Tag Archive | Nephilim

The Cemetery Of The Giants

giants

 

“There were giants in the earth in those days…” Gen 6:4
.
It seems that mankind has questioned the reality of the existence of giants at least since giants were mentioned in Genesis.
.
Nearly every place around the world has legends of giants dwelling in the land. Greek and Roman mythology mentions the Titans and Norse mythology contains stories of the Frost giants of Jötunheim.
.
Well known first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the history of the Jewish War in 79 AD and spoke of giants:
.
“There were giants. Much larger and shaped differently than normal people. Terrible to behold!”
.
Many of these stories are not limited to the ancient past but are also part of our more recent history.
.
When Abraham Lincoln made his first visit to Niagara Falls in 1848, he wrote of giants in his notes:
.
When Columbus first sought this continent – when Christ suffered on the cross – when Moses led Israel through the Red Sea – nay, even when Adam first came from the land of his Maker – then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara…”
.
In his autobiography, “Buffalo” Bill Cody wrote the following words about a legend recounted to him by members of the Sioux tribe.
.
It was taught by the wise men of this tribe that the earth was originally peopled by giants, who were fully three times the size of modern men. They were so swift and powerful that they could run alongside a buffalo, take the animal under one arm, and tear off a leg, and eat it as they ran. So vainglorious were they because of their own size and strength that they denied the existence of a Creator. When it lighted, they proclaimed their superiority to the lightning; when it thundered, they laughed.
.
This displeased the Great Spirit, and to rebuke their arrogance he sent a great rain upon the earth. The valleys filled with water, and the giants retreated to the hills. The water crept up the hills, and the giants sought safety on the highest mountains. Still the rain continued, the waters rose, and the giants, having no other refuge, were drowned.
.
It is interesting that much of giant lore includes descriptions of a flood sent by God (or the gods) to destroy these wicked people. Could it be that while the Bible contains the true history of our past, these groups are simply repeating their own distorted versions of world history prior to and perhaps after the dispersion at Babel?
.
Many such stories contain exaggerations but is it reasonable to automatically reject every one of these traditions, or, like most legends, is there possibly some truth behind the them, as is often the case?
.
The Biblical support for the existence of giants is overwhelming although many details as to their nature and number are still debated.  What is perhaps more controversial today is the quest to find giants remains.
.
Many claims of giant skeletons have been made over the past few centuries, especially in the nineteenth century.
.
One such place can be found in Ecuador known as the “The Cemetery of the Giants”.
.
Father Carlos Vaca was a priest in Ecuador in 1964 when villagers contacted him to examine some strange bones that had been found. The bones were eventually taken to Austria for further analysis and would be featured in an exhibit, Unsolved Mysteries.
.
The bones were deemed to be human and samples contained a complete shinbone. Whoever belonged to the skeleton stood at a whopping 7.6 meters tall (25 feet). The site of the skeletal discoveries was named Cemetery of the Giants by the locals.
.
Almost fifty years later, a 2012 exploration team discovered an ancient pyramid network in the Ecuadorian-Amazon jungle, a site unknown to anyone, including the locals. Author Bruce Fenton, also a researcher, believes the site is the Lost City of the Giants because of local legends of giants who once lived in the region and the giant tools found in the area.
.
An internet search of giant skeletons will prove futile because of the photo shopping over the years. Apparently some jokesters are determined to mock the many Biblical references to giants, because they deem the stories as mythology. However, discoveries continue.
.
Below the surface of Death Valley, a 1931 discovery unearthed human skeletons approximately nine feet tall.
.
A January 2015 discovery in Bulgaria at the site of the ancient Greek city Odessos came as no surprise to some of the locals. There was a 6,000-year history full of stories about giants. The accidental discovery of a skeleton described as “very tall” and “impressive” offered validity to the legends.
.
Giant footprints have been discovered all over the world. “Goliath’s Footprint” in South Africa measures 4-feet. A 1926 edition of The Oakland Tribune reported 5-foot long footprints on a cliff in San Jose, California.
.
Christian researcher L.A. Marzulli has been at the forefront of leading the charge to explore such claims around the world and believes there is startling evidence to suggest that there has been a massive cover up of what he believes are the remains of giants.
 .
Marzulli has teamed up with film producer Richard Shaw to create The Watchers series, a set of DVD documentaries examining many issues of the supernatural from a Christian worldview.  His latest film, Watchers 10 is coming soon and explores the subject of giant remains more in-depth.  You can learn more about it by viewing the trailer below.
.

 

Syrian Lessons… What Was Netanyahu Thinking?

Republicans, Democrats…they’ve all had a hand in this dangerous manipulation. But I’m getting ahead of myself–so let’s hold off on that for a while.

Kenya is one of the latest fairly new places that the Jihadis have chosen to target–well over a hundred dead and wounded in a shopping mall. The day before it was the Philippines making news with its own Islamic insurgency…that same old Dar ul-Islam vs. the Dar al-Harb thing again and again and again. Around the same time there were hundreds dead and wounded blown up in a Pakistani Christian church. The list goes on, with new victims surely to come on the morrow. I think you get the picture.

Pick your conflict. Chances are Arabs or other Arabized Muslims are involved. And you’d make out good could in Vegas with those odds.

Sounds a bit “racist” you say? Please check my facts then…
netanyahu responds to rocket fire
Show me a day, I dare you, when even the mostly politically correct mainstream media is not reporting some Jihadi claiming a ticket to Paradise by massacring masses of innocents–often at random. Whitewashing will only fool those who want to be fooled. And these folks are not dying because their heroes use them as human shields.

While it’s true that you can find mass murder occurring elsewhere (including right here in America), this is not (thank G_d) a daily event.

And, amid all of this nauseating barbarism which has become routine in the so-called “Arab”/Muslim world, with numerous thousands of innocents being wantonly slaughtered (millions if black Africans in the Sudan and elsewhere and the Anfal campaign and such against the Kurds are included from a bit earlier), there is a tiny oasis of relative peace and sanity. Guess where? Hint–it starts with “Isr” and ends with an “l.” You know, the nation which has been condemned by the United Nations more than any other.

“Relative” is the key word here. Israel has its problems too, and as various Jewish subgroups from all over the world have their own grievances with the government, so do Israeli Arabs. But there’s one thing for certain…the latter are the freest Arabs anywhere in the region–and they know it.

Too “free.” When one’s freedom impinges upon the freedom and security of others, then it must be restrained.

Israeli Arabs repeatedly attempt to murder Jews who enter their villages, and the moronic Hebrews give them a free pass. Check out what Iraqi or Syrian Arabs are doing to their own neighbors for far less. Just imagine if this was reversed and Arabs were being murdered in Jewish villages and towns–the news reports would be non-stop.

This situation must be put to an end by whatever means necessary. If examples must be made, then so be it. When expulsion orders are enforced for the perpetrators and they’re sent off to Gaza’s Hamastan or Fatahland; or murderers and wannabes are not taken alive to be fed, housed, educated, and so forth at the Jews’ expense, then maybe the message will sink in…Probably not.

Regardless, Jews did not wait for millennia for the resurrection of their sole, minuscule nation only to have to be afraid to travel within it. That’s what life was frequently like for the Jews outside of Israel. The rebirth of the Jewish State was supposed to change that. So, any Jewish leaders who allow this to occur are pathetic. In a democracy–a true democracy, not just a nation of majority rule–this becomes a bit more complicated, so the Jews will have to find legal ways to rid themselves of Lefty judges and others who blame the victims instead, enabling such Arab murderous and traitorous behavior.

Next…

Iraq, Libya, Egypt–flip a coin for the following chapter.

But, with all that’s been happening on the Syrian front (regardless of who did or did not use chemical WMD), there are some other very powerful lessons that the Jews better learn. That brings us back to the opening sentences of this analysis…

Back in the days when George H.W. Bush was President (1989-1993), one of his best buddies, James Baker III, was appointed Secretary of State. Along with such famous gems as calling Israel a turkey that needed to be carefully stalked, complaining about the Jews’ love of money (while himself milking the Arab petro-teet non-stop), and proclaiming, “F’ the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway,” Baker also promised Syria the same deal that Egypt’s Anwar Sadat got in the Sinai–a full return of the lands lost in the 1967 Six Day War.

Keep in mind that Baker was making such deals with Assad the First without even consulting Israel.

Also keep in mind what this author, along with some others, repeatedly emphasizes–that the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 (the one that was accepted, not the one that the Arabs, Russians, and the French wanted passed which involved a return to the status quo ante, as if there were no Arab aggression, casus belli blockade, etc.) did not call for Israel to return to what has been called the Auschwitz lines of 1949. Those armistice lines only marked the spots where the Jews stopped the invasion of their nascent country by a half dozen Arab states. They were not official boundaries, and the architects of 242 stated just that while calling for the creation of more defensible, secure, and real borders to take the place of the ’49 lines.

What Menachem Begin’s Israel could gamble to do with Egypt–when the latter’s leader flew to Jerusalem to make a real peace (which would have likely thawed even more over the years had Sadat not been assassinated by Muslim Brotherhood clones)–it could not do on other fronts unless the circumstances were similar. Later, some opportunities opened (some would say, re-opened) with Jordan too, an Arab state carved out in 1922 from almost 80% of the original 1920, post-World War I Mandate of Palestine.

While it’s true that immediately after the ’67 war, Israel offered most, if not all, the territories back in exchange for peace and was answered with the “3 Nos of Khartoum” instead, it soon became obvious that true peaceful coexistence with the state of the Jews was not what most Arabs had in mind. They openly adopted a destruction-in-phases policy instead, with a return of Israel to the ’49 lines as the first stage.

Syria had done much to instigate the ’67 hostilities–and yet, the Alawis who came to rule Syria over the past four decades, have some interesting earlier “history” regarding Jews and the Jewish state.

During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Syria had plotted with Egypt, once again, for this attack. Recall Israel’s repeated offers of the return of at least most of the territories taken in its defensive war in ’67 for real peace. This was true on the Golan Heights as well (which had also been ruled by Jews in much earlier history, was part of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine, etc.). But remember 242’s call for the creation of more defensible, secure borders.

The Sinai Peninsula, if demilitarized, could be a fairly large buffer zone–and it was, at least until recently. With the recent turmoil in Egypt, various Jihadi factions have moved in and so forth. Still, as long as no major tank and artillery battalions, missile and air bases were set up there as in pre-’67 war days, Israel could manage the problems.

Not so, however, on the Golan.

