The Universe before Humanity (aliens, megaliths, & ancient empires) w/Tim Alberino

There are many kingdoms, terrestrial and extraterrestrial, and the Son of God is King and Lord over all.

The Bible opens up with a world that is reeling in the wake of cataclysm, and it's a scene of ruination. I got kicked out of M ping last time I was there. I was being, I was being kicked out, that's what happened. I'll tell you in a minute. The Builders of the megaliths, for whatever reason, decided to build their complexes in the most difficult way humanly imagined. The biblical narrative presumes the existence of extraterrestrial beings. We're looking at a galactic war here, of which Jesus was the victor. Jesus is robed in splendor, striding in the strength of his might, with his robe dipped in blood as he's vanquishing the dragon and cutting Rahab in pieces.

Hey, before you get into this episode, I want to give you a couple points and things to think about. We are going to dive into some really deep topics. These are historical topics. We're going to talk about cryptology a little bit in this, in the first hour or so. We're setting a lot of needed context, but I'm going to warn you that there's only so much you can go to in a two-hour episode. There are some loose ends and things, and we've given you all the resources you need. We have a guest with us, his name is Timothy Alberino, and he's one of the, you know, my brightest researchers I think alive today when it comes to lining up and connecting the dots of history as they point to Jesus. And we talk about megalithic structures and ancient civilizations and the flood and all of these crazy things. We're going to put time stamps in this one specifically, so if you need to revisit certain parts, you can, or if you want to jump to certain parts, you can. We really drive it home into the topics of what is salvation and what is Jesus and the prodigal son at the end of this episode. So here's what I would encourage you to do: watch this with an open mind and and make sure you don't skip too much of the context because if you skip the first hour, some of it won't make sense at the end. But I think you'll love it. I loved it. Thanks for being here.

What's up, crew? Welcome back to the deep end. We have something crazy for you today. I am hanging out with my new friend, his name is Sir Timothy Alberino, hailing from the Mountains of Montana. Thanks for being here. I was just knighted. You were just, you are royalty at this point, technically you are. Um, you talk a little bit, if, if you're, let me, let me just pre-warn everybody. We're going to go deep on stuff that I don't think I've seen anyone else talk about the way that you talk about it. So I don't know what you did to get the brain that you got. God gave you something crazy. A lot of drugs? No, I'm just kidding. There we go. Um, but when I read Birthright, I was telling this story before, when did that come out? It's newer, right? Okay. You know what's funny is today, today's Halloween, right? Yeah. Halloween of 2020, that's when I published. Let's go. W. It's an anniversary moment. Yeah, it is. And then Book of Enoch is newer. We, I published that, um, with Luke and Nate from the Blurry Creatures podcast. We, we published that, um, in the summer. Okay. August, couple months ago. July, somewhere in there. Yeah. So I'm, I'm newer, like I'm a, I'm a newer, uh, consumer of. So I read Birthright two or three months ago. I was joking around because there are parts in the book where you connect the dots, like you connect the dots of the Gospel to history. And there's certain things that you say that I would like, tell my wife and she's like, what are you talking about? I'm like, this word, I don't know what that word means. It's like, all right, we need to get Tim in town and break some of this down because it's really good. Here you are. Let's talk first and foremost. I want to start with the statement you made in the book. You said, mankind did not invent civilization, he inherited it. And humans were not the first things on this planet. That's right. Most people who are, who would call themselves believers and Christians, their world starts Adam and Eve, but it started way before that. I don't know how long in history it started. But what was going on before? And how do you make that statement?

Well, the prevailing perception among Christians and among, I would say the general public, when thinking about the biblical worldview is that human beings, mankind, is the center of the universe. That this is the biblical narrative, that mankind is the center of the universe, everything is happening, this is our story, and all the other characters in our story are ancillary. We're the main character, human beings. This is called the anthropocentric perspective of the universe. Turns out that's not the biblical worldview. That's not the correct biblical perspective. The correct biblical perspective is called a christocentric perspective. Christ is the center of the universe, not us. It's His story, and we're ancillary characters in His story. And there's a lot of other players in the game besides us. And when we show up, you know, when you open up Genesis and you have, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," and "the Earth was without form and void." People think that that is the beginning, the creation of the universe. And that in this, in this, in the anthropocentric perspective, that the Earth came into being with the universe and mankind with the Earth. That is not accurate. And how do we know that that's not accurate from a biblical perspective? Because in Job, we read that when the foundations of the earth were laid, when God was forming or reforming the Earth, the sons of God, the Ben Elohim, shouted for joy. And these sons of God are very intelligent beings. These are not, you know, they're not puppets or something like this in the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a civilization. The sons of God are members of a divine family, and they're shouting for joy when the earth is being created or reformed. And this is happening. This is the pretext to the creation of mankind. This is the preamble. So they're in existence first. That's why I call them in my book, "The Elder Siblings," the angelic race. I denominate as our elder siblings, the elder race. And so the idea is that there's an entire history, eons of untold history, preceded the creation of mankind. We're coming late in the game. We show up late in the game on the timeline of history. And I think this is all, and I make this case in my book Birthright, and I think that this is all very apparent when you, when you detach yourself from that anthropocentric perspective, you remove yourself from the hub of the wheel, as it were, and you place Christ at the center of the universe. And we're, we are one of the characters in His story. And there are other characters. We know that there are other characters. We read, for example, in the Hebrew Old Testament, we read about the cherubim. We read about the, there was an entity in Eden with Adam and Eve. And that entity is not a talking snake. I am of the persuasion, by the way, that the Garden of Eden is an allegory. I don't read that literally. I think it's an allegory. And it's not a talking snake, and it's not an apple. This is a being, a very intelligent entity, with whom Adam and Eve are conversing. And as I said, in this context, we are the younger sibling. We were created to be members of a family, of a divine family. That's why we were made in the image and likeness of God. But we're not the only ones, by the way, who bear the image of God. Our siblings bear the image of God also. And I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here. That's great. But the, you know, there's this assumption that only the human species bears the image of God. That we possess some unique qualities that no other creatures in the universe have. That we are, we are rational beings, that we are emotional beings, that we have this, we have this ability to think creatively and to create. And we assume, and there's no reason to assume this, but we assume that we're, we're it. That there's God, and then there's us, in regard to beings that are made in His image. That's not true. The Bible never says that only man was made in the image of God. That's a fallacy. And clearly, we have these other entities in the picture in the story who pre-exist us. And who are more intelligent than we are. What is it that, is there anything that makes humans special? Yes, the gospel of Christ. Okay, got it. That God sent His only begotten Son to die for us. He became us in order to redeem us. He's our kinsman redeemer. He, the Bible says that he did not help the angels. He came for us. And the, so the story of the gospel, it's unique to the human species in that the Son of God became a man to redeem mankind. And that makes us very special in this equation. Got it. But we are certainly not the brightest and the best in regard to our capabilities.

What about, what about way back then? Like, so Adam, what, Adam and Eve put here? Well, let me, I'm going to table that question. What was happening before the chaos of the Earth was put back together? Like, there was a war in the cosmos. And I get the sense that something on the Earth, the Earth was already here when that war was happening, correct?

Well, going back to the beginning of Genesis, we find a world that is, what I believe, the scene when you open up again, Genesis, the first and second verses of Genesis, what we have is a world that is in a state of ruination. The Earth is, is in a state of ruination, in my opinion, post-judgment. And so we're looking at a world that has experienced an unimaginable cataclysm. And this is the opening scene. And that cataclysm occurred as a result of something else that happened in the cosmos before mankind was created. Indeed, I would say that part of the reason why we were created, that that you cannot disconnect us from what pre-exists us. We were created in the, in the sequence of time. And part of the purpose that we were created was to remedy something that had happened previously, previous to our existence. And so the Bible opens up with a world that is reeling in the wake of cataclysm, and it's a scene of ruination. And the, that gets very detailed. There's the first and second verses of Genesis. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." And the Earth was without form and void. But I don't think that that's the best rendering of those verses. And we don't, we don't have to go down this path because it gets very technical. But I think there, you can, you can render the first and second verses of Genesis in the following way: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." Full stop. Period. That's the initial creation. Then verse two, "But not, and but the Earth became desolate and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." That's a different story, is it not? That's a different story. Different. But the Earth became desolate and empty. And so what would cause this desolation? Well, the answer is in the scriptures, insurrection in the Kingdom of Heaven. Which, so there was this event that happened in which a particular being, who's never actually named in the Bible, he's alluded to with various monikers, such as the devil, Satan, that serpent of old, the dragon. But he's never actually named. And there's a misnomer. The name Lucifer is actually a misnomer that comes from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome's translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. And so Jerome derives the name Lucifer, which means light-bearer, or shining one, or bright star. But the point is that he's a morning star. And this is the other word that's associated with what I call the elder race, with these sons of God, the Ben Elohim, morning stars. Why are they called morning stars? Because they're the first to have appeared in the universe. And they have a whole history of their own that unfolded in the universe before we show up on the scene. And it's this, it's this what I call a galactic rebellion that happens, that occurs as the preamble of our story. And so we're, we're picking up the story when, when you open your Bible, you open the Hebrew Old Testament, and you begin to read the Book of Genesis, this is a new page being turned, a new chapter. But it's not chapter one, right? It's our chapter begins in Genesis. So when you begin to think about the Bible, when you have this, call it a galactic paradigm of the biblical narrative, it starts to break apart your, your presumptions. It starts to break apart your paradigm, and it forces it to expand. Because now the story isn't just about us. The focus isn't us, it's Christ. And there's something way bigger happening in the background.

Yeah, okay. Are you okay? Let's go. So much, but it's awesome. Let's go. Let's go deeper. And then, so I know that you're a, you're a researcher who's very good at what you do. So if people want to research this, they can buy the book. But I just want to talk about your, you mentioned certain like clues to this, almost that, uh, if his name is not Lucifer, or whoever it was, almost being a, he was going between different like elder races on different planets. Yes.

This character who's never actually named, I always likened him to Voldemort from the Harry Potter series. He who shall not be named. His name is never spoken. We're never told. Now, he's alluded to in various places. But this, he was obviously a prince in the Kingdom. So there's something called, there's an idea, and I didn't know it at the time when I was writing Birthright. I thought this was an original thought to me. Turns out it's not. It's called a plurality of worlds concept. And so when, for example, when we see Jesus returning, and he has written on his thigh, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." What we think is, oh, well, he's the king of all the human kings, all the earthly kings, and the Lord of all the earthly lords. I think there's something much deeper being expressed in this title. These are titles of regency. King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I think that there, what we're looking at here is something that resembles an empire. Yeah, that there are many kingdoms, terrestrial and extraterrestrial. And the Son of God is King and Lord over all. Right. And we know that this is the case because in the Bible, we encounter these angelic beings being described as princes. They're princes. And in fact, Jesus is called the Prince of Princes in the Old Testament. And so, princes, what do princes do? What is the function of a prince? They govern, right? Indeed. We use the term principality. Now, that term is not directly found in the Bible. That's a transliteration of archon. But the idea is, in the Bible, a principality is a realm governed by a prince. Got it. Now, there's two ways to look at this, and I think both are simultaneously correct. One is what's called a Deuteronomy 32 worldview. And the late Dr. Michael Heiser popularized this view, in which the nations were disinherited by Yahweh at Babel, at the Tower of Babel. God disinherits the nations, and he turns them over to the sons of God, the Ben Elohim. And in Heiser's view, and I agree with this, those are not human beings. He turns them over to lesser gods, to members of the elder race. And yes, those would also be considered princes. Remember, the Prince of Persia, when Daniel's praying, and there's an emissary sent to Daniel, and the Prince of Persia intercepts this emissary, I believe it's Gabriel, and Michael has to intervene, come save him. And so there's that prince in that sense, that there are non-human princes on Earth. But I think it's bigger than that, because remember, these guys pre-exist us. What were they doing in the universe before we showed up? They weren't, you know, they weren't playing harps and sitting on clouds. And this is the, this is the salient point here. When you talk about the elder race, when you talk about these exceedingly intelligent beings that pre-exist us, what we're talking about is a civilization, an extraterrestrial civilization that they were governing. Yes. Yeah, they, they were, they were doing the kinds of things that we do here on Earth, but not here. And this is sort of a qualm that people have when they encounter my work, because again, from the anthropocentric perspective, the human-centric perspective, it's difficult for people to accept within the biblical worldview the concept of extraterrestrials. They think that that is some sort of a secular, or they think that that is, for whatever reason, a secular worldview. It's never, it's not really associated with a biblical worldview. But it is absolutely a biblical worldview. In fact, I say that the biblical narrative presumes the existence of extraterrestrial beings. And I'll go back to Job, where the sons of God are shouting for joy. They're not on Earth shouting for joy. They're watching something happen on Earth. They're spectating from somewhere else. And so when you talk about extraterrestrials, which really, you have to, in the context of this conversation, you have to define terms. And the term extraterrestrial simply means a being, let's say, let's put it in the, let's talk specifically about sentient beings, because you can talk about microbes on Mars or something. Let's be specific to sentient beings. Extraterrestrial is a being, a sentient being, whose providence, whose origin is not planet Earth. That's it. That's what an extraterrestrial. So then, if we, if we consult the biblical narrative and we ask the question, does the biblical narrative confirm the existence of extraterrestrial beings? The answer is univocally yes. Yeah, unequivocally yes. Well, then that means that there are extraterrestrial worlds. There must be. And now, and here, this is where people get caught in the weeds, because they start to say, well, it's not extraterrestrial, there's extra dimensions. They go that route, and they see, and people seem to think that that's somehow more palatable for a Christian to say, no, no, no, I don't believe in extraterrestrial worlds, but I will accept extra-dimensional worlds or quote unquote spiritual worlds. But the, but here's the problem I have with that, and I'll take a break. I'm dominating this conversation, but that's why you're here. But, um, here's my problem with that. You know, we have really, really good telescopes. And I was looking through one a couple of years ago, and it was remarkable. My neighbor has a, he works for the university, and he was setting up a dialing in a telescope for them, a really expensive telescope for the university. And he was in his yard, and he's got it all dialed in. He knocked on my door, and he wanted to know if me and my sons wanted to come look at it while he's got it dialed in. And we went out there, and it was remarkable. I mean, I looked through this telescope, and I wasn't, I wasn't expecting to see what I saw. It, it, I saw Mars so clearly. And I mean, people who have nice telescopes, this is, you know, they do this all the time. But I had never looked through a really good scope. So you look up in the sky, and you see this very bright object in the sky, and it looks like a star. Soon as you put your eye into that eyepiece in the telescope, that's not a star. It's the planet Mars, the red planet Mars, just like you see on the NASA photos. Yeah. So what you think is a star, it's just some bright object in the sky. You look through the telescope, and you're looking at the red planet of Mars. And then we looked at Jupiter, and we looked at Saturn, and you can see the, you could see the moon, some of the moons around these planets on this scope. And so it, what I'm getting at here is that it, it always confounds me that so many Christians who approach this topic say, no, no, no, there's no, nothing extraterrestrial, there's no extraterrestrial worlds. It's interdimensional or spiritual. But get a telescope and look at the planet Mars. That's a world. Yeah. Like the Earth is a world. That's a world. And that's one of billions, right? And you're going to tell me that there's no use for any of those? It's just the Earth? Absolutely not. Yeah. The universe could be teeming with life, and there's nothing anti-biblical about that concept whatsoever. Right. And us not being able to see them doesn't mean that they don't exist as well.

So you, you make another, there, I think there's a verse somewhere that references a star. This isn't Rahab, this is something different. A star that apparently one of the principalities had governance over. Then Rahab was supposedly destroyed in the rebellion as well. Do you want to just briefly touch Rahab?

Interesting narrative. I don't have my book in front of me to reference the relevant verses. But you find this in the biblical narrative. See, okay, so here's, you kind of have to start at square one with people who are not familiar with this mode of thinking as it pertains to the biblical narrative. The Bible, we've not been taught to read the Bible correctly as Westerners. There's two ways that you have to approach the Bible. Number one, you have to read it in the cultural context that it was written, and that is the ancient Near East. And so you have to understand, if you're going to have any understanding whatsoever of the iconography in the biblical narrative, especially in prophecy, then you have to familiarize yourself with the ancient Near East, because it used that iconography. When I say the ancient Near East, we're talking about Mesopotamia, so Sumer, Akkadia, the Persians, the Babylonians, the ancient Egyptians. This is what we're talking about. The iconography that is used in those cultures is the same iconography in the Bible. I'll give you an example: cherubim. When people hear the word cherubim, they automatically assume that this is a Hebrew convention or Hebrew invention, the cherub, that this is idiosyncratic of the Hebrew culture. That's not true. Cherubim are ubiquitous in the ancient Near East. You find them all over ancient Mesopotamia. We still see them on the walls of some of the palaces in Babylon. And in ancient Egypt. These cultures predate the Hebrews. In fact, Abraham came from Mesopotamia, from Ur, either in Sumer or Akkadia. So this culture predates the Hebrew culture. And when you encounter the cherub, you're not looking at a Hebrew artifact, you're looking at an artifact from the ancient Near East. And so to, in order to decipher what the meaning of the cherubim or the cherub is, you have to consult with the iconography of the cultures that were contemporary with the Hebrews. So that's the first way you have to approach the Old Testament. We have all kinds of misconceptions in the West because we don't really do that. We read the, we read the Old Testament out of context, and so we invent all kinds of weird stuff. But then the second way, I think we need to approach the scriptures, the Old Testament especially, is it's a very, very esoteric document. The Tanakh, in the Hebrew Old Testament, is very esoteric. What do I mean by esoteric? Esotericism is the practice of hiding information, embedding information. Cryptology. Cryptology, that's right. So it's embedding information. So you have a plain reading of a text, which has value, but the information is embedded. So what it, so the way that I like to think about it is, it's like an encrypted folder on a computer. If I send you an encrypted folder, you have the folder, and you have the information. I can't access it, but you can't access it unless you unzip it. Or I have the key, or password. Key. The password to unzip it. And only then can you extract the information. Now, you have the name of the folder, you have some information, you have preliminary information, but you don't have the actual data that I'm sending to you until you have the key and you encrypt and you decrypt it and you extract the information. That's the way that much of the Old Testament, indeed the entire Bible, is written. I mean, the Book of Revelation is entirely encrypted. We're told to calculate the number of the beast. And when I was a kid, I always thought, why? I've never caught, why don't you just tell me what this means? But see, the answer is in the scriptures. Solomon tells us that it is the glory of God to conceal a thing. Wow. Encrypt it. Hide it. And it is the glory of kings to seek a thing out. So God is in the business of esoterism. This is not just some sort of an occult thing. God does this in His encrypted message to mankind. In fact, He did it. We know that He did this with His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth shows up on the scene, and the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who were the teachers of the law, some of whom probably have the whole Hebrew Old Testament committed to memory, cannot recognize the very person that all the symbolism and all of these stories in the Old Testament point to. They had the folder, but they didn't, they couldn't decode it. They didn't encrypt, they didn't decrypt it properly because they couldn't recognize the very Son of God standing in front of them. And all the symbolism in, for example, in the Tabernacle, this is just one example of many. All the symbolism in the Tabernacle points to Him. And this is the problem. And I often say that, you know, if I'm holding a Bible in my hands, both the Old and New Testament are this way, especially the Book of Revelation. Primarily, the prophecies are entirely esoteric. They must not be ever be interpreted literally, or you miss the point. But if I'm holding a Bible in my hand, there's two ways to look at the Bible. If I'm holding this, the Old and New Testament in my hands, you can look at it as a relic, which is what we've done in the West, a holy relic, that this thing itself is this holy relic. Or you can look at it as a message and a message system, because it's 66 books. And if you look at it as a relic, you're going to get one rendering. If you look at it as a message, then you're going to start to try and decrypt. Then you're going to go into the prophecy. Then you're going to go into some of the things in the Old Testament and the New, and you're going to begin to try and figure out what is the message here. And the Bible, and this is Chuck Missler, the late Chuck Missler used to say that I'm sorry. That's okay. I thought I thought I muted this. What kind of phone is that? At least it's a good ringtone. Thought for sure I muted it. Which phone is that? It's the Galaxy, I don't remember. Uh, G5, I think. Galaxy G5. Um, what was I saying? Um, before I interrupted myself. The decode the message, not a relic, right? So when you, when you approach the scriptures as a relic, which is what we do in the West, and what the Hebrews, what the Pharisees and Sadducees were doing, they're approaching the scripture as a relic because they missed the memo, right? They didn't get the message right. And it really is completely two completely different ways of approaching the scripture. So when you talk about Rahab, I went, I did that whole loop so we can get back to Rahab. So, so when you talk about Rahab, not the woman, but the planet.

Well, that's the thing. When you talk about Rahab, or both, I guess, you have to approach the story, you have to approach the references to Rahab with the intention of extracting the message, right? In extracting the data from that encrypted folder, finding the key, unlocking the folder, and extracting the data. And when you do that, and I don't have the verses in front of me, when you do that, you will discover that what's being conveyed, for example, with this topic of Rahab, that it is very likely indicating that there was a planet called Rahab that is now the debris field between Mars and Jupiter, that was shattered, destroyed by the King of Heaven in the days of old, when He put down the insurrection of the Dragon. So Isaiah 51:9, there's at least three, very, there's three references to Rahab in which the dragon is implicated, and it's this idea that Rahab was shattered. And you know, you know what's funny is I've got all these notes in my book that was in the car that my wife just drove away, so I don't have them in my hand. I actually pulled up, "The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his rebuke. By his power, he stilled the sea; by his understanding, he shattered Rahab." That is Job 26:11. "The Isaiah one is, awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake as in the days of old, as in the generations of long ago! Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?" Pierce the dragon. Now, pause right there. So remember when Jesus is in the post-resurrection, Jesus is walking on the road to Emmaus with the two gentlemen, and he's, and he's discussing the scriptures with them. You remember, they don't recognize him yet. And they're absolutely flabbergasted because he is so knowledgeable about the scriptures. And what is he telling them? What is he demonstrating to them, according to the script, according to the writer of the New Testament, to the writer of this particular gospel? He's showing them how all these things in the Old Testament pertained to him. That's what he's showing the men on the road to Emmaus. And they don't recognize him. And they recognize that it was him after the fact. But why do I say that? Because you just read that. Read that second one again that you read. "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake as in the days of old." Okay, so the arm of the Lord in the days of old, Jesus is in there. Do you see him? You're going to have to connect that for me. He's the arm of the Lord. He's the right hand of God, who is in the bosom of the Father. So when you encounter this phraseology, the arm of the Lord, or the right hand of God, you are encountering the Son of God. The Old Testament, "Was it not you," implying Jesus, "was it not you, Son of God, King of Heaven, who cut Rahab in pieces and pierced the dragon?" The dragon, we're looking at a galactic war here, of which Jesus was the victor. Jesus is robed in splendor, striding in the strength of his might, with his robe dipped in blood, as he's vanquishing the dragon and cutting Rahab in pieces. This is an allusion to something that happened long before we showed up on the scene, "as in the days of old." And we know that the dragon is a moniker of this apostate son who initiated this insurrection against the King of Heaven. So this is why I went through that whole, yeah, this is why I went through that whole dialogue about an in, in, in decrypting the folder, extracting the information, because if you just read that, if you're just approaching the Bible as a relic, and you go, you read those verses, you just gloss over them, you don't understand the, you can't extract the data. You don't understand, for example, that when it says the arm of the Lord or the right hand of God, that you are literally encountering the Son of God right there, the King of Heaven. And when it talks about piercing the dragon and cutting Rahab in pieces, you're looking at a story in which the King of Heaven, the right hand of God, the Son of God, defeated this apostate prince on a battlefield, and in the process, he cut this thing called Rahab to pieces. He shattered it like a clay vessel. And again, I'm suggesting that that is a planet. And that the debris, we can still see today between Mars and Jupiter. That's a different story than you get in Sunday school. Very different.

Read the last one. That last Rahab reference. This is from, and then I want to share something to parallel, substantiate what you're saying about the key in cetology and geometry and Gematria, all that stuff. This is Psalm 89:9. "You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. You have broken Rahab in pieces as one who is slain; you have scattered your enemies with your mighty arm." Read what, and I wish I had my book in front of me. What do I write preceding those verses? Read what Rahab means. The desolated topography of Earth's neighboring planets, marred by the gaping craters of intense meteoric bombardment, implies that some cataclysmic event rocked the solar system. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is likely the debris of an obliterated planet called Rahab, one of the seven shattered vessels of Edom. Edom, the connotations of the word Rahab, fierce, insolent, proud, boaster, are the calling cards of its renegade prince. References to Rahab in the biblical text are distinctly bicos and directly associated with the dragon's rebellion and the triumph of the King who vanquished them. And then those three verses come, in which you have the King of Heaven, the right hand of God, who is vanquishing the dragon, piercing the dragon, and shattering this thing called Rahab. And what I wanted to point out was, read that last verse again. That last one that references Rahab. "You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them." Pause. Let's decrypt that. Is that Jesus again? What is the raging of the sea? What does that mean? The raging of the sea, that's insurrection. Read the, read the paragraph under that verse. "Steering and ruling the raging sea are metaphors for quelling and subduing insurrection. The shattering of Rahab was the decisive blow that pierced the dragon and brought his rebellion to an abrupt and devastating end." That's right. So now you have the full picture. You have the Son of God. And there's, earlier in that chapter, I referenced a couple of verses where he's, as I said before, where he's striding on a battlefield, and his robe is dipped in blood. And it gets even weirder because he says that he, he, what's the phrase? The phrase that's used in that verse, basically, I'll paraphrase it, he said that he had to fight the battle alone. No one would come to his aid. And then later on, you read, "Curse ye Meros, curse ye bitterly, because they did not come to support, basically, to support the King when he was fighting against the dragon." Paraphrasing. Now we got a whole new situation playing. Yeah. There were, there was some sort of a faction in the Kingdom who did not come when they were called. And that gets really, really interesting. And we don't have to go down that. Almost like a coup. Like maybe they were. That gets very interesting. And in the book, and I, and I referenced the work of the late researcher extraordinaire, David Flynn. He wrote a book called Sidonia, The Secret Chronicles of Mars. That was the most impactful book I've ever read, the most consequential book I've ever read in my life, is Sidonia, The Secret Chronicles of Mars, by David Flynn. And I'm going through, as you know, Sidonia, my members community, right now, with David Flynn's twin brother, Mark. And we're, we're, we're going through Sidonia, basically chapter by chapter. But the point is that Flynn uncovered in the traditions of the Jews, he uncovered in the rabbinic material and the Kabbalistic material, that they believe that Meros, which is Meros, which is referenced in the, I don't have it in front of me, but in one of the scriptures associated with the King of Heaven vanquishing his enemies on this, what I believe is an extraterrestrial battlefield, that the tradition of the rabbinic tradition, they believe that Meros was a planet that was inhabited by beings who are exceedingly intelligent and scientific, but who lack free will.

Well, it sounds like gray aliens to me. Yeah, it does.

Speaking of David Flynn, we've talked a little bit about Isaac Newton on the show, largely in reference to like, decoding not not history, but some modern science. So I'll read this real fast. Some of Newton's biographers have speculated that the evidence of Newton's search for the key to all things was demonstrated by the object of his study and his works. The biographer Gail Christensen described Newton's motivation for studying alchemy, for instance, as having been a means to an end, that Newton was searching alchemy for a specific symbolic key that could unlock the Pneuma, you say it, which is the key to all things, right? It's the supreme knowledge. So he was doing this too. A lot of people in history were looking through the lens of, what's the key that decodes everything else?

Well, you know, I should have, I should have studied up on this because I always reference the story and I never, and I don't ever have the exact data in front of me. But Isaac, Isaac Newton, he's, he's one of my heroes. I have a portrait of Isaac Newton in my office because, you know, we don't even understand how brilliant this guy was. We know obviously that he's responsible for some of the most basic laws of physics. He created, Isaac Newton invented calculus faster in a shorter amount of time than it takes for college students to learn it. Wow. I mean, this guy was brilliant on a whole another level. But what a lot of people don't understand is that or realize is that Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about biblical content than he did about science. He was obsessed with certain things. We referenced earlier another one of David Flynn's books we were talking about before we started filming, The Temple at the Center of Time. And Isaac Newton was obsessed with decrypting the temple in Jerusalem. And he approached the Bible as a messaging system. And I forgot to complete my thought earlier. The late Chuck Missler, you used to refer to the Bible as a messaging system from outside of time. And that's exactly what it is. Wow. Because it contains information that only God could know, namely information about the future. But I think also about the universe. And Newton knew this. And this is the way he approached the Bible. And so that whole, as I said before, that whole monologue I did about the, the, the encrypted folder and extracting the information, not approaching the Bible as a relic, but rather as a message. That was Newton's approach. That's what he did. And Newton understood that the ancients, and the Bible is written in this tradition, by the way, that the ancient sages created the myths. And when we talk about the myths, we're talking about those ubiquitous myths that we find in the Mesopotamian traditions, in ancient Egypt, in Greece, in Rome, the myths pertaining to the gods. That those myths, which are taken as literally true by the profane, and the profane is the general public, are not interpreted as literal by the initiated. Or they refer to us. And now we're talking about some, you know, when I say they, I'm talking about the adepts of the mystery schools, the occult. They refer to us as profane and vulgar because we don't understand the meaning of the symbols and the stories. But they do. And all of those stories have a meaning. And you can extract from those stories. It's there. It's the stories aren't about the gods, the affairs of the gods, and their their love affairs and all these things that these stories reference. That's what the masses believe. But the wise have always understood that those stories conceal scientific information. Again, the encrypted folder. And Newton knew that. And he took a particular, and I'm going to, I don't have the exact details here, but I have the gist of the story. Newton, yes, he was an alchemist. And I believe he burned down, was it Cambridge? One of the buildings he burned one of the buildings to the ground with his alchemical experiments. But Newton believed that some of the myths contained alchemical recipes. And there was a particular myth involving the god Vulcan, I remember. And it was a Roman myth. And Newton read the myth, which reads like some absurd fairy tale, some absurd bedtime story. He read the myth and said, "I think this is a recipe. It's an alchemical recipe." And if I follow the recipe according to the myth, I should be able to derive this particular substance called the net. And the net is, I don't have the information exactly about this, but you can look it up online. The net is a particular substance that can be derived through alchemical means, basically, we would say chemistry today. And so Newton read, he read the myth, and then there in his office, and I forget if it was Cambridge or Oxford, I think it was Cambridge, with a lot of his papers are, Cambridge. So he was there, and he's in there in his office, and he's got his little, his alchemy set and his furnace and everything. He reads this myth about Vulcan. And I wish I had it in front of me right now. He reads this myth about Vulcan and he follows the recipe. And so there he is, putting certain kinds of metal in the furnace and doing all this based on the myth. And what do you think he gets? The net. The net. It worked. Yeah. And so all these people out there, the new atheists, love to rip on Isaac Newton because they think he was, yeah, Isaac Newton, you know, created the laws of motion and figured out calculus, but he was also kind of a whack job because he was into alchemy. That's what they all say. And the reason why they do this is because they know that Newton was a devout believer in the gospel of Christ. Have to discredit him. And so what they want to do is say he was a genius with science, but all this other stuff, he was just some nut job over here. That's not true. Because they failed to realize that he was doing alchemy because he believed that the myths contained recipes through which you could literally derive practical substances. And he was right. But they never credit him with being right. He was right. He wasn't a lunatic. He was absolutely right about the myths, and the myths do contain scientific information. And it turns out they contain really important scientific information, like the most important scientific information you can possibly imagine, related to cyclic cataclysm, for one thing, and calculating when that cataclysm is going to occur again on planet Earth. I can't think of anything more important than that. That's pretty up there. And they, so they encrypted the information in the myths so that they would be passed down through time. And here's the thing about, and the reason why I'm making a point about this is because the Bible does the same thing. And I'm not calling the Bible a myth, but it does the same thing. Symbols supersede language, because language changes. The meaning of words changes over time. A word can mean one thing a hundred years ago, and we use it in a completely different way today. And there are dozens of examples of this. But

A symbol never changes. Do you think this applies to the monolithic structures as well? The pyramids, are those... is it cryptology at work? Geometrically? Okay, so if you're going to talk about the megaliths and the pyramids and the other, uh, cyclopean architecture around the world, MH, the those very edifices are encrypted with information. The very edifices themselves.

We know, for example, that thanks to the work of, um, Bouval, we know that the pyramids at Giza are precisely aligned to the belt of Orion. MH. We know that the Sphinx is was facing, which, by the way, probably used to have a lion head. The Sphinx is facing due East and it's looking at a particular period of time. It's, it's a time mark. It's timestamping a particular period of time in which, on the Spring Equinox of a particular date, you would see the constellation Leo rising due East on the Spring Equinox. That is the configuration of the Sphinx, and that's a time marker for the Age of Leo, 10,500 BC, more or less. Many of the megaliths are timestamped.

And what do I mean by that? I, for example, let's, let's be more specific. In, in Cusco, I, I lived in Peru for 10 years. I'm very, very familiar with, um, the megaliths. I've been there many times. What is a megalith, exactly? I think for a lot of people, that's like a very brand new term. How would you define that?

Good question, Jake. Um, I'll let him do it. Megaliths are, I would define megaliths in the following way. You'll find, you'll find megaliths defined variously on the internet. I would define it thusly: a megalithic construction or monument or complex is composed of exceedingly large stones. Mhm. That are usually, in almost every case, fit together without the use of mortar. They're precisely fit together. So you have large stones, that's why they call them megaliths, that are fit together in a very precise manner, usually. And, and there's only one, one occasion I can think of. Actually, no, I take that back. In, in every, every instance that I can think of, they're fit together without the use of any binding material.

This is referred to by archaeologists as cyclopean architecture. That's what they call it, cyclopean. And the reason why they call it cyclopean, this comes from Greek mythology because the Greeks believed that the Cyclopes were the architects of the megaliths in Greece, not humans. And so they, and the Cyclopes were the offspring of the gods and men. Mhm. Okay. Be Nephilim to us. Correct. Yes. Yeah. And so they believed that the Cyclopes, and you'll find the same, the same belief about megaliths all over the Earth. They're always associated with the gods or the offspring of the gods, and sometimes specifically giants, but not always.

So, um, cyclopean architecture is remarkable. There are some things about it that make it, in some sense, more advanced than anything we do today. We primarily build with concrete. When we build with stone, it's not that impressive. We build with brick and concrete and other materials. But the builders of the megaliths, for whatever reason, decided to build their complexes in the most difficult way humanly imaginable. They went in and and cut out, they hewed massive, massive stones from quarries, sometimes dozens, in some cases hundreds of miles away. We now know that as a fact. For example, with Stonehenge, uh, that's, they, at one time, it was thought that this, the stones and Stonehenge is not a very remarkable megalithic complex. It is remarkable in regard to its alignments, with its, its celestial alignments. It marks the solstices and the equinoxes and so forth. But those stones were thought to have come from a quarry nearby. Now we know, and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that they come from Scotland, which is a long ways, or they come somewhere up there in the north. So how did they even get them there? Move them? Why would they? Who would do that? Why? Do you realize the manpower that would have required in the ancient world?

Oh, yeah. I'll go back to Peru. So in Peru, you have one of the most astounding megalithic sites on on planet Earth. It's called Sacsayhuamán. Some people pronounce it Sacsayhuamán. Uh, these are megalithic walls. The, the building of which is attributed to the Inca. I know for a fact that that's false. The Inca didn't build them. They never claimed to build them. And I know for a fact it's false. I'll tell you why, if you remind me, I'll tell you why. But, okay, the walls of Sacsayhuamán are massive, massive walls, some of the most impressive walls on Earth. And if you go there today, the first thing you have to understand is that it, yeah, the first thing you have to understand about Sacsayhuamán is that you're only looking at about a third of the complex because two-thirds of it was dismantled by the Spanish, and and they used the the stones to to build the foundations for their cathedrals, which fall down in the big earthquakes. But guess what doesn't fall down? These, those megalithic walls. And the, and the other megalithic walls in the city of Cusco, they don't fall down in earthquakes. And in fact, they are intentionally anti-seismic, which is, which is a technology. It's knowledge that who the builders had. We, in some sense, let me be careful here, cannot duplicate those walls.

And what do I mean? At Sacsayhuamán, the cornerstones of that complex, some people refer to it as a citadel. The, some of those stones weigh in excess of 200 tons a piece. Now, these are limestone, and they're quarried from about, in between 10 and 20 miles away. But you are 11,000 feet. Number one, in the city of Cusco, the elevation is 11,000 some feet. And it would have taken an enormous effort to quarry those stones and drag them to the site and then fit them together so precisely that you couldn't fit a blade between the joints. Mhm. And, and they're, they're all built, all, every, all the megalithic complexes that I've seen, I've seen many, are all built on a, on a very specific angle, and they're anti-seismic, as I said. And they, and they use various megalithic walls, use different techniques to achieve this, these anti-seismic properties. For example, if you go over to Ollantaytambo, which is about an hour away from Cusco, Ollantaytambo has this, this, these famous megalithic stones at the top of the complex. It's, it's an archaeological complex, and at the top, you have these, um, I believe it's, I believe they're pink andesite stones, very, very hard stone. And they're aligned, and the temple was never completed up there. And in between these huge stones, each one of them weighs an excess of 70 tons, probably 100 tons each, but definitely an excess of 70 tons, you have a strip, a thin strip of of stone. And the reason why they did that was because in the convulsions of the earth, when you're experiencing a massive earthquake, they made it so that the walls would flex, and those stones, and be, those slabs of stone in between would prevent the, the larger stones from cracking and crumbling. And indeed, and, and indeed, they have never cracked or crumbled. It's absolutely astounding. When you go to the city of Cusco, you can see pictures in the museums of when there were large earthquakes and the Catholic cathedrals crumbled to the ground, yeah, literally were, were reduced to rubble. And the megaliths stand to this day.

Why do you think they exist? I don't know if you already covered that, but why do they exist?

Well, hold on. Let's answer that. That'll be, we'll cue that up. One other point about the megalithic structures is the, the key is there's no binding. So they had, they had no margin for error like we do today. So they had to be so geometrically precise, precisely fitted together. And we don't even build, we don't build skyscrapers that way today. We wouldn't do that. It's, it's extraordinarily difficult. But it apparently wasn't difficult to the megalith builders. Yeah.

And if you go, for example, to, again, to Ollantaytambo, and you can see this, the same architecture in Egypt. You'll see, I think Ollantaytambo has the most exquisite cyclopean architecture on planet Earth that we know of. And you'll see a massive stone. Like, there's this particular stone when I go there, I always point this out to people. It's in the corner. So what would we do if we're, if we're building a, a stone structure? What would we do in the corner? Well, we would create a joint in the corner, and we would, we would butt our stones together, or we would maybe offset them like we do with bricks, right? But we wouldn't do what they did. What did they do? They took the stone and they curved it into the corner. They curved it. So you have a massive stone, and it's curved, and then interlocked with the other stones on the other side of of the curve. That's extraordinarily difficult. The precision involved in that. Yeah. It would be too exp, we wouldn't do it today. It'd be too expensive. If we could even do it, it wouldn't make any sense for us to do that.

But the prevailing narrative in Peru is that the Inca built all these megaliths. And I, as I said earlier, I know that that's false. Most people speculate that that's false. I know it's false. How? Because I, I have an associate. I have a, I have a, colleague named Anel Puebla. Anel Puebla. He's a Spanish explorer and researcher, good friend of mine. He, he's a phenomenal researcher, and he's one of the only guys that's ever been given permission to excavate at the walls of Sacsayhuamán. And he and his team, they excavated down to the base level. And as they're excavating down, they're finding Inca artifacts. But guess what they find at the lowest level? What? Pre-Inca artifacts. Wow. That's it. That's the end of the story. The Inca didn't build the walls of Sacsay, of Sacsayhuamán. The lowest level, you have pre-Inca artifacts, which means that those walls were undoubtedly there before the Inca ever arrived. Wow.

And the same can be said from Machu Picchu, by the way. Most people don't realize that Machu Picchu is a megalithic site. Yeah. But I, I thought that they built it. The base of Machu Picchu. If you go to Machu Picchu, have you been to Machu Picchu? Yeah. So when you go to Machu Picchu, I've been there five, six times. You will notice, first of all, you're looking at a massive reconstruction, an archaeological reconstruction. If you look at Hiram Bingham's original photos of Machu Picchu, he discovered Machu Picchu. He was an American guy from Princeton University. No, I, I think I got that wrong. He was either from Yale or Prince. He was from one of our prestigious universities. Might have been Yale. Uh, Hiram Bingham, when he first discovered Machu Picchu, the only thing that was there was the foundations. Nothing else was there. It doesn't look like hard. In fact, when he found it, he thought it was quite unremarkable because he was looking for Vilcabamba, the last stronghold of the Inca, the famous last Incan lost city. And that was what he was looking for. And he didn't think Machu Picchu was it. And when he came upon Machu Picchu, he thought it was interesting. He noted it. He made some drawings and so forth. But it was only later that he realized the significance. And it wasn't Vilcabamba, but it was a very important stronghold, Incan stronghold. And the only thing that was standing when he found it was the megalithic foundations. Everything else was was rubble.

And Machu Picchu has megalithic foundations. And when you go there today, you can still see, and I shouldn't say that the only thing that was standing was megalithic foundations. There was the foundations because some of the foundations were repaired. The Inca repaired the foundations, and they did a pretty good job. If you go to Machu Picchu, you can see what I mean. So you will have a base level of exquisite cyclopean architecture with huge boulders, not as big as Sacsayhuamán, but large. The quarry of, of Machu Picchu, by the way, is Machu Picchu. They literally, the granite right there on site. So it's a perfect spot to do what they were doing. I think it was an observatory. Um, but those megalithic foundations are not, they're, they're, they're in a state of ruination. They were in a state of ruination when the Inca found, found discovered Machu Picchu. And then the Inca attempted to repair the walls in the cyclopean style. And the Inca developed a, their own degree of cycl, of cyclopean architecture that wasn't as impressive as the ones who built the foundations, as the, as the work of the megalith builders that preceded them. But they were able to at least to copy it enough to make repairs. And you can see that at Machu Picchu. But it is very distinctive. It is night and day difference between the original megalithic and then the Inca's patchwork, which gets pretty sloppy in some places. Yeah.

