A Taste of Rebooting the Bible, Part 2

I’m hard at work.  I’ve completed 5 chapters (all of them 15,000 words or better) and have 2 more to go.  Plus an introduction and recap of Part 1 of RTB.

I thought those who follow me might appreciate a taste of what is to come.  I expect to be done by the end of March with a release date about May the 1st (some promotional work will be done in April).


Here is a small section of Chapter Three.

Chapter Three:

3100 B.C. to 2700 B.C.

“The walls of falsehood must be torn down that stronger walls can be built founded on truth.”

Why Does the Story of Nimrod Upset the Conventional Chronology?

As I have made very clear, my essential thesis is that “literalist” biblical history is shackled to the “fake history” developed from the corrupted Hebrew Bible (a corruption that pertains almost exclusively to passages on the Messiah – His person, mission, and means to our salvation – and the Bible’s chronology as laid out in Genesis 5 and 11).

As I documented in Rebooting the Bible, Part One, (RTB, Part 1) the rabbis altered the genealogy and thus the chronology revealed to us in Genesis 5 and 11. Changes in chronology were also related to hiding the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Messiah. I explain this thoroughly in RTB, Part 1. The standard view which is associated with the King James Bible (whose Old Testament was translated for the most part from the corrupted Hebrew Bible) has pushed those who investigate biblical chronology and its many associated themes, such as Young Earth Science and biblical archeology, unwittingly down a well-trod but misguided path. Specifically, there are many beliefs about the identity of Nimrod and his consort, Semiramis that must be corrected. Biblical chronology is the key to do this, so that the Bible can be reasonably synchronized with archeology in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Specifically, there are legends that Nimrod led the rebellion at the Tower of Babel, that he was a contemporary of Abraham, and that Shem cut Nimrod into 13 pieces and had his body shipped to distant parts of Egypt… purportedly giving birth to the story of Osiris and his sister/wife Isis.  However, when we rightly understand the most probable chronology that synchronizes the Bible with primeval archeology, we discover that the two no longer conflict. This strengthens our witness to the world.

According to the Masoretic Text (MT), primeval history has the Creation at 4004 B.C., the Flood at 2348 B.C., and the Tower of Babel event approximately 100-150 years later – roughly 2200 B.C. Given these historical “markers,” it is no surprise that those who attempt to map what we know about Egypt and Mesopotamia through archeology have a nearly impossible task – for it’s not easy to reconcile the Bible’s history with what the science of archeology teaches to be true. From an apologetic standpoint, the Bible’s story, rightly recounted, provides stunning insights into the human predicament and the solution to our alienation from ourselves, from others, and from God. But fictitious assertions about the timeline of primeval history in Genesis 1-11 immeasurably harms our position.

However, if archeology is correct, and I believe that it is substantially so, the evidence is strong that Nimrod can be identified with a historical figure who can be demonstrated to have lived circa 3100-2700 B.C. In this chapter, we will seek to identify who Nimrod is – and dispel many myths about him that have made a mess of what the Bible tells us about the primeval history of the people of the Bible.

To begin, consider the fact that there are far more stories about Nimrod outside the Bible than those in the Bible.  Nimrod is only mentioned by name four times. (Genesis 10:8,9; 1 Chronicles 1:10; Micah 5:6). And three of the four verses are virtually the same assertion: “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.” That should educate us that what we believe about Nimrod has a high probability of being wrong.

More Than the Antichrist Archetype?

No doubt, one of the most intriguing characters in the Old Testament is Nimrod, son of Cush, and grandson of Ham. His name often comes up as the archetype of the Antichrist. It turns out that when we dig into the story surrounding Nimrod, there is much more to be said about his importance than just the speculation that he might be figure who arises again in the last days (“who was, is not, but will be again” – Revelation 17:8) as the Antichrist. His story, once we fit the pieces together, gives us a sequence of what happened in the post-diluvian world from 3,100 B.C. to 2,700 B.C. It is not the usual story because, the conventional view, has Nimrod causing the revolt against Yahweh. We know this as the Tower of Babel event. In this chapter we will attempt to set the record straight based upon my considerable research completed over the past 12 months.

My friend Peter Goodgame, wrote a fine book entitled, The Second Coming of the Antichrist, which lays out the case that Nimrod was the prototype for the Antichrist. But more than being the first example or an archetype, Goodgame contends that Nimrod will return to life – being resurrected for a second opportunity – to thwart the plan of Yahweh. Citing Isaiah 14, the traditional passage that speaks to the nature and earliest history of Satan:

All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, everyone in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. (Isaiah 14:18–21)

Goodgame asserts, “I believe that Isaiah’s prophecy against the King of Babylon must also be viewed as a Hebrew polemic against Assur, the god of the Assyrians who were on the verge of conquering Israel. At the same time, however, it is also an important end-times prediction of the historical figure behind the Assyrian god, the original Asshur who died around 3100 BC, who will rise again at the beginning of the Day of the Lord.”[1] Note the timing of when Asshur (aka Nimrod for Goodgame) died – 3100 B.C. in his reckoning. Peter asserts that Assur/Nimrod is also the first Pharaoh, kicking off Dynasty Number 1 in Egypt. I agree. Indeed, from my studied perspective, Peter has most of this story right. Like me, he is challenging the traditional view that Nimrod lived circa 2250 B.C. and led the Tower rebellion circa 2150 B.C. While I haven’t chatted with Peter about the Septuagint’s chronology, something tells me he would likely agree that it far more accurately portrays history as well as the Bible’s testimony. The conventional point of view is wrong – not because it is what the Bible teaches, but because it isn’t what the Bible teaches. At least, not what the most authentic text of Scripture, the Septuagint, presents.

[1] Goodgame, Peter. The Second Coming of the Antichrist. Defender Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition. Location 3085.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

No Comments on A Taste of Rebooting the Bible, Part 2