It’s all down hill into Israel proper from those heights. Israeli kibbutzim and fishermen in the Sea of Galilee were commonly attacked, with Syria also controlling some of the main sources of Israel’s fresh water supply.

Despite this, Israel offered the return of most of the Golan on several occassions. Arabs demanded it all. What else is new?

Imagine any other nation being repeatedly attacked from territory and fending off the attackers. How many times has geography exchanged hands this way–and often for far less than what Israel has been subjected to?

Yet, again, had the Assads just played ball with America over Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran a bit more, both Republican and Democrat White Houses were set to pressure the Jews over the Golan the same way Obama is now doing with Judea and Samaria–aka the “West Bank.”

As Obama now pretends that Israel did not have the final draft of 242’s promise of the creation of more defensible, secure, and real political borders to replace indefensible armistice lines; and, as he plays deaf, dumb, and blind to George W. Bush’s letter to Israel assuring it after its withdrawal from Gaza that it would not have to return to the ’49 lines and that any Arabs “returning” would have to return to the new (and 2nd) Arab state being formed in the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine; so too was Obama set to apply the same pressure when he sent Arafat’s good buddy, Robert Malley, to Syria back in 2008.

While some American leaders–like Bush the First, Carter, and Clinton–may have been close to Obama’s thinking on such issues, others were not. Here’s President Johnson on the subject of Israel returning to the ’49 lines on June 19, 1967, soon after the war ended…

A return to the situation on June 4 (the day before hostilities) was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities….Johnson then called for “new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war.”

Here’s Reagan on the same subject on Sept. 1, 1982…

In the pre-1967 borders (sic), Israel was barely 10-miles wide… the bulk of Israel’s population within artillery range of hostile armies. I’m not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

And here’s Lord Caradon, the chief architect of the final, passed version of 242…

It would have been wrong to demand Israel return to positions of June 4, 1967 … those positions were … artificial … just places where soldiers of each side happened to be on the day fighting stopped in 1948 … just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t demand Israelis return to them.

Given the nightmarish bloody mess surrounding it on all sides, just imagine what Israel would be facing right now if it had caved earlier. Does any sane person really believe that Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas are any better than those eating others’ livers in Syria or decapitating Copts in Egypt?

At least in Syria the Assad butchers have had self-preservation in mind for almost the past half century–so the Israeli front kept fairly quiet.

The various Sunni Jihadi butchers, however, have Paradise in mind–so there will be no limits here. Imagine them in control of all of the Golan.

The earlier return of Gaza immediately became a nightmare, and the Sinai may yet become that as well. So, forget about a return to the status quo ante on either the Golan or in Judea or Samaria. Israel faces the same human organ-eating and infant throat-slitting scenarios on both fronts. The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was bad enough–a test Arabs flunked horrendously regarding future peaceful “good intentions.”

No more.

242’s promise of a fair territorial compromise must not be abandoned, regardless of who is doing the squeezing.

Now, to end this, I must leave you, dear readers, with this troubling question…

Why would Prime Minister Netanyahu–who supposedly understands all of the above–allow Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, to be Israel’s chief negotiator at the renewed round of Jew arm-twisting (“negotiations”) currently underway?

Despite Livni’s family’s strong nationalist credentials, for quite some time she has sided more with Obama’s positions and Arab one-sided demands than with the fair, effective compromise built into 242 which also addresses Israel’s basic (not “maximalist”) security needs. What was Netanyahu thinking?

Unfortunately, the only answer that makes any sense is not very pleasant to those of us who were expecting to see something beyond Israel once again being forced into participating in the Arabs’ post-’67 destruction-in-phases plan that they openy admit to and the non-peace that they will offer–regardless of how much Israel gives away:

Livni will be Netanyahu’s excuse for the Munich-style “peace for our time” agreement that America’s Chamberlain will pressure Israel to accept.

History tells us how that first version turned out in 1938. Shame on Israel if it does not learn from that tragedy.

Netanyahu must act like the leader he claims to be–and some of us have (at least earlier) seen him as. He has the support of most Americans and Congress–which makes this behavior even more puzzling. And please don’t tell me about wanting to trade Judea and Samaria for Iran.

If it does not get full and open recognition itself as the State of the Jews in return for the creation of the Arabs’ 22nd state (created mostly on non-Arab peoples lands) and second, not first, in “Palestine;” and if does not get the effective territorial compromise envisioned in the final draft of UNSC Resoluition 242, Israel must pack its bags and extricate itself from the dangerous vise both its current “friends” and enemies alike have it trapped in.

Obama’s failures elsewhere must not be compensated for by the gross endangerment of the Jewish State. Yet that’s exactly what he has in mind…sort of like a disgraced Clinton hoping for a Nobel Peace Prize via having Israel cave in to almost all of Arafat’s demands at Camp David over a decade earlier.

Despite its own flaws, any objective study would show that Israel still shines brightly when compared to anything around it. If you doubt this, just ask Hamas family members, Syrian, and other Arabs who are being treated in Israeli hospitals while their brothers are busy murdering or trying to murder Jews.

Hamas and Islamic State. Two sides of the same coin.

IMPORTANT ARTICLE BY F.L.A.M.E.Facts and Logic About the Middle East (www.factsandlogic.org)

 

ISIS and Hamas: Two murderous terror groups that want to establish an Islamic empire in the Middle East.  Should we destroy one and not the other?  When ISIS beheaded American journalist James Foley, President Obama expressed his outrage and called ISIS a “cancer” that must be prevented from spreading.   A visibly agitated Secretary of State Kerry declared that ISIS is “evil” and “must be destroyed.”

 

These angry characterizations are no doubt accurate, and few in the West will argue about the need to defeat ISIS—even though the group has so far not attacked the United States.

We wonder, though, why Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry can be so adamant about the evil of ISIS, yet so keen to insist that Israel stop fighting with Hamas, an equally brutal terrorist group that has been trying to commit genocide on the Jewish people for its entire existence.

There are certainly differences between ISIS and Hamas, just as there are differences between Al Qaeda and the murderous Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram.   Yet these groups have common values, strategies and goals—and all are evil.

 

Here are three defining qualities that these Islamist groups – ISIS, Hamas, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram – share:

  1. All want to establish a worldwide caliphate (or empire) under strict sharia law. That means they are dedicated to conquering and colonizing the lands of other religious, national and ethnic groups.
  2.  All four groups believe that their jihad justifies killing innocent civilians including Muslims through terrorist acts, like suicide bombs, rocket attacks and beheadings.
  3. These groups all consider Christians, Jews, Hindus and any religious groups outside of Islam to be infidels, subject to second-class citizenship at best and, more commonly, exile or death.

 

Does President Obama really think that ISIS should be destroyed, but not Hamas?  American assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders confirm a U.S. commitment to destroying Al Qaeda, but where is the U.S. commitment to destroying Hamas?

It’s ominous that we heard no encouragement from Obama and Kerry for Israel to destroy the Gaza-based Islamist terrorists who attacked Israel and launched more than 4,000 missiles at Jewish and Arab Israelis in just four months.  Why is that?

Rather, we heard U.S. criticism that Israel, despite all Herculean efforts to spare innocent Palestinians, was too aggressive, used too much military force.

This week’s FLAME Hotline featured article, by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, makes an iron-clad case for destroying both terror groups—and further, for allowing Israel to do what’s necessary to defend itself against any enemy that threatens its existence.

While Israel bravely defended itself from direct attacks by the Gaza-based Islamist terror group, Hamas, the world complained that Israel’s response was disproportionate.  Yet now the U.S. has begun striking back at ISIS—and is greeted with thanks from all corners—as though fighting ISIS and Hamas terrorists were not the same struggle against the same global jihad.

 

President Barack Obama has rightfully condemned the ISIS beheading of American James Foley in the strongest terms. This is what he said:

 

“There has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so it does not spread.  There has to be a clear rejection of these kinds of nihilistic ideologies.  One thing we can all agree on is group like (ISIS) has no place in the 21st century.  Friends and allies around the world, we share a common security a set of values opposite of what we have seen from ISIS.  We will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and stability.”

 

At the same time that President Obama has called for an all-out war against the “cancer” of ISIS, he has regarded Hamas as having an easily curable disease, urging Israel to accept that terrorist group, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, as part of a Palestinian unity government. Can we imagine him urging Iraq, or any other Arab country, to accept ISIS as part of a unity government?

Former President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have gone even further, urging the international community to recognize the legitimacy of Hamas as a political party and to grant it diplomatic recognition.   It is hard to imagine them demanding that the same legitimate status be accorded ISIS.

 

Why then the double standard regarding ISIS and Hamas?  Is it because ISIS is less brutal and violent than Hamas?  It’s hard to make that case. Hamas has probably killed more civilians – through its suicide bombs, its murder of Palestinian Authority members, its rocket attacks and its terror tunnels – than ISIS has done.

If not for Israel’s Iron Dome and the Israeli Defense Forces, Hamas would have killed even more innocent civilians. Indeed its charter calls for the killing of all Jews anywhere in the world, regardless of where they live or which “rock” they are hiding behind.  If Hamas had its way, it would kill as least as many people as ISIS would.

 

Is it the manner by which ISIS kills?  Beheading is of course a visibly grotesque means of killing, but dead is dead and murder is murder.  And it matters little to the victim’s family whether the death was caused by beheading, by hanging or by a bullet in the back of a head.   Indeed most of ISIS’s victims have been shot rather than beheaded, while Hamas terrorists have slaughtered innocent babies in their beds, teenagers on the way home from school, women shopping, Jews praying and students eating pizza.

 

Is it because ISIS murdered an American?   Hamas has murdered numerous Americans and citizens of other countries.   They too are indiscriminate in who they kill.

 

Is it because ISIS has specifically threatened to bring its terrorism to American shores, while Hamas focuses its terrorism in Israel?  The Hamas Charter does not limit its murderous intentions to one country.   Like ISIS it calls for a worldwide “caliphate,” brought about by violent Jihad.

 

Everything we rightly fear and despise from ISIS we should fear and despise from Hamas.   Just as we would never grant legitimacy to ISIS, we should not grant legitimacy to Hamas-at the very least until it rescinds its charter and renounces violence.   Unfortunately that is about as likely as America rescinding its constitution.   Violence, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are the sine qua non of Hamas’ mission.

 

Just as ISIS must be defeated militarily and destroyed as a terrorist army, so too must Hamas be responded to militarily and its rockets and tunnels destroyed.

 

It is widely argued by many academics and diplomats that there can never be a military solution to terrorism in general or to the demands of Hamas in particular.

This conventional wisdom ignores the lessons of history. Chamberlain thought there could be a diplomatic solution to Hitler’s demands.  Churchill disagreed.  History proved Churchill correct.  Nazi Fascists and Japanese militarists had to be defeated militarily before a diplomatic resolution could be achieved.

So too with ISIS and Hamas.  They must first be defeated militarily and only then might they consider accepting reasonable diplomatic and political compromises. Another similarity between ISIS and Hamas is that if these terrorist groups were to lay down their arms, there might be peace, whereas if their enemies were to lay down their arms, there would be genocide.

A wonderful cartoon illustrates this:  at one end of the table is Hamas demanding “Death to all Jews.”  At the other end is Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.   In the middle sits the mediator, who turns to Netanyahu and asks: “Could you at least meet him half way?”

 

No democratic nation can accept its own destruction.  We cannot compromise – come half way – with terrorists who demand the deaths of all who stand in the way of their demand for a Sunni caliphate, whether these terrorists call themselves ISIS or Hamas.   Both are, in the words of President Obama, “cancers” that must be extracted before they spread. Both are equally malignant.

Both must be defeated on the battlefield, in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law.   There can be no compromise with bigotry, terrorism or the demand for a caliphate.   Before Hamas or ISIS can be considered legitimate political partners, they must give up their violent quest for a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

 

Is Winning The War Against The Islamic State Only The Beginning?

 

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

In recent weeks, the media are filled with reports on the international preparations for a war against the “Islamic State” and an International Conference was even convened in Paris in an attempt to enlist the cooperation of as many nations as possible in waging it.
At the same time, US air force planes have intensified their attacks against “Islamic State” forces, especially in the vicinity of the dams in northern Iraq, this to prevent their being blown up and causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqis.
This week we heard a short and decisive speech by US President Barack Obama, into which he inserted rhetoric elements that he has hardly used before, certainly in comparison to the speeches of his predecessor George W. Bush.
I have not heard all of Obama’s speeches, but those I did rarely included the expression “our friends and allies”. Bush used those words day and night when talking about the war against terror. Does this change in rhetoric express a change in Obama’s approach? I am not sure if it does.
In his speech, Obama repeated several times that Iraq is an ally of the United States. And right at the start of his words, he said that the USA cannot do for the Iraqis what they must do for themselves. That sentence is a perfect example of Obama’s erroneous strategic thinking – he continues to see the Iraqis as a single group. He has still not internalized the fact that the Iraqis have never succeeded in developing the sense of unity and solidarity that defines a nation.
In Iraq the tribal divisions are alive and kicking and there are over 70 of them, as well as four ethnic groups and about ten religions, all divided among a not inconsiderable number of communal sectors. The possibility that the Iraqi government can function any better than those that preceded it is not great, and therefore the assumption that the Iraqi army can be more stalwart in its battle against the knife-wielding Islamic State fighters is yet to be proven correct.
It’s tough trying to build an international coalition, because there are factors unconnected to the Islamic State that come into play. There is a war in eastern Ukraine playing out in the background and Russia is the main actor in that war. Russia does not support a war against the Islamic State, so not many European countries are lining up to join Obama’s coalition against Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and his jihadists.
Regional questions also play a part, including the role that will be allotted to countries in the area such as Iran and the Assad regime, both of whom have a clear interest in joining the coalition. Iran will expect to be rewarded with an easing of demands for nuclear controls and Assad will expect an insurance policy to prevent his being deposed, even though he has been defined as a “war criminal”.
The West is not interested in giving Assad this insurance policy, since he has already announced that any military activity by another country on Syrian soil or over Syrian airspace will be considered an act of hostility against Syria to which that country will respond. The bigger problem is not Syria, but Russia, as any incursion on Syrian soil would be interpreted as a green light for Russia in Ukraine.
Another country in the area that poses a problem is Turkey, which has been aiding the Syrian rebel forces from the very first anti- Assad demonstrations in 2011, those very forces that spawned the “Islamic State” over a three year period. Thousands of jihadists from many different countries arrived at the bloody battlegrounds of Iraq and Syria by way of Turkey.
Turkey purchases oil from the “Islamic State” at a remarkably reduced rate, and resells it in the international market, so that Turkey is basically funding the “Islamic State” while raking in huge sums for its own treasury. It has recently been claimed that Turkey gives weaponry to the “Islamic State”.
Qatar is not enthusiastic about a war against the “Islamic State” either, having given it generous amounts of financial aid over a long period, knowing that its jihadists were anti-Assad. The Emir of Qatar is not eager to eliminate the “Islamic State” because he is afraid that his own state will then become the next goal of the Islamic State jihadists.
In fact, he pays them off so that they expend their aggressive energies on other countries. Saudi Arabia is also not happy about destroying the Sunni Islamic State as it might further empower the Shiite axis headed by Iran. Those who identify with the Muslim Brotherhood certainly feel comfortable with the “Islamic State”, even if they do not support all the brutal methods it employs.
Another point to be taken into consideration is the possible extreme reactions of Muslims around the world against the war and those taking part in it. The black flag of ISIS has been waved in country after country and the jihadist successes against the heretics of Iraq and Syria have made many Muslims around the world ecstatic, also causing many of them to identify with the “Islamic State”, its goals, and first and foremost, the idea of imposing the rule of Islam on the entire world. Radical Muslims who identify with jihad, and who can be found just about everywhere, may carry out attacks, kidnappings, murder and even behead infidels in order to take revenge on the coalition which acts against the “Islamic State”.
The war against the Islamic State looks like a rerun of the war fought against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan starting in 2001. Many of the elements that characterized that war are still around today, leading to the general feeling that the war against “Islamic State” will fail just as the war against al Qaeda did. The reasons are obvious: this is not a war against a state or an organization that will be defeated once its military might is destroyed. Here, we are first and foremost battling an ideology, fighting a faith vested in the hearts of millions of people who live all over the world.
The belief that Islam is the true religion and that Judaism and Christianity are false religions is a basic tenet of Islamic faith worldwide. The belief that Islam can and must rule the world is shared by many millions of Muslims. The belief that militant jihad is a legitimate tool for achieving Islamic supremacy over the world is anchored in Islamic history and the biography of Mohammed.
The belief that a Muslim must mete out the revenge of Allah against every infidel that dares to lift his hand against a Muslim is a natural part of Islam. The belief that “Islamic State”, the goal of the entire mission, reflects the real, pure and original Islam is shared by millions of Muslim worldwide.
It is clear that once al Qaeda was destroyed, the “Islamic State” came to be – so that if the Islamic state is destroyed, another Islamic entity will take its place.and attract thousands of Muslims from just as many countries. Add to that those converting to Islam from Europe, America, and the four corners of the globe, those blond and blue-eyed men and women who will rush to join the group in order to observe all the beliefs associated with Islam.
This can also happen in Africa, under the Boko Haram, in the Saharan plains under the Libyan Jihadists, sponsored by the butchers of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis.
The battle against the problematic tenets of the Islamic faith is not bound in place or time and like the genie that comes out of a bottle, cannot be put back in it. Muslim emigration to Western countries unsettles those governments internally due to the Islamic takeover of public space, politics, economics and its image in the politically correct media. In many parts of the world one can say that “Islamic State is here”, in neighborhoods that the local police do not enter, in the cities where a Muslim majority forces Sharia on supermarkets, pharmacies, bars and churches – and in the parliaments where the presence of the Islamic State is becoming more and more influential and solidly based.
The really significant battle is not in Iraq or Syria, where what is happening is just the introduction that follows the preface acted out in Afghanistan 13 years ago. The real war, far-ranging and dangerous, will develop once “Islamic State” is eliminated and the vengeance resulting from that success begins to be exacted in America, Europe, Australia and every place where man-made laws are in force. Its goal will be to impose the law of Allah as it is spelled out in Islamic sources.
Anyone who thinks that destroying “Islamic State” in Iraq and Syria will solve the problem had better think again, because the problem is not this or that organization or country. The problem is the ideology that today motivates one and half billion people who believe that the “religion of Allah is Islam” (Qu’ran chap.53, v.19).
This ideology will not be eliminated even if we get rid of the jihadists in Iraq and Syria down to the last man. Their followers are to be found in most parts of the world and that world must be prepared to change the rules of the game, otherwise it will find itself putting out fires instead of apprehending the pyromaniacs.

 

3,000 Year-Old Hieroglyphics Discovery Stirs Nephilim Debate

 

Is it possible that 3,000 Year-Old hieroglyphics could depict modern day technology? Are there signs that fallen angels once lived amongst us and left their mark in ancient art and culture?
Some highly fascinating evidence is now coming to light about these possibilities, also shedding new light about the Nephilim…
Lyn Leahz, A Christian author and researcher, describes some very interesting archeological      findings at her article in Before      It’s News: “Decorating an Egyptian temple wall at Abydos are strange hieroglyphics which depict what appear to be modern day aircraft and naval vessels…       but how could people living 2000-3,000 years ago possibly have known about these?”
The hieroglyphics are not easy to mistake – the resemblances to modern air and sea vessels are striking and would undoubtedly be interpreted as such by virtually anyone looking at them, without knowing they were actually artistic depictions from ancient civilizations.

      Images of what appear to be modern-day technology—a helicopter, a submarine, a glider, and another unknown type of aircraft (which some believe resembles the Hindenburg) were discovered by Dr. Ruth Hover and her husband in the temple at Abydos, in Egypt. Based on the archeological findings, coupled with Biblical research and related manuscripts, Lyn concludes that the overall evidence points to the existence of the Nephilim.
But exactly who or what were the Nephilim? There exist a variety of explanations but in the standard Biblical definition, the Nephilim were giant offspring from the impregnation of the ‘daughters of men’ by the ‘sons of God’. It is believed that they existed primarily before the flood during Noah’s lifetime, and that God sent the flood to eradicate the evil and wickedness spawned by the Nephilim, and mankind in general. (Genesis 6: 1-7)
Based on Lyn’s findings, as well as his own, Michael Snyder comments further:  “The history of our planet is far more complex than most people would dare to imagine.  According to the commonly accepted version of history that is taught in high schools and colleges all over the United States, ancient man was a very simple creature with extremely limited knowledge.
Unfortunately for those that promote this flawed version of history, archaeologists keep digging up stuff that directly contradicts it.  The truth is that there is a tremendous amount of evidence of great intellectual achievement in the ancient world.  For example, just consider the Great Pyramid of Giza.
It is a true technological marvel.  It is such a massive structure built with such extraordinary precision that modern technology is only just now starting to catch up with it.  We think that we could possibly build a similar structure today if we wanted to, but modern man has never actually constructed anything like it…
Anyone that attempts to convince you that humans that lived thousands of years ago were bumbling dolts that were lucky to build mud huts and cover their genitals with grass skirts is lying to you… So perhaps we should not think of ourselves as so superior to ancient humanity.  The reality is that they may have been physically and mentally superior to us in many ways.”
Recent DNA testing of ancient skulls found in Peru would appear to support these conclusions. In an article titled ‘DNA Results For the Nephilim Skulls in Peru Are In And The Results Are Absolutely Shocking’, Michael Snyder wrote on February 10th 2014:  “How can we explain elongated skulls that are thousands of years old that contain genetic material “unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far”?  For months, many of us have been eagerly awaiting the results of the first DNA tests to ever be performed on the famous Paracas skulls.

      The results for one of the skulls are now in, and the scientist that did the testing is declaring that this skull represents a “new human-like creature” unlike anything that has ever been discovered before.  So are these actually Nephilim skulls?  Do they come from a time when the world more closely resembled “the Lord of the Rings” than most people living today would ever dare to imagine?
There are those who believe that extremely bizarre hybrid races once roamed the planet.  With each passing year, the scientific evidence continues to pile up on the side of those that are convinced that the Nephilim actually lived among us.  As the knowledge of this evidence becomes more widespread, what is that going to do to the commonly accepted version of history that all of us have been taught?
The geneticist that run the DNA forms this conclusion: “Whatever the sample labeled 3A has came from – it had mtDNA with mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal known so far. The data is very sketchy though and a LOT of sequencing still needs to be done to recover the complete mtDNA sequence. But a few fragments I was able to sequence from this sample 3A indicate that if these mutations will hold we are dealing with a new human-like creature, very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans.”
Research and analysis done by Brian Foerster, in a written exposition for ancient-origins.net, concludes that the distinct and defining feature of this ‘new human-like creature’ is its elongated skull. There are only 2 medically acknowledged ways that this skull shape can arise:
1. Through head-binding, cranial deformation or “cradle boarding”:  A very young child’s skull is pliant at birth, and remains in this way for months. It is therefore possible, by lashing a rope around the head, with a board placed at the back of the skull, and perhaps the front as well, to alter the shape of the head over time.
Many authors state that the time period to perform this shaping was about 6 months to 3 years… What you are capable of doing via this technique is to change the shape of the skull, but not the actual volume; you can alter the shape, but not the size. However, Tello found several skulls, at least 300 at the site called Cerro Colorado adjacent to the main graveyard in Paracas, which had cranial volume larger, and in some cases 25 percent larger (and perhaps more) than a conventional modern human skull.
2.  Through Genetics: The only other possibility for the skull elongation, other than head-binding, would naturally be genetics.  Snyder asserts that forensic analysis of these skulls show that they were not deformed by “cradle-boarding”, based on the following compelling facts written by April Holloway for ancient-origins.net:  “The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening. They also contain only one parietal plate, rather than two…”
April Holloway concludes: “…The fact that the skulls’ features are not the result of cranial deformation means that the cause of the elongation is a mystery, and has been for decades”.  And if human genetics is not the answer, could it be that we are dealing with semi –humans or non-human beings that are nonetheless physically similar to humans?
This possibility isn’t mere conjecture or far-fetched. Snyder explains: “…In fact, in a previous article I discussed how a sample of red hair from one of these skulls was sent to a lab to be analyzed.  The tests on that sample of hair also showed that these skulls are not human.

Or at least they are not fully human…So can we conclusively say that these are Nephilim skulls? Of course many researchers are extremely excited about these findings, but they are warning everyone to stay cautious.  For example, consider what L.A. Marzulli is saying about these skulls:
“Our geneticist has had his mind blown as the email indicates, but we must be cautious with our conclusions until all the evidence can be examined. With that in mind, take a good look at the two skulls in the picture above.  I took this photo when I returned to the Chongos… where the sample for the DNA testing and the subsequent results I posted above, has come from. Are these really Nephilim skulls?  In my opinion, the evidence is beginning to stack up in that direction, but we must be cautious and patient for all the evidence to come in.”
So who were all of these extremely bizarre human-like creatures that were roaming around on our planet just a few thousand years ago? Could it be possible that they were actually the Nephilim or their descendents?
On the back of the latest discoveries and emerging evidence, it is worth taking a closer look at whether we are now able to make a more informed perception of who or what the Nephilim were, how and why they came into existence, when and where they lived and what eventually happened to them.
So exactly who or what were the Nephilim?
Although the Biblical definition of the Nephilim has been widely embraced, there are a number of varied views regarding related details. Outlined below are the conclusions most widely accepted and believed, deduced by various scholars from Biblical exegesis (mainly Genesis 6: 1-7) and supporting texts:
According to gotquestions.org, the Nephilim (“fallen ones, giants”) were the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4. They came to dominate the antediluvian (pre-flood) world and are described as giants. There is much debate as to the identity of the “sons of God.”

It is the contention of many Bible scholars that the “sons of God” were fallen angels (demons) who mated with human females and/or possessed human males and then mated with human females. These unions resulted in offspring, the Nephilim, that were “heroes of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).
Hebraic and other legends (the Book of Enoch and other non-Biblical writings) say that the Nephilim were a race of giants and super-heroes who did acts of great evil. Their great size and power likely came from the mixture of demonic “DNA” with human genetics.
When and where did the Nephilim live?
Exact locations of Nephilim on the earth do not appear to be clearly defined before the flood, however after the flood some details become clearer.
Nwcreation.net explains that several tribes are encountered in the campaign of the Five Kings in Abraham’s day, that some argue might be Nephilim or hybrids of Nephilim. They are described as having become several tribes occupying the lands around the Valley of Siddim (Dead Sea) and evidently intermixed with the Canaanites.  Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2 name these tribes as the Rephaim (“titans”, children of “Rapha”), Zuzim or Zamzummim (“terrible ones”), Emim, Horites, and Anakim (“crushing tyrants”).
The tribe of the Anakim is directly connected with the Nephilim in the false report of the spies described in Numbers 13:33. The context of the passages suggest that the other tribes of giants were relatives of the Anakim or other lines of Nephilim, particularly the Rephaim whose giant descendant is described as living in Gath along with the Anakim Goliath and Lahmi .
The Rephaim are giants (in fact these peoples are generally described as being tall or large) and seem to have been thus matched with the Nephilim based on the English rendering of “giants” in Genesis 6. The characteristics of these tribes are described in Scripture as follows:
– Their height was two or three times the height of normal men.
– They were associated with some kind of unholy intermixing before the Flood.
– They were closely associated with the wicked Canaanites after the Flood.
– In one case they are described as having extra fingers and toes.
Were there Nephilim after the flood?
Genesis 6:4 tells us, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward.” It seems that the demons repeated their sin sometime after the flood as well. However, it likely took place to a much lesser extent than it did prior to the flood. When the Israelites spied out the land of Canaan, they reported back to Moses: “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim).
Who exactly are these ‘sons of God’ who fathered the Nephilim – were they men or angels?
According to nwcreation.net, it is unclear what the ‘Sons of God’ were, but they are distinguished from the daughters of men. There are at least three schools of thought regarding the ‘Sons of God’:
(i)  The most obvious interpretation is that the Nephilim were a hybrid race between two distinct beings;        (ii) The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarification is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, because they had been created, not born. Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom God had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5; Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1:16);        (iii) The more recent view which has been the majority position in the church since St. Augustine in the fourth century is that the Sons of God refers to the God-fearing line of Seth; and the daughters of men refers to the daughters of the unbelieving line of Cain.
Most scholars appear to lean towards the interpretation that the ‘sons of God’ were actual angels as opposed to the “Sethite” view which espouses the view that the ‘sons of God’ in fact descended from the lineage of Seth.
For instance, Chuck Missler states in his analysis published in khouse.org states, “If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should “tie together.”
It is the author’s view that the “Angel View,” however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the “Sethite View” is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record.
It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars accept the “angel” view. Among those supporting the “angel” view are: G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merril F. Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith, being among the best known. For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting the “Angel View” appear compelling”.
What finally happened to the Nephilim?
The Nephilim were one of the primary reasons for the great flood in Noah’s time. Immediately after the Nephilim are mentioned, God’s Word tells us this: “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them’” (Genesis 6:5-7).
So, God proceeded to flood the entire earth, killing everyone and everything (including the Nephilim) other than Noah and his family and the animals on the ark (Genesis 6:11-22). It is also most important to note that they are mentioned almost simultaneous to God’s statement that He would destroy the earth by flood, and it seems from this association that their effect upon mankind was one of the primary justifications that brought the destruction.
It seems that this was part of Satan’s stratagem to corrupt the line of Adam to prevent the fulfillment of the Messianic redemption. It was the infusion of these strange beings into the human predicament that brought on the Flood of Noah. The Flood was preceded by four generations of prophets/preachers warning of the coming judgment: Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. Noah was apparently unique in that his genealogy was still uncorrupted.
Whatever remnants were left of these “giants” were destroyed by the Israelites during their invasion of Canaan (Joshua 11:21-22) and later in their history (Deuteronomy 3:11; 1 Samuel 17).
It seems that God restricted any further action by such angels as recorded in Jude:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 6,7.
However we are also told in II Thessalonians 2 that the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit) is currently holding back much evil from this world and a time is coming when the restrainer will be removed.  Is the coming World Leader, ‘The Antichrist’ a Nephilim, fathered by Satan himself in a replica of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Will modern day Nephilim soon live amongst mankind?
Jesus warned:
“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be (Matthew 24:37-39).”

Giving voice to the opposition

Never let it be said that I will not consider the views put forward by those who disagree with me.

Gaylene Goodroad of the Discernment Research Group has posted this article to tell us all we are indulging in heresy by taking Genesis 6:4 literally. I wonder how she thinks we should take it.

Herescope: Nephilim Eschatology

  1. Many of the people in the Goodroad camp scoff at us who take Genesis 6:4 literally, and cry foul when we mention non-biblical books, like Enoch and Jasher to bolster our interpretation.
    Read this real life report on the scientific community’s race to produce chimeras. Then go read what Jasher and Enoch said was happening in their time: