The Pious FraudsbyMaatRaAh Chapter 5 History is the lies upon which eminent men agree, and history as it relates to religion is a Pious Fraud. A Pious Fraud is one perpetrated to advance religion, or for a good objective "under the appearance of religion". It differs only slightly for criminal fraud which is the using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage or to injure the rights or interests of another in that the pious fraud is perpetrated to gain a "just" advantage. "The ends justifies the means." A fraud does not require all statements to be false. In criminal law, a single "material" false representation constitutes the fraud. However, a fraud is committed when all the material facts are true, but when a material fact is omitted. For instance, a person selling a car represent all of the features of the car honestly and truthfully, and even sell at a price far below the car's value. The fraud is committed when the seller neglects to reveal the fact that he doesn't own the car. Hitler's claim that the Third Reich would rule the world for 1,000 years was a pious fraud. It was not religious, but the assertion had the appearance of religious doctrine, the objective of which was "good", after "good" had been redefined by Hitler. How quick Christians and Jews are to condemn Hitler for his murders and mass destruction, while the history of those two groups is filled with genocide which was justified by pious fraud they created with their man-made gods. We may never fully appreciate the pervasiveness of Pious Frauds nor know what knowledge was destroyed in the name of religion, simply because we may never know that the knowledge once existed. Christians and Moslems burned every ancient record they could lay their hands on. Now they claim that because there are no writings older than 5500 years that mankind did not exist before the Bible and Koran say Adam was created. To them, evolution is a fraud, and the scientific methods used for dating are all based on false assumptions. The "proof" is obvious (in their minds) because science refute their scriptures. Truth, they believe, is only to be found in their holy scriptures and they will defend their doctrines in the face of glaring contradictions. Two groups that champion "pious frauds" are the defenders of the Bible, who make the claim that all law and ethics originated with the Jews; and those who promote the Hellenic doctrine that all science, mathematics, philosophy and medicine originated with the Hellenic Greeks. Fifty years ago it was "undisputed" (by the liars of history) that the Pythagorean theorem, 3-4-5 and a²+b²=c² were discovered by Pythagoras in the 6th century before the current era. Prior to Pythagoras, so the liars say, higher mathematics was unknown. The pyramids of Egypt and the great temples of Egypt, Babylon and Assyria were built without such knowledge. It sounded unreasonable, and who could argue with the learned "historians". In the past 40 years archaeologists have unearthed hundreds of Babylonian clay tablets that predate Pythagoras by a thousand years. These tablets are inscribed not only with the Pythagorean theorem, but other "great mathematical secrets" to which only the elite of ancient Greece were privileged. But these clay tablets were not written by the priests, architects, or scholars. They were practice tablets of first year school children. It seems that a first-grader in Babylon would have been a mathematical genius in Greece. The lies were uncovered, but few people listened. The Babylonians and the Egyptians also knew the Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn revolved around the sun and their orbits had been calculated along with that of the Moon which they also knew orbited the earth. The "lie" of Ptolemy, (c.100-178 CE) who wrote what has come to be known as The Almagest, quite emphatically stated that the sun and heavens revolve around the earth. Ptolemy's writings were preserved by the Moslems because they agreed with the Koran. Anything that contradicted the Koran was destroyed. The Catholic Church officially upheld the validity of an earth centered universe until November, 1992, at which time that Church finally repudiated its censor of Galileo and acknowledged, officially, that, contrary to the Bible, the earth does in fact revolve around the sun. As for our laws, any rational law student knows western law is based on Roman law, not the Bible. Civil law and Cannon Law (church-law) were separate, but it is Cannon Law that forces biblical ethics and morality on the western world. These ethics and morality demand the killing of witches, homosexuals, and anyone who worships a false god - a false god being any god other than the Jewish/Christian god. And it is here that we need to ask ourselves, "What is the difference between the Jewish god commanding genocide, the killing of the Philistines and Canaanites, and the German man-god, Hitler, commanding genocide, the killing of Jews, Gypsies and Poles?" Is there a "higher morality" that permits murder in the name of one's god, while condemning murder to promote a pseudo racial superiority? Yet biblical morality makes one people, the 12-Tribes of Israel, "God's Chosen", while all others, especially blacks, are inferior, to be eliminated or made slaves. What then is the difference between that biblical "higher morality" and the "immorality of the Third Reich that made one people, the "Aryan" Germanic tribes, superior to all others, especially the Semites and blacks? A pious fraud is nothing more than fraud. It is based on false premises and lies, and given respectability only by those who believe the lie. The doctrine of the Jews as the "chosen people" presented some very serious problems for Christianity during the Reformation. Prior to the rise of Protestantism, the Catholic Church forbade the laity from reading the Bible. Interpretation of the Bible was the exclusive prerogative of ecclesiastic scholars. All that changed with the Reformation. The Protesters of the Catholic Church made the Bible, not the Pope, the authority for their religions. The question quickly arose, "If the Jews were `God's Chosen People', what are Christians?" The biblical lie of the Jewish god choosing "one people", the Jews, was met with a biblical interpretations by the Protestants. It was not the Jews alone who were chosen, but all of the 12-Tribes of Israel. The Jews were only one of the 12-Tribes of Israel who derived their "blessing" from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel, whose name was originally Jacob, is one of those biblical characters from whom the "Bigots" got their name. Originally, a Bigot was synonymous with Christian. The word has its origin with the introduction of Christian "missionaries" to the Germanic people. These Christian monks were seldom educated in Catholic apologetics and were unprepared for the questions asked by the German Pagans. When confronted with difficult questions, the Catholic Monks resorted to reciting biblical genealogies, "Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah", etc. Hence, Christians became known as "bigots". Little has changed over the centuries. According to the Bible, Abraham was the first man (after the flood) to worship the "one god". For this, the biblical god promised to make Abraham "a great nation" and "a blessing" through whom "all the families of the earth [would] be blessed". (Genesis 12:2-3) Then thirty years later Abraham is told if he will "walk before" the biblical god and be "perfect", he will make his covenant in which Abraham is to "be a father of many nations" and "kings shall come out of [Abraham]. "This was to be an "everlasting covenant, to be a god unto [Abraham] and to [his] seed after [him]..." (Genesis 17:2-14) This"covenant" quoted by the Jews today, but there is more, and it is the rest of the covenant that brings criticism of the Jews. What does this "Jewish Covenant" really say? In light of history, nothing. The rest of the covenant, the part the Jews do not like to quote, has cause one disaster after another for the Jews ever since the liars of the Bible first wrote it. "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, and the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their god". That is what the covenant is really all about, a land grab sanctioned by the biblical god. The token of this "everlasting covenant" was to be the circumcision of all male children, and this "covenant" was passed down to Isaac and then to Jacob who became Israel. The Arabs claim a fictitious descent through Ishmael, whom the Bible gives as the first born son of Abraham, and it is through Ishmael they to inherit the covenant. I assert this is a fictitious descent not only because the genealogy of the Arabs is quite questionable for any period prior to 500 BCE, but also because no Arab was circumcised (the token of the covenant) until the time of Mohammed. Of course circumcision has been practiced as a rite of passage for Egyptian boys from the beginning the Egypt. When the Jewish god failed to live up to his part of the covenant, the Bible blames it on the "disobedient" Israelites and Jews. There has been one holocaust after another in Jewish history, though it is politically correct to claim the Nazi holocaust as the Holocaust. The destruction of the Jewish nation in 587 BCE, saw the entire Jewish population reduced to a fraction of its original number. The Jews were removed from their "promised land" and made slaves. The holocaust under the Roman Emperor Hadrian, in 130 CE saw the destruction of 80% of the Jewish population and Jewish slave were sold for less than the cost of a donkey. At no time did the Jewish god intervene to save his people, yet they claim a covenant with their god. The Jews, as descendants of Judah, one of Israel's children, are the biblical god's chosen people, but chosen for what? In view of history we must ask, "if being a Jew is a blessing from their god, what is a curse?" In stretching to find what the blessing was, religious scholars decided that