And I remember I was walking through Machu Picchu one time, me and Anel Puebla, and a, one of the guides. Because when you go to Machu Picchu, uh, there's lots of official guides. And, by the way, I got kicked out of Machu Picchu last time I was there. I was being, I was being kicked out. Uh, that's what you do. What happened? I'll tell you in a minute. But, okay. All right. Uh, nothing scandalous. But I was walking through Machu Picchu on this particular occasion with Anel and with one of the official guides, an older guy who had been there for years and years. And he's walking us around, and, and he's kind of giving us the official, you know, the official, the accepted narrative, the conventional narrative of Machu Picchu, that the Inca, I think it's, um, um, trying to remember his name, it'll come to me in a minute, the Inca who they, the particular Incan emperor, king, who, who built Machu Picchu, the Sapa Inca, I can't remember his name off the top of my head. Anyway, he's giving me this, the conventional narrative, walking us through. And I stopped him at this, at this spot at Machu Picchu where you can, where you can observe, you can kind of survey the whole site, and you can clearly see the megalithic foundations, and then you can see where the Inca started to repair the walls. And I asked him, and I, because when you get on the higher levels at Machu Picchu, it's all archaeological reconstruction. Only the lower levels are the original megalith and the Inca repairs. Yeah. And I asked him, I pointed the wall out, and I said, "Why, when we look at this wall, do we have superior masonry architecture on the bottom, and then clearly we have a whole different level of architecture that's inferior on top?" And I'm not talking about the archaeological reconstruction. I'm talking about where the, were filling in the gaps and, and doing their cyclopean, which was very good, their cyclopean imitation without mortar. And, and they come close, it approximates the megaliths, but it's not the same. What'd he say? His answer was, "Because that's the way they liked to do it. That was their style." I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. So you're telling me that, and we're looking at a particular wall where you can see the megalithic foundations, it's not just one uniform level, it's sort of like, um, it's staggered. So you have megalith, and then you have a gap, and you have the Inca, and then you have megalith up here, and then it goes back down. So you can tell that the original foundations were there, but that the walls had fallen down at some point, or or were not finished at Machu Picchu." The megalithic walls, which is probably more likely, because you don't see megalithic rubble laying around. You don't. So I think they weren't finished, which is exactly the case with Ollantaytambo, by the way. So those two locations might have been being built at the same time, and then they stopped. Cataclysm. So I, I asked him, and I said, "Wait a minute. So you're telling me that the Inca were building these superior foundations, beautiful cyclopean architecture, but their style was to add in this crappier masonry in between? That's their style? That's, that's your answer? They just liked to do it that way? That's it? That's all you've got?" "Have they didn't know how?" And he looked at me, he just shrugged. He said, "We don't have any other answer." And I said, "I have another answer. They didn't build those foundations." Oh, he did. He thought they did build them. Yeah, yeah. I said, "They didn't build those foundations." That's the more plausible answer, the more logical answer. And then you got kicked out. And they're trying to mimic. No, they're trying to mimic it. They're trying to to fill in the gaps, reinforce the wall the best they can. But they couldn't achieve the same degree of precision of architectural excellence that preceded them. Yeah. Yeah. And he looked at me and he goes, "You're probably right." Yeah. And then by the time we got around back to the beginning, you do a big circle, Machu Picchu, or to the end. This guy was, because me and Anel were talking to him the whole way, pointing things out to him, he had totally, after like 20, 30 years being a guide, changed his mind. Wow. By the end of this, he said, "You know what? I think you guys are right. I think you're right." And he was like, really contemplating deeply what we were saying. Yeah. "I think you're right. I think there was an older, the builders were predated the Inca, and the Inca, the Inca were were emulating the builders." I know that's the case. Yeah. You know what? The, the original name for Machu Picchu is the Quechua name, Inti Punku. It means the Abode of the Gods. Wow. So when they found Machu Picchu, what did they say? "The gods must have lived here." Yeah. Because of the megaliths. And so it's a sacred place. So they rebuilt it. Yeah. And the Inca consider themselves as the Sons, the offspring of the of of the gods. They were the children of the Sun. And so they believed that this was their inheritance. And they rebuilt.

So let's, let's connect the dots on this, because this is what I love to do, especially with your work. You asked, why did they do it? Like, why is time mentioned? Leo, zodiac stuff? Like the Great Pyramid, that I think they attribute to Khufu. If you line it up, it's 3.4 arc minutes off of due North. It's perfect true North, not magnetic North, right? It's true North. And even our ability to do this today would be so significant to do with lasers and stuff. But, but they did this, you know, however many thousand years ago. So here's the idea. Is like, if you're using, if you have to create a key or messaging that survives a cataclysm, you do it in stone. You have to do it in a way that's not disrupted through the cyclical crisis to come. So what they were doing. So there's a, you talked about this in the Book of Enoch, the Watchers were weeping at a place called, uh, Baalbek. Baalbek. I think it was. Baalbek. Ballbeck. Okay. Maybe not. It was Abishai. It says, and nobody knows where that is. But I think it might, I think there's, I speculate that it might be Baalbek.

Okay, here's why like stuff like that is important because like, take prophecy for example. If we want to, um, if we want to line up prophecy, we have to use the right calendars, right? Because if you don't get the right calendars, prophecies don't work, and you can't decrypt them. Yep. If you want to understand the messaging system, and there are keys involved, you have to build them in a way that are that are going to outlast whatever flood happens, right? So they, they had to build them so geometrically perfect symbols and stone. Yeah. And that way, hopefully, at some point, what, what's happening is we're decoding different parts of, yeah, of of history to interpret the gospel and prove the gospel. