Dreams Bay

All Dreams

Non-Dream Essays

The Mud Flood and the Book of Mormon

—

by

wpuser
in

* In this dream, Ancient Civilizations and History Faking, I received confirmation of much of the below ideas.

In this essay I will elucidate the following thesis:

  • A thousand years were inserted into history after Christ.
  • Many structures in the USA (particularly, the olden capitol buildings, courthouses, and otherwise excessively ornamental stone structures) were co-opted from an ancient civilization that the European settlers found in ruins. This is associated with the keyword “mud flood” (search on Yandex, not google) because photographs of such buildings in the Americas show how they were excavated from being sunk many feet into the ground.
  • The Native Americans in the eastern side of the USA were white.
  • Said Native Americans were the last remnants of the Nephites, and the structures co-opted by America belonged to that of the Nephite Civilization (who are God’s covenant people who lived in the Americas according to the Book of Mormon). Thus, when you take into account the added thousand years, the Nephite civilization actually died off much closer to the time Columbus arrived. Therefore, it makes sense that Nephite buildings may have still been standing and ready for the colonialists to excavate and occupy.

The first three of these points have actually been talked about a lot in the last 5 years by people following “tartaria”, “the mud flood”, and otherwise falsified history.

Funnily enough, on a few occasions I have seen these people note the similarities between their theories and those presented in the Book of Mormon. However, instead they have concluded that the Book of Mormon was “planted” by the history fakers as something very close to the truth so as to divert us from the truth. Which is pretty funny to me – it seems like the simplest explanation is: if everything you uncover hidden in our history aligns with the Book of Mormon, then perhaps the Book of Mormon is true. Even stranger, some people think that the Book of Mormon indeed is true, but many passages have been added to it to make it be about religion instead of history – the purpose being to discourage people from reading it (by associating it with an unpopular religion), because the elite don’t want us to know our true history (an example of someone saying this here).

Alas, I haven’t seen any fellow Mormons making the connections between these ideas about a stolen history in the USA to the Nephites. But if you read on, you will see why so many people have come to the conclusion that there must be some truth to the Book of Mormon even though they reject Mormonism as a religion.

This essay was pretty interesting to research – if I have time, I might also write an essay about how there are demonic societies underground who likely will reemerge during the last days, and about how Israel actually was located around Armenia.

White Native Americans

My belief is that the natives around New England were white. However, since they all died, our perception of native Americans comes from the plains Indians and Indians even further west and south, which of course were all descendants of Lamanites and therefore not white. For background, in the Book of Mormon, the Nephites are white, and the Lamanites are not white.

At the end of the Book of Mormon, the Nephites are almost entirely exterminated by the Lamanites – which reflects how when the colonialists discovered New England, it was very sparsely populated, compared to areas like Ecuador or Mexico. Disease doesn’t explain this because surely Ecuadorian and Mexican Native Americans were also exposed to disease – yet they didn’t all die; similarly, the northeastern Indians also knew how to perform agriculture, so should have had a greater population density than as were found. The Book of Mormon also stipulates that the Nephites who left their religion – and therefore returned to a more barbaric lifestyle – were largely spared in the genocide, thus explaining the primitive behavior of many of the white Native Americans discovered in the eastern United States.

Here are some early paintings created by colonialists depicting the Native Americans:

The source of the above images is here: The White Indians of North and South America – Resets and Genocides, Part 4.

Other articles which show how the Native Americans were white:

Lost Civilization in the Americas

As previously said, the theory is that many of the ancient ornate stone buildings of the USA were actually found abandoned by settlers, rather than settled. Here are some links illustrating that:

And as a side note: many people think that America doesn’t have old architecture because it was colonized. However, the truth is stranger: nearly every major single city in the US was burned down in the 1800s and early 1900s, and photographs of the old cities before being burned down depicted extremely beautiful and ornate old architecture that could rival any European city. Here are some sources discussing said fires: first source, source 2.

The theory is that the history fakers did this to erase evidence of the true history of America (who were these elites who posed smiling in front of the burning San Francisco?).

The Jaredites

And just to put one more puzzle piece in – many Book of Mormon scholars claim that the earthworks created by the Hopewell Indians was constructed by the Nephites (such as Rodney Meldrum, or this article).

However, this is wrong – the Hopewell Indians actually are the Jaredites – a group of people in the Americas who all died before most of the stories in the Book of Mormon, and are only briefly mentioned as a people who were destroyed by God for breaking their covenant with him. After taking into account the added 1,000 years, the timing of the Jaredites aligns with the timing of the Hopewell Indians. Likewise, from Helaman 3:6-7, we can infer that the Jaredites likely made many structures from earth and cement, which aligns with what we know about the Hopewell Indians.

Evidence that a thousand years was added to History

Here are some notable positive reasons for this belief:

Crazy Moon and Earth – The historical accelerations of the Moon aren’t possible unless the timeline is altered. This quote from the article was interesting:
Contrary to the Neutral Point of Opinion (NPOV, sic!) rule, the mainstream historians lie in WIKI:  “American astronomer Robert Newton had explained the drop of parameter D” in terms of “non-gravitational” (i.e., tidal) forces”, whereby Robert Newton says in the article they refer to: “There are no satisfactory explanations of the accelerations. Existing theories of tidal friction are quite inadequate.”

Statistical methods show that Ptolemy’s work and astronomy depicted in Egyptian tombs comes from a much later period (author Dr. Fomenko)

Isaac Newton believed that history was altered after dating historical astrological events

Ancient dates were often written with a J in front, so J500 to mean 500 years after Jesus (much like how we write “ad”). The letter in such dates often has been misattributed to mean 1, so J500 now is 1500 (source 1, source 2, source 3).

The Mystery of 1000 years missing from Galleria Umberto

The Fake History of Portland – also depicts evidence of a thousand years added.

The Faking of Historical Timelines – as Fomenko shows, many dynasties appear to be exact duplicates of each other – indicating history fakery.

“Actual” Destruction of “Ancient” Rome – The Terrible Deluge in The Noble City of Rome” – The video discusses various accounts of a great flood of mud that basically entirely destroyed the city of Rome in 1530. The video also goes through various accounts of the sackings of Rome, showing that none can account for the massive destruction we see in the ruins of Rome – massive stone buildings completely ripped apart, and then buried 20-40 feet underground. And regardless, if the city of Rome was already destroyed, then the accounts of a flourishing and grand city in 1530 that is then flooded don’t make sense. The video also goes through other documents describing an almost identical flood in 716, with very similar actions taken by the city’s leaders following it and many leaders even having similar names between both events. The author also questions why established history doesn’t talk about these two devastating floods (perhaps because the floods contradict their timeline for when Rome was destroyed?). All of this makes sense in light of the 1000 years taken away from history – the “716 flood” is the same as the 1530 flood, and it is this that finally caused the utter destruction and burial of the city.

History of Chronology

I know critics likely believe that there is no way that anyone could get away with so vastly changing history. So, for background, let me provide some of the “established history” on chronology:

Dionysius Exiguus (470–544) – This monk is credited with creating the Anno Domini (AD) system. Before this, there were multiple contradictory dating systems in Europe, such as Roman “Ab urbe condita” (AUC), meaning “from the founding of the City [Rome]”. There also was Consular dating, which involved naming each year after the two Roman consuls who held office that year. Moreover, they also used indiction cycles, which said how many years it had been since the start of the 15 year roman tax cycle. Alternatively, they used Regnal years – which counted the years since the start of a Roman emperor. And, most interestingly, some eastern Christian churches used a dating system which counted the years since the biblical date of Creation – I wonder, I wonder – what happened to that when the date of Adam and Eve was moved up over a thousand years (as I will discuss).

Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540 – 1609) –  A scholar known for synchronizing all known ancient calendars (Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Hebrew, Egyptian, Persian, Julian) to a common framework and establishing how to convert between them. He was known for introducing the Julian Period (7,980-year cycle) — a neutral chronological scale combining solar, lunar, and indiction cycles — to allow dates from different systems to be compared easily. He also was known for correcting errors in ancient texts and establishing principles for evaluating historical reliability. He is considered the founder of scientific chronology in Europe. His main works wereDe emendatione temporum (1583), which establishes conversions between different chronology systems, and Thesaurus temporum (1606), which provides a basic world history timeline.

Dionysius Petavius (1583–1652) – a Jesuit famed for further laying the groundwork for modern chronology and continuing the work of Joseph Justus Scaliger. His main work was that of correcting dating errors from early scholars and providing more detailed and expanded instructions on how to convert between various calendars to that established by Scaliger. Thus, while Scaliger invented the conceptual framework for universal chronology, it was Petavius who practically applied and extended that framework with detailed calculations, corrections, and tables, making it usable for scholars.

He also helped integrate Biblical history into the universal timeline of which Joseph Scaliger had laid the groundwork. His masterwork, Opus de doctrina temporum (1627), was the second systemic attempt made to establish a world history timeline (the first was of course Joseph Justus Scaliger). This book, as well as his Tabulae chronologicae (1628, 1629, 1633, 1657) became the standard reference for European scholars through much of the 17th century.

Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614) – produced authoritative editions of many ancient Greek and Latin authors, this involved “emendation” which is the scholarly term for changing a text because you think it is wrong given what you think is the historical context. He also (apparently) helped distinguish which texts were “forgeries” and also helped create an established Greek and Roman history.

Gregorian calendar (1582) – modified the Julian calendar to more properly have correct leap years. It’s interesting to me that this came at the same time period as all the other chronology reforms here.

Conclusions

The point of this section is illustrate that Europeans really didn’t have much of an established historical timeline before the 1500s, and a small handful of people are responsible for creating history as we know it. When you take into account that even established historians claim these individuals were “correcting” source documents and source dates, it starts to become more realistic that the greatest hoax of all time could have occurred during this time period.

It also seems unrealistic that it would take a 1000 years from the establishment of the Ano Domini (AD) dating system for historians to then work out how to convert between said dating systems and older dating systems. When you account for the inserted 1,000 years, that actually places the life of Dionysius Exiguus (470–544) right before the life of Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540 – 1609) – thus producing a more logical series of events – the AD system was created, and then a few years later scholars produced ways to convert between various dating systems.

And finally, I have seen people online saying that we know a thousand years could not have been added because of agreeing histories in other continents – however these people never provide evidence. This is an example of a strain of circular reasoning that is very common and annoying:

  • Established history must be true because evidence for established history surely exists (though they don’t provide said evidence).
  • This evidence surely exists because this topic in history is established.

When you point out the circular reasoning, critics usually will quickly look at Wikipedia and find something that is “evidence”. Someone did this to me once, saying that the Treaty_of_Karlowitz is an example of incontrovertible evidence that history is true. However, I then took the liberty of actually reading the source document of the treaty, and the countries and borders described in the text were extremely not in alignment with “settled history” – thus we see history wasn’t built upon this document, but rather the document is poorly used to justify a historical timeline that doesn’t really match.

Precedent

People may think that there is no way authorities could get away with shifting our dating system. However, this actually already has occurred once in the bible:

The original Bible of the Christian church was the Septuagint (LXX), which is traditionally dated to the 3rd–2nd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt, when a group of 70 scholars translated the torah into Greek. When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it actually quotes the Septuagint. The oldest fragments of the Septuagint come from the 2nd century BC.

Then a thousand years later (believed to be first dated from 7th–10th century CE) was introduced the Masoretic Text (MT) – supposedly coming from a group of Jewish scholars who standardized the Torah. The MT is the foundation of most modern bibles, including the King James Version, since the Catholic Church (and therefore the protestants) chose the Masoretic text, while the Eastern Orthodox church kept with the Septuagint. The earliest fragment of the MT is the Aleppo Codex from around 930 CE.

And as a side note: the apocrypha actually refers to the books contained within the Septuagint which are not contained in the Masoretic Text – which is why the apocrypha is included in eastern orthodox bibles. Moreover, the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint really are the two oldest texts of the bible, excluding the dead sea scrolls.

According to the Septuagint, Adam was created around 5554 BC, while in the Masoretic Text, Adam was created in 4,004 BC (source – though some people have slightly numbers, such as here). This graph shows how the dating differs – the red line represents total lifespan, while the green is the age at begettal for the next generation (source):

Notably, the Masoretic text subtracts exactly a hundred years from the first five patriarchs in the line from Adam through Mahaleel.

Notably, as the source of these graphs discusses, scholars don’t think this dating was a translation error. Scholars in the Masoretic camp claim that the duration of the bible was elongated in the Septuagint by patriotic Egyptians who wanted to make their country seem older (interesting). Scholars in the Septuagint camp claim that the Masoretic was shorted by a secret conspiracy of Samaritans who infiltrated the Jews to alter their bible to more match their texts (which doesn’t perfectly make sense though, since the Samaritan Pentateuch has its own dating system which contradicts both the Masoretic and the Septuagint).

So just to recap: one day in Europe at supposedly around the 7th-10th century (so it apparently had already been almost a thousand years since Christ), people woke up and their Church changed their historical timeline, subtracting 1,500 years from the date of Adam. And then the Church also decided to remove a bunch of books from its bible, which had been established in their bibles for hundreds of years, because they were apocryphal. If this could happen, I propose it is possible that other changes to history also could happen.

So which text is right? In my opinion, the Septuagint is more correct – after all it is almost a thousand years older and is more complete with more books than the Masoretic. Moreover, this paper explains how the MT’s chronology is a result of deliberate and systematic post–AD 70 corruption, using external witnesses, internal evidence, and historical testimonies to support this claim. Likewise, this paper discuss how some Messianic prophecies are missing or obfuscated in the Septuagint (this article provides more insight). It’s also noteworthy how according to the Masoretic text, Jesus is born into the 76th generation, while in the Septuagint Jesus is in the 77th generation (thus aligning with the 77 generations described in Luke 3). But let’s not panic – the differences aren’t actually that big – so I think it is fine to use Bible versions based on the Masoretic text; indeed, I personally read the King James version (based on the MT), and I recommend all English speakers to use that version because the newer versions of the Bible (advertised as having more accurate translations) actually have deliberately removed key doctrines such as fasting (as discussed in Spiritual Warfare).

Furthermore, though the official story of the Masoretic text is that a group of Jews standardized the Torah, I highly doubt we truly know this is true. How do I know? Well, the period when the Masoretic text might have been translated is roughly spans a 400 year range (7th–10th century CE). If I told you that a group of scholars produced the KJV, but that we only know it came from between 1500ad to 1900ad, surely it would be obvious that I have no clue where the KJV came from.

In my opinion, the Septuagint was likely introduced around the same time as the great date swap during the period when many other dating systems were also being altered. Specifically, many scholars have interpreted the Bible as implying that the earth will only last 7,000 years (D&C also implies this in D&C 77:6, D&C 88:108-110). However, by adding the 1,000 years, they made it look like over 7000 years had already passed (or nearly passed) – thus the necessity of shortening the time frame of the Bible.

Motivation

I speculate that the 1,000 years were added to give credence to 1) the Catholic church (which likely was much younger than claimed) and 2) to give credence to the various monarchies by claiming their lineages were much older.

And just to emphasize, to you people who think conspiracies of this magnitude aren’t possible:

  • We already know that much of the lineages of European monarchs are made up (as I will discuss), which thus implies that much of early European history is wrong.
  • Even mainstream scholars agree that some sort of grand conspiracy must have been the cause of the dating discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. And to note the obvious: the theory of the camp who think that this was caused by patriotic Egyptians trying to make their kingdom seem older is extremely similar to my proposed theory.
  • To emphasize, when the church switched the dating systems and books of the bible in the switch from the Septuagint to the Masoretic, the world apparently kept spinning without any huge fractures of the church. Thus, I argue the earth also would continue spinning without huge rebellions if the Church decided to add a thousand years to history.

Getting Lost in Genealogy

It is already known that many European monarchy genealogies are fake (source 1, source 2, source 3). Indeed, in my own genealogies I see:

  • Scandinavian Monarchs descended from Thor
  • An instance where Monarchs were descended from the Greek hero Hercules.
  • Most monarchy lines either trace their way back to Jesus, or to Sumerian monarchs.
  • Sumerian monarchs and Pharaohs all descend from Indian monarchs, who descend from Indian God’s, going back a truly astounding amount of time.
  • Biblical figures magically pop up, but they are actually among lines of Sumerian monarchs.
  • Monarchs of the Scythians – which shouldn’t be a thing.
  • Weird links – like people who are supposed to be Asgardians but then are descended from the Trojans.
  • Many lines of super ancient middle eastern kingdoms that were supposed to be  unrelated actually are all related. For example, I saw that Darius III, the last king of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, is magically descended from biblical Esther and Xerxes as well as king Nebuchadnezzar. Similarly, magically Nebuchadnezzar II is somehow descended from Sargon II d’Assyrie.
  • Some ancient middle eastern rulers and pharaohs are magically are descended from the jews, such as Xerxes I and Darius I.
  • Here are pictures substantiating the above claim.

Thus, in my view the faking of lines of kings is another precedents that history can and has been faked.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *