche (1601) but also see Gascoigne (2002:81-84) for a description of these first kings of Samothea. Hoeh (1967) also lists these kings, but he assigns B.C. dates to them which are inconsistent with the wider international chronology of events. Dating many of these kings was extremely difficult, therefore only some have dates associated.
[86] Lynche (1601) recounts that Gerion reigned until the 28th year of Belochus the 10th king of Babylon(which he numbers from Nimrod the ‘Saturn’ of the Empire rather than from Noah). John (1994:47) recounts that in Chaldean his name meant ‘stranger’, while in Greek he was called Chryseos and in Latin Aureus – because of the great treasure he accumulated.
[87] Lynche (1601) notes that Tagus Orma gave his name to the river Tagus in Spain, in which large heaps of gold rich sands were found.
[88] John (1994:63) writes: “Jerónimo Pujades (1568-1635), professor of canon law at the University of Barcelona, provided further support for this theory in his Coronica universal del principal de Cathalunya (1609). There was an inscription, he noted, near the church of S. Jaime which read: "BARCINO AB HERCULE CONDITA". See Figure 5.
[89] Of the 24th Dynasty of Egypt according to Manetho in Cory and Hodges (2003). Accordingly, in his reign a miracle was said to have occurred, in that “a sheep spoke”. This is most probably a derogatory reference to the Israelite Prince Moses standing before Pharaoh.
[90] Clayton (1753:124) states that Nanni’s Berosus places the Exodus in the reign of Ascatades of Babylon, 794 years after the Flood. According to Lynche and Nanni’s 2317BC Flood date, this would be approx. 1523BC, and accordingly Nanni places Isius and Dardanus and the 16th king of Spain at the time of the Exodus which he seems to have reckoned corresponded to their lifetimes. Perhaps it did. I believe, based on the death of Hercules in 1354BC and his 5thsuccessor being Isius, that Isius and Dardanus must have had very long lifespans of approx 250 years. This would makes sense because they were the 8th generation from Ham. Abraham was the 10th generation from Shem, and lived to 175 years old. Terah his father (9th gen.) lived over 200 years. Nevertheless, the king of Babylon at the time of the Exodus (1533BC) was actually Belochus the 13th king of Assyria from Noah, not Ascatades the 21st
[91] Polemo (extracted from Africanus, as quoted by Eusebius) in Cory and Hodges (2003:146) notes: ‘that in the reign of Apis, the son of Phoroneus, a part of the Egyptian army deserted from Egypt, and took up their habitation in that part of Syria which is called Palestine, not far from Arabia.’ Mizraim (Apis, Jupiter Ammon) don’t forget, perished in an assassination in 1469BC. Furthermore, Tacitus (The Histories, Book 5) states: “Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries… Most writers, however, agree in stating that once Egypt was over-run by a pestilential disease, contaminating living bodies, and very foul to behold; Bocchoris [Boccharis] the king, applying for a Remedy to the Oracle of Jupiter Ammon, was ordered to purge his Kingdom, and to remove, into another country, that Generation of Men, so detested by the Deities.” (Tacitus extracted from Clayton (1753:132)). Jupiter Ammon was clearly the High King - Mizraim (inhabiting Argos in Greece) and Boccharis was a petty king or ‘pharaoh’ under his rule at the time. Isis was also reigning as the wife of Jupiter Ammon, yet we are not sure where – probably Thebes. Mount Sinai (incidently) can be located in Arabia (Galatians 4:25) and is today called Jabal al Lawz in Saudi Arabia(Blum, 1998). The Golden Calf makes a whole lot more sense when we consider the Apis bulls were venerated gods of the Egyptians at that time. Stone carvings of bulls have been found on the natural stone altar below Jabal al Lawz. Furthermore, Cushwas the land of Saudi Arabia (Numbers 12:1 should read Cushite woman not Ethiopian because Zipporah the daughter of Jethro the Priest of Midian was from Saudi Arabia or Cush).
[92]Josephus calls the city of Avaris by the name of Saba– probably named after this king Sabacon. It was later conquered and inhabited again by a league of Israelites together with Egyptian outcasts.
[93] Lynche (1601).
[94] Mizraim was Menes the Thinite of the ‘First Dynasty’ who Manetho records ‘perished by a wound received from a hippopotamus’. Other sources such as Plutarch suggest a crocodile killed him. Since Manetho’s list of Dynasties was actually understood correctly by Eusebius to be various lists of near contemporary rulers (perhaps of each Egyptian Nome in some cases) Mizraim was also recorded as Ammanemes of the ‘Twelfth Dynasty’ who was ‘slain by his eunuchs’; and both Misphragmuthosis and Armesses or Armais of the ‘Eighteenth Dynasty’. This can only be true if the longevity of Mizraim (and thus the authenticity of the Genesis account of history) is taken as given.
[95] Eudoxus of Cnidus (408BC – 347BC), according to Isaac Newton’s ‘The Chronology of the Ancient Kingdoms Amended’, recorded that Bacchus was slain by Typhon.
[96] See Anon (1841). History of the Egyptians: From Rollin, and other authentic sources, both ancient and modern. London: The Religious Tract Society. [WWW] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3wwGAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA49&ots=9teA-8Oggv&dq=Bocchoris%2C%20Tnephachthus&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=true
[97] For more information on the Labyrinth and these 12 halls, see: [WWW] http://www.labyrinthofegypt.com/ (Accessed on 20/01/12). Shuckford (1824:113) recounts that after Mizraim’s death Egypt was divided into three by his three sons Ananim king of Tanis, Naphtuhim king of Naph (Memphis) and Pathrusim king of Pathros (Thebes). These three may have been among the twelve.
[98] See Gascoigne (2002:129) where the work of Viktor Rydberg’s Teutonic Mythology is summarised.
[99] From Josephus against Apion, extracted from Cory and Hodges (2003:134-135). David Rohl (1995:271) corroborates this with archaeology saying: “Bietak notes that the early Asiatics [found in Avaris] were highly ‘Egyptianised’. The later Asiatics, whom I shall subsequently identify with the Hyksos invaders…were very different. According to Bietak the tombs of this group were ‘purely Canaanite…and showed little Egyptian influence’ – in other words newcomers from the Levant.”
[100] This detail is found in Josephus who wrote in his Antiquities of the Jews: ‘As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cepthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war, which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown.’
[101] For more detail of this historic battle on the Rhinefrom Holinshed’s Chronicles, see Gascoigne (2002:87).
[102] Tuscus was called for this coronation ceremony (approx. 1415BC) from Lehabim’s (i.e. Odin’s) Tanais or Asov (Asgaard) in modern day Russia, where his mother Queen Araxa (Aruru, Ninhurshag) clearly had her palace of residence. The line of Italian kings continued: 1. Altheus 2. Blascon 3. Camboblascon (Coribantus of Italy not France - whom Morges the son of Ophren relinquished the throne to as a sign of remorse).
[103] Aubet (1993:154) notes: “On the coins from Tyre [found in Spain], Melqart appears as a sea god, mounted on a hippocampus” [Ed: a chimera of horse and fish]. … “Phoenician trade in the west, then, began under the aegis of Melqart, that is to say of the king of Tyre”.
[104] After Hesperus (Isius, Jasius) was killed by Ophren (Dardanus) his younger brother, Tyrrhenus the son of Lehabim travelled from Western Anatolia to Italyto form the Etruscans under 12 provinces. There was also an interregnum of some time before Allobrox was made king of Franceand Britain. Then followed in Samothea: 1. Romus (Romanessos?), 2. Paris, 3. Lemanus, 4. Olbius, 5. Galates II, 6. Nannes, 7. Remis, 8. Francus, 9. Pictus and 10. Brutus or Brute (who is believed by some to have arrived in Britainaround 1127 BC to found Trojovinium or New Troy – aka London). From Ophren (Dardanus) the line of Trojan kings continued: 1. Erichthonius, 2. Trous, 3. Assaracus, 4. Anchises, 5. Aeneas (Dardans - who fled from burning Troy, killed Turnus king of the Rutulians and married Lavinia daughter of Latinus in Italy), 6. Silvius and 7. Brutus who invaded Britain. In my scheme, and the New Chronology of James and Rohl this would place Brutus around 820 BC. 
[105]Attested by Sallust, Bell. Jug. 1:8, 3 and Mela 3:46 together with Egyptian archaeological iconography just recently found in Spain. See endnote 106.
[106] This Ophren (Iardanus) had a daughter called Omphale who married Lehabim and gave him a son – Athus the Great.
[107] An ancient, uniquely Egyptian symbol of holy metallurgy, plus a stone depiction of Hercules’ circular island of Mezorah near Lixus (together with Hercules standing next to it) has been found by Spanish archaeologists in Cancho Roano, 250 km from the coast of Spain. The market of ancient Tarsessos (biblical Tarshish) has also been found in the old Huelvaharbour area on this coast. See TV production: ‘Finding Atlantis’ (2011) by National Geographic. Cf. Figure 3. Many other ancient Spanish artefacts prove beyond doubt that the Spanish buried a famous warrior within a grand circular tomb on an island. For instance, see: The Solana de Cabanas Stele.
[108] Aubet (2001:153) notes: “Some authors have hinted at a direct link between the two pillars of the temple in Tyre and the Pillars of Hercules at the other end of the Phoenician world in the city of Gadir (Arrian 2:17, 1-4).”
[109] Ophren usurped the throne from Hesperus (Hespanus) and gave a daughter called Electra (Roma) to Coritus (Corybantus) in marriage. He then fled to Turkey and founded Dardania (Troy I) under the oversight of Xanthos (Scarmander).
[110] This information is confirmed by Idjennaden (The Kings of Mauretania – Kindle Edition) where he notes: “Another tradition, reported by Sallust, who took it from the books of the Numidian king Hiempsal, says that the Medes (from Media, a country north from Persia), the Armenians and the Persians, all belonging to the army that Hercules led to Spain, had moved in Africa after the death of this hero. The first two peoples would have mixed with the Lybians living on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, while the Persians settled farther west, near the Atlantic Ocean. The peoples resulting from the merger with the autochthonous people resulted in the ancestors of the Numidians for the first group, and in the Maures for the second. The tradition of Hercules in Iberialeading a large army made of different nations, would be a myth behind which there is a truth: the installation of many Phoenician colonies in Spain led by a Melqart, a god worshipped by the Phoenicians and who is the counterpart of the Greek god Hercules.” If this were true, it would explain why Pharaoh Shishak had such a large multi-national army when he invaded Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25). 
[111]“Agamemnon’s sceptre was made by Vulcan, and by Vulcan given to Jupiter, by Jupiter to Mercury, by Mercury to Pelops, by Pelops to Atreus, by Atreus to Thyestes, and by Thyestes to Agamemnon” (Shuckford, (1824:302)).
[112] See Cooper (1995:84-85) and Gascoigne (2002: 126-130). Woden fled from Asgaard to Swedenwhen the Romans invaded and hence arose the Anglo-Saxon line.
[113]Eusebius writes: “Sardanapallus… became the final king of the Assyrians. He surpassed all his predecessors in luxurious living and laziness. After a bit [Diodorus] informs that [Sardanapallus] was so dissolute that not only did he ruin his own life, but he wreaked the entire Assyrian state which had endured from time immemorial. Now it happened that there was a certain Arbaces of Median nationality, a virtuous stout-hearted man who was a general of the Medes who were sent each year to Ninus' city. In the course of his military duties, he became friendly with the commander-in-chief of the Median army, who beseeched him to overthrow the Assyrian government. This is what Diodorus relates in book two of the Historical Library.” Indeed, Arbaces the Mede, destroyed the power of the Assyrians and transferred rule to the Medes. Under his rule, keeper of the RoyalGardens(Belesius) intermarries and rules in Babylon as a petty king or satrap - building the HangingGardensfor his Hammitic wife Attosa. Some of the succeeding Kings of the Medes after Arbaces are named by Cephalion (in Eusebius) as: Maudaces, Sosarmus (974-952BC), Artycas, Deioces (811-771BC), Phraortes (658-637BC), Cyaxares (585-543BC) and Ashdahak (Astyages, Assuerus, Ahasuerus of Dan. 9:1), the latter being contemporary with both Cyrus I King of Persia and Acraganes (Saracus) of Babylon who was betrayed by his rebellious usurper general Thonos Concolerus (Narbopalassar). Is there any biblical confirmation for this revision of the Median Empire? Yes there is. Isaac Newton wrote that: “After the days of Nimrod, we hear no more of an Assyrian Empire ‘till the days of Pul”. Given what we have discovered since Newton’s wrote these words, his statement no longer holds water. There were many kings before Pul. In fact, Nehemiah 9:32 states regarding the Jews: “Now therefore our God, - let not all the trouble seem little before thee that hath come upon us, on our Kings, on our Princes, and on our Priests, and on our Prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the Kings of Assyria, unto this day”. By the context of this passage, it is clear that the trouble that Nehemiah is referring to began in the time of their fathers who were given the promised land i.e.  Judges (1140BC) when the Hamitic Assyrian kings failed in the reign of  dissolute king Sardanapallus, not 400 years later with the rise of the Assyrian king Pul (Tiglath-Pileser III) in the 6thC.BC. It is not the rise of the kings of Assyria that this verse refers to at all, it is the end of their ancient rule from Nimrod (the mighty hunter) until Sardanapallus – some 1300 years that this verse speaks of, as many reliable ancient historians clearly also corroborate.
[114] Today, traditional Protestant history is considered little more than ancient euhemeristic mythography (reducing pagan mythology to ‘distorted echoes’ of Hebrew truths and belittling pagan gods as mortal men). The modern alternative to Nanni, i.e. cuneiform studies and ‘deep history’, suggest that the oldest pottery in the world (to date) has a radiometric age of 12,700BC (Rudgley, 1999). This dates, in most biblical chronologies, to roughly 6,426 years older than the very inception of cosmic time itself! Human pottery existing ‘before the beginning of the universe’ is nothing short of farcical. It belongs in a Douglas Adams novel. Yet this is where secular humanism has inevitably led historical scholarship, because nothing in history makes sense, except in the light of creation and the Judeo-Christian Tanakh (Old Testament). Cuneiform tablets are enormously useful for answering certain biogeographical questions, yet their value in establishing an absolute chronology is presently rather limited.
[115]Burgess (2004:125) writes: “Evolutionists have made great efforts to find evidence of such gradual development of technology but with no success…. There are claims of simple weapons like spears and axes being older than 10,000 years but the origin and age of these is very debatable…. If man had evolved, there would have been very intelligent people around for a period of more than 100.000 years because intelligence would not have changed significantly over such a period…. If man had been around for the last 100,000 years, there would have been people with the ability of Newtonliving in virtually every generation. To propose that there was a period of at least 100,000 years where very intelligent people did not make any significant inventions is absurd in the extreme.”

The Eubacterial Flagellum - Co-option an Option?

$
0
0

Chapter six of the 2006 book 'Why Intelligent Design Fails' (edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis) is written by Ian Musgrave, a molecular pharmacologist at the University of Adelaide. 

Although his critique of the irreducible complexity of the eubacterial flagellum looks scientifically reasonable at first, a little more research uncovers many significant problems with his rather glib dismissal of the details.

Musgrave notes that the bacterial flagellum is an organelle that looks strikingly similar to a machine constructed by humans. Then, within the same paragraph, he contradicts this assertion with the claim that: '..."the" bacterial flagellum does not exist'. One cannot help feeling that this irrational conclusion is partly motivated by a rejection of learning. What could he possibly mean by this blatant contradiction? It seems that in an attempt to think comparatively, Musgrave is also trying to draw our attention away from the object of cognitive conflict (the eubacterial flagellum), and introduce other types of flagella (e.g. Archaeal flagella). Yet significantly, he fails here to note that these other flagella (including their basal bodies) are by no means plausible intermediates, but totally distinct systems - fundamentally different in many respects from the eubacterial propeller.

William Dembski finds models of the evolution of the eubacterial flagellum unconvincing. Yet Musgrave claims that: '...[Dembski] does not seem to understand that the eubacterial flagellum is only one of a range of motility systems in bacteria...and that motility is just one function of the flagellum.' This is clear equivocation. Many flagellum experts [including Professor Scott Minnich] understand very well that there are other motility systems designed for life at a low Reynolds number. Yet all of these systems (except type-III secretory systems) share no significant homologies with the bacterial flagellum, and therefore cannot contribute to a hypothetical Darwinian pathway. Furthermore, while it is true that the eubacterial flagellum does contain a sub-system that superficially resembles a Type III secretory system, this flagellar subsystem is a vital engineering solution which allows assembly to occur from the bottom of the filament up. Therefore, half-baked attempts to impose a historical interpretation are utterly unjustified.

However, Musgrave continues this critique by suggesting: 'The flagellum is probably not IC at all because the original function of the eubacterial flagellum, which can survive massive pruning of its components, is almost certainly secretion, not motility'. This reasoning is severely flawed. It is somewhat equivalent, upon spying a light aircraft, to claiming that the original function of the aircraft - which can survive massive pruning of its wings, tail flaps etc. - is almost certainly road transport, not flight. Indeed, comparative analysis with both a Reliant Robin and a Sinclair C5 shows that all light aircraft probably arose through co-option and simple modification of a three wheeled precursor which perhaps originally functioned as a lawnmower. Clearly when we see design we can always rationalize it away with a historical just-so story, but such stories become highly implausible.

This chapter next presents evidence for homologies with the Type III secretory system. Here, the extent of homology with this system is quite overblown. The Type III secretory system contains no homologues for a number of vital components including MotA, MotB, FliM, FliE, and possibly FliO and the filament forming chaperone FliD. In addition:

1. The type III homologue of FliN only shares sequence similarity in 80 C-terminal amino acids.

2. The similarity between FliG homologs is very poor indeed.

3. The FliF homologue in the Type III secretory system has both the C- and N-terminal domains missing and is probably incapable of substituting for flagellar FliF.

Most models also assume the existence of the Type III secretory system to begin with. Yet the origin of this system is far from clear. Some scientists have recently suggested that it could have been coopted from an already functioning ATP synthase. Yet this is simply clutching at straws because there are many dissimilarities between these systems and the origin of ATP synthase as a ubiquitous system is itself equally obscure. Primitive ATP synthases are simply non-existent.

Analysing this a little deeper reveals that the Type III secretory system is not the proposed Darwinian intermediate for the eubacterial flagellum anyway. What, according to Musgrave, is then? The final answer - it turns out - is a 'general, ancestral type-III system' which cannot be identified but must simply be imagined! No surprises there then! In fact, what we have here is a molecular 'missing link'. Perhaps we can anticipate the next logical step for evolutionary molecular biology: a theory of punctuated equilibrium for molecular systems!

After arguing that the eubacterial flagella performs many other functions - including secretion - Musgrave suggests: 'Secretion plays a crutial role in this organelle, so you can't make flagella without secretion, so secretion must be the original function.' This is very questionable reasoning indeed. What it totally ignores is the remarkable, systematic, assembly order of this organelle.

