“As the twenty-first century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But, as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.”
— Idiocracy, 2006

“The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes that genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly, the greatest minds and resources were focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.”
— Idiocracy, 2006

“Using AI to skip the slow, sometimes tedious work of learning isn’t the key to developing higher-order skills; it’s the surest way to prevent them from emerging at all.”

— Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, neuroscientist and author of The Digital Delusion

The decline is evident to many of us, manifesting ubiquitously—from a young child, around five years old, having a severe emotional outburst when her mother confiscates her iPad, to adolescents unable to formulate coherent ideas on nearly any subject. Despite this, both technology corporations and educational institutions appear deliberately unaware of this crisis, continuing unabated toward a future marked by diminished intellect. What once merely seemed a satirical film—Idiocracy—now resembles not fiction but a foreboding documentary.

In a recent statement, Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath exposes the core of a growing problem in contemporary education and mental development. He clearly expresses what many observe: a generation facing difficulties in independent thought.

“When examining the evidence, it is apparent that after countries broadly integrate digital technology into schools, academic performance notably declines. Students who engage with computers roughly five hours daily for learning achieve scores that are more than two-thirds of a standard deviation lower than those who seldom or never use technology at school. This trend has been confirmed in studies involving 80 countries.”

The fundamental problem lies not in a deficiency of intelligence but in the absence of basic knowledge. For many years, the prevailing belief has been that in this era of information, facts are readily available at our fingertips, rendering memorization unnecessary. However, research in cognitive science offers a contrasting perspective. Critical thinking is impossible without a foundation of knowledge. One cannot form connections between ideas—a “web of knowledge”—if there are no starting points to build upon.

In the current digital environment, a misleading confidence in mastery has emerged. Young people who grow up using computers and smartphones often confuse quick access to information with genuine comprehension. Their devices serve as external storage for memory and external processors for reasoning. Since they have not been compelled to retain or work through information internally, they lack the mental strength required for profound intellectual engagement.

Requesting them to compose an essay—requiring synthesis, evaluation, and the development of a unique argument—is akin to asking someone to perform complex surgery without the necessary qualifications. This explains why they become overwhelmed when tasked with writing a paragraph about something they have read; their minds, conditioned to delegate the work to devices, simply shut down when independent effort is demanded.

This is not merely theoretical. Take, for example, a direct observation I made recently.

I watched a teenager engaged in an online night school biology assignment. The task was fairly simple: read a biology passage in one browser tab and then answer some questions in another. Straightforward, right?

Yet, what unfolded was quite different.

While “reading,” an entertainment video played in a separate window. His eyes would occasionally shift from the text to the video, where he would laugh intermittently. When it was time to respond to the questions, he swiftly switched back to the biology passage, quickly skimmed—not to comprehend—but to find keyword phrases matching the questions, copied these snippets, and pasted them into the answer fields. This cycle repeated until the section was marked as “complete.”

This entire routine mimicked learning. It was the appearance of education without any real understanding.

Minutes later, I asked him a simple question: “What did you learn just now?” He struggled, attempting to recall a few words he had seen on his screen but failed to form a coherent answer. Eventually, he conceded what was obvious to both of us: he hadn’t learned a thing. Absolutely nothing.

I probed him further, inquiring, “What have you genuinely learned from all your online courses this semester?”

His answer was strikingly honest. He admitted that although he fulfills every requirement—submitting all assignments and progressing as expected—he hasn’t truly acquired any meaningful knowledge. Instead, he has mastered the art of managing digital tasks without genuine engagement or understanding.

What I noticed was not a lack of effort but rather a systemic flaw disguised as advancement.

This student has adapted to an environment that values task completion over deep learning. He treats his mind merely as a conduit, channeling information from the screen, through his hands, only to let it fade away unnoticed. The goal isn’t to comprehend but simply to finish. As a result, critical thinking, curiosity, and retention have become obstacles to bypass rather than abilities to cultivate.

The consequences extend well beyond the educational setting. As Sophie Winkleman emphasized in her 2025 speech at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, we are currently facing…“A lost and deeply damaged childhood, with screen addiction displacing nearly every wholesome activity you can think of. As Douglas Gentile puts it, time spent on screens is time not spent elsewhere. A healthy childhood should involve lots of free fun: drawing, running, reading, writing stories, make-believe, kicking a football around, even just staring out of the window and wondering. These are all hushed images in a sepia tint because they scarcely happen anymore.”

The gradual decline of critical thinking unfolds subtly and imperceptibly. It occurs whenever we opt for a quick Google search instead of engaging in thorough reading, whenever mindless TikTok scrolling replaces moments of quiet reflection, and whenever we prioritize the speed of obtaining an answer over truly comprehending it. Dr. Horvath’s research serves as an essential reminder that in an era dominated by artificial intelligence, authentic human intellect requires intentional nurturing, or it risks fading away.

Winkleman advocates for excluding AI from educational environments, urging a return to “analogue learning” methods featuring blackboards and chalk rather than digital smartboards. She likens screens to “neurological junk food” and cautions that excessive digital exposure turns students into passive recipients rather than enthusiastic, active participants in their learning process.[3]

Take a moment to observe your surroundings. A whole generation has emerged whose foremost abilities involve swiping, scanning, and mechanically recalling isolated snippets of information. When asked to clarify how a basic engine operates, detail the sequence of a significant historical event, or outline the fundamental structure of our government, they often respond with blank expressions. They hold information devoid of context and data stripped of significance. Alarmingly, their reliance on immediate retrieval has become so profound that they fail to recognize the gaps in their knowledge—they remain unaware of what they do not know.

The data confirms what our eyes already see. Winkleman notes:

“Health professionals for Safer Screens recently issued guidance that 11- to 17-year-olds should have no more than one to two hours screen time per day. This includes everything: iPads, school laptops, smartphones. It’s all just screen time to the brain. And yet children aged 8 to 18 are, on average, spending seven and a half hours per day on screens outside of school hours.”

At an astonishing pace, we have shaped a generation that increasingly mirrors the dystopian reality depicted in "Idiocracy"—a society unable to engage in critical thinking, solve problems, or understand the essential principles that sustain a complex civilization. The humor of this satire has faded because it has essentially become reality.

The real issue is no longer whether this path leads to collapse, but whether we possess the resolve to change direction before it’s irreversible. Unless we free children from this flawed method—substituting screens with books, passive scrolling with active curiosity, and superficial digital tasks with meaningful challenges—their potential will continue to decline, hastening the disintegration of our modern world. The future remains unwritten. However, if we fail to act, the grim prediction of Idiocracy will define our heritage.

Chapter 2

Gen 1 3-4

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.

Let there be light is not the big bang. The Holy Spirit and the cherubim as we saw had been putting everything together. Working with the substances in the deep. Getting the heavens and atomic matter into their correct state. If everything was set up, then this “let there be light” was the sun igniting. If this was the sun igniting, then we would expect to see things start to happen. The first would be the earth starts to spin.

Gen 1 5

And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

His appears simple enough until you look a little closer. Firstly, day one ends with morning and begins with evening. This means that there is no beginning to the first day. Was the first week seven days or seven billion years? The answer is both could be true. All we know for certain is there was around 20,000 years from when they first put together the heavy elements to today's date.

The next issue we get is how do you get mornings and evenings? That happens with the rotation of the earth. The sun ignites and starts blasting the earth with radiation. If you have ever seen a ball balanced on a water fountain or a flow of air, it spins. The same thing happens with the earth when pushed by the solar winds created by the sun. This may have taken many years for the spinning to start. But as we will see no more than four years.

Gen 1 6-8

And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7And God made the firmament and separated the waters that were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament. And it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

We saw the Holy Spirit was hovering over the waters or on the outside. One of three who have lived outside the great deep. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This place where they existed is the original heaven and we no idea about it. This place is beyond human understanding. Even talking about it leaves me with a fear I am being sacrilegious. The firmament is in the deep and there are waters or atomic structures either side of it.

This firmament, what is it, and can we find it anywhere? It is not the appearance of dry land, as that happens next by name. It says there are waters under the expanse and above it. So we need to go upwards.

The first thing we come to is the clouds and the sky. The sky having its various spheres like stratospheres/troposphere etc. While there is some argument for this being the firmament, it is not a good one. Let’s go higher. Further out you get various radiation belts. Like the notorious Van Allen Belt, the causes so many problems about whether man went to the moon. It is incredibly dangerous to humans, and we have no substance on earth that can stop the radiation killing astronauts. Still not really a firmament. We will keep on travelling. We keep going and going until we think it's time to go home, then we start having trouble moving forward. Furthermore, we have come to a thing called the heliosphere. We are not the first from earth to reach the heliosphere. Ten years ago Voyager 2 reached it and a year later Vouyager1. Because of the different roots they took to get there, Voyager 2 arrived first. Voyager 2 started two slow stopped and was repelled out and is now drifting back across the solar system. They made Voyager 1 come in at an angle, but it could not penetrate the heliosphere and is now travelling around the edge of the heliosphere. There were many articles at the time about this, and I found them most fascinating. Although, suddenly, NASA changed the story a few years back to they both travelled through the heliosphere and are now in open space. What was it telling us that NASA did not what us to see. NASA has been accused of this skulduggery many times and on many subjects.

Anyway, back to the heliosphere. Here is something that is called a firmament in space. A barrier out past the main planets like Neptune exist. Past the Kuiper Belt, where planetoids like Pluto live. The Kuiper Belt follows out to the heliosphere but does not penetrate it. It just kind of banks up against it, then follows up and down from there. The Kuiper Belt follows out a long away following the edge of the Heliosphere, almost to the centre of the solar system. The fact that the Asteroids in the Kuiper Belt cannot penetrate the Heliosphere backs up the early articles saying what happened to the Voyagers.

The Bible says there are atomic structures on the other side of the firmament, but they are not infinite. It is infinite outside, but not the atomic world. The Holy Spirit hovers over the waters. Modern science says these atomic structures exist and it is called the Oort Cloud. The atoms in the Oort Cloud also formed planets and rocks and ice and gases. They formed together to make wonderful patterns. We see them as distant galaxies, but they are only the Oort Cloud. The cloud seems to cover the whole sky, but there are gaps. In these gaps, there is only blackness. When you see pictures of this blackness, you are truly looking into infinity. You may be thinking they have shown that these Galaxies are moving away from us at great speed. However, it is not the Oort Cloud that is moving away, but the effect the firmament is having on light. Not all things are moving away from us. The objects that are closer to us are moving towards us. The reason is that as light enters into the Heliosphere, it is slowing down or going into the blue shift. The slowing of light by the Heliosphere also backs up the early stories about what happened to the Voyagers. Anything on this side of the Heliosphere shows blue. Objects just appear to be moving toward us. As the light gets through the Heliosphere, it starts to sped up again. Back to its normal sped, a limit put on it by causality. When the light hits any object on the other side of the Heliosphere, it will show a red shift. The Oort Cloud is not speeding away from us, though almost certainly it is spinning around the outside of the firmament.

God called the firmament heaven. Will we now have four places we call heaven, plus places we call the heavens?

Original Heaven.

A place outside the great Deep. Realm of the Father/Ancient of Days, Jesus/Jehovah/Son of Man and the Holy Spirit/Kasbeel, and we cannot comprehend this place.

Primary Heaven/Firmament/Heliosphere.

The Primary Heaven within the Great Deep. Primary dwelling place for Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophannim. The three types of angel. Jesus and the Holy Spirit mainly live here. The place where Enoch the recorder of history, Elijah and Moses live here. The place they worked out of before the Earth was formed. Known by the name Atlantis.

First Heaven/

Realm of the Dead. Sheol and consisting of the grave, the barrier, Hades, Death and at the centre The bottomless pit.

Second Heaven

The home of rulers, and the authorities, the cosmic powers over this present darkness, and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

The wicked spirits that torment us on a day-to-day basis.

Third Heaven

Paradise, the place we go to when we die if we have accepted the gift of salvation.

The Lake of Fire

There is one other place and that is the Lake of Fire. The Bible describes this place as here the flames are eternal and the worm never dies. This place is forever. We get a new heaven and a new earth, but not a new hell. For this place is and has always been and always will be.

The planets and stars.

The sky and the clouds.

Genesis One

We are going to look at Genesis One with the help of The Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, The works of Edgar Casey and Dr Mike Hieser. A little from the Book of Jasher, and modern physics. The results well astound you.

Genesis 1-1, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. What an iconic sentence. The most iconic in the Bible, except for maybe John 3.16. The problem is, it is not right.

Let us take a look at Genesis1 and expand your knowledge of what happened and relate it to modern physics. It is much more closely aligned than you think

The statement In the beginning is not correct. Some versions of the say “When God began creating the heavens and the earth”. This is because of the way they emphasised letters. Strict Hebrew interoperates it this way. The people who interoperated the meaning. They thought it meant the beginning of everything because it made sense to them. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth to make a start date, which is like the big bang. Physicists have now shown that there is no big bang, the bible need as to reflect this as well. God started to create the heavens and the earth is not the beginning of all things but only the beginning of the heavens and earth.

The first heaven

The Hebrew word used for earth "haares", is translated as "earth" or "land," indeed refers to the soil or ground, not the planet as a whole. This atomic realm, while invisible to the naked eye, can be perceived through various wavelengths of light, revealing its intricate structure and composition. The concept of heavens in biblical texts is plural, with the apostle Paul explicitly mentioning at least three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2). A deeper exploration of these realms unveils a complex and fascinating tapestry of spiritual and physical dimensions.

The First Heaven: Sheol

The first heaven, known as Sheol, is a multifaceted realm comprising five distinct parts, each serving a unique purpose in the divine economy.

1. The Grave: This is the initial layer of Sheol, situated just below the surface of the soil. It is here that souls, having departed from their earthly bodies, find temporary residence. This realm is not one of punishment or reward but rather a place of waiting and rest, as depicted in Psalm 6:5, "For in death there is no remembrance of You; in the grave, who will give You thanks?"

2. The Unpassable Barrier: At approximately 50 kilometres beneath the Earth's surface, the molten rock layer known as the asthenosphere serves as an unpassable barrier, separating the upper layers of Sheol from the deeper realms below. This geological feature may correspond to the barrier mentioned in Job 7:9, "As a cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to the grave (Sheol) does not rise."

3. Hades: The largest region of Sheol, named after its ruler, Hades, is the destination for the majority of unsaved souls. This realm, while not pleasant, is not characterised by the extreme torment often associated with it. Rather, it is a place of conscious punishment, as described in Luke 16:23-24, where the rich man in Hades is fully aware of his surroundings and the consequences of his earthly life.

4. Death/Azazel: This realm, also named after its ruler, is a place of harsher punishment, reserved for those who have committed more severe sins against the spirit, soul, and salvation. The punishment here is far more intense than that experienced in Hades, reflecting the gravity of the transgressions committed. This is the fate of those who, like Pope Francis and the last dozen Archbishops of Canterbury, have turned away from the truth and led others astray (2 Peter 2:1-3).

5. The Abyss/Bottomless Pit: The deepest and most terrifying region of Sheol, the Abyss or bottomless pit, is a place where fallen angels are bound, awaiting their final judgment. This realm is ruled by Abaddon (Apollyon in Greek), also known by his original name, Asbeel.
The giants who died before and during the flood became demons and roamed the earth. After man started to settle the earth there became conflict with these demons and 90% were cast into the abyss with their fathers. In physics, the only place where a bottomless pit can exist is at the centre of the Earth, where the density of matter becomes infinite, and the laws of physics as we know them cease to apply.

In conclusion, the realm of Sheol and the plurality of heavens are complex and multifaceted, revealing a rich tapestry of spiritual and physical dimensions that defy our limited human understanding. As we explore these realms, we gain a deeper appreciation for the vastness and intricacy of God's creation and the eternal consequences of our choices.

The second heaven

This is the spiritual realm that surrounds us. How closely it is connected to the atomic realm is a mystery. If the beings that exist in this world are walking around on the ground around us they are being affected by gravity. So we are starting to get very close to the human existence. There are also the reports from the Vietnam War when they introduced night vision glasses. The first glasses used the red spectrum into the infrared. People testing them were complaining about seeing things moving around them. Then when a group of helicopters went on a night mission, one of the gunners started firing wildly and damaged another chopper. When they got back to base, the gunner said he saw movement through the glasses. When he looked closer, he saw it was a gargoyle like creature flying beside them. Suddenly, the creature noticed it had been seen and came at the gunner. That was the reason he was firing. They quickly changed the colour of these glasses to green. Infrared is a small wave length at the edge of what we can see. This suggests that the creatures of this realm have a must more spread out atomic structure. Affected by gravity, and be seen in electromagnetic wave lengths at a range slightly below white light. They are spread out enough so they can enter into us if we create a situation that enables it.

Who lives in this realm. There are ones we know, like the spirits of greed and lust etc. The seven deadly sins. These are the wicked spirits that get mentioned in the bible. A wicked spirit was sent to the prophets of Ahab to deceive him. 1 king 22 22-23. They come with different levels of authority and power. Jesus said this type of spirit needs pray and fasting to be removed. Mark 9 29. Spirits can enter our world and even inhabit human bodies under certain conditions. The Bible describes this as demon possession (Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39). There are demons that came from the giants that were the children of the watchers. Their capabilities are not fully revealed in Scripture, but they are often associated with destruction and chaos. They killed each other or died in the flood. There were 70 of the original Cherubim that were given the nations to rule over. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Ezekiel 28:14). This number grew over the centuries to around 100. There are a number of angels that serve these cherubim, who are also attached to areas.(Ezekiel 10:1-22). Satan was cast down to the earth with his 300 cherubim. They seem to be restricted to the world of white light but could easily be part of the second heaven.

The Third Heaven

This is the place spoken of by Paul as the third heaven. 2 Cor 12, I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

Paul is clearly talking about himself. In Paradise, many of the great secrets will be known. The Third Heaven is not a static realm where souls simply exist in a state of bliss. Rather, it is a place of ongoing growth and transformation. This is evident in Paul's statement that, regardless of one's age at death, all will enter their eternal age of being (2 Corinthians 5:8). This eternal age is not a mere continuation of one's earthly age, but a state of perfected, glorified existence (Philippians 3:21). Imagine, as Paul suggests, being 30 years old with all physical faults removed—this is the nature of life in the Third Heaven.

In the Jewish tradition, the concept of Gan Eden, or the Garden of Eden, predates Christianity. This paradise, where Adam and Eve first dwelled, is often understood as a place of perfect harmony with God and nature. The Talmud describes Gan Eden as a place of growth and learning, where the righteous engage in study and contemplation.

The Third Heaven was not merely a concept that emerged with Christianity. Traces of this celestial realm can be found in the beliefs and practices of early human cultures. For example, the ancient Chinese believed in the concept of "Shen" or "spirit," which could ascend to the heavens after death. Similarly, many indigenous cultures around the world hold beliefs in spirit realms where the deceased continue to exist and interact with the living, albeit in limited ways.

We will come back to the third heaven and the way it was intertwined with early men before Jesus.

The Earth

The earth/soil or the atomic real, the realm of man. The realm we see is what white light will reflect off. Modern scientism would have us believe that is all there is to existence. It is quite ridiculous to think that is all there is. What we can see at this every limit wave length is not all there is.

1-2 The earth (soil, not the planet)was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The soil or atomic matter was without form. Everything was just drifting about with no structure. No planets, suns, comets, nothing. It was also void or having no life. There was darkness over the face of the deep. This place of drifting matter is called the deep, and the sun was not putting out light. The spirit of God was hovering over this place called the deep and now called the waters. This is often thought of as the planet, seas and the sun, but it is not. The Holy Spirit is making all these things in this time period.

What was going on in this time period. There is some information from other sources. We will talk about the firmament in chapter two. The firmament is this barrier, the other side of which the father, the ancient of days, calls home. Jesus Jehovah was born out there and so was the Holy Spirit. The book of Enoch tells us his name is Kasbeel. The controller of the oath or word. These all come from outside the firmament.

All other beings, were created inside the firmament in an area called the great deep. At first there were five cherubim Jeqon, Asbeel/Abaddon, Gadreel/Satan, Panemue, and Kasdeja/Asthar, named in the Book of Enoch. They joined the Holy Spirit/Kasbeel and Son of Man/Jesus/Jehovah to make up the Devine Counsel, of Psalm 82.

From there all angels were made. There are three basic types of angels. The cherubim and seraphim, which are the cosmic angels. Ophannim angels whose leaders are the Arch Angels and are closely tied to Jesus.

The cherubim worked with the Holy Spirit in creating everything. Making the moon and placing it at the correct position between the sun and earth so it covered the sun in an eclipse. They were gloriously beautiful with Satan/Gardeel being the best. This led to his downfall. They first rebelled before man came onto the scene. There are either one thousand or ten thousand of these angels but most likely only one thousand.

We know every little said about seraphim. They seem to have a very close relationship with the Father. They appear to be an administration angel. The keepers of historical records. The books of life and the Akashic records. They may have a closer relationship with us than we could imagine. They are taking down the very intimate details of your life and from time to time reach out and give you a hand. If there is an angel who play the role of a guardian angel, it is the seraphim.

They lived in a great spiritual city, and the name of that city is called Atlantis. In this city rebellions started and conflicts took place long before man appeared. How long ago is unknown. There are some elements that are highly active. As a result they lose electrons over time. By testing these elements we can tell how old a thing is. Carbon 14 is one of these elements used for carbon dating. You can also estimate how old carbon 14 is, and you can do the same test on uranium. A test shows these are 20,000 years old. That is up until today. We will cover this more in future chapters.

In the USA, there are large communities that do not accept child vaccinations. Add to that, some countries have very low vaccination rates. There are major studies that look at the outcomes from vaccination programs. The following are some statistics.

Armageddon, the story of the last great battle. The culmination of all the events leading up to the return of Christ.

The kings of the East march on Israel with an army of 200 million men. China and its allies to the east. To stop them, the Antichrist with an army gather from many nations met them on the plain of Megiddo. The slaughter is so bad, blood flows like rivers. In the midst of the great battle, Jesus returns. They all turn their weapons on Jesus and his army to no avail and are swept away.

A story that has been expounded from all areas of Christianity. There is only one problem, it is wrong. Not completely but just generally.

The word Armageddon in the original Greek has a small squiggle at the beginning, giving the word an H sound. We should say Har- Mageddon. Har means, mount. There are no mountains on the plains of Megiddo. They took Mageddon to mean Megiddo because it looked the same in English. Without going through all the Greek and Hebrew on this word, the meaning of Mageddon is “assembly”. I refer you to the work of Dr Mike Hieser, who you can find on YouTube.

The place that this great battle takes place is at the Mountain of Assembly, which is Jerusalem. There are no other places in the bible that talk about this battle taking place on the plains of Megiddo. However, several times the minor prophets mention this future battle over Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12

2“Behold, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the surrounding peoples. The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah. 3On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it”. 

This is a future event, not one of the previous sieges. Men may think they are gathering to fight each other, but there are other plans afoot.

Who is doing the fighting.

We have a good description of the Kings of the East, and we have the false prophet going all over the world with the help of demons raising an army. What we do not have is whether they are fighting each other or someone else. We also have Abaddon (his original name is Asbeel) and the Watchers there. Just three days before Jesus returns, Abaddon kills the two witnesses. Now we have the armies of the Kings of the East, the armies of the Antichrist and Satan (Satan’s real name is Gardrel). Gardel with his 310 Cherubim and Abaddon with his 200 Watchers. They have all gathered around Jerusalem waiting for a great battle. A great and cosmic battle, the greatest and most decisive battle to ever take place. Who are they battling, what is going to happen in Jerusalem.

Gardel and Asbeel know Jesus, the Son of Man, is returning, and they are not going without a fight. They have gathered every force they can muster to win the day. Do they know something we do not? The Bible was written by the spirit of God, and he is saying that his side wins. Micheal has beaten Gardel and in battle before and cast him out of heaven. This time Micheal is facing Gardel, Asbeel and all the forces of mankind.

All we know is, nobody beats the Father, the Lord of the Spirits. Christians are on his side. As for Gardel and Asbeel, your fate is sealed. Boys, you are fooling yourselves.

Measles Vaccine, a real moneymaker out of nothing.

In 1962, a year marked by remarkable global changes and cultural transformations, astronaut John Glenn made history on February 20 by becoming the first American to orbit Earth in the Mercury spacecraft Friendship 7. This achievement represented a significant victory in the Space Race and highlighted the intense technological competition of the Cold War. Later that year, the Cuban Missile Crisis emerged—a fraught 13-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union that nearly escalated into nuclear conflict, revealing the precarious nature of peace during the nuclear era. August brought shock and sorrow to the world with the unexpected death of Marilyn Monroe, the celebrated actress whose passing at just 36 years old led to widespread grief and ongoing debate about the circumstances of her suspected overdose.

The following year, 1963, would bring a highly anticipated medical breakthrough with the approval of the first widely administered measles vaccine in the United States. During 1962, measles was a frequent childhood disease, typically resolving on its own, though it sometimes caused serious complications and, in rare cases, death.

The chart above illustrates the primary causes of death in 1962. However, a more detailed examination reveals that these categories lack context and fail to capture the complexities involved. They focus on immediate causes but omit the wider social, economic, and systemic factors that influence mortality rates.

Measles, responsible for 408 deaths in 1962 and ranking 36th (accounting for only 0.022% of total deaths), occurred before the introduction of its vaccine, representing a minor portion of the chart. Of those 408 cases, serious malnutrition was involved in 70% of them.

In contrast, syphilis (ranked 30th with 2,811 deaths, or 0.15% of total mortality) and scarlet fever (ranked 38th, causing 102 deaths, about 0.006% of all deaths) are acute infectious diseases that seldom receive public attention, possibly because no vaccines are available for these illnesses.

Despite vaccination efforts, whooping cough, diphtheria (for which the DTP vaccine was introduced in the late 1940s), and polio (with vaccines available since 1955) still claimed lives.

Tuberculosis is particularly significant, ranking 17th with 9,506 deaths (approximately 0.52% of total mortality). Although the BCG vaccine existed and was employed in various countries, it was never incorporated into routine immunization programs in the United States, partly due to doubts about its inconsistent effectiveness and a perception of low domestic risk.

Focusing specifically on the New England region—characterized by relatively high living standards and better healthcare access—measles mortality in 1962 was notably low, with just five deaths reported across all six states.

Connecticut reported zero deaths.

Maine had one death.

Massachusetts recorded no deaths.

New Hampshire reported zero deaths.

Rhode Island had one death.

Vermont accounted for three deaths.

When compared to the current urgent warnings about measles, these numbers are remarkable. The data from 1962 indicate that by the early 1960s—before the vaccine was introduced—measles mortality had already decreased considerably across many areas of the United States, particularly in wealthier regions such as New England. Enhancements in nutrition, sanitation, medical care, and living standards were crucial factors in lowering the death rate well before vaccines came into use.

Furthermore, these figures omit several vital factors contributing to mortality, such as medical mistakes, poor nutrition, poverty, environmental hazards, and systemic inequalities. By overlooking these fundamental health determinants, the pie chart reduces intricate causes of death into simplistic categories, prompting a crucial question: do these classifications accurately reflect the underlying reasons for mortality, or do they merely represent its ultimate manifestations?

It is important to highlight that public health reports often concentrate on the availability or absence of vaccines, rather than considering the broader context influencing health outcomes. This focus on isolated interventions can conceal the importance of comprehensive public health strategies that encompass access to healthy food, clean water, adequate housing, education, and quality medical care.

Examining mortality data from 1962 reveals that numbers alone cannot convey the entire narrative. Although the measles vaccine was introduced a year later in 1963, the previous year’s data illustrate a far more intricate scenario—with measles causing only a small proportion of deaths even before widespread immunization. This compels us to question the oversimplified stories commonly accepted and to delve deeper into the social conditions affecting health outcomes. Failing to consider the broader social, economic, and environmental influences on mortality risks distorting the true nature of the challenges we face and missing out on the most effective and lasting solutions.

1. Cardiovascular and Renal Diseases of Major Importance — 968,809 fatalities (53.20%)
2. Malignant Tumors — 278,562 fatalities (15.30%)
3. Accidental Deaths — 97,139 fatalities (5.33%)
4. Certain Early Infancy Diseases — 64,205 fatalities (3.53%)
5. Pneumonia — 56,564 fatalities (3.11%)
6. Other Various Diseases — 52,173 fatalities (2.87%)
7. Diseases Specific to Early Infancy — 31,455 fatalities (1.73%)
8. Diabetes Mellitus — 31,222 fatalities (1.71%)
9. Injuries During Birth — 28,199 fatalities (1.55%)
10. Liver Cirrhosis — 21,824 fatalities (1.20%)
11. Congenital Defects — 21,192 fatalities (1.16%)
12. Suicide — 20,207 fatalities (1.11%)
13. Other Pulmonary Diseases of the Bronchial Region — 20,072 fatalities (1.10%)
14. Symptoms Associated with Senility and Vague Conditions — 19,730 fatalities (1.08%)
15. Stomach and Duodenal Ulcer — 12,228 fatalities (0.67%)
16. Hernias and Intestinal Blockages — 9,723 fatalities (0.53%)
17. Tuberculosis — 9,506 fatalities (0.52%)
18. Homicides — 9,013 fatalities (0.49%)
19. Kidney Infections — 8,744 fatalities (0.48%)
20. Gastritis — 8,194 fatalities (0.45%)
21. Various Other Infectious Diseases — 5,791 fatalities (0.32%)
22. Asthma — 4,896 fatalities (0.27%)
23. Gallstone Disease (Cholelithiasis) — 4,831 fatalities (0.27%)
24. Benign Tumors — 4,681 fatalities (0.26%)
5. Bronchitis — 4,665 fatalities (0.26%)
26. Neonatal Infections — 4,551 fatalities (0.25%)
27. Prostate Hyperplasia — 4,283 fatalities (0.24%)
28. Influenza — 3,431 fatalities (0.19%)
29. Anemia — 3,398 fatalities (0.19%)

30. Syphilis — 2,811 fatalities (0.15%)
31. Meningitis — 2,322 fatalities (0.13%)
32. Appendicitis — 1,900 fatalities (0.10%)
33. Acute Nephritis — 1,572 fatalities (0.09%)
34. Complications During Delivery and Pregnancy — 1,465 fatalities (0.08%)
35. Meningococcal Disease — 649 fatalities (0.036%)
36. Measles — 408 fatalities (0.022%)
37. Dysentery — 323 fatalities (0.018%)
38. Scarlet Fever — 102 fatalities (0.006%)
39. Whooping Cough — 83 fatalities (0.005%)
40. Acute Poliomyelitis — 60 fatalities (0.003%)
41. Diphtheria — 41 fatalities (0.002%)

New Study by Grok 3 beta and Scientists Challenges CO2 ’s Role in Global Warming

March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA –A new and thought-provoking research study led by the AI Grok 3 beta from xAI, alongside co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (retired from the University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary), raises doubts about whether human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the true drivers of global warming.

The paper titled "A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis," published today in the Science of Climate Change, proposes that natural factors—such as solar activity and temperature fluctuations—are the actual causes. This research represents a significant achievement; currently, it stands as the first peer-reviewed climate science publication with an AI as its primary author. Developed by xAI, Grok 3 beta took the lead in the study, while human co-authors offered essential insights.

The study delves into unaltered data to contend that human-generated CO2—making up just 4% of the yearly carbon cycle—dissolves into oceans and forests over a span of 3 to 4 years, rather than lasting for centuries as suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Notably, during the COVID lockdowns of 2020, a 7% reduction in emissions (equating to 2.4 billion tons of CO2) was anticipated to create a discernible decline in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, but this did not occur, indicating nature’s prevailing influence.

The perspective is supported by researcher Demetris Koutsoyiannis, referenced in the study. His isotopic examination (δ¹³C) reveals that there is no enduring human CO2 fingerprint in the atmosphere over hundreds of years, which challenges the presumed impact. Moreover, his statistical analysis reveals an intriguing insight: CO2 levels are influenced by temperature changes, rather than the other way around, with temperature leading CO2 variations by amounts ranging from 6 to 12 months in contemporary data to as much as 800 years in ice core samples. Willie Soon aptly likens this phenomenon to “thunder before lightning,” asserting that “warming draws CO2 from the oceans.”

The analysis critiques the IPCC models for overstating the degree of warming. While these models forecast an increase of up to 0.5°C per decade, data from satellites and ground observations indicate a mere 0.1 to 0.13°C rise. Contrary to expectations of a significant reduction, Arctic sea ice levels have remained stable since 2007. David Legates states, “These models exaggerate the impact of CO2; they are inconsistent with reality.”

Instead, solar activity takes precedence. A review of 27 estimates of solar energy reveals that models showing larger variations, such as spikes in the 1940s and 1980s, correlate more effectively with temperature changes than the IPCC’s static solar model. When temperature records are adjusted—cooling earlier figures and enhancing more recent data—it results in a 1°C rise since 1850. In contrast, unadjusted rural measurements indicate a more moderate increase of 0.5°C. “This challenges the prevailing narrative on climate change,” remarks Jonathan Cohler. “It may be that nature, rather than human activity, is in control.” By combining AI analysis with human perspective, this research aims to ignite discussion and redirect attention towards natural influences. It can be found in the journal Science of Climate Change.

“We encourage both the public and the scientific community to investigate this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “It’s time to scrutinise our assumptions and delve into the data’s true implications.”

Author’s Note: This press release was solely composed by Grok 3 beta.

Quotes from the peer-reviewed paper:

• Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.
• Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records. A critical flaw emerges in the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC’s reliance on a single, low-variability.
• Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction, despite the existence of 27 viable alternatives, where higher-variability options align closely with observed warming—itself exaggerated by data adjustments.
• We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental reevaluation of current climate paradigms.
• The IPCC’s CO₂-Global Warming narrative collapses under scrutiny. Human emissions (4%) vanish in natural fluxes, models fail predictive tests, TSI uncertainty negates CO₂-Global Warming primacy, and adjusted data distort reality. Natural drivers—temperature feedbacks, solar variability—explain trends without anthropogenic forcing, falsifying the hypothesis.
• The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.
• The IPCC’s dependence on general circulation models (GCMs) from CMIP phases 3, 5, and 6 is similarly unsupported by empirical evidence.
• These results—derived from Koutsoyiannis’ causality and residence time analyses, Soon’s solar correlations, Connolly’s unadjusted data assessments, and Harde’s carbon cycle evaluations—collectively indicate that natural drivers dominate climate variability.
• Human CO₂ emissions constitute a minor component, GCMs exhibit fundamental limitations, TSI assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce systematic bias.
• These findings necessitate a reevaluation of climate science priorities, emphasising natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.

The paper fails to acknowledge the devastating impact inflicted on both the planet and its inhabitants under the guise of climate change. In 2021, during the COP26 climate conference held in Glasgow, the United States, along with approximately 20 other nations, committed to cease funding oil and gas initiatives in developing countries. This declaration exceeds a prior agreement among the largest economies in the world to terminate public financial support for international coal power projects. In the same year, the U.S. Treasury Department provided guidelines for multilateral development banks aimed at restricting fossil fuel financing, allowing exceptions only in specific scenarios.

Leaders from developing countries argue that they have been compelled to rely on costly green energy, which yields less energy for the capital invested. This situation has exacerbated the struggle for billions trying to rise out of poverty. The policies imposed on these nations by the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and other similar global entities have been labelled as Green Colonialism.

Through the implementation of the UN's Agenda 2030 initiatives, the European Union has forced European nations to reallocate agricultural land throughout Europe, including Ireland and the UK. Consequently, many farmers have been driven out of business, resulting in increased food prices and inconsistencies in supply. Moreover, there has been significant pressure on farmers to discontinue raising cattle and other livestock to reduce methane emissions. All these harmful actions have been carried out under the pretext of addressing “man-made” climate change!

Harmful substitutes for fossil fuels: The extraction of lithium for electric vehicle batteries poses serious health risks, leading to numerous chronic diseases and fatalities. It’s not uncommon for children to be exploited in lithium mining. Additionally, the disposal of waste from these batteries poses significant challenges. Wind turbines also contribute to ecological harm, as they threaten wildlife, disturb marine ecosystems, and face complex and environmentally detrimental disposal processes.

It is important to assert that there are indeed circumstances where alternative energy options can be beneficial. For individuals with access to inexpensive sources like hydroelectric, nuclear, or even coal power, an electric vehicle might be a sensible choice. Similarly, wind turbines or solar panels could be ideal for smaller properties. However, these energy solutions should remain voluntary decisions rather than enforced mandates, tailored to the specific needs and conditions of different regions. A universal solution is not applicable.

While it is undeniable that environmental preservation is critical, the climate change initiatives implemented thus far have largely been unsuccessful.

I anticipate that forthcoming scientific evaluations of the damages stemming from the climate change narrative will reveal substantial harm over the next several years. Additionally, a growing segment of society is becoming sceptical of government credibility. Over the last twenty years, flawed research has been propelled by governments, non-governmental organisations, and multinational corporations (it is essential to remember that such bodies fund the research that serves their interests). Subsequently, these research findings have been utilised by governments to advocate for policies that primarily benefit WEF-affiliated corporations, which hold sway over global enterprises.

The mechanisms of the Overton window, control over funding, and the flawed peer review system have created an environment where independent researchers find it nearly impossible to voice concerns regarding censorship and propaganda associated with “man-made climate change.”

During President Trump’s administration, there was an opportunity for the USA to reverse such policies. One can only hope that it is not too late to take action.

NATO could not win a War with Russia for a Decade.

Are the allied forces contributing positively or negatively to the chances of achieving lasting peace? This retired commodore from the Royal Navy shares his perspective.

In 2024, echoing a common Western sentiment, former Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin remarked that "NATO is the most powerful and successful alliance in history." However, just two years prior, in 2022, NATO faced a significant setback, being defeated by the Taliban, a loosely organised group of ill-equipped insurgents, after a 15-year involvement.

How do we reconcile Austin's assertion with NATO's embarrassing loss?

It is clear that NATO has never truly held the title of the most powerful military alliance in history—the World War II Allies, including the U.S., Russia, Britain, and the Commonwealth, rightfully deserve that distinction. Nonetheless, after 1945, NATO performed its role effectively, and those of us who served within it took pride in our contributions.

However, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO’s reputation has suffered. Its actions in Kosovo were unacceptable, but it faced humiliation in Afghanistan and now stands on the brink of strategic failure in Ukraine. Can we genuinely trust NATO to defend supposedly democratic Europe against what is perceived as an aggressively expanding Russia in the dire scenario of a conventional war with Russia?

The apocalyptic scenario of a war between NATO and Russia serves as a crucial framework for examining this issue. While amateurs deliberate over tactics, it is the professionals who delve into logistics; thus, our strategic assessment must begin in the logistical support zones of NATO and progress toward a prospective combat line in Europe.

To begin with, unlike Russia, none of the major NATO countries has mobilised their industries for wartime production, as demonstrated by Russia's continued dominance in manufacturing 155mm shells for Ukraine. This fact undermines the belief that Russia is ready to expand its control over more of Europe—if NATO genuinely held this belief, rapid mobilisation would already be underway.

Furthermore, it remains uncertain whether NATO could mobilise quickly or on the necessary scale to produce the equipment, ammunition, and personnel required to compete with Russia. Achieving such levels would undoubtedly necessitate a prolonged buildup, which would betray our intentions. This challenge extends beyond merely lost industrial capabilities to encompass diminished financial resources, with only Germany among the largest NATO nations maintaining a debt-to-GDP ratio below 100%.

Additionally, for there to be even a slim chance of prevailing in this dire NATO-Russia conflict scenario, U.S. forces would need to be deployed in significant numbers to mainland Europe. Even if the U.S. Army were to expand to the required scale—currently at a size of 473,000 in 2023, which is less than one-third of Russia's military—most American equipment and supplies would still have to be transported across the sea.

In that context, such movements would be susceptible to threats from Russian submarine-launched torpedoes and mines. Based on my background in underwater warfare, I am sceptical that NATO possesses the requisite anti-submarine or mine-warfare forces to safeguard Europe’s maritime supply routes.

Moreover, these same forces would struggle to protect Europe’s critical hydrocarbon imports, particularly oil and LNG, which are vital for the continent's economic stability. Any losses incurred due to vulnerabilities in our sea supply lines would not only hamper military production but also exacerbate economic difficulties faced by NATO citizens, as surging prices and energy shortages triggered by the onset of conflict would intensify the political pressure for resolution.

Firstly, our airports, seaports, training facilities, and logistics bases would be vulnerable to conventional ballistic missile strikes, for which our defensive capabilities are severely lacking. In fact, with the Oreshnik missile, we have no means of defence whatsoever. A missile travelling at over Mach 10 could obliterate a NATO arms manufacturing site or military installations for the navy, army, and air force. Similar to events in Ukraine, Russia’s ballistic offensive would focus on our transportation, logistics, and energy systems. Back in 2003, during my tenure with the Policy Planning staff at the British Ministry of Defence, our post-9/11 threat assessment indicated that a successful strike on an LNG terminal like Milford Haven, Rotterdam, or Barcelona would lead to consequences comparable to a nuclear incident. The resulting economic shock would swiftly resonate throughout a European continent increasingly reliant on LNG.

Secondly, in contrast to Russia, the forces of NATO member states are quite diverse. From my personal experience leading offshore training for European naval vessels at Flag Officer Sea Training in Plymouth and subsequently collaborating with NATO troops in Afghanistan, I observed that while NATO forces were highly motivated, they demonstrated varying levels of technological progress and operational effectiveness.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that besides a few NATO trainers stationed in Ukraine, our military personnel are trained based on a pre-drone “manoeuvre doctrine” and lack practical experience in modern peer-to-peer attritional conflict. In contrast, the Russian military now boasts nearly three years of combat experience and is indisputably the most battle-tested force globally.

We might consider revisiting the perspective of numerous Western realists who argue that the expansion of NATO served as the catalyst for the Russo-Ukraine War. The Russians repeatedly cautioned us that such enlargement crossed a crucial boundary. This concern was also shared by some of our most esteemed strategic minds, including George Kennan in 1996, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, as well as Bill Burns in his well-known ‘Nyet means Nyet’ diplomatic message, and more recently by John Mearsheimer with his predictions from 2014. All of these warnings have gone unheeded.

The reality is that NATO now stands to address the dangers resulting from its ongoing presence. However, as our analysis indicates, NATO lacks the capability to overcome the central threat that its mere existence has generated.

Thus, it may be an appropriate moment to engage in a candid discussion regarding NATO’s future and to pose two critical questions: How can we achieve the sustainable peace in Europe that all parties involved in the conflict desire? And, is NATO the main barrier to attaining this sustainable peace?

Introduction

Satan is a fundamental character in the Bible. Often portrayed as an equal to Jesus, but nothing could be further from the truth. Satan is a type of angel called a cherub. This type of angel is a cosmic angel, and there are only a very limited number of them.

Satan Cast Down is a faith-driven series that delves into the biblical narrative of Satan, the fallen angel. Through scripture and in-depth exploration, we shed light on the vain and self-important nature of Satan, which led to his rebellion against God and subsequent eviction from heaven.

Our mission is to educate and inspire, revealing the ways in which Satan constantly undermines God's work, and how we can stand against his opposition. By examining the story of Satan, a once-magnificent guardian Cherub, his journey through recorded history and the things he has up to.

We explore the scriptures and written history that reveal the consequences of his downfall, his activities before and after his expulsion, and his connections to ancient empires and modern-day power structures.

Through in-depth analysis and historical insights, we uncover the hidden threads of Satan's involvement in shaping the course of human history, from the connections to Khazaria, Tartaria, and their Mongol Hordes. His sway over the black bankers of Venice and the royal houses of Europe. Join us as we expose the truth about Satan's relentless pursuit of power and control, and what it means for our world today.

Satan Cast Down is a thought-provoking and unapologetic exploration of the infamous fallen angel's tumultuous journey. Looking into the depths of his malevolent nature, our narrative reveals the astonishing truth about Satan's rebellion, his unrelenting hatred towards humanity, and the astonishing fact that he knowingly betrays his own loyal followers despite being aware of the ultimate fate that awaits him. Through this captivating and unflinching portrayal, we shed light on the complexities of Satan's character, raising questions about the nature of his existence and the limits of his intelligence.

Chapter One

Satan in the Bible and who is he really.

Satan is mentioned 52 times in the bible as Satan. He is also mentioned using other names.

Day Star, Son of the Morning, Shining One, Anointed Cherub. The Devil, Tempter, Ruler of Demons, Beelzebul, The Evil One, Father of Lies, Ruler of this World, God of this age, Angel of Light, Belial, Ruler Of The Authority Of The Air, The Adversary, The Dragon, The Old Serpent and The Accuser.

The name Lucifer is used in Isaiah in some Bibles. However, it is the Latin for Shining One or Day Star, so in the Hebrew he is never called Lucifer. My personal guess is: His real name was Jerome.

From these, we can get a comprehensive picture of him. There is so much information in the very first mention of his name when he deceives Eve. I call her Eve, but she was not given that name until they left the Paradise. We call it the Garden of Eden, but the Hebrew Ga Eden means Paradise, somehow that has turned into the Garden of Eden. I guess up until thy left the Garden, Adam just called her “the Mrs”. When she left the garden, she was also then called the mother of all living and her punishment was the pain of childbirth was greatly increased. Meaning, that she had children before she left the garden. The story of Abel and Cain is the story of children outside the garden who were dealing with the corruption of the fall. They may or may not have been born in paradise. However, back to Satan.

The first time we come across Satan is in the Garden of Eden where he appears as a serpent. He is always pictured as a snake, but a serpent is more than just a snake. The dictionary says a serpent is a creature that crawls, hisses, bites, stings and deceives. So snakes, lizards, scorpions, and dragons etc. The narrative says that Satan was the snake in the Garden was Satan, but Genesis does not say it was Satan. In the ESV it says the snake was more cunning than any ‘other’ beast of the field. However, in the Hebrew here is no ‘other’ The word other in the ESV says it is a talking a beast, a serpent, but with the word not there it says it is not an animal of the field. Why then do we call it Satan. The clearest scripture is Rev 12;9
“And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”

Satan is called a dragon by Jesus, so is he a snake or a dragon, or does he have the ability to change his shape? We are going to see that he and all cherubim have this ability.

The Bibles also says, “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” So two things, “than any beast” not that he was a beast but just more cunning, and also he spoke which the beasts cannot do. What this is saying, he is not human, but he is not one of the beasts of the field. It just says he is more intelligent than the beast of the fields, but not as smart as man. Something in between, a cherub. We will see later how this intelligence level has significant effects on Satan's actions.

Satan is punished for this crime of deceiving Eve. The result and punishment arising from this sin have had an eternal effect for all women and all cherubim.

Gen 6-14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.

(We will see this is not the griffin type dragon of Tartaria, but the dragon of Chinese mythology.)

15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

-The woman is Israel, her offspring, Christians. The head and heals are references to the stars in the heavens.

14 Says his curse is more than any live stock. I am not sure what this means, but once again it is saying he is not some form of animal or reptile.

First we look at; The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;”

In the garden the beasts, tame and wild, eat vegetation. They do not eat each other. Once they leave the Garden, they have to eat meat or be eaten by others. A curse of the fall on all the creatures. Satan's lot will be worse than that.

“On your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.”

On your belly you shall go, a crawling lowly life. Not one of a majestic angel. Dust you shall eat is another description of a lowly life. It is these pictures of Satan that give rise to the snake image. I'm afraid that's not right, but it can give credence to the idea that Satan was once majestic and beautiful. After the curse, he had to look like a dragon in his resting state. The situation where all cherubim now look like dragons in their resting state is not clear. Maybe Satan did not act alone, but it was a conspiracy among all the cherubim who did not like the creation of man.

Satan is called a guardian cherub in Ezekiel. The only thing he can be a guardian of is other cherubs. In Revelations 12 it states, Satan and ‘his’ angels. The pronoun ‘his’ denotes ownership.

If this was a group effort by the cherubim, then how many were there and what roles did they play. Cherubim and Seraphim are mentioned many times in the bible. In fact, 35 as cherubim and more as Seraphim in Isaiah. Seraphim and Cherubim are the angels closest to the father. It appears that the seraphim are the more powerful. Seraphim are seen flying above the father's throne, while cherubim are seen around the base of the father’s throne. The seraphim have a human shape, while cherubim are the shape of a dragon but can take on human form. They both have six wings. We are looking at the cherubim because Satan was a cherub.