the Jews were to be a "blessing to all nations", that all kings would come through the linage of Abraham. This spawned the theory of the "Lost Tribes of Israel" that took root in Europe about 400 years ago. According to the theory, ten tribes of the Israel were taken captive "en mass", every man woman and child, by the Assyrians in 721 BCE. In captivity, the 10-Tribes, so the theory went, remained as a distinct people somewhere in the Assyrian Empire, and after the fall of Assyria, the 10-Tribes did not return, but were disbursed throughout the "north country" of Europe. Each tribe is supposed to have settled in a different area and forming a different nation. England, where the theory found ready acceptance, was supposedly settled by the tribe of Ephraim (a son of Joseph). Abraham Lincoln was, in the minds of the Lost-Tribe advocates, proof of Abraham's linage. Ludicrous claims of Israelite ancestry began to crop up all over Europe. But this was nothing new. It was little more than a way to give "noble descent" to those who were not, and is as old as mankind. The Romans claimed to have descendants of the Trojan, Aeneas who was a the son of the Goddess Venus. In France, Paris was named after the Trojan prince who had abducted Helen and caused the Trojan War. After the fall of Troy, Paris is said to have migrated to France where he founded the city named after him. But the Lost Tribes theory added more than noble descent. It gave justification for much of the inhumanity of the African slave trade. According the biblical law of racial supremacy, when Cain killed Able, the Jewish god put a mark on Cain.(Gen 4:15) It is not said what that mark was, but the liars of history knew Cain was made black. Cain went on to have children and four generations later, his great, great grandson, Lamach, killed a man, (Gen. 4:23) and tradition has it that the "Mark of Cain" was put on him. The man Lamach killed was his grandfather, Irad - the grandson of Cain. From that time on, the "Mark of Cain" was put not only on Cain, but also on Lamach and all his descendants. One of these "black" descendants was the wife of Ham, the youngest son of Noah. Since the Bible states that the flood killed everyone, except Noah, his three sons and their wives, the blacks continued through the wife of Ham, and until recently blacks were known as the Hamitic Race. After the flood, Ham had a black son, Canaan. Canaan saw his grandfather, Noah, naked and drunk and laughed at him. In Genesis 9:18-25, Noah awoke, "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren". So it was that the Canaanites, (who were black), became servants of servants - slaves. Ridiculous? Not if you believe in the Bible. But inherent in accepting the Bible is the claim that the Israelites are the "chosen people". This irked Christians. After all, it had been the Jews who had killed the Christian god. They didn't want anything to do with the Jews, (except to convert them) but they wanted the blessings of the biblical god. This took some reinterpreting of the Bible and rereading the covenant made between biblical god and Abraham to be carried on in Genesis, 49 et. seq. (which are not worth repeating here). These passages were interpreted to mean that the messiah would come through the linage of Judah, the eponymous father of the Jews, and the Jews would produce the law-givers and kings of the world. But the other Tribes were given various blessings, which gave rise to doctrine that all of the 12-Tribes of Israel, not just the Jews, were chosen to take the "blood of Abraham" throughout the world. Proof of this promise could be found in every European nation. The lion, the symbol of the British monarchy, (as well as the symbol of many European noble families) was seen as the "Lion of Judah". Never mind that the lion had been the symbol of the Goddess Cybele, centuries before Judah; or that lions were once the noble King of Beasts throughout Europe. (The last "cave lion" in England was killed in Roman times.) If there was a Lion of Judah, then all lions were proof that royalty descended from Judah. Numerous historians have proved quite convincingly that the 10-Tribes did not establish the ten major nations of northern Europe, (or any nations for that matter) but still the idea persists. It is a doctrinal foundation of the Mormons who go to their Patriarchs to be giving a blessing in which they are told to which tribe of Israel they belong. But the Mormons go even further and have as one of their Articles of Faith that the 10-Tribes of Israel will be restored in the Latter-days - which to them, is now. It can be argued that this is nothing more than religious beliefs, not to be refuted by secular reasoning. But as with any Pious Fraud, lies breed more lies. The very premise of the "Lost-Tribes" is itself a lie. It is now quite certain that the "great nation" of Israel never existed. Israel may have existed at one time as a very small group of tribes, but if it existed at all, it was for a very short time - less than 50 years. This is born out by the records of the nations contemporary with the account of the Bible. Among those records, the name "Judah" (Yudah and the like) appears regularly, usually in what tribute they were forced to pay other nations. Israel is nowhere to be found in any record, with one exception. The only mention of Israel in the ancient world is found in Egypt and comes from what is known as the Israel stele, erected in honor of Pharaoh Merenptah's defeat of rebelling nations a generation after the fall of Troy. After reciting what Merenptah had done to several of the defeated nations of Canaan, the inscription reads, "Israel (Israra) is razed to the ground, and has no more seed". From this, "pro-biblical" historians assert that Israel held a strong position in Palestine prior to Merenptah. The problem is, Merneptah, the son of Ramses II, ruled Egypt (c. 1215 BCE) when the people the Bible calls the "Children of Israel", were still supposed to have been "slaves" in Egypt. Some historians originally claimed that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The problem is, there was no Exodus, and even if the was, the so-called Pharaoh of the Exodus would have to have been later. Bible originally put the Exodus 500 years earlier, but have constantly revised the date to fit known history. This presents a problem for the Bible, as we now know from the history of other nations that there was not enough time from the so-called Exodus for nearly half a million Israelites to have wandered 40 years in the wilderness, and then be ruled by judges for 400 years as the Bible claims. A brief, but hopefully not too boring, account of the biblical kings chronology is necessary here. According to biblical chronology as set against known history, Saul became king of Israel in Troy 158 (158 years after the fall of Troy or 1095 BCE). David, became king at Jerusalem in Troy 206 and was followed by is son, Solomon, in Troy 238. On the death of Solomon, in Troy 278 the kingdom was divided between Solomon's son, Rehoboam, who was King of Judah, and Jeroboam, who was King of the northern kingdom of Israel. Or so the Bible claims. The problem is, no kings called Saul, David or Solomon are mentioned in any annals of any other contemporary nations. Additionally, the dates for the reigns of Solomon, David and Saul are being pushed out of existence by historical evidence. The most recent date the liars of history have been forced to accept, is that Solomon died sometime after Troy 300 (953 BCE). This is where using Troy as a beginning date in history allows the reader to follow the sequence of events more easily than using the negative dating of "BCE". The chronologies of Babylon and Egypt which agree with each other make it difficult to justify the biblical account for this period. What we do know with reasonable certainty is that in Troy 308 (945 BCE) the Libyans invaded Egypt. Their king, Sheshonk, took the Egyptian throne and founded the 22nd Dynasty. Whether he was the biblical unnamed "pharaoh" of I Kings 3:1 and 9:16, whose daughter Solomon married, or some later pharaoh, is uncertain. However, the biblical account makes it clear that there was a great deal of hostility between Solomon and Jeroboam. According to the Bible, Jeroboam fled Solomon and went to Egypt where he was protected by the Egyptian king. After Solomon's death, the Egyptian king supported Jeroboam as ruler of the "northern kingdom". The Bible claims that Sheshonk (biblical Shishak) did not make war with Jeroboam, but conquered Judah in the 5th year of the reign of Rehoboam. That is five years after the death of Solomon. This biblical dating is obviously off, as the 5th year of the reign of Rehoboam would have been Troy 305, and we know from accurate Egyptian records that Sheshonk did not become king until Troy 308 - three years after the bible says he sacked Jerusalem. The takeover of Egypt by the Libyan, Sheshonk, caused a great upheaval in the ancient mid east, and it's quite possible that if a king named Solomon did exist, it was during the reign of Sheshonk. Proponents of biblical chronology oppose this view as it would make Solomon a minor king who ruled Judah at the same time Jeroboam ruled the northern kingdom. However, as we shall see, this later date of Troy 308 agrees with Phoenician chronology. It's interesting to note that even though Sheshonk eventually conjured 153 towns of Judah, there is no mention of Israel either as a conquered nation or a people. It would appear that Jeroboam, the ruler of the northern kingdom, was part of Libyan-Egyptian royalty, and may have been an Egyptian colony. However, this so-called northern kingdom, whatever its status, could not have existed for more than fifty years. After Jeroboam, a series of three inept kings ruled until the norther kingdom was taken over by the general of its army, Omri, in Troy 356 (897 BCE). Omri quickly established his capital at Samaria. His son, Ahab, strengthened Samaria with his marriage to the Sidonian Queen, Jezebel in Troy 378. The