Category Angels and Aliens

At Satan’s Command: A New Translation of The Mt Hermon Inscription

Corrupting the Image 2 chapter 8

In 1869 on the summit of Mt. Hermon, in Israel, British explorer Sir Charles Warren came across a sacred rectangular building made of hewn stone blocks, located at Qasr Antar, the highest temple in the ancient world (9,232 ft. or 2,814 m. above sea level, See Figure 1). In the temple, he found a limestone stele which may be the only extra-biblical and pagan memorial of Satan’s actual command to the Sons of God to create a hybrid race.

Schematic of Temple on Hermon, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1869-1936. London.

We know that this mountain has long been regarded as a holy place. E.A. Myers believes the finding of the inscription is very much in line with the pagan history of the mountain:

That such an enclosure, as first reported by Warren, exists on the summit of Hermon lends credence to a long tradition of the sacred high place, and supports the textual evidence for it as a holy mountain. It also provides evidence for the endurance of a people who must have made considerable effort to come and worship within such a harsh and cruel environment. That the mountain preserved its sacredness throughout is dramatically demonstrated by the presence of numerous temples and cult sites.[1]

The British Museum dates the inscription to the 3rd century, though I am persuaded it might have been written earlier, between the 8th – 3rd centuries BC. The earlier date is supported by evidence on the inscription and by the Messapic evidence that we will examine shortly. Thus, based on the long pagan history of the locale, it is likely that the pagan scribes chiseled the inscription with a phrase that had passed down orally for millennia.

The Inscription With Satan’s Command

We are indebted to Warren for finding and delivering the inscribed stele to the British Museum,[2] and as shown in Figure 2, we are provided a chance to view the inscription on the actual stele at the British Museum’s website.[3] Comparing the parallel translations of Warren and Harvard scholar, George Nickelsburg, with that of the British Museum, reveals discrepancies and even the omission of several words. Their translations are below; the omissions in the British Museum’s translation are represented by brackets. The inserted words in the Warren-Nickelsburg translation are in italics.

  • The British Museum’s translation, (written on the base of the inscription): “Hence by order of the [ ] God [ ] [ ], those who do not take the oath.”
  • Warren and Nickelsburg’s parallel translation:[4] Κατά κέλευσιν θεού μεγίστου κ[αι] άγιου οι ομνύοντες εντεύθεν “According to the command of the great a[nd] holy God, those who take an oath [proceed] from here.” [5]

Warren-Nickelsburg rightly connected the inscription with the oath taken by the angels under Semjaza[6] in order to take wives, according to the Book of Enoch.[7] Nickelsburg also skillfully realized “the name of God was supposed to be a Hellenized version of Baʿal or Hadad and … connected it with the place name of Baal-Hermon (Lord of Hermon).” [8]

Surprisingly, though, Warren-Nickelsburg inserted the words “a[nd] holy” which do not appear in the inscription. This interpretation gives the impression that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave the command to angels to create the race of Nephilim, but He did not.

Hermon Inscription, Courtesy of the British Museum 1903-0422.

Rather, the one who sent those angels was Satan; and this is a fact which we will see the inscription proves. In 1 Enoch, “the Holy and Mighty One” (1 Enoch 1:3) is mentioned. However, the angels that descended and took the oath acted in opposition to the Holy and Mighty One’s decrees—not in accordance, as evidenced in 1 Enoch:

3And now to you, O you holy one of heaven, the souls of men complain, saying, Obtain Justice for us …6Samyaza also has taught sorcery, to whom you have given authority over those who are associated with him. They have gone together to the daughters of men; have lain with them; have become polluted; 15To Michael likewise the Lord said, Go and announce his crime to Samyaza (1 Enoch 9:3, 6, 10:15)(Emphasis mine).

Clearly, the “holy one of heaven” is referring to God (YHWH / Jehovah), and He did not command the angels to make the Nephilim.

Need for a Retranslation

Due the wide divergences and omissions, I believe a reexamination of the inscription is necessary. I have tried to simplify the linguistic evidence, but if you do not care for it, I invite you to skip to the end of the chapter to read the conclusion.

Here is the uncial text transcribed with no spaces as it appears on the inscription:

ΚΑΤΑΚΕΛΕΥΣΙΝΘΕΟΥΜΕΓΙΣΤΟΥΒΟΒΑΤΙΟΥΟΥΟΜΝΥΟΝΤΕΣΕΝΤΕΥΘΕΝ

My normalized transcription of the text is as follows: 1Κατά 2κέλευσιν 3θεού 4μεγίστου 5βο 6βατιου 7ου 8ομνύοντες 9εντεύθεν [kata keleusin theou megistou bo batiou ou omnuontes enteuthen].

The British Museum ignored words four, five and six, skipping three out of nine words, which is 33% of the text. Warren-Nickelsburg’s translation: “a[nd] holy,” amended two words to read differently than what the text says, which we will discuss later. Here is a breakdown of each word according to my reading:

  1. Κατά [kata]: according to
  2. Κέλευσιν [keleusin]: command
  3. Θεού [theou]: of the god (genitive)
  4. Μεγίστου [megistou]: Greatness personified (genitive)
  5. Βο [bo]: uncertain, possibly a prefix for ox
  6. βατιου (Βατιοu): epithet (genitive)
  7. ου [ou]: where
  8. ομνύοντες [omnuontes]: those swearing an oath
  9. εντεύθεν [enteuthen]: [going] from here

My translation of the first three words Κατά κέλευσιν θεού agrees perfectly with the other translations. Liddell Scott Jones Classical Greek Lexicon notes how this three-word phrase is frequently found in inscriptions and papyri.[9]

With the fourth word, μεγίστου, megistou, the British Museum omitted it for unknown reasons. Warren-Nickelsburg rightly included it in their translation. BDAG notes it means: “Greatness, personified.”[10] It was a popular epithet for Zeus.

Since words five and six are enigmatic, we will consider them last because they require ample explanation.

Word seven, ΟΥ, Nickelsburg revised to ΟΙ, which seems ad hoc, as the text clearly reads as ΟΥ (See adjacent Figure 3.). A translator’s job is not to change the text to make it fit his idea, but to deal with the text “as is”. Translators are justified in creativity when something is missing from the text, but here, nothing is missing.

The British Museum translated ΟΥ as the lexical entry οὐ “not”, which is an option. However, a separate lexical entry is οὗ which means: “marker of a position in space, where … ” (BDAG). Context is the only way to know which translation is correct. When we pair this word with word nine εντευθεν ([going] from here), then “where” appears to be the better option, instead of “no.”

The word “ου” visible on the inscription.

Word eight ὀμνύω, is defined by BDAG as: “to affirm the veracity of one’s statement by invoking a transcendent entity, freq. w. implied invitation of punishment if one is untruthful, swear, take an oath …[as נִשְׁבַּע בְּ] in the OT .”[11]

Lastly, word nine εντευθεν is an adverb, according to BDAG, that pertains “to extension from a source near the speaker, from here”.[12] We see this word used in Scripture which provides us examples of the word meaning—going from one place to another:

  • “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from [ἐντεῦθεν] here (Luke 4:9).
  • And the LORD said to Moses, “Go, get down [ἐντεῦθεν]” (Exod 32:7).

Thus words 7, 8, and 9 agree with the translation of Warren and Nickelsburg which is what makes words 5 and 6 such a mystery that deserves our attention.

βο Bo the Bull

Words five and six βο Bo and βατιου Batiou are mysterious, which could be why they were completely ignored by the British Museum and amended by Warren-Nickelsburg; βο to “a(nd)” and βατιου batiou as άγιου hagiou. Frankly, it is a mystery to me how they justified their emendation. While “a(nd) holy” may be an easy fix, we must always ask, “What does the text say?” and, “Does the inscription warrant such renderings?” In the picture of the inscription in Figure 4, you will see a circle around βο and a rectangle around βατιου (batiou is the genitive of batios). Warren-Nickelsburg simply ignored the whole word ΒΟ (beta omicron). With word six, batiou, they changed the Τ (tau) to a Γ (gamma) even though the letters are clear, consistent and not garbled. As we noted already, they were right to see a similarity with 1 Enoch and the oath, per word eight; yet, if this is indeed a record of the imprecation the angels took before taking women and begetting the Nephilim, it was not by decree of the Holy God YHWH. Rather, the decree would have come from Satan.

A circle around “bo” and rectangle around “batiou” on the inscription.

βο bo does not appear as a proper lexical entry in any of the extensive literature I checked—which is likely why careful scholars like Warren-Nickelsburg amended it to “a[nd].”

Nevertheless, “Bo- (βο-), boo- (βοο-), and bou- (βου-) are prefixes meaning bull, ox, male cattle.”[13] Considering that there are no spaces between the letters in the original inscription, it is plausible to read the text as “βο-βατιου” and not do violence to the text. Furthermore, we know Mt. Hermon was also called Baal Hermon in Judges 3:3 and 1 Chronicles 5:23, and that Zeus and Baal are synonymous. Therefore, it follows that βο may be a prefix meaning “bull”, a reference to Baal / Zeus. You may remember Zeus, in Greek mythology, transformed himself into a white bull and carried away Europa, an image which agrees with “the tauromorphic appearance of Baal and other deities in Canaan,” [14] and which confirms that Baal (Zeus) appeared as a bull. Furthermore, “Moloch is merely another name for Ba’al, the Sacred Bull who was widely worshipped in the ancient Near East.”[15]

Thus, based on the bull motif of Baal / Zeus found in the area, βο bo meaning bull, stands as a strong candidate.

Batios in Messapia (Southern Italy)

The word βατιου Batiou is even more enigmatic (batios is nominative, batiou is genitive). I performed an exhaustive search through lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly sites and journals, and not one had any information on the word batios. Batiou simply is not Greek (which again, is the only apparent justification good scholars, such as Warren-Nickelsburg, would have for changing letters). I did, however, discover that batios is believed to be an epithet of Zeus (Jupiter) in Messapian speech. (See Figure 5, next page.) “Messapian (also known as Messapic) is an extinct Indo-European language of South-eastern Italy.”[16] Yet, why?

5 Map of Messapia, South-east Italy 6th-2nd cent. BC. Courtesy salentoacolory.it.

So little is known about the Messapian language that the leading scholar Alf Torp (1853–1916) stated: “Hardly more than a few words can be said to have been separated and translated with certainty.”[17] The language has roughly 300 extant inscriptions dating from the 7th / 6th to the 1st century BC.[18] The majority of the inscriptions come from a cave called Grotta Porcinara.

There are several examples of Idde, Batas, and Atiaxte, or fragments of these, which are believed to be names or epithets of the god worshipped there. Several Greek inscriptions from the site are dedications to Zeus Batios … Batas may have been the Messapic name of the god, who also appears to have been equated with Zeus, appearing in a Greek inscription as Zeus Batios (βατιος εμι.)(Emphasis mine).[19]

Thus, we have material evidence in Messapic inscriptions of “Zeus Batios”  used by the Greeks.[20] The Romans made engravings venerating “Juppiter Optimus Maximus Batius (ouVatius).”[21] Both Greek and Roman inscriptions referenced Batios / Batius.

Nevertheless, scholars do not know what batios means. Annick Fenet suggests it could be the epithet of a local deity.[22] Yet, why would an almost unknown Messapian epithet, hidden in a cave of a localized god from south-eastern Italy, be inscribed on a stele 9,000-feet above sea level on the cold, unwelcoming accursed mountain in the land of Bashan?

Batios cannot be a local Messapian epithet because there is no location known as Batios in Messapia (See map in Figure 5 above). For example, we know “Baal Hermon” (Judg 3:3) is a local epithet for Baal because we have a mountain called “Hermon.” Annick Fenet, in Les Dieux Olympiens et la Mer, notes:

According to the cave dedications and ceramic graffiti, since the 6th century BC a Messapian Zis Batas was honored there, recognized as a Zeus Batios by the Greeks, designated also later as Juppiter Optimus Maximus. Caves are mainly devoted to Zeus, albeit under different epiclesis … These Messapian places of worship, dating back to some of the 7th century, were early frequented by Greek sailors who somehow appropriated them (Emphasis mine).[23]

The Grotto in which “batios” was found in Messapia.

Referring to the Grotto in Figure 6, Kathryn Lomas notes that “The sanctuary was clearly an important one, and attracted worshippers from beyond the region despite the difficulties of access (it may have been only accessible by boat in antiquity).”[24] She also notes that:

Grotta Porcinara may provide evidence for religious contact in action, as it offers evidence for the interaction of Greek and non-Greek cults and worshippers. The corpus of inscribed potsherds includes a number of sherds inscribed [idde], which has been identified as Messapic deity name or epithet. Another name or epithet that occurs there is Batas … Other pottery inscriptions, dedications written in Greek to Zeus Batas. The Latin inscriptions on the inside of the cave name the deity as Jupiter Batius. [25]

The attestation of Batas and Idde direct our attention to Hermon rather than Messapia since the worshippers were from outside the region. Annick Fenet comments that the “dual name of Palaistiné and Ourania suggests a Semitic and oriental character.”[26] The presence of sailors worshiping gods with Semitic character must mean they are Semitic-speaking sailors. In personal correspondence with Professor Paolo M. Gensini, University of Perugia, Italy, who is an expert in Messapian texts, he notes that “the Greek and Latin texts from Leuca are all written by or for sailors.”[27]

Thus, Semitic-speaking sailors, probably Phoenician from Tyre or Sidon, inscribed the word “batios” in a cave in southern Italy. If they were coming from the east, such as from Phoenicia, then they certainly would have thanked their home god that got them to their destination safely, rather than a foreign god. Which is to say, batios is not Messapian, but Semitic.

The Phoenicians were renowned sailors, who were Semitic speaking and had Mt. Hermon in their backyard, which is the only other place in the world where the enigmatic word “batios” has been found. Incidentally, in Greek, many people-group names end with ιος. For example: “the Hittites [ο χετταιος], the Jebusites [ο ιεβουσαιος ], and the Amorites [ο αμορραιος] dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanites [ο χαναναιος].” (Num 13:29). Hence, the ιος ending demonstrates a typical Greek-language Semitic-people suffix (ending).

Batios means BAT (=IDIM) who is Enlil, et al

Our text says: “According to the command (Κατά κέλευσιν) of the greatness personified (θεού μεγίστου) βο-βατιου (bull) (of Batios).” There are two distinct possibilities of the origin of batios, though interestingly, they both lead us to the same entity: Enlil / Heilel / Satan.

The Sumerian language was first written using pictograms (AKA logograms). The logogram for BAD

was associated with Enlil, Dagan, Ug (death) and Nergal (god of death and the underworld). In a personal correspondence with Professor Amar Annus of University of Tartu Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden, he notes that:

The names of Dagan in Syria and Enlil in Mesopotamia sometimes share the logograms with which their names are written. dBAD and dKUR for both Enlil and Dagan, which points to a syncretism between their deities, and consequently for their families, including Dagan’s son Ba’al in Syria and Enlil’s son Ninurta in Mesopotamia. This cuneiform sign BAD has many logographic readings throughout history, including BAD for “dead” and BAD.BAD for ug in Sumerian, the latter is only orthographic as much as I can see … The sign BAD can be read as BE as well and taken as an abbreviation of bel – the lord.[28]

Franz Wiggenner expounds on the etymology of “Nergal’s planet … Mars (salbatanu).” He notes how “according to astrological omens Mars spreads death when he rises or flares up.” He goes on to provide a tentative etymology that explains “this role of MUL tzal (sal) bat-a-nu as mushtabarru (ZAL) mutanu (BAD-a-nu)” “(the planet) which spreads plague.”[29] In other words, BAD, also spelled “BAT” [30] is related to death and to Nergal, the god of death. In light of the inscription, it is of great interest that Wiggenner points out “The bull’s head denotes the god of … Nergal’s main cult center.”[31] We found “bo” in the inscription, which we determined meant “bull”; thus, “BAD / BAT” is in concert with that idea.

Amar Annus notes:

The god Dagan is already identified with Sumerian Enlil, father of Ninurta, in Old Babylonian times and they share the logogram BAD (=IDIM). The name of Dagan is written logographically dKUR in Emar as an alternative to the syllabic dDa-gan. dKUR is a shortened form of Enlil’s epithet KUR.GAL “great mountain,” which was borrowed by Dagan, and he is already described as the great mountain in a Mari letter.

The writing dNIN.URTA for a Syrian god in thirteenth century Emar thus attests a conscious syncretism which introduced Sumerian writing for the West Semitic god. The Emar god Ninurta is the son of Dagan, and the equivalence of Dagan and Enlil led the scribes trained in the Mesopotamian system to use this Sumerian writing for the name of his son [32] (Emphasis mine).

In other words, Ninurta is the son of both Enlil and Dagan, because those two gods were considered to be one, as clearly demonstrated by the same logogram BAD / BAT (=IDIM) being the identifier for them both. The “Idde” found in relation to Batios in Grotta Porcinara is almost certainly the “IDIM” related to the logogram BAD. Professor Annus points out:

The Emar god Ninurta most probably corresponds to Ugaritic Baal and the difference in writing the god’s name is simply the result of the use of different writing systems – cuneiform in Emar and alphabetic script in Ugarit. [33]

They have different sounding names due to the writing systems, but the gods are exactly the same.

The logogram BAD / BAT also was used for “Ištaran … the chief deity of Der (Logogram: BAD.AN).”[34] Steve Cole notes how “the logogram BAD is understood to be an abbreviation for the writing of the toponym BAD.AN.KI.”[35] “AN” means “Lord” and “Ki” means “Earth”, an epithet which means Lord of the Earth, which was also the meaning of the name of Nimrod, and we will see in later chapters refers to Ninurta. Thus, writing BAD / BAT was the same as writing out the names of multiple gods, which shows the conscious syncretism that Professor Annus mentioned. The scribes wrote BAD (=IDIM) as the equivalent to Dagan, Enlil, Ninurta and possibly others.

BAT (BAD) is a perfect match; and the ending ιος, which is ios, simply makes it standard Greek. Nevertheless, the general understanding of logograms is that they are not transliterated. Hence, the logogram BAD / BAT would be transliterated as “ug” for example but not as “bad.” Though a pictogram (logogram) was typically not pronounced (transliterated), it was not impossible. Walter Burkert notes how:

Alfred Boissier, who was the first to work systematically on Babylonian liver-omen texts, saw that liver in these texts was consistently written with the Sumerian ideogram HAR; and he at once concluded that this was the etymology for the Latin word haruspex, the first part of which had always defied explanation, while the second part must mean “seer of”; “seer of liver” would perfectly match its use in reference to those Etruscan specialists officiating in Rome[36] (Emphasis mine).

Amar Annus, whom I must thank for bringing this to my attention, notes that in this case “a logogram may have traveled between cultures as a certain learned word.”[37] We therefore have precedence of an otherwise unpronounced Sumerian logogram being transliterated in the West, as unlikely as it seems. Not only was the logogram transliterated, but it was fully Latinized as a compound word—half Sumerian and half Latin. We then draw the conclusion that the logogram BAD / BAT for Enlil, Dagan, Ištaran, dead, Nergal (Mars), Bel (Baal) etc. was understood and consciously syncretized by scribes. It was transliterated into Greek, then Hellenized with the ios ending, and then accompanied by “Idde” (IDIM) in a similar fashion to haruspex. In fact, BAD / BAT may have been the most efficient way to express all the epithets for this entity in just one name. Possibly, the Sumerian BAT was Hellenized with the standard “people group” ios-suffix, and became: BATios.

A Literal Translation of Hermon’s Inscription

In table 5, the inscription is in uncials (capitals) and then in standardized and accented Greek. Then, the translation of the British Museum, Warren-Nickelsburg, and my translations are presented side by side. I am indebted to the scholars who have gone before me, and I hope my translation and analysis contributes to the research of the Hermon inscription.


ΚΑΤΑ ΚΕΛΕΥΣΙΝ ΘΕΟΥ ΜΕΓΙΣΤΟΥ ΒΟ ΒΑΤΙΟΥ ΟΥ ΟΜΝΥΟΝΤΕΣ ΕΝΤΕΥΘΕΝ

 British MuseumWarren / NickelsburgHamp
Normalized Greek transcriptionNone found.Κατά κέλευσιν θεού μεγίστου κ[αι]* άγιου* οι* ομνύοντες εντεύθενΚατά κέλευσιν θεού μεγίστου βο-βατιου ου ομνύοντες εντεύθεν
TranslationHence by order of the god [*] [*] [*] those who do not take the oath.According to the command of the great a[and]* holy* God, those who take an oath [proceed] from here“According to the command of the great bull god Batios [BAD (=IDIM)], those swearing an oath in this place go forth.”
Variants[*] Omitted words: ΜΕΓΙΣΤΟΥ ΒΟ ΒΑΤΙΟΥ*words not in the text. 
Mt. Hermon Roman Inscription 3rd cent.[38]

Table Mt. Hermon Roman Inscription 3rd century

My translation is very close to Warren-Nickelsburg’s translation, despite a few variations.

As we saw earlier, the double superlative Iuppiter optimus maximus, meaningthe “best, greatest,” is in concert with the Hermon inscription θεού μεγίστου theou megistou “the greatness personified god” and was a common epithet for Zeus. βο remains uncertain. Yet, if βο is a prefix for “bull”, then it only underscores the reference to Zeus and is in complete harmony with a well-known phrase found in the Hebrew Bible, “bulls of Bashan.” “Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me” (Ps 22:12).

The translation: “According to the command of the great bull god Batios, those swearing an oath in this place go forth” has the advantage of not making alternations to the text. My translation further reveals the identity of Zeus Batios / Jupiter “Optimus Maximus Batios, AKA Baal / Melqart / Nergal / Heracles / Enlil / Marduk / Ninurta”, as the god who commanded those taking the oath to go forth from that place. In other words, we now have textual evidence that the descent of the sons of God into our realm was under the direction of Satan.

Thus, the angels that came down on the mountain, maledicting themselves lest they fail to complete their task, did so at the command of the great bull-god Batios who was represented as a dragon, whom we know is none other than Satan. These angels who took the oath did not act outside of the parameters of the one who sent them; they did “according to the command of greatness personified,”—even that title sounds like the boasting of Satan who corrupted his wisdom on account of his beauty. Satan gave the order to the watchers to come to Earth, take women, and create the Nephilim in order to keep the Seed of the woman from crushing his head.

Batios = Bashan

It is uncommon that scribes would transliterate the name of the logogram; yet, as we have seen, we have precedence. It also seems to be the simplest way to indicate that the god identified by the BAD / BAT logogram is the one they were invoking. However, it might simply be that Batios = Bashan.

Mount Hermon is in the vicinity of the region of Bashan, which was ruled by “Og king of Bashan … his territory … of the remnant of the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, (Josh 12:4) and reigned over Mount Hermon, over Salcah, over all Bashan” (Josh 12:5).[39]

Mt. Hermon is also known as Mount Bashan “A mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan; A mountain of many peaks is the mountain of Bashan” (Ps 68:15).

Bashan was rendered in a number of different ways in the ancient near east. The B sometimes turned into a P, which is consistent with phonemes. The Š (SH) turned into a T or TH, again consistent. The M can swap with the N. By the time of the first century, the word Bashan became standardized in Latin and Greek as Batanea.


LanguageOriginalTranslit-erationAttested usageEra (approx.)
AkkadianMUL.dMUŠ mus-sa-tur or usumBašmu – BashmuSerpent-dragon3rd-1st Millennium BC
HebrewבָּשַׁןBashanSerpent-dragon2nd-1st Millennium BC
UgariticbthnBatanSerpent-dragon2nd-1st Millennium BC
AramaicפתןPatanSerpent1st Millennium BC
Greek (LXX)ΒασάνBasan3rd century BC
Greek Place nameΒατανίαBatanía Batanea4th century BC – 3rd century AD
Messapic inscriptionBatasBatasEpithet of Zeus6th-2nd century BC
Greek inscriptionβατιοςBatiosEpithet of Zeus6th-2nd century BC
Latin inscriptionBatius / VatiusBatius / VatiusEpithet of ZeusUp to 3rd century AD
Comparative Table of Bashan Usage

The proposed process to go from the Akkadian Bašmu to batios is as follows: Akk: Bašmu to Hebrew Bashan or Ugaritic Bathan (Ugarit was a coastal town south of Antioch, Syria). Charlesworth points out how “Ugaritic bthn become bšn in Hebrew and is equal to bašmu in Akkadian with the n to m shift.”[40] Why the N (nun / nu) fell off is not clear, though it is possible.[41] For example, Albert T. Clay notes how “the Aramaic vav [ו], as is known, representing m in Babylonian … Cf. Amurru written [אור] or Shamash written [שוש], Murashu, x. p. 8 and 9.”[42] Thus, there might be a similar situation here where the original Bašmu may have simply lost the M all together. Even with it converting from M to N, as noted, the assimilation of the nun in Hebrew is fairly common. The word “bat” [בת] (daughter) has a middle root letter of nun [בנת], which assimilated. The word [נתן] natan loses its final nun in conjugations such as “natati.” Thus, it is entirely possible that the N (nun) of Batan simply fell out, due to a phonetic constraint, as evident in Akkadian. The word was then rendered into Greek as batios, and then exported to Messapia.

The inscriptions in Messapia are dated anywhere from the 7th – 2nd century BC. According to the British Museum, the Hermon Inscription is dated as late as the 3rd century AD. The Septuagint Greek (3rd century BC) renders Bashan as Basan (βασαν). According to the Ancient World Mapping Center and Institute for the Study of the Ancient World Hellenistic Greek, the region was known as Batanea (Βαταναία) [43] in the Roman Republic (330 BC-30 BC) and in the Roman, early Empire (30 BC-AD 300).[44] That means before 330 BC, the area would have maintained its Semitic character, which could explain how the inscription left by sailors in the Porcinara Grotto had “Semitic character.” The Phoenician culture was in decline until about the second century BC, and the destruction of Tyre at the hands of Alexander the Great likely hastened its demise.

We know that Bashan was Bathan in Ugaritic and Patan in Aramaic. Thus, batios may be a shortened and Hellenized form of Batan (Bashan). βο βατιου could mean βο→  Bull, βατιου→  of Bashan, or the Great Bull of Bashan. The psalmist wrote prophetically, “Strong bulls of Bashan surround me” (Ps 22:12). If Batios is Bashan, we know Bashan has the meaning: snake-dragon. Therefore, we have two paths that take us to the same destination: Batios means BAD (IDIM), who was a snake-dragon, or Batios is Bashan which means snake-dragon. Both meanings point to Satan, the great snake-dragon. Either way, it was “According to the command of the great bull-god Satan, the great snake-dragon of Bashan that those swearing an oath in this place go forth.”

In the meantime, Satan continued his schemes to make this Earth his eternal kingdom. He focused his plan of passing on genetic information to one select representative who would champion the cause. This time, however, in an effort to avoid being thrown into the pit like the sons of God who came down on Hermon, he would take a man and make him into a god.

God Thwarted Satan’s Plan for World Domination

God was paying attention to the corruption and violence Satan had caused on the Earth by commanding the sons of God to take women and procreate the Nephilim. “God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (Gen 6:12). God made it clear that all flesh everywhere on the entire planet would die. “I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die” (Gen 6:17).

Satan’s scheme failed. Upon the death of the host body, the spirit inside the Nephilim was separated and the fallen angel became disembodied once again. 1 Enoch 15:8–16:1 describes how they became known as evil spirits on the Earth:

“Now the giants, who have been born of spirit and of flesh, shall be called upon earth evil spirits, and on earth shall be their habitation. Evil spirits shall proceed from their flesh because they were created from above; from the holy Watchers was their beginning and primary foundation. Evil spirits shall they be upon earth, and the spirits of the wicked shall they be called. The habitation of the spirits of heaven shall be in heaven; but upon earth shall be the habitation of terrestrial spirits, who are born on earth.[45] (See Appendix 1 Demons).

The Flood ended Satan’s worldwide Nephilim plan, but it would not end his plan for eternal world-domination. We will see that he would modify his plan with an ancient rebel named Nimrod.


[1] E. A. Myers (11 February 2010). The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 66–. ISBN 978-0-521-51887-1.

[2] Palestine Exploration Fund, 1869-1936. London, Pg. 426 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p010211321&view=1up&seq=418

[3] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1903-0422-1

[4] WARREN PEFQS I [1869/1870] 210-215) and an inscription is dedicated tou theou megistou k(ai) hagiou, “to the greatest and holy god”. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (Boston, 1999).: Hermon

[5] E. A. Myers (11 February 2010). The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 66–. ISBN 978-0-521-51887-1.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, 1–36; 81–108, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

[8] E. A. Myers (11 February 2010). The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 65–. ISBN 978-0-521-51887-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

[9] κατὰ κέλευσιν θεοῦ OGI = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1903-5. (Liddel Scott Jones)

[10] BDAG Μεγιστώ

[11] BDAG: ὀμνύω

[12] ἐντεῦθεν adv. pert. to extension from a source near the speaker, from here (En 22:13; Jos., Bell. 6, 299; 7, 22) Lk 4:9; 13:31; J 7:3; 14:31; 1 Cl 53:2 (Ex 32:7). ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐ. take these things away from here J 2:16. κατάβηθι ἐ. go home from here GJs 4:2. ἐντεῦθεν (for ἔνθεν) ἐκεῖ fr. here to there Mt 17:20 v.l. ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν fr. here and fr. there = on each side (c Num 22:24) J 19:18. For this ἐντεῦθεν κ. ἐκεῖθεν Rv 22:2; ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐ. my kingdom is not from here=ἐκ. τ. κόσμου τούτου J 18:36.

[13] http://www.greekalphabeta.com/learn-about-beta-b-2.html, definitions culled from LSJ.

[14] Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (Boston, 1999): Bashan.

[15] Molech, New World Encyclopedia https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Moloch

[16] http://www.altosalentorivieradeitrulli.it/nuova_pagina_17.htm

[17] http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Messapian%20language/en-en/

[18] http://www.altosalentorivieradeitrulli.it/nuova_pagina_17.htm

[19] https://journals.openedition.org/pallas/2208

[20] Splendor of the Magna Graecia art, the Zeus of Ugento … from the great Messapian city of Ozan (today’s Ugento)…530 BC. …the cult for Zis Batàs, https://www.salentoacolory.it/museo-archeologico-taranto/

[21] Ce sanctuaire, fréquenté depuis la fin du viiie s. a.C. jusqu’au début du iiie s. P.C., est consacré à Zis Batas, divinité indigène appelée Zeus Batios par les Grecs, puis Juppiter Optimus Maximus Batius (ou Vatius) par les Romains. Les cultes de l’Adriatique méridionale à l’époque républicaine Jean-Luc Lamboley. Pg. 133-141, https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/6837.

[22] https://books.openedition.org/efr/5584#illustrations; see also https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/6837

[23] Les Dieux Olympiens Et La Mer Annick Fenet pg. 83-138. https://books.openedition.org/efr/5584#illustrations

[24] Lomas, Kathryn. “Crossing Boundaries: The Inscribed Votives of Southeast Italy.” Pallas, no. 86 (2011): 311-29. Accessed October 19, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43606696.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Original French: La double dénomination de Palaistiné et d’Ourania souligne le caractère sémitique et oriental.” https://books.openedition.org/efr/5584#illustrations

[27]Paolo M Gensini University of Perugia, Italy , Physics, Emeritus, Personal correspondence, Aug 16th, 2020.

[28] Private email communication with Professor Amar Annus Mon, Sep 28, 2020. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_(cuneiform)

[29] Frans Wiggermann, Nergal, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (RlA) 9 1999 Pg. 215-226.

[30] The cuneiform bad, bat, be, etc. sign is a common multi-use sign in the mid-14th-century BC Amarna letters, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the Epic it also has 5 Sumerogram uses (capital letter (majuscule)). From Giorgio Buccellati (Buccellati 1979) ‘comparative graphemic analysis’ (about 360 cuneiform signs, nos. 1 through no. 598E), of 5 categories of letters, the usage numbers of the bad sign are as follows: Old Babylonian Royal letters (71), OB non-Royal letters (392), Mari letters (2108), Amarna letters (334), Ugarit letters (39). The following linguistic elements are used for the bad sign in the 12 chapter (Tablets I-Tablet XII) Epic of Gilgamesh: Sumerograms: BE, IDIM, TIL, ÚŠ, ZIZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(cuneiform)#:~:text=The%20cuneiform%20bad%2C%20bat%2C%20be,(capital%20letter%20(majuscule)).

[31] Frans Wiggermann, Nergal, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (RlA) 9 1999 Pg. 215-226.

[32] Amar Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, State Archives of Assyria Studies, Volume XIV Helsinki 2002. Pg. 178

[33] Ibid.

[34] https://aratta.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/the-snake-and-the-serpopard/

[35] Cole, S. W. (1996). The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

[36] Burkert notes: “In oral instruction, however, something such as HAR was most unlikely to have been pronounced … But even here a curious coincidence cannot be ruled out … Skeptics could draw the conclusion that the whole thing was nonsense; the historian, however, finds the clearest evidence of cultural diffusion precisely in correspondences of details that seem most absurd and unnatural, hence least likely to be arrived at independently. The Etruscan disciplina … has preserved more of its eastern origins. The similarities are nevertheless indicative of a common source, of some historical connection which binds all the individual forms together.” The Orientalizing Revolution, Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age By Walter Burkert · 1995, Pg. Pg. 50. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/cIiUL7dWqNIC?hl=en&gbpv=0

[37] Private email communication with Professor Amar Annus October 5, 2020.

[38] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1903-0422-1

[39] “It stretched from the border of Gilead in the South to the slopes of Hermon in the North.” ISBE. See also (Deut 3:8)

[40] Charlesworth

[41] For example [כִּתִּ֖ים] Kittim is rendered κιτιοι (Kitioi) and Dodanim [דֹדָנִֽים] is rendered ροδιοι (interestingly the scribe most likely mistook the Hebrew dalet [ד] for a resh [ר] and hence it is rodioi. (Gen 10:4)

[42] Clay, Albert T. “The Origin and Real Name of NIN-IB.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 28 (1907): 135-44. Accessed September 11, 2020.

[43] “BATANAEA (Βαταναία), a district to the NE. of Palestine… It was added to the kingdom of Herod the Great by Augustus.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0064%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DB%3Aentry+group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dbatanaea-geo

[44] https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/678054/batanaia

[45] 1 Enoch 15:8-16:1.

Why Did Fallen Angels Need a Nephilim Solution?

Chapter 6: Fallen Angels Crave a Habitat & Chapter 7: The Nephilim Solution from Corrupting the Image 2

Satan and the fallen losing their original glorious-fiery covering, may have driven their efforts to make Nephilim. We know that God covers Himself with light as with a garment (Ps 104:2). God took the fire out the midst (from inside) of his anointed cherub (who was fiery per Ezek 1:13). God brought fire out from the midst (from inside) of Satan, which means he lost his source of power and connection to God and the glory that covered him.

“You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities, By the iniquity of your slandering; Therefore I brought fire from your midst, it devoured you [וָֽאוֹצִא־ אֵ֤שׁ מִתּֽוֹכְךָ֙ הִ֣יא אֲכָלַ֔תְךָ vaotzi esh mitochecha hi achalatcha] (Ezek 28:18).

Satan and the fallen angels have been left without their original covering, leaving them spiritually naked and with an incredible craving to be covered. The fallen ones’ condition is analogous to Adam and Eve being left naked and possibly experiencing hunger for the first time. (See Appendix 1 Demons).

Jesus gives us some insights into the barren and restless feeling a demon experiences when cast out and how he desires to return to the body he possessed:

“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. “Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation” (Matt 12:43–45).

Apparently, there is great discomfort in being uncovered and not inhabiting a living being. Separated from an earthly body, the demon goes “through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none.” Overcome with this gnawing distress, the demon decides it is better to go back to his “house” and possess it once more. We find the same root οἰκητήριον, meaning “habitation” used to speak of the angels that did not keep their “abode / habitation” in Jude 1:6. Paul gives us more insight on the idea of a spirit needing a habitation:

For we know that if our earthly house [οικια], this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation [οἰκητήριον] which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked (2 Cor 5:1–3).

Paul compares not having a body (just a soul) to being naked. This is interesting in light of the souls under the altar in Rev 6 of whom we are told, “A white robe was given to each of them” (Rev 6:11). Because they were comforted with a robe, we infer that they were “naked” before. They were in the presence of God, and yet being without a body was a lesser experience than having a body. Right now we occupy “tents”, but in the age to come we will have a new, heavenly habitation like the angels (Luke 20:36).

The Demoniac

Though Satan must still have some kind of body, it is not the habitation of glory and splendor that it once was. His body must have lost not only beauty, but also ability, which we infer from the fact that Satan is ironically looking to transfer his power, throne and great authority to a human. The one who wanted all to serve him must rely upon humans, whom he perceives to be lowly and inferior, to succeed. We also glean this from the encounter with the demoniac.

And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains, because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and in the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones. When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped Him. And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.” For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” Then He asked him, “What is your name?” And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country. Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains. So all the demons begged Him, saying, “Send us to the swine, that we may enter them.” And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea (Mark 5:2–13).

There are several important aspects to consider:

  1. The man had super-human strength to even break chains due to the demons possessing him.
  2. He lived among the tombs and cried out.
  3. He cut himself with stones. Blood is generally released when we cut ourselves. The demons may have feasted on the letting of blood.
  4. When Jesus showed up, the demons recognized one stronger than themselves.
  5. The demons begged to not leave the country.
  6. They preferred to enter (same word as possess) pigs rather than leave the country.

Satan Entered Judas

Short of having an adequate body to inhabit, Satan has had to work through a willing agent. We see this clearly in the Gospels where Satan possessed Judas to carry out his machinations.

Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot … (Luke 22:3). So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them (Luke 22:4).

Because only Satan entered, Judas was able to carry on conversations and behave in quite a normal manner, unlike the demoniac who was filled with a legion (4,000-6,000) of demons. Yet like the demoniac, Judas must have gained significantly more strength, a keener faculty of mind, and a sense of invincibility. Satan likely possessed Judas because the task before him: destroying the One prophesied to stomp on his head, which was both important and personal! That was probably Satan’s version of: “If you want a job done right, you do it yourself.” Satan possessed Judas a second time. “Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him (John 13:27). We know that Judas killed himself after betraying Jesus (Acts 1:18) in the valley of Hinnom. Incidentally, the final battle will take place in this vicinity.

It must have been a bother to Satan that just when he found a willing agent whom he could possess, the agent either got cold feet or died. Alexander the Great may also have been one of Satan’s chosen earthly representatives who also died prematurely. Robin Lane Fox, Traveling Heroes in the Epic Age of Homer, comments on Alexander as the son of Zeus (who was also Satan):

“‘Zeus’, Alexander was later thought to have said, ‘is the common father of men, but he makes the best peculiarly his own’; like many Roman emperors after him, Alexander was coming to believe that he was protected by a god as his own divine ‘companion’… as son of god, a belief which fitted convincingly with his own Homeric outlook, in whose favorite Iliad sons of Zeus still fought and died beneath their heavenly father’s eye”[1]

Though Alexander conquered the world and may indeed have had Satan (Zeus) as his divine companion, he still died at the young age of 33. If Satan had intended to use Alexander for establishing his empire, his plan was foiled by illness.

Hence, Satan was frequently in need of a new partner. These partners were unreliable, so Satan decided that it would be far better to have his own vessel in which he could incarnate and interact in this world. He would have complete, unbridled control.

Demons Hunger for Blood

In addition to being spiritually naked and craving a physical habitation, Satan and his fallen have a power problem; they were unplugged from the power source and have been running on “batteries” ever since. They need to devour something to “recharge their batteries”, but not physical things; thus, they were left with a sizeable problem: they had been stripped of their beauty and disconnected from the source of life, leaving them weak and hungry. Therefore, they have an insatiable craving to consume as stated by Peter: “The devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet 5:8).

Let us first consider how we recharge our human batteries. Adam and Eve lost their connection to God, the source of power, yet man can simply take of the produce of the adamáh: vegetables, fruit, grains, and even animals to recharge our “batteries” until, of course, physical death overtakes us.

But what can Satan and his angels consume to placate the ravenous void[2] inside them? They are not made of dirt; they are spirit beings. They therefore need to consume something of a spiritual nature—That something is what God said not to eat: blood.

”For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood’” (Lev 17:12).

The blood of a creature is more than merely hemoglobin; it has a spiritual capacity. The animal subject of a sacrifice (korban [קרבּן]) is the object which permits the worshipper to come near​ to God.

“‘When any one of you brings [brings near יַקְרִ֥יב] an offering [קָרְבָּ֖ן korban] to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of the livestock–of the herd and of the flock (Lev 1:2).

Atonement is a Covering or Batteries “R” Us

Satan has twisted the mechanism God established to temporarily connect with man; God wants to be with us, but with the state of our current bodies, his fiery presence does not allow us to be face to face. Therefore, the blood of the sacrifice is able to make atonement [כּפר kafar] (a covering) so the worshipper can come near God. Without a “covering”, we cannot approach God; the blood makes atonement. 

However, atonement is not a moral issue, since even the altar is something for which atonement was needed.

“And you shall offer a bull every day as a sin offering for atonement. You shall cleanse the altar when you make atonement (Kafar) “Seven days you shall make atonement (Kafar) for the altar and sanctify it (Exod 29:37).

The altar never did anything wrong. It was morally perfect and unblemished, yet it needed to be atoned for. This shows that “covering” is the true underlying meaning. Yet why would an altar need a covering? Simple, because it would come in contact with God Almighty, a consuming fire. We have seen that Mt. Sinai was on fire when God came down. Therefore, the altar would need a covering so it would not burn and be consumed.

Then he poured the blood at the base of the altar, thereby sanctifying it as a means to make atonement (Kafar) with it (Lev 8:15; See also Lev 16:18)​.

The priest would then take the blood of that animal and sprinkle it to cover the worshipers so they could safely be in proximity to God. It is important to note: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins (Heb 10:4). However, the purpose was not to take away the people’s sins, but to provide a covering.

An illustration is found in the life of David Vetter, better known as the Boy in the Bubble, whose immune system was so weak he could not have physical contact with the outside world or even with his parents. As seen in Figure 20 (next page), his plastic bubble habitation provided a covering to protect him from the world. It did not take away his sickness, but it did allow him to be close to his parents. So too, the atonement by the blood of an animal provided a covering until a future date when we will get our new bodies which can once again endure God’s fiery presence.

David Vetter, The Boy in the Bubble.

Therefore, Satan’s food is the life force, the blood; in other words, he feeds on us. People that have gone deep into Satanism talk about the energy the demons receive from the blood of their victims. Thus, with every human sacrifice, every abortion, every war, and every murder, Satan and his kin are recharging their batteries. The more innocent the blood, the more energy is derived. We see the sacrifice of innocent children in Psalm 106 and Ezekiel 16 and many other passages:

They served their idols, Which became a snare to them.They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons,And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood(Ps 106:36–38).

… and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them(Ezek 16:36).

This principle was brought out vividly in the 1999 dystopian movie, “The Matrix”, in which machines have enslaved mankind and are using the energy extracted from their bodies to power themselves. The people are the batteries that power the machines. In order to derive the most power from their human batteries, the machines had to create a deceptive Matrix, a virtual (computerized) dream world in which everyone believed they were living out real lives. In a similar fashion, Satan must deceive the entire world (Rev 12:9) and entice us to lust. He has offered us heaven on earth, like a carrot dangled in front of a donkey, as above so below, in order to recharge his batteries and maintain control of the world.

The Nephilim Solution

After the Fall, Satan and those who joined him lost their power and fiery covering and were trapped behind the veil, thereby limiting their influence in the realm of men. To combat this limitation, Satan enacted a plan: He would create human-angel hybrids which would provide them their very own biological suits for their embodiment and incarnation, to be the earthly habitations in which their spirits could dwell and rest without the need to share with fickle humans. It would be the best of both worlds—all the power, intelligence and immortality of angels with a biological “tent” for their spirits to inhabit, making them gods in the flesh. The bodies would be created as human-angel hybrids, but the bodies would be void of a spirit and could therefore be inhabited by a fallen angel.

Of course, part of Satan’s genius has been that he gets others to do his dirty work. He would seduce the sons of God to mate with women and when they got caught, they would take the hit. We know that God had entrusted the angels with earth-based jobs from our discussion of Satan being stationed in the Garden of Eden in chapter 4. There you recall that that he “defiled his sanctuaries” (Ezek 28:18) which means that he was not faithful with the sacred space God had placed in his hands. We catch a few glimpses of the assignment angels had from Deuteronomy and Daniel.

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly (Deut 32:8 NET).

There is a Qumran fragment of this text that reads: According to the “sons of God.” The Septuagint reads ἀγγέλων θεού (angelōn theou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (benei el) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (benei elim).[3] The idea of angels being over nations is clearly established in Daniel 10.  We see an angel who was bringing Daniel a prophecy was opposed and delayed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and also that Daniel would have to go and do battle with the prince of Greece, both of whom were fallen angels over their territories. (See Appendix 1 Demons).

Not Yet Fallen

While we know ultimately from Revelation 12 that one-third of the angels followed Satan, we do not know how many followed him right out of the gate. What we do know is that the “sons of God” did something so evil in the days of Noah that God would eventually send a flood to erase it all. It is entirely possible that many of the angels who followed Satan chose that path in the time around and before the Flood.

Genesis 6 only tells us what they did, not whether they were bad before this action.

When men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (Gen 6:1–4).

Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, unequivocally confirms the “giants were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women.”[4] There are clues that suggest these angels had not yet committed iniquity; hence they were not yet fallen.

Peter gives his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He says, “The spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:19), who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet 3:20). These spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah when they procreated with women, which landed them in prison. In Peter’s second epistle, he elaborates on the event:

“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell [tartarosas] and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment, and if he did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah … [and] turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, … and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority” (2 Pet 2:4–10 NET).

Notice that he speaks of the angels who were disobedient and sinned in the days of Noah. From this, we infer that they had not sinned previously, meaning they were, up until that moment, on God’s team. Jude gives a similar interpretation; and based on the context, it sounds like the angels had not yet joined Satan’s team.

For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe (Jude 1:4–5) (Emphasis mine).

Jude’s point here is that certain men had the opportunity to come to God and to enjoy his goodness and blessings; but instead, they took advantage of his grace and mercy and turned to sexual deviancy. Jude then immediately turns to discuss the angels from Noah’s day because they did the same thing.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain but left their own abode [οἰκητήριον], He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day, as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 1:6–7).

This shift strongly implies that these angels had not converted to Satan’s team beforehand. That is, these particular angels who mated with women were not previously in league with Satan; Mating with women was their inauguration into his kingdom. Referring to the angels who heeded the temptation, the book of Jude explains how they “did not keep within their proper domain [arkhen]” (Jude 1:5a). That means they did not remain in the spiritual realm where they were authorized to be, “but abandoned their own place of residence [oiketerion]” (Jude 1:5). We considered the word oiketerion in a previous chapter and saw it referred to a spiritual body. We believers desire to put off our “tent” (our earthly bodies) and be clothed with our “oiketerion” (our “spiritual” bodies) (2 Cor 5:2).

When the angels came down to take the women, they quite likely were still good angels. Yes, they had evil plans in their hearts—but at that moment, they had not actualized their scheme.

It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children (1 Enoch 7:1-2)(Emphasis Mine).

Above in bold it reads, “angel, the sons of heaven,” but in an Aramaic text of 1 Enoch, the same passage reads: “Watchers,”[5] which is significant because the only place Watchers (עִירִין֙ irin) is used in Scripture is in Daniel 4:17, where Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and the Watchers (holy ones) tell him that he will be judged. The Watchers in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are clearly on God’s team. They are called “holy ones” and they intend for him to know that the Most High, the God of Daniel, rules men. Thus, in Enoch, the simplest reading is that watchers / angels / sons of heaven were not yet on Satan’s team, but were in the process of changing sides.

Good Angels Can Manifest

By persuading angels who are still on God’s team to procreate, Satan solved a logistics problem. Fallen angels appear to be limited in their ability to freely enter this realm, whereas the good angels can come and go at will. (See Appendix 2 Angel Freewill).

For example, in Genesis 18, God and two angels showed up at Abraham’s door, hence they were definitely good angels. After a while, the angels “turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD” (Gen 18:22). When they arrive in Sodom, the men of the city surrounded Lot’s house and demanded to have sexual relations with them! (Gen 19:5). Thus, the good angels were able to come into the physical domain; they had bodies and the potential on a physical level to defile themselves, (not that they were in any way tempted). We are even told to entertain strangers as we might be entertaining angels unwittingly (Heb 13:2), which implies the good angels can manifest physically, at will.

In Scripture, we never see fallen angels, on the other hand, materialize physically in our realm. Their lack of physical manifestation in this realm appears to be due to their power problem; they need blood to energize themselves. When they have enough blood offered, like with an occultic event or séance, they seem to be more easily able to manifest into this realm. Thus, uncorrupted angels seem to have no limitations in this regard, whereas fallen angels can only come in at great expense. (See Appendix 1 Demons.)

Through slander of God’s good name, Satan undoubtedly could have used his unparalleled wisdom to turn the angels from serving God and man, to serving themselves. He may have caused good angels to defect using the model of Absalom, King David’s son, who would sit in the city gate and tell the people of Israel how he would bring justice if he were the judge and so, he turned the hearts of the people against King David (See 2 Sam 15:2–6).

In a similar fashion, Satan may have seduced the angels with words like: “God is the only one worthy of your service and Adam is not. If serving God requires you to serve Adam, who is made of dirt, do you truly want to serve God?” Perhaps he showed them how he had successfully rebelled against God’s “biased” kingdom and then enticed them with promises of how they would no longer need to serve man; they could instead become the masters, and man would become their servants! They would be worshipped as gods if they would mate with women and would create a race in their own image. We know Satan was the one who inspired this dastardly action from a text that was found on Mt. Hermon which we will examine in the next chapter.

The Soul – Preexistent, Created or Transmitted?

We need to further explore the idea of the abode oiketerion (spiritual body) which the angels abandoned. Those “angels who did not keep their proper domain but left their own abode [οἰκητήριον],” are guilty of doing two things: not keeping their domain, their place of authority, and leaving (abandoning) their proper spiritual body. The text implies that by procreating with women they left their own spirit-based body. If they left their own bodies, then where did they go? The implication is they transferred their essence (DNA information code) into bodies of the Nephilim. To get our minds around this, we need to consider the various models of the origin of the soul. Where does the soul of a newborn baby come from? Is it preexisting in heaven? Does God create it at the moment of conception? Or is it transmitted from the parents? We will examine each model and consider this question.

The preexistence model of the soul from the Platonic school of thought, holds that the soul existed before conception and birth. For example, Origen “believed that souls fell in their pre-bodily state and were imprisoned into flesh as a punishment.”[6] The Mormons also tend to follow this view. A variation on this theme is that the souls are with God waiting for a body to inhabit. This model seems very unlikely for regular human birth. In regard to our question of what kind of soul inhabited the Nephilim, if the preexistence model were accurate, then God would have intentionally sent the angels into the Nephilim.

The preexistence model fails because we know that the sons of Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because they had “come from the loins of Abraham; for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (Heb 7:5, 10). In plain English, Levi was genetically in the testes of his grandfather Abraham when the tithes were paid to Melchizedek. This proves that he was not a soul waiting for a body. He was a seed—information ready to be passed down. This concept is easier for us to grasp in the age of genetics and information science, both of which were unfathomable to the ancients.

The creationist model of the soul holds that God creates each soul at the moment of conception. The reason this model fails is that under this theory, Jesus would not be spiritually related to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and King David, if each soul were created individually. This would also be true of the preexistence model.

The creationist model also does not explain the origin of the souls inhabiting the Nephilim bodies. Would God create evil beings who were so terrible that He would then destroy them in the Flood?

The last model is the transmission model of the soul. It teaches that the soul of a newborn comes from the parents—it is the immaterial information that is passed in the genes from parents to child. Think of the soul like sourdough bread. A pinch off the starter plus more flour and water is enough to keep the sourdough going for centuries.[7] Even recently, a bit of 4,500-year-old Egyptian yeast was revived and baked into delicious bread. So too, the information passed through the parents, plus nutrients and oxygen, forms the baby with the soul in it. Considering this genetically, human egg and sperm cells have only twenty-three individual (haploid) chromosomes. They combine during fertilization and equal the forty-six individual (diploid) chromosomes, which is the point at which a new human soul is transmitted from the parents.

If it takes two humans to form a new soul in the child, then supernatural being + human being would not yield a human soul. The transmission of the soul from parents to child would be broken because one of the parents is not human. We know this because though Jesus was related genetically to humanity, He was preexistent; He did not begin to exist at the incarnation—He is eternal and has always existed. Yet, the incarnation was the point at which the Godhead mingled seed (DNA, i.e. information) with humanity. We also discovered in Corrupting the Image 1, that “a son will inherit an identical copy of his father’s Y chromosome, and this copy is also essentially identical to the Y chromosomes carried by all his paternal forefathers” (Emphasis mine),[8] meaning that all men throughout time have had a copy of Adam’s Y chromosome.

Furthermore, Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas, in their article, “Why Y? The Y Chromosome In The Study Of Human Evolution, Migration, And Prehistory”, suggested that the Y chromosome may in fact be “a record of an event”[9]in the life of the man who passed on the current Y chromosome. [10] From there we concluded that Jesus did not have Adam’s Y chromosome and hence did not carry the defects or degeneration (sin), inherent in the copies of Adam’s Y chromosomes in every subsequent male descendent. Therefore, though the human soul is always transmitted from the mother and father to the child, in Jesus’ case, his spirit / soul (essence) must have been placed there. It was not transmitted because He is eternal. His soul / spirit did not originate from Mary and the Holy Spirit; He existed beforehand.

The Holy Spirit fused “the Jesus” gamete (spermatocyte) with Mary’s gamete (oocyte) (recall that a gamete contains DNA, which is stored information, a non-material entity). The fusion of the two gametes is when the incarnation (becoming flesh cf. John 1:14) occurred. At that point, Jesus’ divine information / soul became part of his DNA.

Therefore, it follows that the union of an angel and a human would have genetically created a physical body, but not necessarily a soul / spirit. The body would be a blank, an empty shell which could be filled with a spirit-being in need of a body. Jude says the angels “left their own abode (spiritual bodies).” They left them for the hybridized bodies we call Nephilim.

There is no technical reason that angels could not pass on their seed. They had the ability, but they did not have permission.

“But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”(Luke 20:35–36).

Resurrected people do not marry again because they do not die, because they are equal to the angels. We do not become angels, but our bodies will be similar, and we will be equal to the angels in their power and glory. The text says nothing about the angels’ ability to pass on seed.

What is inside of a seed? Information—a non-material entity. We understand non-material data because we send information in our emails, voicemails, etc.; there is no physical substance to that information. We can interact with it, but we cannot touch it. A seed contains all information needed to become a living thing. A pumpkin seed holds all of the information needed to create a pumpkin. Angels have information, just as we have information. Even God has information; “No one having been born again continues to sin, for the seed of God dwells in him” (1 John 3:9).

However, the obstacle is that angels were not authorized to pass on their seed. God allowed it, but He did not bless it. In fact, the fallen angels’ unrighteous action brought a curse of immense magnitude upon themselves and the world.

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (Gen 6:4).

The book of Giants, a grouping of Aramaic fragments found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, corroborates Genesis 6 by noting the corruption the angels wrought upon the Earth. The fragments have missing gaps, but they have been interpreted as:

2 [ . . . ] they defiled [ . . . ] 2[ . . . they begot] giants and monsters [ . . . ] 3[ . . . ] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted . . . ] 4[ . . . ] with its blood and by the hand of [ . . . ] 5[giant’s] which did not suffice for them and [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] and they were seeking to devour many [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] the monsters attacked it, (4Q531)(Emphasis mine).

We cannot help but notice how the angel’s corruption also led to the creation of monsters which further corrupted the Earth.

2[ . . . ] flesh [ . . . ] 3al[l . . . ] monsters [ . . . ] will be [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] they would arise [ . . . ] lacking in true knowledge [ . . . ] because [ . . . ] 5[ . . . ] the earth [grew corrupt . . . ] mighty [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] they were considering [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] from the angels upon [ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] in the end it will perish and die [ . . . ] 9[ . . . ] they caused great corruption in the [earth . . .] (4Q532 Col. 2, Frags. 1 – 6).

 The fallen angels would have earthly bodies that belonged to them, and that were not temporarily borrowed from humans, because the bodies would now carry angelic genetic information. Biologically, the bodies of the Nephilim would be human-angel hybrids, but the indwelling spirit would be one hundred percent angel-spirit. It is entirely plausible that they were called Nephilim, meaning fallen, because they were inhabited by fallen angels.

Satan and his demons would have biological suits to be the earthly avatars for their spirits to inhabit. They would not have to entice humans to invite them to possess their bodies. Yet, they would have fleshly bodies in which they had full control, and would seemingly be human gods.

The Oath

The angels realized that once they crossed the line, they could never return into God’s kingdom. Their taking “wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Gen 6:2) would be the point of no return; there was no going back. Ever. The eternal nature of their decision may be why they took an oath as recorded on an inscription on Mt. Hermon, which we will examine in the next chapter, and in 1 Enoch:7–8:[11]

Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon Ardis,which is the top of mount Armon.8 That mountain therefore was called Armon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual execrations. [12]

Hermon (Armon) comes from āram which means “a ban for utter destruction, the compulsory dedication of something which impedes or resists God’s work, which is considered to be accursed before God.”[13]

It is called “Hermon” because the angels committed to a curse upon themselves if they should not continue with their plan, which is another indication that when they came down upon Hermon, they still had a lot to lose. They were not doing a Hail Mary at the end of the game; everything was on the line for them. In fact, Samyaza is concerned that he will do the dirty deed and the others will chicken out, leaving him high and dry.

3Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise; 4And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime. 5But they answered him and said; We all swear; 6And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking. 7Then they swore all together and all bound themselves by mutual execrations (1 Enoch 7:2–7)(Emphasis mine).

This ancient event has lived in the memory of mankind for millennia. It has been called Hermon (laid under a curse) since the earliest of times (See Deut 3:8; Josh 11:13). The area south, south-east of Mt. Hermon was known as Bashan, which means snake-dragon. The mountain and surrounding area were considered the abode of the gods, both heaven and hell simultaneously, and home of the Rephaim, King Og, and Enlil / Baal.

For the ‘Canaanites’ of Ugarit, the Bashan region, or a part of it, clearly represented ‘Hell’, the celestial and infernal abode of their deified dead kings, – Olympus and – Hades at the same time. It is possible that this localization of the Canaanite Hell is linked to the ancient tradition of the place as the ancestral home of their dynasty, the rpum. [14]

Satan quite likely gloated in his “perfect plan” coming together in the land of Bashan. After all, the seed of the Messiah would never be able to stomp on his head if the image-bearers of God were destroyed, and if they were recast in his image instead! Mankind would become the ultimate slave by yielding up their flesh for Satan’s team to perpetually inhabit. The fate of mankind would have been worse than The Matrix where, at least, man could live out a satisfying simulation in their minds. If Satan’s plan had not been interrupted, mankind would have become extinct and the image of God created in Adam would have been replaced with that of the fallen angels.

Satan and his comrades would have bodies to cover their nakedness and sooth their pain. The bodies of the Nephilim would derive their energy from the Earth. The demons would also obtain energy from the blood of the body itself, which we saw with the demoniac who was cutting himself, presumably to feast on his own blood. They would be able to live forever because if a Nephilim bodysuit died, the interloper would simply grow another, and then possess it anew. Thus, Satan would have overcome the limitations put on him by his Creator, making him the ultimate victor.


[1] Robin Lane Fox, Traveling Heroes in the Epic Age of Homer, Pg. 217; retrieved from: http://ancientheroes.net/blog/alexander-the-great-zeus-ammon

[2] Prov 27:20; 30:15-16; Hab 2:5; Luke 11:24

[3] See Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74.

[4] Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis part 4, note 92.

[5] J.T. Milik, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976], Pg. 167

[6] M Preus Eloquence and Ignorance in Augustine’s On the Nature and Origin of the Soul, 56

[7] https://sourdough.com/forum/oldest-starter

[8] Underhill, Peter A. “Y Chromosome. “ Genetics, 2003. Retrieved September 29, 2010 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406500290.html.

[9] Retrieved September 30, 2010 from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectra-pages/SciSpect-14-98.html Science Spectra Magazine Number 14, 1998.

[10] Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas Why Y? The Y Chromosome in the Study of Human Evolution, Migration and Prehistory. See also http://www.ramsdale.org/dna13.htm.

[11] Though Enoch may have written portions of 1Enoch, as a whole, it lacks the divine stamp of divine to be Holy Scripture.

[12] Upon Ardis. Or, “in the days of Jared” R.H. Charles, ed. and trans., The Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893], Pg. 63.

[13] TWOT 744 חָרַם (ḥāram) “ban, devote, destroy utterly.” Also related to an Ethiopic root, meaning “to forbid, prohibit, lay under a curse.”

[14] The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 161-162

Did Satan Divide the Realms of Heaven and Earth?

Chapter 5: Satan Caused the Two Realms of Corrupting the Image 2: Hybrids, Hades, and the Mt Hermon Connection

Before Adam ate the forbidden fruit, the heavenly (spiritual) dimension and the earthly dimension were one realm—one domain, one plane of existence in which God, angels and man had open communication and relationship; There was no separation between the spiritual realm and the physical realm. There was perfect compatibility and agreement between them, an idea also found in Mesopotamian literature: “Heaven talked with Earth. Earth talked with Heaven.”[1] God walked in the Garden, and man was able to look at his face and endure God’s fire and lightning. (See Appendix 2 Angel Freewill).

Garden of Eden in Earthly and Heavenly Domains.

Man’s transgression brought decay, degeneration and death. God’s perfection and the fallen physical, earthly realm became incompatible. Now God’s fiery presence would scorch the ground like when He descended on Mt. Sinai (Ps 97:5). In the same way, the elements will melt when Jesus returns (2 Pet 3:10). Now man could no longer see God’s face and live. The Garden of Eden, where God, angels and man could commune together was gone. Open, unveiled fellowship became impossible.

This divide of heaven and Earth caused by Satan (Enlil) was recorded by the ancient Sumerians. Samuel Kramer notes: “Anu (the creator god) carried off heaven while Enlil carried off the earth and assumed most of An’s powers.”[2] Likewise, Xianhuan Wang adds: “Enlil … was at about the same time cosmologically considered the deity who separated Heaven from Earth and Earth from Heaven.”[3]

When God came in the Garden in the cool of the evening, Adam and Eve were compelled to hide themselves. Why? The first sign of disconnect was they realized they were naked. They had been clothed with light like God covers himself “with light as with a garment” (Ps 104:2). They observed the glow in which they had previously been clothed was fading; their biophotons were beginning to diminish, a concept I explored in depth in Corrupting the Image, Vol. 1.

This reality was displayed after Moses spent forty days with God and upon coming down the mountain, he “did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him” (Exod 34:29). When the congregation saw him, “The skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him” (Exod 34:30), which led Moses to “put a veil on his face” (Exod 34:33). Paul tells us that Moses “put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away” (2 Cor 3:13). That is, the glow in his face began to wane. Thus, once Adam and Eve transgressed, death entered their bodies and the connection to God broke. Satan’s slander which led to their transgression set in motion a chain of events that affected them and the entirety of creation.

Ground is Cursed

God did not curse the ground because of Adam; rather, like a reporter, He simply presented the consequence of the degenerative decay-death reaction that Adam triggered (Gen 2:17). God said, “Cursed is the ground for your sake” (Gen 3:17). The Hebrew word “for your sake,” is ba’avurecha [בַּֽעֲבוּרֶ֔ךָ]. It comes from the root, ayin, beth, resh [עבר]. It is the same root as the word: Hebrew. It means to cross over, pass. TWOT defines it: “Because of, for, intent that, for —’s, sake.[4]

TWOT explains Adam’s relationship with the Earth:

“ădāmâ. Ground, land, planet. Originally this word signified the red arable soil … The Bible makes much of the relationship between man (’ādām) and the ground (’ădāmâ). Initially, God made ’ādām out of the ’ădāmâ to till the ’ădāmâ (Gen 3:23, to bring forth life). The ’ădāmâ was God’s possession and under His care (Gen 2:6). Thus, the first ’ādām (the man, Adam) and his family were to act as God’s servants by obeying Him in maintaining the divinely ordained and intended relationships vertically and horizontally. As long as this condition was sustained, God caused the ’ădāmâ to give its fruitfulness (blessing) to ’ādām. Then came sin. The unit ’ādām (Adam and Eve; see also (Rom 5:12) violated the created structure. The ’ădāmâ, henceforth, brought forth thorns and thistles rather than freely giving fruit (Gen 3:17). Since ’ādām had disrupted the paradisiacal life-producing state, he was driven off the paradisiacal ’ădāmâ and sentenced to return to the ’ădāmâ (Gen 3:19). He was driven to it rather than it being given to him.”[5]

God created Adam from the adamáh; Adam was the earth-man, the federal head of creation. Adam and the adamáh were linked physically and hence their fates were linked. When Adam ate from the fruit, death, degeneration and decay happened upon Adam and upon the Earth and material cosmos as well. Decay permeated the entire creation from the invisible world of cells and DNA to all the animals, birds and fish which God had formed out of the adamáh.[6] Degeneration began within all living and non-living matter; the atoms of every tree, flower, blade of grass, rock, mountain, planet and star. The complete composition of all physical creation became incompatible with God’s fiery presence.[7]

Release of an alpha particle.

Degeneration of rocks has been observed when alpha particles escape, leaving them slightly radioactive. Nuclear physicist Dr. Robert Gentry has examined over 100,000 discolorations in minerals and discovered a process of decay that happened close to the formation of the Earth in granite rocks around the world. He writes that “in some thin samples of certain minerals, notably mica, there can be observed … concentric dark and light circles.” [8] He describes how radiohalos, which are etched within granite, Earth’s foundation rocks, “are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.”[9] (See Figure 17 on adjacent page). During an interview with Research Communications Network in 1997, Dr. Gentry said, “Some halos (‘polonium’ halos) imply a nearly instantaneous crystallization of Earth’s primordial rocks: and this crystallization must have occurred simultaneously with the synthesis/creation of certain elements.” [10]

Dr. Gentry’s work strongly suggests that the Earth went from a perfect and “decayless” state to one of decay very quickly and early in the history of the planet. Because God repeatedly declared the Earth and all therein to be good (Gen 1:10, 12, 18) at every stage of its creation and then very good at its completion (Gen 1:31), the process of death, decay and degeneration (radioactivity) came into effect because of Adam, because all of creation shares Adam’s fate: when Adam fell, creation fell; when Adam (mankind) is restored, creation is also restored.This is why Paul said:

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now (Rom 8:19–22) (Emphasis mine).

BDAG Greek-English lexicon defines “corruption” (Greek word phthora φθορά) as a “breakdown of organic matter, dissolution, deterioration, corruption.” A term that encapsulates the idea of “bondage of corruption” is degeneration. Because of the Fall, the Earth itself is now in a state of degeneration, whereas before, it had been generative.

The Earth is now longing to be freed (not destroyed) into the glorious liberty of the sons of God (Rom 8:19–22), which will occur in conjunction with the resurrection and return of Jesus, when the sons of God (believers) receive their new bodies. The decay (corruption) latent in the Earth will be reversed so that we will live on the same ball of dirt that God created in the beginning. The veil in the tabernacle was a copy of the things in heaven (Heb 8:5). The tearing of the first veil (not in the holy of holies) is a picture of the literal veil that will be torn (Isa 64:1) and rolled up (Isa 34:4; 2 Pet 3:10).

The Veil Between Heaven and Earth

After God announced the consequences of man’s actions, God had to remove Himself from his own creation, lest his fire destroy it. [11] This removal is what the Scriptures call the veil. It is what marks the boundary between our earthly, physical domain and the spiritual domain. Isaiah first spoke of its removal:

“And He will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, And the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces” (Isa 25:7–8).

The prophet Isaiah also pined: “Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down” (Isa 64:1). Whatever the veil is, it can be torn and removed. There are four other distinct places where the veil (heavens) was opened:

  • Ezekiel: “I saw the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God” (Ezek 1:1).
  •  “Jesus came up … and the heavens were opened to Him” (Matt 3:16).
  • Stephen: “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55–56).
  • John: “I saw heaven opened … Jesus was on a white horse” (Rev 19:11).

Layering techniques in animation can help us visualize the separation. In the Figure 18 graphic, there are four distinct cel layers (cel animation is the art of creating 2D animation by hand on sheets of transparent plastic called “cels”).[12] The superposition of the cels creates the composite picture for the animated story. Before the fall of Adam and Eve, the heavenly or spiritual layer and the earthly layer were superimposed, creating a shared composite picture. After the Fall, those of us in the earthly layer can no longer see into the heavenly layer. When Jesus returns, the layers will merge back together.

Animation in Layers.

Comparison of Heavenly and Earthly Dimensions.

Thus, Adam and Eve witnessed the veil close like a great curtain, and the realm behind it became blocked from their sight. Spatially, nothing had moved; the realms were on top of one another, yet separated dimensionally by a veil, like a membrane, barring passage between the domains. God had to drive them from the Garden and place a barrier to the tree of life, lest they take of it and live forever in their fallen state (Gen 3:23–24). Mankind has searched the world over and that tree is nowhere to be found because it does not exist in our realm or dimension, which is our plane of existence. Since that time, the cosmos has existed as two realms—the one in which we live, and the other where spirit-based beings live and where God’s presence is manifest. The one realm split into two: the earthly dimension is what Satan rules, he is the god of this world; the heavenly or spiritual dimension is where God rules. (God rules all, of course, but Satan has authority in the earthly realm.)

When the Garden and the heavenly domain disappeared before their eyes like a scroll being unrolled in front of them,[13] this might have been the first time hot tears streamed down their cheeks; it would also be the last time they would see God’s face.[14]

The Veil Limits Satan

The closing of the veil not only protects creation from God’s fiery presence, but it also severely limits Satan’s access to this domain. Satan and his rebels can still see us,[15]and their proximity can be felt (Job 4:15). They can afflict man with disease as well as control the weather (Matt 8:16, 24), as we will explore in detail later. They are able to gain more access through occult séances, blood sacrifices (in their honor), drugs, and perhaps under other conditions for brief durations. However, Satan’s communication between the realms is greatly limited. We will see how he and his rebels will continue to strive to maintain communication and open the Gates of Hades.

God wants to reunite the celestial realm with the earthly realm so that we can walk and fellowship with God and enjoy the pleasures at his right hand. Satan wants to prevent the day when Jesus opens the heavens and his heavenly tabernacle so that fire descends upon the Earth. Jesus was pining for that day when he said: “I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49). When Jesus comes back, “He will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, And the veil that is spread over all nations” (Isa 25:7). The sky will recede like a scroll (Rev 6:14), and he will “rend the heavens and come down” (Isa 64:1). The veil between heaven and Earth, between our domain and God’s, will dissolve and the two dimensions will become one again.


[1] The Xianhua Wang Metamorphosis of Enlil in Early Mesopotamia Pg. 152

[2] Kramer, Samuel Noah The Sumerians The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963. Pg. 37-41.

[3] Krebernik transcribed Obv. Col. 2 lines 5-9 of IAS 113 as, “UDKIŠ.NUN GAL nu-nám-NAGAR GAL du11-TUKU DU6-GAG-GAG UD UNU-ta LAGAB ki UD-ta LAGAB, as dEn-líl en nu-nam-nir en du11-ga nu-gi4-gi4 an ki-ta bad ki an-ta bad” Xianhua Wang The Metamorphosis of Enlil in Early Mesopotamia. Pg. 100.

[4] TWOT ‘ābûr is a preposition and conjunction always used with the prefix bĕ to express causal, purposive, and resultative relationships in agreement with the meanings of the root term ‘ābar “movement from one to another,” as from purpose (or cause) to accomplishment (or result).

[5] TWOT Adama

[6] Gen 2:19

[7] Isa 30:33; Ezek 1:26-27; Dan 7:9, 10

[8] R. V. Gentry, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973), Pg.347.

[9] www.halos.com/index.htm.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ex 19:18; Deut 4:11; Ps 97:3-5, 104:32, 144:5; Dan 7:9-11.

[12] https://conceptartempire.com/cel-animation/

[13] Isa 34:4; Rev 6:14

[14] Luke 3:38; John 1:18, 6:46; 1John 3:2

[15] 2Kgs 6:17

Satan the Anointed Protective Cherub of Eden

Satan the Anointed Protective Cherub Chapter 3 of Corrupting the Image 2

Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, “Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (Ezek 28:12).

In chapter one, we discovered that the king of Tyre was not a reference to a human king, but to Melqart / Heracles, one of the many syncretisms of Satan. Because the passage is about Satan, what God has to say about the anointed cherub is all the more significant. In just six Hebrew words, Satan was revealed to be the “seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.”

Seal of Perfection [חוֹתֵ֣ם תָּכְנִ֔ית]: God described him as being the seal of measurement / proportion. A seal, chotem [חוֹתֵ֣ם], was the hot wax applied to the outside of a scroll to make sure that it stayed closed. It was the finishing touch applied to the completed work that was perfect and needed no changes.

This description, coupled with the word measurement / proportion [תכנית tochnit], means Satan was the absolute greatest of God’s creatures. His proportions were pristine, sublime and impeccable. His form was exquisite in every capacity. He was the meter stick against which others would be measured. He was the gold standard by which all others would be judged; the measure of the appearance of perfection, second only to God himself. It is hard to imagine what this truly means in real terms. But he was absolutely it: the seal of perfection.

Full of Wisdom [מָלֵ֥א חָכְמָ֖ה]: God also created Satan completely full of wisdom [maleh chochma מלא חכמה]. Satan was not lacking in any area of understanding. If he were a cup, God filled him to the very brim and could not fill him anymore. As a result, Satan perfectly understood the workings of God’s creation.  He understood the laws governing the Earth, the stars and life itself. He understood the process of photosynthesis, cellular biology, quantum physics and the science beyond our grasp. He had no need to learn, for he already possessed the knowledge of all the systems God had created.

Yet there is an infinite distinction between God and Satan. While God gave him perfect wisdom, Satan has always lacked a complete perspective because he does not know the future. Like a good chess player, he can make incredibly good predictions and can model the future with great accuracy just as humans can model the trajectory of rockets and get to the moon. Still, he can never know all variables which might come into play. God is the only one who knows the future, which means Satan must learn the future as it unfolds before him.

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,​declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose (Isa 46:9-10).

Perfect in Beauty [וּכְלִ֥יל יֹֽפִי]: Lastly, God created him “perfect in beauty” [kalil yofi כליל יפי]. The Hebrew kalal means “entire, full, all.”[i] Thus, Satan was lacking nothing in his appearance. He was 100% in the beauty department. We must not overlook the weight of this statement: Perfect in beauty. God’s beauty is overwhelming. “Your eyes will see the King in His beauty; They will see the land that is very far off” (Isa 33:17). King David pined, “One thing I have desired of the LORD … To behold the beauty of the LORD, And to inquire in His temple” (Ps 27:4). Satan’s beauty was like the beauty of his Creator and exceeded the beauty of all other created beings.

In those mere six Hebrew words, we learned: Satan was the measure and the standard of perfect form; He was completely full of wisdom and lacked none; and he was absolutely complete and possessed the entirety of beauty. God withheld no aesthetic quality when He created him;[ii] He endowed Satan with phenomenal and outstanding beauty that equaled Him in splendor. These descriptions give us insight into why Satan thought he was on equal footing with his Maker. He was like God, or at least he thought so. These qualities would eventually spark his rebellion and will lead to the creation of the Beast.

“You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones” (Ezek 28:14).

Satan belonged to a special class of beings known as the cherubim. The Akkadian cognate verb of cherub means “to bless, praise, adore. As one of the characteristics of the cherubim was adoration of God, this derivation would appear suitable.”[iii] Thus, a significant role Satan played was to bless, praise, and adore God, and this is precisely what the cherubim do “day or night, saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!’” (Rev 4:8).

Judging from his vesture, Satan had the role of high priest. He was covered with an array of precious stones, inlaid in sockets of gold and silver. The King James translation tells us he was covered in [tupekha תפיך] and [nekbekha נקביך], meaning timbrels and pipes which gives us the misleading impression that Satan was the worship leader in heaven. I remember when I was a kid, I heard that in a sermon from a Baptist minister, who of course was using the King James Version. I like the King James, but there are better translations for these two words. Regardless of Satan’s musical abilities, these two words more accurately suggest mountings and sockets for the stones he wore—an idea more properly conveyed in the ESV, NET and other more modern translations.

According to Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB), nekbecha [נקב] “1. groove, socket, hole, cavity, settings. a. technical term relating to jeweller’s work. – Origin: a bezel (for a gem).” It is a receptacle in which you would set something. Interestingly, the same word Nekeva, means “female,” which could relate to something like a female-fitting connector which holds something else.

The Septuagint Reading of the Stones

Though the Masoretic text is a reliable and foundational text, the variant reading of the Septuagint may supply us with crucial details regarding the stones covering Satan and the function they served. In the following Table 3, we compare the Septuagint of Ezekiel 28 with Exodus 28, and we have a match. We infer that Satan’s stones were in a breastplate like that of Israel’s high priest. It must also be noted that the stones are nearly the same as the stones of the foundations of the New Jerusalem; though, the meaning of some of the words is uncertain which causes the translations to drift a little.[iv] If the reading of the Septuagint is correct (twelve stones instead of nine), then we can be fairly confident that Satan’s covering stones were in fact a breastplate, and he served the function of priest in some capacity.

Table Comparison of the Stones in Ezek 28 Septuagint and Hebrew Text

 New Engl. Transl. (Exod 28:17–20) Priest’s EphodSeptuagint (Ezek 28:13 LXXE) Stones covering Satan Rev 21 twelve gates & stones
First RowRuby (sardius NKJV), a topaz, and a beryl (emerald NKJV)sardius1, and topaz2, and emerald3Matchjasper, the second sapphire, the third agate
Second Rowa turquoise, a sapphire, and an emerald;carbuncle4, and sapphire5, and jasper6, and silver, and gold [metals not stones – see 4th row]Matchthe fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian
Third Rowand the third row, a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst;and ligure (beryl?)7, and agate8, and amethyst9Matchthe seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz
Fourth Rowa chrysolite, an onyx, and a jasper. enclosed in goldand chrysolite10, and beryl11, and onyx12Matchthe tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst

The presence of twelve stones in his breastplate makes more sense when we consider that God, in his perfection and authority, established the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles. There are twelve months in a year, twelve stars in the ancient zodiac as recorded in the book of Job, twelve hours of the day, and twelve hours of the night from Egyptian and Sumerian history. The New Jerusalem, the mountain of God, has twelve gates and twelve foundations which may have been what the twelve stones on Satan’s breastplate represented. There is a clear indication of divine perfection in Satan’s twelve-stoned emblem of authority.

When we contemplate which priestly office Satan may have held, we remember that there was no sin and hence, no need for blood sacrifices. Certainly, officiating sacrifices was one of the major duties of an earthly priest, though it was by no means the only duty. Their other roles were to make pronouncements on behalf of God, to instruct people in his ways (2 Chr 17:3–9; Neh 8:2–3), and to sing praise to God (2 Chr 29:30). Our theory that Satan performed priestly duties is substantiated by the fact he was called “the anointed cherub [keruv mimshakh כְּר֔וּב מִמְשַׁ֖ח] who covers” (Ezek 28:14).

The word anointed is of course the same as mashiach (messiah), which refers to pouring oil on someone’s head, which in turn meant the person had been chosen for leadership.[v] When Samuel anointed (mashakh) Saul by pouring oil on his head, it signified how a formerly regular guy was given a special purpose. In the case of Saul, it meant: you are going to be God’s appointed leader, the visible leader for the people; you are going to now be the one to whom the people will look for leadership. The same was true for David.

Therefore, Satan’s role as priest was to serve as the leader to communicate God’s instructions, directives and will to others. Just as priests taught and interpreted God’s commands, Satan likely would have been tasked with those priestly responsibilities.

Satan – Guardian of Eden

Satan was “in Eden, the garden of God” (Ezek 28:13). [גן עדן Gan Eden], the Garden of Eden, means an enclosed, protected area (gan[vi]) of pleasure (Eden). It was necessarily a sacred space, for after Adam and Eve sinned, “the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden” (Gen 3:23).

Satan was charged with overseeing the sacred place: You defiled your sanctuaries” (Ezek 28:18). The word “your sanctuaries” [mikdesheikha מִקְדָּשֶׁ֑יךָ] is from the root: qoph, daleth, shin: the same as kadosh, which is what the seraphim (possibly cherubim) chant day and night before the throne of God. It is the same word that is used of the temple. TWOT explains:

Miqdāsh denotes that which has been devoted to the sphere of the sacred. When it refers to the sanctuary, it connotes the physical area devoted to the worship of God. This area was sacred because it was the place where God dwelled among the people (Ex 25:8) and its sanctity was not to be profaned (Lev 12:4; 19:30; 20:3; 21:12, 23). The word Miqdāsh may refer to the abode of God in Ps 68:35 [H 36], but some commentators see this as the temple in Jerusalem. Metaphorically the word is used to refer to a place of refuge (Isa 8:14).[vii]

It was in this enclosed, protected, sacred place which Satan was charged with protecting, that the conflict occurred. (See Appendix 2 Angel Freewill).

So far, we see that Satan’s job and official charge was to be an “anointed protective / guardian cherub” stationed in the Garden of Eden. What caused him to rebel?

Satan Corrupted His Wisdom

When a murder victim is found, one of the big questions is to determine motive. What drove the murderer to do what he did? What was Satan’s motive? Satan was endowed with the gift of unparalleled beauty and wisdom. To understand why Satan staged a coup and was willing to throw away his exalted position and rebel against his Maker, we need to go recreate the scene[viii] of the crime and see if we can spot the motive.

To set our stage, we need to consider a few parameters. Just before God created Adam, it says in Genesis: And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:25). After the creation of Adam, we read: “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Thus, on both sides of the creation of Adam, the coast was clear, nothing wicked was on the horizon. It was an “all systems go.”

We might do well to employ the principle of Occam’s razor which posits that if the simplest explanation works, we should use it rather than looking for a more complex one. Therefore, if the text says that God saw everything He had made, and if nothing is hidden from God(Prov 15:3; Jer 16:17; Luke 8:17), then it stands to reason that all things in all of creation which were “framed by the word of God … which are seen … not made of things which are visible,” (Heb 11:3) were also “very good”.

The “very good” stamp, then, was also affixed to the angelic host, including Satan. Therefore, the preflight checklist came back “very good”. With this in mind, let us recreate the scene of the crime.

God created Satan as the greatest of all his creatures—surpassing every other in beauty and wisdom. God held nothing back. God anointed him, that is, He called him to be a leader, God’s principle agent. He was second only to God, just as Joseph was given authority to be ruler of all Egypt and was second only to Pharaoh.

“You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word; only in regard to the throne will I be greater than you” (Gen 41:40).

Thus, God established Satan as his anointed, his special agent, his viceroy and prime minister, authorized to do his bidding, to speak on his behalf, and to “sign God’s checks.” Satan was steward of all God’s house. When Satan spoke, it was as if it was God Himself, just as Joseph spoke and acted on Pharaoh’s behalf with absolute authority.

Joseph’s eminence would not have threatened or lessened the power, authority and right of Pharaoh’s heir to the throne. Even if Joseph would have had an exceptionally lengthy career before Pharaoh’s heir took the throne, Joseph’s position would have remained the same. In the same manner, Satan could be Prime Minister and God’s son, Jesus, would still hold the special place as the true heir of God’s throne.

Satan was never given God’s throne; rather, he was authorized to act, speak and decree on God’s behalf, just as Joseph acted, spoke and decreed on Pharaoh’s behalf. Joseph was well pleased to occupy the position endowed him and never thought of overthrowing Pharaoh. He recognized that his great power, exalted position and absolute authority were granted to him by Pharaoh; he could never occupy the throne of Pharaoh for he was not Pharaoh, nor would he ever be the son of Pharaoh.

God’s modus operandi is to enable and empower his creatures. He could do everything by Himself if He desired. He does not need us. It is like when you put together a shelf from IKEA and your little ones say, “Daddy, can we help?” You do not really need their help and chances are, they might make the whole process longer, but it is more enjoyable with them. This seems to be why He created us.

In Daniel 4, King Nebuchadnezzar was informed through a dream that he would be judged for his arrogance. The message is not from God directly, but by “decree of the watchers” (Dan 4:17). God empowered the angels or watchers to make decisions on his behalf. They were not and are not merely loudspeakers relaying God’s dictations, though they may do so on occasion. Rather, they are intelligent, reasoning creatures whom God allows to act autonomously and independently of Him.

Satan was a member of an ancient guardian class; and being of highest rank, he was the highest of the highest, outranked only by God Himself. He had authority to act as God’s viceroy. With the wisdom to know that God was and is the most powerful, why did he throw it all away? He had been given everything, why spoil it?

His Heart was Proud

God gives us the answer: “Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom on account of your splendor” (Ezek 28:17 NET).

It was Satan who corrupted his own wisdom: he was the active agent. Nothing happened to him; he was not passive in the transformation. He was the one who caused the decay of his endowment of wisdom due to his arrogant confidence in his own beauty. This means that he made a conscious choice. He was not preprogrammed to be bad or to fall from God’s grace. He mindfully chose to stage a coup against his Creator and rightful King. Why?

The bottom line is that Satan did not want to serve others: He wanted everybody to serve him. He looked at himself in the mirror and said, “Whoa, good-looking. Where did you come from?” He looked at his SAT and GRE scores and was like, “Wow, 100%. What do you know? I really am all that.” He looked at his resume: “First in charge of God’s kingdom. Wow. I deserve of all this stuff. And you know what? Creation should bow down to me. Creation should serve me because look at all that I have. Look at all that I am.” It would be easy to come to that conclusion because of his splendor and beauty.

However, it was not an outside force acting upon him that corrupted him. We read: you corrupted your wisdom, because of your beauty. He chose to corrupt what he knew to be true because he was looking at himself. Being full of wisdom, he must have heard his own voice say, “Who gave you these things? Wasn’t it God, the Creator of heaven and Earth who made you, who spoke you into existence? Will He not forever be a million billion trillion times greater than you? Even infinitely greater than you? Even though He gave you all this amazing stuff, you are still nothing compared to God, compared to the Creator. How can you possibly boast?”

In reality, Satan had no reason to be proud. Sure, he possessed unimaginable beauty. On a scale of ten, he was a ten. We get the impression that he may have equaled God in beauty. He also possessed unparalleled wisdom. He was full, which meant that he lacked nothing. It seems impossible that he could be as wise as God, yet the text says that he was full (not lacking) in wisdom. Thus, when he compared himself with God in terms of beauty, he equaled God. When he compared himself with God in terms of wisdom, he apparently thought he equaled God, as well. When he noted his authority, he acted as if he were God. It is not hard to understand how he could reach the conclusion that he was not just an agent empowered by God, but was also worthy to be praised and revered as God and in place of God.

Ironically, he proved himself to be nothing like God; looking like God on the outside is no big deal … He created him as such. To truly be like God, he needed to choose to act like Him. We too must choose to lay down our lives, our self-interests and to be servants to one another. We must learn to act with love, which is sacrificial service toward one another. (See Appendix 7 Leaven).

“If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you” (John 13:14–15).

The path to truly being like God required Satan and the other angels to sacrificially serve others, especially those lower than themselves; This feat is perfectly demonstrated by Jesus going to the cross. Satan was unwilling to do this. Satan boasted in the attributes he shared with God, but the one that he was required to demonstrate himself, which was to sacrificially love and serve; he refused. He set the example that rulers of the nations would later practice, as Jesus said: “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them” (Matt 20:25).

Satan Refused to Serve

Satan refused to be a servant to those lesser than himself. Serving the one up the chain of command and submitting to one stronger than yourself is expected, required and merits nothing special. In contrast, God requires us to lay down our lives and become the servant of all. Whom could Satan have served? For starters, certainly every other angel was lesser than him in rank, beauty and wisdom. If Satan had within his character the attribute of servant-leadership, he could have served them, and of course, Adam.

Let us imagine the Garden of Pleasure: the light of the sun pokes through the majestic canopy of trees, home to animals of every sort. The rich scent of oranges, passion fruit, peaches and fresh flowers permeate the untainted air. The garden is painted with vibrant colors. Hummingbirds flit from tree to tree drinking in the sweet nectar. A lovely glow emanates from every living thing.

God lovingly fashions a form from the adamáh (soil) with his powerful hands and tenderly bends over and breathes his Spirit into the nostrils of the dirt creature (Gen 2:7, John 20:22). “Adam!” God calls him. He has a reddish hue like the adamáh[ix] out of which he had been taken. After absorbing the light from God, Adam emitted a strong whitish glow. Not only does Adam share in God’s image and likeness, but God has actually breathed his own life-force into him!

Satan was the anointed protective / guardian cherub stationed in Eden to watch over Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:38) who also had God’s seed (DNA / information, 1 John 3:9). Satan was the exalted, standard of perfection chief steward, but Adam was the heir of God’s creation (not throne). God gave Adam “dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth,” (Gen 1:28). The Psalmist explains how man is the heir in a wonderful way:       

For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet (Ps 8:5–6).

Satan calculated that if he killed the heir, the world would be his, just as Jesus described in a parable about the evil vinedressers: “But those vinedressers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’” (Mark 12:7). If Adam, the heir, died then he as the chief steward would be the heir. Abram said that very thing to God when he had no genetic heir:

But Abram said, “Lord GOD, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Gen 15:2) Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!” (Gen 15:3)

If Pharaoh had a son, it did not affect Joseph the prime minister. The throne always belonged to Pharaoh and his son, completely apart from the role of the prime minister. When God gave dominion of his creation to Adam, it did not reduce Satan’s role, responsibilities or prestige in the least. Yet, Satan could not bring himself to serve someone lesser in rank and lesser in nature.

He likely understood the Earth and all its fullness will forever technically belong to God,”[x] but legally, he would be Lord of the Earth since Adam could not regain dominion due to death. Hence, Satan would adversely take possession of the Earth and would remain the ruler of the world indefinitely.[xi] He would rule through the “the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

Satan Chose Not to Be Like God

Ironically, the one who held the greatest position, who was a seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, was not willing to truly be like God. He thought he was like God, because he had the externals, but these externals were gifts from God. He chose not to be like God when he refused to humble himself and love.

What does love really look like? Is love just giving a bouquet of flowers? Is love taking that special romantic interest out to dinner? Maybe. But really not. Those romantic gestures are easy; Anybody can do that. Love, real love, is sacrificial service to one another. This kind of servanthood is not in the sense that you are taken as a slave and now you serve your master; rather, it is where you voluntarily lay down your rights, priorities, options and prerogatives to sacrificially serve another person.

Satan deviated from God’s characteristic of being a servant, which is the expression of love. For the sake of his beauty, Satan corrupted his wisdom despite knowing that “whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:4). He rejected what he knew to be true about God so that he could put forth his own agenda: that all would serve him. We can translate all these actions into one word: Self. Satan’s kingdom is about self, about pride.

As the greatest, most sublime of God’s creatures, full of wisdom, he knew that to be great required him to serve. Adam and Eve were the test God put in Satan’s path to grant him the opportunity to be a servant so he could keep his office of prime minister.

Satan, as God’s chief steward, was tested for faithfulness as Paul wrote: “Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful” (1 Cor 4:2).His test for greatness was simple, as Jesus eloquently put it, “whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave” (Matt 20:27).

Joseph was tested for thirteen years before he was raised up as the second most powerful man in Egypt. Unlike Joseph the faithful steward, Satan refused to serve and lusted for the throne, as well:

“How you are fallen from heaven, O Heilel [Hêlēl הֵילֵ֣ל], son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!  For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High’” (Isa 14:12–14).

By seeking God’s throne, Satan by necessity, shifted his focus from serving God and serving others (lesser than himself), to serving himself. He claimed to be equal with God, something no creature can ever claim against his Creator. And unlike Abram’s faithful steward, Eliezer of Damascus, who was going to inherit all things until Isaac came along, Satan calculated he could arrange for Adam, the heir, to have a little “accident” and die before fully taking possession of his inheritance.

Satan’s scheme would leave Adam and humanity without an inheritance until Jesus later came in the form of a servant (Phil 2:7) as the last Adam (I Cor 15:45), and would reconcile the sons of Adam with God (Col 1:22). He would demonstrate how he was committed[xii] to serve ones lesser than himself to regain the inheritance Adam had lost (John 3:16; 15:13).

Hence, we have a motive to our crime scene: Satan would destroy mankind before he would bow in service to a man made of dust; he refused to be a servant to others. His post as the chief ministering spirit was to serve those who needed to inherit salvation. When God created Adam and Eve, they were innocent and were not dying, but neither did they have complete immortality yet as they were not immune to sin. In other words, they could have lived a long time in their innocent state, but at some point, they presumably would have had the opportunity and need to eat from the tree of life in order to seal them as immortals. Satan understood their situation very well and saw an opportunity to stage the ultimate coup and overturn God’s kingdom of sacrificial love, and thereby ensure that his own greatness could be recognized and adored. Once he crossed this threshold, he could never go back. Ever. There is no room for the exaltation of self in God’s kingdom. With raging malice in his heart, he set out to defile the sanctuary with his deadly weapon: slander.


[i] TWOT 985 כָלַל (kālal) I, perfect, make perfect. (ASV, RSV similar.)

[ii] Ezek 28:12-13; Isa 14:11

[iii] TWOT: Cherub. See also http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/ to bless; to praise; to dedicate (an offering), to thank, to congratulate; cherub.

[iv] ISBE “Precious Stones” That the Hebrew texts used for the Septuagint, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and English Versions of the Bible were not identical in all the verses in which there is mention of precious stones is especially clear from an analysis of the respective descriptions of the ornaments of the king of Tyre (Eze 28:13). In the Septuagint, 12 stones are mentioned; as already stated, they have precisely the same names and are mentioned in precisely the same order as the stones of the breastplate described in that version, the only difference being that gold and silver are inserted in the middle of the list. On the other hand, in Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and English Versions of the Bible descriptions of the ornaments, only 9 of the 12 stones of the breastplate are mentioned; they are not in the same order as the corresponding stones in the breastplate as described in those VSS, silver is not mentioned at all, while gold is placed, not in the middle, but at the end of the list.

[v] “To anoint an individual or an object indicated an authorized separation for God’s service. Moses anointed Aaron “to sanctify him” (lĕqaddĕshô, Lev 8:12; cf. Ex 29:36 for the altar). Note the expression “anointed to the Lord” (I ). māshaḥ, while representing a position of honor, also represents increased responsibility… though the agent might be the priest or prophet, writers speak of anointed ones as those whom the Lord anointed (e.g. I Sam 10:1; II Sam 12:7). Such language underscores that it is God who is the authorizing agent; that the anointed is inviolable (I Sam 24:8ff.); and that the anointed one is to be held in special regard (cf. I Sam 26:9ff.)…one may infer that divine enablement was understood as accompanying māshaḥ. TWOT

[vi] [גָּנַן] (gānan) defend. (ASV and RSV also render “put a shield about,” and “protect.” גַּן  (gan) enclosure, garden. גַּנָּה (gannâ) garden.מָגֵן (māgēn) shield. TWOT Harris, Laird R.; Archer, Gleason L.; Waltke, Bruce K.; Moody Publishers, Chicago: 1980. Entry 1580

[vii] TWOT, Miqdāsh

[viii] When Satan fell is a question often influenced by a person’s view of the creation event itself. This chapter is intended to provide a simple explanation based on all of the biblical and relevant creation science available not to advocate for the Gap Theory, Old Earth Creation or Young Earth Creation view.

[ix] TWOT ădāmâ: describes the connection between soil and Adam: “ădāmâ. Ground, land, planet. Originally this word signified the red arable soil”.

[x] Exod 19:5; Deut 10:14; Ps 24:1, 50:12, 89:11

[xi] John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; Heb 2:15

[xii] The word “agape” means fully committed to something, wholly devoted and dedicated.

Discover How Satan-Enlil is the Great Dragon

Ever since John recorded the incredible visions shown to him by God in the book of Revelation, speculation has abounded as to what he meant by the imagery he described. For example, Bible prophecy speaks of “a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns” (Rev 12:3) and “a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns” (Rev 17:3). The scenes described are anything but normal, which has led commentators to relegate the vision to nothing more than allegory.

In order for us to know how to interpret the images, we must find their definitions. But where are we to find such definitions? We can interpret the meaning of the symbols if we learn their definitions.

Our world is full of symbols we understand well: the red, yellow and green lights in a traffic-light are symbols. We all know what they mean, but a person from the deep jungles would have no idea that the meaning of those colors symbolize stop, slow down and go. Yet once they learn the meaning, the symbol is easy to interpret.

So too, John gave us symbols. Our job is to find the definitions for them, just like we had to learn red light means “stop.” Thus, we are asking what are the definitions of the following?

  • a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads (Rev 12:3). So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him (Rev 12:9).
  • And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name (Rev 13:1).
  • The angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns (Rev 17:7).

The keywords are highlighted; These words share common features and are the key players in all three passages from Revelation. Right away, we notice that both the Beast and the dragon share these features:

  1. A great dragon
  2. A fiery red dragon
  3. A beast
  4. Seven heads
  5. Ten horns

Satan’s Fiery Covering

Before we dig into the Mesopotamian evidence, let’s review what the Bible reveals concerning Satan’s original appearance, which will help us put the former into proper context.

God created the angels with a fiery quality similar to his own. Scripture describes “the LORD your God is a consuming fire” (Deut 4:24, 9:3; Ps 97:3). Ezekiel recounts from his vision of God that “from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber [electricity] with the appearance of fire all around within it (Ezek 1:27). The return of the Lord is likewise said to be with fiery flames (2 Thess 1:8; Isa 66:15).

The angels, including Cherubim / Seraphim, are described as fiery beings, as well. Their fiery nature seems to be necessary for them to be able to live in God’s presence. There are many verses that reference the angels’ glorious appearance. We recall that the angels shone in the night sky at the announcement of the birth of Messiah in Luke 2:9. The root word in that passage is perilampo (περιλάμπω), meaning “to shine around, “a derivative of lampo, “to shine.” In Luke 24:4, two angels stood by the tomb in “shining garments” (astrapto ἀστράπτω, like what a star does). This same word for shining is used to describe lightning as it shines from one part of heaven to the other, according to Luke 17:24.

The prophet Daniel described a vision in which an angel had a shining appearance, by writing: “His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color”(Dan 10:6). In the book of Revelation, angels were “clothed in pure bright [lampron λαμπρον] linen” (Rev 15:6). The Psalmist described how God “makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire” (Ps 104:4).

Ezekiel described the appearance of angels as burning coals of fire and with four faces![1]

The likeness of four living creatures … they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves’ feet. They sparkled like the color of burnished bronze. The hands of a man were under their wings on their four sides; and each of the four had faces and wings. Their wings touched one another. The creatures did not turn when they went, but each one went straight forward. As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle. Thus were their faces. Their wings stretched upward; two wings of each one touched one another, and two covered their bodies. And each one went straight forward; they went wherever the spirit wanted to go, and they did not turn when they went. As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches going back and forth among the living creatures. The fire was bright, and out of the fire went lightning. And the living creatures ran back and forth, in appearance like a flash of lightning (Ezek 1:5–14).

The description of these creatures is also a description of Satan’s appearance before his fall, though he must have been the most splendid looking of them all. Their appearance was described as having:

  1. The likeness of a man
  2. Straight legs with feet like a calf
  3. Four faces
    1. Man
    1. Lion
    1. Bull
    1. Eagle
  4. Four wings
  5. Burning coals, torches, lightning, electricity

Satan looked like these creatures. Though after his fall, he lost the fiery quality, which we will examine shortly. Nevertheless, a being with four faces of four kinds of creatures is indeed both a complex and revealing entity. The Hebrew word [פנים panim] is plural “faces.” A face is a window into the heart and mind of a person. Faces are constantly changing direction and shape, depending on mood, intentions, dreams and experiences. Face also means “presence.” God promised, “My Presence will go with you” (Exod 33:14). God’s face going with the Israelites was so important to Moses that he said to God: “If Your Presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here” (Exod 33:15).

We can infer from this passage that to be in the presence of [לפני lifne] a cherub with four faces could give the impression of being in front of a man, a lion, a bull or an eagle. I have been in the close presence of a lion, and it is an awesome experience. Growing up in rural Michigan, I made sure to keep my distance from bulls as I understood they are creatures that can kill. Likewise, the eagle is both majestic and deadly. Incidentally, these four formidable faces are excellent representatives of the four broad categories of creatures on the face of the Earth.

Great Dragon

The Mesopotamian evidence of the great dragon is plentiful and gives greater context to what John was seeing in Revelation. “The most common serpentine epithet from ancient cuneiform sources is Akkadian ušumgallu “great dragon,” itself a loan from Sumerian UŠUMGAL.” [2] (Remember the Š is pronounced “sh”). The great dragon title, Ushumgal, was a typical epithet for Enlil’s many syncretisms: “Ušumgallu also designates a host of Mesopotamian deities, including Marduk … His exalted position over humanity is expressed in the appellation, “great dragon of the heavens and earth.” [3] ANE scholar Tyler Yoder points out, “Marduk’s ownership of a pet mušḫuššu (“snake”) furthers his own serpentine associations.”[4]

Figure 7 UŠUMGAL or Anzu bird Icon By editor Austen Henry Layard, drawing by L. Gruner – Monuments of Nineveh.

In other words, we have discovered that “great dragon” was a quite common term for Satan / Enlil and the like. It was also a term for serpent, just like the Bible told us a serpent tempted Adam and Eve in Genesis 3; (it appears the Bible critics were premature in ridiculing the Bible for such imagery). Ancient iconography attests to the historical authenticity of Heilel / Enlil (or one of his syncretizations: Ninurta, Baal, Zeus, Nergal, among others) being commonly referred to as a snake or dragon.

The icon for the Ushumgallu, seen adjacent in Figure 7, is also sometimes called the Anzu bird. It was a chimera, a creature with the DNA of another animal mixed into itself. The “translation of ušumgallu ‘lion-dragon’ “derives from the conceptual amalgamation of these creatures.”[5] The Ushumgallu in the epic of Gilgamesh was called a “‘ground lion’ … and the mušḫuššu serpent often evinces leonine traits.” [6] The point is that the great dragon is not the classic fire-breathing dragon of legend from the Middle Ages. The Mesopotamian dragon had many overlaps of lion qualities—which was one of Satan’s cherub faces.

The foremost quality of the great dragon, Ancient Near East expert Frans Wiggermann points out, “is being a determined killer, killing probably with its venom, and frightening even the gods.”[7] Man, lions, bulls, and eagles—the four faces of the cherub, certainly classify as determined killers.[8]

The great dragon also had seven heads in Mesopotamia literature and iconography. We always need to keep in mind the many syncretizations inherent in the ancient texts. Heilel (Satan) = Enlil = Marduk = Baal = Bel; and, Ninurta (son of Enlil) often assumed Enlil’s role altogether.

We learn that a syncretization of Marduk (or his son), according to Yoder, was called “the great dragon, who cannot be faced.” Furthermore, Nergal (god of the dead and a syncretization of Ninurta / Enlil) was represented with the same description: “[ú-šum]-gal-lu ṣīru tābik imti elišunu “The majestic, great dragon who pours his venom upon them.” [9] With those epithets in mind, we can appreciate the significance that “Nergal’s divine staff was as ‘awe-inspiring as a serpent’ and Ninurta’s mace consisted of seven snake-like heads.”[10]

Figure 8 Ninurta killing one of the heads of the seven-headed serpent. Bible Review, Oct. 1992, 28 (=ANEP #671) (Early Dynastic). Courtesy of the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem.

That Nergal, also known as Ninurta, Melqart, Marduk and Enlil, had a seven-headed snake is incredibly revealing. The great dragon of Revelation has “seven heads and ten horns,” (Rev 12:3) as does the Beast, who has “seven heads and ten horns” (Rev 13:1). Not only does the iconography reveal a great dragon,[11] but John saw “one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the Beast (Rev 13:3). Looking at Figure 8 above, we see that one of the heads is mortally wounded. God is revealing that the symbols in Revelation relate directly back to the false gods of Babylon. A key to defining the images from Revelation is found in deciphering ancient Babylonian monuments.

Fiery Red Dragon: Mušuššu

It is amazing (though not surprising, since the vision was from God) that John described not only a “great dragon”, but “a great, fiery red dragon” (Rev 12:3). How could John have known, humanly speaking, about the Mušḫuššu from hundreds of years before? John could not have known that the word, Mušḫuššu, could mean “fearsome” or “red,” or perhaps both. This is a strong testimony of the divine origin of John’s vision and of the accuracy of the entity John is describing.

German archaeologists dug up the Ishtar Gate and  transported it back to the East Berlin Museum, Germany, where you can now walk through the actual gate. On the walls of the Ishtar Gate, which date from the neo-Babylonian empire (ca. 7th– 6th century BC), Marduk’s “pet” mušḫuššu [mushkhushshu] is visible. As seen in Figure 9 below, it was a hybrid, scaly creature with hind legs resembling the talons of an eagle, and with lion-like forelimbs, a long neck and tail, a horned head, a snake-like tongue and a crest.[12] Wiggermann explains that both “fearsome” and “red” are possible interpretations the name, mušḫuššu:

Akkadian mušḥuššu is a loanword from Sumerian mušḥuš (-a), literally “fearsome serpent”. The reading of the second element as ḥuš rather than ruš (both possible) … The Sumerian Loanwords in Old Babylonian Akkadian I, its meaning as “fearsome” rather than “red” (both possible).[13]

Figure 9 Mushkhushshu on Ishtar Gate.

Figure 10 Mušḥuššu H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals, text-fig. 33 (=ANEP #511) (Gudea; Girsu [Tello]).

John told us of a sign that appeared in heaven, “a great, fiery red dragon” (Rev 12:3). Again, God is revealing that the imagery in Revelation connects back to the ancient gods of Babylon. We continue to define the symbols in Revelation by examining ancient icons from the civilizations in Mesopotamia.

The prophet Daniel wrote about Marduk’s dragon that was “like a lion, and had eagle’s wings and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it” (Dan 7:4). In ancient iconography, the Mushkhushshu is seen walking like a beast and standing like a man as depicted above in Figure 10. This dragon stood as a symbol of the strength of Marduk and in opposition to the true God. Accordingly, God promised to judge Marduk, spelled Merodach in the Bible: “Merodach is broken in pieces” (Jer 50:2). We also learned in the previous chapter that the Greek healer god Asclepios was associated with Melqart / Heracles, which is parallel to the Mušḫuššu.

It seems plausible to connect the Sumerian mušḫuš with the Hebrew נָחָשׁ (āsh) snake. They share many similarities: Mḫuš may mean “red snake-dragon” and āsh is related to a copper-bronze color[14] which is fairly close to the coloration of the Mušḫuššu on the Ishtar Gate. The mušḫuš is a symbol for Enlil or is closely associated with him; “In the so-called Labbu-myth Enlil sends the muš[ḫuššu] to wipe out noisy mankind.[15] In Genesis, the āsh was definitely associated with Satan, the one who desired to destroy mankind (“opinions differ as to whether this was a Satan-inspired snake or a name for Satan himself.”)[16]

Lastly, I am persuaded that there could be a linguistic connection between Mušḫuš and āsh, the serpent in the Garden. James H. Charlesworth of Princeton notes there is “in Akkadian … the n to m shift.” [17] Thus, MŠḪŠ would shift to NŠḪŠ, the first Š would fall out NŠḪŠ, leaving NḪŠ. Vowels are flexible between languages; thus, it is plausible for U to transition to A. Mušḫuš > נָחָשׁ āsh.

Just coincidence?

The Anzu Bird

We see additional images of Ninurta or Marduk (or Bel, Dagon and the rest, who are all the same entity.) Amar Annus in his article, “Ninurta and the Son of Man”, notes:

Bêl ‘Lord,’ which is also Ninurta’s common epithet, and points to a connection with West-Semitic Baal. Marduk came to replace Enlil in the Mesopotamian pantheon, so he took over conjointly the position of the father Enlil and the mythology of his son Ninurta.[18]

Recall that over time, with syncretization of belief systems, the names and characteristics of these gods meshed together. Here, Enlil and Ninurta take on one another’s qualities. We learn from Amar Annus how in the mythology from Shinar, “after vanquishing the eagle Anzu, Ninurta becomes one with the bird … paradoxically, Ninurta is equated with his slain enemy, Thunderbird Anzu, who becomes his symbol.”[19]

Figure 11 Ninurta with wings.

Ninurta, in the iconography pictured in Figure 11, is being identified with the Anzu bird. The very creature that he killed, the Anzu bird or Manticore, then becomes Ninurta’s symbol. There is a certain fluidity in how Ninurta is presented, according to Jacobsen:

The two forms, bird and lion, tended to compete in the image of the god, who was sometimes the lion-headed bird, sometimes a winged lion with bird’s tail and talons, sometimes all lion. In time the animal forms were rejected in favor of imagining the god in human form only.[20]

We have seen this shift in appearance in the passage from the Book of Daniel:

“The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it” (Dan 7:4).

Figure 12 Ninurta wearing a crown of ten horns standing on a Lion-headed Eagle (A n z u d / Anzû), Lion-Dragon

Just as Daniel saw the fluid nature of the first beast that emerged from the sea, the iconography of Ninurta shows us the changing images of the god. Ninurta sometimes was a chimeric creature standing on four feet as a beast, but sometimes he was standing on two feet as a man; We have images of him both with and without wings.

F. Wiggermann calls to our attention an incredibly significant detail regarding the Anzu lion-dragon, which shares a number of features with the Mušḫuššu. In Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, Wiggermann explains it was Enlil (not his syncretization Ninurta) who was originally associated with Anzû. [21]

This insight reveals that the hybrid creature first represented Enlil and then later, stood for the syncretization of the various names of Mesopotamian gods.

The Anzû then, is not Ninurta / Ningirsu’s symbol, nor that of any of the other gods whose images are conflated with a symbolic animal. “The Anzû represents another, more general power, under whose supervision, all the gods operate. This higher power can only be Enlil, which is exactly what we see in the Lugalbanda Epic and Anzû myth, Thus, the posture of the lion-headed eagle, with wings stretched out above the symbolic animals of other gods, becomes understandable: it is a stance that is neither that of attack, nor that of defense, but that of the master of the animals.”[22]

Uncovering the fact that the Anzu was originally identified with Enlil reveals once again that Satan is the one depicted in the many symbols of the gods of Mesopotamia. We saw in the previous chapter how “master of the animals” was a reference to Melqart / Heracles whom we determined was a syncretization of Enlil. Furthermore, the fact that Enlil, the Anzû lion-dragon, was master of the animals causes us to think of the four faces of the cherubim. Enlil dominated the animal kingdom: the man-beings, the wild lion-type beings, the domestic bull-type beings and the flying eagle-type beings. The face of a man, lion, bull and eagle make up the four faces of the cherub and possibly the head of Satan, himself—formerly a covering cherub. The connection may not be exact;[23] nevertheless, we do have a strong correlation between the snake-dragon of Enlil, Marduk, etc. and also with Satan in Genesis 3. Thus, the nakhash in the Garden was not today’s average snake. It was like the Ushumgallu / mušuššu / Anzu, with legs to stand erect. It was the curse that later changed Satan’s form from the snake-dragon / lion-dragon to what he is today.

Bašmu-Bashan

The last word that we will examine for serpent-dragon is Bašmu, which will lead us to Mt. Hermon, to Og, King of Bashan and to the transfiguration of Jesus (later in the book). Bashan in the Bible comes from Akkadian Bašmu. Wiggermann notes: “For the two Sumerian terms u s u m and muš-šà-tùr Akkadian has only one: bašmu … must refer to two different types of mythological snakes as well, and we will call them ušum / bašmu and muš-šà-tùr / bašmu.”[24] He defines the ušum / bašmu, as “Venomous Snake … horned snake with forelegs.” He also notes a snake-dragon that we have already examined: u š u m g a l, rendered in Akkadian by ušumgallu and bašmu, is a derivative of u š u m and literally means: “Prime Venomous Snake” … Ušumgallu … occasionally replaces mušḫuššu when the dragon of Nabû is referred to or the dragon of Ninurta.[25]

He points out (see Figure 13):

The foremost quality of an u š u m g a l … is being a determined killer, killing probably with its venom, … It is this quality that makes u š u m ( g al ) a suitable epithet for certain gods and kings.[26]

Figure 13 Bashmu from Wiggermann’s Mesopotamian Protective Spirits.

We must not miss how the Bašmu was later equated with the icon of Nergal, Ninurta, and Marduk: “Nergal is not originally a dragon slayer, but here, as elsewhere … he replaces Ninurta. After Marduk’s usurpation of the mušḫuššu, the ušum / bašmu became the symbolic animal of gods formerly associated with the mušḫuššu.”[27] A Bašmu was a snake-dragon, sometimes used to describe the other snake-dragons we have studied, and was a determined killer and was a suitable epithet for gods and kings! It was also associated with Marduk which is another name for Enlil or occasionally his “son” Ninurta, whom we will discover is Nimrod in a later chapter.

Bashmu, in astronomy, was the constellation Hydra[28], the seven headed dragon that Heracles killed (See Figure 8). The Dictionary of God, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia notes, “This creature may be the seven-headed hydra killed by the god Ningirsu or Ninurta, also referred to in spells.”[29]

Wiggermann, writing in Transtigridian Snake Gods, provides us with an important link between Bašmu, Ereškigal (Ishtar’s sister), and Og the god of the dead / death.

Ereškigal…queen of the netherworld, rules the dead … is associated with the constellation Hydra (MUL.dMUŠ) in late astrological texts … the Babylonian constellation Hydra looked like … a snake drawn out long, with the forepaws of a lion, no hind legs, with wings, and with a head comparable to that of the mušḫuššu dragon. Its Babylonian name was probably Bašmu. Ereshkigal’s messenger, Mutum “Death” … is described in a late Assyrian text. He has the head of a mušḫuššu dragon.[30]

We cannot ignore the fact that Og was King of Bashan (in Hebrew “the Bashan”). That means he was king of the snake-dragons if we simply plug in the meaning. Furthermore, we just learned that Bashmu was some kind of amalgamation of the Ushumgallu, the Mushhushshu and the Anzu. The implication then is that Enlil (or Ninurta, son of Enlil) seems to have been behind the workings of Og and the land Bashan (snake-dragons). In a later chapter we will explore the relationship to the king of the Amorites (MARTU=Enlil), king of the Rephaim (underworld “healers” or “healed”), who were also known as snake gods.

Ten Horns

The prophet Daniel wrote about the ten horns saying, “It was different from all the beasts that came before it, and it had ten horns” (Dan 7:7).

Figure 14 Enlil wearing a crown of ten horns.

Crowns with ten horns were a common feature of the gods in ancient Mesopotamia. “Enlil is regularly represented wearing a horned helmet.”[31] In the cylinder seal depicted in Figure 14, we see Enlil wearing a crown with ten horns (five on each side).

In another cylinder seal (Figure 12, p. 13), Ninurta can be seen wearing a crown with ten horns and riding the Anzu bird, which also represents him as Enlil. Thus, the Bible reveals the symbols, and we once again, have discovered the means by which we can interpret these symbols.

The imagery of a great dragon and a beast is represented in the iconography of ancient Mesopotamia. Revelation spoke of Satan as the great dragon because that was how he was known from the earliest of recorded history. The Bible not only accurately recorded his ancient epithets but also gives us a spiritual window into the original role, authority and nefarious motives of Satan which allowed him to plunge the world into its current darkness.


[1] He later identifies these as cherubim: “This is the living creature I saw under the God of Israel by the River Chebar, and I knew they were cherubim,” (Ezek 10:20).

[2] Wiggermann posits the base meaning for UŠUM as “Prime Venomous Snake” Tyler R. Yoder, “Ezekiel 29:3 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 486-96

[3] Tyler R. Yoder, “Ezekiel 29:3 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) Pg. 486-96

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] “It is first attested by a 22nd-century BC cylinder inscription at Gudea.” F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, Pg. 167.

[8] Icon By editor Austen Henry Layard, drawing by L. Gruner – ‘Monuments of Nineveh, Second Series’ plate 5, London, J. Murray, 1853, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18217886

[9] Tyler R. Yoder, “Ezekiel 29:3 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) Pg. 486-96

[10] Ibid.6

[11] Yoder has shown how God, in Ezekiel, used the term “great dragon” to describe who Pharaoh thought he was. “Behold, I am against you, O Pharaoh king of Egypt, O great monster.” The Greek Septuagint “great monster” as τον δρακοντα τον μεγαν “great dragon” (Ezek 29:3). Yoder explains “The prophet could easily have drawn from an existing cache of unambiguous expressions to portray Pharaoh, but instead chose a term suffused with mythological overtones.” Tyler R. Yoder, “Ezekiel 29:3 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 486-96.

[12] Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1992). Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. Brill Publishers. Pg. 156.

[13] Frans Wiggermann, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (RlA) 8 1995 Pg. 455, 456.

[14] “The word nāḥāsh is almost identical to the word for “bronze” or “copper,” Hebrew nĕḥōshet (q.v.). Some scholars think the words are related because of a common color of snakes (cf. our “copperhead”), but others think that they are only coincidentally similar.” TWOT nāḥāsh

[15] Wiggermann, F. A. M. (1992). Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. Brill Publishers. Pg. 156.

[15] Frans Wiggermann, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (RlA) 8 1995 Pg. 455, 456

[16] J. O. Buswell. Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, I, Zondervan, 1962, Pg. 264–65.

[17] Revealing The Genius Of Biblical Authors: Symbology, Archaeology, And Theology James H. Charlesworth, Princeton

[18] Amar Annus “Ninurta and the Son of Man” Published in Melammu Symposia 2: R. M. Whiting (ed.), Mythology and Mythologies. Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Paris, France, October 4-7, 1999 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project 2001), Pg. 7-17. Publisher: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/saa/

[19] Ibid.

[20] Jacobsen, Th. 1987 The Harps that Once… Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. PG. 235.

[21] In his study, he notes the “Lion-headed Eagle (M. 14; third millennium A n z u d l Anzû), and Lion-Dragon …Second and first millennium Anzû.” F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits The Ritual Texts – Siyx & Pp Publications Groningen 1992. Pg. 161

[22] F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits The Ritual Texts – Siyx & Pp Publications Groningen 1992. Pg. 161

[23] Wiggermann notes “bašmu, ‘Venomous Snake’. The history of the bašmu is not yet completely clear. Positively bašmu’s are the snake of the Kleinplastik (without horns and forepaws, VII. C. 2b), and the snake-monster with forepaws (and wings) from the palace of Esarhaddon.” Ibid. Pg. 189.

[24] F. A. M. Wiggermann Mesopotamian Protective Spirits The Ritual Texts – Styx & PP Publications Groningen 1992. Pg. 166-167

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27]Ibid.

[28] http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=4876&language=id

[29] God, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: Bašmu

[30] Transtigridian Snake Gods Wiggermann Pg. 35.

[31] Edzard, D.O. 1965. “Mesopotamien. Die Mythologie der Sumerer und Akkader.” In H.W. Haussig (ed.), Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Wörterbuch der Mythologie, erste Abteilung, Bd. I, Pg. 17-140. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.

Satan as Melqart, King of Tyre (chpt 1B of Corrupting the Image 2)

When God told Ezekiel to “take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre,” in Ezekiel 28, He was talking about far more than a mere human king;[i] He was using one of Satan’s many titles: Melqart. Melqart (mlkqrt), literally means “king of the city”, and here, specifically Tyre.

“Melqart was considered by the Phoenicians to represent the monarchy, perhaps the king even represented the god, or vice-versa, so that the two became one and the same.”[ii] King of the ‘City’ could also be interpreted as a euphemism of the underworld, called “the great city, iri.gal, Akkadian Irkallu, in the Mesopotamian tradition.” [iii]

We do not know the given name of Satan, but God revealed enough key places for us to trace his titles back to a singular entity. For instance, George A. Barton writes in his study, On the Pantheon of Tyre, that“Baal of Tyre was called Melqart (king of the city), we learn from the Phoenician portion of a bilingual inscription from Malta. The Greek portion of the same inscription shows that Melqart was identified with the Greek Herakles.”[iv] Melqart was also known as Baal, Ninurta, Enlil, Adon and Eshmun, thus, Satan. Historians such as “Josephus Flavius refer to Melqart and Heracles interchangeably.” [v]

The word Heracles (Hercules) comes from Ήρα (Hera) and Κλέος (fame). [vi] The fame part reminds us of the Nephilim, the mighty men (הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים hagibborim) who were “the men of renown”(Gen 6:4 ESV), and also the people at Babel said, “Let us make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:4). Therefore, Hercules (Heracles) was another name for Satan.

Likewise, the King of Tyre that God denounces in Ezekiel 28 is considered by most scholars to be the same god with whom Elijah was battling on Mt. Carmel. [vii] In fact, Elijah mocks the god for sleeping “and must be awakened” which were “elements of and allusions to the practice of the ‘awakening’ of Melqart”[viii] which provides further proof of them being the same.

Every year, the Phoenicians celebrated Heracles’ ‘awakening’ (εγερσις) which was considered “the greatest festival of Melqart: the god, burnt with fire, as the Greek hero, was brought to life by means of a hierogamic rite with his divine partner Astarte, through the participation of a particular celebrant, the mqm ‘lm, ‘awakener of deity’.” [ix] In other words, through a “sacred” sexual act, the god was thought to come back to life. The once dead, but then alive again god sounds very much like the “the beast who was, is not, and will ascend out of the Abyss” (Rev 17:8) from John’s visions.

The famous historian Herodotus of the 5th century BC once visited Melqart’s temple and reported that there was “a tomb inside, supporting the theory that, involved as he was in the founding mythology of the city, perhaps Melqart was based on a historical person.”[x] (See next page, Figure 5). The theme, according to Herodotus was that “the Tyrian people paid homage as if to a hero. i.e. as if to one who had died, one who was originally mortal,” [xi] who was deified and became a cosmic lord who grants prosperity.[xii]

In part two, we will explore the theme of the deified hero Nimrod, founder of cities, who was known as the son of Enlil (Satan). In fact, Satan and Nimrod were so closely linked in the ancient world that they were often used interchangeably. Melqart / Heracles was considered the son of Saturn or Zeus, depending on the legend.

Figure 1 Votive Statue of Melqart by Carole Raddato (CC BY-NC-SA).

The interpretario Graeca which existed from the fifth century BC made the connection between Melqart and Baal long before modern scholars. It states:

Heracles was identified with Melqart, whose name means “king of the city”, and who was called the ‘Baal of Tyre’ a west Semitic god who was the primary deity of the Phoenician city of Tyre, and later of its major colony at Carthage. The Carthaginian triad of deities consisting of –‘Baal Shamen,’ Astarte and Melqart became known through their Hellenistic counterparts of Zeus, Asteria and Heracles  … The Samaritans worshipped Melqart as Zeus Xenios on Mount Gerizim (2 Macc 6:2) (Emphasis Mine). [xiii]

Many of us grew up hearing the legends of Zeus and Hercules, yet we never heard about the fact that the real entity behind the legends demanded child sacrifice. It was “extensively practiced in Carthage and ‘made its way into Israel from Phoenicia during periods of religious syncretism.’” [xiv] There is some debate as to how often such an abomination was practiced, though the famous ANE scholar William Albright notes that “the practice was extensive in the Phoenician colonies.” [xv]

Figure 2 Artist’s rendition of Molech.

Sadly, King Solomon led Israel to worship those syncretisms of Satan. He set up “high places to this ‘king’” Milcom, god of deified dead kings, and permitted child sacrifice which continued for hundreds of years. King Josiah, king of Judah shortly before the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem, tried to stop the terrible practice:

He defiled Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech (2 Kgs 23:10). Then the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, which were on the south of the Mount of Corruption, which Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the people of Ammon (2 Kgs 23:13). (See Appendix 6 Abominations of Babylon).

It is incredible, but all roads lead back to Satan. The dragon, Enlil (Satan), is the same deceptive spirit behind the Greek hero Heracles (Roman Hercules), Baal and Melqart. The same spirit is behind the “the Greek Asklepios, who took over many attributes of Semitic healer gods.”[xvi] We know Asklepios as the snake symbol used in the modern medical practice. While this does not mean that we should not go to doctors, it does reveal the philosophical underpinnings of medicine.

Melqart / Heracles were gods located on the Mediterranean whose origins are in Mesopotamia, the land of Shinar. “Archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia suggests that the figure of Heracles is found as early as the middle of the third millennium.” [xvii] Archaeologists found on Akkadian cylinder seals “a hero probably named Ninurta (the son of Enlil the storm god) … shown conquering lions, bulls, snakes, and even a seven-headed snake.” [xviii]

We do not want to get ahead of ourselves, since we will explore Nimrod in greater detail in part two. Nevertheless, we will just note here that Nimrod and Ninurta were the same person. Ninurta, according to the mythology, was the son of Enlil whom we have learned was Satan. Hence, we see the connection between Nimrod (Ninurta) and Melqart and Satan. Moreover, “in Sumerian representations a hero is fitted out, like the later Greek Heracles, with a club, bow and lion-skin.” [xix] Everywhere we turn, we find Satan or the deified Nimrod as the hero extraordinaire. Indeed, “Heracles’ quest for the apples of Hesperides is similar to the quest for immortality in the popular epic of Gilgamesh.” [xx] Interestingly, Heracles was known as a Master of Animals in the Greek traditions, a trait suggestive of his dragon qualities[xxi] and reminiscent of Satan’s qualities as a cherub.

Satan’s ancient disguises are many and elaborate. As we have seen, looking for “Lucifer” in the ancient world is a fruitless endeavor. However, now that we have the key of Satan = Enlil, we have been able to chip away at some of Satan’s masks and have discovered he was everywhere. He was known as Enlil, Baal, Melqart, Heracles / Hercules and dozens of other titles; and, he was the god who exacted a terrible price from his worshipers. His strategy and quest for world domination are just as real today as when he was openly worshipped by the masses millennia ago. We also peeled back one of the masks which gave us a preview of how Satan deified Nimrod, known in the ancient world as his son. The next disguise we will unmask is Satan, the great dragon.


[i] “It is generally admitted that the figure of Melqart and the forms of his cult are reflected in Ezekiel’s oracle against the king of Tyre (Ezek 28: 1-19). This passage consists of two different sections (vv 1-10 and 11-19) both referring to the same personage.” Melqart The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking nd Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 564-566

[ii] https://www.ancient.eu/Melqart/

[iii] Melqart The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 564-566

[iv] On the Pantheon of Tyre Author(s): George A. Barton Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society , 1901, Vol. 22 (1901), Pg. 115-117 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/592422 This content downloaded from 184.96.236.153 on Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:40:31 UTC

[v] https://www2.uned.es/geo-1-historia-antigua-universal/RELIGION-FENICIA/melqart.htm

[vi] Heracles The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). 402-404

[vii] Melqart The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 564-566

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). MELQART

[x] https://www.ancient.eu/Melqart/

[xi] Melqart The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 564-566

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Heracles The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). 402-404

[xiv] TWOT Tophet.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Amar Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, State Archives of Assyria Studies, Volume XIV Helsinki 2002. Pg. 142.

[xvii] Heracles The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). 402-404

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Heracles The Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible, Eds. K. Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking And Pieter W. Van Der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 402-404

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits The Ritual Texts – Styx & PP Publications Groningen 1992. Pg. 161

Satan’s Mysterious Identity as Enlil (chpt 1A of Corrupting the Image 2)

And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. The great dragon … that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world (Rev 12:3, 9).

Criminals sometimes use disguises to give themselves a different look to conceal their identity. They might use a mask, costume, false passports, websites, buildings and so on to gain their victims’ trust and access their money or personal information. Our journey will reveal how Satan has used those same tools since the earliest of times to deceive the world to trust him and give him access to our riches, authority and even our lives. He has at the same time attempted to open the Gates of Hades and thus, unleash his forces upon the world.

Satan did not begin as a criminal mastermind. We do not believe in dualism that teaches there are two equal but opposite powers, i.e. God versus Satan, good versus evil; Satan is not the equal of YHWH. Scripture is clear: God created Satan and He created him good: “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created” (Ezek 28:15). God did not create Satan with the intention of him being wicked and sinful. Instead, He made him good, along with the other angels, including Cherubim / Seraphim, whom He spoke into existence.

Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! …. For He commanded and they were created. He also established them forever and ever (Ps 148:2–6).

The picture we get is that God said, “Michael,” and “Gabriel,” and they immediately began to exist. God spoke Satan’s name and he began to exist. Unlike humans, the angels were created with great wisdom (Ezek 28:12–13), and while they would certainly learn history as it unfolded, they would not have needed to learn to speak, to reason and to comprehend abstract thinking. They had no childhood or age of innocence. Michael, Gabriel, Satan and all the angels must have perceived how God had shared his qualities of speech, art, music, passion and emotion, as well as his likeness with them (Dan 10:1–6; Rev 22:8). At the same time, they must have perceived they were in the presence of supreme greatness, of the exalted King to whom there would never be any equal (Rev 10:1, 22:8–9, Jude 1:9), the One who, upon uttering a simple command, had brought them into existence out of nothing. (See Appendix 2 Angel Freewill).

Enlil (Heilel), Not Lucifer

Unlike Michael (“who is like God”) and Gabriel (“God is my Hero”), we do not know Satan’s original name. Christians have long spoken of Satan, the devil and Lucifer, yet when we research these titles, we find nothing in the ancient world. In Isaiah 14, the prophet said: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Heilel [Hêlēl הֵילֵ֣ל], son of the morning!” (Isa 14:12). “Lucifer” is not Satan’s name; The underlying Hebrew in the word is Heilel ֵ[Hêlēl הֵילֵ֣ל].[i] Deciphering this word using the tools of the Ancient Near East is the key we need.

The ancient translators, not having all the texts we have today, came to this word “Heilel,” a hapax legomenon, (a word that appears once in Scripture), and had to make a guess; they translated it into Greek as eosphorus. We now can go back to early texts of Mesopotamia, written in the Sumerian and Akkadian languages, and do some comparative linguistics. Eos meaning “dawn” and phorus means “bearer.”Eosphorus, therefore, means dawn-bearer, (similarly to how Christo-pher means Christ-bearer). In Latin, Eos (light) became lux, and phorus became pheros, hence “Lucifer” which was a good attempt.  

My friend, Dr. Bill Gallagher, wrote a paper: On the Identity of Hêlēl Ben Sahar from Isaiah 14. He notes how the biblical Hebrew root HLL could be directly related to the ancient god Enlil: “One could reasonably expect hll to be the West Semitic form of Illil. As the Ebla tablets suggest, Illil came into West Semitic directly from Sumerian.”[ii] In other words, Heilel is equivalent phonetically to the Sumerian Enlil … and Akkadian Illil (or Ellil). Dr. Gallagher laid out the parallels between Heilel and Enlil, recreated on the next page:

Table 2 Enlil in Isaiah and Ancient Near Eastern literature

Isaiah’s Description
His name was Hêlēl (Isa 14:12).
He was the son of dawn (vs. 12).
He laid the nations low (vs. 12).
He aspired to set up his throne above the stars of El (vs. 13).
He aspired to sit in the mount of assembly and on Saphon (14:13).
He aspired to be like the Most High (14:14).
He fell down to earth into the midst of the pit (14:12, 15).
Enlil / Illil’s Description
hyll Hebrew equivalent of Illil
Causes the dawn
Illil was a devastator
Illil’s astral function was immense
Illil was among the most prominent members in it (in the divine assembly)
Illil was the highest in Mesopotamia until the end of the second millennium
Illil’s fall into the underworld is recorded in first millennium texts

Comparing Isaiah 14 with the descriptions in Mesopotamian texts, we find that there is a direct correlation. “The name Enlil can thus be rendered ‘Lord Wind”[iii] which is incredibly similar to how Paul refers to Satan as “Prince of the Power of the Air” (Eph 2:2). In Revelation 12:3, John saw a dragon with ten horns. Enlil was regularly represented wearing a crown or helmet with ten horns as depicted in Figure 4, (next page). Revelation has accurately pulled back the curtain on Satan’s secret identity: Satan = Enlil.

Figure 4 Cylinder Seal of Enlil. p. 19. John Gray. Near Eastern Mythology. London. Hamlyn House Ltd. 1969.

We find Satan’s various biblical epithets (his titles) are also matched in the ancient world. Satan boasted in Isaiah that he would “sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north” (Isa 14:13), which is the same description of God’s holy mountain: “Mount Zion [on] the sides of the north, The city of the great King” (Ps 48:2). Alfred Jeremias points out that Enlil was “assimilated to the North Pole of the Ecliptic.”[iv]

Moreover, Samuel Kramer states how the creator god: “An carried off heaven while Enlil carried off the earth and assumed most of An’s powers. “Satan, the ruler of this world” (John 12:31), is shown in the Bible to have temporary dominion over the Earth. Enlil is also glorified as ‘the father of the gods, the king of heaven and earth,’ ‘the king of all the lands.’”[v] We note the comparison with Satan’s boast: “I will ascend into heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; … I will be like the Most High” (Isa 14:13–14).

Though we do not know his original name, we do know that the biblical appellations for him as “Prince of the Power of the Air” and “Heilel” are precisely what Satan was called in the ancient world. The figure in Isaiah 14 was the same exact entity known as Enlil in Sumerian, and Illil in Akkadian. In fact, the epithet Enlil “Lord Wind” was so commonly used that it eventually became the very word for “idols” in scripture. God said to Israel: “Do not turn to the idols [הָ֣אֱלִילִ֔ים ha’elilim] … I am the LORD your God (Lev 19:4). A. T. Clay in 1907 pointed out “the origin of elilim [אלילים], the word translated “idols” in the Old Testament … is probably to be found in the … deity Ellil.”[vi]

Christopher B. Hays also suggests that “idols” may just be a form of Illil (Enlil) which could also mean “god of gods.”

His name was known far and wide throughout the ancient Near East, and in syllabic cuneiform, it was written as Illil (e. g. d.-li-lu); this is taken to be a contracted form based on a doubling of the word ilu, “god”, i. e. il-ilû, “god of gods”… In fact, it is now commonly argued that the Sumerian writing of his name, den.líl (“Lord Wind”) was derived from the Semitic name. [vii]

We have already unlocked a great deal! “Lucifer” is actually Heilel which was Enlil in the ancient world and was almost certainly the same word as “idols” in the Hebrew Bible. Obscuring his specific name has made it easier for Satan to hide his identity through the ages. Nevertheless, because we know that Heilel (Enlil) was syncretized (had fused his identity) with a multitude of gods, we can trace him. Hays notes:

Because lordship itself was Illil’s defining characteristic … Akkadian terms such as illilu, “god of the highest rank” and illilūtu, “divine supremacy” (literally “Enlil-ship”) … illilūtu was ascribed to various other deities over the centuries, including Šamaš, Marduk, Sîn and Nabû, each of whom was called illilu at various times. This background is significant to the biblical use of אליל , since it too arguably began with a specific reference to Illil, but was also applied to other divinities.[viii]

The implications are huge—“Enlil” or “Satan” was quite likely a general term for “idols” which God said not to worship in the Ten Commandments. Also, Satan was known by a host of other titles, though for simplicity, we will generally refer to him as Satan or Enlil throughout this book. Keep in mind that the names and titles, many which we find in the Bible with variant spellings, refer to Satan: Enlil (Isa 14:12), Ninurta (2 Kgs 19:37), Marduk / Merodach (Jer 50:2), Baal / Bel (Isa 46:1), Dumuzid / Tammuz (Ezek 8:14), and more. One of Satan’s disguises the Bible audaciously unmasks is that of Melqart, King of Tyre.

Get the e-book from my store.


[i] His name in the Hebrew is Heilel which should not be confused with Halal meaning praise.

[ii] W.R. Gallagher, On the Identity of Hêlēl Ben Sahar of Is 14:12-15 UF 26 (1994) pp 131-146.

[iii] Jacobsen 1989, The líl of dEn-líl. DUMU-É-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg (Behrens, H., D. M. Loding and M. T. Roth). Pg. 270.

[iv] Jeremias, Alfred 1913. Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur. Leipzig. Pg. 74.

[v] Kramer, Samuel Noah The Sumerians The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963. Pg. 37-42.

[vi] Albert T. Clay, “Ellil, the God of Nippur” AJSL 23 (1907) 277.

[vii] Christopher B. Hays, Enlil, Isaiah, and the Origins of the ʾĕlilim: A Reassessment, ZAW 2020; 132(2): 224–235, https://doi.org/10.1515/zaw-2020-2002

[viii] Ibid.

Did Aliens Seed Planet Earth? DNA Discoverer Thinks So!

Partner with Douglas Hamp Ministries: https://www.douglashamp.com/partnership-2/

Francis Crick (who co-discovered the structure of DNA with James Watson) and Leslie Orgel once proposed that life on Earth was the result of a deliberate infection, designed by aliens who had purposely fled mother nature’s seed to a new home in the sun. Crick repeatedly addressed the question of the origin of life between 1971 and 1988 (I am currently working on a historical study of Crick and Orgel’s theory of Directed Panspermia
Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-directed-panspermia/