The Children of Agni

Before we begin, I want to post this excerpt of the Preface (Supposed to be) from the beginning of the Bible (You can also search up "Preface of King James"). Fom the website "www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611":

"TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE PRINCE, JAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord. GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of your Majesty, as the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad. But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven."

"Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty's loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort, and they bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate Author of their true happiness."

"And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed,) and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father. There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty."

"For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require."

"And now at last, by the Mercy of God, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and Patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us."

"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor Instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations. The Lord of Heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his Heavenly hand hath enriched your Highness with many singular and extraordinary Graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of that Great GOD, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour......" (The reader can read the rest)

Now, when I was looking up the "Preface of King James", I had came across this interesting Article based from the website "...dbts.edu/2012/04/09/the-embarrassing-preface-to-the-king-james-version" (DBTS stands for Detroit Baptist Theological Seminar):

"THE EMBARRASSING PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES VERSION Posted By Bill Combs: When the King James Version of the Bible came off the press of Robert Barker in 1611, it contained an eleven-page preface titled “The Translators to the Reader.” This preface is primarily a defense of the new translation, but it also provides important information about the translators’ views on the subject of Bible translation. It is an embarrassment (or should be) to King James-only advocates because it contains statements from the translators that are in direct opposition to the KJV-only position. It is most unfortunate that this pref­ace is no longer included in modern copies of the KJV. This post is the beginning of a series that will examine the actual words of the preface in order to refute the erroneous ideas of KJV-only movement with the words of the translators themselves. But before beginning that examination, I will summarize the contents of the preface. The preface begins by noting, along with examples, that all new en­deavors of whatever kind will commonly face opposition. This is also true for persons who attempt to change and improve anything, even if they are important people like kings. However, the greatest opposition and severest vilification is reserved for those who modify or change the current translation of the Bible, even if that translation is known to have defects."

"Next there follows a long section praising Scripture, noting its great value and divine origin. But the perfections of Scripture can never be appreciated unless it is understood, and it cannot be understood until it is translated into the common tongue. Translation is therefore a good thing. Thus, God in his providence raised up individuals to translate the Old Testament into Greek. The Septuagint, though far from perfect, was still sufficient as the Word of God, such that the apostles quoted it in the NT. And even thought the Septuagint was the Word of God, scholars believed it could be improved, which led to the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, as well as the Hexapla of Origen. Both testaments were then translated into Latin, culminating in Jerome’s Vulgate."

"Finally, the Scriptures were translated into many tongues, in­cluding English. However, the preface observes, the Roman Catholic Church has generally not allowed the Scriptures to be rendered into the common tongues. Recently, they have produced their own translation of the Bible into English though they seem to have been forced to do it against their better judgment due to the number of Protestant English Bibles available."

"The preface then returns to the problem of opposition to the new translation, and translations in general, by answering several objections. The main argument against the new translation questions the need for it, that is, since there had already been a number of English translation of the Bible, why is there need for another? If previous translations were good, there should be no need for another; if they were defective, why were they ever offered in the first place? The answer is, of course, that “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” While the efforts of previous English translators are to be commended, nevertheless, they themselves, if they were alive, would thank the translators of this new translation. The previous English Bibles were basically sound, but this new translation affords an opportunity to make improvements and cor­rections. The translators argue that all previous English translations can rightly be called the Word of God, even though they may contain some “imperfections and blemishes.”

"Just as the King’s speech which he utters in Parliament is still the King’s speech, though it may be imperfectly trans­lated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin; so also in the case of the translation of the Word of God. For translations will never be infal­lible since they are not like the original manuscripts, which were pro­duced by the apostles and their associates under the influence of inspira­tion. However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves."

"But since all translations are imperfect, the Church of Rome should not object to the continual process of correcting and improving English translations of the Bible. Even their own Vulgate has gone through many revisions since the day of Jerome. Finally, the translators state the purpose and plan of the present translation. They have not intended to make a new translation, but to make the best possible translation by improving upon previous ones."

"To do so they have, of course, carefully examined the original Hebrew and Greek since translation should only be done from the original tongues. Also, they did not work hastily, as did the translators of the Septuagint, who, according to legend, finished their work in only seventy-two days. The translators also availed themselves of commentaries and translations of the Scriptures in other languages. In their work they felt it was essen­tial to include marginal notes, despite the fact that some might feel such notes tend to undermine the authority of the Scriptures."

"These notes are essential since the translators confess that oftentimes they were unsure how a word or phrase should be translated. This is especially true in Hebrew, where there are a number of words which only occur once in Scripture, and even the Jews themselves are uncertain about their trans­lation. And so, as Augustine notes, a “variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” Lastly, the translators ob­serve that, in spite of criticism from some quarters, they decided not to always translate the same Hebrew or Greek word with the same English word and have retained, over the objections of the Puritans, the old ec­clesiastical words like “baptism” instead of “washings.”

Now, this is very interesting as there were many Translations of the KJV Bible compared to the newer "corrected" translations. But of course as you can see, there were many contradicted statements and verses that won't correlate with each other (So, does the newer translations have better benefit than the KVJ version at all?). I remember a video on Youtube called "KJV Bible: God's perfect Word", and how the narrator detailed some history on the Bibles being "conducted" by the Catholic Jesuits, "prior" to the KJV version coming forth. It was as if there was a battle of translations of the Bibles, and whose more authentic than the other.  

Now, if you read in the beginning of the Preface states: "TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE PRINCE, JAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord. GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of your Majesty, as the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title...."

The term "Occidental" means this in the Etymology: "c. 1400, "to, of, or in the west (of the sky or the earth)," from Old French occidental (14c.) and directly from Latin occidentalis "western," from occidentem (see occident). Meaning "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the western regions of the earth (especially Western Europe and its derivative civilizations in the western hemisphere" (opposed to oriental), 1550s. As a capitalized noun meaning "a Western person" (opposed to Oriental) it is attested from 1823. Related: Occidentalism; occidentalist. Those who inhabit (to us) the western regions of the world, and to express whom the English language wants a word, the opposite of Orientals; though word-coining be much condemned, I will venture to employ Occidentalsas substantive and say, (etc.) ["The Bee," 1823]".

You should know that this is the opposite of "Oriental", which states this: "late 14c., "of the orient; from the east," from Old French oriental "eastern, from the east" (12c.) and directly from Latin orientalis "of or belonging to the east," from orientem (see orient (n.)). Originally in reference to the sky, geographical sense, often with a capital O-, is attested from late 15c.; oriental carpet is recorded by 1828. Of gems or stones, "of superior quality," late 14c." 

Then there is the "Orient": "ate 14c., "the direction east; the part of the horizon where the sun first appears," also (now with capital O-) "the eastern regions of the world, eastern countries" (originally vaguely meaning the region east and south of Europe, what is now called the Middle East but also sometimes Egypt and India), from Old French orient "east" (11c.), from Latin orientem (nominative oriens) "the rising sun, the east, part of the sky where the sun rises," originally "rising" (adj.), present participle of oriri "to rise" (see origin)."

"Meaning "a pearl of the first water" is by 1831, short for pearl of the Orient (late 14c.) originally meaning one from the Indian seas. Hence also the meaning "a delicate iridescence, the peculiar luster of a fine pearl" (1755). The Orient Express was a train that ran from Paris to Istanbul via Vienna 1883-1961, from the start it was associated with espionage and intrigue."

Now, it is interesting as the term "Occident" is based on the West, and "Orient" is based on the East, as they would determine either "Egypt" or "India" (Of course you know Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" based on famous Inspector "Hercule Poirot"). And how Queen Elizabeth was considered the "Occidental Star", and Prince James was the "KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE". 

Now, when I was in an Islamic Sufi sect (based on an Ancient order), my teacher would detail some interesting things based on the Prophet Muhammed, and would speak highly about his life as if He was Jesus Christ Himself. The true Islam was based on the "Path of Love" and learning about youself and your Creator (which is what the first and second Commandments are based). He would state somethings like "Allah had sent Muhammed as a mercy to mankind", and "everything was created through him", and knowing my Christian understanding of the Bible, it's as if he was talking about Jesus. And most of the Leaders of the Muslim world would know the current Queen Elizabeth the 2nd's lineage, how she is a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed. Prince Charles is highly respected by the House of Saudi for this reason as told by my teacher. Then if that is so, then Queen Elizabeth's lineage is really based on the "Orient".

So, since I have started this blog, I began to piece everything together and seeing how the Bible is not about the Middle East, but is about the People going towards India and China, then from there comes the question: Where did the Bible really come from? Now, I have seen many people trying to piece together the locations of the Bible within the Middle Eastern stand point, in which I find it to be highly inaccurate to this day. 

Now, I have heard many people within the religious stand point, trying to say that they are the Jews, (whether they be black or white, or somewhat Middle Eastern looking) but majority just heads to the land of Palestine thinking it's the source of where God had took his people to. It's always a fight there, as one claims racism against another, or that the Jews from Russia are not real Jews, and that the Ethiopian Jews are the true Jews. There are Afrocentrist that state the Blacks and Hispanics are the Israelites, and the white Jews are Europeans pretending to be Jews (There are many complications as to what race the Jews are supposed to be based on people's perspective).

Then of course the Palestinians want their land back, but through the "Zionist" organization (and other affiliated countries) are situated there for a specific agenda. Many people will state that they are the "Synagogue of Satan" etc. as Revelation 2:9 “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” Revelation 3:9 “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” There has been some controversy stating that the Palestinians are the Israelites as well.....

There are people that would portray the Israelites as white looking people, or black looking people coming forth from the lands of Egypt and into the land of Canaan (Palestine). Many tend to look like this:

Now, there is no doubt that the Children of Israel had mixed with the Europeans, the Africans, and other nations, so I can't state that they are "not" Israelites. It's clear that when I had looked at Jews like the actress "Gal Gadot", her features resembled more of an East Asian or Mongolian, and as when you go to the Ethiopian, the Fulani, Igbo (and other parts of Africa), there are people that have that same "oriental" look, even if they have black skin. The Children of Israel (this particular portion) got scattered when the others had stayed in the land (See "The real Aryans 1&2"). So, one can say that they are not Jews when they are, and vice versa....

Now, upon learning about the accounts of Israel (Palestine) being the land of Israel, there was a man named "Ron Wyatt", who claimed that he discovered "Noah's Ark", the "Wheel of the Egyptians in the Red Sea", the place where Jesus died, and where the Ark of the Covenant (with his claim of Jesus' blood being on the Mercy seat).

Now, when I came across his works, it would seem like an Indiana Jones type of adventure to begin with, but to be sure, I wanted to see who had opposed this man's claims, and sure enough there is. Though Wyatt would state that these claims are lies, and that they are disinformers either being deployed by the Israeli Government to shut down his operation etc. Others state that he was a fraud just in it for the fame, as his background is a Nurse who somehow became an Archeologist overtime. Though that would be up to the reader to research further into this ideal subject of his claims, I see that there were many things that didn't add up to his claims of discovering the "Ark of the Covenant", and "Noah's Ark" (as an Example). There has been rumors of the Ark of the Covenant to being in Ethiopia, and the Priest to be guarding it overtime, but that is up to one's perspective and research.

When learning about "Noah's Ark", there has been claims that it landed in the Caucasus mountains, or that the Black Sea had exponentially flooded, and somehow could be a part of the Biblical flood. However, with this ideology based from the term "Biblical flood", is uncannon, because there are older religions detailing the same flood mythos as well.

So, to call it "Biblical" when it's merely handed down to the Bible in later times, thus deemed as a source is only absurd. Based from Ignatius Donnelly's account and collections of the flood story, he detailed and pieced together the flooding of Atlantis (See "Legends of Atlantis"), and even the "Emerald Tablets" had detailed the same account from Thoth the Atlantean (See "Thoth is Enoch"). So, the flood was never a "world wide flood" as people claim, but just the destruction of a great civilization. Then the "Ark of the Covenant" really had nothing to do with Palestine, as it's really based on the People going into India and China, and the "Ark" is merely a Palaguin.

Upon learning about the God called "Dagon", and the plague that was put upon the Philistines, turns out it was all over the Churches of Europe. The Bible details that Christianity really existed prior to the real Jesus came into this world, to which the God "Dagon" is the Black God of the Cross, the Queen of Heaven is the Black Madonna, the Christmas tree are the Grove worship towards Baal (as he is Dagon and Moloch), the practice of self mortification are the practices done towards Baal (as Roman Catholicism), to the Black stone of the Goddess Diana (who is the Queen of Heaven).

Here in the Wiki states this about the "Black Death":

"The Black Death (also known as the Pestilence, the Great Mortality or the Plague) was a bubonic plague pandemic occurring in Afro-Eurasia from 1346 to 1353.[a] It is the most fatal pandemic recorded in human history, causing the death of 75–200 million people in Eurasia and North Africa, peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351. Bubonic plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, but it may also cause septicaemic or pneumonic plagues."

"The Black Death was the beginning of the second plague pandemic. The plague created religious, social and economic upheavals, with profound effects on the course of European history. The origin of the Black Death is disputed. The pandemic originated either in Central Asia or East Asia but its first definitive appearance was in Crimea in 1347. From Crimea, it was most likely carried by fleas living on the black rats that travelled on Genoese slave ships, spreading through the Mediterranean Basin and reaching Africa, Western Asia and the rest of Europe via Constantinople, Sicily and the Italian Peninsula."

"There is evidence that once it came ashore, the Black Death was in large part spread by fleas – which cause pneumonic plague – and the person-to-person contact via aerosols which pneumonic plague enables, thus explaining the very fast inland spread of the epidemic, which was faster than would be expected if the primary vector was rat fleas causing bubonic plague."

"The Black Death was the second great natural disaster to strike Europe during the Late Middle Ages (the first one being the Great Famine of 1315–1317) and is estimated to have killed 30 percent to 60 percent of the European population. The plague might have reduced the world population from c.  475 million to 350–375 million in the 14th century."

"There were further outbreaks throughout the Late Middle Ages and, with other contributing factors (the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages), the European population did not regain its level in 1300 until 1500.[b] Outbreaks of the plague recurred around the world until the early 19th century."

The irony of this situation is that, when black plague hit Europe, where was God in all of this? They tend to show Christian Crosses, to even the image of Jesus Christ, and yet, they were bombarded with this deadly blague that came from either Central Asia or the Far East.

When finding out that the "Tabernacle of Moses" is really a Mongolian Yurt", only sheds light that those people are the real Aryans written down as the Israelites. Then learning about the origin of Christianity also details that there were Black people and white people living side by side, even when this deadly blague had hit Europe. It also becomes obvious that the timelines and the locations of these events has been changed, to hide the truth of who the real Aryans are, and where these events had occurred. 

Now, when I came across learning about the Occult (Secret Knowledge), and would listen to different accounts of the secrets of the Bible, one source had stated that the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark", had nothing to do with the land of Israel. He states that people think that the Ark had something to do with Israel, but is really based on "Egypt" or "Khem". If you saw the movie, then you will see that Indiana Jones does "not" go to Israel to look of the "Ark of the Covenant", but to "Tibet" and then to "Egypt".

When he said this, I immediately went to watch the movie (and the other three Indiana Jones movies) and see that he was correct. If you saw it, then you will see that Tibet was the very first stop, as Indiana's ex girlfriend was carrying an Amulet that goes back to Ancient Egypt. Then with this Amulet, he goes to Egypt, uncovers the location of the Ark in of the Temples, and of course, the Nazi's were on his tail.....

Does this sound very much like the Nazi's going to Tibet for an expedition to learning about the Aryans? There is a reason why the envoys were sent to "Tibet", then going to meet the Dalai Lama. Now, why would the "blonde headed blue eyed" Germans who believe are a supposed "Master race", go to Tibet and meet the Dalai Lama?

There is a reason why they came to Tibet, and it turns out that they state these people are descendants of the Aryans. Though to specific, they are the Aryans. All of those people that came over there with their God (AGNI), had taken them to the real lands of Israel (India and China). Then there are those Israelites that didn't go over the Indus river, but remained in the lands of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Central Asian lands (as the lands of Persia). 

If you read the Chapter "New World Order", then you should understand that the German people do have some "oriental" blood, and Hitler's right hand man (Heinrich Himmler) would have this "oriental" look. And if you look below and compare Reinhard Heydrich's (Former Director of the Reich Main Security Office) features to that of the Tibetan, the Indian, the Japanese and the Native American features, you will see a comparison.....

If you look at the features of the actual blonde German compared to the Jewish boy, you will see that distinct "hook" nose. I generally find the people of the God of fire was supposed to look like "birds", as the God of fire's symbol is the Fiery bird (Phoenix). Whereas the people of the Black God Vishnu, would have the flatter features as it pertains to the dragon God. But within that statement, the problem was the Israelites were either mixing with the original inhabitants of the land, and/or two of Jacob's wives maids were of dark skinned and of different countenance, thus having children already with those features.

But with all the propaganda of the Germans being the Aryan race and such, is put out intentionally to fool the people of who they are, and what the "real" Aryan look was supposed to be. Again, this doesn't mean the Children of Israel are good at all, as many did their own things by following Baal and Ashtoreth, in which are the Gods of the Black nations (It's why it's called "Babylon" and how we are ruled with the Babylonian Symbols).

Now, based from the movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark", after Indians Jones leaves Tibet, he then searches for the Ark in an undisclosed Temple in the underground. Now, in the chapter "Rh-Negative", I had stated how there were different people in Egypt (as it made depend on Era), of Black, Brown, Red and even people with red hair. There are statues that depict people with flatter features depicting the African, but I also found statues of Egyptians looking more "oriental" looking. I wonder if the "lip" on the edge of the eyes, was really supposed to be based on the actual looks of the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thais etc...(Apparently, the Japanese are said to be investing a big part of the expedition in Egypt to this day)

Now, detailing a claim of who the Egyptians are can be touchy for some people (or many), but this is just my opinion based on observation and what research has led me so far. In the Chapter "The Real Aryans 1&2", I detail how the Israelites could've came from Eastern Europe (specifically the Caucasus Mountains), due to the amount of "Dolmens" which stems all the way to India and Korea. So, could they have come through the region of the "Black Sea" instead of the Red Sea in the Bible? Clearly, the names and locations situated in the Bible have been changed to disguise the truth of who the Israelites are, the locations and who these Gods are. The land of the Philistines with the Plague is similar to the Black Plague in Europe, and of course, Dagon is up on the Cross (See "The Black God"). Then there is the Jordan River, and the Israelites crossing the river and battling the nations is on par, with Aryans crossing the Indus river and battling the Black nations in those regions. Baal, Ashtoreth, Moloch, Dagon, Chiun, and Diana of the Ephesians are merely the Black gods that the whole world worships to this day. So, of course, I'm not going to stop as you know "Truth fears no investigation", whether people like it or not.

Now, as an alternative, and due to the Movie's perspective (as Spielberg knows what's up), it starts to add up, as the God of fire that took the Israelites is none other than the Egyptian God Set, as this ties in with the expulsion of the people called "The Hyksos". Now remember, the whole world was already worshiping the Black gods that defeated Set, in which would be Osiris, Isis and Horus, who later becomes the Christian "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", and the Biblical Baal and Ashtoreth. So, of course the God of fire would meet and take the Children of Israel for his own people, and state that "He will not be hated", and give them a different culture than that of the other nations. Then it becomes evident that as the Children of Israel came to the land, that the God of fire told them to destroy those people in the regions of India and China etc., to which is why there are many people who are now called "Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.", as these are the "Aryans" that the Bible was detailing all along.

Now, was the Bible changed due to undisclose the truth? Or was it intentionally "riddled" to those who understand it, either in the "Exoteric" and the "Esoteric" perspective? I could say "both", because the Bible was not meant to be literal, but to "synchronize" with a nation of a different name. But I also see that, as I look further into the Biblical verses, that many pertain this to Baal himself, and the other towards the God of fire.

So, I can safely say that it's mixed with truth, but is also tampered to get people to worship another deity as well. There are only three Gods in the book, one is Baal (Michael) who defeated the God of fire (Red Dragon), who then becomes Jesus Christ and Satan. Then the woman who bore the child (Michael) as Ashtoreth and Diana of the Ephesians, who is a Black Goddess called "Kali" or "Vatica" (See "Queen of Heaven"). Then there is the Red Dragon, who is really the fiery bird that came against them, but was defeated by Michael the Archangel.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is merely the "fire" of understanding, and as well the tree of life is based on the fruit of the Gods that are kept in immortality. The "serpent" giving the advice is merely Prometheus, who is really a bird like being that defied the Gods, although, at times is also shown as a woman who is deemed Lilith (as an alternative). The flood story is in all the mythologies, as well the battle of the Gods, and to the Creation, the "Mountain in the Middle of the Earth", the underworld, and the symbols like the Vajra weapon etc. is all based on symbology and the supposed "mythology", in which is then become the Bible to this day. It wouldn't matter if the Bible has been translated, but as far as understanding the symbology behind it, only then can you see in the broader perspective.

Now, there has been many depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, and how people that portray him in these cartoons would face the wrath of the Muslim population. Here many state that Muhammed is an Arab man who lived in Saudi Arabia etc., However, I find the Prophet Muhammed to not be of "Arab" descent but either of Central Asian, Persian, and/or of Indian (Sikh) descent (See "Jesus is Muhammed"). He would had to have "red hair", in which is not just shown among the red headed white people, but also of the Central Asian (as Eurasian looking) people. Some are depicted as having blonde hair and blue eyes, while having the oriental features which is interesting. 

But as far as his life, it has become obscure as people are trying to hide who he truly is. Now, I already know that this version of Islam is merely Christianity, and had no connection to the real Prophet Muhammed. So, what was the real Islam or "Muhammedism" like, "prior" to people changing it's history? The women wearing the hijabs are still based on the Ancient goddess worship of Isis, who is the Black woman. And again, connects to the black stone, in which I highly doubt that Muhammed had anything to do with it.

In the Bible shows how either the translators (or whoever they were) were trying to almalgamate the teachings and life of the Prophet Muhammed/Jesus and his mother, to that of Baal and Ashtoreth, which already existed in the past. It's like the Historians want people to keep them in check and under the worship of a God that they think is the real God, when they have been worshiped under a different name for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. 

People nowadays are saying how history is being "rewritten", or banned now, due to the "Socialism/Communism" that is being poured into the society (Yet, Naziism is still banned, how Ironic). However, I will state that this is not the first time, for people who conquer and control the environment have been doing this for thousands of years. Let's take Colonialism that took place here in America, sure there were good people that came here with good intentions, but there were those that took advantage of others and started "renaming" places, when these places most likely had a name already (this is everwhere). There were tribes that had fought against each other, and also sided with different European groups for help, so I can't say that one group is responsible for everything. Also, People tend blame Christopher Colombus, when he wasn't the first explorer (as He may as well be a Jew who converted to the Church), so, again there are many things people are not being told for a good reason.

Now, I used to see a show called "500 nations" hosted by Kevin Costner", I was very intrigued as to what really went on and why there was such a betrayal. The U.S. Government forced the Indians to get an "education" under the name of Christianity, and as many were not allowed to speak their language, nor their "original" ceremonies, thus changing their identity, "who they really are", thus they did a good job. (Could the discovery in the "Grand Canyon" cave, be a reason for changing the History, and keeping people from the truth? Look up "Grand Canyon Cover up")

Now, Andrew Jackson was responsible for removing a good amount of the Tribes from the South East to Oklahama, and yet is honored by people as a great President. I tend to hate getting into politics, but when I came across the Conservative Dinesh D Souza's movie "Hillary's America", he stated how Andrew Jackson was a Democrat who owned slaves, and Lincoln was a Republican. And yet, after seeing this Movie, I see Donald Trump as part of the Republican party, honoring the great Andrew Jackson, from which the Movie had stated is a total Democrat who owned slaves and removed part of the Indian tribes. Personally, I can agree with Donald Trump on the Mainstream Media being fake news etc., but it wouldn't matter which party people belong to or vote, for Government will still have an agenda to control others by controlling the past (As the position of the President is limited to the higher positions of power. Those that are prestige, and are of the highest "orders").

People will state that socialism is based on the left and not the right, and that is not true. On Youtube there used to be great Documentaries detailing what went on behind the camps in Nazi Germany, in which has been banned by the "Zionist", who thus control the right and the left (It's to keep people in the circle of deceit). CNN, FOX news, MSNBC etc. are all correlated to keeping the people from the truth, so how far does one have a sense of "freedom" in the "land of the free"? There are Christian Zionist who express their support for this organization, as they state their "Judaic Christian values", and yet, still go about the things of this agenda. Just to give more detail, socialism was not started by Karl Marx, but goes way back to the time of these religions (See "Hammer and Sickle"), as always, one man's God is another man's Devil.

So, it's a matter of perspective of what truth is, as you sift through the lies of the Corporate. And that is where we go back to the Bible, for it has been used for "Socialism", to bind people with their own perspective, whether it's been translated numerous times. If the lands have been changed to hide the truth, and yet, people keep thinking this is the land of Israel etc. (as far as the "Zionist" Agenda goes), then it shows that it is to blind them. The term "Cognitive dissonance" is exceptionally broad, as it affects everyone of us (including myself), but it is only through the "intention" of the individual, that they want to know the truth, and so shall set them free (mental wise).

But what I will say about the KJV is that, it still has this "power" that the other versions don't have. I have read the other versions, but compared to the KJV, they don't have this "power". I can tell the reader that when I open the KJV Bible on the train, the witches and sorcerers immediately attack me with their black magic, because they know what's up. Reading Psalms is basically spiritual warfare itself, and has power to break the spells of black magic. So, despite people stating KJV to being a poorly translated Bible, I can say that depends on your intentions. 

So, I will state this....If the Constitution of the United States is based on the Biblical standards (as the Commandments), then people should know "who" gave these commandments to the Children of Israel. It isn't Baal and Ashtoreth, but AGNI, the real God of fire who brought the Israelites into the lands of India and China.....