Who is the Devil ?

The Devil is not a who (a noun) but an adjective. It comes from the Greek word διάβολος or diábolos, which literally means diabolic, diabolical, deceiver, liar, or slanderer. It could be any man or being. It is not the name or title of an anti-God nor fallen angel. Below are a few examples of its usage incorrectly and correctly in scripture.

From Merriam Webster:

Devil: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up

Diabolical: Like the word devil, “diabolical” traces back to Latin diabolus, which itself descends from Greek diabolos, a word that literally means “slanderer.”

Revelation (Apocalypse) 20:10: “and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” _Incorrect

Revelation (Apocalypse) 20:10: “and the diabolic who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” _Correct

Revelation 12:9-10: 9) “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10) And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.“_Incorrect

Revelation 12:9-10: 9) “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the diabolic and adversary, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10) And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.“_Correct  [Satan is changed to its correct meaning, adversary]

1 Peter 5:8-9: 8) “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9) Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.“_Incorrect

1 Peter 5:8-9: 8) “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the diabolic prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9) Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.“_Correct

Luke 10:15: 18) 15) “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16) He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”_Incorrect

Luke 10:15: 18) 15) “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16) He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the diabolical are subject unto us through thy name. 18) And he said unto them, I beheld [the] adversary as lightning fall from heaven.”_Correct

One could use diabolical or diabolic in place of any of those other words, and mean the same thing. One can clearly see that from the different scripture above, and how it works with what satan actually means; adversary. Somewhere along the line, the Greek word, diábolos, was turned into devil, (some claim it to be a German translation), and not properly translated into the English word, diabolic or diabolical.

You’ll notice a bit of trickery in the words at 1 Peter 5:8-9: 8) “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Here, they translate satan to adversary in Greek, because it will give the whole thing away if they didn’t. They did this throughout the New Testament. If it were written in Hebrew, it would have read: ” Your satan [adversary] the diabolic [liar] prowls around….”

In the instance of Luke 10:15-18, Jesus states that the city of Capernaum, and the people within it, thought themselves exalted to Heaven, but he would thrust them down to hell. After the seventy came back from the the different cities, they stated that the deceivers or the diabolical were subject to Jesus’ name. Jesus then stated that he had foresaw or beheld the adversary, (the people and the city), as lightning fall (plural) from Heaven. None of those verses was about a devil, anti-God, or fallen angel named Satan.

Are New Bibles Mistranslated?

I was looking at the different translations of Isaiah 45:7 in the new versions of the Bible, and have found that many of the translations are totally incorrect about the verse. It makes one wonder if they aren’t intentional. The Complete Jewish Bible (1) has the full text of the Tanakh, in both Hebrew and English, and when one does the translation for the Hebrew word, רָע (rah), one will find that the many new translations claim that it means catastrophe, calamity, or disaster which is errant nonsense. The correct Hebrew to English translation of the word is actually defined as bad or evil. (2) Here, in Isaiah 45:7, God states that he creates both light and dark, good and evil, and there is no other. Below is a direct translation from The Complete Jewish Bible. (1)


The King James Version, along with several other versions, have this same translation correct. Below, is the correct translation for the Hebrew word, רָע, (rah), along with the English to Hebrew translation for evil. The Hebrew word, rah, in Isiah 45:7, is shown in the red box of the screen capture above.



This is supported by the Jewish belief that there is no such thing as a devil, nor any anti-God or fallen angel, named satan. (2) See my article on satan, to find out what the word actually means. In every circumstance, in the Tanakh (Old Testament), even in Job, the word, satan, is always written as “ha-satan” meaning “the adversary”, which is not a proper name for any one thing. (2) Judaism believes that God uses a satan or adversary to do his bidding, when God needs an adversary against humankind, or in essence, to do God’s evil, or to stand in mans way if God wishes it to be done. (2) David was called a satan, along with an entire army, and so was the unnamed angel in Job within the Tanakh. Funnily, the translation of catastrophe, disaster, or calamity are nowhere to be found, as that is another Hebrew word all together, (אסוןacown” [aws-sone] meaning disaster, tragedy, catastrophe, or calamity). This makes one wonder if they are purposely trying to change the original Hebrew, to hide the fact that a devil named Satan is not real, and was a fabrication of the Hellenist Roman Catholic church. To do this, is fooling the reader into believing in the pagan and polytheistic Greek God, Hades, myth, which is also blasphemy, by saying that God did not state what he did in Isaiah 45:7. There are also other verses in the Tanakh to back this up, and they are quoted below.

Lamentations 3:37-38:

37) “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? 38) Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not [both] evil and good?”

Deuteronomy 30:15:

15) “See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.”

Amos 3:6 KJV

(6) “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Exodus 9:14 KJV

(14) “For I [God] will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.”

The concept of God’s evil is not just catastrophes such as earthquakes or floods, but it also includes plagues, disease, death, and creating war. These very stories can be found in ancient Sumerian stories that led to the later religion of Judaism. God can be found sending a satan to cause all of this evil in the Tanakh. As an example of one story, in the earliest instance, God tells David to do a census, but 500 years later, in the same rewritten story, it has a satan telling David to do it. That census was seen as a form of evil that led to bad things. God had a satan, an unnamed angel, do many bad things to Job to test his faith. That is another example of God using a satan to do his evil. The Hebrew word, רָע, (rah) is defined as evil, which is exactly what is stated in Isiah 45:7.

There are no devils, fallen angels, nor some anti-God creating sin, as man creates sin such as adultery and murder him or her self. Sin is on mans shoulders alone. Sin is defined as man breaking God’s law, (the commandments), since God gave man free will. There is no “the devil made me do it” in the history of Rabbinical Judaism, nor the real Christianity taught in the time of Jesus, James, and Peter, whom were all Pharisees.

Below, I quote Elaine Pagels, who received her PhD in religion from Harvard University, and is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University.:

In biblical sources, the Hebrew term, “the satan” [ha-satan], describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers, as early as the sixth century B.C.E., occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called “the satan”, what they meant was, any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. [Elaine Pagels, “The Origin of Satan,” 1995]

Below, I quote Rabbi Tovia Singer (2) about the new Bible translations:

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

Below are a list of Bibles with the incorrect translation in them. If they have blatantly mistranslated this, what else have they changed? (More than what you might think).

Incorrect Bibles:

  • New International Version, both US and UK
  • New King James Version
  • Modern English Version
  • Common English
  • Contemporary English Version
  • Easy-To-Read Version (ERV)
  • English Standard Version Anglicised
  • Holman Christian Standard Bible
  • Expanded Bible
  • Amplified Bible
  • Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (Here, they show evil, but give calamity in brackets)
  • New Living Translation
  • English Standard Version (Some places recommend this for youths)
  • International Children’s Bible
  • New International Reader’s Version
  • New American Standard Bible
  • Holman Christian Standard Bible
  • International Standard Version
  • NET Bible
  • New English Translation
  • GOD’S WORD® Translation
  • Good News Translation
  • New American Standard
  • King James 2000 Bible
  • World English Bible
  • The Living Bible
  • The Message
  • Names of God Bible
  • Tree of Life Version
  • The Voice (They add extra words not there)
  • World English Bible

Bibles which have the correct translation of Isaiah 45:7:

  • King James Bible
  • Authorized King James Version
  • 1599 Geneva Bible
  • Wycliffe Bible
  • The Complete Jewish Bible, With Rashi Commentary
  • Orthodox Jewish Bible (It shows Rah, which is evil or bad)
  • Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • New American Bible, Revised (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • New Century Version (It shows trouble and not evil or bad)
  • New Life Version (It shows trouble and not evil or bad)
  • New Revised Standard Version (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • Revised Standard Version (It shows woe and not evil or bad)
  • New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
  • New Living Translation
  • JPS Tanakh 1917
  • 21st Century King James Version
  • Jubilee Bible 2000
  • American King James Version
  • American Standard Version
  • Lexham English Bible
  • BRG Bible
  • Douay-Rheims Bible
  • Darby Bible Translation
  • English Revised Version
  • Webster’s Bible Translation
  • Young’s Literal Translation

The Bibles which show woe, and one, trouble, can be overlooked as inaccurate, as that is one translation of a similar use, though not the most used version for the word rah. However, it does seem as they are trying to downplay the original meaning. Wrong, evil, and bad are the three most common translations and usages, though the majority of the Bibles, which include the Orthodox Jewish Bible, show evil. I believe that I would rather take a Jews word about what a Hebrew word means, since it is their language.

Last, the Bibles shown above, that are correct about Isaiah 45:7, have some mistranslation errors themselves, such as the King James Version, when compared to the original texts, such as the Latin Vulgate or the Orthodox Jewish Bibles. One glaringly obvious one, is the mention of the Latin word, Lucifer, in Isaiah 14:12, which Judaism says should be Morning Star, the Son of the Morning, or Venus. That is what the Latin word, lucifer, actually defines, and not a devil, fallen angel, nor an anti-God. Judaism says that there was no such thing as a fallen angel in their canonical texts. For a fallen angel to happen, that would mean that God created an imperfect angel, and it would say that God had no control of it. That is blasphemy.

The framework of the three monotheisms [Essene Judaism, Christianity, and Islam] had been erected. The Devil’s birth certificate was filled out by an Iranian prophet”. Gerald Messandé


  1. The Complete Jewish Bible, With Rashi Commentary, Isaiah 45:7
  2. Rabbi Tovia Singer, from Outreach Judaism, on who satan is.

Heresy of Wikipedia

I was reading the Wikipedia article about the word, Satan, which is mostly correct, until you get to the bottom of the section on Judaism, and the subsection about Job. The Judaism section is completely correct, that satan is always written as “ha-satan” in the Tanakh, which means “the adversary”, or an adversary, and not some devil or anti-God. The word, satan, is Hebrew after all. However, you will finally come to the book of Job, and below is what is written, which is completely debunked by what is written in the rest of the section on Judaism, just above it.

At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person “who revered God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the angels present themselves to God, Satan comes as well. God informs Satan about Job’s blameless, morally upright character. Between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5, Satan points out that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; Satan suggests that Job’s faith would collapse if all he has been given (even his health) were to be taken away from him. God therefore gives Satan permission to test Job. In the end, Job remains faithful and righteous, and there is the implication that Satan is shamed in his defeat.

One can laugh at the absurdity of this, as this just points out the idiocy of quoting Wikipedia, unless one absolutely has to, and has no other source, especially on the topics of Biblical theology and history, as the fanatical and fundamentalist Christians will not leave scholarly written articles alone. The entire article, about Job, is made incorrect, by stating that “Satan comes as well. God informs Satan about Job’s blameless, morally upright character”. Since satan is an unknown angel, satan did not come as well, it was all the angels who came, where one unknown angel became “ha-satan”, or “the adversary”, that God used.  The rest of the paragraph, about Job, gives the same incorrect spiel, using the word, satan, as a proper name.

Under the section on Judaism, it states what is written below, plainly, before you reach the subsection about Job at the bottom:

Hebrew Bible

The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily “to obstruct, oppose”, as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6. Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as “the accuser” or “the adversary”. The definite article ha- (English: “the”) is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as “the satan”.

Thirteen occurrences

Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible: Job ch.1–2 (10x) and Zechariah 3:1–2 (3x).

Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos [slanderer for adversary] in the Septuagint and “Satan” in the King James Version:

  • 1 Chronicles 21:1, “Satan stood up against Israel” (KJV) or “And there standeth up an adversary against Israel” (Young’s Literal Translation)
  • Psalm 109:6b “and let Satan stand at his right hand” (KJV) or “let an accuser stand at his right hand.” (ESV, etc.)

The other eight instances of satan without the definite article are traditionally translated (in Greek, Latin and English) as “an adversary”, etc., and taken to be humans or obedient angels:

  • Numbers 22:22,32 “and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him.”
  • 32 “behold, I went out to withstand thee,”
  • 1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: “lest he [David] be an adversary against us”
  • 2 Samuel 19:22 David says: “[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?”
  • 1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: “there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.”
  • 1 Kings 11:14 “And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite”
  • 1 Kings 11:23 “And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah”
  • 25 “And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon”

It gets worse, when you take a look at the Talk Page, and see that the author is confronted about this. The author states that since it was what the dictionaries stated, then it was okay. Evidently, they have no idea what a proper dictionary is, nor how to use one, so I will state what Merriam-Webster has on the the word, satan:

  1. :  the angel who in Jewish belief is commanded by God to tempt humans to sin, to accuse the sinners, and to carry out God’s punishment

  2. :  the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil

Dictionary.com actually has the correct definition, if you scroll on down the page; imagine that! It also has a quote by Elaine Pagels, PhD, who is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, and the recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship.



…from Hebrew satan “adversary, one who plots against another,” from satan “to show enmity to, oppose, plot against,” from root s-t-n “one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary.”

In Septuagint (Greek) usually translated as diabolos “slanderer,” literally “one who throws (something) across” the path of another (see devil (n.)), though epiboulos “plotter” is used once.

“In biblical sources, the Hebrew term, ‘the satan’, describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers, as early as the sixth century B.C.E., occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called ‘the satan’, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God, for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity”. [Elaine Pagels, PhD, “The Origin of Satan,” 1995]

The word, diabolos , which was used in two instances, is translated as a slanderer, from the Greek: διαβάλλω ‎(diabállō, I slander), from διά ‎(diá, across) and βάλλω ‎(bállō, I throw). Here, in its original form, the definition is not a devil, nor is epiboulos for “plotter”.

No wonder Judaism dislikes Christianity, when the early Hellenist Christians took what the Jews wrote, and bastardized it, changing it into something that Judaism never taught. It seems as though, the biblical education of the Christians, is far from being correct.

Who was Adam ?

Updated on: 10/18/16


Adam and Eve are not who science claims them to be. The archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists, (12) merely tagged a name onto one-half of the ancestors of the modern and anatomically correct human, who they say are Cro-Magnon man, but I think that we modern humans were created from him as a hybrid. Science has proclaimed that African Apes or Chimpanzees and their progeny, (who were those that preceded Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man), are the direct evolutionary ancestors of “Adam and Eve,” and that the chromosomal difference is just a natural fluke to support their strict Darwinian view. They did this without revealing everything to their public audience, which was about what prominent university and medical laboratory studies have found about our DNA. What little they did reveal, was later found to be incorrect, concerning our chromosome number, what supposedly changed it,  how it was changed, and the dating of our species. In this article, you will learn of what I have discovered, which was recorded in ancient metaphorical writing, and what has been published in peer reviewed, scientific literature.

Michael Cremo, an alumnus of George Washington University, who has written several exposés on archeology and anthropology, thus exposing many cases of professional fraud, in his book, Forbidden Archeology, stated it best, while on a radio interview in 2011, that there are three thoughts on the origins of man, which are that of the scientific community, that of the simplistic and mystical views of today’s religion, and that of an extra-terrestrial or other involvement. He stated that it was more complex than either of the three, and that he thought that it was likely a mixture of all three, as do I. However, could it have been extra-terrestrials, since no concrete proof has been given? The only proof that we have, is that early man had suddenly became civilized, after the creation of the Sumerian city of Eridu. That does not support extra-terrestrials. What it does support, is the possible contact of an advanced race with those that became modern humans. Mesopotamia boomed, after Eridu’s founding, which can be dated to 5400 BCE, with new canals and ditch systems for farm irrigation. Man had learned to fabricate his own tools from copper and bronze. The Sumerian myth stated that it had been founded under King Alulim, which lasted for 64,800 years, before it declined in 2050 BCE. In reality, its existence, as a city, was from 5400 to 2050 BCE, around 6600 years after the great flood, which allegedly happened around 12,000 BCE, which created the Persian Gulf. However, the earliest Sumerian stories state that it was merely the rivers flooding, and not some swamping deluge that covered the earth. The next is about water spilling through the straight of Hormuz, and creating the Persian Gulf. Neither support the 40 day rain account of Genesis, with the complete swamping of the world, which is a highly embellished allegory. Thus, there are two probable theories about the great flood.

Also, it wasn’t very long that modern man had gained the knowledge to build massive temples and pyramids all over the world, starting with mud bricks and advancing to the use of large hewn stones, (megaliths), weighing several hundred to over one thousand tons, (the largest known is 1,600 tons), which we have no way of moving or lifting today, without using some of the newest and largest cranes that have just been designed and built, as of 2015. Then, there is the problem of transporting them to the site. We also know that they could work, saw, and bore through the toughest of stones such as granite, which should not have been possible with the tools that they had. Archaeologists and anthropologists, (soft science), claim that those stones were hewn with a stone hammer and copper chisel. Soft stone such as limestone, maybe, but not the harder stones. Real science, (hard science), that of the university departments of engineering and physics, have debunked these theories at every turn, especially the lifting and moving of the heaviest stones. Soft Science also claims that these megaliths were cut and moved by the Romans, but the dating of others state that they are much older, and that the Baalbek Temple is built upon ancient megalithic foundation, where one can see smaller stones being used upon the top of the megaliths. (12)


Megalithic Cut Stones at Baalbek Lebanon. Referenced to a man sitting on the 2nd row.


Megalith called Stone of the South at Baalbek quarry.


Megalith at Baalbek quarry 2.

The Mesopotamians worshiped a group that they called the Igigi or Anunnaki, who were their Gods and kings. Approximately 300 years later, the Egyptians became civilized, with their own style of writing. India, Iran, and many other countries followed in their wake, though India claims to have found a form of ancient writing that is as old, and is untranslatable. Their religious histories seems to somewhat match, except for the names of their Gods, or how many there were. Their study of cosmology and theology are close, along with their priests gnostic knowledge. The Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians, tell of Adapa or Adamu, (Adam), and six others just like him, who had been educated by the God, Enki, and were known as the seven sages. Adapa, the first sage, was the king of the city of Eridu, the oldest Mesopotamian city, of which, Enki, was the God of.

First, Science claims that Adam and Eve were from Africa, around Lake Victoria, and that is incorrect. That is where those ancestors of Cro-Magnon man originated; the so-called cave men, that science claims originated from the African Ape, Chimp, etc, but that is not the Adam nor Eve. Second, the tale of Adam and Eve, in Genesis, is technically correct, but that allegorical story is describing the creation of the second version, or the human hybrid, and one that can procreate, not the first. It is also not describing the hybrid progeny of Cro-Magnon man who migrated into the Middle-East from Egypt.

To understand the story of Adam, one has to understand the Torah. The story of Genesis is a metaphorical allegory, and everything factual is hidden or veiled in the text. The Torah, which contains the first five books of the Tanakh (Old Testament), are purposely written this way. If you are a biblical dogmatic literalist, or a literalist of science, who believes that the words of the Torah were meant to be factually written, then you might want to stop here, as you will not be able to comprehend the truth. A literalist can not understand ancient religious writing, period.

To study this ancient history, one has to study the writing of the oldest middle-eastern civilizations (there are writing and logographics in other nations that are said to be older). I refer to the cuneiform writing and logographics of the ancient Sumerians, engraved on clay tablets and cylinder seals, which are said to be one of the oldest, dating their creation to approximately 4000 to 3500 BCE (6,000 years old), though this is “preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.” (22) In comparison, the Veda Samhitas date to roughly 1700 to 1100 BCE, and the Upanishads are dated 800 to 300 BCE. The original Sumerian script, evolved into the writing of the Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hittite, Luwian, Hattic, Hurrian, and Urartian languages, and it is thought to have inspired the Ugaritic alphabet and Old Persian cuneiform. Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the Hieratic form, (Hieratic: Egyptian religious texts), can be dated to 3200 BCE, 300 to 800 years shy of the Sumerians. There is another form of writing, found in India, that is said the be as ancient, but it has yet to be translated by anyone. Last, there is the Dispilio Tablet, found at a Neolithic lake settlement in Northern Greece, near the city of Kastoria, which was dated to 5260 BCE, with an unknown alphabet that looks similar to ancient runes.

Genesis was written, in its final form, either during or just after the Jews detention at Babylon, between 597 BCE to 539 BCE, where they heard the ancient religious stories of the Babylonians, the earlier Akkadians, and thus, the earliest Sumerians, whom are the oldest known cultural civilization with any translatable writing. (19) The Sumerians are the first known “civilized” people, who had the first farming, writing, laws, contracts, courts, government, etc. The Jews also have their own history, which was traditionally handed down, verbally and by writing, from those who were the descendants of Abraham, (who was from Ur, located in southern Mesopotamia), which are the same stories. (14)(19) Ur is just northeast from Eridu, approximately 15 miles away. Eridu is the home of the Lord God Enki, along with it’s king, Adapa, which is supposedly the earliest Sumerian city. Here, in this southern area of Mesopotamia, is where the story begins, with the creation of the anatomically correct hybrid human, modern man. In this area, I believe, is where the Cro-Magnon that migrated from Egypt, eventually was mixed with the Igigi, creating man as their servants.

Below, I quote John Pickard’s book (20), Behind the Myths:

These biblical Creation and Flood myths are in fact a rehash of myths that were very common among all peoples in the Near East, not least the Assyrians and Babylonians, the dominant cultures during the first period of setting oral tradition down in literary form. The epic Babylonian story of Gilgamesh has come down to us in the form of preserved cuneiform tablets which predate Homer’s Ilias by perhaps a thousand years and the writing of the biblical stories by nearly half as much again. In his History, Dubnov tabulates some of the Babylonian Creation myths alongside those of the Biblical narrative to show the remarkable similarity between the two.

One must understand that these ancient stories are all metaphorical. One can not take them literally, nor can one take, for fact, that every God mentioned was actually a living human being or a mythical figure. They gave names of Gods to things such as the celestial bodies, e.g., the planets, sun, moon, stars, space, or to earthly things such as wind, water, light, energy, etc., whom were all named in the pantheon with the God, Anu, who was the God of the heavens. On top of this, they named living beings Gods, who were called the Lord Gods on earth, which earlier had been known as the first kings. What one has to do, is to try to pick the truth out of the metaphor, by looking behind its veil, in order to study and understand these early stories. The stories are allegorical metaphors, poems, or songs. This reminds one of the old saying: “every tale has a grain of truth to it”.

The Zohar, the book of the Kabbalah, even explains the truth about the Torah being metaphorical, and states that things were purposely hidden. Some things are even hidden in the Zohar, itself, as a metaphor. Science steadfastly refuses to see it this way, even though much of this writing, such as the Zohar, still proves what science has found to be correct. Here, the Zohar described the Big Bang when it was published in the 13th century CE, though it was allegedly written in the 2nd century CE. Science only caught up with it in the 20th century, 700 years later! The Zohar states plainly, that Ein Soph, (the unknowable infinite creator of all, and the all of the universe itself), created the first tune, (resonance), which caused an explosion of light from a small nucleus, (the light of the explosion being defined as the different waves of the universe, which emanated outward, with the plasma, which are also known as the waters above the firmament by the ancients), which then, eventually, created the stars, galaxies, and all material things. If you are familiar with quantum physics, and have read the Zohar, then there is no denying this truth. The Zohar then states that the Alohim (Elohim, Igigi, or Anunnaki) was created, who created man in their image.

Section: 1, The Sumerian Gods.

The Sumerian Gods are mostly mythical. However, with some of these Lord Gods, the writers may have mixed the actions of living beings, lords and kings, with those of the stories of mythical Gods. The ones that I propose, as those who could be a mixture of both, would have been the four major Gods and Goddess of the Sumerians. Three of the four are hidden within Genesis, by metaphor. These three Gods are Anu (An), Enlil (Elil or El), Enki (Ea). Also, there is the Goddess, Ninmahand, Ninmah, or Ninhursag (Ninki), the Goddess of the Mountain, and last, the Goddess Ninti, who became Eve. A last possibility would be the Lord God, Geshtu-E, who was a minor God of intelligence. However, I think that they used Geshtu-E as a metaphor for adding intelligence to the human hybrid.

Anu was known as the Lord God of the heavens, but was said to have visited earth. Enlil, the son of Anu, was the Lord God of the air, and the chief Lord God on earth. He later became the Jewish National God, El, (taken from the Canaanite Elil or Ellil, where they dropped the ‘n’ in their dialect), who Abraham gave his allegiance to, at Ur. Enki, another son of Anu, and the half-brother of Enlil, was the Lord God of the waters, both salt and fresh, along with being the Lord God of intelligence. Ninmahand (Ninhursag or Ninki) was supposed to be the birth or womb Goddess, and the Goddess of fertility, also known as the Goddess of the Mountain. (Most all the Gods and Goddesses supposedly resided on top of a mountain, very similar to the Greek and Roman pantheon of Gods, and thus, it is said, caused the Ziggurat building, with a priest residing at the top, in a temple). Many others are named, and may or may not have referred to other minor deities or living beings, such as kings, whom were ruling, working in the temples, or doing manual labor on earth. These last were the Igigi. The Anunnaki are the princely offspring of the God, Anu. The Elohim are the earthly Lord Gods under the control of Enlil, or the Igigi, but some refer to the Elohim as the Anunnaki.

If the three Lord Gods and the two Lady Goddesses were a mixture of real God-kings and myth, then they could also have been an extra-terrestrial species, and close to humans in appearance, whom had came to earth to perform some type of work around the globe, at that time, (though there is no proof of these Gods being extra-terrestrials). They could also well have been an advanced human species, different from the earliest Sumerian inhabitants; Cro-Magnon man, from another place on earth. Genesis mentions Gold, but the Sumerians also mention that it was mined with other minerals and metals; for jewelry and ornamentation. The only work mentioned, during the Sumerian creation story, was the dredging of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in order to remove a purplish mud or silt, and that humans were created to do this work. Every continent has stories of these Gods, (under differing names), coming to earth from the sky or by ship, for some reason, and while here, they created man to be servants for these Gods. Enki and Ninmah created man, (seven breeding pairs), in the Sumerian creation epic. Then, Enki educated man, Adamu (Adapa), along with the other six sages.

There is also a theory which states that each breeding pair meant each of the seven continents, or that each continent had a breeding program started by these Lord Gods. It could even be that they had seven pairs on seven continents, or that there was merely a breeding program per continent, with a Sage or King leading each. Some theorize that this was done over a natural catastrophe, which almost killed out human kind, due to what caused the ice cap to melt (over earths axis shifting), or before the ice cap was created. It is said that Einstein was told of a theoretical axis shift, and that he stated that it explained things. There is a circumferential line, such as an old equator, that does connect all the ancient sites around the globe, as if they all sat on the old equator.

Section: 2, Ancient Sumerian history.

According to the ancient creation story of the Sumerians, the Lord God Enki (Ea), and the birth Goddess, Ninmah (Ninhursag, Nintur, or Ninki), created man, the hybrid, on Enlil’s and Anu’s orders, to be servants used to “toil” for them, after they had been on earth working for 3600 years. This new man, or humans, was to be used as workers, in place of the other Lord Gods on earth, the Igigi, to dredge the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of the purplish mud silt that was in them. (Sorry, Sitchen believers, there was no gold mentioned by the ancients, which was being dredged and sent to the mythical planet of Nibiru. [See Article Note 1, bottom of page]). These early Lord Gods, (remember that term), needed a worker who could be trained and educated enough to perform these jobs. My personal opinion is, that what they found here, such as Cro-Magnon man, was too uneducable to use for the jobs at hand. They may not have been much away from being a dumb animal. The original creation story speaks of Enki and Ninmah, using a sacrificed minor Lord God’s blood, by the name of Geshtu-E, who was a minor Lord God of intelligence. The story recounts that they mixed this minor Lord God’s blood with the clay of the earth, and then spat upon it, to create man and woman.

The Lord God, Enki, and Lady Goddess, Ninmah, made seven breeding pairs, fourteen hybrid humans, seven male and seven female, to start the program with. The story is a metaphor, which shows them making this new man and woman, as if they were making mud bricks. The theory is that the clay is a metaphor for some being already here, such as Cro-Magnon man, that they could “mold” into what they needed. Here, the Lord Gods mixed their DNA, (blood), of the sacrificed God, with that ancestor, by impregnating or inseminating fourteen females, who were represented by those mud bricks. They gave birth to the first anatomically correct humans, who were hybrids that had forty-six chromosomes, such as the “dark headed people”. There is no other hominid with that number of chromosomes, such as the Ape or Chimp. Anthropologists  have tried to lay this on inbreeding, but the odds of that being the case are astronomical, as the resulting child would have had a high chance of being stillborn, or being born with very severe mental or physical disabilities, severe disease, or most likely being sterile with a very high death rate, and they know it.

Was modern humans created by some experiment, where they knew of insemination, such as in test tube babies where they could select the sex of the child (7 male and 7 female), or was it merely from having sex between two similar species? We will never know, I highly doubt. Anyhow, these new hybrid humans were created, and were sent to live on the land known as Edin (Eden).

Below, I quote the written words of the ancients:

The womb-goddesses were assembled
He [Enki] trod the clay in her presence;
She kept [Ninmah] reciting an incantation,
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it.
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces of clay,
And set seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left.
Between them she put down a mud brick [sic]


You have slaughtered a god together
With his personality
I have removed your heavy work
I have imposed your toil on man.…[sic]

In the clay, god and man
Shall be bound,
To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened –
That soul in a blood-kinship be bound. [sic]

At 2 Maccabees 2:17 it states: “God gave all the people the heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood, and the holiness.” That is pretty close to what is alluded to by the Sumerians, in that man’s heritage, his lineage, is from God, and the kingdom is Earth. In earlier writing, at Genesis 6:3, it states: “ADONAI said, “My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years.” (21) Here, notice that it states “for they too are flesh” as if Adonai was also flesh, and that God’s spirit is our spirit, thus matching the Sumerians “that soul in a blood-kinship be bound”. Last, there is Genesis 1:26 that states: “And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.” (21) Here, you will note the plurality of “us” and “our” in “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. In one version of Genesis, Elohim is in place of God, which is plural, meaning Gods because the sentence is plural. Genesis was purposely written to hide the Mesopotamian origins of the creation story, because of the Jews conversion to Monotheism and the alleged story of Abraham’s sworn allegiance (covenant) to Enlil at Ur, though some hints of polytheism still appear in the scripture.

A problem arises, though, from breeding the species of the Lord Gods to the species of Cro-Magnon, or his progeny. Thus, by not being of the same direct species, but only of two similar species, the first new hybrids were probably born sterile. We know of this happening today, by breeding between similar species, such as a horse and ass or zebra, or a lion and tiger.

Evidently, these Lord Gods were creating these human hybrids for some time, (before the seven pairs), until finally, they crafted a pair that would be able to reproduce. That would be the Adam and Eve, who were then given a place with the others that the Lord Gods had created, in Edin (Eden). Thus, Anu called Adapa or Adamu (Adam), “the man child of man”, and the Sumerians called them the “dark haired people”. Also, you will notice, that the Lord Gods considered themselves, man. There are even hints of this in the Torah, that you’ll have noticed two paragraphs above.

Edin, (Edina or Eden), is a Sumerian word meaning grassland or plain, thus it could be anywhere in southern Mesopotamia. However, we can make an educated guess that the people of Edin were most likely living in either mud brick or reed homes, due to the Sumerian flood story. Edin was also said to be close to Eridu, and could have been at or around Lake Ḥammār. My personal opinion is, that it was either just outside of Eridu, where the plains and marshland meet, since Adapa was supposedly the king of Eridu in some Sumerian writing, or inside the city itself. Another possibility is that of a location south of Eridu, which would have been close to a water source, if the delta had not filled with silt as it is today. Also, before the flood, the Persian Gulf was not there, as it is now. However, the earliest flood stories are about flooding rivers, and not a great deluge that covered everything, nor the formation of the Persian Gulf. The low land, that became the gulf, contained a few lakes along with marshlands, since the Arabian Sea was low enough, around and before 14,000 BP (12,000 BCE), that it had not spilled through the Straight of Hormuz yet. See the maps below, about the locations and water levels. One theory about the flood, it is believed, happened when the sea level rose high enough to pour into the basin, through the Straight of Hormuz, which is now the Persian Gulf, or the second theory, which was merely severe river flooding from a seven day downpour. The ice cap melting with the sea rising was causing severe weather in these areas.

The Torah claims that Edin was where the rivers Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and the Euphrates meet. However, as one can see, the Torah is as unreliable a source as they come, since many claim that the Gihon would be in Ethiopia, which would be an impossibility. Pishon, though, may have been a river that has now dried up, which may have flowed into the Tigris, or could have even been a canals name. The Gihon could have been a canal, also, as some names meant other places back then, and that may not even be the correct spelling. What they considered a river, then, as compared to now, may have been two different things. (15) Also, I have seen some give the Karun River, which runs into Iran, and the Wadi al Batin river which is now dry, (See Kuwait map below), as the two rivers in mention. The Wadi al Batin’s mouth is at Kuwait’s north border, which eventually runs south into Saudi Arabia. However, that creates a large area, and those rivers do not meet where the Euphrates and Tigris do, but there are long canals nearby.

It is written that “Adapa was the first of the seven sages of Eridu, who lived before the flood”.(5) Thus, he most likely would have been the first of seven fertile male humans, that were said to be educated by Enki.

The Jewish tale of Adam, being offered forbidden food, by Eve, though, is not anywhere in the ancient stories. It is a Jewish fabrication. In the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian story, it is written that Adapa (Adam) had been taught the magic of the Gods, by Enki (Ea). Here, I think that it literally means that he was educated by Enki. Adapa (Adam) had supposedly cursed the south wind, while fishing. His presence was then demanded by Anu over this, and Enki was to bring him to Anu. Enki told Adapa to accept the clothing and oil that he would be offered. He was to anoint himself in the oil, and to dress in the clothing. However, Enki warned Adapa to not eat the food and water that Anu would give him, as it would be poisoned, and it would kill him. When Adapa arrived, and was offered this, he took the clothing, and anointed himself with the oil. However, he turned down the food and drink. When Anu asked him why he did so, Adapa answered that he was warned not to, by Ea (Enki) his Lord, and said that Ea told him that he would die. Next, Anu asks Adapa if he did not want to live as an immortal. Here, I part from the other explanations about Anu’s actions, which, in my opinion, would mean that Adapa would have die, and release his spirit, to become immortal. The other two explanations are, that Enki was actually concerned for Adapa, which I believe, as Enki loved his creation, and the second explanation states that Enki tricked Adapa, so he would not become immortal, and keep man where he was supposed to be. Some go on to claim that Anu punished Enki, but that is unknowable, as the third tablet is fragmentary, and that is not readable. (11)

The knowledge that Adapa had learned, was that man would die one day, and how the world really was, including procreation. It was the metaphorical difference between being a dumb animal and a human. One can clearly see what Genesis hides away, by what is written here, in a much older story. Thus, in the Garden of Eden story, the Lord God Enki was the knowledge giver, represented by the Tree of Knowledge, with the symbolic serpent of knowledge in it. Anu would have been the “Lord God”, who would confront Adam and Eve, (where Eve was blamed for the whole debacle, by the early Jewish writers). This also flushes the Catholics claim of original sin right down the commode. God gave man free will, and thus, man makes his own sin. A babe is not born a sinner, since it has to mature until it understands the difference between right and wrong to sin, since sin is nothing but breaking the ancient written laws.

In Genesis, the Lord God told them to eat from the tree of life, but the serpent in the tree, (a metaphor for Enki and his knowledge), told Eve that they would not die that day, but would become educated, (and thence, they would learn that they would die naturally one day). It is the same story, rewritten as a metaphorical allegory, to hide the original pantheistic early Judaic/Sumerian story. When you read Genesis for what it really means, the Lord God, (Anu, God-king of the Elohim), wanted Adam and Eve to die at their time, ignorant of it happening one day, rather than to be educated about it and worry. That is the only possible explanation, as a human can not live forever. Thus, by eating from the tree of knowledge, they find out that they will die one day.

By Adapa’s time, Enki had supposedly put an age limit on mans life, by Enlil and the others agreement. The Eden story is about man, learning that he will die, because he became an educable species. He is not a dumb animal any longer. Thus, the separation of humans, (the new hybrid), from Cro-Magnon man and those who migrated from Africa.

Genesis 2:9, 15-17 KJV:

9. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The bible literalists have never understood the truth about Genesis, chapter 2, along with many other writings. This would be considered allegory and metaphor at its best.

Now, I continue with the story of Adapa and Anu (5):

No sooner had he [Adapa] uttered these words
Than South Wind’s wing was broken;
For seven days South Wind did not blow towards the land. (Dalley 185)

[Enki:] They will offer thee the food of death;
Do not eat it. The water of death they will offer thee;
Do not drink it. A garment they will offer thee;
Clothe thyself with it. Oil they will offer thee; anoint thyself with it. (Heidel 150)

[Anu:] Why did Ea disclose to wretched mankind
The ways of heaven and earth,
Give to them a heavy heart?
It was he who did it!
What can we do for him?
Fetch him the bread of (eternal) life and let him eat! (Dalley 187)

[Anu:] ‘Come, Adapa, why didn’t you eat? Why didn’t you drink?
Didn’t you want to be immortal? Alas for downtrodden people!’
‘(But) Ea my lord told me: “You mustn’t eat! You mustn’t drink!” (Dalley 187)

Anu commands that Adapa be sent back to earth and laughs at the cleverness of Ea [Enki]. Anu says, “Of the gods of heaven and earth, as many as there be, / Who ever gave such a command, / So as to make his own command exceed the command of Anu?” (Pritchard 80). The text comments that Adapa, who broke the South Wind’s wing, “the man child of man” (Sandars 172), has brought illness and disease “upon the bodies of men” (Heidel 153). The text ends with a prayer to Ninkarrak, the goddess of healing, to heal the sickness of men and women.[sic]

Maps of Mesopotamia


This map shows the ancient city locations in ancient Mesopotamia. (Copyright, 2008, Kessler). I show it here, to show the differences, and as a comparison to the one below, which shows the actual water level in the Persian Gulf, from 14,000 BCE and earlier. Most maps do not have the correct coastline, such as this one, for the date in question.


Modern detailed map of Eridu’s location.


Map of water and sea levels before the flood, and after 14,000 BCE.


Wadi al Batin River, which forms the Border of Kuwait.


Map of Dilmun. Around Bahrain is where the story of Eve supposedly originated.


Dilmun, Aramean, Babylonian, and Elamite Map Two.


Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise

From Ancient Origins, (3) I quote the below:

Initially human beings were unable to reproduce on their own, but were later modified with the help of Enki and Ninki. Thus, Adapa [Adam] was created as a fully functional and independent human being. This ‘modification’ was done without the approval of Enki’s brother, Enlil, and a conflict between the gods began. Enlil became the adversary of man, and the Sumerian tablet mentions that men served gods and went through much hardship and suffering.

Adapa, with the help of Enki, ascended to Anu where he failed to answer a question about ‘the bread and water of life’. Opinions vary on the similarities between this creation story and the biblical story of Adam and Eve in Eden. [sic]

Again, we have a matching story of what supposedly happened in Edin, with Adam and Eve. Where the writer, above, found the idea about what they stated, that Adapa failed to answer the question, I do not know, but Adapa did answer Anu.

Some have it, that Enlil ejected Adapa from Edin, but if one reads the Tablet of Adapa, then one sees that Anu, not Enlil, sends Adapa back to earth and Edin, from heaven, (but does not eject him from Edin), to be with his own kind. Also, clothes were given to Adapa by two guards at Anu’s gate, (not Adam fashioning clothes for himself and Eve). Adapa (Adamu or Adam) was still in Edin, with his own people, and there were many. Honestly, where do some actually think that Cain and Abel’s wives came from; interbreeding between brother and sister?


All the ancients used the serpent as a symbol for knowledge, and that symbol is found engraved at many of the ruins of ancient Mesopotamia, and elsewhere, over this. The symbol of a serpent was never meant to be any devil or anti-God. The Rod of Asclepius, which is supposedly the same as Aron’s Rod, has a snake on it, which signifies knowledge, and that same Rod of Asclepius is the sign of medicine, (not the US depiction of the Caduceus, though those serpents mean the same thing). Thus, the metaphorical allegory of Genesis is where the two Lord Gods are first combined into one, within the Torah, and thus, the Lord God always seems to contradict himself.  This is also where the definitions of God are changed, as the creator God, (Ainsoph or Ein Soph), created the universe and the Lord Gods, and then, the Lord Gods created modern humans. If you recall, I mentioned that one should remember that term. Lord Gods are the Gods on Earth.


The two rods of wisdom and knowledge, the Rod of Asclepius at left, and the Caduceus at right. The two were confused during 1902, thus the Caduceus was used for medicine.

To finish on Adapa or Adamu (Adam), Joshua J. Mark wrote, that he thought that Anu was not trying to poison Adapa. However, Mr. Mark is not looking at it from a spiritual point of view, as eternal life, being immortal, comes when one dies, just as Enki warned. Thus, if Adapa wanted to live in the world that is now, as a human, then he should not eat or drink of what Anu offered. They always try to make Enki out to be the one in the wrong, when he was looking out for Adapa’s best interests, in my personal opinion.


Next, we have Eve, who it is thought, comes from another metaphor about Enki, while supposedly in the lands of Dilmun, (the eastern littoral land of Arabia, from the vicinity of modern Kuwait to Bahrain, the island of Bahrain, and the island of Failaka, east of Kuwait), and with no Adapa or Adamu in the story. The Sumerians did not vilify or denigrate women as they were in Genesis and later. Women were looked upon as the birth mothers, and were to be respected, though that later changed. They did have dowries listed within the first laws, however, and slaves. Her creation story originates from a tale about Enki, Ninhursag (Ninki), and Isimud, though the story is about something totally different than creating Eve from Adam’s rib. Eve has traditionally been used for the name of the first woman, but she is not in the ancient Sumerian writings; she is solely from the Jewish. Eve, in Hebrew, is Ḥawwāh, meaning the “living one” or “source of life”.

In the original Sumerian story, (Enki and the Mother Goddess), which I shorten to get to the important parts, Ninki charged Enki with herding the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became interested in the garden, and Isimud, Enki’s messenger, selected eight plants and offered them to Enki, who ate them. This upset Ninki, and she cursed Enki, making him fall ill. Enki felt a pain in his rib, (which is a Sumerian pun, as the word “ti” means both rib and life). The other Lord Gods persuaded Ninki to quit causing Enki’s illness. Ninki, then, created a new goddess, who was named Ninti, (a name composed of “Nin“, for “lady”, and “ti“, for rib/living, which may be translated as “Lady of the Living” or “Lady of the Rib”), to cure Enki. (16) Thus, you will later see a story about Adamu and Ninti, which is the source for the Jewish Eve.

Adam is also associated with Lilith, which is purely a concoction of the Jews. In Hebrew, Lilith means night creature, and later, by looking at inscriptions on bowls and amulets from the 6th century BC, Lilith becomes a female demon. In the Alphabet of Ben Sira, (the Alphabet of Sirach), which dates between 700 and 1000 AD, Lilith is turned into Adam’s first wife. Thus, Lilith holds about as much water as does the tale of Eve; both stories leak like a sieve. The claims that were made, that Lilith originated from the story of Gilgamesh and the Arslan Tash amulets, have been found to be suspect at best. (17)

Moses and Noah.

The story of Sargon of Akkad, the king of Mesopotamia, from 2334 to 2279 BCE, has parallels to Moses. Atrahasis, (also known as Ziusudra, or Utanapishtim), has parallels to Noah. Sargon of Akkad’s parallel, is about the babe in the basket, which was found in the Euphrates by a man named Akki , and Atrahasis’ parallel is about building the ark and surviving the flood. Again, you can take this as you want, but the more ancient history wins out, as the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian stories are much older than the stories within the Jewish Torah. (19)

To date the time of the Lord Gods on earth, before the flood, and the time from the creation of modern man, the Sumerians wrote that modern, fertile, man was not created until 3600 years after they arrived. Next, we have to use the story of Atrahasis (Noah). Atrahasis, comes from a Babylonian story, which originated around 1700 BCE, but was passed on by the Akkadians, and thus, the Sumerians. Atrahasis was said to be the King of Shuruppak, and was listed on the Sumerian Kings List.

The story of Atrahasis, states that after 1,200 years of work, by modern man, Enlil becomes upset with man, and orders a plague to wipe out mankind. Enki advises Atrahasis how and whom to pray to, and the plague ends.

Another 1,200 years pass, and again, Enlil becomes upset with man, and causes a drought, along with causing infertility. Again, Enki advises Atrahasis about praying, and all becomes fine, drought wise.

Last, after another 1,200 years, Enlil becomes upset enough with man, that he wants to make sure to end all mankind, so he asks the other Gods to vote on sending a flood. They do, but Enki carefully skirts by his promise to not speak of the flood with the humans, by talking to the wall of Atrahasis’ reed hut. Of course, Atrahasis hears Enki through the wall, and overhears that he should build an ark, to save both mankind and the animals. Atrahasis does as he had heard, builds the ark, then collects his family and the animals. The Flood comes, and Atrahasis survives the seven day and night flood, thus saving humanity. Now, we have Enlil, who is steaming mad, plus, the flood is more than all the other Gods had bargained for. It goes on to state that: “Enlil spots the boat and is furious, knowing that only Enki could have been clever enough to come up with this new trick. Enki admits that he warned Atrahasis, “in defiance” of Enlil: “I made sure life was preserved” (Dalley 34) [sic]. (6) The text is fragmentary at this point, but apparently, Enki persuades Enlil to adopt a more humane approach for dealing with the population and noise problem. It does not explain how Atrahasis, (who became the Jewish Noah), managed to live for 3600+ years, since Enki was supposed to have put an age limit on all human life. Also, the earliest flood story was about the Euphrates river flooding, and killing those who lived in the lowlands of the valley.


Though the topic is not brought up much, Enlil was indeed harvesting the earths resources, such as differing woods, gems, stones, silver, gold, tin, copper, and the list goes on. It was not being sent to any mythical planet called Nibiru, but to Nibru, (Sumerian for Nippur), which is Enlil’s city. Those resources were being used for construction, jewelry, tools, gifts, the Goldsmiths, etc.


From the above, we can deduce this time span by adding the years: 3600 + 1200 + 1200 + 1200, or 7200 years, from the time of the arrival of the Lord Gods, to the time of the flood, thus their arrival should have been approximately 21,200 years ago, as of 2016, since the flood is thought to have occurred around 14,000 BP, if we use that as the flood and not just the rivers flooding over a seven day rain. Adapa (Adam or Adamu), and the six other modern human men (sages) that were created, (whom are the second creation of modern man, and were those whom could procreate), dates to approximately 17,600 years ago, as of 2016, by using the creation of the Persian Gulf as the flood. Cro-Magnon man goes back to approximately 10,000 to 45,000 years ago, according to science, and that falls within this time frame when they supposedly migrated out of Egypt into the Middle-East. (10)  I do believe that today’s religious literalists, claim that creation only happened around 6,000 years ago, which does not add up.

Radio carbon (Carbon-14) dating is only good for about 20,000 years into the past, as the amount of C-14 is so low in earliest samples, that background radiation interferes with the testing. Using this method to date remains past 20,000 years ago is not accurate, or may even be impossible in some circumstances.

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)_Hurley, Patrick M. 1959. How Old Is the Earth? New York: Doubleday & Co.

Section: 3, What science says about the hominoid hybrid human.

What science has not introduced to the public is that modern man, the anatomically correct human, is a hybrid species, and that they have no idea about what we are crossed with, other than that one of our ancestors did become a hybrid who was known as Cro-Magnon man, or was their progeny. Neanderthal had also interbred with the Cro-Magnon man at some point, as far back as 100,000 years ago. It is also known that modern man appeared suddenly, only about 45,000 to 10,000 years ago. (10) They have called the Eve a female from Africa, the mother, but that is through mitochondrial DNA, and that is not where the name originates from.

Also, modern man has the oddity of 46 (44 autosomal and 2 sex), chromosomes, caused by a telomere-to-telomere fusion, (not an accident), and all the other hominoid species, which includes the Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutan, etc, have differing numbers, such as the Rhesus monkey with 42, and the Gorilla, Chimpanzee, and Orangutan with 48, on either side of man. Modern man has many more genetic faults in their DNA than the Chimpanzee; around 4,000 in man (23) as compared to around 100 known in the apes. They claim that man and chimp have a 99% similarity in our DNA (King & Wilson), though another study by Jarrod Bailey states that when everything is taken into account, the percentage of similarity drops to only around 93.5-95%. (24)

Science told the public that a chromosome just broke off the DNA strand of the Chimpanzee (translocation), by accident, etc, and reattached itself, thus giving man its odd number.(3)(4)(13)  It most certainly did not, as the ends were a telomere to telomere fusion, which is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences, at each end of a chromosome, that protects the end of the chromosome from deterioration or from fusion with neighboring chromosomes. There was no translocation or break. This means that there is an actual fusion of non-damaged chromosomes in humans, and not some broken-off, non-matching piece which attached itself back. They also made the claim that this happened over inbreeding, though the odds for that are astoundingly astronomical, especially for any young to have survived during that time. That means that we were not created by evolving from a 48 chromosome hominoid, where a piece of broken chromosome magically created our number. Their claim comes from the anthropologist’s bottle-neck theory, (8) which does not have the evidence to support it, and it is only a guess at best. Science has also alluded to hybridization occurring much earlier than it actually had, along with the claim of translocation in chromosome 2. The mention of humans being a hybrid kills any notion of being a direct descendant of apes. Below is a peer reviewed paper from Yale University, which debunks the theory about a translocation of broken chromosomes.(1)

Study 2-1

A second peer-reviewed paper, (2) tells us that the DNA clock can not be used, as many in science have claimed, to pinpoint or determine exactly when any split between ape and Cro-Magnon man’s ancestor happened. It also states plainly, that man is a hybrid. The paper said that it had found several discrepancies in their time theories and the deviation in percentage between the species. As an example, the paper stated a divergence date of 2,000,000 years, between human and gorilla, and 7,000,000 years between human and chimpanzee, though we anatomically modern hybrid humans do not match their claims.


The farthest back that science had been able to use bone, in order to extract usable and  testable DNA, is from a 78,000 year old fossil finger and two teeth, from Denisovan hominin, which did not show that modern man had directly evolved from the Neanderthals, but that they had interbred with them, in what is now Russia’s Siberia. (7) However, how this was possible is not stated, as Cro-Magnon man dates to around 45,000 years ago, at the earliest, when he supposedly migrated out of Egypt. (10) Also, the possibility of DNA contamination by science, during the test, can lead to erroneous results. That missing link still seems to allude them, since other hominids existed in Europe and the Middle-East at that time.

However, a new study from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), states that Cro-Magnon man had interbred with the Neanderthal as far back as 100,000 years ago, by looking at the Neanderthal DNA. Professor Adam Siepel stated that “the data so far refers to an event dating to around 47,000-65,000 years ago, around the time that [so-called] human populations emigrated from Africa. The event we found appears considerably older than that event.” Siepel also stated that “One very interesting thing about our finding is that it shows a signal of breeding in the ‘opposite’ direction from that already known,” Siepel notes. “That is, we show human DNA in a Neanderthal genome, rather than Neanderthal DNA in human genomes.” My words in brackets. Yes, it is very confusing for what they thought was fact, in that Cro-Magnon crossed into Europe, and interbred with what was there. The European Neanderthal had a larger brain than did those who were in Africa, with a slightly elongated skull. Also, the elongated head people found in Peru, had DNA that was traced back to the Middle-East and Europe, and were Caucasian who had red hair, and they were not Neanderthal. See my article below, where I quote Brien Forester’s DNA results. It is this hominid race who I believe interbred with those from Africa to create what is really modern man. The elongated skull hominids were known as the ancient God kings on almost every continent. The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory study stated that the African group migrated into what is now Arabia and the Middle-East around 1,600 generations ago. By 1500 generations, they had moved into the Levant, including Mesopotamia, and as far north as Syrian and south east Turkey. 1600 generations is about 45,700 years ago. About 42,000 years ago, (1500 generations ago) would be when they interbred with the elongated skull people in the area of the Middle-East.

For instance, if the new modern man, who was a hybrid, only had his wife who was supposedly kin to him, or only his daughters to breed with, (incest), that would make the children that was born, highly susceptible to disease and infertility. Even if they made it to interbreed with their first cousins, which is not good, then there are many things that can go wrong, thus the new humans would have easily died out without a diverse gene pool, (such as the seven different breeding pairs). Below, I quote from the the article titled: Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin, 2003, from Discovery magazine. The problem with breeding the hybrids back into the Cro-Magnon population would have also caused problems.

In the Yorkshire city of Bradford, in England, for instance, a majority of the large Pakistani community can trace their origins to the village of Mirpur in Kashmir, which was inundated by a new dam in the 1960s. Cousin marriages have been customary in Kashmir for generations, and more than 85 percent of Bradford’s Pakistanis marry their cousins. Local doctors are seeing sharp spikes in the number of children with serious genetic disabilities, and each case is its own poignant tragedy. One couple was recently raising two apparently healthy children. Then, when they were 5 and 7, both were diagnosed with neural degenerative disease in the same week. The children are now slowly dying. Neural degenerative diseases are eight times more common in Bradford than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The great hazard of inbreeding is that it can result in the unmasking of deleterious recessives, to use the clinical language of geneticists. Each of us carries an unknown number of genes—an individual typically has between five and seven—capable of killing our children or grandchildren. These so-called lethal recessives are associated with diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia.

Most lethal genes never get expressed unless we inherit the recessive form of the gene from both our mother and father. But when both parents come from the same gene pool, their children are more likely to inherit two recessives.

Notice, that the story mentions five to seven lethal genes, but any other recessive gene that causes a disease, could have caused death thousands of years ago, as the story is speaking of what could kill us today with modern medicine helping out with the others.

Last, the Neanderthal dates to approximately 300,000 years ago, and we know that he was a good bit different than Cro-Magnon man, who is said to be the first modern human. The Neanderthal died out around 40,000 to perhaps 24,000 years ago. (9) Cro-Magnon man was supposedly from the time of 45,000 years ago, at the earliest, (now they state it is earlier, up to 100,000 years ago), to 10,000 years ago at the latest. (10) The hybrid would have been the Adapa, Adamu, or Adam, a hybrid, mixed with an unknown species.

Section: 4 Religious denial of recorded history and science.

Of course, those who are responsible for writing the Torah, and those of religions such as Christianity and Islam, do not want to believe this, and have said that Adapa and Adam were two different people, because of how their names were spelled. Yes, you read that correctly, that is their weak excuse, even though the two names mentioned have a parallel story, at many places. Also, they don’t mention that Atrahasis is the name of the person to build the ark in the original flood story, not Noah. So, I leave it to the reader to determine which is fact. This reminds me of the Pope’s claimed infallibility, which means that when he proclaims something as fact, it is, whether it is true or not.

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. [sic]

One can thank Pope Pius IX for this proclamation, as he was the one who refused to allow the Italians to live in a democratic country, and claimed that the idea of free thought and speech, along with a secular education, was a sin. His successor, Pope Leo XIII, watched on, since he supported Pius IX, as Italy was finally taken back, by the people, to became a democratic nation, and the church was reduced to nothing but the Vatican. Pius IX and Leo XIII, were the very ones responsible for the final fall of the church, over the churches medieval idealism. Personally, I have to laugh every time I remember that self-righteous, “infallible”, Papal decree. That then reminds me of the succeeding Pope, Leo XIII’s encyclical, Humanum Genus, which makes me rightly angry. I highly doubt that Jesus would have allowed either of the two to be a priest, and would have probably treated them like the money changers in the Temple. However, I can not only disagree with just Catholicism, as Protestantism and Islam are no better, when it comes to believing fictional allegories as fact, and not seeing the real story hidden within. Ancient writing always trumps later writing, when those of later times took the ancient writing, and changed what it said, or its meaning, for their own benefit.

Section: 5 The Soul

There are two verses in the Tanakh, that clearly states what our soul is, and what will happen to it after we die.  It shows that the human soul is only a part of the whole, that of the creator of all, Ein Soph, God. This teaching goes back to the writings of the ancient Sumerians. (18)

Genesis 6:3, when living:

(3) ADONAI said, “My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years.” (From the Complete Jewish Bible, a direct and correct Hebrew to English translation by the Jews).

(3) And the Lord said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years”. (KJV translation).

Ecclesiastes 12:7, after death:

(7) The dust returns to earth, as it was, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it! (From the Complete Jewish Bible, a direct and correct Hebrew to English translation by the Jews).

(7) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (KJV translation).

Ancient Sumerians:

In the clay, god and man
Shall be bound,
To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened –
That soul in a blood-kinship be bound.

Section: 6 Conclusion

As one can clearly see, the Torah will not reveal the historical truth, but it will give you a fanciful allegory, which was written to hide polytheism, some five hundred plus years before Jesus the Nazarite was born. (19) It was as if the Rabbi’s, who were arriving back from Babylon, took all the old stories and combined them in a large cauldron to cook, and afterwards, used the result as ink to create the Torah. The creation of man, itself, is a shortened version, and they did a very good job in hiding the differences between God and the Lord Gods. It is like I stated earlier; they did a excellent job of using metaphor in an allegory.

What one must remember, about Genesis, is this; when God created the universe, he later created the Elohim. Here, God, Ein Soph, is the omnipotent God, the creator of all. When it speaks of God creating man, again, it is the Lord Gods, (the ones who Ein Soph created that came to earth), who then created modern man. Also, Anu, in Edin, is not God, the creator. He is the Lord God of the heavens, and over the Elohim. The first God spoken of, in the first opening words, is God, Ein Soph, the unknowable one, who created the big bang and the universe. Ein Soph then created those like Anu, and his supposed two wives.

Those Lord Gods deserve their due reverence, if they walked the earth, as they created we anatomically modern humans. They are responsible for converting us from a dumb animal in a field, to what we are today, with a conscious and high intellect (the soul). However, the creator of all, Ein Soph, is who due reverence is to always be payed, as Ein Soph is who the Lord Gods, including Anu, would bow to.

My Gods Theory.

Last, my theory on who these Lord Gods were, is that they were those with the elongated skulls, having two skull plates instead of three, and larger brains than we humans have. They have been found on several continents, and were known as both Gods and Kings. The Egyptian royalty are thought to have started from those directly related to the elongated skull people, such as the ancestors of the parents of King Tutankhamen, whom were Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), 1353 to 1336 BC, and Nefertiti. Akhenaten, (who had three skull plates), tried to copy their look, by banding the skulls of their infants. One can clearly see the difference, when comparing the skulls between those like Akhenaten, and the ones with two plates. Not only is King Tut’s skull somewhat elongated, but his families were more so, but had normal size human brains. The major difference, between those who were banded and the natural elongated skulls, is the internal volume of the skull cavity. Those with the two skull plates, had a much larger brain due to a greater cranial volume. His stepmother, Nefertiti, was also shown with the snake on her headdress, as was the rest of the Egyptian royals, which is the symbol of knowledge. This was shown in their ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, where one can clearly see their undressed heads, their busts, and their actual skulls, which were found around Egypt, and are on display at Cairo.

They think that they have found Nefertiti’s burial chamber, and I would like to see her skull, minus any flesh.


Mummified head of King Tutankhamen, the son of Akhenaten.


Scene depicted on King Tuts Throne.


Skull of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV). He brought in a form of Monotheism or Henotheism to Egypt.


Bust of Nefertiti at Berlin

One can visit Peru, and find the same two-plate skulls mentioned above, at Paracas. They were known as the Gods who came by ship, to Peru, and whom created and educated man. I would venture to say that they will be found elsewhere, such as Asia, if they ever allow archaeological studies as the other continents have. The skulls have been found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, France, Bolivia, and Peru.


Elongated skull found in France.

Brien Forester found a seven to nine month old fetus, who is thought to have died at childbirth, possibly stillborn, with an elongated skull, which proves that there were children born with this anomaly, and not from head boarding or banding. A radiologist viewed it, and stated that the body and skull was normal except the elongated skull. The fetus body was found just outside Lake Titicaca at Pata Patani, Bolivia, in the museum: Museo y Cafeteria Comunitarios. Below is a photo of the fetus.


Fetus at Pata Patani, Bolivia

There have been statues depicting the elongated skull people in Israel and all around the ancient Sumerian cities. Some look normal, and some have a serpentine shaped face to signify them as those with knowledge. The royal bloodline of Egypt carried this look on by head banding or boarding it is thought, to make their skulls look as their ancestors, and used the Cobra on their headdress to show them as the knowledge holders. You will notice that the statues have large eyes like those skulls with the two skull plates.


Mesopotamian statues.


Israeli or ancient Levant statues.


The skulls in Paracas, Peru were auburn haired, which generally means that they would be caucasian. The American Indians mentioned these individuals in their history, and stated that they were of red hair, and caucasian. They also stated that they were larger in size; some with a height of 89 to 96 inches (7 to 8 feet). We know for a fact that the two-plate skulls had a larger brain cavity, when comparing the skulls with those with three skull plates, who had used head banding. The two-plate skulls had extra holes/sinuses in the rear top of the skull, where extra blood vessels and nerves would have exited to supply the top and back of the head. The two-plate skulls nasal sinuses were different, had different number of molars, and the ocular sockets were larger for the larger eyes.


Paracas Skull

Brien Forester stated that the DNA test results were in for the skulls in Paracas, and the bloodline leads back to the Middle-East (western Asia), and to the Europeans. However, these people were not Neanderthal, though they could have interbred with them. Notice the slight indention of the forehead that some have stated was from head banding, then compare that to the fetus’ skull above, and you will see a similar indention, which seems to indicate that there was no head banding done to these two-plate skulls. With this new DNA evidence, how did this elongated skull human show up in Peru before science claims that anyone from that area came to the Americas?

Where our elongated skull ancestors or creators and educators came from, (if it is them), are anyone’s guess, but that is who I think that those, such as The Lord God Enlil, the Lord God Enki, and the Goddess Ninki, were. They were the hominids living in the Levant and Mesopotamia around 45,000 years ago, when the Cro-Magnon migrated out of Egypt. Were they extra-terrestrial? Who knows, as I highly doubt that we will ever find the true facts. Maybe, they could be from the missing Atlantis? Nobody will ever know this either. With this, I will leave you with a quote from the Gospel of Thomas, verse 30, which was allegedly said by Jesus as a parable.

30) Where there are three Gods, they are Gods, where there are two or one, I am with them.

 So Mote It Be.


  1. Proc. National Accadamy of Science, USA (written by Howard Hughes Med. Inst, Dept. of Genetics, and Yale Univ.) Vol 88, pages 9051-9055, October 1991
    Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
  2. Nature, Vol 314, (Peter Andrews, head of the Anthropology, British Museum, Natural History, London) pages 498-499, 4-11-85 Improved timing of hominoid evolution with a DNA clock.
  3. In genetics, a chromosome translocation is a chromosome abnormality caused by rearrangement of parts between nonhomologous chromosomes. (The Homologous (of chromosomes) pairing at meiosis and having the same structural features and pattern of genes.) Thus, a nonhomologous chromosome does not have the same pattern or structure paired at meiosis, nor does the pattern match. A gene fusion may be created when the translocation joins two otherwise-separated genes.
  4. A Robertsonian translocation is a type of translocation caused by breaks at or near the centromeres of two acrocentric chromosomes. (near the center or ends).
  5. Two Babylonian (Akkadian) Tales of Beginnings. Grand Valley Sate University, Michigan, http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Adapa.htm
  6. The Story of Atrahasis. Grand Valley Sate University, Michigan, http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/atrahasi.htm
  7. New DNA analysis shows ancient humans interbred with Denisovans, Nature, 2012. Story here.
  8. Newsweek, The Search for Adam and Eve: Scientists Explore a Controversial Theory About Man’s Origins, 1998.
  9. Neanderthal man, Encyclopedia Britannica.
  10. Cro-Magnon man, Encyclopedia Britannica.
  11. The Myth of Adapa, Ancient History Encyclopedia.
  12. In a video interview, the famous physicist, Richard Feynman, stated that the university departments of archeology, paleontology, and anthropology, (Social Sciences), were not real science, and stated that they were merely pseudoscience.
  13. A video, titled: Human Genetics, about the DNA of anatomically correct, modern man, was given by Lloyd Pye. Though I do not agree with his theories, he did explain the science of DNA correctly.
  14. About Enlil and Ur. In the Lament for Ur, Enlil destroyed Ur. The story tells of Enlil’s hate toward those who had ravaged and taken over the Goddess Nana’s city of Ur, as the Elamites had raided the temples treasury, along with how the people had lost respect for Nana and Ningal, so he destroyed the city. Anu agrees with Enlil, at a council held at Nippur. To look behind the metaphors, it seems as if a great storm may have it hit there, along with war, as the black-haired people were killed in the street by the axe. This would be why Abraham had sworn himself to worship Enlil, as his father, Terah, would have been in business in the city at the time, so they blame the occurrences on Enlil’s wrath. At the time, all wars and damaging storms were blamed upon the Gods.
  15. Theophilus G. Pinches, 1908. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends, pp. 64-65
  16. Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 1944, pp. 56-59
  17. David Noel Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday) 1997, 1992. “Very little information has been found relating to the Akkadian and Babylonian view of these figures. Two sources of information previously used to define Lilith are both suspect.”
  18. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Quote: “It also unclear whether the eṭemmu [soul] existed within the living body prior to death (and was thus an entity that separated from the body), or whether it only came into existence at the moment of physical death (and was thus an entity created by the transformation of some physical life-force). In either case, upon physical death the status of the deceased changed from awilu to eṭemmu. Death was therefore a transitionary stage during which humans were transformed from one state of existence to another”. There is not enough written in the ancient writings, to state factually about the soul, or the eṭemmu, to make a clear statement, but the writing does show the two states. It is important to note, that the Netherworld of the Sumerians, does not mean the Christian hell, but the world of the dead, wherever that be. Merriam-Webster’s gives for the Netherworld: “the world of the dead”. Most all biblical theological scholars take it that the soul is consciousness, and that it is within the body, when born.
  19. Ancient History Encyclopedia, on the Torah.
  20. John Pickard, Behind the Myths: The Foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, p. 8, pub. 2013
  21. From The Complete Jewish Bible, with Rashi commentary.
  22. Roger W Wescott, Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, noted Sitchin’s amateurishness with respect to the primacy of the Sumerian language: “Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian [northern Spain and Southern France] and Tartarian [Mongolian and Turkish]  signaries [alphabetical symbols] of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.”
  23. Genetic Link To 4,000 Diseases: https://www.healthxchange.com.sg/News/Pages/Genetic-link-to-4000-diseases.aspx
  24. Jarrod Bailey, 2011: Lessons from Chimpanzee-based Research on Human Disease: The Implications of Genetic Differences

Article Notes [Sitchin’s books]:

  1. I have read Sitchin’s book, The Lost Book of Enki, and have found that the book is not a direct translation of actual tablets, but of partial writing that he has seemed to stitch together, even using Genesis as a base, such as adding that the Elohim or Annunaki were searching for Gold to take back to Nibiru to save their atmosphere. Thus, one can not take any of the book to be credible, as he did not cite where each of these text fragments came from, nor what he added from other sources, such as the Torah. However, we have those of the other side, like Michael Heiser, (a biblical apologist, who is no better than Sitchin for facts), who tries to debunk ancient astronaut theories, and loves to use Wikipedia as his cited sources. He makes a claim that gold is hardly spoken of in the ancient Sumerian, Akkadian or Babylonian writings, but his own citation does cite that Enlil was having it mined. See notes 2, 3, 4, and 5, below. The Nibru is another name for the city, Nippur, Enlil’s city, and not the mythical planet, Nibiru. Nippur is about 75 to 80 miles northwest of Eridu. Last, according the the Sumerians, Enlil was having many natural resources harvested, and not just gold. They prized gold and lapis lazuli for jewelry, gilding, casting, etc., and used it as a money.
  2. Enki and the world order: c.1.1.3
    “I will admire its green cedars. Let the lands of Meluḫa, Magan and Dilmun look upon me, upon Enki. Let the Dilmun boats be loaded (?) with timber. Let the Magan boats be loaded sky-high. Let the magilum boats of Meluḫa transport gold and silver and bring them to Nibru [Nippur], for Enlil, king of all the lands.
  3. Enlil and Sud: c.1.2.2
    Ores (?) from Ḫarali, the faraway land, …… storehouses, ……, rock-crystal, gold, silver, ……, the yield of the uplands ……, heavy loads of them, were dispatched by Enlil toward Ereš. After the personal presents, the transported goods ……, Ninmaḫ and the minister ……. The dust from their march reached high into the sky like rain clouds. Enormous marriage gifts were being brought for Nanibgal to Ereš; the city was getting full inside and out, …… it was to be replete. The rest …… on the outlying roads ……. …… blue sky ……. (1 line missing) (2 lines fragmentary
  4. The cursing of Agade: c.2.1.5
    He ripped out its drain pipes, and all the rain went back to the heavens. He tore off its upper lintel and { the Land was deprived of its ornament } { (1 ms. has instead:) the ornament of the Land disappeared }. From its Gate from which Grain is never Diverted, he diverted grain, and the Land was deprived of grain. He struck the Gate of Well-Being with the pickaxe, and well-being was subverted in all the foreign lands. As if they were for great tracts of land with wide carp-filled waters, he cast large { spades } { (1 ms. has instead:) axes } to be used against the E-kur. The people could see the bedchamber, its room which knows no daylight. The Akkadians could look into the holy treasure chest of the gods. Though they had committed no sacrilege, its laḫama deities of the great pilasters standing at the temple were thrown into the fire by Naram-Suen. The cedar, cypress, juniper and boxwood, the woods of its giguna, were …… by him. He put its gold in containers and put its silver in leather bags. He filled the docks with its copper, as if it were a huge transport of grain. The silversmiths were re-shaping its silver, jewelers were re-shaping its precious stones, smiths were beating its copper. Large ships were moored at the temple, large ships were moored at Enlil’s temple and its possessions were taken away from the city, though they were not the goods of a plundered city. With the possessions being taken away from the city, good sense left Agade. As the ships { moved away from } { (some mss. have instead:) juddered } the docks, Agade’s { intelligence } { (1 ms. has instead:) sanctuary } was removed.
  5. A song of Inana and Dumuzid (Dumuzid-Inana J): c.4.08.10
    The little sister dwelling among them spoke to them (1 line unclear)”While we raise the song, you will lower the song.” …… she did not dwell among them ……. She dwelt in the …… of the eršema (?). She dwelt …… the eršema (?), of precious metal and lapis lazuli, of the goldsmith.


Who is God?

God, En Soph or Ein Soph, (the Infinite God), to me, is the creator of the universe. That should pretty much sit well with anyone reading this. However, that is not the God or Gods of the ancients, nor the one spoken of in most of the Torah, who supposedly created modern man. One will be surprised, when they find that Genesis is a metaphorical allegory, designed to hide the truth within, behind a veil. Even the name, God, En Soph, etc., is not the creator’s name, as nobody knows what that is. The Bible does give reference to En Soph, supposedly, as the I AM.

The story of Genesis was only written between 597 BCE to 539 BCE, or later, while the Jews were either still in captivity, at Babylon, or just after they made their way back to Judah. After the twelfth and thirteenth Jewish kings, (Ahab and his son), Judaism converted to monotheism, which was somewhere about 250 or so years, before their capture by the Babylonians and their king, Nebuchadnezzar. Though the Jews took up a National God, El, Elil, or Enlil, many still practiced polytheism for a while, before it died out, between Ahab’s time, and their capture or deportation. Other lands, in the Levant and Mesopotamia, did the same, by declaring a National God. While in Babylon, the Jews learned of combining several Gods’ stories into one, as the Babylonians had done, when they started worshiping a monotheistic National God, the creator of man. Here, the Babylonians mixed the stories of the Mesopotamian Gods of before, including Enki, into Marduk. Enki was supposedly Marduk’s father. The Jews did the same, in the Torah, by mixing the stories of Anu, Enlil, and Enki. That is why it seems that God is always contradicting himself.

To find out some of the truth about this, one must look to Khabbalism, which is studied by Rabbinical Judaism, and mainly, the book of Khabbalism, the Zohar, which is the Book of Light, Splendor, or Radiance. The Zohar is supposedly ancient, though some argue that it is not. It was supposedly written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, who lived around the 2nd century. It made an appearance in the 13th century, at Spain, and was published by a Jewish writer, named Moses de León. De León claimed the work to be from Shimon bar Yochai. There are 23 volumes of it. I’ll not argue either point, but it is very informative read, as to what the Rabbis study.

The Zohar explains the very first allegorical words of Genesis. To explain this, it says that God, En Soph, the creator of all, whom has no name, except for that which is invented by man, created the universe, and then created another God or Gods, who created man. This also corresponds to one of the four versions of Genesis, which mentions the Alhim or Elohim (usually plural), an ancient Mesopotamian belief. This was intentionally hidden, because of the Jews conversion to monotheism from polytheism. Also, while in captivity at Babylon, those who were held there, and their children, had overheard the ancient religious beliefs of not only the Babylonians, but also the Akkadians, and thus, the Sumerians. The Jews, the descendants of Abraham, who was from Ur in Mesopotamia, already had a similar belief, and the ancient religion, which spoke of the pantheon of Gods, such as Anu (An), Enlil, (Elil, or El), Enki (Ea), and their sister, Ninhursag (Ninki), had developed, and spread across the fertile crescent, starting at southern Mesopotamia, then up to what is now northern Iraq, next, west to what is now Syria, and then back south, as far as Egypt. Thus, it follows the upside down crescent shape of the farmable lands.

The Zohar states, that the first words of Genesis, are read in a different manner than shown in Genesis. Below, I quote from pages 86-87, from the book titled: The Sepher Ha-Zohar Or The Book Of Light, by Nurho de Manhar, 1900-1914. It is a Hebrew to English translation of the Zohar. My words in [brackets]:

“BRASHITH.” “In the beginning” was En Soph, the Divine, the self-existent infinite begin [being], without likeness or reflection, the incomprehensible, the unknowable One, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. who only hath immortality, dwelling in Light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen or can see, before whom the great archangel with face beneath his wings bends in lowly reverence and adoration, crying, “Holy! Holy! Holy! who art and was and evermore shall be.”

Tune [tone or resonance] had begun. Its great pendulum, whose beats are the ages, commenced to vibrate. The era of creation or manifestation had at last arrived. The nekuda reshima, primal point or nucleus, appeared. From it emanated and expanded the primary substance, the illimitable phosphorescent ether, of the nature of light, formless, colorless, being neither black nor green nor red. In it, latent yet potentially as in a mighty womb, lay the myriad prototypes and numberless forms of all created things as yet indiscernible, indistinguishable. By the secret and silent action of the divine will, from this primal luminous point radiated forth the vital life-giving spark which, pervading and operating in the great, enteric ocean of forms, became the soul of the universe, the fount and origin of all mundane life and motion and terrestrial existence, and in its nature and essence and secret operation remains ineffable, incomprehensible and indefinable. It has been conceived of as the divine Logos, the Word, and called Brashith, for the same was in the beginning with God. (All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life became the light of man.)

“They that understand (the secret doctrine) shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they who turn or lead many into the might path (of knowledge) as the stars forever and ever.” (Dan. xii. 3.) The word zohar (brightness) designates that nekuda reshima, the central ray or point of light which was the primal manifestation of the Divine, En Soph. From it proceeded vibrations which made luminous the illimitable ether, from which was formed the universe that became the glorious temple or palace of the great Unknown. It was in a manner the holy seed or germ that gave origin and birth to the world, and is occultly referred to in the words: “The holy seed shall be the substance thereof.” (Is. vi. 13.) Its analogue in nature is the silkworm which, unseen and in secret, elaborates and prepares a product that ultimately constitutes the material of the monarch’s purple robe of splendor. Furthermore, for the manifestation of the glory of the divine Unknown to humanity, making use of verbal terms and letters, it has built for it the name alhim, or lord, as evidenced in the mystic sense of brashith bara alhim. “In the beginning, alhim created”; or, as it should be rendered by rushith, [the root or beginning] that is the primal zohar, the origin of all words, “God created alhim.” The use of the word bara (created) need not excite surprise, for it occurs again in the words: “And he created alhim, the man, in his image.” (Gen. i. 27.) This zohar, their, denotes the mysterious. One called brashith because the beginning of all things. In answer to the desire of Moses to know the name of the divine Being, it was given AHIH ASHR AHIH, “I am that or who I am.” The sacred name AHIH is as a two-sided figure, whilst the name alhim is as a crown; and asher formed of the same letters as the word rash (head or crown) is a synonym of alhim and proceeds or comes forth from brashith. Whilst the primal zohar or divine ray of life was quiescent and unmanifested it was impossible for it to become known by any word or term whatsoever. But after operating in the boundless ether, the receptacle of all forms and prototypes of created things in the universe that was to be, then asher, representing the divine essence, took upon itself the form of a head or crown (rash) between the two AHIH’s of the divine appellation, AHIH asher AHIH. Observe now, that the word brashith is composed of rash (crown), synonym of asher, and beth (house or palace). Hence the occult signification or rendering of the words “Brashith bara Alhim” is this: When rash the divine germ from which emanated and expanded the boundless ether appeared, and this ether became differentiated into form and color giving rise to the universe or palace of the great king, then was created alhim the great secret fructifying principle of nature, which was and is as a point that gives rise to lines which produce surfaces, or as the letter yod I, whence proceed all the other letters of the alphabet. [sic]

En Soph created the first “tune” of creation, (resonance), which some say is when God plucked the string which caused the creation of all, and which science terms the “Big Bang.” Next, the text reads that “The nekuda reshima, primal point or nucleus, appeared. From it emanated and expanded the primary substance, the illimitable phosphorescent ether, of the nature of light, formless, colorless, being neither black nor green nor red.” That would be the “Big Bang“; all the waves or fields of the energy of the universe, light, gravity, matter, magnetism, consciousness, etc. This is referred to by the ancients as the waters above the firmament, and is where those waters mixed, creating reality and existence. It then goes on to reveal the most important words, to me, in the Zohar:

“brashith bara alhim”. “In the beginning, alhim created”; or, as it should be rendered by rushith [the root], that is the primal zohar, the origin of all words, “God created alhim.” The use of the word bara (created) need not excite surprise, for it occurs again in the words: “And he created alhim, the man, in his image.” (Gen. 1:27.)

Now, who was or were the Alhim (Elohim)? They were probably the first men, who came here, known as Lord Gods, and they created earthly man to be in their image. They were the ancient Gods and Kings of old, before the flood. They also deserve our reverence, as they created the human hybrid, who was able to be educated, and not be as that of a dumb animal, who were one half of their forebearers. Did you never wonder why, that science has never found the so-called missing link? They are blind to it, but they have published peer-reviewed papers, on the subject of we humans being a hybrid, about our DNA, and they freely admit, that they do not know what we are mixed with (1)(2)(3). I do not claim to know who they actually were, either.

According to the earliest cuneiform writings, that have been found and translated, and within those engravings on the clay tablets and cylinder seals, from ancient Sumeria, was the writing about the Mesopotamian pantheon of Gods. Here, we have Anu or An, the God of the Heavens, and his two wives, who created two Lord Gods and one Goddess, (remember that term, “Lord God,” as it is very important). The two Lord Gods were half-brothers, that came to earth, one before the other, Enki then Enlil. Ninki was the Goddess. Anu is where the duality of nature begins, along with the celestial waters above the firmament mixing. You will also have noticed, that duality stops at En Soph, God, the creator. Those celestial waters were given names of Gods, also, who were the ancestors of Anu. The Lord God, Enki, also known as Ea, the God of intelligence and the waters of the earth, supposedly came to earth first, with several of his fellow Lord Gods, followed later by Enlil, or El, the God of the air, the head deity of the Lord Gods on earth. It was written that Enlil was so powerful, in his aura, that he could hardly be looked upon by the other Lord Gods. The aura was described as a bright flame about him. Here, if you have read the Torah, you can find something very similar in it. You will also find something similar in the ancient religions of other nations, such as Hindu. Some may say that this points to sun, planet, and star worship, but I do not think so, for some cases. They only later associated what was considered living Gods (Kings), with the celestial bodies, in remembrance, but did not claim that they were them, at least at that time, I do not believe. Scholars also say, that these stars were the homes of the Gods. One will never know if these so-called God-Kings actually existed or not. What I can find, is that some early Kings, after death, were supposedly raised to a God like status, by the people, and they named some celestial body for them. Of course, this is not true for all the cases of the different Gods.

In the original Sumerian story of creation, it is written that the Alhim, (Elohim), or Igigi on Earth, (Lord Gods), complained about having to do manual labor, by dredging out the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for 3600 years (6). Some have estimated that they had been doing this, and other work, for several hundred-thousand years. From this, Enlil ordered Enki, and their sister, the Goddess Ninhursag (Ninki), and the birth Goddess, Ninmahand, to create man. Here, they supposedly used a slain or sacrificed Gods blood, (the Lord God, Geshtu-E, who was a minor Lord God of intelligence ) (6), and mixed that with the clay of the earth. Many theorize, that this means that they mixed their DNA, with some living being, already here, such as Neanderthal man. In other words, that clay was a living being that would be “moldable” as clay, to what they wanted. The story goes on to say, that they created seven breeding pairs, not one, and those fourteen new beings, seven men, and seven women, were birthed by females already here. From those seven couples, a breeding program would be undertaken, for these new hybrids.

The womb-goddesses were assembled
He [Enki] trod the clay in her presence;
She [Ninmahand] kept reciting an incantation,
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it.
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces of clay,
And set seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left.
Between them she put down a mud brick [sic]

The new workers were given a place to live, named Edin (Eden), where some say is southeast of Enki’s city, Eridu. Some researchers believe, that Eden is located somewhere near the marshlands, or has been covered by the water of the gulf, that has risen since ancient times. That would be about 205 feet, over the last 10,000 years (62.5 meters) (5). Here, on the coast, you can still find the large reed huts of the indigenous people, today, as they were described in the Sumerian flood story. However, I believe that Edin could have been close to Eridu, as Adam, (Adamu), which was Adapa to the Sumerians, was the King of Eridu, which Enki was the God of. There are plains outside Eridu, and there is Lake Ḥammār just west of Eridu, which is marshland. It’s backwaters reach Eridu. There are also the remains of an ancient river and canal there.


Map showing location of Eridu in relation to the Gulf.


Reed hut of the indigenous people of the marshlands of the Persian Gulf. The tale of Atrahasis and the flood mentions these.


The Persian Gulf, pre-flood, 14,000 BC and earlier. The flood was caused by an inrush of water from the Arabian Sea, through the straight, at some point around 14,000 BCE.

Many histories from ancient people all across the world, from every continent, who would have had no way to communicate or know of each others existence, have a similar creation  and flood story. They all say that these Gods, who came to earth, created and educated man. Who these Lord Gods actually were, and where they were from, I highly doubt that we will ever know the truth of. I have my own personal ideas and opinion as to who they were, but that is not a matter which I wish to debate here.

So, who is God, the En Soph, the creator of all? You look at him every day, day and night, everywhere you look, including at yourself. Jesus supposedly said in two parables, within the Gospel of Thomas, verses 30 and 77:

(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”

(77) Jesus said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”

There is also what God said, in Genesis 6:3:

(3) And the Lord said, “My spirit shall not always strive with [live in] man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” KJV

(3) ADONAI said, “My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore their life span is to be 120 years.” The Complete Jewish Bible, a direct and correct Hebrew to English translation.

The answer to the question of who or what God is, this great hidden truth, is as plain and simple as the nose on your own face. God is not only the maker of the universe, God is the universe, what is behind it, and is maybe creating others. God is the differing waves of energy that make and interact with every bit of matter, wave, particle, or light, and God is consciousness. God is no single star, sun, moon, planet, nor is God a man or a Lord God, since God is all of that combined. Thus, God is the all of nature, itself, where duality ends. Below is the metaphorical truth, written in Isaiah, which has a different meaning of God than that of the Torah.

Isaiah 45:5-9

5. I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me.

6. In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other.

7. Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.

8. Cause the heavens above to drip, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, and let salvation and righteousness be fruitful; let it cause them to sprout together; I, the Lord, have created it.

9. Woe to him who contends with his Creator, a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth, shall the clay say to its potter, “What do you make? And your work has no place (4).”

Thus, God is the all of nature, known and unknown, itself. God is not a he nor a she, as many have called En Soph (infinity). Many have called God Mother Nature, because everything has been created from nature. However, God is sexless and can not be labeled. God has no name, but what man has given En Soph. God is the I AM that I AM, the All, the Logos, the principle and creator of all universal space, time, light, matter, energy, order, creation, and knowledge, which are all parts of En Soph’s self, and simply put, En Soph is nature in its all.

Some may try to claim that this is deism, when that is far from fact. Deists claim that God does not interact or intercede with nature nor humanity. Deists also claim that they do not believe in “superstition” such as prayer, oaths to God, and the three main religions; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Thus, Freemasonry is nothing similar to deism, nor has it ever taught such. (7) Sadly, several Christian church denominations have pushed the belief that Freemasonry is deistic, which is a blatant fabrication and fallacy.

Last, the reader may have a scientific and scholarly education and background in physics, especially quantum physics. One would then recognize Max Planck, and what he had started to discover in 1900, 600 years after the Zohar was published. One would then recognize who took up Planck’s work, Albert Einstein, and those after him. I only ask that you compare what was published in the 13th century, to what Planck and his peers, such as Einstein and those of today, have found by theory, scientific experiment, and mathematical calculation, even the big bang theory and the duality of nature that ends with the creator.

So Mote It Be

Copyright © 2016, and this author freely gives this work to his fraternity, that of Freemasonry, as the owner. The author reserves the right to edit, if necessary.

Videos, which show the connection to Quantum Physics and the duality of nature:

  1. Quantum Theory Made Easy 1
  2. Quantum Theory Made Easy 2
  3. Parallel Universe Theory


  1. Nature, Vol 314, (Peter Andrews, head of the Anthropology, British Museum, Natural History, London) pages 498-499, 4-11-85, Improved timing of hominoid evolution with a DNA clock.
  2. Proc. National Accadamy of Science, USA (written by Howard Hughes Med. Inst, Dept. of Genetics, and Yale Univ.) Vol 88, pages 9051-9055, October 1991, Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
  3. Proc. National Accadamy of Science, USA (written by Univ. of Fla. Dept. iof Zoology, Wayne State Uinv, Detroit, Dept of Molecular Biology, The Upjohn Co., Wanyne State Univ., Dept of Biological Science) Vol 85, pages 7627-7631, October 1988, Molecular systematics of higher primates: Genealogical relations and classification.
  4. Most show a new translation for Isaiah 45:9, (especially Christianity). However, from a direct Hebrew to English translation, it is not speaking of a pot, or finished pottery, that the questioning person is being compared to, but a potsherd (pot shard). Then, “your work has no place”, where some claim that means handles. However, to me, it means that you’re a broken piece of pottery, among the other broken pieces, who have questioned God, and your “work” has no place with God, for questioning him about what he makes. That ties directly into what is being written about, in the following verses.
  5. Modern science has determined that the sea has risen about 125 meters, (410 feet) over the last 20,000 years, starting at the earth’s last Glacial Maximum. See: http://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20in%20Sea%20Level_expanded%20version_template.pdf
  6. The Lord God, Geshtu-E, can be found in the Sumerian writing of The Story of Atrahasis: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/atrahasi.htm
  7. Deism claims that: “the natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the “revealed” religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam” See here for more information.

Who is Lucifer?

Lucifer is like the word, Satan, in regards to it not being a who but a what. The word, Lucifer, is a Latin word meaning Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, or light-bearer. In the Latin Vulgate Bible, Jesus was referred to as the Bright Morning Star at Revelation 22:16, and thus, Lucifer. (1)(2)(11)

The Latin word, Lucifer, is used only once in the King James Version Bible, at Isaiah 14:12, but was used several times in the Latin Vulgate Bible, in the place of Morning Star, Son of the Morning, or Lightbearer, etc. (1)(2)(11)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 14:12, from The Complete Jewish Bible, with Rashi Commentary (The Hebrew text version is included at it’s side):

12) How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

Below, I quote Rabbi Tovia Singer about Isaiah 14:12 (11):

Throughout this and the preceding chapter of Isaiah, the prophet foretells the rise and fall of this arrogant Babylonian king who would use his unbridled power to plunder Jerusalem and destroy its Temple but, ultimately, would suffer a cataclysmic downfall. In 14:12, Nebuchadnezzar is compared to the planet Venus whose light is still visible in the morning, yet vanishes with the rise of the sun. Like the light of Venus, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign shone brilliantly for a short time, yet, as the prophets foretold, it was eventually overshadowed by the nation of Israel whose light endured and outlived this arrogant king who tormented and exiled her.

The KJV Bible has only one mention of Lucifer, at Isaiah 14:12, due to King James VI & Is Hebrew translators at that time. Here, if the translator did not understand a Hebrew word, they referred to the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, and used it. Plus, they had their own ingrained beliefs on the verse, though those were incorrect. Thus, the one inclusion of the word, Lucifer, was over an error in the words true meaning in that verse. However, Isaiah 14:12 is not speaking of Satan, some devil, a fallen angel, nor any anti-God, but it is speaking of the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Light Bearer, or the planet Venus, as the verse compares the rise and fall of the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar II, to how the Morning Star appears before sunrise, and then quickly disappears as dawn breaks. (6)(11) This is proven by verse at Isaiah 14:4: “ That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!” It is needless to say that the Jews do not believe in some anti-God nor devil named Satan, nor Lucifer. John Calvin, the reformist and father of Calvinism, said this about Isaiah 14:12:

The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.“–Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah.

Here, Calvin is referring to Isaiah 14:4.  Martin Luther also considered it a “gross error” to refer to this verse as being about Satan. (2) This is also explained in the footnote for Isaiah 14:12, in the Geneva Bible, which is older than the KJV:

12: Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven [the Babylonian king]: for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.

The word, Lucifer, after its bastardization, became popular in books such as Dante Alighieri’s book, Inferno, Joost van den Vondel’s play, Lucifer, and John Milton’s book, Paradise Lost, thus spreading the fallacy to the multitudes.

Present-day translations have “Morning Star” for Isaiah 14:12, in the bibles New International Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, and the Complete Jewish Bible. It is “daystar” in the New Jerusalem Bible, English Standard Version, and The Message. It is “Day Star” in the New Revised Standard Version. It is “shining one” in the New Life Version, New World Translation, and JPS Tanakh, or “shining star” in the New Living Translation. The King James Version is misunderstood at Isaiah 14:12, due to using the Latin Vulgate’s translation of Isaiah 14, by St. Jerome. Here, St. Jerome translated the Hebrew words, Helel ben Shahar (Morning Star) into the Latin word, luciferos, which isn’t incorrect but misinterpreted by the Protestant clergy. However, it is found that the newer Protestant Bible versions, listed above, are incorrectly translated at other places, such as at Isaiah 45:7, where the KJV is correct.

Lucifer, at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.[sic]

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).[sic]

Lucifer, at the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Septuagint translation of “Helel [read “Helal”] ben Shaḥar” (= “the brilliant one,” “son of the morning”), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel (“Schöpfung und Chaos,” pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2]), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7).[sic]

The familiarity of the people of Palestine with such a myth is shown by the legend, localized on Mount Hermon, the northern mountain of Palestine and possibly the original mountain of the gods in that country, of the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samḥazai (the heaven-seizer) and Azael (Enoch, vi. 6 et seq.; see Fall of Angels). Another legend represents Samḥazai, because he repented of his sin, as being suspended between heaven and earth (like a star) instead of being hurled down to Sheol (see Midr. Abḳir in Yalḳ. i. 44; Raymund Martin, “Pugio Fidei,” p. 564). The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from Vita Adæ et Evæ [Life of Adam and Eve](8) and Slavonic Enoch (xxix. 4, xxxi. 4), where Satan-Sataniel (Samael?) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived “to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble ‘My power’ on high,” Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss (comp. Test. Patr., Benjamin, 3; Ephes. ii. 2, vi. 12). Accordingly Tertullian (“Contra Marrionem,” v. 11, 17), Origen (“Ezekiel Opera,” iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being “cast down from heaven” (Rev. xii. 7, 10; comp. Luke x. 18).

Isaiah 14:12-15 and Lucifer, in the NIV Application Commentary, Bundle 3:

Isaiah 14:12-15. From a contextual standpoint, this pericope concerns the king of Babylon and, accordingly, is placed among the oracles against the nations. It takes the form of a taunt (v. 5 [4]) anticipating the tyrant’s imminent demise. His descent to the netherworld (vv. 9-11) is described with relish. Verses 12-15 refer to his downfall, despite his aspirations to divine grandeur.

Throughout most church history, these verses have been applied to Satan. The earliest appearance of this association can be found in the writings of Origen. Satan’s fall had been discussed earlier by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, but with no obvious references to Isaiah 14. This is not surprising since Satan is mentioned nowhere in the passage. Jewish writings (cf. 2 [2nd] Enoch 29:4-5) had stories of the fall of Satan, but there is no evidence that Isaiah 14 was interpreted in relation to the fall.

The doctrine of Satan’s fall and its association with Isaiah 14 passed into the mainstream of Christian theology through Moralia 34 by Pope Gregory the Great in the seventh century. Once part of popular belief, it is easily passed into the great pieces of literature such as Milton’s Paradise Lost, which sustained its place in theology. The doctrine was also solidified by the way Isaiah 14 was handled in translation. [St.] Jerome, interpreting the difficult Hebrew term, Helel in v. 12 (NIV: “morning star”) as a reference to Venus, used a Latin term for Venus, luciferos, to translate it. As the interpretation of the passage as a reference to Satan became popularized in the centuries following, lucifer was adopted as a variant name for Satan – because that was what Satan was called in the passage!

“Tertullian and other fathers, Gregory the Great, and the scholastic commentators, regarding Luke 10:18 as an explanation of this verse, apply it to the fall of Satan, from which has arisen the popular perversion of the beautiful name lucifer to signify the devil.”–[The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, by Joseph Addison Alexander, PhD, Theology, Princeton University, 1846.]

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the major English translations were being produced, the interpretation was so ingrained that “Lucifer” was retained, even in the KJV. This reinforced to the lay English reader that the passage explicitly concerned Satan.

Despite the wide popular support for this interpretation, there was no lack of opposition. Neither Calvin nor Luther supports the idea that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. Calvin is particularly undiplomatic as his [he] heaps scorn on those who adopt such noncontextual intrusion.

“The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”–[Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah] [sic]

Quoting Pope Gregory the Great, from Moralia, bk. 32, chp. 23, no. 48 on the word, lucifer: “That is why he was called Lucifer [i.e. morning star], as Isaias attests, saying: How have you fallen, Lucifer, who used to rise in the morning, etc.” Here, he was speaking of Isaiah (Isaias) 14:12, and completely destroyed the intent of the verse, which can be found at Isaiah 14:4.

Somewhere along the way, the church clergy tied Luke 10:18 (“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.“) to Isaiah 14:12, because they sounded similar, even though they are about two entirely different circumstances and times, to concoct the lucifer equals satan fallacy. However, it gets deeper, when one actually reads all of Luke, chapter 10, and one can see that this satan or adversary, was Jesus and the apostle’s adversary, and they were the towns and the people mentioned in the scripture that were also called “devils”, such as the people in Capernaum, where in Luke 10:15, Jesus states “And thou, Capernaum, [the city and the people] which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.” Satan is used correctly, here, as the town and people were an adversary or stumbling block to the apostles ministering, which Jesus cursed, saying that he would throw them to hell, where they would fall like lightning, just as the word, satan, was used in Matthew 16:22-23. These verses in Luke, also reminds one of the Hellenist scribe’s, (who wrote Luke), myth of Zeus casting Typhon to Hades, does it not?

Matthew 16:22-23

22) Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23) But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

The above scripture, is the best definition of the Hebrew word, satan, in the New Testament. Here, the word, satan is used exactly as the Hebrews define it, an adversary, or one who impedes others, a “stumbling block”, and not a devil. The Jews have never believed in a devil nor a fallen angel, that creates all evil and sin. Jesus didn’t either, especially since he was a Pharisee, which is mainstream Rabbinical Judaism. It also seems that the Gospel’s scribes had a love for capitalizing the word satan, as if it were someone’s name.

One can clearly see, from the quotes above, that it may have been St. Jerome who started this fallacy, and somehow, this made it to the early Protestants, due the 7th century pope, Gregory the Great, who continued the fallacy of the word. However, the “Fathers,” which are all of the Catholic clergy, and all the way back to the time of St. Jerome, say differently. One can also see that the Hebrew words, Helel ben Shahar, does not equate to a devil or a Satan. However, the Christians use Enoch, for the tale of a devil or “fallen angel” that they named Satan, but turn right around and say that Enoch is not biblical canon, and the book was placed in the apocrypha over it. The church does not reveal that another source for Satan is from the Greek pagan God of the underworld, Hades, later renamed Pluto in the 5th century BCE, who supposedly held souls in a purgatory (a Greek place known as Tartarus) as a punishment, before releasing the soul to go on, nor do they reveal that the fallen angel myth came from the story of the Greek God, Zeus, defeating Typhon, where afterwards, Zeus cast Typhon down into Tartarus, (the underworld or purgatory), which is also similar to the story from the apocryphal books of Enoch, that had its roots in Persian pagan dualistic Zoroastrianism. The Hellenists in the early Catholic church, merged the pagan tales of Hades (Pluto), Zeus defeating Typhon, Enoch, and Zoroaster’s dualism to create a devil or a fallen angel, and all are pagan myths or apocryphal. The Jews have always stated that Enoch is not biblical canon, has its roots in Zoroastrianism, and that it is a fictional or bogus tale, which flies in the face of Gods words in the Tanakh, and that the two books of Enoch, or any other apocryphal books, are not to be believed. I would think that mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, that which grew from the Pharisees, know more about the Jewish books and Judaism, than the early Christians such as Paul, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, or even St. Jerome. Look at the mistake of St. Jerome, where he used a mistranslation of the Hebrew noun helel, by using the verb yalal, which means “to lament.”

Below is from A History of Zoroastrianism, The Early Period By Mary Boyce, Prof. Iranian Studies, University of London, 1996:



From the Jewish Encyclopedia on Enoch:

“Apocryphal works attributed to Enoch. From Gen. v. 24 (“Enoch walked with God” and “God took him”) a cycle of Jewish legends about Enoch was derived, which, together with apocalyptic speculations naturally ascribed to such a man, credited with superhuman knowledge, found their literary expression in the Books of Enoch. ….These legends, a more popular form of tradition, are, however, not preserved unimpaired, but are strongly influenced and developed by the literary traditions which deal mainly with apocalyptic ideas.”

On the Ethiopic Enoch:

“By about 300 [AD] the Christian Church began to discredit the book, and after the time of the Greek fathers Syncellus and Cedrenus, who cite it (ninth century), it was entirely lost until (1773), [where] the traveler Bruce discovered in Abyssinia two manuscripts of the book. In the nineteenth century several editions and translations were made, and many critical inquiries into its contents published.”

On the Slavonic Enoch:

“The book was probably written between 50 B.C. and 70 A.D.; the first date is given by the fact that Ethiopic Enoch, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are used; the second by the fact that the destruction of the Temple is not mentioned at all. The quotations from Slavonic Enoch in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which Charles uses as additional evidence in establishing the date, are strongly doubted by Schürer. The Slavonic Enoch furnishes new material for the study of religious thought in Judaism about the beginning of the common era. The ideas of the millennium and of the seven heavens are the most important in this connection; both have been treated in detail by Charles in his introduction and commentary, published together with Morfill’s translation. Another very interesting feature is the presence of evil in heaven—the fallen angels in the second heaven, and hell in the third. This belief, although probably at first current among the Christians also, was, together with the idea of the seven heavens, afterward rejected by the Church.”

Quoting Merriam-Websters on apocrypha:

In Bible study, the term “Apocrypha” refers to sections of the Bible that are not sanctioned as belonging to certain official canons. In some Protestant versions these sections appear between the Old and New Testaments. More generally, the word refers to writings or statements whose purported origin is in doubt. Consequently, the adjective “apocryphal” describes things like legends and anecdotes that are purported to be true by way of repeated tellings but that have never been proven or verified and therefore most likely are not factual. Both “apocrypha” and “apocryphal” derive via Latin from the Greek verb apokryptein, meaning “to hide away,” from “kryptein” (“to hide”). [sic]

Next, I quote the testimony of the Anglican Bishop Burnet, in his 70th year, speaking about the newly ordained clergy, in 1713, and their lack of education on biblical theology and history. These are the same Protestants who pushed the lucifer fallacy:

[They] are the burden and grief of my life…the much greater part of those (the Clergy) that come to be ordained, are ignorant to a degree not to be apprehended by those who are not obliged to know it. They can give no account, or at least a very imperfect one, even of the contents of the Gospels. Those who have read some few books, yet, never seem to have read the scriptures; many can not give a tolerable account even of the catechism itself how short and plain soever.__”An Historical Sketch of the Churches and Intemperance, by Thomas Tregaskis, 1844.”

Bishop Burnet was giving testimony, in 1713, 102 years after the first printing of the KJV Bible in 1611, and it seems that the clergy are not much better off educated today, in the 21st century. When researching this topic, I ran across a discussion about this at the baptistboard dot com, and had a good laugh. One KJV Only commentator made this statement to another: “Did you read Isaiah 14:12 in Hebrew for yourself?” Why yes, I most certainly did, both the Hebrew and the translated English, along with picking up the Jewish Encyclopedia on the topic. This is the type of KJV Only hot-head that spreads this ignorance folks. Even those on the forum, whom were semi-correct, could not wrap their minds around the reason why Jesus referred to himself as the Morning Star. Really?

Later, in the late 1890s, Léo Taxil, a pen name for Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès, created a hoax against Freemasonry and the Catholic church, based on the use of the word, Lucifer, by Albert Pike, a Freemason, who had become the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite’s Southern Jurisdiction, in 1859. (3)(4)(5) Here, Albert Pike wrote in his book, Morals & Dogma, questioning why the word, Lucifer, was used for the name of the spirit of darkness.

Quoting Albert Pike and his book, Morals & Dogma:

The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Zohar. It is written hieroglyphically, with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. “Let him who hath knowledge, understand! Let him who understands, calculate”, he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore, did not write to be understood by the multitude. [sic]

As one can clearly see, Pike mentions that those taking the nineteenth degree, think that Lucifer is the name of some Satan or devil. He then goes on to reveal the truth, in that the word, Lucifer, does not mean this, but it does mean light-bearer, in Latin, or the Roman and Greek astrological Morning Star, Venus, Son of the Morning. What brought Pike into trouble, was calling Lucifer a “he,” (which the use of in the Apocalypse is correct),  and Taxil used this to his advantage, in the Taxil Hoax, knowing of the peoples ignorance to the truth. Pike did not write anything that stated that Freemasonry worshiped a devil, Lucifer, or Satan, as the hoax claimed.

What did Pike mean, then, by stating that the word Lucifer was a “he?” He was referring to the Apocalypse, which is the Catholic title for the book of Revelation in the Latin Vulgate bible, which Pike mentions in this very paragraph. If we look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, it mentions that Lucifer refers: “finally to Jesus Christ himself 2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:16.” So, what Pike actually meant, was that Jesus was the Morning Star and Son of the Morning, in the Apocalypse, and Pike asks if that it was “he” who was bearing the light, and was blinding the feeble minds or souls of the sensual and selfish (sinners). This is what Pike actually wrote about in his book, and not the spirit of darkness, some Satan, nor some anti-God. Pike even states that the Apocalypse was not meant to be understood, just as Pike is hiding this truth about what the word, Lucifer, means within his writing. He shows that those Protestants who are taking the 19th degree, think that the word, Lucifer, equates to Satan, and they are incorrect in that thinking. Of course, many Protestant churches like to deny that Jesus was ever called Lucifer, when he was, in fact, by calling himself the Bright Morning Star, and those in the many churches and synagogues of Europe, such as the Catholic and Jewish, tried to tell them so, including two well renowned Protestant church leaders, Calvin and Luther. King James’ Hebrew translators had been indoctrinated into the Lucifer equals Satan myth, and thus mistranslated Isaiah 14:12 the way they did, over their ingrained belief, even though they were most emphatically incorrect!

Apocalypse – Revelation 22:16, Latin Vulgate

(16) I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you the assurance of this in your churches; I, the root, I, the offspring of David’s race, I, the bright star that brings in the day. [English]

(16) Ego Jesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis hæc in ecclesiis. Ego sum radix, et genus David, stella splendida et matutina. [Latin]

The day star, the “bright star that brings in the day”, or the “stella splendida et matutina“, is the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, the Latin Lucifer meaning light-bearer, a planet that is only viewable in the morning, just before dawn, and which finally disappears with the light of dawn. That is why the King of Babylon was compared to it, as it looked like he quickly rose and fell like the Morning Star, Venus, in Isiah 14:12. (11) Jesus the Nazarite, too, rose and fell quickly, dying by the age of 34 (4 BC-30 AD).

Later, A. E. Waite completely debunked this hoax, in his book: Devil Worship in France, London, 1896 (7). I give credit to Waite, here, even though he was not a well thought of Freemason, over his other views and writing. Taxil had also been found out, and debunked by the Catholic Bishop of Charleston, SC, The Right Rev. Henry P. Northrop, and by the Monsignor, the Apostolic Vicar of Gibraltar, Gonzalo Canilla. (9) Even Taxil’s friend and hoax conspirator, Dr. Charles Hacks, (whose pen name was Dr. Bataille), even admitted to the fraud, and said that he had helped to write The Devil in the Nineteenth Century, and that there was money to be made on the “known credulity and unknown idiocy of the Catholics.” (10) Afterwards, many in the clergy started to wise up, and they began to hold Taxil at an arms length, plus they began to silence themselves about Taxil’s claims. After Taxil was exposed, and he saw the hoax starting to crumble, he called a large press conference at the Hall of the Geographic Society in Paris, France, on April 19th, 1897, claiming that he would produce Mrs. Diana Vaughan, the heroine written about in the books, but instead, he made a full confession to the press and the clergy about the hoax. He stated that Diana was a fabrication, and that he had used the name of his typist. He revealed this before the church and the pope had the opportunity to try to silence the press, and thus, silence the truth. For further information, see the article on the Taxil Hoax. (4)(5)


  1. Lucifer at Encyclopedia Britannica
  2. Lucifer at Wikipedia
  3. Léo Taxil at Encyclopedia.com
  4. Taxil Hoax at Wikipedia
  5. The Confession of Léo Taxil at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon
  6. Isaiah, chap. 14, at The Complete Jewish Bible
  7. AE Waite, Devil Worship in France, 1896.
  8. Vita Adæ et Evæ, or the Life of Adam and Eve, also known, in its Greek version, as the Apocalypse of Moses, along with the Enoch books, are a Jewish pseudepigraphical group of apocryphal writings. They have a false authorship and they are fictional works, thus, noncanonical.
  9. Taxil admitted, at the conference in Paris, that both the Bishop of Charleston and Vicar of Gibraltar had caught him red handed, in the hoax. See the complete transcription for Taxil’s confession about the hoax.
  10. Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World, New York University Press, 2014, by Kembrew McLeod.
  11. Rabbi Tovia Singer, Who is Satan.

Who is Satan?

Updated: 12-02-16

Now, one may ask, who is Satan? I will be very blunt in answering this; there is no Satan, as Satan is not a who, especially in Judaism and the ancient religions of the Levant, (11) nor in Mesopotamia. In these early religions, there was no such thing as an anti-God, or some anti-deity or devil, that always opposes the will of God, and who drags sinners into some burning hell, after death, to forever punish. (11) The two religions that would have believed in an anti-God was those of the pagan Roman and Greek people, (Hellenists), and those who practiced pagan Zoroastrianism, which was mainly in what is now, Iran, and was their state religion by 600 BCE. (11)(12)(13) Zoroastrianism had reached Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, Macedonia, Lydia (eastern Turkey), Cyprus, and to the borders of Greece over the reach of the Persian Empire conquering the lands by 500 BCE. Over this, the Greeks had the Persian pagan Zoroastrianism religious belief intermixed with their own pagan and pantheistic God of the underworld and wealth, Hades. Thus, they had pagan dualism in their religion from both sources. (12)(13) Hades was said to be known of as far back as Homer’s mythical Iliad (in print during the 8th century BCE, but the story is said to go back to circa 1260–1180 BCE). However, by the 5th century BCE, due to fear of the name, they called Hades by a new name, Plouton (Pluto), just as the Persians had conquered the lands close to Greece.

Zoroastrianism had also reached the many islands between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean Sea. One island in particular, Patmos, was where John of Patmos wrote the Apocalypse (Revelation). (12) The Apocalypse mirrors the pagan and dualistic end of times story of God fighting an anti-God in Zoroastrianism. However, some scholars believe that this Greco-Roman Zoroastrian apocalyptic theme was used to write about the downfall of Nero Caesar, (Roman Emperor from 54-68 AD), along with the downfall of the Roman Empire at his time, and not a devil. In the story, in this case, it is Nero Caesar that is being called the satan, anti-God, or anti-Christ, where his name equates 666 in Aramaic numerology. Some will try to cite the book of Daniel, claiming that it is linked to John’s apocalypse, and state that the Apocalypse is futuristic over this, but the text of Daniel was actually written after and while things were occurring, and was a metaphor for those occurrences, so it was not a prophecy about the future of a coming messiah. Scholars state that Daniel never existed, and that the author of the cryptic text was writing about the Greek king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). That is confirmed by Judaic and other history. There was a reason why the Orthodox Christians did not want the Apocalypse (Revelation) to be added to the Bible.


The word, satan, is a Hebrew word, a noun from a verb or descriptive title, meaning adversary, nothing more. In the Tanakh, it is always written as “ha-satan or הַשָּׂטָן” (hstn), which means “the adversary”, but in Kings, it is written as “satan or שָׂטָן” (stn), where it means an army. Another way to describe the word, satan, is any adversary, which can be anyone or anything. (1)(4)

Below, I quote Elaine Pagels, PhD, (10) from her book, “The Origin of Satan,” 1995:

In biblical sources, the Hebrew term, “the satan” [ha-satan], describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers, as early as the sixth century B.C.E., occasionally introduced a supernatural character, whom they called “the satan”; what they meant, was any one of the angels sent by God, for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. [sic]

Next, I quote, Dr. Helen Bond, M.Theol. PhD, Univ. of Edinburgh, Scotland:

There’s no kind of prince of darkness; somebody who stands in opposites to God. Throughout most of the texts, there’s no concept, at all, of an evil force.__Quote from “The History Of The Devil.” [sic]

Within the Tanakh, the word, satan, is not used but in very few instances, and I will name a few here. In one place, and one of the most important, is in Job, where “ha-satan” (hstn) was an unnamed angel, who “questions the sincerity of mankind’s loyalty to God, by putting forth the argument, that any given human is only loyal because God gives her or him prosperity”. (1) To this, God agrees, and commands this angel to cause “various misfortunes upon Job, as a test of his faith”. (1) Here, the angel’s name was not Satan. Quoting Job 1:6: Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary [ha-satan], too, came among them.” In 1 Chronicles 21:1, the satan, ha-satan, entices or “moved” David into taking a census. This is peculiar, because the same story that was told 500 years earlier, gave God as doing this deed (remember this). (1) In 1 Samuel 29:4, the Philistines state: “lest he [David] be an adversary against us”, so here, David is the adversary or the satan, “ha-satan”. In 1 Kings 11:14, it states that God “stirred up” an adversary or a satan upon Solomon. Last, satan was used to describe an army, in 1 Kings 5:17-18, where it does not mean a devil nor a singular person.

1 Kings 5:17-18, from The Complete Jewish Bible, with the full correct Hebrew to English translation, and with both scriptures compared:

(17) You knew my father, David, that he could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God, because of the wars which surrounded him, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet.

(18) And now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side, (there is) neither adversary nor evil occurrence.

Above, the adversary is satan, or in Hebrew, שָׂטָן

Job 1:6-9, from The Complete Jewish Bible:

(6) Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them.

(7) The Lord said to the Adversary, “Where are you coming from?” And the Adversary answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it.”

(8) Now the Lord said to the Adversary, “Have you paid attention to My servant Job? For there is none like him on earth, a sincere and upright man, God-fearing and shunning evil.”

(9) And the Adversary answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing?”

The original Hebrew does not say Satan, but ha-satan, in Job. Here “the satan” is ha-satan, or Hstn, which, in Hebrew, is: הַשָּׂטָן

The Christian use of a devil, named Satan, an anti-God or fallen angel for that matter, came from the early church’s Hellenistic clergy, such as Paul of Tarsus (5-67 AD), Philo of Alexandria, (25 BC-50 AD), Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Origen Adamantius of Alexandria (185-254 AD), and Tertullian of Rome (155-240 AD), whom, like Paul, were Hellenists. (8) Paul taught a Hellenistic Christian view at Antioch, after he was converted, where it flourished. The Hellenism of the Greeks and Romans taught of many pagan Gods, and one in particular was Hades, the Greek God of the underworld. Here, Hades supposedly held souls in a purgatory (a Greek place known as Tartarus) as a punishment, before releasing the soul to go on. The Jews had something only slightly similar to a purgatory, in that, after death, a wicked soul would drift around the Gehenna, (Hebrew Ge Hinnom), for a few days, which is a small valley outside the walls of Jerusalem, (derived from the valley of the son of Hinnom), which had rubbish heaps set alight, where the sinful soul would drift around, and become purified after a few days before going on. (That valley is now built up with homes, see the photo below). The Christians ignore this, and call Gehenna Hell or Purgatory. There is no punishment of hell fire and brimstone in Judaism, nor some anti-God, devil, nor fallen angel creating it at the Gehenna in Judaism. (11) Judaism states that the soul will either dwell in the Sheol, or will go to God. (22) Later, around the second temple period, a belief in resurrection came into being for the Pharisees and the Essenes, who argued against the beliefs of the Sadducees. According to Josephus, who was a Pharisee that defected to the Roman side, thus acquiring their Hellenistic and other teachings, he stated that: “the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people will be reincarnated,” and “pass into other bodies,” while, “the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment.” There was some belief of this in ancient Sumeria. Next, we have Paul, who also claimed to be a Pharisee (8), and states at 1 Corinthians 15:44, when speaking about the resurrection, what “is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” Paul then states at 1 Corinthians 15:50: “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” In other words, a dead body will not be raised to go to heaven, only the soul. In Acts 24:15, Paul, in his defense to Felix, stated: “And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” Here, though, by his other writing, he meant the resurrection of the dead’s soul. The difference is, that Paul preached an end of time resurrection, that some Jews did not believe in, and that the book of Jubilees “seems to refer to the resurrection of the soul only, or to a more general idea of an immortal soul.” (5) (22)

When we look at what Josephus wrote, one can see his use of the Greco-Roman Hellenistic influenced punishment by Hades, after death, and he had a not widely held belief in reincarnation, which is generally from the Hindu religion, (see the Persian Hindu Kush region on map), that came to the Levant with the Persians, though reincarnation was also mentioned in ancient Sumerian writing in a hymn to the Goddess Nungal. Next, we have Paul, whose knowledge of Judaism has been questioned by several biblical scholars, especially Rabbis, over his writing, though Paul claimed to be trained in Rabbinical Judaism, that of the Pharisees. In this instance, though, Paul was correct, in that after death, the soul leaves the body and goes on, just as Rabbinical Judaism teaches, and the ancient Sumerians. One can find proof of this at Ecclesiastes 12:7: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Also, there is Genesis 6:3, which states: And the Lord [Adonai] said, My spirit shall not always strive with [live in] man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Thus, as God states, when one dies, the soul, a part of God’s own spirit, leaves the body. The few instances of a resurrection, in the Tanakh, was about a resuscitated body at that time, and not at a later end of time resurrection. (21) Thus, the soul is gone before the body is buried or entombed. It leaves at the time of death.


The “Ge Hinnom” or Gehenna, which is a small valley outside the old walls of Jerusalem, also known as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. It is now built up with homes.

The very mention of an anti-God, fallen angel, or anti-deity goes completely against early Rabbinical Judaism, (doctrine of the Pharisees), which is what Jesus preached a form of, along with his brother, James, and also, Peter. (11) In Isaiah 45:7, God said that he was the one to “form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (2)(3)(11) All the way through the scripture of Tanakh, it is written this way, in that God commands the evil to be done, by a satan, an adversary, which can be anyone or anything, (such as an army), and that man makes his own sin, different than God’s evil, since God gave man free will. Sin is nothing more than breaking the old sacred laws of the land; laws much older than Judaism. The Ten Commandments originated from these older Assyrian and Sumerian laws. (11) To believe in some evil entity, such as an anti-God or anti-deity, who is always trying to counter God or who creates evil and sin, is dualistic, paganistic, polytheistic, and pantheistic. (11) It would also be considered blasphemy, by saying that God did not do or state what he stated he did in Isaiah 45:7. Evidently, the early Christian church leaders did not care about this scripture, nor about going against the doctrine in Tanakh, including Paul, as he admitted to doing anything to gain a convert, even lying or stealing. In Acts, it states that James and Peter made Paul agree to keep the old Jewish and Noahchide law at the Council of Jerusalem, but he broke his word after he left, and still preached and wrote things that were Hellenistic. On top of this, after the early churches clergy invented a Christian devil, (Hades and Typhon renamed Satan), the church used it to its advantage and sold indulgences to the rich, telling them that their soul would not have to stop off in purgatory to be punished, by Satan, once the Pope or clergy signed the indulgence.

Below, I quote Rabbi Tovia Singer, on the subject of satan:

Although this well-known Christian doctrine has much in common with the pagan Zoroastrian Persian dualism from which it spawned, it is completely alien to the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. In fact, this Christian notion that [the] Satan, in an act of outright defiance, ceased to function as God had intended him to, suggests that God created something imperfect or defective. [sic]

Next, I quote Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple:

The word Satan figures in the Hebrew Bible, but not as a proper name. As a noun it denotes an adversary; as a denominative verb, to oppose or obstruct or be hostile. It is sometimes used in a human sense; in Psalm 109:6, for instance, it suggests the counsel for the prosecution in a court of law. [sic]

Below, is the scripture that states who creates evil:

 Isaiah 45:5-8, KJV

(5) “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

(6) “That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

(7) “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(8) “Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

There are also these other verses that back up Isaiah 45:5-8:

Lamentations 3:37-38, KJV

(37) Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? (38) Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”

Deuteronomy 30:15, KJV

(15) See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.”

Amos 3:6 KJV

(6) Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Exodus 9:14 KJV

(14) For I [God] will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.”

However, there is a bit of New Testament scripture, that those who preach about a mythical devil, named Satan, can’t wiggle out of.

Matthew 16:22-23

(22) Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” (23) But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Peter was no devil, nor was he a fallen angel, but he was impeding Jesus as an adversary, or a “stumbling block”. Here, the word is most assuredly used correctly, just as it is when spoken by any Jew, whom speaks Hebrew today.

Also, the church clergy tied Luke 10:18 KJV (“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”) Latin Vulgate: (et ait illis videbam Satanan sicut fulgur de caelo cadentem;  And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven). to Isaiah 14:12, because they sounded similar, even though they are about two entirely different circumstances and times, to concoct the lucifer equals satan fallacy. However, it gets deeper, when one actually reads all of Luke, chapter 10, and one can see that this satan or adversary was Jesus and the apostle’s adversary, and this same adversary was the townspeople mentioned in the scripture that were also called “devils” or daemonia from plural of δαίμων in the Latin Vulgate, such as the people in Capernaum, where in Luke 10:15, Jesus states “And thou, Capernaum, [the city and the people] which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.” Latin Vulgate: (et tu Capharnaum usque in caelum exaltata usque ad infernum demergeris;  And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell). The word, satan is used correctly, here, (except for the capitalization), as the town and people were an adversary or stumbling block to the apostles ministering, which Jesus cursed, saying that he would throw them to hell, where he said that he saw that they would fall like lightning, just as the word, satan, was used in Matthew 16:22-23. These verses in Luke, also reminds one of the Hellenist scribe’s, (who wrote Luke), myth of Zeus casting Typhon to Hades, does it not? It seems that those Hellenist Gospel scribes loved capitalizing the word, satan, as if it was a proper name, when it is not.

Yet, the very Christian churches, whom use the Christian Bible that contains the scripture quoted above, believe in a false God, an anti-God, demigod, or fabricated Hellenist fallen angel, that God supposedly has no control over, something imperfect, a mistake that God created, when laying evil to an entity. God creates evil, God does not make mistakes, and God has control of all, as the creator states in Isaiah 45:7. Those very pastors and priests love telling the laity that the Old Testament should not be read, only the New, and one wonders why? Why was the Tanakh even included in the Bible, if one was not meant to read and understand it? What a contradiction!

Next, we have the Christian apologetics, who claim that a physical satan is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21:1, and that it is an angel’s name. However, that is not so, when we look at the earlier source for this, 2 Samuel 24:1, which was written anywhere from 200 to 500 years earlier. Let us have a look at the two.

1 Chronicles 21:1

(1) And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (written 400–250 BC)

2 Samuel 24:1

(1) And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (written 700 BC to 550 BC)

In this instance, God was the satan or the adversary. This is a well known argument by the Christian apologetic, where they try to deny that God was called satan, or a satan, but in fact, he was, as the book of Samuel is much older, and is the source for the Chronicler. Any Rabbi will explain the same thing.

It is said that the belief of the satan, or the adversary becoming a devil, or an anti-God or fallen angel, sprang from Persian Zoroastrianism, and made its way into at least one sect of Judaism, the Essenes, before the time of Christ, and some believe that Jesus and the apostles believed in this, over what is written in the New Testament. However, Jesus was a Pharisee and a Nazarite, who was from the people whom became the “Nazarene sect” of Galilee, after Jesus’ death, and not the Essenes. The scripture of the New Testament, especially the Gospel of Mark, the oldest, which the other Gospel writers copied, was written after Jesus and the apostles were dead, generally about a year after their death, by the early Hellenistic Catholic scribes, whom believed in Greco-Roman and Zoroaster’s dualism, and their pantheistic God, Hades (renamed Pluto). The fallen angel myth came from the story of Zeus defeating Typhon, where Zeus cast Typhon down into Tartarus, (the underworld or purgatory), which is also similar to the story from the apocryphal books of Enoch, that also had its roots in Persian Zoroastrianism. We know from the book of Acts, that both James and Peter still associated and consulted with Rabbis, in Jerusalem, when they were asking about what the Judaic laws should be, for which the newly converted Jews and Gentiles must abide by, in order to be seen as clean and holy. Mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, that of the Pharisees such as in Jerusalem, did not believe in the pagan devil, a fallen angel, nor any anti-God, as the Hellenized Essenes had started to believe in. Peter was a Galilean Jew, who founded the church at Antioch, but we know from Acts that he did not agree with what was being taught there by Paul. The Tosaphist, Rabbi Tam, wrote that Peter was “a devout and learned Jew, who dedicated his life to guiding gentiles along the proper path.” The Galileans became known as the fourth sect of Judaism, the fanatical Zealots, which was formed by either Hezekiah during the time of Herod (73 BCE–4 BCE), or it was later developed more by his son, Judas of Galilee, around 6 AD, (18) whom were supposedly a strict form of the Pharisees that were fanatically against the Greco-Roman Hellenists. Those Nazarites (apostles and followers), who became the Nazarene Sect after Jesus’ death, were located within these Galilean borders. (18) The Zealots had a “zeal” for the strictness of Jewish Law, and they were strict to enforce it, along with being against all forms of Hellenism (Greek and Roman theology). (18) James (James the Just), Jesus’ brother, was from the same area, and of the same beliefs. James was titled as the “Bishop of Bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere”. The Gospel of Thomas states that Jesus made his brother, James, the leader of his church, not Peter, though Peter was in Jerusalem with James. To me, this sheds much doubt that Jesus, James, nor Peter believed in the Hellenist thoughts of the Essenes, as it is known that the Nazarites did not believe in many of the things that the Essenes did. Some state that John the Baptist, who taught Jesus, was an Essene, (20) but according to several scholars, that has not been proven, and that he was most likely a Pharisee who believed in ancient baptism, or cleansing by water. (19) According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “the angel Gabriel announced John’s birth to Zacharias [his father] while the priest stood at the altar offering incense, and told him that this child would be a Nazarite for life.” (20) Thus, John the Baptist upheld and taught the doctrine of the Nazarites. At Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus states that he was a Pharisee, taught the doctrine of the Pharisees, and stated that not one jot or tittle should be changed in the Jewish law. Since it was John the Baptist who taught Jesus, one can make a conclusion from this.

Christian literalists go on to say that satan was the serpent in the tree of knowledge in Eden. This idea comes from the Jewish pseudepigraphic and apocryphal books titled 1st and 2nd Enoch, first written around 200-300 BC, but some of it later,  (which are not biblical canon to either the Jews nor most Christians, and are tied to Persian Zoroastrianism), and the book of Genesis. Judaism considers Enoch a work of fiction or bogus, and the Torah’s books, such as Genesis, are all metaphorical and allegorical, thus, they can not be taken literally. The final version of the Torah was written by the Jews, to cover up their earlier practice of pantheism and polytheism, after or during their captivity at Babylon. Before their captivity, during their first twelve kings, many worshiped more than one God, and believed in the pantheon of ancient Mesopotamia that had spread to Canaan. Afterwards, they declared El or Elil (Ellil in some writing) to be their National God, becoming monotheistic. Here, the God, Enlil, became the Canaanite God, Ellil or Elil, (both meaning the God of the air), and the Jewish God, El of the Elohim (6)(7)(9), where they later merged the stories of the Gods Anu, Enlil and Enki into one. The serpent of Genesis is not found in the original Sumerian creation story, as it was Enlil’s half-brother, the God Enki, (the God of wisdom and the waters, not of the underworld), who had started to educate man, after he and his sister, Ninhursag (Belit-ili), the womb Goddess, (14) had created man and woman on Enlil’s orders. The snake has always been an ancient symbol for knowledge, and it is metaphorically placed into the tree to show that it is the tree of knowledge, in place of Enki. Thus, the books of Enoch are shown to be what they are, completely fictional and nonfactual, with an unknown author, which is why they are in the apocrypha! Another instance of this, was that Enlil sent the plagues and the flood, and Enki told Utnapishtim / Ziusudra / Atrahasis or Atra-Hasis to build an ark to save the humans. Atrahasis or Utnapishtim, later, became the Noah of the Jews. A good bit of the metaphorical Torah can be found in the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian epics and stories, though the Jews changed them around, and renamed the characters to Jewish names, to suit their religion.

There was a Mesopotamian God of the underworld, supposedly fathered by Enlil, named Nergal; syncretised with the God Birtum, (Birtu, Birdu, the same God as Nergal). However, Nergal is not similar to any anti-God, nor a devil, as a punisher of wicked souls. Birtum had a consort, the Goddess Nungal (Queen of the Ekur), (23) and of the underworld, who held the tablet of life and judged the wicked. Ekur means “mountain house of the Gods” similar to Greek Mythology. Nergal was worshiped in some parts of Mesopotamia. Also, this Gods popularity seems to have died out and had never spread that far, as his stories were merged with the God, Ninurta. Both of these Gods were also known as the God of War and destruction, and Nergal was associated with the planet, Mars. They had more in common with Enlil. Thus, as the ancient religions spread west, Nergal/Ninurta, later become the Greek God, Mars, the God of war. The Goddess, Nungal, may have ended up becoming the root of the Greek God, Hades. However, other minor God’s stories were intermixed with Nungals. Curiously, Enlil supposedly fathered another God, the Baal of Tyre named Melqart, who Jezebel worshiped. Most likely, Melqart was a God created by merging the tales of Anu, Enlil, Enki, and the other Gods, the same as the Jews had done with Anu, Enlil, and Enki. The worship of Melqart, was what brought about the war that led the Jews to declaring a National God, El or Elil, (Enlil). Enlil was the same God who brought war and destruction to Ur, over worshiping false idols, and who Abraham swore his allegiance to in Mesopotamia. The Babylonians had created the same type of merged God, with their God, Marduk, who they proclaimed was their National God. It is also said that Zoroaster did the same, by combining or merging all the ancient Persian Gods into two, thus creating his dualistic Gods named “Ahura Mazda” and “Angra Mainyu or Ahriman.” Later, the Persians claimed that their enemies, such as in war, were Ahriman or “devil” worshipers in their propaganda. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

From this use of the word, “satan”, as an anti-God, one can date the authorship of the New Testament books to be written after Jesus and the apostles were dead, somewhere around 70 AD to 170 AD, after the second temple fell, when the new Christian church’s Hellenistic writers would have invented an anti-God, by changing the name of Hades or Pluto into Satan, and using Zeus defeating Typhon and casting him to Tartarus, for the story of a fallen angel. This supported the Persian Zoroastrian myth of an anti-God, and later, a devil. Biblical theory states that this Satan was created to convert the Greek and Roman pagan polytheists to Christianity, who believed in Hades, along with the Persian Zoroastrians. Here, it followed the story of the Persian Magi, Zoroaster, who suggests the dualistic belief that there are two Gods, one evil and one good, whom are always fighting. (12)  Zoroastrianism also spoke of a tale similar to the apocalypse, with two God fighting at the end of time. (11)(12) The early Catholic church also used this mythical Satan as a scare tactic, to provoke people into converting, as now they had a supernatural villain who would punish the convert’s soul, badly, for an eternity in the afterlife, if they did not follow the new church and its dogma. Worse, the Catholic church’s pope and clergy sold indulgences, which the rich purchased, that supposedly gave them a pass on punishment, or bought a deceased ones freedom through or from the mythical pagan purgatory, where this pagan Satan (Hades or Pluto) supposedly punished the sinners, before letting the soul go on. They made much money from this, and it is the primary reason for Luther’s ninety-five theses. This, then, developed into Protestantism, which led to the Enlightenment, and the revolutions in Europe and the United States.

A sample of Christian Americans were polled by Barna on their Christian belief. Many still affirmed that God is the all-powerful Creator, but a mere 17 percent of the Catholics, 18 percent Methodists, 20 percent Episcopalians, 21 percent Lutherans, and 22 percent of the Presbyterians, told Barna, that they thought Satan was real.” (16) That poll was in 2001.

Also, from another poll: “The notion that Satan, or the devil, is a real being who can influence people’s lives, is regarded as hogwash by most Americans. Only one-quarter (27%) strongly believes that Satan is real, while a majority argues that he is merely a symbol of evil. Mormons are the group most likely to accept the reality of Satan’s existence (59%) while Catholics, Episcopalians and Methodists are the least likely (just one-fifth). (17)

The New Testament tells us where sin and evil originate, and it is not some anti-God or fallen angel. We can find the truth of the matter in both Mark and Matthew below.

Mark 7:21-23 KJV

(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, (22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: (23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Matthew 15:18 KJV

(18) But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. (19) For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

There is an old saying of mine that goes along with the above two pieces of scripture, and that is: “out of heart, out of mind”. Sin is created by man alone, within his mind, by his ego, vanity, greed, hate, bigotry, want, and jealousy. When man acts upon this, he is his own satan. A sinner is nothing but a criminal who has broken the ancient laws (the Commandments) listed within the Volume of Sacred Law.

Last, I end with a famous quote by Gerald Messandé: “The framework of the three monotheisms [Essene Judaism, Christianity, Islam] had been erected. The Devil’s birth certificate was filled out by an Iranian prophet”.


  1. Satan at New World Encyclopedia
  2. Isaiah chap. 45, at the Bible Hub
  3. Isaiah chap. 45, at The Complete Jewish Bible
  4. Satan at Encyclopedia Britannica
  5. Resurrection at Wikipedia
  6. Enlil at Wikipedia
  7. Enlil at New World Encyclopedia
  8. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Paul was a hellenist, though he claimed to be a Pharisee.
  9. “Enlil appears frequently in ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Canaanite, and other Mesopotamian clay and stone tablets. His name was sometimes rendered as Ellil in later Akkadian, Hittite, and Canaanite literature.” See Here.
  10. Elaine Pagels née Hiesey, born Palo Alto, California, February 13, 1943, is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. She is the recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship. She received her PhD in religion from Harvard University, in 1970.
  11. Rabbi Tovia Singer, from Outreach Judaism, on who satan is.
  12. Breyan Rennie: Zoroastrianism: The Iranian Roots of Christianity? Dept. of Religion, Westminster College, New Wilimington, PA., 2007
  13. Mary Boyce: A History of Zoroastrianism vol III, 1985.
  14. Ninhursag, also spelled Ninhursaga, (Sumerian) Akkadian Belit-ili. Encyclopedia Britannica.
  15. The Story of Atrahasis, Grand Valley State University.
  16. Barna Poll on U.S. Religious Belief—2001, Uwe Siemon-Netta, UPI. Retrieved from http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html May 21, 2007.
  17. Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination, http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html June 25, 2001
  18. Zealot, at the Jewish Encyclopedia.
  19. Marshall, I. H.; Millard, A. R.; Packer, J. I. (eds.). “John the Baptist”. New Bible Dictionary (Third ed.). IVP reference collection. ISBN 0-85110-636-6
  20. John the Baptist, at the Jewish Encyclopedia.
  21. See 1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37, and 2 Kings 13:21.
  22. “Like all ancient peoples, the early Hebrews believed that the dead go down into the underworld [Sheol] and live there a colorless existence (comp. Isa. xiv. 15-19; Ezek. xxxii. 21-30). Only an occasional person, and he an especially fortunate one, like Enoch or Elijah, could escape from Sheol, and these were taken to heaven to the abode of Yhwh, where they became angels (comp. Slavonic Enoch, xxii.). In the Book of Job first the longing for a resurrection is expressed (xiv. 13-15), and then, if the Masoretic text may be trusted, a passing conviction that such a resurrection will occur (xix. 25, 26).” and farther in the text concerning later thoughts of resurrection, “By means of the “dew of resurrection” (see Dew) the dead will be aroused from their sleep (Yer. Ber. v. 9b; Ta’an. i. 63d, with reference to Isa. xxvi. 19; Ḥag. 12b. with reference to Ps. lxviii. 10 [A. V. 9]). As to the question, Who will be raised from death? the answers given vary greatly in rabbinical literature. According to R. Simai (Sifre, Deut. 306) and R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (Gen. R. xiii. 4; comp. Lev. R. xiii. 3), resurrection awaits only the Israelites; according to R. Abbahu, only the just (Ta’an. 7a); some mention especially the martyrs (Yalḳ. ii. 431, after Tanḥuma). R. Abbahu and R. Eleazar confine resurrection to those that die in the Holy Land; others extend it to such as die outside of Palestine (Ket. 111a). According to R. Jonathan (Pirḳe R. El. xxxiv.), the resurrection will be universal, but after judgment the wicked will die a second death and forever, whereas the just will be granted life everlasting (comp. Yalḳ. ii. 428, 499). The same difference of view prevails also among the New Testament writers; at times only “the resurrection of the just” is spoken of (Luke xiv. 14, xx. 35); at other times “the resurrection of the dead” in general is mentioned (John v. 29; Acts xxiv. 15; Rev. xx. 45).” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12697-resurrection
  23. Nungal. The Goddess Nungal held the tablet of life, and was the queen of the mountain house (Ekur) that the Gods resided on. She was also the consort of Birtum , and the Goddess of the underworld. She dealt punishment to the wicked, (after watching for truth and lie). The punishment was shame from the other dead, to where the wicked soul was shunned by the others. It is possible that this Goddess was the root of the Greek God, Hades, where they combined Nergal, Birdu, Namtar, Ninazu, and Nungal into one God. From a hymn to Nungal: “Mercy and compassion are mine. I frighten no one. I keep an eye upon the black-headed people: they are under my surveillance. I hold the tablet of life in my hand and I register the just ones on it. The evildoers cannot escape my arm; I learn their deeds. All countries look to me as to their divine mother. I temper severe punishments; I am a compassionate mother. I cool down even the angriest heart, sprinkling it with cool water. I calm down the wounded heart; I snatch men from the jaws of destruction. My house is built on compassion; I am a life-giving (?) lady. Its shadow is like that of a cypress tree growing in a pure place. Birtum the very strong, my spouse, resides there with me.” Here, she has some qualities of Hades, but Hades was not know for being forgiving or having any mercy. Also, the Nungal hymn mentions reincarnation for those who are not sinners, which is different from Greco-Roman mythology. Last, one must also remember that Nungal, along with the other deities mentioned, were subordinate to Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag , and Anu. They were minor deities, and were fathered by the elder ruling King/Gods and Queen/Goddesses, mainly Enlil and Ninlil. This being said, there was no insubordinate anti-God.


Dualistic: Originating from the word, dualism, which means the belief in two Gods, that are always acting counter to each other; a God and an anti-God. Zoroastrianism is considered dualistic.

Paganistic: The belief of paganism.

Polytheistic: The belief in more than one God.

Pantheistic: The belief in a pantheon of Gods, such as the Greek and Sumerian pantheons.

Hellenism: The beliefs and practices of the people who lived under the influence of ancient Greek culture during the Hellenistic period and the Roman Empire (c. 300 BCE to 30 BCE). These beliefs were intermixed with some Jewish sects, and became known as Hellenistic Judaism, thus, ancient Greek religious dogma was intermixed with Judaism, such as the stories from pantheism and polytheism. The Hellenists are responsible for the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the period.