hatred the Jews had for Jezebel and her daughter, Athaliah, who ruled as Queen of Samaria my well be the reason why the Pious Fraud was perpetrated in the first place. It is important to note that neither Jezebel nor Athaliah was ever Queen of Israel. Israel, if it ever existed, did not exist during their reign of the nation they called Omri. Jumping a century and a half ahead in history, the Bible claims that the nation of Israel was conjured by the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V in Troy 531 (31 AUC - the founding of Rome - 721 BCE). Biblical historians have Assyria conquering Israel at this time, but the Assyrian Annals make no mention of that conquest by Shalmaneser V. The honor goes Sharru-kin II (Sargon II), who usurped the Assyrian throne. But even he never claimed to have conquered Israel. In the First Year of his reign, Sargon II recorded, "I besieged and conquered Sa-me-ri-na, (Samaria), led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it." He then goes on to say that he received tribute from "Samsi, queen of Arabia" and lists other nations he conquered. It is Sa-me-ri-na (Sumeria) which is mentioned in the Assyrian record, not Israel. There is no mention of "Israel" until we get to Sargon's Annals found in Room XIV, and that is the beginning of the Pious Fraud, because "Israel" is not found in that actual record either. Biblical proponents translate the inscription as, "I conquered and sacked the towns Shinuhtu and Samaria and all Israel". Now the reader may think, this firmly establishes Israel as the "northern kingdom". But that's only because the liars of history make it so. Again the name, "Israel", does not appear anywhere in the record. There is nothing even remotely similar to Israel found in the record. The record reads, in translation, with the names in transliteration, "I conquered and sacked the towns of Shinuhtu and Sa-me-ri-na and all Bit Hu-um-ri-ia." How do you get Israel out of Hu-um-ri-ia? And what is the Bit Hu-um-ri-ia? Bit literally means "Land", and Hu-um-ri-ia is literally what the Bible calls, "Omri". The nation captured by Sargon II was, Omri-Land, the nation established by Omri in Troy 356 - over 175 years before the nation of Omri was conquored. How do you get Israel out of Omri-Land? The best was is to lie, to create a fiction that Omri-Land was Israel. In other words, to commit a pious fraud. So it is that King Omri, the father of the biblically "wicked" Ahab, was not the king of Israel after all, but rather of a nation he called after himself, Omri. The people who lived there did not call themselves Israelites. There is no evidence that they were even descendants of Jacob-Israel. Their king, whom they chose over the son of Solomon, was a Libyan, and it is quite likely that the people were themselves either Libyan or indigenous people who had lived in the area for centuries, which makes it very unlikely that they ever called themselves Israelites. The nation under Jeroboam most likely had Libyan-Egyptian name which has gone unnoticed or forgotten simply because it was not Israel. What they called themselves is not known, but we do know for 175 years after Omri they called themselves the people of Omri. It was only after Omri-Land was conquered by the Assyrians in Troy 666 [the number of the christian beast (166 AUC)] - after the rulers and their records were destroyed - that the Jews at Jerusalem began calling the norther kingdom, Israel. However that may not have happened for another 400 years. There is no doubt that the writers of the Bible used Israel as a warning of what would happen to the Jews if they worshiped other gods, as the people of "Israel" did. There may even be some validity to the Biblical claim that at least some of the people of the northern kingdom were related to the Jews. But what is important is they never called themselves Israel, and they never had a religion anything similar to that which later developed at Jerusalem. The Egyptian and Assyrian records are not the only ones that refute the ancient claims of the Jews. The Phoenician king list recorded by Dius who wrote 500 years after the fact, affirms that Solomon build the temple at Jerusalem in the 12th year of the reign of Hirum, King of Tyre. This Phoenician king's list gives the time from the 12th year of Hirum to the founding of Carthage as being 126 years, and is accurate to within 20 years. Like any ancient record, the Phoenician king's list is subject to some fraud and mistake. For instance, the list gives one king who is without a name as usurping the throne and reigning 12 year. He is followed by Astartus, son of Deleastartus, who also reigns 12 years. Whether it was another person or the same is unknown. The founding of Carthage in North Africa is, however, (traditionally) attributed to Dido in Troy 439 (814 BCE). (Dido and the founding of Carthage is covered elsewhere.) Extensive archeological digs have accurately dated the founding of Carthage as being 90 years later ©. Troy 530, 33 AUC, 720 BCE). However, accepting Troy 439 (814 BCE) as the date Dido left Tyre, the building of the temple at Jerusalem would have taken place long after the date claimed in the Bible. Josephus in Against Apion, 1:17 quotes Dius' king's list. But Josephus calculated incorrectly and came up with 143 years as the period of reign of kings from the 12th year of Hirum to 7th year of Dido's brother, Pygmalion, when Dido left Tyre. The correct number of years is 126. That places the building of the temple at Jerusalem at Troy 313, five years after King Sheshonk I came to power in Egypt (Troy 308). It is quite possible that later Jewish historians rewrote history to cover their pious fraud, and placed the sack of the temple at Jerusalem in the 5th year of the reign Rehoboam instead of having the completion of the temple being in the 5th year of the reign of Sheshonk when it actually took place. These discrepancies leave us with several possibilities, all of which could be true. The most obvious is that the "northern kingdom" was never part of the kingdom of David and Solomon; Solomon was much later than the Bible claims; and, "Israel" never existed except in the minds of the Jews who rewrote history 500 years later. The Assyrian records are quite clear in stating that 27,290 people of Omri were taken captive. The Jews, however, inflate the number to over 260,000. But Sargon II was not a modest man. If anything he would have "inflated" the number, not make it less, all of which militates against any "Lost Tribe" theory. Additionally, we have the well known Assyrian policy of dealing with the peoples in conquered. The policy was simple. The Assyrians killed the defiant; castrated "all" males, whatever their age; crippled anyone likely to attempt escape; and, transported the entire population to another part of the empire to serve as slaves and earn their freedom by work. 28,000 people, all the males of whom had been castrated and otherwise mutilated to prevent escape, could easily have died on the forced march to the new land where they and their women would serve as slaves. It is from these 28,000 castrated and mutilated "Israelites" that the myth of the Lost Tribes has its origin. The fact that the people of Omri-Land disappeared is not a testament for the Lost 10-tribe of Israel, but to the effectiveness of the Assyrian policy of handling rebellious nations. First, they were not Israelites, secondly, so few survived the ordeal as to make an impact anywhere in the world impossible, and third, all the males were castrated and incapable of reproducing. Any children born to the captive Omri "Israeli" women would have been sired by "heathen" fathers. The Israelites disappeared off the face of the earth, not because their god spared them, but because they never existed in the first place. Making the nation of Omri into Israel and creating the Lost 10-Tribes was only part of the Pious Fraud that required the rewrite of history. This rewrite of history is found in numerous words and supposed "facts" contained in the Bible, but which are disputed by what we now "know" history to be. The most glaring mistake of the Bible is found in Genesis 11:29, 31, and 15:7, where it states that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldees". This, according to biblical chronology, took place about 3900 years ago, or 450 years after Sargon the Great - 50 years before Hammurabi and nearly 650 years before Troy. In this period of mid-east history the area was ruled by the Isin and Larsa Dynasties of Akkad, which had replaced the Guti Dynasty. Ur was the capitol of the southern region of Sumer-Akkad, near what we now call the Persian Gulf. However, the Chaldeans did not exist at that time, and they would not exist for another 1500 years. Babylon had just been founded. Two generations after the rise of Babylon, Hammurabi overthrew Akkadian rule and establish the First Kassite Dynasty in Babylon. About 200 years after Hammurabi, the Assyrians overthrew the Babylonians. This has caused historians to disagree on the dating of events for this period, as the Babylonian "King's List" records the Kassite Dynasty for 576 years, ending in Troy 75, while the Assyrian King's List indicates that the Babylonians Kings ended 300 years earlier. This may not be a contradiction however, as the Babylonian, Kassite Dynasty, continued as a vassal of the Assyrian Kings for 376 years before it was finally destroyed. What is important is that the Chaldeans could not possible have existed until after Troy 76, as the Chaldeans were founded as a political-religious movement to reestablish Kassite rule. Just when this happened is unknown, but it was somewhere between Troy 76 and Troy 375 - 700 to 1000 years after Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldee. Babylonian politics and religion are indistinguishable, and the creation of the Chaldean movement was centered not just on placing a Babylonian King on the throne, but in establishing Marduk, the God of Babylon, as their God. The name, first appears during the reign of Ashurnasirpal II, king of Assyria, (Troy 365) when Chaldee appears in the Assyrian annals as being the southern area of Babylon - the ancient area of Sumer-Akkad - which was designated as the Sea-land. 140 years later Nabopolassar officially established the Chaldean dynasty and began the Babylonian calendar on his assertion to the throne in Troy 505 (5 AUC). Abraham could only have come from Ur of the Chaldee if he lived around or after the fall of Troy. However, what is more likely is the Jews who knew of Ur and the Chaldeans, but had never heard of Hammurabi, rewrote their history to give credence to their claim of being an ancient people. Another word used in Genesis 21:32, which did not exist until after Troy is, "Philistines", the people whom the Bible claims inhabited that land where Abraham was going. Prior to the Greek Era, (Troy 650 - 150 AUC) the Philistines were called Palestinians, Philistines being the Greek name for Palestinians. But it was only after the fall of Troy that a group of people, known to the Egyptians as the Sea People, appeared in the area between Egypt and Phoenicia. This was a time of upheaval. The strength of the Hittites had been broken a generation before Troy, their nation was in shambles. Troy had fallen and entire nations were fleeing the marauding hoards who were raping the people and the land. Crete, from where it is believed the Palestinians originated, was only one of those nations. However, the Greek language as it came down in classical times did not exist much before Troy. Omega, the last letter of the Greek Alphabet was not introduced until after Troy. Abraham could not possibly have known the people as Philistines if he lived before Troy. They simply did not exist, and when they eventually did exist, they were called Palestinians. That leaves us with three alternatives, either Abraham is fable and never existed, or, he did not exist until after Troy; or, Abraham was born before Troy and came from Ur of Babylon, when there were no Philistines in the land, and the Bible is a Pious Fraud which was not written until after Troy 850 (c.400 BCE). Which of course is when the Bible was written - during the Greek Era. Another use of a name that did not exist at the time, is found in Genesis 47:11, where we read that Joseph settled the Israelites in the "land of Rameses". The error here is that the eastern portion of the Egyptian Delta was not called the land of Ramses until about 50 years before Troy, that's 400 years after the "Bible" claims the Israelites made their Exodus and 800 years before the Bible claims Joseph lived. There is no doubt that some portions of the city of Rameses were built with bricks made without straw. But this took place much later than the Bible claims and is in keeping with other historical records, that refute the Bible. It also makes the Jews a relatively new people. It also makes the non existent Israel insignificant in the history of the world and the development of society. If we were to see a "World Map of Significance" created by the Christian heritage that dominated the west as late as fifty years ago, we would find Russia, China, India, Australia, South America and Africa occupying less than 10% of that map, while the "Holy Land" would have taken up nearly the entire middle east. Israel was created out of Palestine, at a time when most of the western world believed that ancient Israel actually existed, that ancient Judah, and Jerusalem once held strategic positions through which caravans and invading armies had to pass on their way to and from Egypt. Few questioned those "facts". It was not until recently that anyone seriously claimed that Israel held no strategic importance to any nation and that it was often bypassed by Egypt's armies as they made war against other nations and the armies of nations invading Egypt. The single most influential pious fraud however was the Exodus. There is no evidence of an Exodus as described in the Bible, or anything even resembling it. Nor is there any evidence of any people ever having wandered or camped in the wilderness of Sinai. No pottery, artifacts, or remnants of any kind have been found to support the forty years of wandering the Bible claims. Simply put, without an Exodus, there was no Passover, no flight out of Egypt. No crossing the Red Sea. No journey into the wilderness, so no Ten Commandments. This makes nearly all Jewish traditions a fraud - a pious fraud, but a fraud nevertheless. The seeker of truth and the Spiritual may be shocked to even consider that the nation of David and Solomon that included what is presently Syria, Ammon, Moab and Edom, never existed as the Bible claims. But one's eyes cannot be opened until they examine the "Pious Fraud" in which historians and scholars entered into an unspoken conspiracy to substantiate the Bible, even to the determent of truth. The Seeker, if he truly seeks, will declare as James Joyce wrote in Ulysses, "history is the nightmare from which I am trying to awake." previous more to come
|
|||
|