- Ordo Ab Chao -
("Order Out Of Chaos" Or "To Control The Chain Of Causality")
- The Causality Paradox -
(The Hypothetical Scenario That Results If You Could Travel Back In Time And Alter The Course Of History)
Unadulterated history is a natural spatiotemporal flow of cause-and-effect. The true historian is a time traveler venturing back to the past to become a current and attentive spectator of that flow, to gain first-hand knowledge of the exact order in which those events have transpired, and to develop as perfectly as possible an understanding of the motivations that precipitated those events. Now, pay close attention, because what I say next is very important. When the historian travels back in time he gains an advantage over the subjects of his research: he becomes uniquely endowed with foresight about how the future will eventually unfold. The historian has become, as if by pure magic, a Seer. (S)he can exploit the Causality Paradox. For, as we've been instructed by the Pulitzer Axiom, "Any event, once transpired, can be made to appear inevitable by any competent journalist."
“Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the Seer: For he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a Seer” (1 Sam. 9:9).
As you continue to read this, bear in mind that according to ancient Egyptian tradition, the “Greatest of Seers” (wr-mꜢw) was the title of the high priest of Ra. The name "Israel" contains a "Ra" theophoric (see Note 1).
"
Proceeding along, let’s compare unadulterated history with an ever-expanding jigsaw puzzle, wherein the pieces are continuously being assembled with precise symmetry. The pieces are connected in an almost seamless contiguity in which it becomes a challenge to determine where one segment end and another begins. Everything is aligned in its proper place and time in progressive sequence. If not, the anomaly is instantly detected. In history, we refer to such an anomaly as anachronism. A historian who fails to discern anachronisms is not a very astute one. Though most historians eventually become scholars, not most scholars necessarily become historians. Therefore, a scholar may observe an historical anomaly without realizing it or grasping the significance of it; yet, by commenting on it, become an unwitting source of information concerning it.
Such an unwitting informant was Jacques-Joseph Champollion-Figeac (1778-1867), archaeologist and elder brother of Jean-Francois Champollion (decipherer of the Rosetta Stone). While visiting the tombs of Horemheb (Egyptian king c. 1319-1292 BC), and Set I (c. 1294-1279 BC), he compared their images of the Hittite calvary with those of the calvary of Ashurnarsipal II (c. 883-859 BC) and made the following observation: “…On the Nimrud bas-reliefs the calvary display a striking agreement with the Hittite calvary depicted on the war scenes of Seti I. Both ride bareback, obtain a firm grip by pressing the raised knees against the horses’ flanks. Both employ the bow as their only weapon. They are used in an identical way tactically, invariable in conjunction with the chariotry. Both are depicted in exactly the same way. How peculiar,” Champollion pondered, “that after four and a half centuries the art of horsemanship should have developed so little.” [Maspero, Hist. of Egypt, Vol. 7, London, 1906].
Without realizing it, Champollion had witnessed a chronological anomaly. An anachronism [The occurrence of an act, event, or object in a time period to which it does not belong (e.g., the theophoric "Jo-seph" 400 years before God's name was revealed to Moses). But in Champollion's situation: Identical scenarios separated by a time interval of four centuries plus]. And, in this case, we can be certain that Seti’s images pre-figured those of the Nimrud reliefs. What was the cause of such anomalies? Typically, they are symptomatic of historical revisionism. In my article “JHVH | The Doctrine of the Ineffable Name”, I pointed out that in the Egyptian Histories authored by the Greek historian Herodotus, he makes Sennacherib (conventionally c. 705-681 BC) a contemporary of Seti I. While in Bibliocentric history (history that has been altered to conform to the Biblical Narrative), Sennacherib is a contemporary of Hezekiah [c. 716-686 BC. (See Hezekiah's seal?)], king of Judah.
Let us now locate and refer to any artifact containing war images as they were depicted four centuries after the time of Seti I. An ideal specimen is the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (created c. 827-824 BC), allegedly containing the image of Jehu (1 Ki. 16:1), the first historical depiction of an Israelite or Judaean monarch. Now, let’s travel farther back to the time of Seti I, to see if we can isolate similar images. One, in particular, is a war mural in which a group of foes are identified as Shasu. We can’t help but notice the striking resemblance between a Shasu and the so-called Jehu of the Black Obelisk. When I first compared the two, my feelings mirrored those of Champollion with perfect empathy. “How little the appearance of the Shasu has changed in the space of more than four hundred years!”
This physical evidence corroborates the historicity of Herodotus’ account. Next, observe that the caption on the Black Obelisk reads: Ia-u-a DUMA Hu-um-ri; supposedly translated as “Jehu from the house of Omri”. Concerning the Shasu, we know with certainty of two designations for them: Shasu of Iah, and Shasu of Edom. We must speculate, however, when it comes to determining if they represent two distinct groups or just one. Since the word EDOM is easily recognized by those “who have eyes to see,” we can deduce that the so-called image of Jehu is really that of an Edomite Shasu. For the historian truly versed in ancient Egyptian history, (s)he is aware that preserved in its records is the expulsion of Edomite Shasu from the North-East Delta by Seti I. Why? Because they were accused of colluding with the inhabitants of Palestine who were in the process of rebelling against their foreign (Assyrian?) overlords! The verdict: The Acknowledged Authorities on the matter erred. The Black Obelisk was really created in a time period coinciding with Egypt’s nineteenth dynasty (c. 1292-1189 BC). History during that period must be recalibrated accordingly.
THIS ARTICLE WILL RESUME FOR THE INITIATED ONLY!
​
