Saturday, July 13, 2013

Tower of Babel and later

First a few faults in Rob Skiba's research.

This page, Man of Many Names:


"No. Nimrod was building what we might call a "Stargate" today. The Tower of Babel was literally a portal through which Nimrod intended to reach into Heaven."

A stargate would so to speak only function in a multiverse. We have no indication from 72 books of Catholic Bible or from Christian tradition that God created such a thing. We know he is omnipotent and could have if he had wanted to. I speculated if God had created, in a sense similar to the fictional "world of Narnia" a "world of Patmos" in which certain realities in our world took the shapes seen by St John.

Look at Mathematician and Physician Ulam, project Orion - even more feasible if the universe is small, right? See video if you do not know what I am talking about:

Except, God would not let it happen. If you look at Göbekli Tepe, that might have been a space launch, or rather: intended to be one. I e, that rather than a ziggurat may have been the Tower of Babel.

Now, if a space ship gets outside solar system and into stellatum or past stellatum, into the region where the Seraphs and the Blessed Virgin Mary adore Jesus Christ, God and the good angels are not letting it do damage.

However, to have launched such a thing with the much smaller population back then, would have meant drafting just about everybody into the project.

That way, had it succeeded, any ruler doing that would have been "omnipotent" on earth. In human society. Hence:

"and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

December 25

"This would seem to go along with the NUMEROUS dying and resurrecting sun gods born on December 25th that are found in the ancient world. And suffice it to say, it is not by chance, coincidence or accident that the Son of God was crucified on the symbol of the sun god!

With that in mind, I feel it is important to note that in Nimrod's incarnation as Osiris, you can truly see a mirror (reversed) image of Jesus. Where Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah, Osiris is the exact antithesis. He is the sun god, the false messiah, the ANTI-Christ! This is one of the primary reasons why I believe Christians should have absolutely nothing to do with associating Jesus Christ and the date, December 25th. It was NOT Jesus' birthday.[2] It was the birthday of Nimrod/Osiris/Baal/Mithra."

Satan knew when Christ was born. The temptation "bow down to me" might have been offered as a birthday present (which if accepted would have been an extra act of idolatry, since celebrating birthdays was considered breaking the law forbidding horoscopes). Christ refused it and got another one, an angel ministering to Him, probably one and same who also came to minister to Him in Gethsemane.

Now, Satan could have done this if Christ and Nimrod were born the same day. You see, Jacob and Esau were also born one and the same day.

A few days later He is chosing disciples (he is now older than exactly on the day 30 years) and a bit later than that he is going to Canah with His Mother and recently chosen disciples. Now, if the original meaning of Epiphany was feast of Canah, it makes sense having it on January 6 if Jesus Christ was born on December 25 or something like that.

This said, I see no evidence for the "Christmas basher 'Christian'" allegation as well as "Christianity bashing Jesus-was-a-myth" allegation (check out Acharya Sanning) that December 25 was birthday of so many deities.

Egyptian calendar was not exactly the same as Julius Caesar's though the latter based his on it. Egyptian calendar = every year 365 days. Julian = 3 out of 4 years 365, the fourth 366. Gregorian = as Julian except for centurial years were only those divisible with 400 (anno Domini) are leap years.

This means that a certain Egyptian date might correspond to Julian December 25 under those years, four years later to Julian December 24, four years later to Julian December 23 ...

So much about Oswiris' possible feast in Egypt, of which I do not happen to know the date. If it was December 25 when Julius Caesar made the calendar, it may well have receded to December 17 (=Roman Saturnalia) or rather something even earlier when Christ was born.

And Saturnalia are Satanic, they coincided with nearly last days of Christmas fast (=Advent) under which Christians preparing to celebrate Christmas would have been obliged not to either revel or feast on food or wine. There was a Christian slave who was martyred during Saturnalia for refusing to participate in them. His role would, for a Pagan, have been a pleasant one, since he was elected basically "carnival king". As I recall it, he was going to be sacrificed after the party, so he was dying either way and could do what he fealt like. He did not feel like partying during Saturnalia, i e under the space of December 17-21 (or, longer version, 17-23). He died as a martyr. I think it was in Dacia, in present day Roumania or close by.

Other deities would of course have been celebrated in other calendars, neither Roman nor Egyptian. With even more complex interaction with Julian calendar and even less of a chance to identify with a Julian calendar date.

I will not scrap the research done to prove another date for the birth of Christ, here is this:

I am no astronomer. Supposing this is right, the Rosh Hashanah in question may well have been that of conception of St John the Baptist. And the star the magi followed may well have been a star especially created for the Birth of Christ. That may well have been or according to St Thomas was what they had been looking for for centuries, that being foretold by Balaam (or with other vocalisation Bileam).

Now one more thing: if God sees the Church intends to celebrate the Birth of Christ and unwittiingly they have the date for the birth of Nimrod instead, God will not hold it culpable. But it is hardly probably He would have allowed the Catholic Church or the Roman Martyrology to be wrong on that one in the first place.

Tertia Pars, Question 36, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3. There are two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [Opus Imperf. in Matth., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom], and Augustine in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by the Magi during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and then, having first considered the matter and prepared themselves for the journey, they came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on the thirteenth day after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after the departure of the Magi, "perceiving that He was deluded by them," commanded the male children to be killed "from two years old and under," being doubtful lest Christ were already born when the star appeared, according as he had heard from the Magi.

But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished a journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries. And I say this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But others, again, say that they came from a neighboring country, whence also was Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are said to have come from the east, because their country was to the east of the country of the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes, not as soon as the Magi departed, but two years after: and that either because he is said to have gone to Rome in the meanwhile on account of an accusation brought against him, or because he was troubled at some imminent peril, and for the time being desisted from his anxiety to slay the child, or because he may have thought that the Magi, "being deceived by the illusory appearance of the star, and not finding the child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to return to him": as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason why he killed not only those who were two years old, but also the younger children, would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on Innocents, because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might make himself appear older or younger.

... Article 7, Sed Contra: On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the course appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger to the heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a virgin in childbirth."

[Source, Summa online (from Article six you scroll down to article seven)]

Nephelim have no power to raise the dead. Jesus Christ was no such being. He rose from the dead and he had raised dead on more occasions, I think, than Elijah and Elisaeus taken together. However, that seems to have been what the impious Herod feared. More on Holy Innocents from Catholic Encyclopedia:

Catholic Encyclopedia gives as reason why Josephus does not mention the slaughter that they were so few beside Herod's other victims that the killing seemed insignificant. It could be on the contrary that it was so huge and traumatising and incriminating to Jewish complicity that he omitted it for prudence, in order not to make room for antisemitic feelings (seeing he wrote this after a recent outburst of such on Roman Imperial level), or that alerady before his time there was an agreemnt among Jews not to talk about it. On Easter Island, when Thor Heyerdahl came there, magic was done according to old rituals, but nobody talked about it. "Es otra cosa aparte" - something unconnected to the rest of the lives of the participants. Nobody talked about it. And if Herod Antipas founded Freemasonry, as some have claimed, he may have made the memory of the Killing of the Innocents also "an occult and esoteric secret knowledge" that was "otra cosa aparte" and something nobody talked about.

What about Hercules?

Did he raise Alcestis from the dead?

If he did, it was not by physical wrestling with Thanatos, whatever the Greek legend says. We have been shown by Elijah, by Elisaeus, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Saint Paul, by Saint Martin of Tours, by Saint Genevieve how saints raise people from the dead. None of these, who genuinely raised dead, took a wrestling match with Thanatos. Or rather, Christ did, but that was on Calvary and on the Third Day He showed His victory. Raising Himself from the Grave.

Hercules will not really have been able to do so, but he may have had occasions to pretend. The whole Alcestis episode may be later miracles, such as of Elijah, wrongly attributed to Hercules, or it may be as little a raising from the dead as when Voodoo doctors use poison to induce sham death and another poison to restore waking capabilities, though not necessarily all of them.

He was by some Ancients identified with Melqart - King of Tyre, Moloch - and that was probably because of when he killed his wife and children. Especially the killing of his children. He may have had very little to do with the Melqart cult otherwise. But if he did once visit Tyre and introduce that cult, he was not just very unfortunate but also very evil. With the relation to Iolaos (as given by Argonautica, admittedly a very late source but it seems consistent with earlier indications) he cannot have been a good man at the time.

