Noachic Flood Debate



Damien Mackey writes:

Thanks, Johnny, for the update .... .

My Flood model is intermediate between the Global (e.g. Ken Ham's version, even with dinosaurs aboard the Ark) and Local (in the minimal sense - e.g. just Mesopotamia).

I believe that the riverine world of Adam and Eve, and of Noah, stretching from Mesopotamia approximately to Ethiopia (the four rivers of Genesis 2), was Saint Peter's "the world that then was" (2 Peter 3:6).

That is what was flooded.

So my Flood model is Local, but vast.

The Global (Creationist) model, a Flood that erases the entire antediluvian world, cannot account for:

(i) the testimony of Jesus Christ that the Jerusalem-ites (why them?) were to be held accountable for the sins of persecuting the righteous even from the time of Abel (well before the Flood); nor

(ii) the traditions that have Jerusalem, 'the centre of the world' (Ezekiel 38:12), as the place where man both fell and was redeemed; with

(iii) Golgotha, 'the place of the Skull', being the very place where Adam was buried; nor can it account for

(iv) this geological data that Jerusalem was once under the ocean. "Diggings" (December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12), "Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the Bends" (p.5): A geologist may have the answer. Now an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the matter and has come up with some very plausible explanations. Dan identifies two types of rock in the tunnel area -- limestone and dolomite. The former is fairly soft and porous, the latter comparatiively hard. It is rather interesting that this limestone consists of about 30% fragments of fossil shells and some coral, which means that Jerusalem, which is now about 700 metres above sea level, must have been beneath the ocean at some time in the past . ...

(v) nor the Cain-ite archaeology in Mesopotamia (e.g. Eridu = Irad; Uruk = Unuki/Enoch), interrupted by the Flood, and then resuming afterwards; nor

(vi) how Ashurbanipal could claim to have read writings before the Flood, if all prior civilisation had been totally erased.

….

 

Johnny replies:

Hello Damien

Please allow me to respond to your points:

Damien(i): the testimony of Jesus Christ that the Jerusalem-ites (why them?) were to be held accountable for the sins of persecuting the righteous even from the time of Abel (well before the Flood); nor ...

Johnny: Yes, the Jews hardly realize the terrible responsibility involved in rejecting Christ. From the time when the first innocent blood was shed, when righteous Abel fell by the hand of Cain, the same history had been repeated, with increasing guilt. - In every age prophets had lifted up their voices against the sins of kings, rulers, and people, speaking the words which God gave them, and obeying His will at the peril of their lives. But they would not listen. - From generation to generation there had been heaping up a terrible punishment for the rejecters of light and truth. This guilt, of acting against knowledge they had of what constitutes sin, the enemies of Christ were now drawing down upon their own heads. The sin of the priests and rulers was greater than that of any preceding generation. By their rejection of the Saviour, they were making themselves responsible for the blood of all the righteous men slain from Abel to Christ. They were about to fill to overflowing their cup of iniquity. And soon it was to be poured upon their heads in retributive justice. Of this, Jesus warned them:

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Mt. 23:35; Gen. 4:8.

Not only were the Jews guilty, but in the end fallen Babylon (having the mind of Cain) is also guilty of "all" that was done on earth - the slaying of God's people (of whom Abel is a symbol) upon the earth, Rev. 18:24, for they scorned, and still do, these and many other truths, the whole Bible actually, as their long history proofs. That is why the Bible teaches, "Come out of Babylon," for it is fallen, is fallen that great city, because who made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of God" Rev. 14:8; (which is going on today)., and so all those stuck in that system must come out to be saved, for when Christ comes the Second time (as taught throughout the Bible), He does not come to die for us again, but to save us. He and God Father and all the holy angels come then in their great glory and power, and only those whose every sin has been confessed, repented of and prayed for to have them forgiven and their soul temple cleansed, will not be consumed by the brightness of His coming. So, we know that there is nothing good to be found in Babylon anymore.

Yes, it is true because it is the spirit, the way of (evil) thinking that is meant, for sin started before the Flood of course. God keeps records of the life or every human being. The Bible teaches there is a `Book of Life' and of `Remembrance'. - We ought to know that we are accountable for our sins, as well as for those sins which result of what we caused to happen. Each of our own sins can have long lasting effects, even over generations (Adam's sin) for which we are responsible, unless we confessed and repented and so can be forgiven and be saved, but the effects go on nevertheless, and those people involved must do the same, confess and repent, if they want to be saved. In that sense Adam was responsible, and his sons for their sins.

(ii) the traditions that have Jerusalem, 'the centre of the world' (Ezekiel 38:12), as the place where man both fell and was redeemed; with ...

Johnny: "To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places [that are now] inhabited, and upon the people [that are] gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land." Ezek. 38:12.

All I want to say about Gog and Magog is this, in Ezekiel 38 Persia (Iran) is revealed as an ally of Gog and Magog who, - perhaps their religion has a spirit of persecution which is reviving today -, in the latter days, attack God's dear people (Rev. 13), and they will perish on "the mountains of Israel." Eze. 38:18-23.

(iii) Golgotha, 'the place of the Skull', being the very place where Adam was buried; nor can it account for ...

Johnny: Well, traditions is one thing, the word of God another. There is no scripture that says that Adam was buried at Golgatha, in fact, the world wide Flood of Noah destroyed all pre-Flood landmarks, so that we cannot point to any place, here was Eden or there was the place where Noah built the ark. The pre-Flood world vanished and the fossil bearing rocks all over the world, and even in the highest mountains, testify to that fact. So, no, the Flood in the days of Noah was not a limited, local event, it engulfed the whole world, for our Lord God in Heaven means what he says,

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . . And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Gen. 6:6,7.

In the beginning our earth was a perfectly balanced planet, even down to the center of the earth and including its nuclear materials burning inside. Sin caused this balanced planet to become unbalanced and "the fountains of the deep" shot jets of water high into the atmosphere at the start of the Flood. That is telling us that the inside of the earth caused water to get so hot, because of the nuclear imbalance now, that such jets of water broke through the surface and destroyed, together with the Flood (rain) waters all life and all features on earth - for our earth may be viewed as a nuclear reactor in the center of it, underneath our feet.

(iv) this geological data that Jerusalem was once under the ocean. "Diggings" (December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12), "Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the Bends" (p.5): A geologist may have the answer. Now an Israeli geologist, Dan Gill, has done some research on the matter and has come up with some very plausible explanations. Dan identifies two types of rock in the tunnel area -- limestone and dolomite. The former is fairly soft and porous, the latter comparatively hard. It is rather interesting that this limestone consists of about 30% fragments of fossil shells and some coral, which means that Jerusalem, which is now about 700 meters above sea level, must have been beneath the ocean at some time in the past . ...

Johnny: Right, Palestine like all the world was completely covered by water during the Flood. That is the reason why sea fossil shells are all over the world, even on top of the peaks of the Himalayan mountains. I myself found numerous rocks like that on 2517 foot high Mission Peak, along highway 680 at the edge of Milpitas, CA. [See one rock I found laying in the grass and photographed, which someone had put there illegally, with imbedded sea shells at `this site. Like all around the world, limestone and dolomite is found in many, many places. Of more interest is that there are found tropical plants at Antarctica. Because before the Flood, there were no icy poles and oceans.

(v) nor the Cain-ite archaeology in Mesopotamia (e.g. Eridu = Irad; Uruk = Unuki/Enoch), interrupted by the Flood, and then resuming afterwards; nor

Johnny: These were just local floods interrupting a site, long after Noah's Flood, for in pre-Flood days there were no oceans like today. Uruk is located at the delta of the Euphrates River near where it spills into the Persian Gulf.

(vi) how Ashurbanipal could claim to have read writings before the Flood, if all prior civilization had been totally erased.

Johnny: Does Ashurbanipal, who lived not close to the Flood, say he read something from before the World wide Flood, or before heavy rains, before his time, affected his realm? - That can be interpreted numerous ways. We ought not to construe out of such mentioning of floods, that it means Noah's Flood, which was world wide and no one saw it, except Noah.

….

 

Damien Mackey replies

Hi, again, Johnny

Your (i) is a very good sermon and I would agree with a large part of it – e.g. your basic sentiments about the tension down through the ages between the good, led by true prophets, and the wicked seed of Cain, for whom the Flood came.

Now, I know that you accept the toledȏt theory of P. J. Wiseman, that the true structure of the Book of Genesis comprises the series of family histories (toledȏt) of the Patriarchs from Adam to Jacob (I refer to your site: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html). And that you accept that Moses was the editor/compiler of this Divinely-inspired historical series – that he up-dated, for example, parts of the history of Abram (Abraham), written (or owned) by his sons Ishmael and Isaac (Abraham himself did not actually sign off on a Genesis toledȏt). I quote from your site examples of geographical updates by the compiler, who we believe to have been Moses himself (as according to tradition):

The Compiler

The compiler [320] would have summarized the histories of his forefathers, making textual notes for the sake of his contemporaries. For instance, the names of some of the locations in Canaan had changed since the time of Abraham and so the compiler had to indicate the new name of an ancient site. There are some examples in Genesis 14 of the compiler's identifying for his contemporaries some of the ancient place names of Abraham's time. We have:

"Bela (which is Zoar)", in verses 2 and 8;
"Vale of Siddim (which is the Salt Sea)", verse 3;
"En-mishpat (which is Kadesh)", in verse 7;
"Hobah (which is to the left of Damascus)", in 15;
"Valley of Shaveh (which is the King's Dale)", in verse 17. …

[End of quote]

I am sure that you would also believe that Sacred Scripture interprets itself, meaning that we must be consistent in applying an established rule, rather than all of a sudden abandoning it when it does not fit our own preconceived ideas or agendas. In other words, it is God, rather than we, who has the right measure of His own Book, and hence we ought to be humble and avoid presumption. If God’s measure does not mesh with ours, then we must be prepared to drop our preciously-held view.

Now as it turns out, the very pattern that has been established above (“The Compiler”), which we both accept as legitimate, is found again in Genesis 2. But there you, and Creationists in general, would reject it. This is not consistent, and is due I believe to a preconception, which is a misconception, regarding the effects of the Noachic Flood.

Here is my explanation of how the geographical indicators of Genesis 2 and 14 follow the exact same pattern (http://genesisflood.blog.com/2009/05/05/noahs-flood-was-not-global/):

Four Rivers of Genesis Common to Adam’s Day and to Moses’ Day

We saw that the four rivers referred to in the antediluvian Adamic toledôt are actually named by the postdiluvian Moses as real rivers, running alongside (or around) real geographical locations. Moreover, Moses uses the very same 3^rd person masculine singular Hebrew pronoun hu (comprising the Hebrew letters, he waw aleph), meaning ‘he’ or ‘himself’ (itself), in every one of the four cases,thereby directly connecting Adam’s four rivers with four known rivers of Moses’time.

Now, thishu is again the exact same Hebrew pronoun that editor Moses would use in his geographical modification of Abra[ha]m’s history, where, in that famous case of Genesis 14:3 he advises his people that the site that was in Abram’s day “the Valley of Siddim” had now become the Dead Sea. Thus Moses: “Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea)”; the Heb. pronoun hu here being translated quite appropriately into English as, “that is”. But even though the Bible seems to be interpreting itself for us here, I have found that‘Creationists’, whilst willingly accepting the view that Moses was, in the case of Genesis 14:3, pointing to the very same geographical region that was intended in the Abra[ha]mic history (though now with considerable topographical alteration), will strenuously deny any geographical connection whatsoever in Genesis 2 between the pre-Flood hydrography and that later connected there by editor Moses with the pronoun hu.

Now the Answers In Genesis [AIG] (some of whose editorial staff at least I know to be keen on the Wiseman toledôt theory in regard to Mosaïc editing of the Genesis texts) co-authors (Ham et. al.) also have argued against any sort of geographical connection before and after the Genesis Flood, in their section: “Answers to objections to a global Flood” (op. cit., p. 144, “Objection 2: The post-Flood geography is the same as the pre-Flood”).Here is how these co-authors tackle the tricky (in their context) matter of the Tigris and Euphrates:

Someone may ask, ‘Then why do we have a Tigris and Euphrates today?’ Answer: the same reason there is a Liverpool and Newcastle in Australia; and London, Oxford and Cambridge in North America, although they were originally place names in England. Features in the post-Flood world were given names familiar to those which survived the Flood.

This, I find though, to be a typically modern ‘surface’ reading of an ancient text, without coming to grips in any way with the realities of the ancient document; with, for instance (a) the fact that commentators consider the elaboration of the four rivers to be an editorial addition to the original text, (b) coupled with the use of the Hebrew pronoun hu, specifically linking the pre- and post-Flood rivers, as it indeed links geographical locations between the Abra[ha]mic history and the era of Moses.

Nor can the AIG co-authors so easily dismiss the two other rivers, Pishon and Gihon, by simply stating (ibid.): “The Pishon is not mentioned post-Flood and Gihon is used of the locality of a spring near Jerusalem in the times of Kings David, Solomon and Hezekiah”. For I referred to Sirach’s testimony, in “The Location of Paradise”, that the Pishon and Gihon were, with the Tigris and Euphrates, still (in the C2nd BC) abundant, active rivers. So again I would emphasise the point (and this is pitched mostly at those who tend to operate according to the principle, sola scriptura), that to hold to a view of no geographical link whatsoever between the pre- and post- Flood worlds is to be un-biblical. ….

[End of quote]

Yes, to shatter the link is un-biblical!

The Book of Genesis (chapter 2) has described for us a world that was circumscribed by four rivers, all of these emanating from the central Paradise stream. Basically this is the region of the Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia to Ethiopia.

Palestine was approximately central to this.

A mere four chapters later (6, through to 9), this world (Peter’s “world that then was”) is destroyed by the Flood. It was apparently “the world” that humankind then inhabited.

Only one family survived.

From this reasonable, Bible-based view, it makes perfect sense:

(a) how the site that was later named “Jerusalem”, the original Eden, a sacred site from the very beginning, could be accused of blood shed even back to Abel

The prophet Jeremiah, likewise, appears to intimate that this ancient site (= Jerusalem) was a sacred place from the very beginning (Jeremiah 17:12):“A glorious throne, exalted from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary”.‘From the beginning’ (מראשון), here, has the same Hebrew root (ראש) as used for ‘beginning’ in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning …” (http://genesisflood.blog.com/2014/01/22/jerusalem-before-and-after-the-flood/).

(b) how Ashurbanipal (and indeed Wiseman as well) could read/view pre-Flood tablets;

(c) that the biblical and traditional view of Jerusalem as the “centre” can be maintained;

(d) with Golgotha, 'the place of the Skull', being the very place where Adam was buried;

(e) where man fell, so was mankind redeemed.

(f) It enables for the archaeology that has (i) Cain-ite cities, then (ii) the Flood, then (iii) re-building of those same cities. The Uruk I dynasty that followed the Flood appears to belong to Cush and his son Nimrod (Enmerkar), as David Rohl has well argued.

(g) the science telling us that Jerusalem (the site) was once under the ocean can be upheld.

Regarding (b) above, Ashurbanipal, this very learned and practical king of Assyria, was assuredly aware that Mesopotamia was prone to floodings. Consider the elaborate canal systems there. He well knew the difference between these local inundations and the Flood.

Nor can (g) above, apparently a geological fact, be accounted for in the Creationist scheme of things, because (and you put into words their view), “… the world wide Flood of Noah destroyed all pre-Flood landmarks”. Well, if you say that, shouldn’t that have included your “peaks of the Himalayan mountains … 2517 foot high Mission Peak, along highway 680 at the edge of Milpitas, CA”, etc.?

On the other hand, if one accepts what I believe to be the proper biblical scenario, then the six miles of sediment below the Genesis riverine system, as discussed at length by Professor Carol A. Hill (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%202.pdf), can have nothing to do with the biblical Flood. Contrary to Creationists, this sediment was already lying there when the Flood arrived.

Regarding (f) above (http://www.towerofbabel.com/sections/tome/babelinbiblia/):

A Sumerian epic entitled Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta is the closest parallel to the Genesis story [of Babel]. It speaks of a golden age when “Man had no rival,” and “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue spoke.” But,

Enki. . .the leader of the gods
changed the speech in their mouths
brought contention into it,
into the speech of man that (until then) had been one. …

[End of quote]

The Creationist Flood model is un-biblical, but it is also (as shown above) unscientific – moreover, Noah had to be an absolute superman to have built an Ark that could ride out a global Flood. And I was disappointed, Johnny, that you fell for that three-card trick of that boat-shaped rock formation in Turkey as being the ancient Ark of Noah. That is desperation to verify the Bible! No wonder geologists laugh at Creationists, and with good reason in this case, knowing that what Ark-eologists hail as being the true Ark, is a (to them) well-known and common rock formation (a geosyncline or autochthonous block).

Does not the Bible tell us that the Ark landed on “the mountains” (plural)?

“Ararat” (the name only relatively lately given to that high mountain in Turkey – which has nothing to do with the Bible) surely being the ancient land of Urartu (modern Kurdistan). And that is where the Assyrians come in again. Sennacherib, depicted in Urartu on (Mount) Judi Dagh, apparently had access to what remained of the real Ark, for according to Jewish legend, “A beam of the Ark was found by Sennacherib, and he made an idol of it” (Sanh. 96a).

Book of Revelation

I do not want to get into a major discussion of the Apocalypse here, as our real concern is the Book of Genesis and the Flood. But I would ask: Does the Bible actually talk about, as you say,“… when Christ comes the Second time (as taught throughout the Bible)”?

I, like you, believe that He will come again, but will it actually be His Second Coming?

Did He not solemnly declare, with a guarantee (and that is pretty definitive I should think coming from a Divine Person):

“I can guarantee this truth: Some people who are standing here will not die until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

He could not have put it more bluntly! That“coming” is what the Book of Revelation is all about. The harlot Jerusalem, there called “Babylon” (as Jewish prophets were wont to do), has been found wanting and will now be divorced, stoned and burned (like a harlot woman), and will be replaced with the new and faithful Bride.

A perfect fulfilment of the Mount Olivet Prophecy!

To force an ancient prophecy to fit a modern era (though you are quite right to point out the likenesses – for we again today seem to be making the same fatal mistakes as did that “generation”), and to transpose a modern global scenario on to a local biblical one, whether it be Genesis (Flood), or Revelation - as Creationists do - can make a mockery of Scripture and its prophecies, and its prophets, such as Jesus and Paul, who critics today laugh at for, presumably (critics’ ignorance), making predictions about the end that did not come to pass. But these inspired prophets, most notably Jesus Christ himself, were precise and accurate, and hence Jerusalem went under, its Temple left with ‘not a stone upon a stone’, within that very generation.

....


Reply finished February 25, 2014

Hello Damien;

God gave man free choice in choosing Him or not. That `free choice' He will never take away from us, yet it has happened frequently that man tries to force his views on his fellows. That need not be. When we disagree, we may do so, because of that free choice. However, if we choose the world only, instead of God, we must bear the consequences, for God gives only two ultimate choices, for or against Him.

[Damien. I basically agree.]

Before the Flood those rivers existed, then the earth and all its pre-Flood features was destroyed, and after the Flood the Semitic people, those who had the Toledoth tablets, surveyed the area they lived in, and named rivers by those pre-Flood names, because it made them feel connected with Adam and perhaps Eden. That is just an easily understood human reaction, and has no bearing on actual Pre-Flood Geography for some supposedly still visible in the days of Abraham and Moses.

[Damien. No, that is not correct Johnny. While we today cannot know a lot of things about ancient worlds, we can be grateful to Moses for telling us quite clearly, in his gloss to Genesis 2:14: “The name of the third river is Tigris; it is the one that flows toward the east of Ashur”. Just as he had obligingly told us, in relation to Abraham’s history, that the Valley of Siddim had become the Dead Sea. You can ignore that fact as blatantly as you like, to preserve your own Flood model, but that makes nonsense of this Genesis verse. The Tigris river of Adam’s day, Noah’s day, ran virtually where it still did in Moses’s day, and even still does today.]

The river which is called Euphrates today, did not exist before the Flood, neither did any other river. Any such assignments are just human opinions.

[Damien. No, not “just human opinions” at all. It is Biblical fact, as according to my previous comment.]

The difference is not the geography, but one's worldview.

[Damien. Exactly! The Biblical geography is clear. But it has to be denied or contradicted by those who seek to impose their own global Weltanschauung, ‘worldview’, upon it.]

The fossils are the record of a worldwide Flood.

[Damien. There was no “worldwide Flood”. The Biblical Flood was associated with the vast riverine system of early Genesis, and geologists inform us that it is beneath that same riverine landscape that one finds miles and miles of sediment.]

If the millions of years were true, there would be bones sticking out of the ground everywhere.

[Damien. I personally do not accept “millions of years”.]

The features on earth definitely show marked evidence of a world-wide Flood independent of pronouns and the word of God confirms it.

[Damien. These features definitely show evidence of catastrophisms, but a lot of it was glacial gouging, according to geologists, not water. The global Flood model is not only un-Biblical, it is un-scientific, and goes completely against common sense.]

It seems to me that the Bible can also be only surface read. When its says,
"the flood came, and destroyed them all" Luke 17:27, "all", that means all people, all around on the pre-Flood land mass in our world at that time. It is not good to minimize the word of God to please a view which makes God look as if He is not all powerful and today's interpreters are. Not so.

[Damien. Yes, but that “all” may then have inhabited only that riverine region. I believe that only one family survived the Noachic Flood – Noah’s.]

Here is a parallel what happens when God carries out judgments,
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." Rev. 12:7,8.
Just like the places once inhabited by Satan (the dragon) and his fallen angels were not found anymore in heaven, and just like on earth, the places of the many dead by wars, are not found anymore, so also the pre-Flood world.

[Damien. That’s your opinion, but not Moses’s opinion which I would follow, indicating connectivity between the pre- and post-Flood worlds.]

When we read Jer. 17:12, the glorious sanctuary of God which was once in Jerusalem, is a symbol for God's sanctuary in heaven. It is always there where God is, as Moses' experience at the burning bush illustrates.
The word of God always sees things in a spiritual way, not geographical where Adam was buried, there must be where Christ was crucified. That is besides the point. The Bible was given by God, to understand spiritual lessons more so than physical, for by faith we are saved. When occasional a physical location can be ascertained, that just may help us to build up our faith, but we ought not to use it to war against other assertions.

[Damien. Don’t forget the Incarnation, the Word becoming flesh and dwelling in a humble stable in lowly Bethlehem. God made man as both a spiritual and a physical being. I know that you yourself are a keen about the recovery of biblical sites and about an archaeology that harmonises with the Bible, hence your site The California Institute for Ancient Studies. But with comments like the above, you remind me instead of a certain type of pious Jews who would not dream of even considering to look for a physical Mount Sinai, so exalted and semi-mythical do they regard it. Yahweh obviously had no such qualms, descending upon a real earthly mountain, Sinai, which I believe to be Har Karkom in the Paran desert.]

Well, I think the ark in Turkey is the best that was ever find - sizewise - Josephus says it was visited as such by people around his time.

[Damien. It’s not an Ark, Johnny, it’s a rock!]

The beams of the arch are all decayed, not doubt accelerated because of the post-Flood temperatures in the ground. Noah was 380 years old when he began to build the ark. I believe these people were stronger and more skilled than most are today. We have become devolved since that time, not evolved. We are lesser than they were.

[Damien. Not what Jesus says about John the Baptist and those who can be even greater than the Baptist was.]

Your example of Matth 16:28, was probably best fulfilled at the transfiguration of Christ in Matth. 17, when his kingdom of glory was shown to Peter, John and James, as they saw the early fruits of the resurrection, Moses and Elijah, with Jesus.

[Damien. No, that would not make sense as the Transfiguration occurred too soon after Jesus’s comment – that comment being only about “some”, not (virtually) “all” of those standing there at the time.]

It is not wise to fight against the true meaning of the word of God who does carry out His threatenings to completeness. Gen. 7:11, 12.

[Damien. No, it is not wise at all. So, let the Scriptures interpret themselves for us. We just make a mess of it when we try to force our own foolish views upon God’s Book.]

The rain at that time was not a shower; It means to say that torrents and jet streams of water came down and blew through the surface for 40 days.
When Jesus comes again the second time in His Power, that of the Father and all the holy Angels, we must be ready, for if we are not, we will be destroyed for sin cannot exist in the presence of God, for His brightness is a consuming fire. On that day there will no blue sky be visible but only God's angels everywhere.
It may help to study our once perfectly balanced planet, and what sin did when it affected God's universe, and especially our earth. That was an earth shaking event to the very core underneath our feet, more involved than we might think.
Praise the Lord, ought to be our reaction, for He has thoughts of love and salvation for us, if we only accept His sacrifice for our sins and no other.

[Damien. A good thought on which to conclude, Johnny.]

Johnny again:

*I believe the fertile region of Sodom and Gomorrah disappeared completely during the destruction in the days of Lot. The deep scar where the Dead Sea is, was the result of the judgment of God, not a result of the Flood.

 

[Damien. Between the great Flood and the occurrence of the Dead Sea, centuries after the Flood, the area – at the time of Abram - was called the Valley of Siddim. That is where the cities of Pentapolis were located (Genesis 14:2-3) prior to their destruction. Moses adds the note that the Valley of Siddim had become the Dead Sea (v. 3)].

 

The pre-Flood world was a perfectly balanced world. It never rained, all plants received moisture from the dew in the morning (obviously it must have been sufficient for all plants).

 

[Damien. No problem with any of that].

Most pre-Flood waters seem to have been in subterranean channels. If some of those channels were visible in some locations we do not know, but if they were, Adam may have named them.

 

[Damien. There were at least five rivers (Genesis 2) known to Adam and Eve].

 

Underground mines have revealed trees of very great lengths, hundreds of feet long, thicker than they are today and such larger sizes were also among many other plants we still have in smaller formats today.

 

[Damien. OK. But where?].

When God announces judgments, He means what He says. There are no survivors.

 

[Damien. That’s a sweeping statement. Did not Jesus Christ announce the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, ‘not one stone left upon another’, yet we know that about a million Jewish captives were taken by the Romans in 70 AD? That’s a lot of “survivors”, from a very wicked generation].

 

At the end of time, we learn that after the millenium, the second resurrection takes place - that of the wicked (Rev. 20:5), but this verse is divided up wrongly by faulty man. "This is the first resurrection" belongs to verse 6, not verse 5. Since verse 6 describes the first resurrection - that of the blessed - who reign with Christ for a 1000 years.

After the millennium the wicked are raised and they realize that they are outside the city of God and Satan is among them and they prepare to try and conquer the city, the New Jerusalem. Next they are judged according to God's standard, which causes them to acknowledge the truth of God's decisions, for they saw their deeds displayed in the sky as scripture indicates.

Now, during the millennium the saints shall judge the wicked, but everything on earth will be destroyed - only Satan and his angels roam around for "all" the wicked are dead. After the judgment of the wicked of course their total, worldwide destruction comes - and those accounts are not dubious words. They will be carried out for they chose wrong and sin cannot exist in the presence of God, who will recreate the world as perfect as it was meant to be.

 

[Damien. This is a subject quite different from the Flood].

 

Just like this will come about - and it was total - so too was the Flood, which was also a judgment of God.

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Hebrews 11:7.

 

[Damien. Only one family surviving is pretty significant].

 

The whole world was condemned by God, not just a portion in the Middle East, for the antedeluvian sinners were spread out over the whole world. It seems self understood that the pre-Flood wicked people, had spread around the whole world. So, no, the Flood was world wide and God destroyed them all.

 

[Damien. Does archaeology support this?].

 

All glaciers are post-Flood for there was one ice age afterwards.

There is enough evidence for a global Flood. See submenu, `Evolution short cut'. Read about the "bone piles" found in China and South America, as well as in western Canada I belief they reported recently that the rocks contain thousands of fossils, albeit they talked about insects I think, which quickly fossilized for they were preserved so good.

In Germany I lived where the coal mines are. They found deep, deep underground pieces that were once alive on earth's surface. That is true for all coal mines around the world.

 

[Damien. This is not the Adamic or Noachic pre-Flood world].

Well, that's all for today

Best wishes from here to you and may God bless you and your people

Johnny

 

[Damien. The same to you, Johnny!].

Hello Damien;

After I sent the last writings, I found the article

I send here to you. It shows some intricate work geologists have observed and considered.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/09/28/mystery-of-megaflood

 

I was up there, years ago, not being aware of the history of the Scablands in Washington,

but they do look strange in some places.

 

Hope it will shed some light

 

Best wishes to you

Johnny

 

[Damien. Again, this is not the Adamic or Noachic pre-Flood world].

 

"Athena is the ultimate representation of Naamah as the one who brought the serpent’s “wisdom” through the Flood".



Re our post:

Prophet Elijah as Greek Myrtilus

 

http://historyancientphilsophy.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/259/comment-page-1/#comment-180

Robert Bowie Johnson Jr, author of “The Parthenon Code: Mankind’s History in Marble,” wrote:

bob Says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:24 pm e
Hermes is Cush. See the books “The Parthenon Code: Mankind’s History in Marble,” “Noah in Ancient Greek Art,” and the DVD “The Serpent’s Side of Eden.”


AMAIC replied:

Dear Bob

Really appreciate your efforts to demonstrate Greek appropriation of biblical stories. Do not necessarily agree with all of it (e.g. Titan pushing heaven away, though it applies philosophically), but it is always most interesting and readable.
John R. Salverda is a past master of this sort of work. You can find his articles at our:
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/

Anyway, I shall pass on your comments to John.
God bless
Damien Mackey.


John R. Salverda then wrote:

Dear Damien (and Robert as well),

I am well familiar with the concept of Hermes as Cush. In my youth, I followed the writings of Alexander Hyslop (“The Two Babylons” a virulently anti-Papist exposition), who had deduced that the name “Hermes” was a form of the name “Chemosh” (the god of the Moabites), and was therefore derived from “Chem” (“Ham”) and “Mose” (“delivered from,” or “son of”) thus “Ham’s son.” This supposition was further supported with a statement made by Hyginus; “Men for many centuries before lived without town or laws, speaking one tongue under the rule of Jove. But after Mercurius had explained the languages of men (whence he is called ermeneutes, ‘interpreter’, for Mercurius in Greek is called Ermes; he too, divided the nations), then discord arose among mortals, which was not pleasing to Jove.” (Hyginus, Fabulae 143). This coupled with the idea that Cush (Ham’s son) sounds like the name “Chaos” the Greek god of “confusion,” and Nimrod (often identified as the leader of the tower builders at Babel) likely had received his Babylonian kingdom as an inheritance from his father Cush (figured, under this theory, to have been the actual tower builder), made an impressive argument in favor of identifying Ham’s son, “Cush” with the Greek god “Hermes.”

….

bob Says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:12 pm e

I read Hislop years ago also. I love underlining with colored pencils. After a time, I had just about every passage underlined.
A study of Greek art has opened up much understanding. A key is the mother of Cush/Hermes, Naamah (Genesis 4:22) who came through the Flood as Ham’s wife, and inspired the post-flood rebellion led by her grandson Herakles/Nimrod. Most of those ancient goddesses (Ishtar, Asherah, Isis, Artemis, etc.) represent Naamah glorified and worshiped.
Athena is the ultimate representation of Naamah as the one who brought the serpent’s “wisdom” through the Flood.
Greek art celebrates the triumph of the way of Cain after the Flood.
Zeus and Hera = Adam and Eve, Hephaistos and Ares, their two sons, are Cain and Seth. Nereus, a so-called minor sea god, is Noah. I have 37 images of Noah in ancient Greek art at http://www.solvinglight.com plus a bunch of other great stuff.

....

John again

....

There is no Scriptural evidence that the "Naamah" mentioned at Genesis 4:22 was the wife of Ham and the mother of Cush. I admit that her mention there, probably indicates that there was once some further, although unspecified, role for her, but I fear that it is one which has become lost to obscure antiquity. Probably her role had something to do with a more extended, lost story about Lamech and Tubal-cain, whom she is mentioned with and who may also have been, at one time, more illustrious. It had been suggested back in 1976 that the name "Tubal-cain" is the origin of the Roman name for Hephaestus, "Vulcan" (Henry M. Morris, "The Genesis Record" Page 146).

Similarly it could be because she was the half-sister of Jubal, "ancestor of all who played the harp and flute." that some Jewish traditions associate her with singing, thus giving her another reason for being named Scripturally. Also a demon maned Raamah has been associated with Lilith from dim antiquity. However, not only the noting of Naamah but the entire antediluvian genealogy of Cain is given, (it seems without justification) who, accept for the possibility that they may have intermarried with the Noahic line, all died in the Great Flood. There may be any number of reasons for this, but it is all theoretical, and without some impeccable verification or divine revelation, the idea seems unjustified at this point.

It wasn't until The early Jewish midrash Genesis Rabba (23.3) that this Naamah began to be identified as the wife of, not Ham but, Noah (she was several generations older than Ham). This midrash was most likely written about the 5th or 6th century AD. This was the first indication (pure supposition) that Naamah was aboard the Ark. The 11th-century Jewish commentator Rashi (in his commentary on Sefer Bereishis 4:22) also agrees that Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-Cain, was the wife of Noah. However, (another?) Naamah, a descendant of Seth, as a daughter of Noah's grandfather Enoch, is named the wife of Noah, in the medieval midrash Book of Jasher Chapter 5:15. The earliest version of this "Book of Jasher" was from 1625, (the introduction refers to an earlier, unfound, 1552 edition). The printer claimed the work was copied from an ancient manuscript. It has largely been criticized as a forgery, so you can take it for what it's worth.

It wasn't until the 17th century that the famed theologian John Gill, believing that Naamah may somehow have become confused with Noah's wife, identified her instead with the wife of Ham, Noah's son. So not only is there no Scriptural evidence, there is no suggestion at all until the 17th century for supposing that Naamah was the wife of Ham or otherwise the mother of Cush. Now, it just seems to me to be a very flimsy hook upon which to hang an assertion such as; "A key is the mother of Cush/Hermes, Naamah (Genesis 4:22) who came through the Flood as Ham’s wife, and inspired the post-flood rebellion led by her grandson Herakles/Nimrod. Most of those ancient goddesses (Ishtar, Asherah, Isis, Artemis, etc.) represent Naamah glorified and worshiped." Are these famous goddesses really based on some obscure, little known, and poorly understood, name referred to in Genesis? Athena was Naamah? What about the, much more likely, Eve, or Zion, or even Lilith?

I do concur that a sea-god such as Nereus likely had Noah as his prototype, but I would also add a dozen other denizens of the deep like Enki, Dagon, Poseidon, Proteus, Triton, Phorkys, Pontus, Glaucus, and many others, also, because Noah taught the God of Heaven, he inspired the conception of gods like, Uranus, Anu, and Varuna. I do have my doubts about emphasizing Nereus and making his shape shifting wrestling match with Herakles out to be some unheard of confrontation between Noah and Nimrod. After all Aristaeus had a similar episode with Proteus, and both Herakles and Aristaeus can easily be identified with Samson the Danite champion against the Dagon religion (there is no need to reach all the way back to Nimrod and imagine that he somehow encountered Noah).

Well, we shall let the readers decide, let them go to your website, buy one or two of your books and read for themselves how you justify your claims. Good luck with that Bob, and may your future studies be enhanced with a divine inspirational blessing. -John

bob 2h

You may be mistaken. In their seminal work, “The Myth of the Goddess” which should be called “The Memory of the Adored Woman,” Baring and Cashford trace the many mid-eastern goddesses back to one: Nammu – pretty close to Naamah. They go into great detail in their connections with the exception of the Genesis connection. In the last part of “The Day Behemoth and Leviathan Died” David Allen Deal gives evidence for Naamah coming through the Flood, and I do as well in “Noah in Ancient Greek Art” and my DVD “The Serpent’s Side of Eden.”


John

Dear Bob, Yes, it is true that I may be mistaken. I have been in the past, and I presume that I will be in the future as well. I believe that, once a new fact is discovered and a mistake is realized, the only way that one can gain an improved knowledge, is to admit the mistake and embrace the new fact. I have done this many times in the course of my long studies. I admit that I had never heard of "Anne Baring and Jules Cashford" before, nor of "David Allen Deal," (I have recently spent more time reading ancient sources rather than modern observers.) Thanks for pointing them out, I'll look into these authors, if I get some time to do so. I admit that the name "Nammu" is pretty close to the name "Naamah," and that Nammu is one of the great Sumerian mother goddesses. However I do stand by my statement, that there is absolutely no Scriptural evidence for the Naamah, who is mentioned at Genesis 4:22, as "coming through the Flood." As for the Sumerian goddess, her name meant "the deep" on "Athena is the ultimate representation of Naamah as the one who brought the serpent’s “wisdom” through the Flood".

bob 4h

I wrote a long reply to John at the blogspot but lost it because I couldn’t figure out the profile bit. So then I wrote this, but saved it before it disappeared:
Pardon me, John, you are correct that there is no Scriptural evidence for Naamah’s marriage to Ham. I must have read your post too hastily. I just wrote a long response and lost it because I can’t figure out the profile bit. The following brief summary puts Naamah into a context:
http://solvinglight.com/blog/2008/08/chapter-9-the-forbidden-theory-of-ancient-greek-art/

NAS stands for National Academy of Sciences.
....

John

OK Bob, I read your Chapter 9: "The Forbidden Theory of Ancient Greek Art" and while I can't review the entire thing tonight I will do this much now and perhaps I shall pick apart the rest of it subsequently. From the sub-chapter entitled "ZEUS AND HERA ARE THE FIRST COUPLE DESCRIBED IN GENESIS" I have presented some quotes, with which I do take issue;

"In a hymn of invocation, the 6th-century BC lyric poet, Alcaeus, refers to Hera as “mother of all.” As the first wife, the Greeks worshipped Hera as the goddess of marriage; as the first mother, the Greeks worshipped her as the goddess of childbirth."

Hera was NOT "the first mother," and the ancients Greek did not portray her as such. She herself had a mother (Rhea), and even a grandmother named Gaea, of whom we can read in an ancient Greek source known as the Orphic hymn to Gaea (#25), where she, and not Hera, is hailed as "of Gods and men the source" and "all-parent"; "O Goddess, Earth, of Gods and men the source, endued with fertile, all destroying force; All-parent, bounding, whose prolific powers, produce a store of beauteous fruits and flowers, All-various maid, the eternal world's strong base immortal, blessed, crowned with every grace; From whose wide womb, as from an endless root, fruits, many-formed, mature and grateful shoot. Deep bosomed, blessed, pleased with grassy plains, sweet to the smell, and with prolific rains. All flowery demon, centre of the world" If Alcaeus, refers to Hera as “mother of all” this was not the usual Greek understanding of her, perhaps it was a mere allegory (such as Paul said of "Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Galatians 4:26 KJV).

"Before she was known as Hera, the wife of Zeus had the name Dione. The name relates to the creation of Eve out of Adam, for Dione is the feminine form of Dios or Zeus. This suggests that the two, like Adam and Eve, were once a single entity."

Dione was never known as Hera; I believe that you know this, because of the way that you worded the statement, see how you have intimated it, but did not say it outright (presenting the assertion in a way that makes it seem to fit your theory). Dione was a daughter of Oceanus and Tethys (Hesiod. Theog. 353) the cousin of Hera, and, according to others, of Gaea by either Uranus or Aether. (Hygin. Fab. Praef.; Apollod. i. 1. § 3.) in which cases she would have been Hera's aunt. Dione was a rival of Hera's for Zeus' love. She was never identified, or even confused, with Hera. Her name is probably a corruption of "Zion" in my view. Zeus, who was cheating on his wife Hera, is said by some, to have fathered Aphrodite with Dione (Apollod. i. 3. sec; i.; Hom. Il. v. 370, &c.). Hera was not Dione and so, even if we consider her name to be "the feminine form of Dios," it has no bearing on your contention that Zeus and Hera "like Adam and Eve, were once a single entity."

"In his Works and Days, the poet Hesiod wrote of “how the gods and mortal men sprang from one source.”3 The first couple, Zeus and Hera, were that source."

If one reads Hesiod, he will find that "Zeus and Hera" are not the "one source" that he is referring to (neither were they the first couple). "Or if you will, I will sum you up another tale well and skilfully -- and do you lay it up in your heart, -- how the gods and mortal men sprang from one source." (Hesiod, "Works and Days" ll. 106-108). As you can see this was the introductory statement of "another tale" about the origins of history. Before this statement Hesiod had described the creation of mankind (out of clay) by Prometheus, and how the first woman had a secondary creation, how she then proceeded to disobey a rule that she had been given and introduced all evils into the world. Surely Pandora is more Eve-like than is Hera. Hesiod then goes on to tell his other tale, but it says nothing about how the gods and mortal men sprang from Zeus and Hera, because they didn't. The tale that Hesiod then tells is the one about the 5 ages of mankind, beginning with the Golden Age, over which Kronos and Rhea (the father and mother of Zeus and Hera) presided. In the Golden Age of Kronos mankind lived in a pristine state, with lifespans of a thousand years, the Earth gave up it's produce without toil, and humans could talk with animals; much more like the Edenic account than anything connected with the stories of Zeus and Hera

"Hera is the single mother of all humanity"

As far as I can tell, in any of the ancient Greek sources that I have ever seen, Hera was not the mother of one single human.

"The term “father Zeus” is a description of the king of the gods which appears over 100 times in the ancient writings of Homer."

Although Adam was "created in the image of God" (the father), we do not say "father Adam" we do say "God the Father." Just because the Greeks worshiped Zeus as "god the father," is no evidence that they thought of Zeus as some type of Adam figure.

"The Greek tradition insists that Zeus and Hera were the first couple"

Greek tradition does not even suggest that Zeus and Hera were the first couple, let alone "insist" upon it. The Greek myths note plenty of couples that were supposed to predate Zeus and Hera; there were Ouranos and Gaea, Okeanos and Tethys, Hyperion and Theia, Krios and Eurybia, Koios and Phoibe, Kronos and Rhea, Iapetus and Clymene, and etc. These were all brother/sister and husband/wife pairs. (Hesiod, Theogony 334 - 515)

Now Bob, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Zeus and Hera could not have been based upon Adam and Eve, it is entirely possible in my view. What I am saying is that the evidence presented in this sub-chapter is unfounded and at times even misleading (that business about Hera being Dione, and that "one source" quote from Hesiod being taken out of context), it proves nothing except your eagerness to see things, not as they are, but as you insist that they should be. You have a theory and you read Greek mythology in such a way that it fits your preconceived notions.

The more important point I find is that, over-all, you are correct. Greek mythology generally, and even in some cases specifically, is based upon the same stories that the Hebrews used to compose their Holy Scriptures. However, the Greeks are not remembering Eden and the Flood through their own national traditions. They got the Hebrew stories in the same way that they got the Hebrew Alphabet. Sea-faring Hebrews such as the Danites (Danaans), the Philistines (Pelasgians), and the Phoenicians, brought them from Israel themselves. There are Greek Myths that tell of Moses, Samson, David, Jeroboam, Ahab, and even Jonah.

Consider the Athenians for instance. The people of Athens were a special breed, they had superior conditioning during their early developmental stage, by virtue of their ancient religion. The culture and institutions that were advanced by them were instrumental to the evolution of Western civilization in general and of free societies everywhere. Athens is considered to be the birthplace of Democracy, and the Western nations, owe much to this ancient Greek city. What religion shaped this remarkable populace? They thought the people of their city to be the most ancient of all civilizations (Everyone else were considered to be 'barbarians' even the Egyptians.). They believed that they had been tested at the foundation of their civilization by a great and jealous god as to whom they should worship, instead of the god (Poseidon) they chose a serpent woman (Athena) and her tree (the olive tree), making her their goddess of knowledge. This was done by the free choice of a woman. For their insubordination they endured a great flood sent by the angered god. They spent some time in Egypt, and considered themselves to be part of a great multitude that was lead up out of the place by a famous ancestral law giver (Cecrops). He taught them to worship the highest god (Zeus), instituted patriarchal monogamy, invented writing and began an annual festival of cakes. He divided them into twelve groups and settled them in their new land. They had with them had an ark that contained the promise of an immortal king as a cult object. They were warned not to look upon the secret contents, under penalty of death, but they had disobeyed (the story of Erichthonius and the daughters of Cecrops). They set the capitol of their land at a city, represented by the olive tree (the symbol of peace), with a mountain, upon which they built their holy temple (the Parthenon, named for the 'virgin,' upon the Acropolis). They placed in their temple their extraordinary ark. This city became the seat of wisdom for their nation. These stories could not have been written before the building of Solomon's Temple, and were obviously composed by Israelites, lost to history, but it is apparent, because of their myths (which didn't become lost but were somehow preserved to this day), that they were not meant to be lost entirely. -John R. Salverda


John Again

Dear Bob,

In reviewing your next sub-chapter I can be a bit more conciliatory. You are almost certainly correct in your assertion that the Greek myths about the Garden of the Hesperides is a recollection of the Hebrew stories of the Garden of Eden. It is my conjecture that the Danaans of Argolis were of the Israelite tribe of Dan. These Danites had a priesthood who were directly descendant from Moses (the Priests of Micah's Idol, Judges 18:30,31), and they would have been very familiar with the writings of their illustrious ancestor. There is, therefore, no need to resort to the idea that the heathen Greeks are harkening, as if through their own oral traditions, all the way back to their cultural memories, of these antediluvian events. At any rate, we can compare the two ancient gardens through the prism of your next sub-chapter, "THE GREEK VERSION OF EDEN."

Rather than "The," I would call it "A," Greek Version of Eden, for there is another version of Eden that may be less obvious, but is certainly no less detailed. This being said, let us see what you have to say about the myth of the garden of Hesperides first. Largely agreeing with you here, please allow me to offer a few ancient quotes that I have found, and used, by way of verifying and clarifying some of the things that you have said.

"the Greeks ought to have directly connected Zeus and Hera to an ancient paradise, a serpent, and a fruit tree. They did, indeed, make such a direct connection."

The Greek myths do indeed say that when Zeus and Hera were married (Euripides, in a source that you have provided from "Hippolytus" 742 ff., even intimated that they were married, or at least that the marriage was consummated, in the garden itself), that their grandmother Gaea gave them the golden apple tree as a wedding gift. As to their connection with the serpent, Hyginus gives you your best (and only, as far as I know) source material in this regard when he says; "Constellation Serpent . . . He is said to have guarded the golden apples of the Hesperides, and after Hercules killed him, to have been put by Juno [Hera] among the stars. He is considered the usual watchman of the Gardens of Juno [Hera]. Pherecydes says that when Jupiter [Zeus] wed Juno, Terra [Gaea] came, bearing branches with golden apples, and Juno [Hera], in admiration, asked Terra [Gaea] to plant them in her gardens near distant Mount Atlas. When Atlas’ daughters [the Hesperides] kept picking the apples from the trees, Juno [Hera] is said to have placed this guardian there." (Hyginus, Astronomica 2. 3). Take note that Hyginus calls them "the Gardens of Hera" but also how the apples were planted (according to Pherecydes, a Greek mythographer from the 5th century BC., quoted here by Hyginus) near "distant Mount Atlas."

"Some mythologists have mistaken the Hesperides for guardians of the tree, but they certainly are not."

But why not? There is no need to assume that the mythologists were mistaken in reporting that those who picked from the tree were originally assigned as guardians of it, the same thing could be said of Adam and Eve. No? It must have been generally known to be true, that the care of the apples was given to the Hesperides; "The Hesperides who guard the rich, golden apples" (Hesiod, "Theogony" 215 ff.). Pausanias, in describing figures in a picture that he saw in the temple of Zeus at Olympia, says that "two Hesperides are carrying the apples, the keeping of which, legend says, had been entrusted to them." (Pausanias, "Description of Greece" 5. 11. 6). After all the apples as well as the garden were generally called after them "of the Hesperides." Was Apollodorus also "mistaken" in saying; "The golden apples of the Hesperides . . . These apples . . . Gaea had given them to Zeus when he married Hera. An immortal serpent guarded them . . . With it the Hesperides (Evenings) themselves were posted as guards, by name Aigle (the Radiant), Erytheis (the Red), Hesperie (the Evening), and Arethousa (War-Swift)." (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 113-4). Apollodorus names four Hesperides, often the sources name only three, and even less often seven. Their names vary widely, but the names here given by Apollodorus are the most common.

"we see the Garden of the Hesperides depicted on a water pot from about 410 BC. The serpent entwines the apple tree with its golden fruit. The names of the figures are written on the vase. Two of the Hesperides, Chrysothemis (Golden Order) and Asterope (Star Face) stand to the immediate left of the tree. Chrysothemis moves toward the tree to pluck an apple. Asterope leans pleasantly against her with both arms. To the left of them, Hygeia (Health) sits on a hillock and holds a long scepter, a symbol of rule, as she looks back towards the tree. To the right of the apple tree, Lipara (Shining Skin) holds apples in the fold of her garment, and raises her veil off her shoulder."

The names here offered are unique to this one source only, as far as I can find, nobody else uses these names to identify the Hesperides, therefore I would be quite reluctant to determine that; "their very names serve the purpose of establishing what kind of a garden this is," or "The names of the Hesperides describe what the garden is like." especially with this version of their names. Arethousa, a name used by Apollodorus, can be interpreted to mean War-swift, certainly not "Edenic."

Unless I am missing my guess, you are intentionally suppressing the role of Atlas in your interpretation of the Hesperides myth. This would be an error of shortsightedness in my view. Atlas is a rival claimant, instead of Zeus, for the role of Adam, and I think that he makes a much better fit. The concept of Zeus and Hera may have had its basis in Adam and Eve, but they were elevated into the status of gods very early in the course of Greek history. In their deified classification they were the proprietors of the garden, not its residents, neither Zeus nor Hera were said to have been born (much less created) there, and did not live there, so far as we can tell. Atlas, on the other hand, was said to have lived there, and he was punished at a place just outside the Garden. Atlas was not a god, he was a rebel giant. This is exactly as the Jews pictured Adam; "The dimensions of his body were gigantic, reaching from heaven to earth" (from Louis Ginzberg, "The Legends of the Jews" Volume I, Chapter II "Adam", Sub-chapter "The Ideal Man"). And Atlas was punished for his rebellion against god (Zeus); "Atlas through hard constraint upholds the wide heaven with unwearying head and arms, standing at the borders of the earth before the clear-voiced Hesperides; for this lot wise Zeus assigned to him." (Hesiod, Theogony 507 ff.). The method of his punishment holds a didactic lesson about the doctrine of Mount Sinai. He was condemned to be a mountain that separates the Heavens from the Earth. We all pray for the Kingdom of Heaven to come down to the Earth, but there is something in the way, it is the sin of Adam, because of which, there needs to be a "covenant with sin and death" in place, the mountain of the law.

Then there was the story of that previous civilization on the Earth, from which our modern culture sprang, which was destroyed, engulfed, in a great aqueous catastrophe. This previous civilization, called, "Atlantis," was named after Atlas, he was said to be their first king, and the flood which engulfed the place, is still known as the "Atlantic" Ocean. We learn the story of Atlantis from the Greek Plato, who explains why these ancient People were drowned away back then. He says that at first, their race was pure, but they earned their destruction because they had a racial fall, and had degenerated through mortal admixture. And that was that for Plato’s Atlantean civilization. So it was much like the Bible’s antediluvian civilization, where Adam’s daughters, bred with the giants, and this caused racial impurities, (His Spirit could not "strive with men indefinitely,") precursing the intolerable state which lead to Yahweh’s flood.

Atlas was cursed, just as Adam, to expect a certain "son" who could be described as nothing less than "messianic." Here's Ovid on the subject; "There dwelt huge Atlas, vaster than the race of man: son of Iapetus, his lordly sway extended over those extreme domains, ... Aglint with gold bright leaves adorn the trees,—boughs golden-wrought bear apples of pure gold. ... But Atlas, mindful of an oracle since by Themis, the Parnassian, told, recalled these words, “O Atlas! mark the day a son of Jupiter shall come to spoil; for when thy trees been stripped of golden fruit, the glory shall be his.” Fearful of this, Atlas had built solid walls around his orchard, and secured a dragon, huge, that kept perpetual guard, and thence expelled all strangers from his land." (Ovid, "Metmorhoses" Book 4. 8. 631-661 ff.). A "son of god" (Herakles) did come and in order to pluck from the tree he had to destroy the serpent.

The wife of Atlas "Hesperus" was named after the sun setting, the "Evening," or as we know it better by its common clipped form the "Eve" (The origin for this English term in defining the sun setting is lost to dim antiquity and I personally do not think that it is a mere coincidence.). Actually, according to Diodorus, the land was named after his wife, not the daughters; "Now Hesperos (Evening) begat a daughter named Hesperis (Evening), who he gave in marriage to his brother (Atlas) and after whom the land was given the name Hesperitis; and Atlas begat by her seven daughters, who were named after their father Atlantides, and after their mother Hesperides." (Diodorus Siculus, "Library of History" 4. 26. 2). Why were the daughters of Hesperus often the ones who were blamed for picking the fruit? I'm not sure, but perhaps it was a way to show the generational consequences for the act of committing the Original Sin. The term "Hesperides" may have carried an original meaning that was equivalent to the term "Daughters of Eve" indicating womankind in general. -John R. Salverda

bob 6h

I’m just checking to make sure I have the right info for this to post.

bob 5h

You list seven couples who allegedly pre-date Zeus and Hera. These couples do not appear as part of Greek temple sculptures or on vase-paintings. Zeus and Hera each have a temple at Olympia, and they are the central couple on the east pediment of the Parthenon where the Athenians summarized their history and their boast of the triumph of the way of Kain after the Flood. You must learn to trust the artists, not the myths. Most myths are ancient misinterpretations of the art.
For example, at http://www.solvinglight.com, I present 37 images of Noah in ancient Greek art. I could present another 50. The Greeks called him Nereus (the wet one) and Halios Geron (the salt-sea old man). Mythologists call him “a minor sea god,” and yet he is pictured on ten times as many vases as Poseidon. Mythologists will also say that Deucalion and Pyrrha are Noah and his wife, but they appear nowhere in Greek art, while Nereus and Doris are all over the place, including on the Altar of Zeus at Pergamun, where they are forced to witness the triumph of the way of Kain over their God-fearing offspring. The memory of Deucalion and Pyrrha probably comes from the ferocious but localized flood caused by the explosion of Thera in 1500 BC. Trust the art and always keep in mind the overall theme – the Greek’s boasting of pushing Noah and his God out of the picture and exalting man as the measure of all things.
You write of your intent to “pick apart” my work. I must say here, using the words of the apostle Paul, “Now to me it is the least trifle that I should be examined by you or by man’s day” (I Cor. 4:3).
This leads to my spiritual outlook vs. yours. I am not part of apostate Christendom, but am part of the body of Christ. I believe the Scriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek are inspired by God, and that Paul is the Christ-commissioned apostle and teacher of the nations in knowledge and truth (Acts 26:18, I Timothy 2:7). BTW, Paul never uses any terms that could be translated as “trinity” “free will” or ‘Hell,” (the basis of apostate Christendom). I use the Concordant Literal Translation, an enormous help in getting past the creeds, dogma, and mistranslations of Christendom. Please see a brief summary of my book on this subject: http://www.atruergod.com
I hope it is not true of you, but my experience is that most academics believe that they evolved from worms and reptiles by chance. If you do believe that, I hope you understand how difficult it will be for me to take seriously the views of someone who sees himself as a mutant randomite.
Do you consider our Creator or your reasoning to be supreme?

Matt Franko 3h

bob,
I read a review of the new Russell Crowe movie ‘Noah’ (not yet released…) that the young daughter-in-law they have appearing in a prominent role in that film is depicted as Shem’s (vice Ham’s) wife….
No word yet if she is depicted as coming from the side of Cain….
supposed to premiere on March 28th….
rsp, matt


John Again

Dear Bob,

Your initial claim was, if you will recall; "The Greek tradition insists that Zeus and Hera were the first couple" a claim that I was able to debunk easily by referring to my Hesiod (Theogony). I showed you that other couples preceded Zeus an Hera in the Greek Tradition. Then you changed your argument, contending that whether or not they appear in Greek Tradition; "These couples do not appear as part of Greek temple sculptures or on vase-paintings." You must not be as familiar with Greek art as you claim to be, otherwise how could you make such a false statement. It didn't take me five minutes on the internet, to find all these images of these same couples on vase paintings. Anyone who checks this can disprove you. How can I have faith in what you say? Here are some artists for you to trust:

Here is Rhea, riding her lion.

Cronus and Rhea | Athenian red-figure pelike C5th B.C.

Hephaestus, Eileithyia, Tethys and Oceanus, Athenian

black- figure dinos C6th B.C.

Oceanus and Tethys

Themis, Attic Black Figure, ca 580 BC
 

 

[... it looks like some of my images didn't come through on the last post (I wondered if they would), I never sent pictures before, I probably did something wrong (Most of them can be seen at http://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/titans.html ).]

 

....

You say that I "must learn to trust the artists, not the myths" however, it could be that your interpretation of 'some' Greek art, may well be as deficient as your general knowledge of it seems to be. Now, the artwork on the Parthenon is no older than 450 BC. Hesiod, who names those couples in the two generations that are supposed to predate Zeus and Hera, is generally thought to have lived between 750 and 650 BC. Thus, the writings of Hesiod are much older than the artwork of the Parthenon. Herodotus lived at the time that the Parthenon was being built, he knew Greek tradition, and he said concerning Hesiod; "Homer and Hesiod were the first to compose Theogonies, and give the gods their epithets, to allot them their several offices and occupations, and describe their forms; and they lived but four hundred years before my time" (Herodotus, "Histories" 2.53).

Do you contend that the mythographers and the artists are somehow reflecting two separate traditions? That all of the writers (whose written words can be interpreted by anyone) are in cahoots to misrepresent their culture to posterity, while the sculptors and painters (whose works are only properly interpreted by you) are representing a secret truth without regard to those who write the myths? How did the Artists learn this secret truth? Was there some underground artist school that taught an unwritten, and unrecorded, truth, while writers of Greek history and myths, were secretly sworn, and had all agreed, to record a completely different story? I just don't buy it.

You have said; "Most myths are ancient misinterpretations of the art." I have heard this theory about the origins of mythology before. I don't find it very convincing. The artwork generally corresponds with the myths. Furthermore, you can't expect people to let you use quotes from mythographers that seem to verify your theory as accurate, while rejecting those quotes that tend to disprove your theory as "misinterpretations of the art."

I must concede this point to you; There does seem to be an inordinate lack of ancient Greek artwork, depicting Deucalion. One would think that there would be more, he is after all, said to be a son of Prometheus (who himself is well represented) and was said to have re-peopled the land after a massive flood. However, he is conspicuously missing in ancient Greek art. I would be cautious about deriving anything certain from this fact for, as they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence." And, since you claim a certain expertise in the area of the artwork of the temples of Athens, you should be aware of this quote by Pausanias; "The ancient sanctuary of Zeus Olympios the Athenians say was built by Deukalion, and they cite as evidence that Deukalion lived at Athens, a grave which is not far from the present temple." (Pausanias, Description of Greece 1. 18. 7-8).

As to the phrase "pick apart" I admit, that does sound a bit, hostile. I assure you that I didn't mean it in that way, it was a bad choice of words. I should have said something like, "parse" or "break down" you know, "dissect" in order to examine, or analyze, piece by piece, what you are saying, there is really no need for you to be defensive about it. -John

bob 3h

John, I should have written that these other pairs rarely appear on vases, and when they do, the message is unrelated to the central message of Greek art: the triumph of the way of Cain after the Flood and the exaltation of man as the measure of all things. Many of the “gods” you site are not ancestors at all but like Themis, Okeanos, Ouranus, and Gaia, mere personifications of natural or cultural forces.
That the Athenians “chose a serpent woman . . . as their goddess of knowledge” is ludicrous. Who, specifically, did the choosing?
The serpent at Athena’s side is the Genesis serpent. She is Naamah being adored as the woman who reestablished the way of Cain after the Flood, bringing back the serpent’s “enlightenment.” In the oldest Greek, Linear B, she is Athana, short for Athanatos, the deathless one, derived from her long life she had (several hundred years), being born before the Flood.
Just as Christ is the image of the invisible God, so Athena is the image of the invisible god of this eon who blinds the minds of those who believe not (II Corinthians 4:4)
Herakles is not Nimrod’s original name in Greek. Herakles means the glory of Hera, and it was never to her that he gave glory, but always to Athena/Naamah, his grandmother. His original name was Erechkles, which sounds identical to Herakles. Erech was one of the great cities established by Nimrod (Genesis 10:10). Thus his name is connected to the glory of his city.
Nimrod is also know as Erechtheus (the placer of Erech) and Erechthonios as a child. Some of the most gorgeous ancient vase art depicts the re-consecration of the child, Nimrod, into the way of Cain. Earth itself, presents the child to Athena/Naamah. Also present were the child’s father, Hermes/Cush, Hephaistos/Cain, and often, the half-serpent, half-Zeus Kekrops who symbolizes a time frame – early on the development of Zeus-religion when the hero of the takeover, Nimrod/Erechkles, was still a child. The serpent had yet to be transfigured fully into a “messenger of light” (II Corinthians 11:14), but with Nimrod’s birth, it was well underway. Zeus means “light” or A/T Kerenyi “the actual moment of lighting up.”
Greeks worshipped Zeus as a serpent. In TPC, I show three stone reliefs of the serpent, one being worshipped as “Zeus Meilichios” or Zeus the easily entreated one, another with men worshipping a serpent twice as tall as they, and a third with the inscription “Heracleides to the god” of which Jane Ellen Harrison writes “When and where the snake is simply ‘the god’ the fusion with Zeus is made easy.”
The half-serpent, half-Zeus Kekrops only shows up on vases that have to do with the time period of the re-consecration of Nimrod/Erechkles into the line of Cain. On one small sculpted piece, Kekrops puts his finger in front of his mouth urging quiet or secrecy as Earth presents the child to Athena.
When full-fledged Zeus religion becomes operative after the conquests of Erechkles, Zeus has become the ancient serpent transfigured fully into the likeness of Adam. Surely you know that the altar of Zeus at Pergamum is called “the throne of Satan” (Revelation 2:13) by Jesus Himself.
Atlas is Lamech, Naamah’s father. As the last pre-flood head of the line of Cain, Lamech (figuratively) possessed the apples. There is a vase painting of Atlas/Lamech enthroned next to the serpent-entwined apple tree. Priceless! Over the entrance to the temple of Zeus at Olympia, Lamech is pictured giving the apples to Erechkles once he has been successful in pushing away the heavens and with them, the God of the heavens. Note that Naamah is in the scene helping Erechkles push the heavens away.
You haven’t heard about this because it pertains to “the secret of lawlessness which is already operating” (II Thessalonians 2:7).

....


John

Dear Bob,

First you said; "The Greek tradition insists that Zeus and Hera were the first couple" so I cited Greek tradition and named several couples that predated them. Then you said; "These couples do not appear as part of Greek temple sculptures or on vase-paintings." so I produced several vase-paintings upon which they do appear. Now you say that they; "rarely appear on vases" and you insist upon the caveat that they must relate to the message, "the triumph of the way of Cain after the Flood and the exaltation of man as the measure of all things" before you will consider them valid. But you made this "message" up, it is the essence of your theory, and not the "central message of Greek art" at all! There is no "central message" that Greek art relates to, such a message is perceived and promoted only by you.

You wondered about me saying, "That the Athenians chose a serpent woman . . . as their goddess of knowledge” And you asked; "Who, specifically, did the choosing?" I'm glad you asked because it gives me the opportunity to relate the following Greek myth; According to Varro, the choice between worshiping Athena or Poseidon was put to the vote of the people of Attica. They were asked to pick which would be more beneficial to mankind, Athena’s olive tree or Poseidon’s fountain. In those days, women had an equal vote with men. The men all voted for the god, and all the women voted for the goddess, but since there was one more woman than there were men, Athena won the referendum. Angered, Poseidon sent a great flood. So terrible was his judgment that it was decided to deprive women of the vote and to forbid children to bear their mother's names for the future. (Augustine, De civitate Dei xviii.9). … Furthermore the day on which the vote took place, the second day of the first Attic month of Boedromion, (on or near the modern August 20th) was henceforth omitted from the calendar. (Plut. De fraterno amore 11; Plut. Quaest. Conviv. ix.6.) Apparently it was a big deal transgression with lasting societal consequences to choose the goddess over the god, a type of Athenian “original sin” committed by the women of Athens (whether Pandora, Persephone, or Eve, it seems like a widespread consensus that the woman always gets the blame). Of course you can believe the myth or not, but at least you can see that I didn't simply make the statement up.

I have no doubt that Athena's serpent is based upon the serpent of Eden (In fact, I suspect that the name "Athene" is a mere corruption of the place-name "Eden" and that "Zion" is just another form of that name. Could Jerusalem/Zion be the actual site of Eden?) She also was famous for her tree, and Eden, as the first human residence, reminds me of; "Athens, a town said to be the first established in the world." (Hyginus, Fabulae 164). Her birth, out of a male with no mother would distinctly identify her as Eve herself, except for the fact that the Greeks insist that she was a virgin (like the daughter of Zion) and not the mother of anyone (or grandmother for that matter). I can find no ancient source what-so-ever that Athena was ever called "Athanatos" (Hermes was called "Athanatos Diaktoros," Immortal Guide) perhaps you can point one out for me, but it is of no consequence Athanatos means, as you intimate, nothing more than "immortal" and all gods and goddesses are supposed to be immortal. A long life is still not immortality, and the name Athena likely had nothing to do with the word Athanatos. You might just as well say that Don is short for donate, it looks good, but there is no evidence that it is true.

Greek myths do not say that Athena is the grandmother of Herakles, and the Scriptures don't say that Naamah is the grandmother of Nimrod. Surely, you yourself can claim the credit for inventing the idea that Herakles is named after Erech (a city of Nimrod) for there is no source material that says so, and I can find nobody else who finds this to be true. This is all pure conjecture on your part, with not a shred of evidence to back it up.

I have my own theory as to the basis of the myth of the twi-formed Erechtheus, that may be a bit too detailed and complicated to relate here, but suffice it for me to say the following; Nimrod may well have been a pretender to Messiahship (I do wish that the Scriptures had more to say about him) but as such, he is much like many kings, heroes, and supposed gods. Erechtheus is like Nimrod in that they both are pretenders to Messiahship, this, in my view, is why so many heroes all over the world resemble the Christ even before He had come. Prophets, like Moses told all about Him, the Israelites spread the word, and mythologies were formed accordingly. You cite Kerenyi to show that Zeus means “light” who do you cite to show that Erechtheus means "the placer of Erech" The ancient mythographers, of course, had a different take on the matter; "They named him Erichthonius, because eris in Greek means ‘strife’ and khthon means ‘earth." (Hyginus, Fabulae 166).

You have Kekrops as Nimrod/Erechkles, but I think that he more resembles the Athenian version of Moses. Cecrops led a colony out of Egypt, (see the Scholiast on Aristophanes Plutus 773). Diodorus tells us, “the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Sais in Egypt, and they undertake to offer proofs of such a relationship” (Diodorus Siculus book 1 Chapter I.28.4). Similarly from Plato, as his ancestor Solon was told by the Priests of Egypt, "At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which Amasis the king was sprung. And the citizens have a deity who is their foundress: she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, which is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes called Athena. Now, the citizens of this city are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them.” (Plato Critias). Just as in the story of Moses leading the twelve tribes to the promised land, so the Greek myth of Cecrops has him leading his people to the area of Athens and dividing the land into twelve districts. Strabo tells us that, “Cecrops first settled the multitude in twelve cities,” (Geography 9. 1. 18 - 20). Notice here not only the division into twelve but also Strabo’s reference to “the multitude” that Cecrops was accredited with settling at the colony of Athens. Another example of how Cecrops was like Moses, can be seen in the writings of Pausanias, who says, "For Cecrops was the first to name Zeus the Supreme god, and refused to sacrifice anything that had life in it, but burnt instead on the altar the national cakes which the Athenians still call pelanoi.” (Description of Greece 8. 2. 2-3). Thus even a kind of monotheism such as that which was advocated by Moses, who was the first to name Yahweh (Ex. 3:14), had its parallel in the Greek myth of Cecrops (however corrupt, he advocated Zeus as the “supreme god”). Notice also the bit about the “national cakes” in regards to Moses setting up the festival of the unfermented cakes. Just as Moses was the “legislator of the Jews” so the Greek myths tell us, that it was Cecrops who first gave the people of Athens their laws. Moses also wrote the universal founding story in the book of Genesis, and it is evident that the Athenians were well aware of it, because it is used liberally, in the foundation myths of Athens. Some even say that Cecrops invented writing, another allusion to Moses who is sometimes said to have invented the alphabet. It seems probable that colonists from Palestine (not necessarily Judeans) brought the stories of Moses to Athens long after the exodus, and even after Jerusalem had been established for a while. For it is not just the story about coming up out of the land of Egypt that they share. They also tell stories about the "Virgin" city of the olive, with a temple containing an Ark that had contents which were taboo to look upon.

I know that something at Pergamum is referred to as “the throne of Satan” (I always thought that it had something to do with the temple of Dionysus because of the phrase "the doctrine of Balaam" in the following verse but I could be wrong.) but what evidence do you have that the reference was to the "Altar of Zeus?"

I have already given my view on the basis for the character of Atlas, he is almost certainly based upon Adam, not Lamech. The Scriptures do not connect Lamech, in any way, with "the serpent-entwined apple tree", only you associate them because it fits your preconceived notions. It is the Original Sin, the sin of Adam (presumably whom the Greeks knew as Atlas) that alienates the kingdom of Heaven from the earth, and thus the well known icon of Mount Atlas.

You say that the reason why I "haven’t heard about this" (you are apparently referring to your theory concerning "the triumph of the way of Cain after the Flood") is because, it pertains to “the secret of lawlessness which is already operating” (as you quote 2nd Thessalonians 2:7). But could it not also be, that the reason why I haven't heard of this, is because it is a fiction that grew out of your own, very furtive, imagination? It isn't just me who hasn't heard of it, the same is true of anyone who hasn't yet come across your unique speculations.

Thank you Bob, for your patient consideration, I do realize that it must be difficult to carry on a discussion with someone who disagrees with some of your most basic beliefs. I am simply offering my own interpretation of the origins of Greek mythology, as a sounding board against yours. I don't believe that what I say on the mater is carved in stone, nor is it the word of God. Likewise I trust that you are not under the delusion that your personal hypothesis is the result of some kind of divine dispensation. -John

JudgeFebruary 24, 2014 at 4:51 PM

 

There are a lot of fair associations made by well-meaning researchers into the connection between myth and history. As a Christian myself, I am predisposed to believe Genesis. I am also struck by how, e.g., Greek myths may be rewriting Genesis but from the losers point of view, i.e., a revision of history put forward by the fallen angels and their supporters.

But I am still confused what connection is more plausible: Zeus (thunderbolt)-Poseidon (trident)-Hades (scythe) is Lamech-??-?? is Lucifer-Beelzebub-Azazel. (This leaves out other popular devil/demon names: Samael, Asmodeus, Mephistopheles, in no particular order.) Another connection suggests: Kronus is Cain is Hephaestus (note this makes Seth Ares). Yet another matrix is this: Kronus-Zeus-Poseidon-Hades is Adam-Cain-Seth-Abel. It goes on and on.

I really wish we could get these various researchers in a room to hash out the critical connections between fallen angels/nephilim of Genesis with the popular retellings by post-flood cultures like the Greek myths.
....


bob

If we begin with the assumption that Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures are the word of God, and thus historical truth, then Greek art will make sense. It will no longer need to be interpreted as “myth” as it must be by atheists and academics imprisoned by their false reasonings.
Homer calls Zeus the “father of Gods and men” over and over. What does that make his wife, Hera, if not the the “mother of all”? Remember that thea means “placer.” Hera is the goddess (placer) of marriage and child birth because she is Eve, the first woman to be married and to bear children.
Above, John says there are 8 or so other couples as some kind of challenge to my work. Zeus and Hera occupied the center of the east pediment of the Parthenon and had their own temples at Olympia. To mix them as equals into some group of couples is a form of blindness to reality.
You want to understand Greek art? Follow the apples. To begin with, Zeus and Hera get them from a serpent-entwined apple tree in an ancient garden paradise. The next person who has them is Atlas/Lamech the last ruler of the line of Cain. Over the east entrance to the temple of Zeus at Olympia, he is pictured presenting them to Herakles (really Erechkles) who, with the help of Athena/Naamah, is pushing away the heavens, and with them, the God of the heavens. Having done that, he has earned the apples. But that’s not the end of it. On the temple of Hephaistos/Cain in Athens, Erechkles is pictured as giving them to his grandmother, Athena/Naamah, because she is the one who inspired the rebellion. The Greeks thus depicted the restoration of the line of Cain after the Flood in clear terms. That’s their boast!
As to so-called fallen angels/nephilim in Genesis 6, you must have the concordant translation. Accurate translations means everything in these passages as it does in all the rest of Scripture.
“. . . and taking are they for themselves wives of all whom they choose” (v. 2) refers to the men in the line of Seth taking women from the line of Cain. The Greeks depicted this on the south side of the Parthenon and on the west pediment of the temple of Zeus as Kentaurs (Seth-men) taking the Cain women. The Cain women maintained their idolatry and corrupted the families of the line of Seth leading to the Flood. I have a chapter on that in “The Parthenon Code” and some more detail in the DVD “The Serpent’s Side of Eden.”
Ignoring the truth of the Scriptures, and exalting their vain reasonings, academics have concluded that they are descended from reptiles and worms through chance copying errors in their reproductive genes. They are too dull to even wonder where the copying originates. Having such an intellectually debased and spiritually degenerate view of their own origins, why should we expect them to have any real understanding of ancient art?
We don’t get to the truth by reasoning, but by God’s revelation.
I pray that every deluded member of academia will receive from our Creator “a spirit of wisdom and revelation (apo-kalupsis = uncovering) in the realization of God, the eyes of their heart having been enlightened . . .” (Ephesians 1:17). You may enjoy http://www.atruergod.com

....


John

Dear Bob,

There are a lot of people in this world who assume "that Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures are the word of God, and thus historical truth," and yet they do not accept your, rather fanciful, interpretation of Greek art. It is your assumption of things that are not in the Scriptures with which I take issue. Furthermore, it is not I who says, "there are 8 or so other couples" in challenging the truth of your statement, "The Greek tradition insists that Zeus and Hera were the first couple" ("a form of blindness to reality" on your part?). I am merely pointing out what Hesiod wrote in his "Theogony" and many other ancient Greek sources affirm the same thing. And I don't really deny that Zeus and Hera are somewhat like Adam and Eve. I would just like to see you prove it without resorting to subjective reinterpretations of artwork, or by twisting, and even misrepresenting, Greek mythology.

Here you go again misrepresenting Greek mythology; "To begin with, Zeus and Hera get them (the apples) from a serpent-entwined apple tree in an ancient garden paradise." Where did you get this idea? there is no ancient Greek artwork that associates Zeus and Hera with "a serpent-entwined apple tree." And every written sources that I could find says that the grandmother of the pair gave them the tree as a wedding gift, and it was planted in the garden, and the serpent guard was posted, afterwards. There is no indication whatsoever that they got "them from a serpent-entwined apple tree in an ancient garden paradise," but you, twisting the truth in this way, think that you bolster your argument; you do not, anyone checking will see your error, and then you take the chance that they will distrust your entire message (even though it may indeed contain some truth).

"On the temple of Hephaistos/Cain in Athens, Erechkles is pictured as giving them to his grandmother, Athena/Naamah" There is no indication, anywhere in all of Greek mythology so saying that Athena is the grandmother of Herakles (Niether is there a Scriptural verse so saying that Naamah is the grandmother of Nimrod!). The scene in the Athenian temple is explained by Apollodorus (and others) as the conclusion of the 11th labor of Herakles wherein he was tasked by Eurystheus to fetch the fruits from the Garden of the Hesperides; "Returning with the apples, he gave them to Eurystheus, who made a present of them to Herakles. But Athena retrieved them from him and took them back, for it was not permitted by divine law to locate them anywhere else." (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 121).

"Ignoring the truth of the Scriptures" is one thing, but how about somehow presuming things as "historical truth" that, the Scriptures DO NOT say (based upon seeing what you want to see, in a highly speculative, Rorschach test, method of interpreting Greek art.). The Scriptures don't say that Naamah was Ham's wife, you presume it and then proceed to build upon the presumption; You hypothesize that Naamah comes through the Flood and inspires a rebellion that becomes known to us as Greek mythology, she is Athena. You opine that the father of Naamah, Lamech therefore has a role in the Greek myths, he is Atlas. Never mind the fact that Atlas is never called the father of Athena in any ancient Greek source. "Atlas/Lamech the last ruler of the line of Cain" the Scriptures don't say this. Why not speculate that his father Methushael was "the last ruler of the line of Cain" or one of his son's, Jabal, Jubal, or Tubal-Cain was the last ruler in that line? And on, and on, You leap from unfounded conclusion to unfounded conclusion. 

This being said Bob, I do like some of your theories. For instance, you have associated Cain with the Centaurs. I find this to be an especially inspired connection, for Cain is like Ixion, in that the Greeks make Ixion out to be the very first person ever to kill one of his own relatives; "the hero who, not without guile, was the first to stain mortal men with kindred blood" (Pindar "Pythian Ode" 2.33). He was said to have mated with Nephele (Nephilim) and fathered the race of the Centaurs upon her. This speculation has a lot going for it; the Greek "X" sounded much like the hard "C" in the name Cain, they each were the first to murder kin, and the "cloud" Nephele is a lot like the "shades" Nephilim who engender a mixed race of monsters upon the Earth. So perhaps we can see eye to eye on some things.

I shall have something a little less critical to say about your Chapter 9: "The Forbidden Theory of Ancient Greek Art" presently. -John


John again

Here's one for Bob about "Eden in Greek Myths"

Dear Bob,

I have been critical, and then a bit conciliatory, but now I will take a more commendatory stance toward your work. Your recognition of the association between the symbols of the Hesperides and the symbolisms that appear in the archetypal marriage of Adam and Eve shows remarkable insight on your part. However, I would like to suggest, that the scene portrayed in the myth of the marriage of Zeus and Hera, is less a recollection of the cosmogonic episode in the Book of Genesis, and more in anticipation of the apocalyptic "Marriage of the Lamb" that we see in the Book of Revelation.

In as much as the Lamb's marriage is the ultimate redress to the original sin, it too has it's associations with the symbolisms of the Hesperides. Receiving the "golden apples" as did Zeus and Hera at their wedding, is usually predicated upon destroying the dragon; "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth" (Revelations 12:9). Zeus, in his original form was a kind of sacrilegious "messianic" figure, the promised "son" who would reverse the original rebellion committed by his father (Kronos) against the god of Heaven (Ouranos): "he was destined to be overcome by his own son, strong though he was, through the contriving of great Zeus." (Hesiod, Theogony 453) "There was delivered to Kronos an oracle regarding the birth of Zeus which stated that the son who would be born to him would wrest the kingship from him by force" (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 5. 70. 1). "Saturnus received this oracle: ‘Best of kings, you shall be knocked from power by a son.’" (Ovid, Fasti 4. 197 ff.). "Gaea and Ouranos had given him prophetic warning that his rule would be overthrown by a son of his own, he took to swallowing his children at birth." (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1. 4 - 5). Take note of this last quote from Apollodorus for comparison with the Scriptural description of the Messianic birth at Revelations 12:4, where the evil plan was to "devour her child as soon as it was born." Zeus, in his role at the celestial wedding and in obtaining the the often sought, heroic quest, of the golden fruit, is probably a blasphemous representation of the Messiah.

This being said, as Christ is a kind of Adam in his "Marriage of the Lamb," so Zeus is depicted at his wedding; "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV). Whenever a god is elevated to the primary position of Greek theology, he becomes a kind of "Adam." This is probably because Adam serves as the prototype of all deified humans; "God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us" (Genesis 3:22 KJV). Zeus took over from his father Kronos, who was a previous Adam figure (destroying his offspring with an act of "eating"). Kronos had himself, taken the place of his father Ouranos, the god of Heaven, an even earlier depiction of Adam (the husband of Gaea, an original mother figure). Eventually Herakles, the son of Zeus by a mortal woman, would sacrifice himself and be found worthy to wed Hebe (another Eve).

Hesiod informs us, that before marrying Hera (the queen of heaven) Zeus had several other paramours, including the goddesses Metis, Themis, Eurynome, Demeter, Mnemosyne, and Leto; "Lastly, he made Hera his blooming wife : and she was joined in love with the king of gods and men, and brought forth Hebe and Ares and Eileithyia." (Hesiod, Theogony 921 ff.). Noteworthy in Hesiod's list of Zeus' pre-Hera lovers, as we attempt to connect him with Adam, is the Goddess called "Metis." She is a kind of female personification of the clever serpent; "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." (Genesis 3:1 KJV) "Now Zeus, king of the gods, made Metis his wife first, and she was wisest among gods and mortal men. … But Zeus put her into his own belly first, that the goddess might devise for him both good and evil." (Hesiod, Theogony 886-900 ff.) thus Zeus eats to acquire his knowledge of good and evil. "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5 KJV). It is almost as though motifs from the story of Adam had been incorporated by design into the biography of Zeus in order to make him more acceptable to an Israelite constituency.

Similar attachments, making the story of Hera more Eve-like, are also discernible, for instance, consider her two daughters, Hebe and Eileithyia. Could these two names be nothing more than Greek transliterations of the names Eve and Lilith? A footnote from the book "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai (New York: Doubleday, 1964), pp 65-69 explains the Hebrew form of the word "Eve" rendered here as "Hawwah"; "… this may well be a Hebraicized form of the divine name Heba, Hebat, Khebat or Khiba … Her Greek name was Hebe, Heracles's goddess wife." Scholars often suppose the Greek Hebe to have been derived from the Hurrian goddess Hebat, through Greek contact with the Hittites who had adopted the Hurrian goddess. They also expect that Eve was developed from Hebat through Hebrew contacts with the Hittites. More likely, in my view, is that the Greek Hebe was influenced directly from the Hebrew Eve through ancient Greek contact with the Israelite/Phoenicians. After all Lilith (Eileithyia), an associate of Eve mainly in the Hebrew culture, seems to have come along with her.

ZEUS AND HERA IN THE ANCIENT PARADISE

"If Adam and Eve, in the Greek religious system, have become Zeus and Hera, there should be literary evidence for their presence in this garden, and there is. Apollodorus wrote that the apples of the Hesperides “were presented by Gaia [Earth] to Zeus after his marriage with Hera.” This matches the Genesis account: Eve became Adam’s wife right after she was taken out of Adam (Genesis 2:21–25), and the next recorded event is the taking of the fruit by the first couple. Connecting Zeus and Hera with the Hesperides connects them with the serpent and the fruit tree with which the Hesperides are always represented." (From Chapter 9: "The Forbidden Theory of Ancient Greek Art")

The record of Greek mythology presents several "messianic" heroes in the same light. The marriage of Zeus and Hera is not the only one that features the symbols of the Hesperides, for example after Cadmus destroyed the serpent of Ares he had a very high profile wedding feast, at which; "the gods shared their marriage feasts" (Pindar, Pythian Ode 3. 86 ff.); "There, as they say, by the Tritonian Lake, Kadmos the wanderer lay with rosycheek Harmonia, and the Nymphai Hesperides made a song for them, and Kypris (Aphrodite) together with the Erotes (cherubs) decked out a fine bed for the wedding, hanging in the bridal chamber golden fruit from the Nymphai’s garden, a worthy lovegift for the bride; rich clusters of their leaves Harmonia and Kadmos twined through their hair, amid the abundance of their bridechamber, in place of the wedding-roses. Still more dainty the bride appeared wearing these golden gifts, the boon of golden Aphrodite. Her mother’s father the stooping Libyan Atlas awoke a tune of the heavenly harp to join the revels, and with tripping foot he twirled the heavens round like a ball, while he sang a stave of harmony himself not far away." (Nonnus, "Dionysiaca" 13. 333 ff.). Take note that, according to Nonnus, the wedding of Cadmus not only featured the golden fruit, but it also took place in the vicinity of Mount Atlas.

Then there was the wedding of Peleus and Thetis; "Singing of Peleus' Bridal of Delight, which all the blest Immortals brought to pass by Pelion's crests; sang of the ambrosial feast when the swift Horai brought in immortal hands meats not of earth, and heaped in golden maunds; sang how the silver tables were set forth in haste by Themis blithely laughing; sang how breathed Hephaistos purest flame of fire; sang how the Nymphai (the Hesperides) in golden chalices mingled ambrosia." (Quintus Smyrnaeus, "Fall of Troy" 4. 128 ff.). Not only did the Hesperides appear, but so did one of their golden apples as Eris, angered at not getting an invite, used the fruit to cause the Trojan War as an act of revenge; "And now she bethought her of the golden apples of the Hesperides. Thence Eris took the fruit that should be the harbinger of war, even the apple, and devised the scheme of signal woes. Whirling her arm she hurled into the banquet the primal seed of turmoil and disturbed the choir of goddesses." (Colluthus, "Rape of Helen" 58 ff.). Take note that the fruit, that was elsewhere touted as the fruit of the quest for immortality (ie. from the tree of life), is depicted here as "the primal seed of turmoil."

Nonnus, in his "Dionysiaca," says of the participation of the Hesperides at the marriage of Helios and Clymene; "The light that shone on that bridal bed come from the starry train; and the star of Cypris (Aphrodite), Eosphoros (the Morning Star), herald of the union wove a bridal song ... The Hesperides raised the joy-cry." (Nonnus, "Dionysiaca" 38. 135 ff.).

Although I can find only one account that links the apples of the Hesperides, with the golden apples in the myth of Atalanta (the usual story is that they were supplied by Aphrodite, the mother of the cherub Eros, with no word as to where she got them), Virgil (c. 30 BC.) clearly makes this association as his Orpheus croons about Atalanta; "he sings of the maid who marveled at the apples of the Hesperides." (Virgil, "Georgics" 6. 61 ff.). Thus Virgil credits the apples of the Hesperides with facilitating the marriage of Atalanta to Hippomenes.

It is apparent that the symbols of the Hesperides were not exclusive to the marriage of Zeus and Hera, but rather that the Hesperides and their symbolisms were traditionally applied often to the wedding feasts of many other gods and heroes. There is no doubt that all of these traditions can be traced back to the origin of all marriage in the Garden of Eden, but this is not really evidence that any or all of these couples, and their respective weddings, are depictions of the story of Adam and Eve. It could be that, among the Greeks, the symbols of the original wedding, became those of all weddings. Furthermore, the ancient mythological record is not unanimous as to the location of the wedding of Zeus and Hera; "several places in Greece claimed the honour of having been the scene of the marriage, such as Euboea (Steph. Byz. s. v. Karustos), Samos (Lactant. de Fals. Relig. i. 17), Cnossus in Crete (Diod. v. 72), and Mount Thornax, in the south of Argolis. (Schol. ad Theocrit. xv. 64; Paus. ii. 17. § 4, 36. § 2.)" (from William Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology").

"The chorus in Euripides’ play Hippolytus speaks of “the apple-bearing shore of the Hesperides” where immortal fountains flow “by the place where Zeus lay, and holy Earth with her gifts of blessedness makes the gods’ prosperity wax great.” Thus Euripides put Zeus in the garden, and his language affirms that this is where Zeus came from." (From Chapter 9: "The Forbidden Theory of Ancient Greek Art")

I shall here present the same quote, without the ellipses, as translated by the English classical scholar, Philip Humphrey Vellacott (The parenthetical remark is from the notation that is included at the "Perseus Project."); "The apple-bearing Hesperian coast, of which the minstrels sing. Where the Lord of Okeanos denies the voyager further sailing and fixes the solemn limit of Ouranos which Giant Atlas upholds. There the streams flow with ambrosia by Zeus's bed of love (The reference is to the marriage of Zeus and Hera, which the scholiast implies was consummated here.) and holy Gaia, the giver of life, yield to the gods rich blessedness." (Euripides, "Hippolytus" 742 ff.).

The Tree and the Fruit

There were two famous trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of eternal life; "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Genesis 3:22 KJV). But which tree is being referred to in the Greek myth? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was introduced in the Scriptural narrative before the creation of Eve; It was not given (by God,) to Adam, in fact God forbade him from it (although He did not set a guard on it as he did later with the tree of life).

"You have probably heard one time or another about Eve eating the apple. The Hebrew word for fruit in Chapter 3 of Genesis is a general term. The idea that Adam and Eve took a bite of an apple comes to us as part of the Greek tradition." (From Chapter 9: "The Forbidden Theory of Ancient Greek Art")

Not only does it appear that Greek mythology has imposed itself upon Judeo-Christian theology, with the Greek "apple" becoming the "fruit" of the Original Sin, it also seems like the influence also flows in the other direction as well. For the golden apples of the Hesperides are, now-a-days thought to impart immortality upon one who eats of it, however I can't find one ancient Greek source that says so (and even though these apples are acquired by some, nobody ever seems to take a bite of one). This idea is apparently taken from the Edenic "tree of eternal life" (not the one picked and eaten by Adam and Eve, but a different tree altogether) and is then back-applied by we moderns upon the Greek myth without any real justification (Herakles was said to have achieved immortality by completing his 12 labors, of which obtaining the golden apples was but one. It is nowhere stated that he ate from the apples.) It should here be noted that the Greek myth hopelessly conflates the two trees, the tree producing the forbidden fruit of Original Sin, with the tree producing the fruit of eternal life. The serpent who entices people to pick from the tree of knowledge in the Hebrew story, becomes, in the Greek myth, the Scriptural Cherubim who guards the way to prevent people picking from the tree of life. Perhaps it was Gaea, the serpent woman (Gaea is the archetypal mother of all the mythic serpents and monsters, she is the mother of Typhon, Echidna, Python, the dragon who guarded the golden fleece, as well as the grandmother of Ladon, the never sleeping, serpent guard, of the apples of Hesperides.) who played the role of a Greek, female, personification, of the serpent; and, of course, it was the serpent who gave the apples to Eve, sometime after her separate creation. There is no story or depiction, picture or sculpture, connecting Zeus and Hera with the serpent at the time that they received the fruits. Placing the serpent as a guard at the tree was supposed to have been a later development. The unauthorized pilfering of the tree, the resultant expulsion, and the guardian serpent are associated more with Atlas, his wife Hesperos, and her daughters, than with Zeus and Hera.

The Serpent

Although the serpent Ladon is associated with the tree in the Greek myth, it is apparently the tree of life, and not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As noted the Greek serpent is not enticing people to pick from the tree, but like the Cherubim in the Scriptural account, he is portrayed as guarding it; "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24 KJV). Accordingly the quest for immortality by Herakles required him to kill the serpent before he could receive the apples. "the serpent Ladon, a son of the Libyan soil, had kept watch over the golden apples in the Garden of Atlas, while close at hand and busy at their tasks the Hesperides sang their lovely song. But now the snake, struck down by Herakles, lay by the trunk of the apple-tree. (Apollonius Rhodius, "Argonautica" 4. 1390 ff.). "Some say, however, that he did not take the apples from Atlas, but killed the snake that guarded them, and picked them himself." (Apollodorus, "Bibliotheca" 2. 121). Thus Herakles (however blasphemous you may consider the idea to be) is portrayed as fulfilling the "Messianic" promise; "God said unto the serpent, ... I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:14,15 KJV). "Jupiter, in admiration of their struggle, placed it among the stars; for the Draco has its head erect, and Hercules, resting on his right knee, tires to crush the right side of its head with his left foot." (Hyginus, "Astronomica" 2. 6, citing a work now lost called "the Heraclea" by a Greek poet of the 5th century BC. named Panyassis). "The huge Draco, Typhon’s son, which used to guard the golden apples of the Hesperides, he (Herakles) killed near Mount Atlas" (Hyginus, Fabulae 30). "Atlas, mindful of an oracle since by Themis, the Parnassian, told, recalled these words, `O Atlas! mark the day a son of Jupiter [Zeus] shall come to spoil; for when thy trees been stripped of golden fruit, the glory shall be his.' Fearful of this, Atlas had built solid walls around his orchard, and secured a dragon, huge, that kept perpetual guard, and thence expelled all strangers from his land." (Ovid, "Metamorphoses" 4. 617 ff.). Take note, how an ancient prophecy (here called an "oracle") had promised the eventual arrival of an avenging son of god (Zeus); when he came he famously killed the serpent; the labor was immortalized in the Heavens, where a constellation was described by Hyginus, as Herakles crushing the serpent's head with his foot.

Apparently the Scriptural "Leviathan," already linked by many scholars with the "Lotan" of the Ugaritic myth of Baal, is the source for the Greek serpent Ladon. Yahweh defeats the, many headed, Leviathan (as Baal does the seven headed Lotan, and Herakles Ladon): "It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert." (Psalm 74:14) "An immortal serpent guarded them, the child of Typhon and Ekhidna, with one hundred heads which spoke with voices of various types." (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2. 113). Take note that Apollodorus makes the serpent Ladon to be immortal, having one hundred heads, and like the one in Eden, it has the ability to speak. In regards to Leviathan serving "as food to the creatures of the desert," Apollonius Rhodius bemoans the unfortunate fate of the flies that feed upon the dead "serpent Ladon, a son of the Libyan soil" ("Argonautica" 4. 1390 ff.).

This battle is sometimes expressed as if in fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy, depicting a future victory over the "serpent" Leviathan; "In that day the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong, will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; He will slay the reptile that is in the sea." (Isaiah 27:1). Ladon himself was not thought to be a sea serpent as such however, he is often associated with the sea, and did live in the sea in the sense that his home, in the Garden of Hesperides, was, at least sometimes, thought to be on an island of the sea; "The Hesperides who guard the rich, golden apples and the trees bearing fruit beyond glorious Okeanos." (Hesiod, Theogony 215 ff.); "Over the waves and the waves and the deep brine they came to the beautiful island of the gods, where the Hesperides have their homes" (Stesichorus, Geryoneis Fragment S8, from Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2617 C6th to 7th BC.). He sleeps and will, one day be awoken; "those who are ready to rouse Leviathan." (Job 3:8). The Scriptures make an unambiguous identification of the Messianic adversary in the apocalyptic literature; "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." (Rev. 12:9).

As a Messianic prerequisite, eliminating the serpent is the determinant method of acquiring eternal life. It is so in the case of many mythical gods and heroes that the prophetic requirement, "her seed … shall bruise thy head" (Genesis 3:15), is a kind of Messianic identifier. It is the individual qualifying characteristic, attribute, or activity, by which the Messiah would be recognized and distinguished. In the Scriptures it is the cherub’s job to guard the way to the tree of life, however as we have seen, there is a well known and wide spread mythological equivalent. For not only is a serpent guarding the way to the “golden” apples of the Hesperides, but also the way to the “golden” fleece is guarded by a dragon. Gold, a most valued commodity indeed, is often a mythological substitution for the most valued possession of all, “life.” We can thereby identify the cherub as it appears in many other myths such as the winged gryphon (of the “Scythians”) whose job it is to guard “gold” in general. However life is not always symbolized by gold, there are many myths that use no symbol for it and use the term “life” literally or prosaically. Cerberus keeps us from gaining immortality, or rather, life after death. Heracles was seeking immortality as an Olympian when he crushed the head of the hydra and stepped upon the “crab,” wounding his foot, (Heracles sought life for everyone in capturing Cerberus, he also destroyed the serpent that guarded the aforementioned “golden” fruit of the famous tree in the ancient garden of Hesperides.) and the “scarab” is a well known Egyptian symbol of eternal life. (The “gryph” in gryphon is an evident shibboleth of “cherub” as is the “serp” in serpent, the “Cerb” in Cerberus, the “scorp” in scorpion, as well as the words “crab,” “scarab,” and “harpy.”).

Ezekiel, in a much speculated, and very enigmatic statement, hints that there may have been some justification for imagining a connection between the serpent and the cherub; "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; … Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire." (Ezekiel 28:13-16 KJV). Christianity has traditionally linked this reference to the fall of Satan. The Hebrew word, here used twice as an adjective, "covereth" and "covering," to describe the cherub, is "sakak" (saw-kak'), is from a primitive root the primary, proper, use of which is "to entwine" as a screen (a serpent "entwined" on a tree?) by implication to fence in, cover over, (figuratively) protect: cover, defend, hedge in, join together, set, shut up. This is quite comparable to the word rendered "keep" in the KJV of Genesis 2:15 and 3:24, shamar (shaw-mar'), to hedge about, that is, guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc. It seems to me, that there is something missing in the Scriptural narrative, that should explain the relationship between the serpent and the cherub. I balk at using mythology to fill in the blank, so I'll just leave it at that.

The Institution of Marriage

As noted, the Genesis account contains the origins of the institution of marriage. However, the kind of marriage that first appeared, the one that led to the Original Sin, was one that Adam described as; "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:" (Genesis 2:24 KJV). In essence it was the marriage arrangement of a matriarchal society, one where a man left his own family and went to live with his wife's. The children born to such a social structure belonged to the family of their mother, using, no doubt the mother's family name, and following the dictates of the matriarch. It was what we would call today, full-blown feminism. This system did not work out, it led directly to the Original Sin. God Himself described Adam's mistake as; "thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife" (Genesis 3:17 KJV). After all, this original feminist concept of marriage was apparently Adam's idea in the first place, a decision in which God seems to have taken no part. (see Genesis 2:23,24).

After the committing of the Sin, which is characterized by Moses as eating from the forbidden tree, God Himself prescribed the remedy to mankind's, originally perverse, marriage arrangement, directly to the woman; "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16). This is a complete departure from the previously attempted matrilineality. This, much overlooked, reading of the Genesis account, garners a kind of confirmation from the Jewish Legends, wherein a woman named Lilith is said to be Adam's first wife. "Like him she had been created out of the dust of the ground. But she remained with him only a short time, because she insisted upon enjoying full equality with her husband. She derived her rights from their identical origin. ... She takes her revenge by injuring babes--baby boys during the first night of their life, while baby girls are exposed to her wicked designs until they are twenty days old." (Louis Ginzberg, "Legends of the Jews" Vol. I, Chap. II, "Woman") Legendary it may be, but Lilith, as the allegorical figurehead of modern feminism, still injures babes to this very day, through the contrivance of the women's liberation movement's favorite political imperative, abortion!

How does this understanding of the Scriptural origin of patrilineal matrimony compare with what we know about what Greek mythology has to say about it? The two, supposedly separate, cultures have surprisingly corresponding accounts. The Greek myths tell us that it was Cecrops, who, upon leading the people up out of the land Egypt (a matrilineal society), was the first to recognize patriarchal paternity. While, to the Hebrews, it was Moses who led the people out of Egypt and wrote Genesis 3:16 (Unto the woman he said, …thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.) in order to redefine the roles of men and women for the Israelites as opposed to the custom of their previous Egyptian overlords (Athena, of Cecrops' Athens, had “accidentally” killed Pallas in the Greek myth, much the same as Eve had superseded Lilith in the writings of Moses.).

At this point let us recall the Athenian myth that covers this same episode. According to Marcus Varro (a Roman historian who died about 28 BC. he wrote a now lost book called "De Gente Populi Romani" from which Augustine, who had access to it back then, got this story), the choice between worshiping Athena or Poseidon was put to the vote of the people of Attica. They were asked to pick which would be more beneficial to mankind, Athena’s olive tree or Poseidon’s fountain. In those days, women had an equal vote with men. The men all voted for the god, and all the women voted for the goddess, but since there was one more woman than there were men, Athena won the referendum. Angered, Poseidon sent a great flood. So terrible was his judgment that it was decided to deprive women of the vote and to forbid children to bear their mother's names for the future. (Augustine, De civitate Dei xviii.9). Notice how, in accordance with the Greek myth, before choosing the serpent woman's tree, children born to the Athenian women (people who were led up out of the land of Egypt by their great lawgiver and settled into twelve national groups), were raised under their mother's name; and women, by virtue of their majority vote, ruled over the men. When it turned out that the choice of the women angered the male god, the situation was rectified in nearly the same way that it was in the Scriptural narrative.

John Gill's commentary on Genesis 2:24 says; "Athens ... had a king named Cecrops, whom, as all antiquity is full of fables, they represented to have been of both sexes, because he was the first to join male and female in marriage." (Justin, "Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus" Volume 2. 2. c. 6.), whence he was said to be "biformis" (twi-formed) and was called "difyis" (according to the "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology" under the article "CECROPS" by William Smith "Some ancients referred the epithet "difyis" to marriage of which tradition made him the founder") unless, as some (William Salden, "Otia Theologica" Exercitat. 1. sect. 14. p. 13, 14.) have thought, that he and Moses were one and the same who delivered out the first institution of marriage. (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, perhaps quoting John Calvin, on Genesis 2:24). Notice how the quote from Justin, is seemingly referring to the serpent half of Cecrops, as representing women; and how the quote from William Salden shows that it was thought by some, that Moses and Cecrops, were the same person!

bob 21h

John, to be blunt, you are a classic bullshitter. Please stop trying to be so “intelligent” and “knowledgeable.” Do you think the words of Homer and Hesiod are on a par with those of the Creator of heaven and earth?
“Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the discusser of this eon? Does not God make stupid the wisdom of this world?
For since, in fact, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom knew not God, God delights, through the stupidity of the heralding, to save those who are believing, since, in fact, Jews signs are requesting, and Greeks wisdom are seeking, yet we are heralding Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a snare, yet to the nations stupidity, yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, for the stupidity of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you are observing your calling, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh; not many powerful, not many noble, but the stupidity of the world God chooses, that He may be disgracing the wise, and the weakness of the world God chooses, that He may be disgracing the strong, and the ignoble and the contemptible things of the world God chooses, and that which is not, that He should be discarding that which is, so that no flesh at all should be boasting in God’s sight” (I Corinthians 1:20-25).
Are you going to keep boasting in God’s sight, or are you going to believe Him?
Further:
“Now we obtained, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we may be perceiving that which is being graciously given to us by God, which we are speaking also, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, matching spiritual blessings with spiritual words. Now the soulish man is not receiving those things which are of the spirit of God, for they are stupidity to him, and he is not able to know them, seeing that they are spiritually examined. Now he who is spiritual is, indeed, examining all, yet he is being examined by no one. For who knew the mind of the Lord? Who will be deducing from Him? Yet we have the mind of Christ” (I Corinthians 2:11-16).
Forget your vain reasonings and believe God. “The Lord knows the reasonings of wise, that they are vain” (I Corinthians 3:20).
From the above, you ought to be able to understand then that “to me it is the least trifle that I should be examined by you or by man’s day” (I Corinthians 4:3).
The first step in becoming wise is acknowledging how stupid you are without God.

 

John

 

Dear Bob,

I'm sorry to see that your debate has degenerated into crass name-calling, however, as everyone knows, this is the last resort of one who realizes that he has a losing argument. I have used "the words of Homer and Hesiod" to dispute your words, I have no conflict with "the Creator of heaven and earth," it is your theory about the origins of Greek mythology that I perceive to be in error (Newsflash! Things that you say, are not necessarily God's words.).

Am I to understand that anyone who disagrees with your conceptions of Naamah, or your notions about Greek art, or your suppositions about what you call, “the triumph of the way of Cain after the Flood and the exaltation of man as the measure of all things,” is "boasting in God’s sight" engaging in "vain reasonings" and doesn't believe God? Bob, I do believe God, it is you (merely you,) that I don't believe. In your latest missive you offer no evidence in favor of your speculations, nor do you make any claims attempting to disprove what I say. All you do is engage in an abusive attack on my lifelong study, my good name, and personal faith (about which you know nothing).

Your reaction to me simply having the temerity to question the validity of your musings, is to tell me to stop trying to be so “intelligent” and “knowledgeable” as if only "the great Bob," whose word is to be treated as if it were the Word of God, should be allowed to make such an attempt at intelligence or knowledge. Only you, who uses the words of Paul the Apostle and Sosthenes, as if you were in their class, and as beyond reproach (certainly not to "be examined" by the likes of me) as they, can be allowed to have and express opinions on Greek mythology (at least ones that are contrary to your own).

Because you seem to have a rather inflated sense of your own vainglorious self-importance, I'm sure that you will be little impacted when I say that my respect for you is waning a bit. You would do well to reign in your ego a little and remember that those quotes from 1st Corinthians were meant to apply, not only to me, but also to you.

-John

In reply to your comment

Dear Bob, I'm sorry to see that your debate has degenerated into crass name-calling, ...

bob 4h

Sorry to vent my frustration in such a way. Those words of Paul do indeed apply to me. I should also be gentle to all and patient. And so I apologize for my frustration which comes from this:
You don’t use the Concordant translation of the Scriptures which is essential for any serious scholar. You have not read “The Myth of the Goddess” (SB “The Memory of the Adored Woman”), the most comprehensive available book on the post-Flood world. You have not read my books, two of which have been translated into French, one into Greek. In the last 100 pages of “The Parthenon Code,” using the evidence from art and literature, I reconstruct the sculptures of the east pediment of the Parthenon, the place where the Greeks summarize who they are, where they come from, and what they believe. With your theorizing, can you make any sense of what the Greeks tell us in their sculptural themes? No.
And Re: Homer and Hesiod: The term “father Zeus” is a description of the king of the gods (theoi = placers) which appears over 100 times in Homer. In Hesiod’s Theogony 45, we read “of Zeus, the father of gods and men.” The gods (placers) are the ancestors in the line of Cain. In Plato’s “Euthydemus” Socrates refers to Zeus, Apollo and Athena as his “lords and ancestors.” In Theogony 50, Zeus is called “the aegis-holder.” That means he is the authority. He gives that authority, under him, to Athena. That’s why she wears her aegis. Zeus is the serpent-friendly Adam. Athena is the serpent-friendly Naamah, the one who inspired the rebellion against Noah and his God-fearing offspring, carried out by her grandson Nimrod/Herakles.
You are arguing about things that have been settled by evidence of which you are not aware. And so what you write seems to me so much babble and wasteful distraction.

John

Dear Bob,

I heartfully accept your apology, and I consider it an act of class, on your part, to have proffered it. Now, I feel as though I may have over-reacted a bit in defending myself, for which I too apologize. I am perfectly happy to forget the whole matter and to resume our discourse (unless you think that we have reached an impasse).

I usually quote, in my articles, from the King James version of the Bible (this I do because of its general popularity, I know that it appeals to many, who can check it for themselves). But I have made it a habit, for me to check it against Brenton's English Septuagint, the Darby, and the Douay-Rheims, and I am a regular guest at "http://biblehub.com/" where I can compare, at a glance, any verse against about 20 other versions of the Scriptures. Oddly enough, they don't even offer the "Concordant translation of the Scriptures" which you insist "is essential for any serious scholar." Well Bob, on your word only, I have bookmarked "http://studybible.info/CLV" (Concordant Literal Version), and I shall start referring to it as well.

You correctly state that I have not read “The Myth of the Goddess” (the book by Jules Cashford and Anne Baring), and while you have called it "the most comprehensive available book on the post-Flood world" I have heard, from others, that it had a thick feminist taint. I guess I will have to get a hold of it and see for myself. It is also true that I have not read all of your stuff (I will have to purchase your books when I can afford them), presumably you have not read all of mine either (although you can read it, for free on-line, at any time, if you wish). You asked, and answered for me, a question; "With your theorizing, can you make any sense of what the Greeks tell us in their sculptural themes? No." So let me return the favor; With your theorizing, can you make any sense of what the Greeks tell us in their written works? No. In fact you have to ignore much of what they write, assuming that their written works are somehow misinterpretations of their own artwork, to quote you; "Most myths are ancient misinterpretations of the art." 

You therefore chide me for quoting Homer and Hesiod; "Do you think the words of Homer and Hesiod are on a par with those of the Creator of heaven and earth?" But you turn around and quote them yourself, to bolster your own argument; "The term “father Zeus” is a description of the king of the gods (theoi = placers) which appears over 100 times in Homer. In Hesiod’s Theogony 45, we read “of Zeus, the father of gods and men.”" The hypocrisy is not the point, but the term "father Zeus" is. The fact that the chief god may be called "father," is very poor evidence indeed, that he was considered by anyone to be the first human, or even as the direct ancestor of Mankind. Allow me to produce a few examples of this practice in our own religion, with which you may see what I mean; "The mighty God, The everlasting Father" (Isa 9:6) "God the Father" (Joh 6:27) "we have one Father, even God" (Joh 8:41) "God our Father" (Rom 1:7) "God our Father" (1Co 1:3); "to us there is but one God, the Father" (8:6); "God, even the Father" (15:24). And let us not forget the famous prayer to "Our Father." As you well know, there are many more (perhaps not as many as 100) such references, and certainly nobody would hereby assume that the highest God is Adam. So how can you be so sure that a Greek calling his god Zeus, "father," is an indication that they thought Mankind were his actual descendants? Especially since so many the Greeks flat-out say, over and over again, that mankind was NOT descended from Zeus?!?

In fact, it is a near consensus among the mythologists to credit Prometheus as creating mankind sometime after Zeus had already been established. Here are 10 (there are more, but 10 is a good round number) ancient quotes to that effect; "Following Zeus's orders, Prometheus fashioned humans" (Aesop, Fables 515). "Prometheus, after forming men from water and earth, gave them fire" (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1. 45). "After creating men Prometheus is said to have stolen fire and revealed it to men." (Sappho, Fragment 207). "the clay out of which the whole race of man was fashioned by Prometheus." (Pausanias, "Description of Greece" 10. 4. 4) "Prometheus, son of Iapetus, first fashioned men from clay. Later Vulcanus, at Jove's command, made a woman's form from clay. Minerva gave it life, … Pyrrha was her daughter, and was said to be the first mortal born." (Hyginus, Fabulae 142). "earth that son of Iapetus moulded, mixed with water, in likeness of the gods that govern the world" (Ovid, Metamorphoses 1. 82 ff.). "O primal clay, so ill-starred for Prometheus' fashioning hand! (Propertius, Elegies 3. 5) "it was the son of Iapetos, Prometheus of the many devices, who made man in the likeness of the blessed ones, mingling earth with water" (Oppian, Halieutica 5. 4). Statius ("Thebaid" 8. 295 ff.) referred to mankind as; "The handiwork of Prometheus" and Callimachus, ("Iambi" Fragments 1 & 8) called people; "the clay of Prometheus." Ovid makes Deukalion proclaim after the Great Deluge, that he wished he had the magic of Prometheus, so that he could; "restore mankind again and in the moulded clay breathe life and so repopulate the world!" (Ovid, "Metamorphoses" 1. 363 ff.). 

Even Hesiod, who as you say, did call Zeus "the father of gods and men," did not consider them to be actual descendants of Zeus, (he thought them to be sprung from the Nymphs of the ash trees at the castration of Ouranos,) and he recounted the creation of women in this way; "Forthwith he made an evil thing for men as the price of fire; for the very famous Limping God formed of earth the likeness of a shy maiden as the son of Cronos willed. … For from her is the race of women and female kind: of her is the deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their great trouble, no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth." ("Theogony" 561-612). 

Take note that in this "creation story" recounted by the Greeks; Mankind was created, in the image of the gods, out of clay, the breath of life was breathed into them, and the woman, who introduced evil into the world with her disobedience, was created afterwards. Not a bad run of coincidences for the Promethean creation myth; No?

You say that; "In Plato’s “Euthydemus” Socrates refers to Zeus, Apollo and Athena as his “lords and ancestors.”" However, in Psalm 89, at verse 26, "Ethan the Ezrahite" refers to God in much the same way, "Thou art my father, my God." Besides Plato knew that mortals were fashioned by the gods out of earth; "Once upon a time there were gods only, and no mortal creatures. But when the time came that these also should be created, the gods fashioned them out of earth" (Plato, "Protagoras" 320c - 322a). Perhaps Socrates was referring to Zeus in much the same way as Malachi referred to God; "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" (Malachi 2:10 KJV).

So you see Bob, it could be that the Greeks called their chief god Zeus, "the father" because Mankind was created under his auspices (he was considered to be the father of Herakles, but not the actual progenitor of mankind). Much the same way as we call God "the Father," although he is not Adam. 

Now, as to my "arguing about things that have been settled by evidence of which" I am not aware. This reminds me of the old "Global warming" argument, (my "babble" is all a "wasteful distraction" because these "things that have been settled by evidence"). Do you mean to tell me that a statement like; "Athena is the serpent-friendly Naamah, the one who inspired the rebellion against Noah and his God-fearing offspring, carried out by her grandson Nimrod/Herakles." is In some unspecified way, a settled fact that has been proven by sure evidence, of which I (and apparently most everyone else) am somehow unaware? Please, give me a break, and just tell me of this "evidence," perhaps you will convince me that your, extra-Scriptural, scenario has some merit to it. But don't expect me to just, buy into it, because you pronounce it to be "settled."

-John

Michael Gregorek
https://www.facebook.com/gregorek
michael@gregorek.com
98.113.187.143

Submitted on 2014/03/05 at 5:36 am

John R. Salverda, how do square calling Atlas Adam and then go on to refer to “Iapetus, the father of Atlas, Prometheus, and Epimetheus, … recognizable as Japheth [the son of Noah!]“?

John

Dear Michael,

I'm sorry but I have no explanation that can make this obvious inconsistency conform to the rest of the story. There are many places where the Greek myths coincide with the Scriptures, but there are even more differences between them. You may just as well ask; How could Atlas be Adam if he had a brother (Prometheus) who created mankind out of clay, and another brother (Epimetheus) who was married to the first woman? Or; Why is Atlas never referred to as the first man? Occasionally the differences can tell us more than the similarities do (the Greeks still thought that men and women were created separately, first a man and then a woman, and it was she who introduced evil into the world). It is evident that the Greek myths do not accurately recount the Scriptural narrative. I think that it is fair to say that some degree of accuracy was lost to the Greeks in trying to fit all of the varied, mainly Eastern, stories into its one big system of mythology (they seem to require that everyone be related in one way or another).

Now, as to why I consider Iapetus to be recognizable as Japheth (The similarity between the names is noteworthy, but it's not just the likeness between the names). Noah preached the God of Heaven; thus, Noah being deified, it was as this God. The Greeks called him "Ouranos," and Iapetus was one of his sons. Scripturally, Japheth is portrayed as the progenitor of the Caucasian races. While Iapetus was the father of, the first, and arguably, the most famous, “Caucasian” who ever lived! Prometheus. It is difficult indeed, to picture Prometheus as the creator of all mankind but, perhaps it was true, that he was (merely) the "procreator," of a certain, "race," of mankind, the Caucasians, who, once again, can be traced back to his father, the Greek Iapetus. Why are White folks named after the well known mountain of Prometheus, Mount Caucasia?

Furthermore, there was a group of People who were known to the Greeks as the, "Leucosyri," or the "White Syrians," they lived in the land, that the Persians called "Cappadocia." Once again, White People are associated with, this time the Persian form of the name, Japheth. (The Hebrews say, "Japheth," the Latins say, "Gepetto," and the Persians, "Cappado") Given the Biblical list in the family of nations at Gen. 10, and compare this with the location of these nations in the Assyrian inscriptions, one wonders why Cappadocia isn’t immediately recognized as being named after Japheth. Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Ashkenaz, and Togarmah, (if Togarmah truly is Armenia,) are all contiguous with Cappadocia. The Greek form, Iapetus, is most like the Hebrew in pronunciation, and as the father of Caucasians these two at least must be identified.

Now Michael, I will offer a theory, purely speculative on my part, as to why these particular stories, with highly suspicious, apparently Scriptural motifs (the Adamic Atlas, the Messianic Prometheus, and the Eve-like Pandora) have been appended onto the family of Iapetus. Perhaps the Greeks saw their Iapetus in much the same way that the Hebrews saw Japheth, as some kind of geographical, or ethnic/linguistic, classification (ie. Armenian, Caucasian, or Indo-European). And they simply saw these specific myths as related, as all coming from the same place or group, and therefore categorized (as we do when we say "Japhetic") by making them to be "sons" of Iapetus. As to why these, usually thought to be Semitic, Hebrew stories, should be classified as "Japhetic" by the Greeks, I hesitate to speculate. Perhaps it is because Noah and his family were associated with Ararat (Armenia), or because Joppa (a main point of departure for Greek immigration and the main seaport for Jerusalem) was supposed to be founded by and named after Japheth, or just a general association between Japhetics and Semites (as in Genesis 9:27), I'm really not prepared to say.

Anyway, thanks for the question and interest in my work. -John R. Salverda

Sergey Teleguin telegin2005@inbox.ru 193.105.175.54 Submitted on 2014/03/07 at 2:24 pm Atlantis – vedic Tripura and Ultima Thule in Popol Vuh: http://www.scribd.com/telegin2005