Biblical Texts and Mistranslations with DM Blackwall and Mat Moura (PART 1)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Before we start this awesome episode of the Grey Horned
Pagans Podcast, I just want to let you all know
that I have cut this one in two because of
the length. It was a three plus hour recording. What

(00:22):
we'll play in a moment is part one of two,
with part two coming out next week on the regular
time of course, So if you want to catch this
full episode, stay tuned. This is part one of two,

(00:44):
Part two coming next week. Hey there, did you know
that this podcast as a supporters club. By becoming a
supporter of the show, you gain access to exclusive content
and play an active role in helping me to continue
producing the content you love.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
See the link in the episode description for more details.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
Now let's get back to the episode.

Speaker 3 (01:10):
The Long and Dent Size.

Speaker 4 (01:13):
We all on the weds, the loud and right by
the same of the lads.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
We stand as one, a long beause, nighty.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
Four cavel in hand, strike down the poe, protect this land.

Speaker 5 (01:28):
Oh it's all Father, seeker for guide our souls to
the sacred rhythm.

Speaker 3 (01:35):
Frank, Queen of the Heart's home with love and grace,
Make as home, sir, just with your.

Speaker 6 (01:43):
Eye might guide us through the dark night hell.

Speaker 3 (01:48):
The Mistress of life, Panda, show us the path with
every breath, pray out yons of love, and Lord we
honor you know and forever more.

Speaker 6 (02:02):
Phos to lisas we.

Speaker 5 (02:05):
Call the rules.

Speaker 6 (02:06):
We see shocals ussles, ride.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Out, chain us, we say, fly away locals, haga last.

Speaker 7 (02:15):
Now is we seen past?

Speaker 5 (02:18):
Rise on the wendsasspring, for.

Speaker 6 (02:23):
We must the last, we must.

Speaker 2 (02:27):
I've had that happen more than once that you know,
I'm like twenty minutes into a good conversation and then
I'm like, I ought to be recording this, so you know,
in the light of recording this, Welcome, Welcome all to
the Greyhorn Pagans Podcasts. Let me check if everything goes well,

(02:48):
if everything goes as planned, if we're actually, you know,
live on the platforms that I want to be live at.
Seems we're live at YouTube, which is the most important one,
of course, because that's where my of my viewers are
and most of my subscribers are. So yeah, welcome and
welcome everyone. I have today with me two very interesting guests.

(03:12):
Both have been on the podcast before. It's just that
the one with Matt has yet to air. It should
be scheduled. Have have I scheduled it yet, No I haven't,
so that is coming up. And of course, mister Blackwell,
if you are a fan of the Channel, you know
about from the Arthurian Legends show and the one we

(03:32):
did about dragons, both like two and a half plus
hours long. I believe I believe one of them we
went even into the hours.

Speaker 8 (03:45):
I think that might have been the dragons one because
I think I probably surprised you.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
Yeah, yeah, I believe so. And then with Matt the
show that we recorded last Wednesday, actually like we went
also like to our forty five two hours fifty like
closing in on like three hours. So with you know,
three chatterboxes and three very knowledgeable guys here, I mean
introduce yourself. I guess, well, Matt, like you, you go first.

(04:14):
You're the one who is still relatively unknown to the channel.

Speaker 5 (04:18):
Sure. Thanks first of all Steins for the invite, Thanks
black Balls for inviting me as well, since yes, the
podcast will be first with you, and thanks Jin for
the bridge between me and Stein. So I met Mora.
You can find me on X like the names est.
I'm a capitalist, meaning I study kabbala, not the Jewish kabala,
not the hermetic Kabbala, not the egyptiankabbala. It's what I

(04:41):
call and what my lineage calls the primordial kabala. So
all the different systems, and kapalist is a name to
any combassid. So the main idea is the study of
the technology of the soul. So we try to study
our body, our surroundings, and with that we understand all
the thanks and we make it bridges between them. So

(05:03):
put it short that that will be it. If you'll
want to know more about it, then you can listen
to the podcast style reast.

Speaker 8 (05:12):
Awesome.

Speaker 5 (05:12):
I guess black Yeah, miss Blackwall. So my name's Todd.

Speaker 8 (05:18):
I am a Christian and a obviously I'm here because
we're we're talking about some some things that we're regarding
Hebrew translation, the veracity of the Bible as a historical
document and also as the word of God. Now obviously
I believe it's the word of God and these gentlemen
do not, so it'll be an interesting discussion. Stein's likewill

(05:38):
kind of I see, I see you. But also I
am a published author. I just released my second book
last month, so you can check that out on our
website Blackwallgames dot com. Should you be interested in role
playing games and medieval fantasy.

Speaker 5 (05:57):
Awesome.

Speaker 2 (05:58):
Well, thank you gentlemen for the introduction, and this is
the show, so good night. No no, no, no, of course
not now. The way this whole podcast actually came to
be is because of that stupid text wall email that
I got on the grey Arnd Pagan's email telling me,
you know how bad I am and how much I
will burn in hell, and you know, all of that

(06:20):
good stuff, you know, very you know, and teaching and
definitely makes me want to follow the true, one, true God,
because oh dear, I do not want all of that,
you know. I do not like to be punished. Although
you know, a little little warmer climate. I mean I
am in the Netherlands, so a little warmer I do
not mind that. I you know, of course, posted you know,

(06:43):
a snippet of that on my Twitter just to like
kind of ridicule it a bit.

Speaker 1 (06:49):
You know.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
The people like they keep trying that, you know, like
the old school, you know, conversion by force, you know,
will just tell you how much you're going to burn
in hell, and you do not want that, so you'll convert.
That's how that works, you know. And yeah, Matt's you
came with some some stuff like a reaction on that,
like about the translation and the Hebrew text and how
it's like, you know, not what they think they are,

(07:12):
And of course Taught, being a good Christian, had to
defend that. And you know, with a little bit of
back and forth, I taught like you, I mean, Matt
as you like mentioned thought like we were going to
do this show anyway, you know, kind of going into
what has been been said in that Twitter threats sure,
and I just if I.

Speaker 8 (07:32):
May sure the letter that you were sent the portion
I saw anyway, there's presumably.

Speaker 5 (07:37):
More of it.

Speaker 8 (07:39):
A lot, Yes, that is that was I don't think
a serious attempt at conversion or even really communication. It
just seemed to be rude on the whole from what
little I could read from that first snippet, I probably
theologically agree with most of what's being said, but that's
not how I would approach a friend or even just

(08:00):
a random person on the street. As may not surprise
pretty much anyone listening. Standing on the corner of a street,
yelling at everyone that they're going to Hell, even if true,
will probably not help them make other choices. No, definitely
think you're crazy or mean and this is this is
that letter Unfortunately was that way, so at least from
what I could see, that sucks. And I'm sorry that

(08:22):
you got that.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
Well.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
I mean, I'm kind of used to it by now
that you know, I'm getting yelled at for believing the
wrong gods or that my gods are like demons pretending
to be gods. You know, I have. I think I've
heard it all by now from various sources and various people,
and I try to tell everyone that, you know, I
do see the value in the Christian teachings, you know,

(08:46):
as a mystery school. It is absolutely valid. There is
a lot to be said for it, which you know
we will get into because you two know a lot
more about it then I do. You have studied a
lot more about it. But you know, especially one of
my more recent guests, Bemela Walk, you know, I try
to tell her, you know, I see the value. I

(09:07):
acknowledge it and all of that, and it just they
don't want to register that, Like, but then why are
you not Christian? If you do see the value, It's like, well,
because it's not the religion for me, Like I found
my path in Germanic paganism. Like, can I, you know,
just be pagan and still see the value or do

(09:29):
I like have to be Christian?

Speaker 8 (09:31):
Now that does presuppose that the claims of the Bible
are not true. If they are true, then of course
you should you should change right if the claim the
Bible makes right that Jesus is the son of God,
that there's only really one God, and that ultimately we

(09:51):
will all stand before him for judgment and that will
be unpleasant for me included not perfect either. If that's true,
then obviously that should affect things, right, So and.

Speaker 5 (10:03):
I think even like that's that's where the things started from,
right where the email that's time received. The guy makes
some claims about how it should be, and then my
attempt was to poke it a little bit. Because of
the use of language. You can you can get people
sometimes at that if they use it too literally, like oh,

(10:23):
this is specifically into once one And I guess that's
where we can where we can understand more, like, Okay,
what is it there? Because the Bible is multiple things, right,
There's not one book that somebody writ in one once
and one of like there's multiple things going on, and
how can it be understood? And the different ways it
was understood, and that was the pope, right that initiated

(10:46):
even the idea for the podcasts.

Speaker 8 (10:49):
So yeah, and and then I think that's a really
good segue if you want to jump to kind of
the end of what you wrote with with the with
the Hebrew in specific. So now, privately, if you're comfort
with me repeating what you yeah, privately, you you did
mention that, yes, you are aware that your your your
translation of Satan.

Speaker 5 (11:08):
Was not correct. Yeah, as in there's the new ones, right, yeah, yeah,
what do you call it? Let's say the character Satan
that you have all the emergery and everything, and you
have that specific segment which is using the word satan
as yeah.

Speaker 8 (11:22):
Yeah, So for those who haven't read it, though the
in numbers twenty two and in several places in the Bible,
in other other spots, the word accuser or adversary is used.
If we wanted to do a little joke translation into English,
we could also say lawyer. But that word when when

(11:43):
when in isolation or when let in with la like
la satan, that word means just is just a now
it means like like an adversary or an accuser, right,
Whereas if it's ha Satan, that's the accuser or the adversary.
And so in this particular text, it is talking about

(12:05):
an accuser, not the accuser, And that's a that's a
little hard to get, especially if you aren't familiar with
the language and are unfamiliar just in general with with
translations and their and their challenges. And so that's that piece, right,
and I think I think you agree that that is correct.

Speaker 5 (12:27):
Yeah. The point there is more so if there's someone
which believes like the again the literally literacy of the thing,
as in, if I read Satan, it means I always
red guy with horns and so on on, like, that's
not the case if you go read it. If you
believe that, and you go read it, you see the
name of God lay Satan, and they're just like, oh
wait a second, you know what I mean. So so

(12:48):
it's still to bring up that idea of wait, I
have to deepen my knowledge on this. I have to
actually read the day and understand and not just like
I think will come up to like just read the translation,
because again on that bit of the meaning gets lost.
And that's it. Do the research, right, I understand it
a little bit more deeply.

Speaker 8 (13:08):
Now that one most translations do an excellent job with
but there are there are words that are trickier, and
one of the challenges is most ancient languages, not just Hebrew.
Most ancient languages often had multiple meanings for the same word.
This is less true in the modern era. And so
lohem is an interesting one that you brought up right.

(13:29):
So elohem in isolation, like just by itself, not in
a sentence, no additional letters attached. Just by itself, roughly speaking,
means gods plural. It can also mean essentially divinity or
divine ones, but more or less gods. So in the
example that you that you mentioned in numbers, it's a
bit more of a complex sentence. So I was hoping

(13:51):
we could look at that word in two other places,
like I mentioned to you. The first is Genesis one,
verse one, So that is in English normally translated something
like in the beginning God created the heavens in the earth.
A more literal translation would be something closer to in
the beginning, God's created the two heavens and the earth.

(14:15):
The reason for the two heavens thing is because there
is a kind of plural in Hebrew, that is for
pairs like eyes hands this kind of thing, and that's
the kind of tense, for lack of a better word,
or the kind of plural that is being used for heavens. Okay,

(14:36):
that is not the one that elohem is. That's that
would be a three or more kind of tense, right,
or a kind of multiple. However, the nuance is that
there is a verb I think it's bara if I
recall correctly, which is singular attached to this plural noun,
and so the context informs the meaning. It is why

(14:57):
it is rendered God, and obviously for Christians, so now
that's that's true for he for Jewish people as well.
Obviously for Christians. The notion of the Trinity, right, that is,
that is taught in scripture, in the in the in
the New Testament. But when we look back at God,
being plural doesn't bother us at all, because we believe
in a God who is three and one. Jewish people

(15:20):
will struggle with that a little bit more, I think
you'll find.

Speaker 5 (15:22):
Now.

Speaker 8 (15:23):
The second example of this word being used is from
the beginning of the Shamah, which is in Deuteronomy, and
that is usually translated Hero Israel the Lord, our God.

Speaker 5 (15:35):
The Lord is one.

Speaker 8 (15:37):
Now the our God piece is a variation of elohem
where you're attaching ownership, and so that that's what that
word is. And then Yahweh is the part that is
translated as the Lord, right, and so that sentence is
explaining the meaning again hero Israel the Lord our God.

(15:58):
Well if you just if that was a loan, it
would be God's plural and then you continue the Lord
is won. And so it's really it's really challenging, I think,
to translate Hebrew accurately without spending quite a bit of
time studying it, because you get this kind of thing
over and over and over where just a little change
substantially alters the meaning of the word or even the

(16:20):
number of the number in the noun.

Speaker 5 (16:23):
And that that is without saying that Hebrew doesn't have
or before the necro dots you didn't have revolves So
a name like you'd he of hey, like there's more
ways you could pronounce it, really if you didn't add thencodots.

Speaker 8 (16:38):
Yeah, to be clear, this was not a pronunciation. Lesson
I will mispronounce things or able exactly.

Speaker 5 (16:44):
Because exactly we will hear all the names here, don't
don't so, but but that makes it even more challenging
because then you can see what is really the name
of it. If you ask, like, well, what is the
name of him, let's tall or whatever, some look something
too as like yeah, or like in Portuguese you have
geovas or like. Then it becomes as e g or

(17:07):
like yah, and then you have all the like sesmentations
of the same name.

Speaker 9 (17:12):
Basically, right, that sounds very much like the Dutch Jehovah
for example, exactly, and like those are the the well,
the Jehovah's witnesses, you know, for example, the annoying people
that come to your door and sell you, right the idea.

Speaker 8 (17:27):
You're exactly correct. That is actually a variation of an attempt. Basically,
it's filling in other vowels in the same Hebrew word
Jehovah is is the same thing as Yahweh in terms
of the attempt to use the word Jehovah's witnesses. To
be clear, are not Christians there, They're a cult. They're
a different group, but but they are trying to use

(17:48):
the name of God in the name of their of
their and Jehovah was historically used for call it a
couple centuries before we got access to more of the
older Hebred documents. Thanks to archaeology and thanks to frankly
dumb luck in some cases like the Dead Sea scrolls,
we have a better grasp than and they did two
centuries ago about how to read and pronounce older Hebrew,

(18:14):
and also what we also have closer to the modern
air attacks, like from a couple thousand years ago or
fifteen hundred years ago, that include the vowels, right that
they understood at the time, whereas very ancient Hebrew didn't,
as you said, didn't write the vowels. And you can
kind of see why they didn't have paper, right. The

(18:36):
Egyptians had pyrus, but the Israelites didn't have a paper production,
so they were mostly writing on like animal skins. These
are expensive to produce, and so you want to put
as much content on a given sheet as you can,
and one of the ways you do that is you
skip vowels and you stick all the letters together, especially

(18:59):
if it something that you've basically got memorized, which was
very much the case for many rabbis and still is today,
especially the first few books of the Bible that often
have memorized, and so all you really need is like
enough of a hint to remember you're what to say
rightly and so that's and Hebrew is not alone in
this regard in skipping vowels. So this was done in

(19:22):
ancient Greek sometimes as well, again for the same purpose.
I suspect, which is paper was very expensive, for parchment
was very expensive.

Speaker 7 (19:31):
The Gray Horned Pagan's podcast is proudly sponsored by Dubby Energy.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
So what exactly is Dubby and what is dubby all about?

Speaker 10 (19:42):
W is a clean energy drink that is made to
give focus with no crash, jitters.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Or angst like other energy dreams.

Speaker 7 (19:50):
They also have no melted expan fillers and do not
use artificial days. WI contains vitamins, amino acids, a new tropic,
and one hundred and fifty milligrams of haty.

Speaker 10 (20:05):
So, whether you are a gamer getting ready for a
long session, you are a athlete getting ready for a
hard workout, or just lead.

Speaker 6 (20:16):
That extra boost, W is where it's at And with
my code stein Fox ten, you can get a ten
percent discounts on your entire shopping basket.

Speaker 4 (20:31):
That is Stein Fox ten for W Energy. Thank you
again so much to W Energy for sponsoring the podcast.

Speaker 5 (20:42):
Does that make looks to you guys, it makes a
lot of sense. And to me also it's where I
my practice, let's say, enters a little bit where I
can understand how the way it is constructed not only
helps them with the hents like you said, to remember it,
but also let's say, and cold things on it. And
then you have on the Jewish mysticism side, the people

(21:05):
who have the tape. They don't only read what is
the letter, but they assign numbers to letters, and then
they understand, okay, when somebody something is being said, there's
like a second meaning of it, like in a code
or hidden meaning on it. And and then you can
understand how actually putting more or less letters in this
case would inflation what you're saying with influence because imagined

(21:29):
like this, every letter has a certain number. So let's
say a or alice in their case is like one
and bait's two words. And so so if you have
the name of godling you meaning that that's the literal letters,
it will have a specific band, and if you had
more or less letters, it would have a different value.
And therefore the codifications that you're trying to do just

(21:50):
don't just don't work basically, So that's an another way
of understanding as well, how how important it is actually
to see then if you're doing this type of reading,
see the real the Hebrew word or the Greek.

Speaker 8 (22:04):
Yeah, I think that. I think that the Kabbala practice
is significantly newer as far as the numerology type stuff. However,
what was done historically, and you've probably heard of this, right,
is they would count like like letters in a line
or lines on a page, and like check does the
last letter on this page? Is? Does it match what

(22:26):
I just copied? Like they would be checking different ways
across down over like is did I copy this correctly?
And obviously for religious texts this was they were a
lot more concerned about it, about getting it right, and
so that that was certainly done. And I do know
of a few instances where that kind of number idea

(22:48):
is used, but it tends to be more like seven
being a perfect number or multiples of seven, and in
a few other numbers, six is often used.

Speaker 5 (22:58):
Forty is often used the number of church problem, and
so on. Even the seven you have on the Genesis
like one one, right, you have seven not letters words,
so you have barah. How's it said? It's a bit
is ship bara elokin it Hashhamaim ve tarets. If I'm

(23:19):
not saying those are seven. And then again you have
this idea continuously getting getting used right and and now
if you ask me why the seven is important, there's
the idea of the seven, let's say, being a perfect number,
but also there's the mystery schools aspect to it. Then
you'll come back to Egypt, for example, you had seven

(23:40):
reviewed schools, so those are the solar ones and seven
hidden ones, so the lunar ones, which then became the
fourteen parts of Oozarus and whatever. Then you start to
understand how all of this like to me when I
made the first post, for example, is what I tried
to bring this idea of Okay, there is value in
the teachings, and there is even more values to like

(24:02):
Basically you can see how it core leads to other
similar cultures and to it's basically a synthesis of the
same knowledge, is like a continuation of the same knowledge.

Speaker 8 (24:12):
I think there is a danger in doing this in
general with coded writing, and that's because it is very
other than of course, that the Bible never says to
do this. That's I should lead with that this is
this is an outside idea, right that I would I
would argue is not a good thing to do. But
the danger let's assume that there were a book that

(24:32):
were deliberate, that was deliberately written to having coded messages,
and those do exist. There's some that still haven't been decoded. Actually,
one really cool one from Middle Ages in particular that
you've probably seen that has like lots of pictures of
plants and stuff and writing that nobody.

Speaker 2 (24:45):
Can read.