Now, Rob Skiba denies the possibility of Hercules having been engendered by a demon actually copulating with a woman after the flood. He says after the very severe punishment of the 200 Watchers, no demon would have dared such a thing. But he admits they may be into what he calls "lab stuff" when it comes to whatever aliens are producing. Now, Saint Thomas Aquinas, as well as Saint Augustine, say that Genesis 6:4 was about the sons of Seth (the people of God) chosing wives among the daughters of Cain, but he also says that angels and demons completely lack sexual apparatus or bodies, so any baby "engendered" by demons would have both parents human, just that the demon had acted like sperm bank and like fertility doctor inbetween. Even, if it comes to Genesis 6:4, the "first offense". Saint Augustine also considered book of Henoch as possibly contaminated with late corruptions. If this theory is wrong, Hercules may well, just as Goliath, have been of the "later giants" stock among the Philistines. And these guys would typically have lived in a society where such a thing popping up would trigger a suspicion of being "children of Zeus", or of other deities. And sometimes demons might have been ready and more than willing "to act the part".

Poseidon is actually Posei-Daon, so if Daon is Dagon we have evidence of Philistine-Achaean connexion (if Athenians were Achaeans), and he was considered the father of Theseus of Athens, and "he" heard and granted "his son's" request to kill "his grandson" Hippolytos. One of the clearest diabolical activities attributed by Greeks themselves to their gods, along those things where Delphic Oracle and its Pythic spirits represented Apollo, or when that "god" sent plague, quasi on his own behalf - not just handed over someone to the plague by judgement, but acted it out himself.

ει θεοι τι δρωσιν αισχρον ουκ εισιν θεοι

The Greeks had a past where demons deluded the strongest and the brightest and trapped the purest and got away with being called gods, but they were getting tired of it. Many learned Christians have considered that philosophy like that of Platon was "Moses speaking in Greek", i e that the merit of that belongs to the Hebrew people while they were still faithful to God.

One more thing, if Hippolytos the Pagan hero (there was later a Christian martyr, who died the same way) was considered grandson of "Lord Dagon" or Poseidaon, Telephos the founder of Pergamon was considered grandson of "Zeus". Something to meditate on next time you either visit or shun the Musäumsinsel in Berlin - since Pergamonmusäum with its Pagan attire has on the view of Skiba which may be quite right a connexion to World War one, possibly to Lenin (but Trotski was launched into Russia by the Northern Kaiser's enemy - or supposed such - Woodrow Wilson a bit later), to World War two and to Communist Dictator Honecker. And if the sons of Hercules did not get Sparta, later Heraclids with the Dorian invasion did, so it has a reference to Sparta - a city where men were encouraged to close and sometimes sodomitic relations at least later on.

Was Gilgamesh the first shrink?

Rob Skiba argues that Gilgamesh is another name for Nimrod.

Bible says Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord" and a Catholic comment says "not of beasts but of men" and same or other commentator cited in the same comment - that of Haydock - adds "before the Lord who knows things as they are".*

What did this look like to men?

If you have read any summary of the Gilgamesh epic, I ask you to recall Enkidu.

He may have lost his soul as well as having a life with no wife but with a comradeship imposed by Gilgamesh, since the day he was trapped by a harlot Gilgamesh sent him. But to those writing the epic it looked as if thereby Gilgamesh had cured Enkidu of madness.

We find very little about Gilgamesh as having a spouse - unlike Ulysses as described by Homer - but very much about how he did "the right thing" and how he was "responsable" when it comes to Enkidu, up to when Enkidu dies. I think he liked domineering Enkidu. And people engaged in the personal development of others (teachers, gymnastic teachers, shrinks, analysts, and so forth ...) to me at least seem often to do so. Was he Nimrod? I think, alas, yes. "A mighty hunter before the Lord" ...

It seems to me that my own situation is a bit spammed (or was so till a few days ago) by people desiring me to "come to my senses" and take some kind of guidance (from them or from people they trust), and it seems to me I am getting a worse person by this situation, like a lamb outward (the people I meet could be innocent and if not it could be dangerous confronting them) but a wolf inward (my inner desires for some I have been suspecting of such have gone up from slapping and boxing to murder or maiming, should I get what I consider a legitimate occasion and not be afraid to use it). I feel I am, due to the attentions of some, getting as little occasion to live my life as Enkidu under the attentions of Gilgamesh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
St Anaclet, Pape et Martyr

Preliminary update on the Gilgamesh and shrink question:

I spoke of the Epic of Gilgamesh as I recalled the summary given in a collection of Mythological stories. I found a quote which contradicts my memory, and have not yet had the time to get through how this affects the question. Nevertheless, Psychiatry is Babylonian whichever is the case, since its Demonology vastly abuses the concept of Demonic possession onto behaviours that are perfectly normal but were seen as "socially unacceptable" by the élite. If not, where did the Pharisees get their abuse of that concept from?/HGL (17/IX/2013)

Update on December 25 Question:

Actually, "winter solstice" was indeed, according to some researchers (Bojana Mojsov) associated to the cult of Osiris, but not as his birthday, rather as birthday of his posthumous son Horus. Since Egyptian year was 365 days exactly without any leap years, I am not sure this means that a date on a certain year started out as winter solstice bt astronomically moved away from it, or whether this means that it remained on winter solstice independently of date in the 365 day calendar. In the French translation by Flammarion, I did not find appropriate footnotes, for certain informations, this like the next: at the time of Shishak I in Abydos an Osirian rite was supposed to be performed on the statue "of his father Nimrod". In the English edition, the preview includes some footnotes but not the pages they are footnotes to.**

Now, assuming that Osiris were indeed the same person as Nimrod (which we need not, the Midrash called Book of Jasher could be mistaken, it is not the word of God as Genesis or Joshua are, and the information I just cited may mean Osiris was son of Nimrod rather than Nimrod himself), that means that winter solstice is not the birthday of Nimrod, but of another person who can have been a much better guy.

Assuming furthermore that Esau killed Nimrod and this was Osiris "killed by Seth", Horus may have saved the life of Esau (in that case identified as "Seth") by pretending he - Esau, "Seth" - changed himself into a hippopotamus and then he - Horus - killed this hippopotamus. And that was the revenge taken for "Osiris". Of course, he could have put up such a charade after learning Esau was already dead too, of course.

Such researchers may of course also have an agenda, like trying to prove Christianity a calque on Osiris worship. Indeed Mojsov calls the killers of Hypatia "fanatics" and deplores the burning of the Serapeion. She does in that context not dare to blame St Cyril of Alexandria for it. As to what she might have tried to prove, she claims that Horus and Isis "became" Christ Child and Madonna, and that Horus and Seth "became" St George and the Dragon. Even if we accept her take on how Egyptians believed and so, this does not make such a conclusion true.

A Pagan myth as much as an Old Hebrew revelation may contain a real prophecy about the real Christ. First of all, not all myths come from devil's, although the relation of Enlil and Enki certainly does, and the Theogony of Hesiod may do so too, unless it is more like harmless spirits playing a joke (fairies may appear on Judgement Day and say "we never knew Hesiod would be that stupid, we thought shepherds were wiser than that, look at Abel for one"). But not only certain real persons have by Kingship and Courage and Goodness and by being saviours in certain contexts been prophecies about Christ, sometimes the demons have prophecied the truth as well.

A Sibyl is a woman possessed by a Sibylline spirit. Those very evil things would for instance plague their mediums into frenzies (like Voodoo mediums today or like the Sibyl of Cumae in Aeneid VI) and abuse the credulity of those consulting mediums to destroy their lives (like the one of Delphi did to Perseus' grandfather or to Acrisius, Iocaste and Oedipous). But sometimes they do speak truth. Judgement day will dissolve the centuries into ashes "teste David cum Sibylla". Both King David, oracle of the true God and a Sibyl, oracle of the Devil, concur there will be a Judgement Day. Again, when Jesus Christ met possessed people, the demons speaking through their mouth could very correctly identify Him as the true Messiah and as Son of the Living God. And of course as a terror to themselves.

Meaning that even if the myth of Horus were entirely demonic rather than part human part fake, still he could be a prophecy. Meaning that there is no reason to debunk Christianity as Horus worship however many parallels you find. In actual fact some parallels are a bit farfetched. Like the December 25 parallel, since even if Horus was born (physically or fictionally) on winter solstice, that did not become December 25 of earliest version of Julian calendar until more than thousand years later./HGL

PS: If Horus was a really bad guy, it is still true that people unaware thereof, worshipping him and really the devil, were nevertheless prepared to worship the true Christ by a very much less evil memory of him. But we do not know whether he was actively promoting the cult of Osiris and of himself as gods or was only caught up in it. At a much later stage Odin was certainly a culprit (I wonder if he was an Egyptian priest or mage), but Thor might have been only caught up in it. If Osiris was really the same man as Nimrod, which we are not sure of since we are not sure Sephar ha-Yasher is the real book of Jasher mentioned in Holy Writ, and if (according to same source) he was killed by Esau, then Abraham's Pharao would have been an underling of Nimrod, but Joseph's Pharao a successor of Osiris ... maybe the immediate successor Horus. I am not at all sure what Book of Jasher says thereof, since I only know what Rob Skiba cites from it, I do not have it myself./HGL

Update on identity of Serapis (Osiris), from City of God:

St Augustine disagrees with the so called Book of Jasher - supposing Ninus and Nimrod to be the same:

At Abraham's birth, then, the second kings of Assyria and Sicyon respectively were Ninus and Europs, the first having been Belus and Ægialeus. But when God promised Abraham, on his departure from Babylonia, that he should become a great nation, and that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed, the Assyrians had their seventh king, the Sicyons their fifth; for the son of Ninus reigned among them after his mother Semiramis, who is said to have been put to death by him for attempting to defile him by incestuously lying with him. Some think that she founded Babylon, and indeed she may have founded it anew. But we have told, in the sixteenth book, when or by whom it was founded. Now the son of Ninus and Semiramis, who succeeded his mother in the kingdom, is also called Ninus by some, but by others Ninias, a patronymic word. Telexion then held the kingdom of the Sicyons. In his reign times were quiet and joyful to such a degree, that after his death they worshipped him as a god by offering sacrifices and by celebrating games, which are said to have been first instituted on this occasion.

City of God, Book 18, chapter 2.

If this is true, Nimrod was already dead long before Esau. Supposing he was Ninus.

Confer all of chapter 5:

Of Apis King of Argos, Whom the Egyptians Called Serapis, and Worshipped with Divine Honors.

In these times Apis king of Argos crossed over into Egypt in ships, and, on dying there, was made Serapis, the chief god of all the Egyptians. Now Varro gives this very ready reason why, after his death, he was called, not Apis, but Serapis. The ark in which he was placed when dead, which every one now calls a sarcophagus, was then called in Greek σορὸς, and they began to worship him when buried in it before his temple was built; and from Soros and Apis he was called first [Sorosapis, or] Sorapis, and then Serapis, by changing a letter, as easily happens. It was decreed regarding him also, that whoever should say he had been a man should be capitally punished. And since in every temple where Isis and Serapis were worshipped there was also an image which, with finger pressed on the lips, seemed to warn men to keep silence, Varro thinks this signifies that it should be kept secret that they had been human. But that bull which, with wonderful folly, deluded Egypt nourished with abundant delicacies in honor of him, was not called Serapis, but Apis, because they worshipped him alive without a sarcophagus. On the death of that bull, when they sought and found a calf of the same color—that is, similarly marked with certain white spots—they believed it was something miraculous, and divinely provided for them. Yet it was no great thing for the demons, in order to deceive them, to show to a cow when she was conceiving and pregnant the image of such a bull, which she alone could see, and by it attract the breeding passion of the mother, so that it might appear in a bodily shape in her young, just as Jacob so managed with the spotted rods that the sheep and goats were born spotted. For what men can do with real colors and substances, the demons can very easily do by showing unreal forms to breeding animals.

This chronology hardly leaves room for Esau having killed Nimrod./HGL

Second thoughts on previous one:

However, as I was just thinking, what if Argos in Greece is a kind of stand-in (like Rome for both Troy and Babylon) for another ... Eridu. Which is where Nimrod built the tower. If I am wrong about my hunch of Göbekli Tepe being the site. Even if I am right, Eridu seems associated with his evil cult, notably of Enki.

Eridu > Argo-s (Final -s is a grammatic ending, like in Ioanne-s, from Iohannan in Hebrew lent as Ioanne-n - n taken as grammatical ending alternative to -s, depending on parsing of sentence) ... no way on basis of regular sound laws any language I know of, d > g is not credible without a set purpose.

However, study the acoustic traits - using terminology of Roman Jakobsen - in those changes.

The I, which is high and diffuse, disappears. Its opposite direction, low, compact, prevails in every change:

  • E > A, high to low, already compact.
  • D > G, high to low, diffuse to compact.
  • U > O, already low, diffuse to compact.

Those traits, and the letters I assign them to, I did not make them up. They are from Roman Jakobsen's system of phonetics. Later replaced by Noam Chomsky's, which is articulatory and thus does not take into account acoustic similarities of different articulations. Front (except lips) being acoustically high and back (plus lips) acoustically low is valid for both vowels and consonants. But for compact and diffuse, the vowels are tongue further up if diffuse, tongue further down if compact. Whereas in consonants, the two front ones (lips and teeth) are diffuse, the two back ones (palatals and velars, like Spanish che and que) are compact. Which means that if you really feel d is both thinner and shriller than g - g as in goth - and I for one do, then the newer terminology of Chomsky is hiding an acoustic similarity apparent from Jakobsen's terminology. Now, look again at the changes between Eridu and Argo:

  • The I, which is high and diffuse, disappears.
  • E > A, high to low, already compact.
  • D > G, high to low, diffuse to compact.
  • U > O, already low, diffuse to compact.

Every other trait, except disappearance of other traits of I as well as those noted, exactly the same. There is no language in which a coincidence of changes like E > A with U > O and so on, occurring independently and working on different occasions within the language (what is called sound laws) would give exactly this relation between Eridu and Argo as older and newer stages of same name. And even if there were, it is suspicious all changes went the same way.

Now the other discrepancy between St Augustine giving Apis of Argos as historic man Osiris, posthumously worshipped as a god, and Giza Discovery giving Nimrod is not as important. It would only mean that an earlier king of "Argos" (i e Eridu) was mistaken for a later one. And that in its turn is what one may expect from Pagan Greek records. Deucalion and Pyrrha come in Greek chronology so much later (a few generations before Troyan War) that it has been surmised it was another flood in Thessaly confounded with that of Noah (this is what Bossuet taught), and if so there are four Biblical and and one extrabiblical figure involved in legend of "Deucalion". Adam's "mother" can be considered the earth, since he had no real mother. Noah survived flood in an arch. Abraham was warned by three angels of Sodom's destruction and when Lot had survived it his daughters thought there was some need to repopulate the earth. All this and possibly even a fifth Thessalian man in a lesser flood is there in Deucalion. But the Thessalian is not necessary if you consider it possible, as I do, that Greeks very much reduced pre-Troyan chronology. At same time as they suppressed memory of Hittite Empire under which Priam and Agamemnon were only satraps, basically.

Is there, then, any connexion between Babylon and Argos?

Actually archaeologists have studied far later influences of Assyrian culture on Greece - there were some - but what has been studied about the Achæan Empire, which was a satrapy (to use the Persian word) of the Hittite Empire, and which waged war against Troy or Phrygia which was also such a satrapy, though all that larger political connexion has been lost in the later legends of the war as Homer wrote them, suggests there might be an older one.

St Augustine can therefore hardly be used to exclude the possibility that Osiris = Nimrod./HGL


*Challoner, cited by Haydock

Quoting the wording:

Ver. 9. A stout hunter. Not of beasts, but of men; whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord; that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived. (Challoner) --- The Septuagint call him a giant; that is, a violent man. According to Josephus, he stirred up men to rebel against the Lord, maintaining that all their happiness must come from themselves, &c., Antiquities i. 4. Thus he broached the first heresy after the deluge. (Worthington) --- He seems to have been the same as Bel, father of Ninus, and the author of idolatry. (Menochius)

**Bojana Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God (Amazon)

No comments: