Detailed Scientific Geological Biological Historical Study on Global Flood of Noah

The Best movie explaining Noah’s Flood Ever made?

This is a pretty good scientific video on the historical global Flood. I am sure the maker has visited our blog as he uses some of our graphics and maybe got a few ideas from our articles. He also doesn’t try to use a mainly Bible quoting stratagem, although he does in the beginning just a little and at the end.

But he dives into the details of geological proofs, that the Flood is THE best explanation of the geological features of our planet, that the fault lines are THE evidence and cause of the Floodwaters coming from beneath the crust. Unfortunately he must not have watched Nathan Hoffman’s video about the new Flood date of the 3000 BC Flood, based on the Greek Septuagint translation, but still sticks to a 2.350 BC some flood.

I noticed though that he didn’t mention the hydro-plate and hydro-planing theory of Walt Brown which I do support, whereas he does support the subduction theory of the plates that appear as lava and are expulsed at the mid-oceanic rifts and then disappear under the land crust to be remelted. I am not a geologist enough, but I have heard and read some voices that do NOT support that for a lack of evidence, which I kind of agreed with.

SUBDUCTION MECHANISM REQUIRES “MILLIONS” OF YEARS?

I am not a trained geologist, so I wouldn’t be able to put it into the proper words. But I wonder about subduction because I don’t know how many thousands or “millions” of years would be necessary to divide the continents, IF subduction was the mechanism. If it really was/is “subduction” as Darwinians believe that it took lo-o-o-ong ages to accomplish the continental divide, then it would not be a sudden division as Walt Brown suggests it was, also based on Genesis of course that may suggest that the continental division was a relatively short term event. IF super-slow subduction was the mechanism then it must have greatly slowed down since the parting of the continents event, or Raw Matt – the maker of the video – would have some other reason to support it that we don’t know? Matt Raw waddouyousay? Mostly  great video though. Kudos! Besides our graphics did you get any ideas here Matt from our writings? Would love to know!

Our continental divide views here, are more based on Walt Brown’s science and study, and our own theory that the “division of the Earth” during Phaleg (Septuagint) or Peleg’s days refers to the drifting apart of the continents. Why!

Because IMHO the continents could not have drifted apart as stable units or solid enough entities, right at the end of the Flood year, to travel quickly and to rise up as stacks that wouldn’t collapse in onto itself to form mountain ranges, as they wouldn’t be dry enough yet to stay intact and act as one unit to slide or hydroplane away from each other when the basalt Moho began to rise and form the mid oceanic rift – which must have taken some more time than a mere few months – in and below the fault line, which caused the plates to start hydro-planing away from each other.

I don’t know what kind of mechanism he would support & refer to to explain the sliding? On what? If water, then he would support Walt Brown’s theory. Why doesn’t he mention it? Is he shy to refer to Brown because Brown was attacked by some Creationists with big websites, and he wanted to evade the ‘shame’? I don’t know. Maybe he will tell us in some comment when he sees this article. I’d be interested to hear.

Our view is then that Peleg’s division of the Earth may refer to the geological earth during the continental dividing that must have happened perhaps around 2600 BC, a few centuries (400 yrs. according to original Pentateuch in the Septuagint & the Samaritan Pentateuch) after the 3000 BC Flood, to give the continents enough time to dry out enough to act as a unit and form mountain shelves that wouldn’t collapse but stay intact enough, yet not too dry to prevent the folding of the strata without cracking, which are observed in the strata folding pictures below, where no cracks are observed at all.

But, as I said, I am a geological layman and probably don’t use all the proper terminology and so on. But to me it makes perfect sense that the ‘muddy’ continents had to dry out somewhat before they would start traveling and forming super high mountains.

That division of the crustal plates is also supported by the facts that – for example- the first tribe of kangaroos and other marsupials had time to flee the preying lion tribes and were able to escape & travel to Australia where they found safety from such predators and were eventually isolated by the ‘continental divide’ and much later as well,  by the 1500 BC sea level rise that fully separated Australia from South East Asia. It also flooded Atlantis, Doggerland, Sunda land, Land of Mu, and southern Indian lands like Kumari Kandam, and other places.

Doggerland! Ignore the wrong dating!

So these are some of our reasons to believe the ‘division of the Earth’ took place not at the end of the ± 3000 BC Flood Year, but perhaps 4 centuries later. Which would also give reason to believe that the first pan-world megalithic culture – probably of giants – were able to leave their megalithic structures all over the world, as they were able to hop over or get around the fault-lines to move from continent to continent to built their monstrosities.

Case in point would be the port-like structures of Puma Punka and Lake Titicaca (see pic below) that BOTH used to be at sea level and were raised into the air several thousands of meters. In the process they were destroyed and broken and the giants probably killed and buried by severe land slides and/or earthquakes. If my theory of a 400 year post Flood physical division of the Earth is true, then that would explain that Puma Punku was built after the Flood and not before the Flood, as Matt Raw believes.

Another proof that Puma Punku was built after the Flood is because of its bronze links between the stones which are also found in many other megalithic ruins in South America, Egypt, as well as many other places. Also if the Puma Punku remains on deeper strata like limestone that would discredit that it was built before the Flood, following the same proof that the Giza pyramids were not built before the Flood as they stand on limestone deposits from the Flood.

But who knows. it all happened 5000 years ago, and that is a mighty long time, so we can’t get dogmatic about our theories, unless they are based on direct proofs & empirical evidence a la Karl Popper. Maybe we are both wrong. You see, I have been wrong before, you know?  🙂

All in all, this Matt’s 2019 video, fills in a lot of empty spaces in the true historical  narrative that outwits the Darwinian one 1000 to 1 , and no one knows it all. God bless Matt. Job well done! Every year new historical details of TRUE Non-Darwinian History Science are discovered collectively by many researchers, and we are slowly winning the information war, even though we don’t control big media.

One other thing about Lake Titicaca not being salty like the oceans now, is based on the theory that the Antediluvian ocean was not or much less salty than today’s oceans having 5000 years of run off ever since.  If its salt percentage is very small, it could be the result of 1650 years of pre-Flood civilisation run-offs in rivers only, as it didn’t even rain yet before the Flood.

These giants (Nephilim descendants) probably didn’t like to stay around the more civilised, still God-fearing, tribes in the Middle East like Noah and his son Shem’s offspring, as they righteously cramped these cannibals’ style. So that may have been a reason for them to soon move & split the scene to get out of the cultural and religious Mesopotamian center of human birth.

Cham/Ham’s progeny like Kana-an mingled with giants, as reported by Moses in Genesis, and cooperated with them in Canaan and Syria until Joshua and the Israelites made short shrift of them and the surviving giants most likely fled the scene to at first plant themselves in Cyprus, Malta, then Sardinia, and later crossed the Atlantic to begin the Mississippi valley giant Adena cultures and then spread even farther away to Catalina Island, the Aleutian Islands, Fiji islands like Rotuma, and many other Pacific islands where their giant graves are still found today.

Well that’s it for today. Hope you enjoyed our musings and theories and let us know what you think. I sometimes need time to allow comments as I have other activities that are more important, and I check every comment on its merits, as I don’t like trolls.

Stay safe. Don’t fall for the dangerous mRNA injections that have already killed thousands of people and injured many other thousands all over the world. You can get a small sample of these thousands of casualties in the British VAERS reports, but they might only form ONE percent of all cases, as it has been statistically proven that perhaps only ONE percent gets eventually reported. Peace Out!

Tour Armenia Speaks About Noya or Noah

Tour Armenia discusses the Armenian history of Noah and interesting descent from their patriarchs Haik & Togarmah or Torcom, in spite of way too ancient dating! Enjoy some truth!

---

TOUR ARMENIA ARTICLE:
The story of Noya (Noah) forms the basis of Armenia’s Christian religious identity, but in fact there is no recorded account of the Flood in ancestral Armenian mythology until the kingdom of Urartu and later, Christianity. Of all ancestral peoples who left records of their living in the region, there is not one single account of the Flood, which is widespread among other cultures in the region.

The reason for this is simple, if one believes the account of the biblical flood and subsequent regeneration of the human race:

According to the biblical timeline, the Armenians are direct descendants of Japheth, one the grandsons of Noah, whose ark landed on the top of Mount Ararat after the Great Flood. During the deluge Noah’s ark came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat, and his sons and grandsons, whose progeny increased there, had to emigrate to other lands. While some of Japheth’s sons stayed in the vicinity of Ararat, the others went towards Mesopotamia. Haik, who was believed to one of Japheth’s grandsons and the heroic patriarch of the Armenian people, was among those who went to Babylon. Another offspring, Aram, is credited with founding the Syrian kingdom.

“Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah; Shem, Ham and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

“The son of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

“And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah”.

Armenians consider themselves as coming from the House of Togarmah or Torcom. There is a cuneiform inscription that refers to the walled town of Tilgarimnu near Malatia in ancient Armenia. Others think that Togarmah is made up from two words: “take” (meaning tribe or race in Sanskrit) and “Armah” (Armenia).

Of course some of you may want to suspend some archeological facts for a little mythical belief. However, considering the discovery of Troy was pointed to by a story of the “mythical” Trojan War (which is now known to have actually occurred), and the Old Testament has been more and more shown to indicate actual history, perhaps this timeline does not need to be treated so much as legend but as a symbolic representation of actual events.

For example, there was a flood that covered much of the world around 13,600 BC as the world warmed through a tilting of its rotational axis, causing glaciers to melt. The Bible speaks of the mountain Noah lands on as Ararat or Alarod. In the Aramaic version of Genesis, the bible doesn’t speak of Noah landing on ‘the mountain of Ararat’, but on ‘the mountains (plural) of Ararat’. Later cultures called the region Urartu or Arata. These different words describe the same place.

The consequent raising of seawater inundated all of the lowlands in the Near East. Some speculation is made that rather than being seen as an actual boat, Noah’s ark can be considered as a symbolic embodiment of life (the ark of the covenant, for example, existed both as a thing and as an idea–the compact between God and man).

‘The Babyloniaca’ of Berossus – by Stanley Mayer

The Babyloniaca of Berossus by Stanley Mayer Burstein sources and monographs sources from the ancient near east  volume 1, fascicle 5 undena publication malibu  1978 ANET FGrH Grayson JCS RLA RE
ABBREVIATIONS
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (1948)
Die Fragmente der Grieschischen Historiker (1923-1958)
Texts from Cuneiform Sources, vol. 5, Assyrian and Babylonian
Chronicles (1975)
Journal ofCuneiform Studies
Reallexicon der Assyriologie (1928-1938; 1957-)
Real-Encycloplidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations …………………………………………………………. 1
Table of Contents . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………3
A. Introduction………………………………………………………..4
1. The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Near Eastern Civilization………………………… .4
2. The Life of Berossus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The Babyloniaca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …6
4. Evaluation ………………………………………………………8
5. The Present Edition………………………………………………… IO
B. Book One: Genesis ………………………………………………….. 13
1. Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. The Revelation of Oannes…………………………………………….. 14
3. The Great Year……… : ………………………………………….. 15
4. The Moon ……………………………………………………… 16
5. The Walling of Babylon ……………………………………………… 17
6. Unplaced Fragments of Book One ……………………………………….. 17
C. Book Two: The Book of Kings……………………………………………. 18
1. Kings Before the Flood ……….·…………………………………….. 18
2. The Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Sages After the Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .·. . . ……………………………….. 21
4. Dynasties After the Flood…………………………………………….. 21
5. Nabu-Nasir……………………………………………………… 22
D. Book Three ………………………………………………………. 23
1. Tiglath-pileser/Pulu ………………………………………………… 23
2. Sennacherib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …….. 23
3. Nabukadnezzar II …………………………………………………. 26
4. The Successors of Nebukadnezzar II ………………………………………. 28
5. The Persians . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Possible Fragments from Book Two ………………………………………. 29
7. Doubtful Fragment ………………………………………………… 30
E. Appendices ………..·…………………………………………….. 31
1. The Authenticity of the Astronomical and Astrological Fragments……………………31
2. Berossus’ Chronology of the Dynasties after the Flood in Book Two……………………. 33
3. Berossus’ Chronology of the Reigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon……………………. 36
4. The Ptolemaic Canon……………………………………………….. 38
5. Concordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

INTRODUCTION

1. The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Near Eastern Civilization
Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire marks a major turning point in the cultural history of the Ancient Near East. Unlike their Persian predecessors, the Macedonians and Greeks were not part of the Mesopotamian culture area, but true aliens, largely ignorant of and unsympathetic to the values and ideals of
the civilizations of their new subjects. True, Greeks had visited the Near East for centuries as travelers, mercenaries and merchants. They had admired and continued to admire the great antiquity and splendid monuments of. its civilizations and had borrowed various artistic motives and techniques and even so important a tool as writing from the area, but they had been and continued largely to be unable to read and understand the cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts in which the intellectual traditions of these cultures were recorded. 1
Consequently, they were outsiders, dependent for their knowledge on the observations of travelers such as Herodotus for Egypt or romancers such as Ctesias for Mesopotamia and on such information as they could glean from the guides and other members of the Near Eastern cultures who would associate with them. Not surprisingly, the new masters’ view of their subjects was seriously distorted, being based as it was on a curious melange of shrewd if often biased observations and only partially understood oral tradition.
Among those Near Eastern intellectuals who chose to deal with their new rulers we can isolate two essentially  different responses to the challenge posed by them. One group created a literature, both oral and written, of  protest, composing apocalyptic prophecies of the ultimate defeat of their oppressors on the one hand and elaborating still further the folk histories of the great heroes of their cultures’ past on the other. Thus, new conquests were ascribed to Sesostris and Semiramis and alongside them chauvinistic new legends were formed around such figures as Ramses II and Nectanebo II in Egypt, Taharqa in Nubia, Moses and Abraham in Judea 11 -, and Nebukadnezzar II in Babylonia. The other group, however, more willing to cooperate with their new masters, attempted to educate them hy the publication in Greek of authoritative accounts of their respective countries’ history and culture, accounts in which the factual errors of the popular Greek authorities would be corrected; at the same time they provided an introduction to the authentic traditions of their civilizations. The
compilation of such works was a genuine innovation, involving as it did the determination of what constituted the intellectual core of a civilization and then the presentation of that core in a foreign language in such a way that it would be understood by readers almost totally ignorant of it. The greatest and only completely surviving example of such a work is the Jewish antiquities of Flavius Josephus, but the first of them was the Babylonian history of Berossus, composed about 281 B.C. and dedicated to Antiochus I.

————————-
1For examples of late Hellenistic school texts in Greek and cuneiform suggesting that some Greeks attempted to learn cuneiform, see Edmond Solberger, ‘Graeco-Babyloniaca,’ Iraq, 24 (1962) 63-72. laFor Nebukadnezzar II and Taharqa see Megasthenes, FGrH, 3C2, 715 Ff I and 11. For Ramses II see Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrH, 3A, 264, F 25.47-49; Tacitus, Annales 2.60; and for Nectanebo II see Ps. Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni, 1.1-14.
For Moses and Abraham see in particular Eupolemus, FGrH, 3C2, 723 F 1; Pseudo Eupolemus, FGrH, 3C2, 724 Ff, 1-2; and Artapanus, FGrH, 3C2, 726 Ff, 2-3. For this literature see Martin Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938); and Samuel K. Eddy, The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 B.C. (Lincoln, 1961).
2Berossus, FGrH, 3Cl, 680 Tt 1-3. For his priorlty to Manetho see Manetho, FGrH, 3Cl, 609 T 11; and Oswyn Murray, ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture,’ Qassical Quarterly, 66 (1972) 209. Paul Schnabel, Berossus und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig, 1923) 8-10, dated the work to between 293 and 280. The more precise date of ca. 281 is based on the chronological discussion in Appendix 2. I have followed Schnabel (16) in assuming that the title of the book was Babyloniaca and that the correct spelling of his name was Berossus (3-5). In regard to the latter, however, G. Komor6czy, ‘Berosos and the Mesopotamian Literature,’ Acta Antiqua, 21 (1973) 125, has recently proposed that the form Berosos is correct and that it should be interpreted as meaning ‘Bel is his shepherd.’ Unless otherwise noted all subsequent dates in this study are B.C. 

2. The life of Berossus
By the early centuries of our era Berossus had become a legendary figure. He was credited with the invention of a common type of sundial and honored in Athens for his prophecies with a statue in one of the city’s gymnasia. A family was even invented for him including a wife, Erymanthe, and a daughter, appropriately
one of antiquity’s famous sibyls, Sabbe, the Babylonian sibyl.3 Unfortunately, however, the known facts about Berossus’ life are, in contrast to the legendary, few and undramatic.
In the preface to his Babyloniaca Berossus stated that he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and this taken together with the fact that he wrote his book about 281 and lived for a time after that year allows us to set the date of his birth no earlier than about 350. In addition, he identified himself as a priest of Bel of Chaldaean origin. This implies, and the fragments of his book confirm, that he received a normal scribal education in the traditional Sumerian and Accadian classics. 4 Further, his ability to write in Greek, his familiarity with popular Greek conceptions of the Babylonian past, and the very fact of his writing a book such as the Babyloniaca for the instruction of Antiochus I points to his being a member of the Seleucid court, (perhaps one of the Chaldaean astrologers consulted by Seleucus I and his predecessors.5 Finally, some time after 281 Berossus abandoned Babylon and settled on the Ptolemaic island of Cos where, we are told, he became the first to give formal instruction to the Greeks in Chaldaean astrology.6 .
Scant though they are, these few facts about Berossus’ life in contrast to the later “Berossus legend” are helpful in the understanding of his book. They identify Berossus as an individual suspended between two cultures, Babylonian and Greek. Steeped in the traditions of Babylon and of its priesthood and proud of them, Berossus still accepted the new Greco-Macedonian regime as legitimate and had adjusted himself to it. For such a person the ignorance of the Greeks and Macedonians he associated with must by itself have been annoying, but Seleucus I’s deliberate policy of degrading Babylon and its shrines by transferring most of its population to his new capital city of Seleucia on the Tigris and the consequent friction between him and the priesthood can only have been deeply disturbing.7 It is tempting to think that Berossus saw in the accession of Antiochus I, long resident in Babylon as governor of the upper satrapies, the possibility of reversing this policy and wrote his book in the hope that a true account of the Babylonian past and its significance and of the proper relationship between the Chaldaean priesthood and a king might aid in inducing Antiochus to
repudiate his father’s policies. If so, then Berossus’ abandonment of Babylon in old age for Cos,

Proof a Mysterious Lost Ancient GLOBAL Civilization Spanned Virtually the Entire Planet…Suppressed by Academia! Why?

This video creator must have visited our site, as he copies some of our very own discoveries, like for example the universal ‘Oannes’ buckets‘ or ‘handbags’ in early Sumerian and Meso American art (SEE: Veracruz Venta Stele above right), but he sadly misses the quintessential point of it all, the ultimate conclusion of WHY all this has been suppressed. His video blurb states, “This (video) will likely blow your mind. 250+ photos and comparisons of ancient sites around the world, show that there is a LOT more to the story of our ancient past. Proof of a lost ancient global civilization that has been hiding in plain sight, for thousands of years. “

The giant Atlas, father of eponymous Atlantis, who mapped the stars by trigonometry and sailed across the Atlantic, duly named after him.

“Hiding”?! The proof hasn’t been hiding; The proof was purposely hidden, but not just hidden it was purposely suppressed? And what exactly was suppressed about it? The logical conclusion from all the true facts that this video brings out, that there was indeed Universal Pre-Columbian Cross-Oceanic Traffic by one shared megalithic polygonal building civilisation of one kind of people, the megalith builders during the true first Megalithic period.  And this earliest Megalithic periodisation was suppressed by (qu)Academia because they – for purely ideological reasons – prefer their asinine periodisation which doesn’t make sense in light of the discoveries in this MUST WATCH video below.

These ideology hucksters prefer the untenable ‘Paleolithic & Neolithic‘ (old stone & new stone ages) periodisation invented by 19th century John Lubbock, a friend and contemporary of Charles Darwin & Lyell Hutton. This rich banker boy under the auspices of the leading naturalists of the British elite’s Royal Society and supported by other bankers & Cecil  Rhodes’ of the ‘Round Table’ secret society (& his Rhodes scholars spreading it everywhere) invented this fraudulent idea that there was a so-called “pre-historic Stone Age” before the Bronze,  Iron, & Industrial Ages.

If that banker boy Lubbock would be alive today, like “Back to the future”,  he would be so embarrassed by what his foolish theories about history have triggered: As would Charlie Darwin as well. They would be red with shame to have been so self-deceived and plain off kilter. Perhaps they are… ashamed..  down there in Hades, watching all the philosophical, religious, cultural, psychological misery they caused with their mental philandering, causing untold tragedy and confusion.

This “Stone Age” has been caricatured to us in popular culture as populated by fresh-from-the-cave morons with an IQ of 27 who could only produce arrowheads, dragging their females by the hair into their caves before evolving into ‘hunter gatherers‘ who eventually ‘learned‘ agriculture & then built houses in communal dwellings that finally “evolved” into modern man & his “smart cities.” That’s us! Ha. This video totally destroys that notion.

We are squatting, cause we used to walk on all fours not so long ago! Our graphic designer says!

There never was such a thing as a “Paleolithic” where Man majored only on un-polished arrow heads, nor a “Neolithic” where they produced polished arrow-heads, but this video gives ample proof of a universal “Megalithic” when the sea-worthy navy-building Sea Kings, a seafaring astronomy savvy, star-guided, early group of smart megalith builders majored on a unique architectural style & technique with a raw material we never knew nor invented.  And these humans were way smarter and taller than us, and for that very reason are actively suppressed by (qu)academia because of their universal Darwinist dictatorship, where every university in the world now teaches their nonsense.

WATCH this video and have your preconceived notions about history rigorously destroyed by true history.

WIKIPEDIA NONSENSE…

HISTORY OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE – HISTORIES BY HERODOTUS

Translated by George Rawlinson

Book 1 – CLIO

[1.0] THESE are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were their grounds of feuds.

[1.1] According to the Persians best informed in history, the Phoenicians began to quarrel. This people, who had formerly dwelt on the shores of the Erythraean Sea, having migrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the parts which they now inhabit, began at once, they say, to adventure on long voyages, freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria. They landed at many places on the coast, and among the rest at Argos, which was then preeminent above all the states included now under the common name of Hellas. Here they exposed their merchandise, and traded with the natives for five or six days; at the end of which time, when almost everything was sold, there came down to the beach a number of women, and among them the daughter of the king, who was, they say, agreeing in this with the Greeks, Io, the child of Inachus. The women were standing by the stern of the ship intent upon their purchases, when the Phoenicians, with a general shout, rushed upon them. The greater part made their escape, but some were seized and carried off. Io herself was among the captives. The Phoenicians put the women on board their vessel, and set sail for Egypt. Thus did Io pass into Egypt, according to the Persian story, which differs widely from the Phoenician: and thus commenced, according to their authors, the series of outrages.

[1.2] At a later period, certain Greeks, with whose name they are unacquainted, but who would probably be Cretans, made a landing at Tyre, on the Phoenician coast, and bore off the king’s daughter, Europe. In this they only retaliated; but afterwards the Greeks, they say, were guilty of a second violence. They manned a ship of war, and sailed to Aea, a city of Colchis, on the river Phasis; from whence, after despatching the rest of the business on which they had come, they carried off Medea, the daughter of the king of the land. The monarch sent a herald into Greece to demand reparation of the wrong, and the restitution of his child; but the Greeks made answer that, having received no reparation of the wrong done them in the seizure of Io the Argive, they should give none in this instance.

[1.3] In the next generation afterwards, according to the same authorities, Alexander the son of Priam, bearing these events in mind, resolved to procure himself a wife out of Greece by violence, fully persuaded, that as the Greeks had not given satisfaction for their outrages, so neither would he be forced to make any for his. Accordingly he made prize of Helen; upon which the Greeks decided that, before resorting to other measures, they would send envoys to reclaim the princess and require reparation of the wrong. Their demands were met by a reference to the violence which had been offered to Medea, and they were asked with what face they could now require satisfaction, when they had formerly rejected all demands for either reparation or restitution addressed to them.

[1.4] Hitherto the injuries on either side had been mere acts of common violence; but in what followed the Persians consider that the Greeks were greatly to blame, since before any attack had been made on Europe, they led an army into Asia. Now as for the carrying off of women, it is the deed, they say, of a rogue: but to make a stir about such as are carried off, argues a man a fool. Men of sense care nothing for such women, since it is plain that without their own consent they would never be forced away. The Asiatics, when the Greeks ran off with their women, never troubled themselves about the matter; but the Greeks, for the sake of a single Lacedaemonian girl, collected a vast armament, invaded Asia, and destroyed the kingdom of Priam. Henceforth they ever looked upon the Greeks as their open enemies. For Asia, with all the various tribes of barbarians that inhabit it, is regarded by the Persians as their own; but Europe and the Greek race they look on as distinct and separate.

[1.5] Such is the account which the Persians give of these matters. They trace to the attack upon Troy their ancient enmity towards the Greeks. The Phoenicians, however, as regards Io, vary from the Persian statements. They deny that they used any violence to remove her into Egypt; she herself, they say, having formed an intimacy with the captain, while his vessel lay at Argos, and perceiving herself to be with child, of her own free will accompanied the Phoenicians on their leaving the shore, to escape the shame of detection and the reproaches of her parents. Whether this latter account be true, or whether the matter happened otherwise, I shall not discuss further. I shall proceed at once to point out the person who first within my own knowledge inflicted injury on the Greeks, after which I shall go forward with my history, describing equally the greater and the lesser cities. For the cities which were formerly great have most of them become insignificant; and such as are at present powerful, were weak in the olden time. I shall therefore discourse equally of both, convinced that human happiness never continues long in one stay.

[1.6] Croesus, son of Alyattes, by birth a Lydian, was lord of all the nations to the west of the river Halys. This stream, which separates Syria from Paphlagonia, runs with a course from south to north, and finally falls into the Euxine. So far as our knowledge goes, he was the first of the barbarians who had dealings with the Greeks, forcing some of them to become his tributaries, and entering into alliance with others. He conquered the Aeolians, Ionians, and Dorians of Asia, and made a treaty with the Lacedaemonians. Up to that time all Greeks had been free. For the Cimmerian attack upon Ionia, which was earlier than Croesus, was not a conquest of the cities, but only an inroad for plundering.

Forbidden Archaeology Documentary Suppressed ‘Impossible’ Historical Truth for Humankind Revealed!

This is one of the best video in this genre of suppressed History proving the Antediluvial Golden Age of Human wisdom and high technology that explains the sudden rise of ready made civilisations like Sumeria, Egypt, Indus Valley, etc, without any Darwinian slant of ‘Stone Age Prehistory.’ I could have made it myself, if I had the time, resources, and video talents that this media outlet has. It fully subscribes to and underlines ALL I have been trying to say in this History Blog for years! Enjoy and be educated, my friends. True history is getting its boots on and kicking the money-ed tax-supported Darwinian fantasy peddlers out of true Academia.

MUST WATCH! AND IF YOU HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH, USE THE CC BUTTON under the video.

Medieval Armenian Sibylline Traditions comprising the “Defloratio Berosi” of Giovanni Nanni

(Johannes Annius) (§§884-891)

884. Go to §885, below, >>, for a translation of the Defloratio Berosi, and to §891, below, >>, for the original Latin. The Defloratio Berosi Chaldaica, to give it its full title, was divided into five books. These, according to Nanni’s preface to the Defloratio (fol. CIVb), were addressed in their original form to the Athenians, and were intended to correct perceived errors in their accounts of ancient history. Berossus is known to have been well received by philosophers in Athens towards the end of his life, after he had moved his residence from Babylon to the Aegean island of Cos. (Pliny, Nat Hist. VII. xxxvii [123].) The Defloratio differed in the above respects from the “Babyloniaka” of Berossus, several excerpts of which have been preserved by ancient authors: the “Babyloniaka” was divided into three books, not five, and was dedicated to Antiochus II Theos, the king of Seleucid Babylon when Berossus was still present in that city, before he moved to Cos and was honored at Athens. This is one of the principal reasons why the Defloratio was rejected in the Renaissance: it was presumed it was claiming to be the “Babyloniaka” of Berossus, and it was known from the surviving fragments of the latter that the presumption was mistaken. However, the Hebrew Sibyl known as the “daughter Berossus” may well have drawn on the writings of her priestly “father,” including the sources of the “Babyloniaka,” to compose “Summary Extracts (Defloratio) from Berosus (Berosi),” — as the title of the work should perhaps be translated, — of relevance to the historical inquiries of the Athenians. It was alleged the Hebrew Sibyl was born in Syria of Manasseh (a Hebrew name) by Papilia, a female related to Alexander of Macedon, and that she migrated subsequently to Cumae in Italy. (Vaticinium Sibyllae, MGH SS 22, p. 376.) The Sibylline hypothesis is reasonable: it harmonizes with what we know otherwise of her work. The chief reasons for classing the Defloratio Berosi as a medieval Sibylline fragment are, therefore, as follows:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE DEFLORATIO BEROSI CHALDAICA.

884.6. The original Latin of the Defloratio Berosi follows the translation at §891, below, >>. The first section of the translation, through the earlier part of Book Five of the Defloratio, is by Salverté (Essai historique et philosophique sur les noms d’hommes, de peuples et de lieux, E. Salverté, tome II, Paris 1824, p. 369ff.), as translated from French into English by Mordaque, and modified here, on occasion, to correct obvious errors, or to reflect the original better; the remainder of Book Five, left untranslated by Salverté, and therefore also by Mordaque, is my own rendering. The English translation of Salverté by Mordaque is from the “History of the Names of Men, Nations and Places, in their connection with the Progress of Civilization. Translated from the French of Eusebius Salverté by Rev. L. H. Mordaque, M.A., Oxon.,” vol II, London 1864, p. 295ff. Salverté’s translation was of the text of the Defloratio Berosi itself, as transcribed by Nanni from the book obtained in Armenia and given to him in Italy by the monk George. Salverté did not translate Nanni’s commentary on the Defloratio Berosi. The Defloratio Berosi and the accompanying commentary forms Book XV of Nanni’s Antiquitates. Nanni’s extensive commentary is not included in this translation either, except in a few instances, so references in “The Six Days of Creation” to the Defloratio (in the 1512 edition of the Antiquitates in Latin, published by Joannes Paruus and Jodocus Badius), or to other sections of the Antiquitates not found here, can be presumed to be part of the commentary on the Defloratio itself, or to be extracted from other works and/or accompanying commentaries contained in the Antiquitates. My own notes are contained within braces { }.

DEFLORATIO BEROSI CHALDAICA

Complete translation from Latin to English:

885. “THE FIRST BOOK

Before the well-known disaster by which the whole world perished beneath the waters, many centuries had elapsed, the records of which have been faithfully preserved by our Chaldeans. According to their writings, there lived in those days a race of giants, in a city of great size, called Enos {= Enoch} near Mount Lebanon, which was the seat of empire over the whole world, from the rising of the sun to its setting. Trusting in their strength and colossal size, these giants made themselves weapons, and oppressed their neighbors all around. Wholly given up to a life of indulgence, they invented tents, instruments of music, and everything which contributes to pleasure.

Who Was & What Did Sanchuniathon, Phoenicia’s Ancient Historian, Write?

PIC BYBLOS LEBANON – courtesy onemilegrads.blogspot

Sanchuniathon, or Sanchoniathon  (flourished 13th century BC?), ancient Phoenician writer. All information about him is derived from the works of Philo of Byblos (flourished ad 100). Excavations at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria in 1929 revealed Phoenician documents supporting much of Sanchuniathon’s information on Phoenician mythology and religious beliefs. According to Philo, Sanchuniathon derived the sacred lore from inscriptions on the Ammouneis (i.e., images or pillars of Baal Amon), which stood in Phoenician temples.
  — From Encyclopædia Britannica.

Sanchuniathon (/ˌsæŋkjʊˈnaɪəθɒn/; Ancient Greek: Σαγχουνιάθων Sankhouniáthōn; probably from Phoenician: 𐤎𐤊𐤍𐤉𐤕𐤍, romanized: SKNYTN, Saḵūnyatān, “[the god] Sakon has given”), also known as Sanchoniatho the Berytian, is the Phoenician author of three lost works originally written in the Phoenician language and surviving only in partial paraphrase and summary of a Greek translation by Philo of Byblos, according to the Christian bishop Eusebius. These few fragments comprise the most extended literary source concerning Phoenician religion in either Greek or Latin: Phoenician sources, along with all of Phoenician literature, were lost with the parchment on which they were written. — (From Wicked Pedia)

Sanchuniathon of Berytus (Beirut) or Sakkun-yathon in Phoenician means “the god Sakkun has given.” He was an ancient Phoenician sage, priest and writer. He lived before the Trojan times. Judging from the fragments of the Phoenician History, Sanchuniathon appears to have been a contemporary of Semiramis, the Queen of Assyria, the wife of Ninus, with whom she founded Nineveh 2,000 BC. However, some believe that Sanchuniathon was a contemporary of Gideon 1339 BC without any proof. His book goes back into fabled antiquity. Sanchuniathon, like Vgasa in India, is said to have been a compiler of extremely ancient theogonic and historical documents that had been transmitted to him either by oral tradition or in writing. Sanchuniathon derived the sacred lore from the mystic inscriptions on the nfjawtis (probably hammanim, “sun pillars,” which stood in Phoenician temples. Porphyry of Tyre says that Sanchuniathon wrote a history of the Jews, based on information derived from Hierombal (i.e. Jeruba’al), a priest of the god Jevo (i.e. Yahveh). He dedicated it to Abelbal or Abibal, king of Berytus. The story was thought to be fictional because of its reference to Berytus; however, excavation in Berytus in recent years prove that the city maybe older than Byblos that has cultural tradition to 8,000 [Ed: Darwinian dating!] BC. His Phoenician History may be regarded as one of the most authentic memorials of the events which took place before the Flood. It begins with a legendary cosmogony and relates to how the first two mortals were begotten by the Wind (Spirit) and his wife Baau (Darkness). It refers to the Fall, the production of fire, the invention of huts and clothing, the origin of the arts of agriculture, hunting, fishing and navigation, and the beginnings of human civilization. Sanchuniathon gives a curious account of the descendants of the line of Cain. His history of the descendants of the line of Seth reads like the record in Genesis. (–From Phoenicia.org)

Eusebius says that Philo placed Sanchuniathon’s works into nine books. In the introduction to the first book he makes this preface concerning Sanchuniathon:

Philo: “These things being so, Sanchuniathon, who was a man of much learning and great curiosity, and desirous of knowing the earliest history of all nations from the creation of the world, searched out with great care the history of Taautus, knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records: and he laid the foundation, as it were, of his history, by beginning with him, whom the Egyptians called Thoyth, and the Alexandrians Thoth, translated by the Greeks into Hermes.” 

[Ed. Again notice that all the first tribes & nations held to the notion of a CREATION of the world!]

The following translation is from I. P. Cory’s Ancient Fragments (1828/1832). Cory has provided citations for the passages in Eusebius’ work from which this epitome of Sanchuniathon has been reconstructed.  [Ed. The comments in [] are from yours’ truly, Lu, Ancient Patriarchs’ Editor]

Tomb of Gilgamesh Found in Uruk! By Wikipedia Damned Euhemerism Vindicated Again!

Wow! This was big news! Shocking! Gilgamesh turns out to be more than fiction or myth, contrary to what academia has been pushing for a century. Gilgamesh was a real person and they found his tomb, just as it was said in the epic, built under the course of the Euphrates River! It only got a little mention in the BBC (in One Minute World News) where Uruk – the origin of eponymous Iraq!

NOTE how the BBC says “believed found!” If it was “Lucy’s” bones found over a couple square kilometers, they’d say, “definite proof of humanoid primate!” See, it all depends on what they want you to believe.

In this case the find of Gilgamesh tomb ought to be called the find of the decade or of the 21st century, as yet another ancient literary source (2300 BC) turns out to be historical and less “mythological” than widely assumed. Uruk was the first city? Responsible for most first inventions, like writing, law, education, taxes, love songs, ethics, justice, agriculture, medicine, love and family? Wow, that early?

But inspite of all these proven first inventions, mainstream historians don’t trust Sumer’s own historical writings and denounce them as fictitious mythology without any core of truth. After all they were the immdiate descendents of stupid cavemen and hunter gatherers! And Euhemerism is ‘a bad bad method of doing history!’ For sure!!