Speaker 8 (24:52):
Sometimes and so that's that's that is a coded book.
There is a code and we don't know how to
read it. The danger of trying to use uh kind
of a numerology approach is you can kind of impose
meaning that isn't there. You can generate meaning that the
original authors did not intend, and it's fairly easy to do.

(25:13):
We could probably do it, and this is this is
a little joke for those of you who know some history.
We could probably do it with the Catcher in the Rye.
That book keeps getting found in murderers homes, by the way,
for some reason.

Speaker 5 (25:27):
To the side.

Speaker 1 (25:28):
Books have that effect on people, So you know, we
should all just stop reading books.

Speaker 8 (25:33):
No, no, like just that one specifically enough that like
it started getting noted, like the guy who killed what
was it, John Lennon, Yeah, yeah, big big catcher in
the Rye fan.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
Heard John Lennon, the guy from the Beatles.

Speaker 8 (25:52):
Yeah, if you're bored, there's a whole rabbit hole to
go down with that book if you're later.

Speaker 5 (25:58):
But uh, yeah, I get I get your point. I
understand it. But the way that I like from my
point of view is that you're not basically the idea.
And if you go with the Jewish mysticism right for example,
the way they see it, you have four layers to
understand everything, as in that Religius writing right in their
case that tat you have the from from I forgot

(26:23):
the name of the first one until salt. So basically
go from litro to like seeing similar ideas, like seeing
it as an analogy, then seeing references outside of the book,
like maybe similar cultures that had something or you try
to fetch from outside of it, and then finally the
sought one which is the most hidden, and so on.

Speaker 8 (26:44):
Sure again, that does exactly what I described your risk
imposing meaning so.

Speaker 5 (26:50):
Exactly, But that's the idea. The thought one is the
one that brings you more to the esoteric side of
the teaching than the exoteric, because it's basically the same
as if you have if you're putting something out there,
for example, if you are the CEO of a company
and you put something out there, that is part of
what you're saying that most poprograms understand, and that is

(27:12):
a part of what few people agvents understand that they're
going to do that they're going to do something with
that information which they understand. Okay though, so there's more
to it than just what is being said. Basically, that's
the idea.

Speaker 8 (27:24):
Have you have you ever Now you're a native Portuguese speaker,
so maybe you avoided this particular joy, But have you
ever listened to a literature professor trying to claim deeper
meaning for novels, say from the eighteen hundreds? Have you

(27:45):
ever ever had a class like that, maybe in high
school or college to.

Speaker 5 (27:48):
Tram the top of my head not to it, because
I also wasn't extremely interested in those I was more
of a man, yeah, like science kind of Well, I
have had that experience. And this include this often included,
not always, this often included claims that directly contradicted the

(28:10):
author's own writing, which is to say, the author wrote
what they meant in a separate document, and the thing
they were teaching in the class contradicted not only what
you'd probably get out of reading the novel, it also
contradicted the author's own opinion about their writing. And that
that's common, that's quite common, especially in English literature. Yes,

(28:34):
I am looking at some of you teachers, and that
kind of thing is is something that you're definitely going
to risk, especially looking at anything written as a written
for another purpose. There are books written for the purpose
you describe, like the one we were talking about from
the Middle Ages, but for example, the Bible itself, or

(28:58):
even just taking the Old Testament if you're into kabbala, right,
the Old Testament itself is not one kind of writing.
You have historical documents, you have letters, you have prophecies,
you have poems, you have song lyrics, you have an
entire romantic play. Is one of the books Song of Songs,
and I I'm not sure if I recommend reading that first,

(29:21):
but it is graphic if you understand the imagery like
it's but yeah, it's a whole like romantic thing between
this bridegroom and bride and like their friends, as they
as they're like, as they're becoming married. Right, these are
these are very different kinds of writing and and we're

(29:42):
not even often written for the same audiences. For example,
the book of First, First, and Second Kings or Kings
depending on how you want to break it up, appears
to be basically just a chunk of historical writing written
more or less when the people who who were around
who are listed or being described like it was written

(30:03):
still during the time there were kings in Israel or Judah,
whereas Chronicles or First and Second Chronicles covers the same
period but was not written during that time. It was
a retrospective looking back at how the collapse of Israel
and Judah happened. And so you get very different You

(30:24):
have very different purposes to the books and also a
little bit different content because they have different goals. And
that's in the four layers. That would basically be the
third one where you're understanding why was it written or
how and what was the context? And s one because
again you cannot you cannot read something if you don't
have the background of it right or I mean you can,

(30:46):
but you're just going to get cemos meaning for example,
even the let's get the example of the email that
Steign received, right, it's like email, okay, but what was
behind that guy's mind? It could be that he didn't
even know sign. He could just like have sent an
automated message. Right. And if you don't, if you don't
fetch into that, then you can start getting into all

(31:06):
these crazy ideas and one and and I agree with you.
There's at some point a kind of a when say limit.
But there's just sometimes it's enough, like you understood enough
of the text. You don't need to do deeper if
you don't want to. But the way that I understand
the sub level readings, which would be those can be numerological,
but sometimes not necessarily. It's just you're comparing symbols, really,

(31:28):
is what you're doing. You can what do you call it,
like a like a logical protion necessarily, but you can
compare it, right, you can compare the symbols. You can understand. Okay,
this story overall is talking about that symbology, and I
have here another story which more or less talks about
the same symbology. So I can understand the the similar

(31:50):
value boasts can bring to me, for example, or it
can make correlations between them and then I can understand
more about one or the other. So it's it's kind
of like a you are making a bridge team them,
even though they not necessarily were made with that intent.
You can see how it happens because suppose I asked
you to create something new. You cannot create something new

(32:12):
with things you don't know. You can only create things
or create anything. Read read Right, if I asked you
to write a book, you can write a book about
something new don't have in your head, and you're always
fetching things from the outside at least not a good
exactly you know, stress, but but that you can only
write something from from what you have inside of you,

(32:33):
let's say so. So my point is that even if
I'm trying to do my book being the most original
I want and I can, I'm gonna be getting that
information from elsewhere, like wanting it or not, because that's
just how the information came to me first, Right, Like
I read some or something or sel something happen and

(32:54):
it could be that people and that's like eventually what
it's one of the ways of what they're saying that
most of the religious stars, for example, ask some kind
of looking at the stars, because then you understand, okay,
wait a second, So if people have this very similar
story they never met, they probably coming from the same source.
So what is that source? Some people will claim, oh,

(33:15):
they're looking at the stars. Example, so they're watching the
movement of the stars and they and they are coming
with the stories about that's one way.

Speaker 2 (33:23):
Yeah, and nowadays we call that astro theology.

Speaker 5 (33:26):
Yeah, that's one. That's one.

Speaker 2 (33:28):
You know, it's very interesting to that to that points. Also,
those those books are like very much written also for
the people of those times. And one example that I
know and that most basic mainstream Christians seem to be
obsessed with, is the the return of Christ. You know,
the you know, the thing that everyone.

Speaker 8 (33:49):
Knows absolutely we can jump fifty five hundred years, sure.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
But doesn't doesn't it say like specify and like I
don't know the book, I am not a biblical s
of any kind, But doesn't it say that he will
come back in their lifetime? Like when when that is
spoken that it's like, you know, you're talking about in
our lifetime.

Speaker 8 (34:12):
If you if you well one, it does say quite
literally more than once that the day and hour will
not be known yeah, that of Christ's return. But also
the context the story you're talking about is actually related
by John, who is the subject of the comment, which

(34:34):
was basically Jesus was telling Peter something and and said
and simon. Peter replied, well what about him? Pointing at John,
and Jesus is like, well, if I want him to
live till I return, what's that to you? And so
John's relating this story and says, but he didn't say
he would return in my lifetime. This is just a basically,

(34:57):
this is just a comment he made to Peter that
that's the verse you're talking about. It's near the end
of John if you want to look it up later.
But it's not John himself is quite clear that that
is not what Jesus meant.

Speaker 1 (35:10):
Okay, then I must have misunderstood it, or everybody tells
the you know, tells it more spectacularly than it actually means.
You know, got to drive Fu's gotta drive clicks right.

Speaker 8 (35:22):
Related note the comment I see on YouTube, which is
I'm going to assume a little facetious I'm going to
respond to as well. Briefly, So, why was Jesus with
a naked boy, a young man? B he was clothed,
was grab his clothing, was grabbed by a guard, and
he ran out of his clothes. So that's also in

(35:48):
John that's in Mark actually, and the man running out
of the clothing is presumably John Mark because he's the
only gospel that relates that information. So no, they weren't
hanging out naked. That was that's something you've imposed.

Speaker 5 (36:04):
Yeah, and that's like again the problem of sometimes just
picking like specific verses and trying to you know, like
instead of reading the whole context and you understanding thing.
But as Times said, like about the Christ coming back,
for example, that's another thing that you can see on
throughout many different cultures, older, newer, different, never mad, sometimes mad.

(36:26):
You can see for example, the Vedics now called Hindus,
they believe there's the tenth incarnation of traditional that should come.
Like keep similar idea like who comes to redeem or whatever.
You have the Buddhists expecting a kind of like cosmic Buddha,
think my myrea something like that. You have the the

(36:47):
well the Jewish still expecting Dermasaiah didn't come yet. There's
like a whole list of extents. It's got my brand.
If you didn't come yet so then like you keep having.

Speaker 8 (36:57):
This from the one hand, right, on the one hand,
I can freely agree that there are some commonalities between
religions which you would expect, right well, among other things,
because if there is a true religion, if if for example,
the claims in the Bible are true, then there will
be religions that are closer and further away from that truth.

(37:19):
That's that's going to happen, because you know, people, people
make mistakes, and people are people are evil, and obviously
over time errors can happen even without deliberate action. Right,
So that in no way means that there is no truth, right,
And it also also does not mean that. In fact,

(37:41):
it will tend to mean that not all paths are
equally valid. Actually, so there are some challenges there.

Speaker 5 (37:48):
Now.

Speaker 8 (37:48):
The historical Christian perspective, of course, and I'm you guys
are probably familiar with this, is that because of the
creation account of you guys read that, I betten Matt
has have you creation the creation account in Genesis, creation
account in English Arabia? Don't I'm not getting.

Speaker 5 (38:07):
Lighter God making the world? Oh okay, yeah in Genesis? Sure? Yeah, Steine,
have you read that.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
I don't think I've read that, but I'm somewhat familiar
with the text, and you know how the whole creation
part goes.

Speaker 5 (38:24):
Well.

Speaker 8 (38:24):
The Christian and Jewish perspective, right, is that humans initially
began with the knowledge of God because He was directly
interacting with them, and it wasn't until later on that
they switched to like praying to him, right, that they
were in some way seeing him personally. It talks about
him like walking with them in the garden, it talks

(38:44):
about it even talks about in those days they began
calling on the name of the Lord. That's describing the
beginning of prayer. And so the Christian and Jewish perspective
is that basically the relation between religions is a branching
and a collapse away from the true starting point, right,

(39:04):
So you don't have to agree, but that's that's the
Christian Jewish perspective. So it doesn't bother me at all
that some religions are more or less similar to Christianity.

Speaker 5 (39:14):
That's what I would expect, right exactly. And I and
I'm I'm totally there with the idea that there's like
a it's called it a source or like a pass right,
and it's just maybe the difference is that from my
point of view, that path keeps updating. Let's say it's
not it's not going to be one pass and uh,

(39:36):
and like if you don't go to that, then it's
whatever the nation forever and s once on and again
we can agree to the degree. But but even for example,
I'm translating a book. It's called I'm calling it in
English d R Chiometer, but it's the Oasionally it's some French.
I think it will be called Lea or whatever. And
the guys there they are from again that understanding of

(39:59):
and miscal things in one and they also understand that
idea of a proto synthesis let's let's call it this
way like this list source. But they understand around their time,
this is like one hundred years ago when when the
book was launched, that Christianity for them was the last
and the more correct synthesis was basically like the one
that God. They call it the word, just like I

(40:21):
think that the Bible calls it right the word as
in there. But they see the value on past attempts
to get there. Let's see they can.

Speaker 8 (40:32):
I have a quick question because it might just be
an English versus Portuguese question. M So, to clarify, when
you say synthesis, do you mean a combining of things.

Speaker 5 (40:43):
A synthesis as in like you have thesis, right, I
present you something, you can present something back, like an antithesis,
and then we come to a to some of that.
Like let's say I'll bring you some ideas, you bring dolls,
and then we'll get the best out of them and
get you combine.

Speaker 8 (41:00):
Yeah, okay, so exactly so obviously not that's not the
Christian perspective or or mine, right so so, but I do.
I do follow what you're saying and now as it
relates so so, and I'm interested in talking about that
a bit more. But we should get especially for the

(41:22):
people who on Twitter saw the posts, we should get
yes to your kind of broader claim and the narrow examples,
and if you're willing, I would be more. I would
be interested to talk about your examples and then the
broader claim like in detail, just kind of so the
the broader claim if I understand it correctly and correct

(41:44):
me if I'm wrong. Your claim is that the Old
Testament anyway, because that's primarily what you were talking about
that occasion, yet that the Old Testament is largely a
combining of various sources from other cultures, that it is
not itself original, and that it is borrowing from other places.

(42:08):
And you gave a couple examples, which was and I'm
going to use the uh the kind of the more
common name for the guy, but you're One of the
claims was that Balem was a created character, so not
a real man who was inspired by by Zoe Astor.

Speaker 5 (42:27):
And the second given, just to get a little bit
more context in that one, is not that him itself
there never existed like a Benin character, but the character
was let's say refurbished, if you can call it like that,
or it managed very changed a little bit. Basically, that's
what I'm saying. That that specific ball they to get the
start for summer.

Speaker 8 (42:47):
You're pretty clear created character, that's that's made up. That's
what that means. But the second one is that Moses
was also imaginary or a created character, and was based
on an Egyptian pharaoh whose name I'm going to butcher
now Akinetin.

Speaker 5 (43:02):
Yes, think that basically has sum of a lot of
characters like that, is not that there was no like
those histories never existed. It solve imagination of someone. Sure
there were stories, stories, as in something historical, something happened.
It could be similar to to what they say, but
it's like get there. They can get attributes from other

(43:22):
stories to make it either more powerful or less powerful,
to show something more or less you know, so one
of the uh.

Speaker 8 (43:32):
So basically my my response to that I think is
fairly simple. But if we can take one at a time,
So Zoe Aster, do you know when his followers said he.

Speaker 5 (43:44):
Lived, I'm not mistaken, is like one thousand, four hundred thousand,
five hundred before Christ or something.

Speaker 8 (43:54):
No, his followers said he lived two hundred and fifty
eight years before Alexander the Great.

Speaker 5 (44:00):
That would be in DCAC.

Speaker 8 (44:02):
So that would be about five hundred BC to six
hundred BC in that range. Because we have to assume
that when they say from Alexander the Great that they
could mean from the time we got conquered by him.
They could also mean from the time he was born,
So we can have a little wiggle room in that

(44:24):
regard because they don't specify. Yeah, so presumably people in
the period would know, but we're not.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
Then Wikipedia says, just like basically looking up Alexown Lad
Great from three fifty six to three twenty three BC.

Speaker 8 (44:39):
Ye, And so the followers of zoe Astor said that
he lived two hundred and fifty eight years before Alexander.
The occasion was actually the rise of the assassinated Empire,
or not assassinate.

Speaker 5 (44:53):
I misspoke. I'm sorry.

Speaker 8 (44:54):
They're precursors when Alexander the greats generals the Seleucids. Really
similar names, same area.

Speaker 5 (45:01):
Sorry.

Speaker 8 (45:02):
When the Seleucids took over, they started to impose a
new religion on the region, and the Zoastrians obviously didn't
like this, and we're pretty busily defending their religion and
we're doing and that was the context in which, well,
here's when we when we started, zoe Astro lived in

(45:23):
this state, and that is not the only time. But
the specific quote is, let me see here is from
the Oh I'm not gonna be able to pronounce that,
I'll spell it for you though, b U N d

(45:45):
A h I s h N. It is from that
document and is correlated in Aminius Marcellinus from the fourth
century AD, he says the same thing about when the
Zoastrian religion started, and then later even on which I
actually just knew by accident. This I looked up when

(46:05):
you when you read about I was like, let me,
let me check into that a little bit. In the
eighteen hundreds when the British and early and late seventeen hundreds,
when the British started visiting Persia more regularly, the Zooastrians
then told them something very similar. But that's obviously much
more recent. And I had read that in what's the
name of the book The Age of Revelation by a

(46:28):
guy named Elias Bouldino or something like that's French last name,
and great book. If you ever want to read it,
I would love to discuss it with you. Guys. It
is it is. It is both interesting, I think thought provoking.
Some of the stuff it describes you can look up
and show and check yourself, which I really like as
an argument style to say this thing is true and

(46:50):
here's how you can check right. But also yeah, anyway,
that's an aside. But the so I was aware of
the of when the Zooastrians claimed they were around, I
was not aware of how back, how far back that's documented.
That's over sixteen hundred years ago. They were saying two

(47:12):
hundred and fifty eight years before Alexander.

Speaker 5 (47:14):
Yeah. Well, by the way, do you have the context
that Zoroaster is actually like a lineage as you have multiple.

Speaker 8 (47:24):
Is a theory that is not, in fact what any
historical text says. And when we judge history, it is
important that we actually go with what history says and
not what we might wish. Is that possible, Sure, that's possible,
but it is not what any historical document says from
the period. In fact, the followers were quite specific that

(47:48):
there was one guy and he taught them the religion
of Abraham. It is only later, closer to our period,
that people are adding this idea now the only source.

Speaker 5 (48:00):
It becomes kind of like a title, similar to how
Buddha you have, like Buddha, let's call it first or whatever,
like the guide that first did it, and then you
have following people that maybe achieved similar levels or something
that you can.

Speaker 8 (48:13):
Make even if we pretend to even if we took
that to be the case, that doesn't deal with the problem,
which is that the guys, the guys too late. Your
claiming is the source for balem And And the thing
is we have physical, right, physical evidence of balim from
nine hundred pc. Specifically, we have plaster from the inside

(48:37):
of a pagan temple that was written on in black, red,
and one other color of ink. I couldn't find that color.
But someone wrote on the plaster right. And when the
temple was destroyed, the you know, the building collapse, the
plaster broke up. Well, someone got really bored, I guess
or had a horrible semester because they got to put

(48:58):
together the plaster like a saw puzzle. That is, that
doesn't sound fun, but they managed to assemble two major
portions of the plaster, and we're able to read.

Speaker 5 (49:09):
A lot of the writing.

Speaker 8 (49:10):
And this is the dear Allah inscription that is spelled
d e I R. And then the next word is
a lll A, and it begins, this is the book
or these are the words of Balem, son of Bayor,
a seer of the gods.

Speaker 5 (49:26):
To him.

Speaker 8 (49:26):
Came the gods at night, and they spoke to him
according to the utterance of l. And they spoke to Balem,
son of beor Thus. And then there's a break, and
Balem arose in the morning. Another break, and then it
continues this format and we get we get a couple
longer chunks later on matches the style of Balem's four

(49:51):
prophecies or four blessings depending on your point of view,
found in numbers twenty two and twenty three. And this
is not an Israelite ruin. This is a civilization that
hated and was regularly at war with Israel that we
have this artifact from in history. Generally, when you have

(50:13):
in historical studies, when you have a civilization say something
is true and their enemy agrees, it's probably true. And
in this case, the specific being that Balem son of
Beayor was a prophet speaking from God, was in fact believed.
Whether or not he was actually speaking from God is
a different question, but he was a guy who was

(50:36):
there people believed was speaking from God. And we have
physical artifacts from about seven hundred years before, from at
a minimum four hundred years before the birth of zoe Aster,
which means zoe Astor cannot be the source.

Speaker 5 (50:53):
Have you came upon I don't know if I don't
remember right now. It's just an article, are like an
excerp from somewhere. It's called on the date off sirester.
You mean Mary's article. I don't know the name is
the guy I just wrote the title Mary Boyce. Yeah,

(51:13):
so I remembered on the date of Zoster.

Speaker 8 (51:16):
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. So Mary Boyce
is the argument for the old date. So what Mary
does and if you have a doctorate or something, Mary,
and you're listening to this, I'm sorry your title was
not in what I read. But what she wrote is
this she reads it appears she reads old Sanskrit, right,
which is mostly we've got copies of copies. We don't

(51:38):
have a lot of really old originals for obvious reasons.

Speaker 5 (51:41):
They fall apart.

Speaker 8 (51:42):
And then of course you've got some on stone, which
is usually hard to date unless you've got some really
specific fungus, because then its growth rate helps you date
the writing if it grows over the writing, right, But
generally speaking, it's really hard to date carved writing in
stone other than by what it says the same. And

(52:05):
so so what she is doing is she is using
that and sanscrit writing and is arguing that her understanding
of Sanskrit and how it is related to an ancient
Persian language called I'm not going to try to say
that it starts with an A, that she by comparing

(52:27):
them can herself determine the age of the Persian writing. Now,
this is roughly the equivalent of claiming that you can
use Middle French to date something written in Middle English.
That is not a good dating system. Also, that is

(52:48):
the one she is arguing for to put to push
zoe Aster back somewhere between and the dates. The dates
given vary, but somewhere between. Call it nine hundred to
seven seventeen hundred BC. But her only evidence is comparative language.
Not what people who were following zoe Astor said, not

(53:11):
what a historian whose name was MNAs Marcielis said, not
what even the people following this religion eighteen hundred said,
just what she decided based on comparative linguistics, comparing it
to things she can't accurately date. Yeah, I'm not sure
it's not a source. Yeah, I'm not sure it's this one.

(53:32):
I think I think I found it. Here is an
article from WILLIAMS. Jackson.

Speaker 5 (53:38):
Sure, and they they, I mean, we're not going to
read it here, but just to give an idea, they say,
there are some passages that are playing to place Zoroaster
and likes around like six thousand BC. And they mentioned
some guys. They mentioned like Plating the Elder, they mention
like Plato, they mentioned basically texts that would keep the

(54:03):
the claim. Let's say that the will support that claim, right,
I think. I think it's even like extremely like Greek reading.
I think like twenty three pages or something like that. Yeah,
he also talked about that the the Allah thing you
I don't remember the first part, but the something a
lot thing you mentioned were like making the comparison from

(54:27):
Bland to Sasterium.

Speaker 8 (54:29):
That on that side as well. Yeah, so that that
claim is not, as far as I can tell, is
not based on any history. Now, I will say that
Pliny the Elder is an excellent source when it comes
to natural history. That man has been proven right more
than once about things. He said that people who were

(54:51):
alive in our lifetimes, well maybe not yours, you're a
little younger, Matt, but Stein and I lifetime except that
proved that it turned out he was right, although one
was yours. So one was that he claimed gray whales
were swimming in the Mediterranean. That happened again when COVID happened.
When shipping slowed down, the grey whales returned, And so

(55:11):
he turned out he was right. That was in fact true,
and what had changed was we basically made it noisy,
so they didn't want to be there with all the moderns.

Speaker 5 (55:20):
I feel that. Yeah, well, I mean we can't. I can't.
I can give another point of view as well, but
just to get from the text here so we understand
where it itself is coming from the older. For example,
it says your piny the Elder cites the authority of
Eldosuks of Sneyders. Not sure, I'm probably butchering the naps
off Aristotle and off Hermicus for a place in his

(55:42):
raster six thousand years before the death of Pato or
five thousand years before the Trojan War. And then there's
some thing in Latin. Sure, let me quick try to
find the quote.

Speaker 8 (55:53):
Yes, I can, I can.

Speaker 5 (55:54):
See if I can send you there.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
I mean, you can send the link in the private
chat if you you want to. But that that sounds
a lot like just you know, throwing names around too. Yeah,
you can, like say, you know our sense, these people
prove me right, you.

Speaker 5 (56:11):
Know, so you prove me wrong. Yeah, yeah, I just
found it so plenty.

Speaker 8 (56:16):
Theler from the Williams Williams Jackson Guy, No, no, no,
not the article plinally the Elder. That's that's the thing
he's hinging his argument on. That's the thing you should read.

Speaker 5 (56:27):
Yeah, it's one of the like the originals amount of arguments.
And I'm not even sure if the article is trying
to prove the Raster's time is just like giving its
trying to fetch from where people are getting that idea. Yeah, yeah, so.

Speaker 8 (56:43):
Basically basically Pliny the Elder. Now he's writing first century
wait BC, yes, no, no a D So Planty the
Elder writing about nineteen hundred years ago, give or take fifty,
say he lived for a while. He was writing that

(57:04):
Zoe Astor basically invented magic or was the progenitor of
the magi in the East. Yeah right, right, so, and
his dating appears to just be based on I mean,
just what he says. He doesn't he doesn't quote anybody.
The claim he's the primary claim he's making is just

(57:26):
that they invented magic basically, which is kind of odd,
but I get why you might write that. However, as
far as dating goes, obviously the people who were living
in the region and who were copying the texts and
who were familiar with the history are the people you'd
want to believe. Also, generally speaking, you want to go
to the oldest sources, and in this case we have

(57:48):
two old sources that are in agreement and don't agree
with Pliny.

Speaker 5 (57:54):
So but this is this again like that I think
on this topic we can agree to the zeki because
basically that's the point from my understanding. Even the historical
bits aren't ice are cool and like it's an interesting
to follow, right, But the one that I usually the
most interesting and that I can understand how how the

(58:16):
correlations come to be is when you go through the
let's say, the mysteries path. So basically, when you when
you understand again what the things are trying to teach.
For example, when you go to the Maguie and you
understand what this roster talking about, it's one. And when
you see for example, what Moses was talking about, and
you see what maybe someone from the the Veils was
talking about in one, so you can understand that, you

(58:38):
can understand that the context behind them, So it's not
it stops being like, oh, I need the historical and
like I need a tablet or something, because you understand
most of these were well, first of all, they were oral,
so it's like a transmission based basically, so even they
come out, for example, they believe you have to be initiated.
You have to receive the revelation, right, you cannot just

(59:01):
I'm just reading alcobala book and then I know it basically,
So it's uh, it's again, it's this difference that are
we are going to be this, We're going to have
this contrast. And I think that's interesting where you are
going to try to come with the historical part the
more let's say, let's prove it, let's let's find it
in the dark facts, and that's really cool. And I'm

(59:21):
bringing the odder point of view, which is, okay, there's
the let's kind of the the occult site to all
of this.

Speaker 8 (59:30):
I follow.

Speaker 5 (59:30):
I follow.

Speaker 8 (59:31):
The problem is if you want to find what is
true and in particular, what people really meant when they
wrote things in history, you have to read what they
wrote in context, like we were talking about, and when
you have evidence that shows that the that newer ideas
aren't true or at least weren't met by the original authors,

(59:52):
you need to take that into account. In this case,
the specific claim you were making was basically that so
Ast was the source for Balem. If anything, the reverse
would be true in terms of timeline. Also in terms
of timeline, it's very interesting to note that according to
the Zoastrians themselves, they are following the religion of Abraham.

(01:00:13):
That's what they claim, and that's what they've claimed for
centuries in fact, and that the timing that they claim
for zoo Aster matches perfectly with the Jewish captivity into
Babylon and subsequently into Persia when Persia took over Babylon.
Or put another way, it is incredibly likely that zoe
Astor was himself a Jew because of the kinds of

(01:00:36):
things that they learned. They have their own version of
the Mosaic Law, they have an understanding of a monotheistic God.
They were in fact expecting a Messiah right around the
exact same time as Jesus showed up. These are not
surprising things. I suspect you've if you've read their writings,
and so I am postulating, I am arguing that in fact,

(01:01:00):
they are a Jewish cult.

Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
A big thank you to the sponsor of today's episode,
Good Feels and their cannabis Seltzer. Cannabis Seltzer from Get
Good Feels is redefining refreshment with its innovative range of
THHC infused beverages. Yes, you're hearing that right. THC Infused

(01:01:27):
founded to offer a new era of relaxation. Good Feels
crafts drinks that provide a consistent, clean, and enjoyable experience.
Each product is meticulously formulated with high quality natural ingredients
and uplifted mood without the drawbacks of alcohol or traditional

(01:01:50):
TC consumption methods. And as someone who has struggled with
THC and the use and abuse of THC, I can
highly recommend this product. It is much better, it is
much cleaner, it is much healthier than smoking it. So

(01:02:13):
if you want all the benefits from THC and none
of the downsides, go to shop dot get good feels
dot com. Use my promo code grayhorn for twenty percent
of your purchase. Shop dot get good Feels dot com

(01:02:36):
code Grayhorn for twenty percent of your new favorite way
of relaxing. Thank you to Get Good Feels and their
THC Infused Seltzer for sponsoring this episode. I mean, I'm

(01:02:57):
kind of looking things up as well as your mentioning
things just you know, using brave search.

Speaker 2 (01:03:02):
Because you know they're not actually biased. Zoro Aster is
considered a prophet in the.

Speaker 5 (01:03:10):
What is It faith and the Yeah They've They've split
of Islam.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
Both classifies as Abrahamic religions, and in the Baha'i faith,
zoro Aster is seen as a manifestation of God sharing,
sharing an exalted station with other prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus,
Mohammed and Baja Olah.

Speaker 8 (01:03:38):
You know one one cool just weird aside. So you know,
you know, in Persia, how they are mostly Muslim, although
there is a growing Christian minority, and there's also like
some atheists and stuff, but mostly Muslim, right, So there's
one day a year that they all basically forget their
Muslim and follow the then have a fire festival, which

(01:03:59):
is from their old religion.

Speaker 5 (01:04:01):
Yeah, yeah, the fire. That's that's again the fire initiations
from Uh from the Maga. So so so that's the
idea that there's always going to be the exoteric, like
the outside teachings, which is like the books you can
find and the tablets and so on and so on.
But all these because again come to Europe, come to

(01:04:22):
the Midiwist, come to China, come to Miso America, come
to any any certain like mystery school. Really, it's going
to have its ends zooteric. So the internal teachings which
not necessarily are meant to be found really. So so
that's the problem we have. It's kind of like you
have a government top secret project going on. It's not
like the government expects it to be like Forebode's no, really,

(01:04:45):
and that's going to be the problem here because it's
like I cannot bring let me guid you the the
esoteric paper. Oh here.

Speaker 8 (01:04:52):
It is like, here's what do you know how mystery
cults work? Because what you're describing as a mystery cult,
we could make one today.

Speaker 5 (01:04:59):
We shouldn't.

Speaker 8 (01:05:00):
That would be evil. Well, the mystery cults are we
have this secret and I if you join in, we
can we can teach you more and more and reveal
and usually it's a way to farm people for money.
That's scientilgy against ridiculous.

Speaker 5 (01:05:13):
Yeah, you can have the pyramid schemes and whatever. But
what I'm saying is, for example, when you get the
history of masonry, it's basically people that knew things that
at the time shouldn't really public. For example, they knew
how to build contabulets, They knew how to build like bridges.
They knew how to build things that at that time,
at that point in time, were basically military knowledge that

(01:05:33):
they were architects. They were everything.

Speaker 8 (01:05:35):
You're confusing I think two groups. But let me make
sure I'm clear on what you mean. Do you mean
the mason Sonic lodges.

Speaker 5 (01:05:44):
Yeah, freemasony exactly. Oh yeah, you're you're entirely wrong. No,
if you go to the roots of you should go
to the roots for masonry. You can understand they go
back to, for example, Egyptian times. That's basically where all
the all the the start of this something before, because
it was a like organized really up until what they
really mad in London from pretshure. They met in London

(01:06:05):
when like London was burned to the ground and they
needed basically people to reviewed it. And now you had
everyone is a lot of together.

Speaker 2 (01:06:13):
Freemasonry takes from a lot of a lot of different teachings.

Speaker 5 (01:06:17):
There is you've ever been to a Masonic lodge?

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
I have?

Speaker 8 (01:06:21):
Yeah, have you been to any of their rituals?

Speaker 5 (01:06:23):
I have? Yeah, that's the Kabbala. It's again, it's all
based in Kabbala somations. Anyway, Well, the lower freemason cannot
know it. But it's again, you have all the sympology,
you have, all the two columns, you have the the
g you have basically everything again, well the keys. That's

(01:06:43):
that's what I'm trying to to say here, that we
are gonna run.

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
Freemasonry is filled with different kinds of symbolism, and a
whole lot is Christian symbolism. A lot of the times
they take from many different religions. I have been at
least invited once to a to a lodge, but I
never never went. But one of the precepts is that

(01:07:12):
you like believe in a god.

Speaker 1 (01:07:15):
It doesn't they don't.

Speaker 5 (01:07:16):
That's true.

Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
They don't specify necessarily which god you just you have
to believe, that is. But just to come to the
poor premise.

Speaker 5 (01:07:26):
Exactly, just to come to the first point to close it. Basically,
the idea is that around that time, when you have
certain secrets. Again, this happens today. The government has top
secret things. It's not necessarily something for everybody to know
around that time. Simpler things like knowing how to read
and how to build like an ecuadote and how to
build like a tower, build bridges and things like that.

(01:07:47):
Basically they needed to be secret because what if you come,
Let's say, I have my charge here and I'm fine,
you come, I teach you everything, you come next week
with how people and you just you know, like you
just get everything from me basically. So so you need
it to be initiated so that you can prove like,
okay that I trust you. You know, I'll put a
little bit of feeling, that I'll put some tests. That's

(01:08:07):
the point of.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Freemasonry gets started through the knights templar. They weren't allowed
to attractice openly anymore. Right, So you can understand what
you're talking about. But the basis of it, it.

Speaker 5 (01:08:23):
Comes back again. You have to go to the roots.
So it comes back to Egyptian ride to come back
to things even older than that.

Speaker 8 (01:08:29):
That's the idea.

Speaker 5 (01:08:30):
That's the problem.

Speaker 8 (01:08:31):
Right, So what you were making again is a historical claim,
and that is that's provably false. Stein is quite correct
about the source of freemasonry. Broadly speaking, it wasn't an
immediate takeover, right, No, there was a It was a development,
but a few a few generations later, which is to say,
Freemasonry is relatively young at five or six hundred years

(01:08:54):
tops and probably a bit less actually. And also Freemasonry
itself agrees with many of the things you were saying.
And I know this because I've spent some time with
Freemasons there with their beliefs generally. Obviously I also believe
in one God. But and I'm also not sure are

(01:09:15):
you now This will take a little reading, But have
you guys ever read about the actual history, not not
not the sensational stuff, but like the period documents about
the Illuminati? Are you aware of them?

Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
The Bavarian Illuminati?

Speaker 8 (01:09:34):
You mean, like it and in the specific how they
took over the Freemasons. Modern Freemasonry is not the same
as it was in the seventeen hundreds. Their beliefs have
changed entirely, some of the symbols remain. And one of
the ways you can tell, you can check. If you
don't believe me, You can read George Washington writing about

(01:09:55):
it happening in Europe and how it hadn't happened in
the US yet. You can read letters where he names
the leaders who were doing it. These are publicly available,
scanned online for you to read and typed up. Because
that man's high end writing was terrible and further in

(01:10:16):
the eighteen fifties, you can read letters from Thomas Jackson,
which again are publicly available, talking about how they were
taking over the American lodges by that point, which is
another eight to seventy five eighty years later, and how
the particular lodge he had was part of had not
yet been taken over, but some of the other ones

(01:10:37):
in the US had. This is a historical phenomenon. So
the notion that modern freemasonry is related to ancient Egyptian
secrets is absolutely ridiculous on an historical level. Again, I
think it's again we come back to the point. Things
have some kind of force, some kind of route, and
if you go to the roots of how again it's

(01:11:00):
the root.

Speaker 2 (01:11:00):
Of freemasonry is not hermeticism.

Speaker 5 (01:11:03):
Most definite. That's the problem. Like black Boy said, you said.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
You went, modern freemasonry may have a lot of hermatic
influence that I will acknowledge. Yes, absolutely well, original freemasonry
you know how it got got started, and I looked
it up real quickly. George Washington, he did indeed join
before the Varian Illuminati was even founded. He joined in

(01:11:30):
seventeen fifty two, which was well before like twenty four
years before the you know, the very Illuminati was a thing,
and then you know, of course, then they started to
indeed infiltrate the lodges, if you will, planting their own
seats and ideas.

Speaker 5 (01:11:50):
Exactly, and then it gets too powerful, then yeah, it's
a problem.

Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
Yeah, I mean that's case with everything. But modern freemasonry
is taking very much from her Meticism, taking a lot
from Egypt. Original freemasonry is very Christian in nature.

Speaker 5 (01:12:12):
That's the point. That's the point. It's not that like
we chuse some kind of name, right because if we're
talking when we started, let's come back to the start.
We were talking about mystery schools, right, So I tried
to give an example. Freemasonry is a type of mystery
school where if you go back to its roops, if
you come back to like what, well, how people came
to have something like oh I want to be a

(01:12:32):
firmationon It's not like you know, from nowhere. So there's
some some and that's not me saying oh what I believe,
that's me saying something that I hear from guys talk
in the freemasony and they talk about it publicly. Even
it's not like necessarily you can be misiated on it
as well, which in this case, as I'm saying, I
have been or has in touch with people that have been,

(01:12:55):
but you can see people that are initiated and talking
about these kind of things because it's again it comes
back to the idea that if there is something that
just a certain level of people will get to know,
it's less likely that that thing will be out in
the public and it will be like some historical like
we can just find, let's say that's are you are

(01:13:16):
you following why?

Speaker 8 (01:13:18):
In this specific instance, that's a problem because modern freemasonry
is entirely unmoored from historical freemasonry, So any historical secrets
that you might imagine that they had aren't what they'd
have now.

Speaker 5 (01:13:31):
Today today is completely different. And that was not the
initial claim. The initial claim was to give you some
idea of how a mystery school comes to be and
why is it important. It's not necessarily just all I'm
getting people for my cult, just like today's happened. It's
just this idea, this notion that you needed some kind
of initiation before sharing specific topics, and even today that
still happens again with top secret on programs. You cannot

(01:13:53):
just I know a weapon, I know how to build
some big weapon, and I'll just give it away to everybody,
or I know how to do the best at I
pass want to, I'll just give it away to Indiation
is a.

Speaker 2 (01:14:03):
Thing of all groups, all levels. I mean there are
street gangs. Most street gangs, you know, require some sort
of very violent, very bloody initiation.

Speaker 5 (01:14:14):
My point with that was, again, if we are going
to because we're talking about the rest and all the
historical parts of it, we can find historical parts of things,
especially on the exoteric part, but on the axolteric is
going to be much harder because again it was all
behind the initiations, behind coded things, and like double talk,
let's say that. Then it's like, how can you really

(01:14:38):
have a text on that before not writing about it.
That's kind of going.

Speaker 2 (01:14:42):
Into the notion that everything is a conspiracy and nothing
is true.

Speaker 5 (01:14:46):
I'm not necessarily not assarid because you can compare it.

Speaker 2 (01:14:49):
No, yeah, no, of course, of course. But you know
they're saying that the exoteric, you know, what you can
find in books in libraries, online, whatever you know, is
so incredible, really different from the esoteric, and you know
that the true secrets are you know, only held within
the groups, within the lodges. I mean, if that was true,

(01:15:10):
then we wouldn't be talking about it.

Speaker 5 (01:15:12):
No, it's more it's it's more so with time it
comes to be. But then you lose the track. If
you don't hold the keys, then you lose the track.
It's kind of like the if you imagine a circle,
the exoterically beyond the outer circle, and you can find
a lot of things about it, right because again it's
out there, but the deeper you go, the harder it
is to find a lot of things that currently unless

(01:15:34):
you went to the in the middle as well, then
it's yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:15:36):
Okay, but things like that's that's also you know, you
you say that you you know, you speak a lot
with with higher level freemasons. Who's to say that, you know,
their personal beliefs do not bleed into the things that
they they tell you. I mean, I'm not just sure,
I'm not talking Like as an example, we have, you know,

(01:15:57):
a couple lists a Christian and a page and here
we all have our own ideas. We all have our
own ideas of where things come from. We have all
read different sources interpreted them in different ways. I've taught
the Bible and something else than it does to you.
To you, the by all means something else than it
does to me. So I understand that you're trying to
find common ground, that you're you know, trying to find examples,

(01:16:19):
but it's much more nuanced than that. So stepping aside
from that, but kind of saying on Zoroastrianism, I am
really curious about this one also because there's a member
of the tribe of Guara and Pagans, very valued member
who follows Mithras, which is set to be a derivative

(01:16:41):
of Zoroastrianism and a rival religion to Christianity.

Speaker 8 (01:16:47):
Yeah, that's it was really popular in the legions. Interestingly,
it wasn't terribly popular in the Roman Empire.

Speaker 2 (01:16:54):
It was it was very much a military religion.

Speaker 8 (01:16:58):
Yeah, and it was again a mystery religion. Unfortunately in
a way because as you as you know, I enjoy history.
Unfortunately in a way, many of its teachings were lost
precisely because of the problem that you described, which is
the cult kept it orally didn't write it down, and
eventually died, and the died both in popularity and also

(01:17:20):
personally and so what we have is basically what people
outside we were aware of. And so broadly speaking, it
was Yeah, broadly speaking, it was an interesting cult that
was particularly appealing in the standard mystery cult ways and

(01:17:44):
in the like sacrifice of blood for restitution or atonement.
That it was really interested in that idea, particularly cow's
blood or bull's blood bulls.

Speaker 11 (01:18:00):
But most of the teachings are just lost to time
and the but being such a sorry but chi Glow's
rifle to Christianity, you know, taught to your knowledge, Matt
to your knowledge one in the type belize, I.

Speaker 5 (01:18:13):
Know, we're all very very bassionate.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
Yeah, well, would it have influenced Christianity in some way,
like would they have taken you know, the Christian teachings
like kind of taken from Mithraism to you know, as
as it kind of happened with Catholicism in the more
modern days, like you know, hey see, you know this
is exactly the same. So like you're a god's kind
of my God, you're a prophet's kind of you know,

(01:18:37):
like my my prophets.

Speaker 5 (01:18:40):
I think I see what you're saying. Just a question.

Speaker 8 (01:18:42):
But yeah, yeah, so the so the the timing and
culture would be off, I think, because you have to
remember the Mithrass religion was in the rival Assassinate Empire
mhm before spreading to the army in Rome in the
Roman Empire. Christianity started in the Roman Empire rather than
the Persian and before the Mythriism really took off in Rome.

(01:19:03):
So I don't think they probably influenced each other very
much as just a geography and timing matter. And then
as far as the writing, because you can read many
early Christians what they were writing back and forth to
each other, and also what people who hated Christians wrote.
You can read Pliny the Younger, for example, about how
he tortured a couple of Christian women to death and
what he learned from them. We have his little report

(01:19:25):
about that. Yeah, So so you can read both what
Christians and their enemies said and during the period they
don't They don't talk about that, right, They do talk
about some other things. They even use analogies from history.

Speaker 5 (01:19:43):
And such.

Speaker 8 (01:19:43):
But so I don't think Misterism had any real impact
on Christianity, probably at all, just from the just from
the writing, because I've read a lot of the early
Fathers again trying to read as much as I can,
in this case translations of primary sources. The reverse might
be true, but I don't know how we would know.
Like if Mithriism borrows stuff from Christianity, that's possible, but

(01:20:07):
we don't have any other writing really, so I don't
I don't know how we would know.

Speaker 5 (01:20:10):
Shannolda's story. It resembles a little bit. You have the
idea of like being born a virgin, and like this
idea of like dying reverse and so on. Yeah, there's yeah,
there's a whole similar, similar thematic.

Speaker 2 (01:20:23):
But they see religions a mystery schools. You know, it's
all death and rebirth. It's basic, basic solar principle exactly.
It's it's against any of a solar archetype, yeah, or the.

Speaker 8 (01:20:37):
Harvest with the corn king idea or the barley king.

Speaker 5 (01:20:40):
Yeah right.

Speaker 8 (01:20:40):
Yeah, So that's that's a pretty common theme you're going
to see just in general. But if we can briefly
jump jump to the other claim, the Moses one, I
think that one. I mean, I hope I can surprise
you a little. So I do have a question though,
because your original comment, Matt wasn't quite clear about if

(01:21:02):
you're assuming Moses was made up or wasn't at least
partially mythological right. The idea is that what period are
you claiming that happened in, Like when are you saying
that that would have occurred Moses' story.

Speaker 5 (01:21:18):
Or the invention of it when it was written?

Speaker 8 (01:21:21):
You mean, sure, when when are you saying that that
was Because you didn't really write that in your post,
but clearly you have a belief about that.

Speaker 5 (01:21:30):
Yeah, I have some idea, but again I don't. I
don't really attend to specific time sets. It's not it's
not it's not necessarily what what I'm like more more
interested in. Let's say, sure, So I cannot give you
like a specific date like, oh that date, I just
understand the just to give your contexts. Again, I just
understand that the this story was vanished. I think that's

(01:21:52):
that's the word it can use you. You have like
attributes that you're getting from similar characters and swans to
make the story seem greater and seem more powerful than
it actually could have been. So all the ideas like
opening the sea and so on and or again, all
the attributes of being a guy that is bringing up
the monotheistic faith, having the ten mondments, all the all

(01:22:15):
the story again, the way I understand the stories, the
way to me it makes parcess freedom is the symbolical way.
It is the what's in there? What is what is
like the the value that is hidden there, not necessarily
the historically.

Speaker 8 (01:22:28):
Well, the claim that he's a created character is is
a historical claim. The the esoteric part or the the
the what does it mean part? Well, is it is
a different thing. But the non created that's no, that
is using that is saying that it is a fiction.
That is that's what that means.

Speaker 5 (01:22:48):
Yeah, but but that that's what I'm saying. It could
be like again, it could be that a guy named
most existed and the story went there there, But to me,
that's not the biggest point, Like that's not what I
what I necessarily I am caring about. But if you
get to the very part you can get even through
his name. For example, you have the mosche right if
you want to use the vowels, but if you have

(01:23:09):
like mem, hey and shin, it's not mistaken. So the
three letters ma'm hey, shim don't remember if it's not
that order. But again, using caban you can permontate that
and then you have hush Him, which is what the
Jewish would understand is the powerful one. Even on the
one of the names of God, you have the you'd
have off here, but then you have which is like
a contraction. But then you have an expanded one, which

(01:23:32):
is Hush Shem for Rush, if I'm not mistaking, like
a bigger name. So it's the name of God. Of
you have names of God's name of different numbers of
letters basically. And then again you can see how just
from looking at his name, from the way it's written,
you can just say, okay, it could be that the
guy named Moses existed, but it's not really the point,
like it's something there's something deeper in here that is

(01:23:54):
more variable to understand than if a guy happened or
the So.

Speaker 8 (01:24:01):
We can jump back to that in a sec if
you want. But when it comes to when it comes
to reading a narrative, what you're describing is imposing meaning
on the text. When, for example, if you were to
read a ballad about a Norse hero right and what

(01:24:22):
he did and what trials he went through and so on,
that is a narrative. It is saying these events happened.
Now it may not in the case of the Norse
hero meant it may not be meant to be literal.
Sometimes this is functionally fan fiction about their gods. That,
but there was also sometimes where they're like going to
specific forts, killing particular people. Right, those are saying that's happened.

Speaker 5 (01:24:48):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:24:48):
There have been stories that have later proven to be true,
Oh the ring for it, yeah yeah, yeah, or a
specific locations like a like a certain well or I
believe that was quite recently that but that, yeah, certain
locations have indeed.

Speaker 2 (01:25:10):
Proven to exist. And now going from there that those
events did indeed take take place.

Speaker 5 (01:25:19):
Yeah, and I don't I don't disagree with that. The
idea that a guy named Moses again that that the
the event could have happened, right. The idea here is
again to me, it's more interesting to see what's behind it,
because even you can see similar stories in other places,
and then you understand that, like the arbitide behind it,

(01:25:40):
and then okay, it happened, did happen that way, that way,
that other way? The thing is the is the value.

Speaker 8 (01:25:49):
But you see, what you're describing isn't what's behind it.
It's what you're imposing on it. You're adding to the
narrative with the secret meanings, when in fact the people, right,
the people conveying the story or the history of a
given event, are doing just that and there is no
evidence from the period, none that will show what you're

(01:26:10):
doing now to be valid. This applies both to Norse
writings as well as to Hebrew writings, as well as
to Greek although the Greeks, i will admit, will play
around with numbers a bit more. They were unhealthily fascinated
it sounds like the Greeks, Yeah, But in general, you
have to realize that when you make claims to truth

(01:26:33):
that they should be rooted not in your own preferences
or your own desire to impose meaning, but should be
rooted in what the people at the time understood, especially
when it comes to historical writing, and also of course
like with Moses specifically.

Speaker 5 (01:26:51):
Right.

Speaker 8 (01:26:52):
So I'm going to make a bold claim, oh dear,
but it is backed up by three sources or you,
depending on how you count. So what I'm going to
claim is that the exodus from Egypt was a real event,
and specifically that it took place in during the reign
of a Menhotep. Second, there's a couple of reasons for this,

(01:27:14):
But the big one, the one that probably you guys
will find the most interesting, is because that dating comes
from Manetho, who was a historian who had access to
some really old Egyptian texts. Manetho's writing we don't have,
but we do have a bunch of quotes from it. Manaetho,

(01:27:36):
His the quotes we have of his right formed the
basis of our understanding of Egyptian history, including the thirty
Dynasties thing. He's why we think that. So Manetho is
a good source in the sense he's to a large
extent popularly accepted in Egyptology. They'll argue with him about
specific things. He says translaterated into Greek, that the Pharaoh

(01:28:01):
during the Exodus, and he describes that they then left
under Moses and went on to found the city of
Jerusalem's talking about the Israelites was named a Meno tap.
Now he says this in Greek, so it's transliterated into Greek.
But so that's that's my first piece of evidence that
that guy the kind of founder of our understanding of

(01:28:21):
Egyptian history. He says that it did happen, and it
happened under that pharaoh. Now, the problem is, of course
that the idea of Menotap the second, third, fourth, thutmost
the third weren't adding those numbers. That's not what they
called themselves right now, So it was a pharaoh named
a meno Tap. The reason I'm saying it's a Menotap
the second than not one of the others, it's he's

(01:28:44):
about the right time frame to match with the claim.

Speaker 5 (01:28:48):
In Judges.

Speaker 8 (01:28:51):
Specifically, they check my notes here Judges eleven twenty six,
in which which is I think the story of Jephtha
and he is it? Basically, it says that three hundred
years before that event is when the Israelites arrived in Canaan,
and then you just add forty years wandering in the desert,

(01:29:11):
and maybe another year or change to account for calendar variants.

Speaker 2 (01:29:16):
The opinions among biblical scholars are a little divideds A
lot will say.

Speaker 5 (01:29:23):
The cert your absolutely see free BC.

Speaker 2 (01:29:26):
Others will say the fifty.

Speaker 8 (01:29:29):
Yeah, yeah, I can, I can stein if you want,
I can give you the source to the other as well,
yeah please, yeah, yeah, but if I so. The the
other source is first King's six to one, which says
that a certain number of years before that. It was
a certain number of years fourhundred and eighty if I
recall correctly from the founding of Solomon's temple, was when

(01:29:52):
the Exodus happened. Okay, so the Bible two different authors
in this case judges is not written by the same
guys kings. The Bible is claiming a consistent date, give
or take a year, right, and it matches what Manetho says.
Also though the other way to judge it is the
other claims that the Bible makes. It claims right that

(01:30:15):
Moses was basically an exile by himself for forty years
because he was wanted for murder, and so the pharaoh
and then a new pharaoh came to power who just
wasn't interested, right, who didn't care about that? So the
predecessor to the Exodus pharaoh has to be someone who
reigned for forty or more years, right, if the Bible's true.

(01:30:38):
And then secondly, the plague of the firstborn, which is
all the first born in Egypt die, right. And then
the Angel of God passes over the Israelites who have
painted the Lamb's blood over their doorframes.

Speaker 5 (01:30:49):
Right.

Speaker 8 (01:30:50):
Yeah, that means again if the Bible is true that
the successor to the exodus pharaoh must not be his
firstborn son. Yeah, if the Bible is true, if what
it's claiming is true right now, and then a tap

(01:31:11):
the second. His predecessor thought most the third and his
heir thought most the fourth do match these prerequisites. They're
at the right.

Speaker 5 (01:31:19):
Time, beasts.

Speaker 8 (01:31:21):
His son, the son of the pharaoh the Exodus, is
not his oldest son, his heir is not his oldest son,
and his predecessor reigned for more than forty years. So
that's why I'm arguing for the date the one that
you the other date, and that's that would be fifteenth century, right,
fourteen hundreds, So that's I agree. The other date you'll find,

(01:31:41):
which you'll see popularized in Charlton Heston's movie Ten Commandments,
is Ramses.

Speaker 5 (01:31:46):
The second. That's the other kind of popular one. Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:31:50):
And the reason for it is a single reference in
the Pentateuke to a city named Ramses. Ramses is the
newer name of a city that during the period would
have had a name that starts with an H if
I recall correctly, and so something that.

Speaker 5 (01:32:06):
Was police or something yeah, yeah, And the.

Speaker 8 (01:32:12):
And so the claim for the later date of the
exodus relates to this kind of aberration of the of
the newer name being in the older text, right, and
they're going, well, it must have happened after this name
was started. Well, the problem is that the Bible does
this kind of frequently. So like when you read about
the War of the Five Kings and Abraham pursuing the

(01:32:35):
people who'd taken his nephew captives. If I recall that
was the incident, he goes as far as Dan. Well,
Dan as a city name didn't come into existence until
the Israelites took over. Yeah, and in fact, later on,
if we keep reading, it talks about how the city
still in the pentituke, how the city name was Dan,
but formerly it was like Leah or something like that.

(01:32:57):
So they acknowledge, ye, it used to have another name.
But in general, the Bible wasn't the Bible got some
copy editing over time. One of the ways you can
tell isn't just that it is you'll see comments added,
probably by Ezra, because he was credited with basically organizing

(01:33:18):
the Hebrew scriptures the way that they are typically presented,
and so probably Ezra might have been somebody else adds
comments like which you can see to this day all
over the place. Those weren't original. If you're an eyewitness
to an event, you don't also say, which you can
see to this day that was that's added text and
so and so you. So it wouldn't be surprising, since

(01:33:41):
they do it at least once with Dan, for them
to use the newer name of a city, just like today,
you and I would talk about New York and we
would not call it New Amsterdam. We should though, ah, yeah,
you dutched.

Speaker 2 (01:33:56):
That was a horrible trait.

Speaker 8 (01:33:58):
But the same is true for Constantinople. We don't usually
call it that today, right right right, So so this
this shouldn't shock us that they would do that. But
the main argument is focused around that and then actually
using some numerology to reinterpret the four hundred and eighty

(01:34:21):
years and the three hundred years to be symbols of
generations and then changing the numbers. That's that is the
base argument for Ramses.

Speaker 2 (01:34:32):
Yeah, it's the coronic narrative. The quurn indicates that the
same pharaoh Oh was in power from Moses' birth until
the Exodus, a periods that aligns with the sixty seven
year reign of Rameses the second.

Speaker 8 (01:34:48):
Yeah, the Quran is a terrible source of historical information.

Speaker 4 (01:34:51):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:34:51):
One of the ways it is well is.

Speaker 8 (01:34:53):
They think Moses' sister is the same person as jesus mother.
I'm not kidding, high Leon likely uh huh, because they
have similar names, Miriam and.

Speaker 2 (01:35:04):
Mary, unless his mother was like already ancient when she came.

Speaker 5 (01:35:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:35:09):
No, it's just it's just mistaken. It's it's because they
had similar names, and Muhammad clearly did not know the difference.

Speaker 2 (01:35:16):
Yeah, and uh, the for the Amano Deep. Some scholars
suggest I'm the second as a candidate for the pharaoh
of the Exodus, citing his proximity to the Israelites in
Goshin and the unusual succession to his younger son thut
most the fourth. So younger son probably meaning second.

Speaker 5 (01:35:40):
Third, right, at least at the very least.

Speaker 2 (01:35:42):
So that's at the very least, not the first, because
then it would have just set his son or you know, first.

Speaker 5 (01:35:48):
Rights on what we know.

Speaker 8 (01:35:50):
I don't I Todd do not recall off hand, but
we do know the name of his oldest son, like
he was the crown prince. There are carvings and reliefs
talking about him.

Speaker 2 (01:36:00):
But that guy died, Yeah, he went by Pharaoh thought
most the death.

Speaker 8 (01:36:07):
Correct, But that was not obviously originally his heir, No,
that was the.

Speaker 2 (01:36:14):
Yeah, that's like his Pharaoh named the name.

Speaker 8 (01:36:17):
And so I am agreeing with those scholars, I guess
is what I'm saying, and in particular again, and it's
because that's what the oldest historical texts that we have say.
But the other the and and and also because of
the the aligning pieces, which is and you guys will
probably be fascinated by this, I think, Matt. I know
you from what you're talking about. You seem to enjoy

(01:36:39):
reading ancient writing. Yeah, so there is a I think
it's pronounced who Gonna try. That's spelled m e r
n e he t a h Murnetta maybe something.

Speaker 5 (01:36:57):
But it's a. It's a.

Speaker 8 (01:36:59):
It's a That was a carving on stone that the
Egyptians made somewhere around twelve ten BC.

Speaker 1 (01:37:09):
This was part one of two. Hope you enjoyed. Make
sure you are subscribed so you don't miss part two,
coming out next week same time. This was yet another

(01:37:33):
amazing episode of the Grey Horned Pagans podcast. We thank
you all for watching. We thank you all for listening.
Remember to like, share, subscribe, and hit that notification bell
so you will be notified whenever we upload something new.
Support us on Patreon for early access and for everything

(01:37:54):
else that we do with the tribe. For everything else
that we do with the podcast, find us on w
dot l n nimes dot com.

Speaker 4 (01:38:03):
For now, we thank you that.

Speaker 1 (01:38:05):
Until next time, Yah

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Biblical Texts and Mistranslations with DM Blackwall and Mat Moura (PART 1)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Biblical Texts and Mistranslations with DM Blackwall and Mat Moura (PART 1)

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce