Watchman Willie Martin Archive

                      Chronological Chart of History

1991‑1786: B.C. 12th Dynasty. The Patriarchs.

1776‑1280: Hebrews in Egypt.

1728‑1686: Hammurabi.

1720‑1550: HYKSOS.

1570‑1310: 18th Dynasty.

1400‑1350: Tell el‑Amarna Period.

1370‑1353: Akhenaton.

1340‑1310: Haremhab.

1310‑1200: 19th Dynasty.

1309‑1290: Seti I.

1290‑1224: Ramses II.

                        Inscription of Prince Ameni

     (Carved in the doorway of his cliff-tomb in Benihasin.)

The final conquest of Nubia was attained by Sesostris III in 1840 B.A. This king conducted not less than four campaigns in this district, and probably more; and by his canalization of the cataract passages, and the erection of fortresses at strategic points, he made this country a permanent possession of the Pharaohs, which was never lost except for a time during the HYKSOS period, until the dissolution of the Empire. (Breasted).

In Egypt, the family of Jacob became known as Hebrews because that was the name of their language. They were also known as Israelites because Jacob’s name had been changed to Israel with the family becoming known as the children of Israel. There has been a great deal of misinformation written and told about these people. But the truth has also been told.

One day it will be understood by their decedents.  The people known as Israel in Egypt were the pure seed decedents of Adam and Eve. Their genealogy is confirmed by Scripture and by history. They were of that Celestial family placed on Earth to do the works of Yahweh, the Creator of the Universe and their Heavenly Father. He placed them in Egypt where their ancestors had been before them and where Adam was buried. He was buried in the great temple, built by their ancestors who had been there with Enoch. A common error, which has been placed in writings by the children of Satan, had misled many decedents of Israel. This error is due to the mis‑use and mistranslation of words. For instance, the word “Jew” is used in the translated versions of our Bible as well as other writings. The word “Jew” did not exist at the time Israel’s family was in Egypt.

In the chronology of our Holy Scriptures it was not used or known until many hundreds of years after the Israelites or Hebrews (not Jews) had come out of Egypt. At the time it was used by the Israelites, it referred to a certain people who lived in Southern Judea. These people were called “Yehudi”, a Hebrew word when translated to the English language means “Jew.” To understand the true source of this word one must search the Scriptures as well as the history of those people who were known at that time by the name “Yehudi.” Let us now continue with our story of the Israelites and we will return to the Yehudi as

our story moves on. We needn’t repeat the entire story of Moses here, but he was chosen by Yahweh to be the leader or Patriarch of the Creator’s people. Moses had been taken out of Egypt for his training. He married into the family of his ancestor Enoch, his wife being a tall blue‑eyed daughter of one of the HYKSOS SHEPHERD KINGS. These were members of the same race of people as was Moses and the same family who had remained from the days prior to Isaac and Jacob.

The families of Israel had multiplied in Egypt and were brought out by Moses as one nation. Upon their exodus, Moses set out the thirteen tribes or families whose genealogy had been maintained by their customs from ancient days past. There were now thirteen tribes because Joseph had given his birthright to his two sons Ephraim and Manassah, splitting the twelfth tribe into two parts. This added one tribe to the original twelve making a total of thirteen tribes. Ephraim and Manassah are the House of Joseph, both being tribes of the Whole House of Israel. While in Egypt, Joseph had married a tall, blue‑eyed daughter of the High Priest of the City of On (Heliopolis). These people of On were of the same race as Joseph and were the decedents of Enoch and the HYKSOS SHEPHERD KINGS from the days prior to Isaac and Jacob. There has been a misconception on the part of many authors and translators who have described the wives of Moses and

Joseph as “Egyptian women.” These women were not the so‑called Egyptian of mongrel seed as were the native inhabitants at that time. They were daughters of the former HYKSOS SHEPHERD KINGS who were also called Aryans. Ancient writings describe both the wife of Moses and the wife of Joseph as tall, blue‑eyed and fair complexioned women.

As Moses took the family of Israel out of Egypt, he set three tribes on the North, three on the South, three on the West and three on the East. The tribe of Levi ordained as the new priesthood was placed in the center. Each of the twelve tribes, other than the tribe of Levi, had a standard which identified it and which derived from the ancient days of their forefathers. The standards of the twelve tribes are the twelve.

From “Archaeology And The Bible,” by George A. Barton, pages 109-110:

“The Canaanites. Between 1800 and 1750 B.C., a migration occurred which greatly disrupted all western Asia. There moved into Babylonia from the east a people called KASSITES. They conquered Babylonia and established a dynasty which reign for 576 years. Coincident with this movement into Babylonia there was a migration across the whole of Asia to the westward, which caused an invasion of Egypt and the establishment of the HYKSOS dynasties there.

“As pointed out previously, it is possible that this movement, IN SO FAR AS THE LEADERSHIP OF THE INVASION OF EGYPT WAS CONCERNED, WAS HITTITE. In any event, however, many Semites were involved in it, as the Semitic names in the Egyptian Delta at this time prove. IT IS CUSTOMARY TO ASSUME THAT IT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS MIGRATION THAT THE CANAANITES CAME INTO PALESTINE.

“This cannot, in the present state of our knowledge, be clearly proved, but such evidence as we have points in this direction. There began at this time a new period of culture at Gezer, which is quite distinguishable from that which had preceded. This indicates the coming of new influences. Moreover, THERE WAS APPARENTLY AN AUGMENTATION OF THE POPULATION OF PALESTINE AT THIS TIME. New cities were formed at Tell el-Hesy and Tel es-Safi, and elsewhere. We thus feel sure that there was an increase of population and, when next our written sources reveal to us the location of the nations, THE CANAANITES WERE DWELLING IN PHOENICIA. The Egyptian scribes of a later time called the entire western part of Syria and Palestine ‘The Canaan.’

“Probably, therefore, the Canaanites settled along the sea coast. We, therefore, infer that they came into this region at this time. With the coming of an increased population, the Amorites appear to have been in part subjugated and ABSORBED, and in part forced into narrow limits. A powerful group of them maintained their integrity in the region afterward occupied by the tribe of Asher and in the valley between the Lebanon and anti-Lebanon mountains, where they afterward formed a kingdom. Another group of them survived to the east of the Jordan, where they maintained a kingdom until overthrown by the Hebrews.”

                          The SHEPHERD KINGS

       In an article published by Destiny Magazine, October 1962, entitled “Enoch’s Mission and Shem’s Responsibility” (pages 201-204 in the 1962 yearbook), Howard B. Rand quotes Manetho as saying that the “HYKSOS” were “SHEPHERD KINGS.” Yet, at the same time, his article places the “SHEPHERD KINGS” with Pharaoh  Cheops of the 4th Dynasty several hundreds of years before.

We are quite surprised that Rand didn’t recognize this discrepancy before he wrote the article. As the HYKSOS were only in Egypt for a little over a hundred years in the reigns of Kamose at the end of the 17th Dynasty and Amosis at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. The article is outstanding in bringing many interesting facts into perspective from which we will not quote excerpts:

“During the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, the records indicate that the Egyptian government was in opposition to the idolatrous worship that had been established in the land. Cheops, the Pharaoh ruling at that time, was accused by the idolatrous worshipers of being very arrogant toward the gods, having shut up their temples and having compelled the priests to labor

“THE SHEPHERD KINGS. Historical fragments set forth the fact that at this time there was a notable stranger in Egypt who remained at the site of the Great Pyramid. The priests whom Herodotus the historian consulted regarding the earlier history of Egypt described this stranger as a shepherd to whom, rather than to Cheops, the Egyptians attributed the building of the Great Pyramid.

“Cheops apparently furnished the sit, the workmen and the materials. The record refers to this stranger as a keeper of sheep and he is called ‘Philition’ or ‘Philitis’...

“When the people of Israel left Egypt and were moving through the wilderness, in order to bolster their morale, they were told of a much earlier people who, in like manner, had been led out of Egypt. They were called Caphtorims who came out of Caphtor, to whom Moses referred in Deuteronomy 2:23, See also Genesis 10:14.

“This place called Caphtor was the very region in Egypt where today the Great pyramid stands. The Lord, through the Prophet Amos, refers to the people as Philistines whom He brought up from Caphtor (Amos 9:7).

“Therefore, we learn from the historian Herodotus (confirmed in the Scripture) of Philistines (Caphtorims) once living in the neighborhood of the Great Pyramid, who wee the object of Divine favor and who were led out of Egypt before the Israelites left the land.

“These were not the Philistines of the time of the judges and David, but a much earlier people who feared and reverenced the true God...Coming to Palestine from the Nile Delta, they were known in Egypt as ‘The SHEPHERD KINGS.’

“...after the Deluge, Shem became the first of the SHEPHERD KINGS who reigned in Egypt. He was held in highest honor by the people in that land for having delivered them from the Cushite yoke... Thus, when the idolatrous priests were again in the ascendancy, everything possible was don to blacken Shem’s memory.

“THE REFORMS OF SHEM. During the reign of the shepherd King Set, or Shem, and his immediate successors, the complete overthrow of the Egyptian gods occurred; their temples were demolished and idolatry in any form was forbidden throughout the land...This was mainly the work of Shem, the Shepherd King was also Priest of the Most High God, in his conflict with the gross idolatry of ‘Egypt. The heathen temples were literally smashed to pieces...

“Manetho says that the shepherds were finally prevailed upon to leave Egypt, which they did without molestation, and went to Judea where they built the city of Jerusalem. Josephus, the Jewish (Judean) historian, calls these shepherds ‘our ancestors,’ which is definitely the case if SHEM WAS THE FIRST AND MOST POWERFUL SHEPHERD KING OF EGYPT...”

“It appears in the HYKSOS WE HAVE SOME SHEPHERD KINGS WHO WERE NOT SHEPHERD KINGS, and in the Caphtorims some Philistines who were not Philistines. We can now see the important fact that the pharaoh related to Assenath was a Shemite. Understanding this is to understand the Bible.

“Now we will be getting into areas not usually encountered in the average study of Scripture. Some of these things may seem strange and quite different than you ever dreamed they might have been. We believe that once we learn something of these seemingly bizarre circumstances it will add to our understanding of Yahweh’s Word considerably. As usual these matters are altogether different than we were ever taught they were.

“We have found out thee were two different pharaohs ruling in Egypt at the same time during the HYKSOS period, and that the pharaoh at Thebes was subservient to the HYKSOS. Then, too, we learned that Joseph was probably sold to the authority at Thebes rather than the HYKSOS. In addition, we found out that, through Joseph saving the Egyptians from starvation, the sons of Jacob were given Egypt’s very best land. We determined, also, there were two seven-year famines in Egypt’s history. Further, we learned that Joseph placed a 20% income tax on some of the people where it was legal to do so.

In our investigation, we discovered it was the Pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife; intimating he, the pharaoh, was Shemitic in stock. Then we explored the subject of SHEPHERD KINGS, which we will continue at this time.”

Walking step by step through Israel’s sojourn in Egypt from Joseph until Joshua:

“In this walk, we are going to try to thoroughly comprehend the true nature of the events during this era of time. Yahweh had good reason for placing Israel in Egypt, and we will try to understand the reason for such a stay. It is our opinion that Yahweh placed Israel in Egypt so that Egypt might fight off many of the enemies Israel would be facing later on; so that they could gain their strength. It is now time to prepare ourselves with more facts concerning these things.

“Because the subject of the SHEPHERD KINGS is of such great magnitude in importance we must prioritize our time to delve into it. It may come as a surprise to many, the symbol of the SHEPHERD KINGS is the Sphinx and the first Shepherd King was Adam, and the priesthood was called the Order of Melchizedek.” Howard B. Rand, in Destiny Magazine, October, 1962 wrote an article “Enoch’s mission and Shem’s Responsibility” (1962 Destiny yearbook pages 201-204) which we will now quote in part:

“Order Of Melchizedek. When Shem[‘s]... followers, came out of Egypt, they founded at Jerusalem the city destined to become the City of David and also the capital of the Kingdom of Yahweh when Yeashua, who is of the Order of Melchizedek... (we will be using the Tetragrammaton).

“The priestly Order of Melchizedek began with

Adam and the Preafhers of Righteousness from Adam to Noah were of this Order. Noah is recorded as the eighth Preacher of Righteousness in 2 Peter 2:5. The fifth chapter of Genesis begins, ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam,” AND NO ONE OF THE LINE OF CAIN IS RECORDED THERE. As stated in Primogenesis.

“Noah was the tenth in generation. The reason he was but the eighth in priestly line was because Enoch was translated before his father died and did not come to the priestly office. (Genesis 5:24) Methuselah, the son of Enoch, took the office directly from his grandfather Jared, the father of Enoch. Methuselah, in turn, outlived his son Lamech, so the office passed directly to his grandson, Noah, the son of Lamech. (Genesis 5:27) Noah, therefore, became the eighth Preacher of Righteousness, though the tenth in generation, because these two, Enoch and Lamech, never succeeded to the priestly office.’ (Primogenesis, p. 44)

“In this line of Preachers of Righteousness, Shem, Noah’s son, became the ninth. As stated in Primogenesis: ‘The Order of Melchizedek, in its earthly representation, began with A”dam as the first Preacher of Righteousness. Noah was the eighth and Shem the ninth...’So also Yeashua glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’ (Hebrews 5:5-6)

“In His ministry, He was a Prophet; in His atonement, He was a Priest. When He returns, He is to be King. Thus, in the order of Melchizedek, He is Prophet, Priest and King.’ (Primogenesis, pp. 66-67)

“Order of Master Shepherds. The Bible also records a line of master shepherds beginning with these Preachers of Righteousness, who wore the shepherd’s garb as the insignia of office. From Abraham to John the Baptist, in each generation there were those who were members of this ancient and honorable Order. Then Yeashua associated Himself with the office, becoming the Grand Master of the Order of Master Shepherds: ‘I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.’ (John 10:14-15)

“Ninth Preacher of Righteousness. It is fitting, therefore, that Shem, who was the ninth Preacher of Righteousness and also a member of the Order of Master Shepherds, was entrusted with the construction of the Great Pyramid at Gizen in Egypt... Only a building that is pyramidal in shape is completed by placing a capstone in position...

“A Sign and Witness. Many generations after Enoch’s day the Prophet Isaiah was constrained to write: ‘In that day shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the Land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahweh. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Yahweh of Hosts in the land of Egypt.’ (Isaiah 19:19-20) Undoubtedly Isaiah was aware that this was the Pillar of Enoch; that to Enoch its design was committed and on Shem the responsibility its design was committed and on Shem the responsibility was laid to build this remarkable structure in the land that had harbored the people of Israel for four hundred years and had later sheltered...Yeashua.”

Along the same line of thought, we will now follow up with another article appearing in Destiny Magazine of October, 1955 (Inside front cover), entitled “Shem The Powerful.” Actually, we will be quoting a quotation which the article cites from a book “The Worship of the Dead or The Origin and Nature of Pagan Idolatry,” by a Colonel J. Garnier:

“Sphinxes were the particular form of sculpture associated with the SHEPHERD KINGS, and were constructed in honor of Set (an Egyptian name given to Shem), while the Great Sphinx seems to be especially associated with the Great Pyramid built by Suphis (another name associated with Shem). As the Tanis Sphinxes (a group of three sphinxes at Tanis, Egypt); are unmistakably the likeness of one particular individual, it seems certain that they represent the features of the first great shepherd king. Set the Powerful (Shem)...

“If, then, these heads are likenesses of the great Shepherd King Set, they represent the exact features of the antediluvian patriarch Shem, and we behold in them something of the type of primeval man as he first came from the hands of Yahweh...In representing him therefore, as a lion with a human head, there was a certain fitness, and the idea was probably borrowed from the Cherubim, the form which seems to have been generally known...”

Because Howard B. Rand used Ussher’s chronology, he believed that Shem was contemporary with Abraham, and that Shem was the one to whom Abraham paid his tithes. We were also under the same illusion until we took the time to check the Masoretic text against the Septuagint. After making a chart of both chronologies, we found that the Septuagint has Shem dead for about 650 years before Abraham was born.

There is a total discrepancy of 1486 years between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. We doubt very much whether Ussher’s chronology (which is based on the Masoretic text) is correct. If the oldest living patriarch was the family priest-king, Abraham, therefore, probably paid his tithes to Nahor #2, his brother, rather than Shem.

Also, it was found in the Masoretic text that Heber was born before Abraham, and died after him. This highly unlikely as Heber was Abraham’s great, great, great, great grandfather. Genesis 11:26-27 tells us that Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. Inasmuch as Nahor #1 (Abraham’s grandfather) died, and Terah became pagan, the priest-king office was probably left to Nahor #2; Haran having died before Abram and Tera left Ur of the Chaldees. (Genesis 11:28) Therefore, we believe it is possible Nahor #2 may have been Abraham’s Melchizedek. By the priest-kingship skipping the generation of Terah (breaking the lineal order) might explain why Melchizedek was without lineal descent.

It should be becoming quite clear in our studies on this subject that Joseph and his pharaoh (probably Amosis), Joseph’s wife Asenath and her father were all descendants of Shem. We should also be starting to realize that the Great Sphinx, a little up the road from the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, is emblematically a representation of Adam through Nahor #2, (less Enoch, Lamech and Arphaxad who were outlived by their fathers), and Yeashua the Redeemer-Messiah Himself. And, also, that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh is a monument and emblem of Enoch, predicting Adamic-Israel’s future along with some other amazing data and revelations. Surely, Isaiah was correct when he wrote, Isaiah 19:19-20:

“In that day shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the eland of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahweh. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Yahweh of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they (as the Israelites formerly did) shall cry unto Yahweh because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a savior, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.”

Today we are in the time of oppression spoken of in verse 20. It tells us here that we are to be delivered by a “savior” (singular). We are not going to be delivered by an arm of flesh, but by the Almighty Himself. There have been those courageous men who tried it and failed; it didn’t work! But, this is no reason we should neglect being in a strong defensive posture, ready for any eventuality. Yahweh will reveal to us when it is time to go on the offensive.

We believe that the reason the altar and pillar were placed in Egypt is because our coming deliverance will be very similar tot hat experienced in the Exodus, and that the wicked pharaoh of today, like then, is going to “let our people go,” and it will require the death angel to accomplish it.

We have to put first things first. How are the “tares” going to be rooted up unless they are first identified? The good news is; the enemy, the “Jews,” are quickly being identified, no help from, nor thanks to, the one seedliners. There is one common ground though, among both the one and the Two Seedliners, along with the patriots; we are all crying because of our present day oppression.

                       Is There Biblical Support?

If all we have read from these excerpts of Destiny Magazine, and if Howard B. Rand is somewhere near being correct, there should be some Biblical evidence that there was a lapse of the SHEPHERD KINGS from Nahor #2 until Yeashua the Messiah. Hebrews 7:12 indicates that, at the first coming of Yeashua, there was a change from the priesthood of Aaron back to the priesthood of Melchizedek. Let’s take a look at it:

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

From this, we believe we can be reasonably sure that Rand was correct in his premise there was a lapse of the Melchizedek priesthood during the days of the Aaronic priesthood, and that the Levitical law was changed to accommodate a return to it. For further study along this line, it might be advisable to study Hebrews chapters 5, 6 & 7 along with Genesis 14:18 and chapter 110 of the book of Psalm, especially verse 4.

                   Who and What Was Manetho?

Because Destiny Magazine and Rand quote Manetho in their postulations about the SHEPHERD KINGS, we need to learn more about this Egyptian priest. For a brief explanation of this man, we will quote from the “World Scope Encyclopedia (1951),” volume 7:

“Manetho...a historian of ancient Egypt, flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Soter, at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. He was a priest in Lower Egypt and is the author of two important works, one on the history and the other on the religion of his country. Both books have been lost, but fragments have been preserved by later historians, including Eusebius and Josephus. In the Armenian version of Eusebius is a list of the Egyptian dynasties according to Manetho, the dates of which appear to have been derived from genuine documents, including the sacred books of the Egyptian priests.”

For a more detailed account on Manetho, we will use the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” ninth edition (1894), volume 15, pages 485-486:

“Manetho. Manetho Sebennyta...’beloved by Thoth.’ Egyptian priest and annalist, was a native of the Delta. His name was connected by Plutarch with the reign of Ptolemy I, and he is usually stated to have written under Ptolemy II Philadelphus, though the only authority for this is an epistle to that king of the Pseudo-Manetho, author of the FORGED BOOKS OF SOTHIS preserved by Syncellus.

“He was instructed in Greek; so Josephus tells us, and the three books of his Α_wπτ_αά composed in that language opened to foreigners the history of Egypt from the mythical period downwards, as it was preserved in the records of the priests. Undoubtedly the book is now known only by lists of fragments preserved by Josephus in his treatise AGAINST APION, by Eusebius in his CHRONICA, and by Syncellus. Syncellus used the work of Eusebius (also known through Jerome and the Armenian version) and lost PENTABIBLON of Africanus.

“Thus the little that was known of Manetho’s history has reached us through A PROCESS OF TRANSCRIPTION AND RETRANSCRIPTION very unfavorable to the correct transmission of the lists of kings and dynasties, to which Josephus alone adds any considerable narrative excerpt. It seems indeed that our AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES USED VARYING AND PARTLY CORRUPT RECENSIONS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT, AND THAT DELIBERATE CORRUPTIONS OF THE MANETHONIC TRADITION WERE NOT WANTING appears from the existence of the ‘Book of Sothis’ cited by Syncellus, WHICH WAS UNDOUBTEDLY A SPURIOUS WORK.

“That Manetho himself made honest use of his Egyptian sources is generally recognized, since the Egyptian monuments have afforded confirmation of many, though by no means all, of his statements; but how the corrupt and varying data we now have should be used, or whether the Egyptian tradition can be made the basis of a rational chronology of the oldest historical period is doubtful.”

The above quotation should give you some idea of what to expect in Manetho’s writings. The Egyptian pharaohs were so notorious for trying to erase the history of the pharaohs before them; that, undoubtedly, Manetho may have had a lot of spurious records from which to work. Whether or not he was biased in his own writings cannot be easily ascertained, but what motive would he have had for changing the record 1000 years after the fact? But, whatever conclusion we arrive at, we must realize there are problems with the data ascribed to him.

Josephus On Manetho. The Works of Josephus has a good amount of comment concerning this Egyptian scribe. In “Against Apion,” 1:12. Josephus starts quoting Manetho. He continues quoting him until ‘Against Apion,” 1:16, where he says:

“In the first place, that we (Israel) came out of another country into Egypt; and that withal our deliverance out of it was so ancient in time, as to have preceded the siege of Troy almost a thousand years; but then, as to those things which Manetho adds, NOT FROM THE EGYPTIAN RECORDS, but, as he confesses himself, from some stories of an uncertain original, I will disprove them hereafter particularly, and shall demonstrate that they are NO BETTER THAN INCREDIBLE FABLES.”

Then Josephus goes on to other subjects and picks up Manetho again in ’Against Apion,” 1:26, where he says:

“And now I will turn my discourse to one of their principal writers, whom I have a little before made use of as a witness to our antiquity; I mean Manetho.”

Then Josephus continues with his criticism of Manetho in “Against Apion,” 2:3. If you don’t already have Josephus in your library, you may want to get a copy, if you already have one you can check these passages which we have pointed out for yourself.

Confusion breeds confusion; Two HYKSOS groups:

Apparently, what we have in “Against Apion,” 1:14, is utter confusion as the facts do not entirely concur. In this passage Manetho speaks of

“men of ignoble birth but of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force...At length they made one of themselves king (pharaoh)...and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute...he founded...a city...called Avaris...”

Manetho is confusing two different peoples as being HYKSOS when he says,

“This whole nation was styled HYKSOS, that is, Shepherd-Kings, for the first syllable Ηγκ, according to the sacred dialect denotes a King, as is Soς, a shepherd...”

Then Howard B. Rand picks up some of this confusion in his articles, quoted herein, published in Destiny Magazine. These HYKSOS were definitely not Israelites as Josephus thinks, for when Jacob and company came to Egypt, they were but seventy souls, Genesis 46:26. These Israelites were not of “ignoble birth:” they didn’t subdue Egypt by force; they didn’t impose tribute on the upper and lower regions; they didn’t set over themselves a king; and they didn’t settle at Avaris.

In “Against Apion,” 1:15, a very critical Manetho is supposed to have said:

“When this people or shepherds were gone out of Egypt to Jerusalem...”

Again in “Againt Spion,” 1:26, Josephus speaks of Manetho, saying:

“...he then ascribes certain fabulous stories to this king, as having in a manner forgotten how he had already related that the departure of the shepherds for Jerusalem had been five hundred and eighteen years before...”

It is apparent that this group of SHEPHERD KINGS were not the Israelites of the Exodus, for it was not until the time of David that the city of Jerusalem was secured from the Jebusites, 1 Chronicles 11:4-7. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THIS GROUP OF SHEPHERD KINGS WERE THE SHEMITES THAT SETTLED IN EGYPT AT AN EARLIER TIME AND BUILT THE GREAT PYRAMID AND CONTINUED THERE AS THE RULING CLASS AND AS PRIESTS. And, that some of the descendants of Shem later left Egypt for Jerusalem, and Nahor #2 was at that location when Abraham arrived there to pay his tithes to Melchizedek (Nahor #2), priest of Salem.

It would appear, it is a necessity to separate the early SHEPHERD KINGS of Shem in Egypt from the later HYKSOS (an Israel group) and the Israelites themselves.

                       HYKSOS Return to Canaan

We do not agree with Ian Wilson when he makes the following comment in his book “The Bible is History,” on page 71:

“Yet if it was not the Egyptians, Kenyon’s favored candidates; the land-hungry HYKSOS/Canaanite invaders returning from their settlement in Egypt; are hardly more plausible. After all, the last thing a group of this kind would do, would be to destroy and abandon a city they had fought for in order to make it a new home. This would be particularly the case with Jericho, which has one of the best water supples anywhere in Israel, including a natural spring pumping out water at the rate of 17 3/4 gallons per second.”

“After they HYKSOS were successfully driven out of Egypt, they apparently returned to Canaan. Evidently, one of the places they returned to was Jericho. We believe we would rather favor the view of Kenyon than Wilson, that it was from the HYKSOS returning to their former position at Jericho. From all the evidence we have seen the HYKSOS occupied a very wide area at the zenith of their expansion. If you will remember, we stated at the start of this study:

“At their height, the HYKSOS occupied the land of the Hurrians, Carchemish, Syria, Palestine and much of the northern part of Egypt.”

At this point, in their retreat, the HYKSOS were probably simply returning to an area they had formerly occupied. We would rather believe the HYKSOS knew they needed a strong position and that they rebuilt Jericho to defend themselves from the threat of advancing Egyptians.

Pharaoh Amosis did not pursue the HYKSOS any great distance after he initially defeated them and drove them out of Egypt;

“After three years of siege, the Egyptians were finally victorious, slaughtering many, if not nearly all of the HYKSOS. No doubt, the Egyptians also took many of the HYKSOS as slaves. Thus, the Theban government regained control over trade between Egypt and Palestine. The Egyptians under Amosis did not pursue the HYKSOS on into Palestine at this time. It was some 61 years later that Thutmosis III advanced into that area.”

               Where Did The HYKSOS Come From?

For this we will get back to the article “Ashkelon, Ancient City Of The Sea,” in the “National Geographic,” of January, 2001, page 74:

“The Canaanites, a people who probably originated in eastern Syria, had begun migrating down the Mediterranean coast about seven centuries earlier. ‘They came by the boatload,’ says Stager, ‘They had master craftsmen and a clear idea of what they wanted to build; big fortified cities.’

“The Canaanites made Ashkelon a major center of trade, exporting wine and olive oil through the eastern Mediterranean. Stager’s team recently found evidence of the cosmopolitan nature of the Cannite Ashkelon; part of the 13th century tablet used to teach scribes languages. The tablet had one column of Canaanite words, which would have matched up with two or three adjacent columns containing equivalent words in different languages. Based on complete tablets found in Syria, linguists suspect that one column would have been a Semitic language called Akkadian, another an unrelated tongue, possibly Hurrian or Hittite.”

From the description of Ashkelon above, we can clearly see it was a commercial center. One might describe it as the New York of its day. Essential to trade would be the necessity of understanding and conversing in all the various languages with whom one might be doing the trading. No doubt, these HYKSOS-Canaanites were related to the people we know today as “Jews.” For another two references on how the HYKSOS invaded Egypt and Pharaoh Amosis I finally drove them back out are found and described in the book “The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun,” on pages 35-36:

“During the Thirteenth Dynasty a force from the area of Palestine and Syria attacked and conquered northern Egypt. These people, probably Syrians who ruled the eastern Mediterranean, were called HYKSOS. It is not know how long the HYKSOS ruled northern and middle Egypt. Some historians estimate as long as sixty-six years...from the Fourteenth through the seventeenth dynasties...There are varied assessments as to the extent of the destruction and exploitation practiced by the conquerors. Building inscriptions show that the foreigners enjoyed being Eytptianized and even adopted the pharaonic style and titles. No doubt conventional progress remained inert, but the civilization seems to have held together. In fact, the regime at Thebes in the south retained a large measure of independence as the HYKSOS were able to extend their rule only to the point about midway between Memphis and Thebes...”

This all seems to fit the Bible account quite well. Not only did all these peoples migrate into Palestine, but Egypt made inroads there also. For this story, we will quote again “Archaeology And The Bible,” by George A. Barton, pp. 108-109:

Egyptians also came to Palestine during this period. “The tale of Sinuhe relates the adventures of a man who fled to Palestine in the year 1970 B.C., and who reached the land of Kedem, or the East, which apparently lay to the east of the Jordan. It is referred to several times in the Old Testament. (See “Genesis 29:1; Judges 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; Job 1:3) Sinuhe there entered the service of an Amorite chieftain, Ammienshi, married his eldest daughter, became ruler of a portion of his land, and lived there for many years. He finally returned to Egypt and wrote an account of his adventures. The region was also called by Sinuhe and other Egyptians Upper Retenu, a name which they also applied to all the higher parts of Syria and Palestine. Retenu is philologically equivalent to Lotan (Genesis 36:20, 22, 29; 1 Chronicles 1:38, 39) and Lot (Genesis 11:27; 12:4) When Sinuhe arrived in Kedem he found other Egyptians already there. Ammienshi was ell acquainted with Egyptians. There was apparently considerable trade with Egypt at this time. Men from Palestine often went here for this purpose. Such traders are pictured on an Egyptian tomb of this period. Trade with Egypt is also shown to have existed by the discovery of Egyptian scarabs of the time of the Middle Kingdom in the excavations of

Gezer, Jericho, Taanach, and Megiddo.”


We have more conformation about the “Princes’ Wall” in Egypt. It seems that it amounted to a series of fortresses situated in about the same area as the Suez Canal is located today. You can find this additional information in the “National Geographic” Magazine for December 1982 entitled “Lost Outpost of the Egyptian Empire,” by Trude Dothan, pp. 739-763, 768-769. Although this article gives uprooting evidence to the report given by Werner Kesser in his book “The Bible As History,” both accounts do not coincide in all details. It would be well for you to compare the two stories for there are some differences in the two accounts. Because of this, the following will be a critical review of Trude Dothan’s article in the issue of National Geographic just referred to here. We have no doubt that both articles are referring to the same thing. Part of the introduction to this National Geographic article reads:

“Artifacts from the late Bronze Age outpost attest to the part it played on the highroad to Egypt. In that era, called ‘the first international age,’ new contacts blossomed between the Nile and the world beyond. The Egyptian presence on the coast in Moses’ time may explain the rout of the Exodus through the Sinai desert.”

We will continue now with short excerpts form the main article:

Eventually we were to uncover not only a cemetery full of archaeological treasures, but also a hidden city, a fortress, and a reservoir; all more than 3,000 years old. And we were to find a clue to a biblical mystery concerning the Exodus: Why, in their flight from Egypt, did Moses take the children of Israel inland to the wilderness instead of pursing a far easier path along the coast?”

A map of Egypt on page 742 has the following comments:

“Known to Egyptians as the Ways of Horus, the coastal artery from the Nile Delta to Canaan was called ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’ in the bible. Six fortresses along the route have been identified.

“The Exodus. Israelis’ 13th century B.C., flight from Egypt may have been through southern Sinai to avoid Egyptian coastal strongholds.”

Continuing with excerpts starting with page 760:

“The FORTRESS, constructed partially above the ruins of the palace, was of even more massive construction. Its WALLS, MORE THAN TWO METERS THICK, apparently supported two stories. Corner bastions indicated that this fortress, too, was BUILT IN THE ROYAL EGYPTIAN STYLE, AND IN A MANNER STRIKINGLY LIKE FORTRESSES SHOWN ON THE RELIEF RECORDED BY PHARAOH SETI I ON THE WALLS OF THE AMON TEMPLE AT KARNAK, FAR UP THE NILE.

“This relief, from about 1300 B.C., depicts the ANCIENT ROUTE FROM EGYPT TO CANAAN, A WELL-TRAVELED ROAD KNOWN TO THE EGYPTIANS as the WAY OF HORUS. There is more than simply a resemblance between our fortress and the details of the map; the relief provides AN ALMOST EXACT BLUEPRINT OF THE KIND OF STRUCTURE WE WERE UNCOVERING...

“My chief assistant and stratigrapher, archaeologist and Egyptologist Baruch Brandl, had never been satisfied with the geologists’ explanation that the huge depression was a natural feature caused by erosion. Baruch felt that its outlines were too regular; there had to be something more to it than that. Finally we recognized the most important clue. MOST OF THE FORTRESSES DEPICTED ON SETI’S KARNAK RELIEF ARE CONNECTED WITH LARGE WATER RESERVOIRS OF VARYING SHAPES.

“The crater at Deir-el-Balah, we now realize, was actually a reservoir, about 20 by 20 meters, with very steep sides. Thus our ground plan of the fortress and its adjacent pool fit exactly the depiction of Seti’s relief...As the central feature of a roadside fortress, it served many uses besides providing drinking water. A large volume of water would have been needed to prepare potter’s clay...

“Two of the fortresses shown along the Ways of Horus are designed at towns ‘which His Majesty built newly.’ Considering the close connections between Egypt and Canaan during the XIX Dynasty, it is POSSIBLE THAT OUR FORTRESS, WITH THE THICK WALLS AND CORNER TOWERS, WAS BUILT DURING THE REIGN OF SETI I, WHO RULED NEW KINGDOM EGYPT AND ITS EMPIRE IN CANAAN FROM ABOUT 13 18 TO 1304 B.C.

“On the basis of the pottery found in the fortress, we believe that it flourished during the reign of Seti’s son, Ramses II (about 1304-1237 B.C.) To whose reign we date the anthropoid burials as well... The Ways of Horus holds much interest for scholars.”

The article goes on to quote Exodus 13:17 and explains why it was expedient for Moses to take the way of Sinai rather than the “Ways of Horus.” Now quoting again from page 763:

“But our excavations at Deir el-Balah reveled the wisdom of this choice for by escaping into the desert, THE ISRAELITES AVOIDED THE POWERFUL FORTRESSES OF THE VERY PHARAOH FROM WHOM THEY HAD FLED...The period in which they lived was one of intensive international trade and of great ETHNIC CHANGES and political upheaval. It was the TIME OF THE LAST FLOWERING OF THE EGYPTIAN NEW KINGDOM before its decline to the point where THE BIBLE SCORNED IT AS A ‘BRUISED REED.’” (II Kings 18:21)


As we are looking for evidence which surrounds the story of Esau-Edom, we need to take into account an important archaeological find at Nuze. For this information we will quote from “The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible,” 1964© edition, “Archaeological Supplement,” p. 351, item 4401. Before making this quote, we would like to point out there is evidently a VERY MISTAKEN conclusion at one point on the part of the writer:

“Nuzi. (Yorghan Tepe), a mound 150 air miles north of Babhdad, was excavated in 1925-31 by a joint expedition of the American School of Oriental Research in Baghdad, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Dr. Edward Chiera was the director. The soundings reached virgin soil, yet the level of occupation uncovered was the 15th to 14th centuries B.C., when the city was populated by the Hurrians, who were the long-lost Horites of the Old Testament.

“”From the place and from private villas or wealthy homes they recovered about 20,00 (pieces of broken) clay tablets which were written by Hurrian(?) Scribes in the Babylonian cuneiform language, but with the occasional employment of native Hurrian or Horite words. The tablets consisted largely of commercial accounts, contracts, reports, and judicial decisions which revealed the way of life for some leading families of four or five generations. The parallels between the customs and social conditions of these peoples and the patriarchal narratives in Genesis were not only remarkable, but have proved to be one of the external factors supporting the historicity of this section of the Bible.

“The patriarchs came from this general section of the country, and had lived at Haran (which was predomantly Hurrian or Horite). They had maintained contact here for generations afterward, and in the absence of laws and customs of their own (for there was, as yet, no Old Testament written), they followed those to which they had been accustomed. Notice some of the parallels:

(1) EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY: All transactions involving the transfer of property were recorded, witnessed, sealed, and proclaimed at the city gate (Genesis 23:10-18)

(2) MARRIAGE CONTRACTS: Included a statement that a handmaid could be presented to the new bride, as was the case with Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:24, 29), and contained a provision obliging a childless wife to provide here husband with a handmaid who would bear children, as Sara gave Hagar to Abraham (Genesis 16:3), and Rachel gave Bilah to Jacob (Genesis 30:3-6).

(3) ADOPTION: Was practiced at Nuzi when a childless couple would adopt a son who would care for them while they lived, bury them when they died, and be heir to their estate. It was specified that if they ever had a son of their own, then the adopted son took second place. This seems to explain Abraham’s adoption of Eliezer as his heir BEFORE the birth of Isaac, and the subsequent change when the Lord (Yahweh) promised that a son of his own would be born to become his heir (Genesis 15:2-4).

(4) BIRTHRIGHT: In Nuzi there was found a contract where one brother gave his brother ‘three sheep in exchange for his inheritance share’ in a plantation.

All of which sounds like Jacob’s gift to Esau of ‘bread and a mess of lentils’ (Genesis 25:30-34). Also, in Nuzi the ‘blessing’ of a dying father in bequeathing property to a son was honored in court where there was a witness to corroborate the words of the father (Genesis 27:30-33; 49:8-28).

(5) INHERITANCE: In Nuzi there was a law that implied that property and leadership of the family could pass to a daughter’s husband, providing the father had handed over his household gods to his son-in-law. Thus it was, when Leban overtook Jacob and anxiously searched his camp for the household idols, he could not find them for ‘Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them.’” (Genesis 31:30-35)

As we said before, as we started this quotation above, we believe the writer is mistaken when implying that Abraham and his family adopted the customs of the Hurrians. If anything, it was the other way around. We believe it is also a mistake to conclude that no part of the Old Testament had yet been written at Abraham’s time, for Jude 14 mentions the words of Enoch written in the Book of Enoch (Enoch chapter 2). This also gives us an idea of the people (Hurrians) that lived in the area among the descendants of Shem.


For this information, we will quote excerpts from “The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,” vol. 4, pp. 470-471:

“THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS. There was a time when it was widely held that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses because it was thought that at that time writing had not been invented. While there is now abundant evidence to the contrary from various sources, it is of particular interest to note that at Nuzi at this early time written documents were extremely important and a great many of them were produced.

“ADOPTION: Dozens of adoption tablets have been found at Nuzi. Israelite law, so detailed on many subjects, contains no regulations for adoption, and the history of the Hebrews in Palestine after the Conquest, as recorded in the Old Testament contains no evidence of such a practice. But, at Nuzi, it was customary, if a man had no children, to adopt someone to carry on his name and inherit his property. This seems to b reflected in the statement of Abraham, before Isaac was born, that unless the Lord (Yahweh) should give him a child, Eliezer of Damascus would be his heir. (Genesis 15:2)

“TERAPHIM, OR HOUSEHOLD GODS: The incident of the Teraphim (Genesis 31:17-35) was extremely puzzling before the discovery of the Nuzi documents. When Jacob determined to leave his uncle Leban, Rachel stole Laban’s Teraphim or household gods. Returning to his home, Laban was greatly excited, not simply because his daughters and his son-in-law had left without notice, nor because of the great amount of property that they had taken with them, which Jacob has amassed during his sojourn in Haran but primarily because of the loss of the household gods.

“Jacob with his great number of flocks and herds, must have a sizable number of shepherds, and it would have required considerable force to overcome the resistance that he could offer. Laban pursued Jacob three days, taking with him a sufficient number of supporters to cause Jacob to be terrified at his approach.

Thus the pursuit of Jacob was a very expensive proposition for Leban. In the Middle Ages students wondered why Leban would have gone to so much expense and trouble on account of these household gods. It was suggested that the Teraphim might have been made of gold. Even if this were the case their intrinsic value would hardly have been enough to pay for Leban’s expedition, since they were very small. This was evident from the fact that Rachel was able to hide them in the saddle-basket on which she was sitting in her tent. Though her father searched the tent most thoroughly, he never suspected their presence.

“The mystery became still greater when it was noticed that Jacob was utterly shocked at the idea that he might have stolen the Teraphim. When Laban was unable to find them, Jacob bitterly rebuked him for his suspicion. (Genesis 31:36-42)

“Previous to the discovery of the Nuzi documents, the whole situation was obscure, and it would have been equally so at the time of the Israelite kingdom when, according to the critics, the story would have been composed. The tablets from Nuzi show that according to Harrian(?) Custom at that early time, if a man desire to appoint a son-in-law as his principal heir he would turn over to him his household gods. After the man’s death, appearance in court with the household gods would be accepted as proof of such a disposition Rachel was trying to secure all of Leban’s property for her husband, and Jacob was rightfully indignant at being accused of attempting such an underhanded trick.

The whole incident becomes understandable in the light of these facts, and it become clear why Leban, still suspicious, desired that a boundary stone be put up at Mizpah and that Jacob should swear that he would not pass over this boundary in order to do him harm. (Genesis 31:44-53, esp. v. 52)

“The Nuzi tablets make it clear that a great part of Leban’s reason for this was his desire that at his death, the remainder of his property should go to his own sons and not be taken away from them by Jacob. It is good to note that later Jacob demanded that any strange gods in the hands of his people be buried, (Genesis 35:-4) and that at no time did Jacob try to make false use of these Teraphim.

“SISTERHOOD: To the modern reader it seems strange that Abraham should have said that Sarah was his sister instead of stating what to Pharaoh was the more important fact; that she was his wife. (Genesis 12:11-20) It is still stranger that he should have repeated this act in the land of Abimelech, (Genesis 20:1-18) and perhaps even more so that Isaac should later have followed his example. (Genesis 26:6-16)

It has been suggested that light may be thrown on these perplexing incidents by the discovery at Nuzi, as evidenced by many legal contracts, that a position called ‘sisterhood’ was thee considered to be of even more importance than that of a wife, and that a wife was sometimes elevated by a special act to this superior position. In view of the evidence that this was the custom in the area in which Abraham had spent may years (rather, the custom of the Hebrews themselves), it is not impossible that Abraham and Isaac may have felt that they were giving their wives a more important and secure position by calling them sisters.

Since such a custom was evidently unknown to Pharaoh or to Abimelech and unfortunate situation resulted. Yet, although Pharaoh and Abimelech accused the patriarchs of misrepresentation, there is no evidence in the Scripture of Abraham and Isaac having felt guilty or of God (Yahweh) having condemned them for their words. God (Yahweh) punished Pharaoh and Abimelech for what they had done, but, as far as we know, He did not rebuke Abraham. Therefore, it is not impossible that it was a case of misunderstanding rather than of misrepresentation. The incident is quite understandable from this viewpoint in the light of the Nuzi documents...”

Now we have covered more materials concerning the archaeological finds at Mari and Nuzi. These finds have added much in understanding the accounts of the Patriarchs of Genesis. Fifty to seventy-five years ago, many were trying to claim the Bible stories were simply myths handed down from generation to generation; that there were never actual persons such as Abraham, Haran, Nahor, Serug, Peleg, Terah. This is a favorite tactic of the Jews, when they are trying their usual antics of deceiving new Christians and turning them away from God.


“Since the discoveries of Mari and Nuzi, we don’t hear much about these “higher critics” anymore. There probably are a few uninformed, preposterous, harebrained impostors still making such arguments, but Mari and Nuzi have shut the mouths of the majority of the so-called “experts.” There was another important archaeological find, discovered in 1974-1976, called Ebla, which we will be investigating shortly. This find also silenced the catcalls of the impudent skeptics. With these discoveries in archaeology, there is no more room for doubt that the Bible is true.

We have also discussed more information concerning the Canaanites. We brought more archaeological testimony that the “Princes’ Wall” did exist during the time of the Egyptian Sinuhe. With what we presented so far, not only can you know, beyond all doubt, that the Patriarchs existed, but you can understand heretofore ambiguous and problematical passages in Scripture.

However, there is no way that some will accept this truth, because they don’t want truth they want to believe what the lying, deceiving, traitorous, Judeo-Christian clergy have told them. They follow exactly the description given of them in the Scriptures; for they would rather believe a lie and deny the Word of God (Yahweh) because it doesn’t fit in with their thought processes, and deny Yeashua because it makes them feel good to believe those lies.

“The prophets (political leaders) prophesy falsely, and the priests (Judeo-Christian clergy) bear rule by their means; AND MY PEOPLE LOVE TO HAVE IT SO: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jeremiah 5:31)

“But there were false prophets (political leaders) also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers (Judeo-Christian clergy) among you, WHO PRIVILY SHALL BRING IN DAMNABLE HERESIES, EVEN DENYING THE LORD THAT BOUGHT THEM, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And MANY SHALL FOLLOW THEIR PERNICIOUS WAYS; BY REASON OF WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH SHALL BE EVIL SPOKEN OF. And THROUGH COVETOUSNESS SHALL THEY WITH FEIGNED WORDS MAKE MERCHANDISE OF YOU (watch those on TBN and the 700 club to name just two of many, as they make merchandise of their listeners to enrich themselves at the expense of their flocks): whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” (2 Peter 2:1-3)

We are still trying to set the stage for the subject of Esau-Edom. We simply cannot understand the entire story of Esau, unless we understand his previous and surrounding contemporary history to put all the players in their places. Sorry to say, there are many who will make comments about this subject with a very limited knowledge of what was going on. They think, because they read a couple of verses in the Bible, they are some kind of an authority or Bible student or Bible scholar.


Once in a while, when reading various sources of information along a certain subject, someone sometimes has the ability to portray, and sum up, a situation in very few words. Such a summation is made by the book, “6,000 Years Of The Bible,” by G.S. Wegener, p. 34, ©1963:

“But although Hammurabi’s empire represented an enormous concentration of power, it did not survive for long. First the Hittites invaded Babylon from the region of the Black Sea, in the far north, and shortly afterwards the Kassites and Hurrians swept across Iran. The HYKSOS, operating from Egypt, occupied parts of the country adjoining their own, and after their expulsion from the Nile the pursuing Egyptians themselves invaded Mesopotamian territory. And all the time the Aramaeans, tribes of Semitic Bedouins who came raiding across the border, were a constant threat.

“It was the natural course of Mesopotamian history: a perpetual up and down of fortune, an unending confusion and tangle of peoples and tribes. Conquerors came and went; civilizations were born and died; cities and empires were built and crashed again. It was not until 1100 B.C., that another single and all-embracing state arose again in the land of the “Tigris and Euphrates. This was the empire of the “Assyrians.”

It might be well to go back and read this quotation again. If you can comprehend these last two paragraphs, you have mastered a portion of history that otherwise might take a considerable amount of reading and study to understand. We have to understand we cannot nail down any one group of people to one location for all time. It must be remembered that people are portable. In such an environment, as described above were portable. In such an environment, as described above were Abraham and his kin living; especially among the many tribes of people, like the Hurrians and Kassites, who were sweeping into the country. When the Assyrians came into power, this same book says on the same page:

“Their rulers felt no scruples in their choice of political expedients. They uprooted whole races and transplanted them in alien lands.”


A person on the mailing list of the “Watchman’s Teaching Letter” who is in the process of writing a Bible commentary, gave them permission to quote from his unfinished manuscript. On page 20 he comments:

“Because of the changes made to the lengths of the Patriarch’s lifetimes, a great latitude must be given with regards to chronology in this section. The Masoretes made changes to the Holy Scriptures sometime after the Crucifixion but before about 300 A.D., Ephrem the Syrian testified to this and accused the Jews of subtracting at least 00 years from the text in order to deny that Yahshua was the Messiah who had come at the appointed time. This appointed time of course was based upon a cabalistic numerology.

“There are, however, great amounts of archeological evidence that can and will be used to bring some light to this somewhat hazy period. It is hoped that through the use of such materials a greater understanding can be achieved concerning the lives of our Patriarchs.”

If the above is true, then Noah’s flood would extend back to about 2948 B.C., instead of 2348 B.C., as stated in most Bibles according to Ussher. Some Bibles omit the chronology from Noah on back to Adam. Actually, the date given by Adam Rutherford’s “Pyramidology” of 3265 B.C., fits the history of Greece and Egypt much better. Also, the Septuagint and Samaritan texts agree essentially with Rutherford’s figures. This chronology is important because it is the particular time period we are dealing with. You see, it is important to understand the approximate timing of events leading up to Esau. You may wonder what the history of Egypt has to do with Esau-Edom. Before we are through, you will begin to understand; IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ESAU-EDOM.


This, in itself, should tell a story, for they must have been interrelated to each other in some way. This would explain much about the story of Esau, for Scripture seems to indicate a Horite (Hurrian) and a Hittite connection with his wives. For more on the depiction of the Hittites we will quote from “Researches Into The Ethnic Origins Of Israel,” by C.F. Parker, B.A., p. 37:

“It must be confessed that they (the Hittites) were not a handsome people. They were short and thick of limb, and the front part of their faces was pushed forward in a curious and somewhat repulsive way. The forehead retreated, the cheekbones were high, the nostrils were large, the upper lip protrusive. They had, in fact, according to the craniologists, the characteristics of a Mongolian race. Like the mongols, moreover, their skins were yellow and their eyes black. They arranged the hair in the form of a ‘pigtail’ which characterizes them on their own and the Egyptian monuments quite as much as their snow-shoes with upturned toes. In Syria they doubtless mixed with the Shemitic race, and the further south they advanced the more likely they were to become absorbed into the native population. The Hittites of Southern Judah have Semitic names and probably spoke a Semitic language. Kedesh continued to bear to the last its Semitic title, and among the Hittite names which occur further north there are several which display a Semitic stamp.” (If one could observe one of Esau’s wives today, she probably would look somewhat like an Albanian Turk)


For information on where all these various ethnic groups of people were coming from, we will quote short excerpts from a book entitled “The First Great Civilizations,” by Jacquetta Hawkes. We will be using the information from this book as a critical review, and will be checking information from other sources to verify whether or not the following is correct:

Page 61: “We are concerned with the peoples of a vast river system over some TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF THEIR HISTORY. Changes in political power between one area and another, FREQUENT FOREIGN INFILTRATIONS, the SEIZURE OF SOVEREIGNTY BY INVADERS, even the rise and fall of dynasties, DEEPLY AFFECTED SOCIAL and CULTURAL LIFE. THIS WAS EVEN TRUER FOR MESOPOTAMIA THAN FOR THE MORE SECURE AND ISOLATED would be impossible to understand the experience and outlook of the population without some knowledge of the often violent political events in which their states were involved and which were a matter of life and death to countless families.”

Page 65: “The two written sources (‘Sumerian King List’ & ‘Vulture Stele’ of Eanatum) taken together have made it possible to reconstruct a considerable part of the dynastic UMMA, LAGASH, URUK and KISH. The KING LIST also assigns one dynasty to MARI, and here again excavation has confirmed that this SEMITIC CITY AWAY TO THE NORTH ON THE MIDDLE EUPHRATES was INDEED AN OUTPOST OF SUMERIAN CULTURAL INFLUENCE IN EARLY DYNASTIC TIMES.”

Page 66: “Another element in a repeating pattern beginning in Early Dynastic times was, as we have seen, fighting the Elamites, a people who owed much of their culture to Summer, emulated he and yet were often to be her enemies. Yet another, and one far more important for the future, was the first major penetration of Summer by Semites, the outcome of one of the most persistent features in all history: THE DRIFT OF TRIBES FROM THE WESTERN DESERTS INTO THE SETTLED LAND OF MESOPOTAMIA.” (About 2700 B.C.)

Pages 71-72: (About 2260 B.C.) “It is said that greatness often misses a generation. Sargon’s grandson, Naram-Sin, the fourth in the dynasty, must have inherited much of his grandfather’s drive an ambition. He came to the throne in about 2260 B.C., and was to rule for thirty-seven years...It may also refer to his northern frontiers, for he went up into Zagos to subdue A MOUNTAIN PEOPLE, the Lulubum (neighbors of the Gutians)...

“...The king of Akkad (Shar-kali-sharri’s modest title) claimed a victory over them, but a letter of the time addressed apparently to a provincial governor, gives a very revealing picture of the true condition of the land ‘You shall plough the fields and look after the cattle. It is no good saying ‘yes, but there are GUTIANS ABUT and so I cannot plough my field.’ Set up patrols of watchmen every half mile and then plough your field. If armed bands advance there will be local mobilization and you must then have the cattle driven into the city.’ ...According to literary tradition, the luckless Shar-kali-sharri, LAST OF SARGON’S LINE, was murdered in a palace intrigue. Among the four contenders for his throne, one was a Gutian king... The Gutians were now ruling over a considerable part of Mesopotamia, including the northern Plain. They adopted the cuneiform script and Akkadian language for their official inscriptions, but these ‘MOUNTAIN DRAGONS’ appear to have remained essentially barbarous. They are known to have DESTROYED much, including the city of Assur, and to have CREATED NOTHING. No temple, OR palace, no style of art, no valuable innovation of any kind HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THEM.”

Page 73: “Yet it was NOT to be GIVEN TO LAGASH either to FREE THE NORTH FROM THE GATIANS or to preside over the last flare of Sumerian greatness before the center of power shifted irrevocably to the north. Within a decade of Gudea’s death his city seems to have been losing ground, and a place in history as the liberator of the land from the MOUNTAIN DRAGONS went instead to Utuhengal of Uruk. After having seized Ur, THIS KING MARCHED AGAINST THE GUTIANS and gave them battle in the extreme north of Summer, near the limits of their own territory. His victory must have been complete, for the Gutians were thrown out of Mesopotamia AND NEVER AGAIN PLAYED ANY SIGNIFICANT PART IN HER HISTORY.”

Page 74: (about 2200 B.C.) “The campaigns (by Ur-Nammu) were not altogether aggressive. The lands of the east of the Tigris were suffering A DANGEROUS INFLUX OF FOREIGNERS. These were the HURRIANS FROM THE NORTHERN MOUNTAINS. They had been entering peacefully for A CENTURY AND MORE (there was even an enclave of them in Nippur as early as 2200 B.C.) BUT NOW THEY CAME IN LARGER NUMBERS. It was probably due to the strong military policy of Ur that they did not penetrate the Plain and repeat the success of the Gutians.

“For eighty years the empire of Ur maintained its inward stability, and its downfall when it came was largely due to attack from without. The Hurrians had been held in check, BUT NOW THE PENDULUM OF INVASION WAS TO SWING BACK to the west; from MOUNTAIN enemies to desert enemies.”


Page 74: (about 2027 B.C.) “The Amorites (Sumerian Martu and Akkadian Amurru) had been drifting into Mesopotamia since the days of Sargon. These nomad Semites can in fact be seen as successors to the Akkadians, but they appear to have been less ready to settle and become good citizens...Marauding bands of Amorites were beginning to reduce the empire to chaos.”

Page 81: (about 1595 B.C.) “Yet the fall of the dynasty (Hammurabi) and the subsequent confusion may have opened the way for the seizure of lasting power by the Kassites. For another intrusion of Indo-European history into that of Mesopotamia we have to return to the Hurrians, last seen being held in check by the Third Dynasty of Ur. These people, whose original home was probably in the Armenian mountains, spoke a language that was neither Semitic nor Indo-Europan. The eastern tribes that harried Shamshi-Adad and his son were probably predominantly Hurrian, and Hurrian texts of about this time are known from Mari. After the reign of Ishme-Dagon, Assyrian history sinks into obscure doldrums, and it seems that was DUE TO A GREAT INFLUX OF HURRIANS; who were actually in A MAJORITY IN SOME CITIES and were numerous in Assur itself. A large force of them also swept across northern Mesopotamia, reaching the Syrian coast and influencing the petty state of Palestine.

“Perhaps from the first it was pressure from Indo-European peoples that caused INCURSIONS BY THE HURRIANS, and they may soon have acquired chariot-driving Indo-European leaders. Certainly when, rather before 1500 B.C., Mitanni emerged into history AS A CENTRALIZED HURRIAN STATE, it was dominated by such an Indo-European ruling aristocracy. Names of Mitannian kings can be derived from Sanskrit, Sumeriancum-Semitic pantheon had names well known from the Vedic literature of India.”


Pages 81-82: (about 1400-1500 B.C.) “In the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C., Mitanni extended from the Zagros to the Mediterranean and the kings of Assyria were no more than her vassals. It was the HOSTILE POLICY of Mitannian kings against Egypt that provoked Thutmose III to march to the Euphrates. LATER THEY MADE FRIENDS WITH THE EGYPTIANS AND THREE GENERATIONS OF PRINCESSES, WITH HUNDREDS OF FOLLOWERS, made the hazardous journey to Thebes, WHERE THEY WERE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE TO PHARAOH and lived out their days in the royal harem.

“...Yet the Hurrians did not disappear from history. Away to the north in their Armenian homeland they entrenched themselves an built up the kingdom of Urartu. Here something of their culture, and an Urartian language very close to the Hurrian of Mitanni was preserved.”


If all of the above is true, we have a very interesting situation, for from this, we deduce that the “Gutians” were considered “MOUNTAIN DRAGONS.” it also appears that the Hittites, Harrians and Kassites were all Mongolian “MOUNTAIN DRAGON PEOPLE.” We believe we can prove, with the help of the Bible that the Hittites were also “MOUNTAIN DRAGONS.” Sometimes it is necessary to use the backdoor approach to bring these things to light. For this we will use Revelation 12:9 where the DRAGON is mentioned:

“And the great DRAGON was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

We are told in verse 4 of this same chapter:

“...the DRAGON stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”

We don’t have to guess who this DRAGON which stood before the woman (Israel, represented in the person of Mary) was. It was none other than Herod the half-Edomite, who in turn was a descendant of these “DRAGON PEOPLE” spoken of above. In Revelation 12:3 he is called the “RED DRAGON.”

The “red” color is the color of Esau. Esau was born red and he has carried that color right down to today’s communism. Not only did the DRAGON PEOPLE marry with Esau, but they also married with the Egyptian Pharaohs. We are persuaded that the Egyptian Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites was SERPENT SEED. We are also persuaded that these MOUNTAIN DRAGONS were descendants of Cain.

We can be rather sure about this fact because Revelation 12:9 places the DRAGON, the SERPENT, the DEVIL, and SATAN all in the same category as one type of being or people. If this is true, it accounts for the very cruel treatment that Pharaoh dealt out, and the slaughter of the Israelite children in Egypt just in the same manner as Herod’s, and in the same manner that we have allowed the Jews with their abortion murder mills in the United States.

The DRAGON PEOPLE are still doing it to our children today. All of this goes right back to Genesis 3:15 where hatred was pronounced between the children of Satan and the children of Eve. This is a war to the death. This “enmity” will continue until one party or the other is completely destroyed. Every time you see a White woman wheeling a half-breed child down the street or through a store in a stroller, you can know the DRAGON PEOPLE are winning!

But that is because it is Yahweh’s plan to punish His people for disobeying Him. Yahweh says that He will mix Israel with the other races (beast of the field) in the last days (Jeremiah 31:27; Ezekiel 34:8)

Yahweh told Jeremiah that:

“A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God.” (Jeremiah 3:21)

This would make no sense until one realizes that our Israel people are being deceived and led to mix with the other races; thus disobeying Yahweh. We are told again and again:

“Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.” (Jeremiah 31:15)

“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.” (Matthew 2:17-18)

These verses are exceptionally true today with over a million babies being murdered every year by heartless women, because of their unbelief, going to the Jewish baby killers.


At this point we wish to present you a mistranslated passage found in Hebrews 11:24-26 in the KJV. It reads as follows:

“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of CHRIST greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.”

The translators being so used to translating the Greek word #5547 anointed) as “Christ,” overlooked the fact that the children of Israel were also called “anointed.” (1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15; Psalm 143:17) The word should not have been “Christ” in verse 26, but “min anointed” or “Israel.” Let’s reread verse 26 as it should have been translated:

“Esteeming the reproach OF THE ANOINTED greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.”

Ferrar Fenton relates these verses this way:

“By faith Moses, having become great, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to be reviled WITH THE PEOPLE OF GOD, than to have a temporary enjoyment of sin; esteeming the reproach of the Messiah greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt: for he looked forward to the reward.”

Now, being that we are aware that Moses was saying he would rather suffer with his people Israel than to be a son of Pharaoh’s daughter and enjoy all the riches of Egypt, it makes all the difference in the world in this correctly translated verse.

We know that we have brought you the long way around on this one. What is important to understand, in this instance, is that the Israelites were Yahweh’s “anointed” and the Egyptians weren’t. If the persecuting pharaoh was of Satanic-dragon seed, this was especially pertinent.


For the next part of this story, we are going to quote from “The Bible As History,” by Werner Keller, ©1956. Keller gives additional information, that, not only did the Egyptians mix with the Hurrians, as stated by Hawkes, but they also mixed with the Hittites. We will be using excerpts from pages 96-103:

“The multicolored army of mercenaries which the Egyptians controlled, consisting of Negroes, Asiatics, and Nubians, marched on northward through Canaan. The new Pharaohs had learned a lesson from the bitter experience of the past. Never again would their country be taken by a surprise attack (like the HYKSOS). Egypt lost no time in creating a buffer state far in advance of its frontier posts. The remainder of the HYKSOS empire was crushed, and Palestine became an Egyptian province. What had once been in Canaan and on the Phoenician coast became permanent garrisons, fortified strong points, and Egyptian fortresses in a subjugated land...

“Previously, all who lived outside of the Nine Valley were contemptuously described as ‘Asiatics,’‘Sand rambles,’‘cattle breeders;’ people not worthy of the attention of a Pharaoh. Now, however, the Egyptians became more affable. They began communications with other countries. Hitherto that had been unthinkable; among the diplomatic correspondence in the archives of the palace of Mari, there was not one single item from the Nile...

“The advances of the Egyptians brought them eventually to Syria, indeed, to the banks of the Euphrates. There, to their astonishment, they came up against people of whose existence they had no idea. The priests searched in vain through the ancient papyrus rolls in the temple archives and studied without result the records of the campaigns of earlier Pharaohs. Nowhere could they find even a hint about these unknown Mitanni...

“Shortly before 1400 B.C., the warlike Mitanni (Hurrian) proposed a peaceful settlement with the Egyptians. The enemy became a friend. The kings of Mitanni turned their attention purposefully to dynastic politics. With greet pomp and lavish gifts THEY SENT THEIR DAUGHTERS DOWN TO THE NILE AND MARRIED THEIR PRINCESSES TO THE PHARAOHS. In three successive generations of rulers Indo0Aryan(?) (meaning HURRIAN) AND EGYPTIAN BLOOD WAS MIXED for the first time...

“What was the reason for the unexpected desire for peace on the part of the warlike Mitanni? The impulse came form the outside. Their kingdom was suddenly threatened with war on two fronts. A second powerful opponent began to storm the frontiers with his armies from Asia minor in the northwest. This was a nation about which scholars until this century knew hardly anything, but which plays a considerable part in the Old Testament; the Hittites...Their long hair hung over their shoulders like a full-bottomed wig; on top sat a high-dented cap; their short aprons were fastened with a wide belt and their shoes had pointed toes.

“When Subbiluliuma, King of the Hittites, marched southeast with a powerful army about 1370 B.C., the days of the kingdom of Mitanni (Hurrian) were already numbered despite all their clever dynastic politics. Subbiluliuma crushed the kingdom of the warlike charioteers, compelled it to pay tribute, and then pressed on further to the mountains of the Lebanon in the north of Canaan. Overnight, as it were, Egypt had a new, equally powerful neighbor in Syria thirsting for victory...

“Using the inviting bed and throne of the Pharaohs as bait; and what attractive bait!, she tried to take the wind out of the sails of her powerful new neighbors by discouraging their warlike intentions. Hittite warriors had just made an attack on Amqa, the fertile country between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon.

“Mursilis dictated: ‘When the Egyptians heard of the attack on Amqa, they were alarmed. To make matters worse, their lord (Tutankhamun) had just died. But the widowed Queen of Egypt sent an ambassador to my father and wrote him the following letter: ‘My husband is dead and I have no son, I am told that you have many sons. If you send me one of your sons, he could become my husband. I do not wish to take one of my servants and make a husband of him’...’Since my father was so fine a king, he complied with the lady’s request and sent her the son she asked for.’

“Fate prevented the successful conclusion of this unusual offer of marriage. Both the royal throne and the bed of Anches-en-Amun remained empty, since the candidate was murdered on his way to Egypt.

“Seventy-five years later another offer of marriage on this same Halys-Nile axis had a happy ending, although the prelude to it, which was the din of battle and the clash of weapons, pointed to a different conclusion. Ramesses II, who was called the ‘Great,’ set out with his army for Palestine and Syria. He intended to deal with the hated Hittites once and for all...

“In 1280 B.C., the Hittites and the Egyptians concluded the first nonaggression and mutual defense pact in world history. The good understanding was cemented at top level by the marriage of Ramesses II to a Hittite princess...Then came a (Ramesses II) messenger to inform His Majesty, He said: ‘Behold, even the great Prince of Hatti! (Hittites) His eldest daughter is on her way, and she brings untold tribute of all kinds...They have reached His Majesty’s frontiers. Let the army and the dignitaries come to receive her!’...

“A large delegation was dispatched to the north of Palestine to bring back the bride. Yesterday’s enemies became brothers: ‘So the daughter of the great Prince of Hatti came to Egypt. While the infantry, charioteers, and dignitaries of His Majesty accompanied them, they mingled with the infantry and charioteers from Hatti. The whole populace from the country of the Hittites was mixed up with the Egyptians. They ate and drank together; they were like blood-brothers...

“The children of a Israel must have been eye witnesses of the ceremonial arrival of the bridal procession in the city of Pi-Ramses-Meri-Amun, which means ‘The House of Ramses the Beloved of the god Amun.”

There you have it, the Egyptian Pharaohs (just like Esau-Edom) absorbed both Mongolian-Hurrian and Mongolian-Hittite blood along with much of the population of Egypt. Now, for some excerpts from an article in the “National Geographic Magazine” of April, 1991, entitled “Ramses the Great”:

Page 9: ‘The physical description of Ramses I: ‘He was about five feet eight inches in height; one of the taller pharaohs. He had a strong jaw; A BEAKED NOSE, A LONG THIN FACE, THAT WAS NOT TYPICAL OF EARLIER PHARAOHS. He probably looked MORE LIKE THE PEOPLE OF THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN. Which is not surprising, because he came form the Nile Delta, which had been invaded in the past by PEOPLES FROM THE EAST.”

Ramses undoubtedly had Hurrian blood in his veins. Because the Hittite infusion did not happen until Ramses II, he probably didn’t have any Hittite blood, unless the Hittites had mixed with the Hurrians earlier on.

Page 30: A Hittite type metal working complex found at Pi-Ramses: ‘This is not an Egyptian design,’ says Pusch. ‘It looks just like those the Hittites carried in the Battle of Kadesh. We found bronze chisels and hammers next to it. I can draw only one conclusion. Hittite craftsmen were producing Hittite weapons in the capital of Egypt. They were probably working side by side with Egyptians...’”

Page 10: Ramses II family: “His principal wife, the lovely Nefetari, quickly produced a son. His second favorite wife, the clever Istnofret, soon delivered another. Within ten years each wife had borne at least five sons and several daughters. His other wives may have accounted for another five to ten sons and as many daughters.”

What is so strange about the story of Ramses II is Nefertari died quite young. Following her, two of his sons, who were to succeed him died before his death. Then, at least another ten of his sons died. All of this brings up the question: Was there some kind of battle going on between Nefertari and Istnofret to see which one’s posterity would be next on the throne? If there was, it wasn’t the first, nor would it be the last such struggle.


Reference Materials