It turns out that when the eubacterial flagellum is assembled, the rotor housing (FliF) forms first, followed by the rotor/switch (FliG,M,N), followed by the protein export apparatus (FlhA,B,FliO,P,Q,R), followed by the motor proteins (MotA,B); then the rod, the secretory P and L rings, and finally the hook, junction, cap and filament. The implications of this sequence are very significant. Since the assembly sequence which is most plausible from a historical perspective is quite dissimilar to the actual assembly sequence, something is clearly wrong with Musgrave's model. In all evolutionary models, the export and secretory systems are always assumed very early on. In reality, however, the switch complex must be formed first in order to incorporate the export apparatus. Since the switch and rotor only function as part of the rotary flagellum system, the rotary propeller function of the flagellum is implicit from the beginning - a clear case of "teleological assembly".

Teleological assembly doesn't stop there, however. Evolutionary models (assuming Gram-negative origins) also suggest a secretin is formed in the peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharide wall layers  - before the rod complex. This is in order to provide a hollow tube for surface adhesins to oligomerize (without a chaperone!) to form an adhesive proto-pilus. However, in order to oligomerize and puncture the two wall layers, the rod complex (FliE, FlgB, FlgC/F and FlgG) in the eubacterial flagellum actually seems to drill through the walls using the proton-motive force of the motor proteins. The motor proteins are therefore incorporated before the rod pierces through the two layers, and the P and L secretory rings are only incorporated as the rod penetrates each layer of the wall respectively. Needless to say, this assembly sequence is extremely counter-intuitive from an evolutionary perspective. Yet teleologic assembly makes perfect sense within a paradigm of intelligent design.

In closing, Musgrave concludes: 'Being IC does not eliminate indirect evolutionary explanations, and flagella can evolve from simpler systems through a series of functional intermediates.' Yet nowhere has Musgrave actually demonstrated a scientifically plausible, non-direct Darwinian pathway, and nowhere has he provided any plausible intermediates with significant homology to the eubacterial flagellum.

Brand New E-booklet on Noah's Flood in Ancient Cultures Out Now!

Book Review: An insidious assault upon biblical origins

$
0
0


Book Review: 


How I Changed my Mind about Evolution: Evangelicals reflect on faith and science
Editors: Applegate, K. and Stump, J.B.
Publisher: Monarch Books (Lion Hudson plc), Oxford, 2016.
Pages: 196.  Price: £10.99

This book is a collection of twenty five short autobiographies by people who claim to be evangelicals, yet have accepted “evolutionary creation” (aka theistic evolution) as an explanation for origins. This position involves a rejection of Scriptural authority and Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones summed up such claimants:

“…instead of submitting themselves to the Scripture, they turn to science, to philosophy, or to one of a number of other disciplines, and their position is determined by these things. They allow reason to determine what they believe instead of how they believe and how they think.”[i]

Some of the authors apparently accepted the biblical position on creation until in their higher education they encountered compromising Christian theologians. An uncritical attitude towards these theologians and a mistaken notion that they represent the historic Reformed tradition swayed their worldview towards theistic evolution.[ii]John Calvin’s name is used to buttress old earth creation (page 26), although in reality he was strongly opposed to those who questioned the timeframe that Genesis provides, noting that the Spirit Himself testifies against them:

 “…if men wish to cling to their knowledge and judgement, it will be incredible to them that the world was created six thousand years ago. For what was God doing from all eternity? In fact, shallow and imaginative people will never understand what the Holy Spirit gives witness to because they will always have their own answers.”[iii]

The grammatical-historical interpretation of Genesis, which necessarily entails a young cosmos, is dismissed as an “utter novelty” (page 25) based on Ronald Number’s biased and selective history.[iv] Many creationists have ably demonstrated that Genesis 1-11 is a historical narrative[v], and from the second century A.D. Christians were refuting the notion that our cosmos is extremely ancient (or even eternal) when countering Greek philosophers.

Other authors in the book argue that Genesis chapter 1 employs simple, “ancient science”, which they say is now known to be just plain wrong. However, there is a vast difference between simplification and fabrication! Whilst it is important not to neglect Hebrew idiom and culture, this can easily be taken too far. There is no “ancient science” in Genesis one. Rather, the infinite, timeless Author is accommodating his timeless truth to us in every age. Many early cosmogonies, such as those from Egypt, are probably pagan corruptions of the Genesis Flood narrative. One author writes: “it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be.” (page 73) Such statements directly contradict the doctrine of Scriptural perspicuity and ultimately end in scepticism concerning special revelation as a whole. Bear in mind that even the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Scripture's ultimate Author, would fall foul of this glib assertion, because he is fully human as well as fully divine!

Some of the authors felt that by maintaining a young cosmos against the tide of scholarship and peer pressure they were interpreting Scripture subjectively. However, the Holy Spirit is our interpreter, and being God-breathed, the Scriptures are our sole and final authority in all matters which they touch upon. Aberrant and novel interpretations of Scripture, which are motivated more by extra-biblical speculations than by careful exegetical and historical study, should not be accepted. Returning to Dr Lloyd-Jones’ neglected warnings:

[Such people] “…are saying that there are, as it were, two great authorities and two means of revelation: one of them is Scripture and the other is nature…so you go to the Scriptures for matters concerning your soul, but you do not go to them to seek God’s other revelation of Himself in nature. For that, you go to science. You are familiar with this view which, it seems to me, is not only extremely dangerous, but tends to undermine our whole [evangelical] position. We have got to contest it, and contest it very strongly.”[vi]

Origins science, unlike operational science, is not demonstrable in a laboratory and some of the authors appear naïve in accepting what are merely fallible, changing opinions and assumptions. Many unprovable, tacit assumptions and speculations are thoroughly unbiblical. Spiritual discernment is required and those evangelicals critical of biblical creationism should at least inform themselves about what creationists actually believe regarding the limits of biological variation (pp. 37-38), the origins of entropy (p. 126), and the identity of Cain’s wife! (p. 139).

Commendably, throughout the book we are encouraged to give God glory and praise for his wonderful and awe-inspiring world. Yet in the worldview of ‘evolutionary creation’ the Fall had very little effect on animals and although evolution by natural selection is described as “profound”, “beautiful” and “elegant”, its mechanism involves death, disease, bloodshed and untold animal suffering as part of the creative process. How such monstrous cruelty could be attributed to the loving Creator of the Bible, who gave His divine stamp of approval no less than seven times in Genesis one, is left unanswered.

Most of the authors were once biblical creationists and describe their former approach (or that of their mentors) in very critical terms: “selective” (p.23), “quite aberrant” and “narrow” (p.26), “afraid” (p.33), “scared to death” (p.36), “growing” yet “at war with science” (p.65), “unworkable” “wishful thinking” (p.66), “declaring personal infallibility” (p.67), displaying “misinformed religious fervour” (p.74), “bad science, shoddy thinking, false claims and misguided ideas” and “…a wrong interpretation of the Bible” (p.93), “intellectual slackers” (p.95), “uncritical” (p.99), “risk-averse” (p.104), “spoon-fed” (p.105), “flawed” (p.110), “gerrymandering” (p.117), “nervous” (p.120), “increasingly absurd” (p.140), “rigid” (p.156), “a fabrication of religionists” (p.174), “a caricature” which  we will “face judgement for” and “our own subculture of alternative science” (p.175). In short, generally “hung up” (p.192).

Other authors contradict these negative jibes and put-downs. One author writes that “many have lost their faith over evolution. It is quite understandable that many churches are worried about their young people studying biology in secular universities.” Another author states: “…Christians who are uncomfortable with any version of evolution – even evolutionary creationism – are not necessarily unintelligent, naïve or obstinate.” For a book full of unpleasant remarks about those who profess true doctrine, this is an interesting admission!

A battle is raging for the hearts and minds of our young people and sadly many who are being led astray and have abandoned Scriptural authority may welcome this book as it will seemingly confirm them in their errors. If Bible-believing evangelicals read the book, they should do so with great caution.


[i] Lloyd-Jones, D.M. (1992). What is an Evangelical? The Banner of Truth Trust, p.49.
[ii] Chapters 1-3 of Coming to Grips with Genesis by Mortenson and Ury contain a helpful rebuttal of this pseudo-historical idea. Also cf. Sarfati, J. (2004). Refuting Compromise. USA: Master Books.
[iii] Calvin, J. (1559), translated by McGregor, R.R. (2009). Sermons on Genesis: Chapters 1-11. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.
[iv] Numbers, R. (2006). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Harvard University Press.
[v] See, for instance: Beeke, J.R. (2013). What Did the Reformers Believe about the Age of the Earth? In: Ham, K. (Ed.) The New Answers Book 4, Master Books, pp.101-110; Peet, J.H.J. (2013). Does the Bible require a belief in ‘special creation’? DayOne Publications, pp.43-55; Patrick, J. (2013). The Genre and Goals of Genesis 1-11, Origins #57 [Part 1, pp.14-17] and Origins #58 [Part 2, pp.8-11]. Journal of The Biblical Creation Society.
[vi] Lloyd-Jones, D.M. Op. Cit. p.73

Creation or Evolution: Do we Have to Choose? Book Review

$
0
0


Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?
New Edition: Revised and Expanded. £14.99. (2014).
ISBN: 9780857215789.
Author: Denis Alexander

Reviewed by J. Charles Lee Powell

   During three addresses at the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students’ Conference in 1971, the well known evangelical Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones soberly warned hearers of a number of subtle yet serious shifts in commitment to the biblical gospel which were causing him (and other evangelicals) deep concern. The volume under scrutiny in this review, Creation or Evolution, is simply a number of these terribly dangerous shifts repackaged in a slick presentation – written in a very readable style – yet now representing, even more so than it did back in 1971, a “radical” departure “from the true position of the evangelical” (Lloyd-Jones, 1992)[1].
   The purpose of this review is not to exhaustively critique Dr Alexander’s work in earnestly contending for the historic evangelical faith. Much superb and detailed rebuttal of the first edition has already been provided by a compilation of authors edited by Professor Norman Nevin and also by David Anderson in his valuable little book ‘Creation or Evolution: why we must choose’ (together with a review posted online) (Nevin, (2009) and Anderson, (2009)). Rather, this briefer assessment will focus on just a few select claims which are fairly representative of the quality and/or veracity of the expanded edition as a whole. This is not intended as some trite ‘points scoring’ exercise, but simply as a reflective warning to readers that ‘nothing significant has changed’ in this second edition; it remains utterly unacceptable to the true evangelical believer in God’s Holy Word[2].
   One of the first disturbing claims occurs rather abruptly in chapter 2, on page 48, where we are confidently informed that Scripture is silent about the ‘miraculous aspect’ of God’s creative activity. This same claim crops up again in chapter 8 - on page 221-222 where it is argued that attributing miracles to Genesis 1 is going beyond what the text actually says. Yetis it not written in Scripture (Psalm 33): “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made […] let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him […] For he spake, and it was…; he commanded, and it stood fast”? Who else but God can create mass-energy instantaneously merely by speaking? Therefore to assert that the Scriptures are silenton the fact of miraculous creation is an extraordinary oversight. As the American evangelical R.B. Kuiper once ironically commented to hammer home this point: “The creation of heaven and earth was a miracle. It is flatly denied. The theory of evolution is substituted… So the Bible begins with a lie. But that is a bad beginning. A book that starts with a lie is quite sure to contain lots of them” (Kuiper, 1919 and 2010).
   A second claim occurs in Chapter 4, pages 90-91, where we are told that genetic code ‘redundancy’ (in the triplet codon to amino acid mapping) means that in many instances it makes no difference to a protein if a mutation substitutes certain nucleotides for others (i.e. the code is ‘degenerate’ as we’ve all been taught). However, a paper published soon after Dr Alexander’s expanded edition was released may compel him to think again. Writing in the journal ‘Frontiers in Genetics’ under the title ‘Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing’, authors D'Onofrio and Abel (2014) have found that mutations in codons can alter another rule-based code which governs the rate at which amino acids are folded into proteins within ribosomes (something like how ink-jet printers specify intentional pauses in their paper throughput to allow the wet ink time to dry). This discovery of logic-based pausing code must surely have important implications for the theory of ‘neutral evolution’ and ‘genetic drift’ (covered in this volume on pp. 96-97). Yet my point is that code ‘degeneracy’ and not another layer of ‘ontological prescriptive information’ is what evolutionists would expect to find if genomes are just cobbled together from co-opted strings of acids. In reality and to the contrary, complex, multi-dimensional, multi-layered coding is characteristicof both genotypes and ribotypes. To his credit, Dr Alexander notes that in genomics “…there will almost certainly be many more surprises to come”, however one begins to wonder why they should be considered counter-intuitive ‘surprises’ if an omniscient Intelligence is behind them.
   A conclusion (and witticism) soon arrives in chapter 5 (p.123): “Adam was commanded by God in Genesis 2:19-20 to name all the animals, but we have a long way to go in finally fulfilling that command!” A quick glance at the referenced Scripture passage indicates that the former assertion is simply false. The only animals mentioned are all cattle (behema), flying things (‘ôp) and every beast (hayyat ha’sadeh). Significantly, this excludes all the many swimming swarmers (šereṣ) and creeping things (remes– e.g. flightless insects) from Adam’s task. Therefore this conclusion is quite incorrect, despite the statement seemingly meaning to invoke wonder at the breadth of biodiversity; we have no reason to doubt that Adam had ample time to name those creatures that God brought to him on the sixth day.
   Chapter 7 favourably outlines a ‘Form and Fullness’ or ‘Creation Kingdoms and Creature Kings’ structure for Genesis 1:1-2:3, which was conclusively proven false by Professor E.J. Young back in 1964 and again by Professor Todd Beall in 2008 (Young, 1964; Mortenson and Ury, 2008). ‘Figurative interpretation’ is subsequently given the ‘proverbial nod’ through church fathers of the allegorical ‘Alexandrian School’ (Philo, Origen and Augustine) who were influenced by Greek Hellenistic thought and were actually some of the only fathers to take exception to a literal-day interpretation(c.f. Rose, 2000; Sarfati, 2004). All this leads on to a discussion of how Ancient Near Eastern creation epics contrast with Genesis, ending with the curious observation: “…the gods continue to act like a murderous bunch of thugs in these accounts, sending vicious plagues onto mankind for trivial offences like making too much noise...” What? Has Dr Alexander forgotten that judging by his own distorted theodicy, his “deity” created human beings through multiple mass-extinctions, plagues and a blood-bath of the most heinous animal cruelty spanning over 500 million years? And are we really meant to accept the claim that this “wondrous” process was a “robust expression of God’s omnipotence” since “We are all part of that long food chain without which the biosphere cannot function”? Such wholly diminished conceptions of a holy, sublime Creator, who creates oblivious to all the primal horror screams of lifeblood spilling around him as he joyfully frolics with such said omnipotence, are frankly disgusting. If this is to pass for modern evangelicalism then we really have lost the gospel! The Lord Jesus metaphorically called himself ‘The good shepherd’. Yet in Alexander’s Machiavellian worldview this same Jesus (before his incarnation) was indiscriminately slaughtering countless generations of real sheep before they were justly cursed on account of the serpent’s usurping role in Adam’s sin (i.e. in Genesis 3:14); thus a glorious biblical metaphor is rendered squalid and inappropriate through his misinterpretation of Scripture! The (impossible) challenge for Dr Alexander is to squareGod’s revealed nature (i.e. gracious, loving and compassionate, even toward animals – cf. Exodus 23:12, Proverbs 12:10, Isaiah 11:8-9 and 65:25) with his unbiblical, non-lapsarian theodicy of physical death, suffering and natural evil.
   So let’s examine his theodicy in more detail. One notable conclusion which Dr Alexander reaches is that physical death is not a consequence of human sin. He reasons that the New Testament does not appear to link Christ’s sacrificial death to the physical death resulting from Adam’s sin – and we need not do so either. Yet on page 337 Dr Alexander writes that: “The use of animals for […] sacrifice is closely linked as the Genesis text progresses. It was God who provided Adam and Eve with garments made from animal skin after the fall.” Are these two sentences meant to be logically connected in Dr Alexander’s Theology? It is clear from the context of the passage alluded to here, coming just after the spiritual death of Adam and Eve (and God’s subsequent ‘proto-evangelium’ of Genesis 3:15), that God physically killed animals in order to make such skin tunics as allegorical atonement coverings for them (c.f. the ‘garments of salvation/robe of righteousness’ allegory in Isaiah 61:10). Now, behind these symbolic coverings, as Dr Alexander appears to acknowledge elsewhere, “the death of the animal powerfully symbolises the forgiveness of sin and salvation from the consequent penalty of death that the sinner really deserved” (p. 352). Yet he discounts his own ‘sacrifice/animal-skin garment’ logic just shortly before this when he writes: “The very first sacrifice that we find in the Old Testament comes in Genesis 8 when Noah sacrifices burnt offerings…” (p.351). Is this really consistent? Not as such, for we may safely make a logical inference (as with the vast majority of evangelical commentators) that because atonement for sin is always associated with the physical death of an animal through the shedding of its life-blood, Genesis 3:21 is actually the first sacrifice. As Theodore Epp wrote in 1972: “[God’s] love and mercy were manifested in that He arranged that this death penalty could be taken by Another and that man could be delivered from condemnation. This is seen in type in Genesis 3 when it is recorded that God made “coats of skins” (v. 21), which involved the shedding of innocent blood. This type was fulfilled in Jesus Christ when He came to earth to shed His innocent blood on the cross for the sins of the world.” Why then does Dr Alexander decide to discount his own logic?
    Quite simply, should Dr Alexander admit that Genesis 3:21 really was a sacrifice, the resulting typological connection would deeply compromise his other claim! For Hebrews 9:12 links the insufficient animal life-blood (inferentially shed from Genesis 3:21 onwards) with the sufficient sacrificial life-blood of Christ (shed on the Cross of Calvary). And Hebrews 10:3-10 teaches the necessity of this physical link - because the shadow had to be offered repeatedly throughout Old Testament history and could not take away sin, whereas the reality (i.e. the life-blood of Jesus) cleanses us from all sin once and forever. Hence the New Testament does by typology and logical inference link these two deaths together - and the reality (fulfilled in Christ’s physical death) is the reason we will see Adam and Eve physically resurrected as part of the new earth community! Furthermore, besides this typological argument, should the Apostle Paul have wanted to distinguish between Adam’s spiritual and physical death in his New Testament letters, he could easily and perspicuously have just added the qualifying Greek word ‘pneumatikon’ (spiritual) before his word for ‘death’, yet he never so much as hints that this artificial demarcation is appropriate for the first man… (Greek: anthropos) …Adam.
   Although there might be many more claims to critique, the last for our purposes occurs on page 381. There we read: “…page after page of the Old Testament remind us of God’s delight in all the creatures of his creation. For nearly all of our planet’s history, only God was around to enjoy their presence on the earth.” Presumably these temporary ‘sandcastles’ were an even greater joy for Alexander’s “deity” to divinely demolish- because as he explains elsewhere: “More than 99% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.” Indeed! So what are we to make of this ‘deep time doctrine’ in light of Holy Scripture and the historic evangelical faith? To begin with, Proverbs 8:24-31 makes it clear that when God created the earth, it was then his delights were with the sons of men – not some 4,566 million years later! Secondly, it wilfully overlooks the Lord Jesus’ own teaching on the age of the earth around A.D. 30 (Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19-20 and Luke 11:50-51); the majority of the church fathers (who also taught a youthful cosmos); Peter Lombard (d. AD 1164), Hugo of St. Victor (AD 1097-1141), Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225-1274) and Giacomo da Bergamo (AD 1434-1520) during the Middle Ages; together with Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, several major ‘Confessions of Faith’ and innumerable modern theologians and scientists around the world. The last word must surely go to Calvin, who noted that: “…if men wish to cling to their knowledge and judgement, it will be incredible to them that the world was created six thousand years ago. For what was God doing from all eternity? In fact, shallow and imaginative people will never understand what the Holy Spirit gives witness to because they will always have their own answers (Calvin, 2009).” Those who call themselves evangelicals, including this author, must pray earnestly that Dr Alexander would miraculously relinquish his own fallacious answers, in favour of those really found in God’s Holy Word, before that great and terrible Day of Judgment arrives.

References:
Anderson, D. (2009). Creation or Evolution: choose wisely! [WWW] http://creation.com/review-creation-or-evolution-david-anderson(Accessed on 24/01/15).
Beall, T. (2008). ‘Contemporary Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis 1-11’ In: Mortenson, T. and Ury, T. (eds.). (2008). Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, USA: Master Books. p. 156-158.
Calvin, J. (2009). Sermons on Genesis, Volume 1: Chapters 1-11. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.
D’Onofrio, D.J. and Abel, D.L. (2014). Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing. Front. Genet., 20 May 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00140
Epp, T. (1972). The God of Creation. Back to the Bible, p.195-197.
Kuiper, R.B. (1919 and 2010). While the Bridegroom Tarries. The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 33.
Lloyd-Jones, M. (1992). What is an Evangelical? Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 79
Nevin, N.C. (2009). Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific responses.Inter-Varsity Press, UK
Rose, S. (2000). Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Version. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood.
Sarfati, J. (2004). Refuting Compromise… USA. Master Books. p. 121
Young, E.J. (1964). Studies in Genesis One. USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. pp. 68-73.


[1]. Note that Dr Lloyd-Jones rightly located the issue of “Creation not Evolution” and a ‘global’ not ‘local’ flood under truths ‘essential and foundational’ to the evangelical faith. Dr Alexander, on the other hand, states that he does not regard these issues as foundational, and he appears to consider his evolutionary position to be historically orthodox because some I.F.E.S. leaders in the latter decades of the 20th century advocated it!
[2]Although Dr Alexander is no doubt aware of the detailed critiques just cited, he has chosen to dismiss them as significantly "inaccurate"– yet his short, selective responses and studied ignorance of key Scriptural texts actually display a pseudo-intellectual opposition to God's Word. 

Archaeology and the paradigm shift from Antiquity to Deep Time

$
0
0

    “Half a century ago, man’s past was supposed to include less than six thousand years; now the story is seen to stretch back hundreds of thousands of years.” So wrote the early 20th century historian James Robinson about a perceived ‘paradigm shift’ in universal history and archaeology. A ‘paradigm’ is an explanatory framework that makes sense of a given set of observations, and that is founded upon certain basic assumptions.  This article has three main objectives:

  • To describe the paradigm behind early-phase archaeology
  • To explain the 19th-20th century shift in western historical tradition
  • To critically evaluate the dominant 21st century paradigm
  

THE DAWN OF EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

   Archaeology has been a popular pastime among art collectors for many thousands of years, but it was not until the 16th and 17th centuries that a standard scientific methodology was developed in Europe. The archaeologist of today is a historian who is not limited to the written word but goes further and carefully digs out evidence of the remains and relics of ancient peoples to prepare them for scientific publication.
   The early 16thcentury saw a resurgence of interest arise in ancient artefacts and manuscripts as part of the wider European Renaissance and Reformation. The Vaticanbegan collecting artefacts in AD 1505, whilst antiquaries such as John Leland and William Camden began surveying megalithic monuments for publication. Historians of the age based their conclusions regarding the human past upon a significant corpus of over one thousand texts written by approximately eighty authors from classical and ancient times. These included authorities such as Pliny and Isidore of Seville. Others were geographers, for example Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy, whose knowledge of ancient place names could be used to discover the founding ancestors of cities. Still others were focused upon recounting historical events to as far remote (in some cases) as 2100 BC. These included early historians such as Livy, Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Berosus, Diodorus Siculus, Sanchoniathon, Appian, Herodotus, Sallust, Josephus, Eusebius, Valerius Maximus and Rufus. All these well respected authorities took centre-stage within a long-established academic tradition, together with one special source – the Judeo-Christian Tanakh (Old Testament) – widely regarded as sacred.  (Smail, 2008 and Stringer, 2006).
   Geologically, the paradigm of early historians and archaeologists included a universal cataclysm which had destroyed almost all traces of world civilization at some point in the mid-third millennium B.C. Historically, since then, there had been five distinct ages within recorded memory. The Greek scholar Hesiod classified these ‘ages’ under the headings: golden (~2600 – 1680 B.C.), silver (~1680 – 1350 B.C.), bronze (~1350 – 1130 B.C.), heroic (~1130 – 810 B.C.) and iron (~810 B.C. onwards). Sociologically and biogeographically, the paradigm incorporated a West-Asian radiation model of just one patristic people group from the hills of south-eastern Turkey. This diffusionist model presented the rapid stratification of surviving humanity by cultural elites (chosen monarchs) distinguished via their birthrights and territorial inheritance from the earliest period of their burgeoning civilizations. These elites acted as the privileged repositories, guardians and purveyors of knowledge, skills, resources and social justice.
   The validity of such manuscripts formed the basic assumption of the earliest paradigm and although primarily a monastic European phenomenon, it was by no means exclusively so. The written past held real authority across international boundaries. Yet between the years 1500-1700 overly critical methods of analysis (a humanistic genre which Grafton (2012) terms the Ars Historica) severely undermined their authority.
  
BACKGROUND TO THE SHIFT

   The first rumblings of discontent with the early-phase paradigm can be traced back to the early 16thcentury in the writings of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Girolamo Fracastoro (1483-1553). Within his notebooks of 1508-1518, Leonardo abandoned many authoritative accounts of a cataclysmic flood when instead he jotted regarding seashells found at high altitude: “Since thingsare far more ancient than letters, it is not to be wondered at if in our days there exists no record of how the aforesaid seas extended over so many countries” [emphasis mine]. The adequacy of past written records was again radically challenged at a chronological level with the publication of a text called New Work of Correcting Chronology by Joseph Scaliger in 1583. His terse criticism seriously undermined former universal histories: “See what happens when authority is preferred to truth; everyone who reads this thinks it must be true, since it comes from Eusebius” he fumed. A controversial antiquarian named Giovanni Nanni suffered even greater castigation from Scaliger’s quill; yet in reality Scaliger was just one ‘cog’ within a larger continental ‘machine’ of humanists discontented with Moses (c.f. Powell, 2012). Throughout the next three centuries many fields underwent a paradigm shift just as radical as in chronology. In geo-theory for instance, building upon the pioneering work of Nicolaus Steno, later catastrophist theorists such as George Cuvier and William Buckland began to dissociate earth history from human history by advocating multiple localised catastrophes followed by successive acts of creation. Human beings, it was argued, were only presentduring the last of these diluvian upheavals – whereas the fossilised remains of various extinct mammals found unassociated with any tools indicated they must be from an ‘antediluvian age’ significantly older than humans. Unwittingly, these catastrophists had introduced a ‘fudge factor’ which archaeology would soon explode.

   The biblical ‘West-Asian radiation’ model of human universal history only faced direct criticism, however, when the paradigm crisis in geo-theory had matured. An early sign of disquiet occurred in the year 1655, when Sir William Dugdale in his History of Warwickshire reiterated Michele Mercati’s argument that shaped flints were “weapons used…before the art of making arms of brass or iron was known”. This simplistic association of time period with ‘cognitive sophistication’ introduced the radical and enduring notion of a stone age. This novelty completely up-ended the golden age of humanity recounted by Hesiod and others, which presumed cognitive stasis (even degeneration) in human intellect over time. Within a century, even the greatest authorities were downtrodden in the name of ‘progress’. Jean Astruc’s 1753 treatise on the first book of the Torah (B’resheet) marked the beginning of higher critical methodology as applied to the Judeo-Christian Tanakh. The crisis had finally reached hallowed ground and the special place afforded to humankind was fast evaporating.

THE TIPPING POINT IN EUROPE

   Serious signs that the crisis was boiling over began in the year 1797 with an unorthodox study of the stone ‘hand-axe’ cache of Hoxne in Suffolk by John Frere. He went so far as to suggest that the cache might be significantly older than six thousand years. Similar thoughts were soon entertained by the Danish historian Vedel-Simonsen. In 1813 he claimed that Scandinavian civilization could be divided successively into an age of stone and wood, then an age of copper and finally an age of iron. By 1820 this ‘prehistoric’ scheme was already being used to arrange museum collections in Europe and by 1825 a Catholic priest named John MacEnery was empirically challenging Buckland’s dogged insistence that extinct mammal remains were never to be found associated with human tools. Maintaining a recent West-Asian radiation model began to look increasingly fraught with ad hoc explanations. Buckland’s ‘fudge factor’ had failed.
   This crisis reached a critical point in the year 1859. Further interpretations of axes from the river gravels of the Somme, near Abbeville in France, had allowed British luminaries to correlate these axes with faunal content and geological strata. Striking whilst the iron was hot, Joseph Prestwich presented a paper to the Royal Society and John Evans introduced ‘deep history’ to the Society of Antiquaries (Renfrew, 1976 pg. 23). Their argument for the great antiquity of humans was accepted almost immediately by the British establishment. This had profound ramifications for all subsequent research. As Stringer (2006:18) notes in a tone of jubilation: “The year 1859 was…critical for our understanding of human prehistory. Despite a few waverers and doubters, the tide finally turned in favour of the concept of humans as part of an ancient world inhabited by distinct and extinct faunas, and the floodgates were opening”. At least two weighty tomes, Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863) by Charles Lyell together with Prehistoric Times (1865) by the archaeologist John Lubbock, quickly added nails to the coffin. A slew of archaeological publications founded upon the inherently racist assumptions of social Darwinism followed, so as to swamp serious opposition with empirical examples of ‘lesser stone-age intellect’ among so-called ‘foreign savages’. There was no turning back.

TWEAKS AND REFINEMENTS

   True to Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) tenets, however, the paradigm shift of mid-19th century archaeology still needed to build momentum before it could dominate both the intellectual andpopular landscape. In 1856, Johann Fuhlrott found the bones of what became Homo neanderthalensis in a cave in Germany. Neanderthal people were soon portrayed as dull, hairy, lumbering hunch-backs in the popular press. Later that same century, archaeologists challenged the assumption of Louis Agassiz that there had been just one major ice age. In 1909, Eduard Bruckner and Albrecht Penck set out to show (from glacial mounds of debris) that there had been four distinct ice-ages in the Alps. This idea was superseded by a more complex model of over 20 cycles of ice sheet advances followed by interglacials.  Minor tweaks to the new orthodoxy became a preoccupation of the career-motivated, whereas dissenters lost tenure or were simply ignored.
   A second minor paradigm refinement spanning the 19-20th centuries was the extension and further sub-division of the stone age, initially into two periods: old stone age (palaeolithic) and new stone age (neolithic). The old stone age was once again subdivided into lower, middle and upper periods, the former of which was occupied by early tool-makers millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating, meanwhile, became popular in the 1950’s and gradually led to an isolationist model of cultural origins replacing the biblical (diffusionist) West-Asian radiation model. Then during the 1960s, some of the first tool-makers were tentatively identified with African fossils (from the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania) named Homo habilis (handyman) and Homo erectus (upright-man) by Louis and Mary Leakey. Other stone tools such as axes, picks, scrapers, points and flat-edged cleavers were also found in Africa, Indiaand the Near East. These were duly classified into different technological ‘industries’ evolving over hundreds of thousands of years, the empirical evidence being unashamedly manipulated, without fail, into the new ideological framework of deep history.
   In more recent decades, genetic evidences from Allan Wilson and others have appeared to support the ‘recent single origin’ or ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis. This claims that all humans are descended from a single ancestor who lived 100,000 years ago (Oppenheimer, 2004). This is now providing the context for a lively debate about the rise of modern humans.  And so, leaving “prehistory” behind we arrive at the dawn of written history proper with the protoliterate period of Mesopotamia (3750-2900 B.C.) and the dynastic period of Egypt, usually dated 3100 BC in the Early Bronze Age I. Here ancient history may legitimately take up the tale. Or so we are “reliably informed”!


CRITICALLY EVALUATING THE CURRENT PARADIGM

   Many lines of criticism could be levelled at the current paradigm of deep history. Our approach will be to examine just some of the more glaring problems, at the same time showing how they might be better explained through the lens of the original catastrophist paradigm.

GLOBAL SIGNS OF AN ANCESTRAL KOINE

   Let us begin, then, by revisiting the first expressions of dissatisfaction with the original paradigm as articulated by Da Vinci. He jotted down that seashells found at high altitude were far more ancient than any written record of an extinction level event large enough to deposit them at such elevation. He also assumed, in the early 16th century, that there wasn’t one such record in existence. Yet in this assumption he was quite mistaken, for laying aside Aristotle’s rare ‘winter flood’ (or kataklysmos) in Meteorologica, since Leonardo’s day many such accounts have now been excavated from ancient royal libraries.
Cuneiform tablets from ancient Mesopotamia, including tablet 3 of the Epic of Atrahasis, tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh and fragment CBM 13532 from the Temple Library at Nippur all record such a universal cataclysm in remarkable detail (c.f. Cooper, 2011, Chen, 2013, Finkel, 2014). The Egyptian Book of the Dead of Anhai, together with Pyramid texts, Coffin texts and Papyrus Leiden 1350record the same event under the rubric of the Hermopolitan ‘cosmogony’ (far better understood as a ‘rupture’ and re-population story).
   This ‘cosmogony’ – actually the account of a sacred twin-peaked hill upon which human life was reborn with an ogdoad (or octuplet) of ancestors – could constitute part of a codified “cultural koine”, what Marinatos (2010) defines as an international “vocabulary of sacredness, most of which revolved around the sun”.

These sacred ‘twin-peaks’ appear variously expressed on Egyptian temples, Minoan cylinder seals, tablets, ring impressions and even Babylonian/Akkadian artefacts. Such a koine may extend as far as India and beyond, where in the Hindu Rig Veda, Atharva Veda and Satpatha Brahmana we find written reference to a cataclysm survivor named Manu, together with seven other ‘ancestral sages’. Hundreds of similar accounts are now known globally. In this respect, modern archaeology has substantially corroborated the original paradigm it once operated under, leaving the current paradigm to flounder in culpable silence.

      Another way in which the authority of the past has risen phoenix-like from the ashes is that former claims from antiquarians such as Eusebius and Nanni (neglected since Scaliger and others cast them all in such doubt) are also being substantially corroborated. For instance, ancient long distance trade networks known from these traditions were once considered fabulous. Since 1982, however, the varied cargo of the ship-wreck of Uluburun has proven them perfectly reasonable (as have discoveries like the exotic obsidian and amber minerals found at the Jōmon site of Sannai-maruyama in Japan). Who knows? It is quite possible that neglected accounts spanning the five historic ages of Hesiod may yet precipitate furtherremarkable finds, akin to the discovery of Homer’s Troy by euhemerists Calvert and Schliemann in the 19th century. The tomb of Sesōstris (the Egyptian Hercules) is one possible avenue of further research. Roman historians such as Pliny believed it to have been built by his famous army upon a circular river island near the city of Lixus in Morocco. Is it mere coincidence then that the largest megalithic stone circle in the world (~1350 B.C.), built in the European style, now stands landlocked just 10 kilometres upriver from Lixus? (c.f. Mavor, 1976:89-122). Ancient records read in the light of 21stcentury field studies are revealing an accuracy hitherto thought impossible by the challengers of the early paradigm.

A STONE AGE TURNING TO SAND

   Questions must also be raised over the validity of Mercati and Dugdale’s association of human worked stones with a ‘stone age’ of inchoative hominid intelligence. Obviously, stone is inferior to many materials sourced by humans. However new evidence should give us pause. It is well known, for example, that whilst excavating a trench in Africa, Mary Leakey discovered a circle of stones in Bed 1 of the site Douglas Korongo (DK), at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. It is less well known that she connected this discovery with the Okombambi people of South West Africa, who today build circular shelters of wooden branches by using similar stone walls to hold branches in place (Leakey, 1971:xiii). This was embarrassing because Bed 1 of site DK seemed occupied around 1.75 million years ago – far too early for the paradigm to accommodate modern behaviour! The evidence was consistent with a hut foundation-wall probably built during the Early Bronze IV or even later. Given a lot of head scratching and perspiration it was duly reinterpreted as a natural formation incorporating some bedrock.
   Yet empirical flack remains which the new paradigm cannot hope to absorb, even if we consider a supposedly later campsite such as that found at Bilzingsleben in Thuringia, Germany(Mania et al. 1994). This site, dated to 400,000 before present, was found to contain one circular and two oval concentrations of artefacts, together with large stones and bones which could have been used to build walls. Is it reasonable that humans from the ‘lower old stone-age’, capable of making fire through friction, designing symmetrical tents and carving stone figurines of the goddess Venus, spent some 380,000 years just learning to link stone conurbations into larger cities? Given equal cognitive and aesthetic sophistication apparent in both archaic and modern humans, would not a global maritime civilization have arisen as early as 375,000 years ago within such a scenario? Clearly aware that ‘the Emperor has no clothes’, archaeologists usually fall back on the nebulous argument that climate change, disease, tectonic activity or famine must have retarded the rise of large permanent dwellings for over a million years. Yet what justification is there for this explanation? In short, none at all. If we set Homo erectus (better understood as recent, culturally-isolated aborigines) within the context of their external conditions as navigating pioneers relying on a subsistence-economy, the original paradigm of a West-Asian radiation event in the Early Bronze III appears far more realistic.
   The current paradigm is equally threadbare when one considers stone tool ‘industries’. Returning to Mary Leakey’s faux pas, we find her admitting of the KanapoiValley in Northern Kenya: “…the occurrence of an industry restricted to heavy duty tools of Lower Palaeolithic facies associated with pottery and hut circles, is an anomaly hard to explain. It may be noted, however, that a crude form of stone chopper is used in the present time by the more remote Turkana tribesmen in order to break open the nuts of the doum palm” (Leakey, 1966:581). The following observation of Hartwig-Scherer (1991) is most cogent: “There is growing discussion about the extent to which the type of stone tool depends on external conditions… rather than an evolutionary process or the intelligence of the manufacturer. This also accords with studies of peoples today that have stone cultures: Palaeolithic work places can easily be compared with counterparts today, such as in Australia. The type of tool does not allow one to draw conclusions about the manufacturer’s mental capacity.” Stone tools are indeed used today by isolated tribes in the highlands of New Guinea and in Paraguay, South America. They look remarkably similar to their ‘Acheulean’ counterparts. Therefore the simplistic association of time period with cognitive capacity in tool manufacture has failed spectacularly!
   In 1984, Eileen O’Brien noted that large concentrations of hand-axes were to be found in many European river gravels and ancient dry lakes, often associated with exotic mammal bones. Others were found embedded in the earth in situ (point first). This seemed consistent with a hunting-projectile function, perhaps used to distance-kill semi-aquatic fauna such as hippos. Given the investment of time and skill used to work these stones, losing them underwater seemed the best explanation for why such high concentrations were to be found in localised areas. To test this hunting hypothesis, O’Brien had a 2 kilogram precision replica made of a larger specimen. Its aerodynamic properties were examined via professional discus throwers. Statistically, she discovered that when thrown its aerodynamic properties enabled it to land edge-first 90% of the time and point-first 70% of the time, leaving behind deep lesions in the soil. Samson (2006) has since enlarged O’Brien’s dataset and corroborated these results, as has perhaps the rare discovery of a broken Levallois point found deeply embedded in the backbone of a wild ass (Boëda et al. 1999). Such a discovery is consistent with a heavy, high inertia projectile possessing well over 100 joules of impact energy, striking from a parabolic (thrown) trajectory. Considering external conditions, perhaps vast mobile maritime armies of the mid-second millennium B.C. manufactured such weapons from stone since metal ore mining could not cope with their huge demand.
   Even more remarkable has been the discovery of at least 30 of these stone axes at nine different locations along the coast of Crete – prime territory for a lost civilization led by Jupiter Ammon (Strasser et al. 2010, Menzies, 2012). Revealing an obtuse attitude towards the early paradigm, BostonUniversity archaeologist Curtis Runnels expressed shock: “I was flabbergasted, the idea of finding tools from this very early time period on Crete was about as believable as finding an iPod in King Tut’s tomb”. The extent of cognitive dissonance generated by such ‘very early’ tools on Creteis seen in these axes apparently dating to just 130,000 years before present. Were they found only 200 miles away on the continental mainland, we would venture a date almost ten times that age - yet sophisticated watercraft required to reach Cretecannotbe admitted this early! Even so, consternation must stem from the vast gap of 125,000 years between these international mariners and their Bronze Age Egyptian, European, Phoenician and Mesopotamian descendants. Moreover, one of the earliest dugout pine-log canoes, found in Holland, dates to only 8200 B.C. Consistent with the external condition of a lack of wood, petroglyphs (stone paintings) and cuneiform tablets record the earliest watercraft of Egypt and Mesopotamia as large complex reed-ships. Realistically, these ancient works of maritime artistry date to the Early Bronze IV period (2200 BC) - not much earlier. Therefore it is patently absurd to suggest that humans capable of art (such as Neanderthals) were navigating oceans for 125,000 years (25 times the length of recorded history) without leaving any discernible evidence. Within no more than 5,000 years, such evidently cultured and capable ocean mariners would have undoubtedly mapped the currents, explored the entire globe, left ample artwork and built vast stone cities comparable to Thebes, Argosand Babylon!

UNSPINNING THE NEW FAMILY FLINTSTONES

   Considering Neanderthals further to emphasise the extent of this Cretan nightmare, we note that their earlier image as hairy beasts has been transformed so they are now thought of as either humans of great longevity (as found in the Genesis genealogies) or essentially modern humans physiologically adapted to a cold environment. Evidence suggests they ceremonially buried their dead, painted their cave dwellings with considerable talent and also offered flowers as grave offerings. Far more consistent with a global West-Asian radiation event in the Early Bronze III, Trinkaus and Shipman (1993:412) note that the Neanderthals had: “…to the best of our knowledge – the capacity to perform any act normally within the ability of a modern human…[whereas] their bulky trunks and relatively short limbs and digits are designed for conserving metabolic heat in near-arctic conditions”. This perhaps reflects recent archaeological evidence which would place them in caves as far north as the western Ural Mountains near the Arctic Circle. As radiating pioneers braving harsh northern climes with cognitive equality to 21st century humans, Neanderthals can be correctly located within a more recent historical context.

CONCLUSIONS

   Merely by focusing upon a few of the most obvious problems within the current paradigm of archaeology in literary-essay style, we have found the whole ramshackle edifice unfit to remain standing much longer. Exciting prospects are therefore on the horizon, since once a paradigm crisis brings about a shift in academia, whole new vistas open up for a subsequent generation to explore and develop in detail. The future of archaeology is bright because it’s highly unlikely the darkness of deep history will overshadow empirical evidence forever. Nevertheless, if you are reading this article thinking that the evolutionary paradigm is far superior, then borrowing a few words from T.S. Eliot, we hope that at the end of all your exploring you will have arrived, full circle, where you started - and “know the place for the first time”.

References:

Boëda E., Geneste J.M., Griggo C., Mercier N., Muhesen S., Reyss J.L., Taha A. & Valladas H. (1999). A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, projectiles and Mousterian hunting. Antiquity73:394–402.
Chen, Y.S. (2013). The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions. Oxford: Oxford U.P.
Cooper, B. (2011). The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis. USA: Creation Science Movement.
Finkel, I. (2014). The ArkBefore Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Grafton, A. (2012). What Was History?: The Art of History in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: CambridgeU.P.
Hartwig-Scherer, S. (1991). Paläanthropologie und Archäologie des Paläolithikums. In S. Scherer (ed.), Die Suche nach Eden, Germany: Neuhausen.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. London: The University of ChicagoPress. ISBN: 0226458040.
Leakey, M.D. (1966). Primitive Artifacts from KanapoiValley, Nature5062:581.
Leakey, M.D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Mania, D. Mania, U. and Vlcek, E. (1994). Latest finds of skull remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben (Thuringia). Naturwissenschaften81:123-127.
Marinatos, N. (2010). Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess: A Near Eastern Koine. UrbanaChicago and SpringfieldUniversity of Illinois Press.
Mavor, J. (1976). The Riddle of Mezorah. Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, Graz; Almogaren, Volume VII.
Menzies, G. (2011). The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History’s Greatest Mystery RevealedLondon: Swordfish.
O’Brien, E. (1984). ‘What Was the Acheulean Hand Ax?’, Natural History, July:20-23.
Oppenheimer, S. (2004). Out of Eden. London: Constable and Robinson Ltd.
Powell, J. (2012). Ancient History Revisited. [WWW]
http://gen-e-sisone.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ancient-history-revisited.html (Accessed 22/04/15).
Renfrew, C. (1976). Before Civilization. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
Smail, D.L. (2008). On Deep History and the Brain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strasser et al. (2010). Stone Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean, Plakias Region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Habitation of Crete, Hesperia79:145-190
Stringer, C. (2006). Homo Britannicus: The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain. London: Pelican Books.
Trinkaus, E. and Shipman, P. (1993). The Neanderthals: Changing the Image of Mankind. London: Pimlico.


Creation: The Mirror of God's Triune Glory

$
0
0

GOD IS NOT HIDDEN OR SILENT - BUT RATHER, REVEALED!

Over the decades I have spent engaged in creation/evolution apologetics, the single most important thing I have come to appreciate is the absolute centrality of the Christ of Holy Scripture to this entire sphere. Please indulge me as I share with you some of my favourite quotations with regard to this topic, and try to unpack them for a general readership. 

First, as Dr. Geerhardus Vos wrote in his famous volume ‘Biblical Theology’:

‘To take Christ at all, He must be taken as the centre of a movement of revelation organized around Him, and winding up the whole process of revelation.’            

Of course, this statement is equally true, whether we are considering special or natural revelation – both of which obviously reveal the same Creator! So as Prof. Edgar Andrews once put it:

‘We cannot have a truly biblical perspective on the cosmos without recognizing the absolute centrality of Christ.’ 

Indeed, all divine revelation is focused upon the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; the revealed knowledge of God is mediated through him. This is what the Scriptures teach. God is there, God is Light. And He has spoken with power and finality through His only begotten Son! And so, human knowledge is only possible because of one particular person, and one particular being. And the study of being is known in philosophy as ontology.

To speak of ontology is to introduce the idea that creation itself possesses a special language, precisely because it has been created by the Being of the Triune God.

Now one of the core tenets of postmodernism is summed up by Richard Rorty in the following pithy quotation: ‘The world does not speak. Only we do.’

Yet this statement is culpable nonsense, since we know from the Psalmist of Israel in Psalm 19 that: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. No speech nor language without their voice heard. Their rule is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.’

As the 19thcentury preacher Charles Spurgeon warned: ‘Men who never heard the gospel can see God in his works if they open their eyes. There is written upon the face of nature enough to condemn men if they do not turn to God. There is a gospel of the sea, and of the heavens, of the stars, and of the sun; and if men will not read it, they are guilty…’

Let’s think about this point in a little more depth. Romans 1:20 indicates that God’s eternal power and divinity are understood through the ‘things that are made’. As philosopher Willard Quine suggests, language and ontology have intimate connections. His thesis is that the use of a particular language system commits one to the existence of certain things. If so, a universal language seen and heard by all (as that of the Triune God in creation itself) should commit one to the existence of an Absolute Being – i.e. the Triune God. But sin causes such blindness and deafness that this cannot be admitted! The natural person is truly dead to it. They simply ‘will not have this man [Christ] to rule over them’. As Van Til put it: ‘Absolute personality implies that all of man’s life is under authority and judgment. This is the offense of the Trinity.’

Dr. Henry Morris wrote concerning the witness of God in Christ: ‘According to this remarkable verse [Romans 1:20], there is a clear witness to the God of creation to be seen in the created cosmos. Thus there is no difference; every man who has ever lived has been confronted with this testimony of creation to the nature of the God who made it. Whether or not he ever opens the pages of Holy Scripture, or whether he believes what he reads therein, he cannot escape confrontation with the Christ of creation! He is without excuse. But how can this be? “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18). How is it possible that the ‘invisible things’ of God can be made visible so that they are ‘clearly seen’? These “invisible things”, according to Romans 1:20, are summed up in two great concepts, those of His “eternal power” and His “Godhead”. Or, one might say, His work and His person. That He is a God of infinite and eternal omnipotence, one of “eternal power”, is revealed plainly, according to this verse, in the created universe. Furthermore, His very nature, His “Godhead” is also revealed in creation. And this means that Christ is revealed in creation, for the very essence of the Godhead is found in Jesus Christ. “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. (Col2:9). The very Godhead that is clearly revealed in nature by the “things that are made” (Greek poiēma, the word from which we transliterate our English word “poem”, thus signifying His “poetic handiwork”, a word only used elsewhere in Scripture in Ephesians 2:10, where it is said that we who are redeemed by his grace are similarly His “workmanship”) is that summed up in all its fullness in the Lord Jesus Christ. There can therefore be no question that Christ has been revealed in the creation. He is Himself the Creator (John 1:3, Col 1:16). He now sustains and upholds the creation by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17), and He is the light that “lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” (John 1:9…). It should be recognized that no man could recognize and receive Christ through this witness of creation unless the Holy Spirit so draws him.’

ON THE HOLY TRINITY, COVENANT AND CREATION EVANGELISM

How is all this relevant to our apologetics and evangelism? It is only Christ, and the Spirit of Christ, who gives light – whether that be in the first natural light of cosmic creation, or in the first spiritual light of somebody’s deceived and darkened heart whom you might speak to in witness.

In A Survey of Christian Epistemology, among other works, Prof. Cornelius Van Til noted that: ‘God exists as triune. He is therefore self-complete. Yet he created the world. This world has meaning not in spite of, but of, the self-completeness of the ontological Trinity. This God is the foundation of the created universe and therefore is far above it.’

Again, he unpacked this a little more:

‘The foundation of the representational principle among men is the fact that the Trinity exists in the form of a mutually exhaustive representation of the three Persons that constitute it. The emphasis should be placed upon the idea of exhaustion. This is important because it brings out the point of the complete equality as far as ultimacy is concerned of the principle of unity and of diversity. […] Hence the problem of the one and the many, of the universal and the particular, of being and becoming, of analytical and synthetic reasoning, of the a priori and the a posteriori must be solved by an exclusive reference to the Trinity.’

‘The problem of the one and the many relates to questions about the relationship of change and stability, chance and determinism, facts and laws, love and logic — which means that an apologetic which emphasizes the problem of the one and the many actually has a broad range. It is not at all limited to issues of ultimate metaphysical import…It was upon this foundation of a truly Trinitarian concept that Calvin built his conception of covenant theology.’

God is a covenantal Being, who now lives fully and bodily in the man Christ Jesus. And covenant can be found right at the very beginning of Scripture. As Van Til further wrote:

‘Since the whole being of God, if we may in all reverence say so, is built upon the representational plan, it was impossible for God to create except upon the representational plan.’

Indeed, Dr. Nathan Wood explained this back in 1932: ‘The fabric of space, matter and time presents a universal and exact confirmation of that Tri-unity in God. For the one vital and conclusive proof which the physical universe can give of that Tri-unity is that the universe should reflect it’… ‘…things in the physical universe happen or take place or exist in three tri-unities, - space, matter and time, - and in one great tri-unity of those three combined, - and…these three universal tri-unities, and their combined all-inclusive tri-unity, are the absolute image in every possible way of the supreme Tri-unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’

This representational plan is even discernable in the first chapter of the Bible, if one looks closely! 

It is very subtle, but it is indeed there! As I wrote elsewhere: ‘…from Genesis 1:3-2:3 there follows a series of royal words, royal works and royal seals. Note then that who God is in eternity is reflected by how he acts in creation. Martin Luther wrote of this pattern:

“These three expressions therefore, ‘said,’ ‘made,’ ‘saw;’ are spoken by Moses, in a beautiful and appropriate manner, as attributively to the THREE DIVINE Persons: that we might, by these three expressions, the more distinctly understand that great Article of faith, the Holy Trinity!”

There are precisely nine commands introduced by the expression “and God said…” (wayyomer elohim). This fact is noted by Jordan: “The refrain “and God said” occurs nine times in the passage” together with Hebrew scholar Jacques Doukhan: “…each creation work…[a total of] nine…is introduced by the same stylistic expression… [the] …imperfect verb wayyomer”.

As Jordan highlights in his book ‘Creation in Six Days’, these nine refrains are wonderfully arranged in a Hebrew literary device known as a chiasmus:

“Genesis 1 is not concerned only with structuring and filling, but also with light. […] …Genesis 1 is…a full chiasm. The passage is focused on the idea of day/light, with each day moving from evening to morning, so that the work of each day is an expansion of God’s original work of light-bringing.…”

Note well that ‘…the final Word from God “Behold, I have given you…” relates to humans viewing God’s exhaustive pre-temporal Self-Image in the light of a Christophany (cf. Proverbs 8:31). Thus…we move, organically, from the Spirit of Christ in verse 3, towards the embodied Christ in Eden, visibly robed in the first lightof creation (verse 29).

So the Christ of the Covenants is Christ the Creator! He is the Logos! He is the Divine Rationality – both Creator and Redeemer. Jeremiah 33:20-21 is especially significant:

“Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne…”.

As Robertson highlights: “An argument basically of the same construction appears in Jeremiah 31:35f.:

Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for light by day,
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the Lord,
Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease,
From being a nation before me forever.”

Robertson argues convincingly that this cannot refer to God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 8:22 because:

“…the reference to the sun and moon specifically as light-bearers for day and night is found in the creation narrative but not in the narrative describing God’s covenant with Noah. Furthermore, the narrative of the creation-activity of the third day [sic] refers to the stars as well as to the moon (Gen. 1:16), as does Jeremiah 31:35. The record of God’s covenant with Noah makes no mention of the stars. For these reasons, it seems likely that Jeremiah 31 alludes to the Genesis narrative of creation rather than to the establishment of God’s covenant with Noah. […] Because of the closeness of the parallelism of the two chapters, it would seem that Jeremiah 33, which uses the term “covenant,” also refers to the creational orderings of Genesis 1. If this is the case, then the term “covenant” would be applied to the orderings of creation.”

J.V. Fesko agrees with this application, further pointing out:

“Nowhere in Genesis 1 does the reader have any indication that God has established a covenant with the day and night, yet Jeremiah clearly states this is the case. When God creates, it is covenantal.”

Upon verses 20-21 of Jeremiah 33, the famous commentator Matthew Henry remarked:

“There is a covenant of nature, by which the common course of providence is settled, and on which it is founded, here called a covenant of the day and the night, (v. 20, 25.) because that is one of the articles of it - that there shall be day and night in their season, according to the distinction put between them in the creation, when God divided between the light and the darkness, and established their mutual succession, and a government to each, that the sun should rule by day, and the moon and stars by night… - which establishment was renewed after the flood…and has continued ever since….”

Creation in covenant also sheds light on why, when Adam and Eve fell into sin, the whole creation was subject to the bondage of corruption and death (Romans 8:22), rather than just Adam and Eve themselves. Furthermore, since Christ has a covenant with creation, as Golding points out: “…it means that covenant grace includes the created order, which makes it unthinkable that the faithful creator will drop the temporarily cursed earth from his covenant purpose…”. To be sure, then, the entire creation (having been subject to futility through Adam’s disobedience) will one day be completely renewed and glorified through Christ’s obedience (cf. Revelation 22).

OUR APPLICATION TO SCIENCE AND FAITH ISSUES

How should we use this knowledge as Christians? Immanuel Kant asked the question: “Under what conditions is it possible, or what would also need to be true in order for it to be possible, to make sense of one’s experience of the world? The only answer, according to Van Til, is that Christianity MUST be true! The ontological Trinity is there, and He is not silent!

As Thomas Brooks wrote:

‘What are the heavens, the earth, the sea, but a sheet of royal paper, written all over with the wisdom and power of God?’

The mathematical physicist Stephen Hawking once asked: ‘What breathes fire into the equations?’

We may be fully and courageously confident in the Christian answer: ‘Christ does!’



References (alphabetical):

Doukhan, J. B. (2004). The Genesis creation story: Text, issues, and truth. Origins, 55, p.16.
Fesko, J.V. (2007). Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of EschatologyRoss-shireScotland: Christian Focus Publications, p.82.
Golding (2004). Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and TraditionScotland: (Mentor) Christian Focus Publications, p.193.
Henry, M. (1890). A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Volume IV, New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, p.1009.
Jordan, J.B. (1999). Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis OneMoscow: Canon Press, p.221.
Jordan, J.B. (1999). Op. cit. p.175.
Jordan, J.B. (1999). Op. cit. p.215-16.
Luther, M. (1544). Translated by Cole, H. (1858). The Creation: A Commentary on the First Five Chapters of the Book of Genesis. London: Hamilton, Adams and Company. p.74.
Robertson, O.P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p.20-21.
Van Til, C. (1946). Nature and Scripture. In: The Infallible Word: A Symposium. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Guardian Publishing Corporation. Online PDF available at: [WWW]
http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/Nature%20And%20Scripture%20by%20Van%20Til.pdf
Viewing all 16 articles
Browse latest View live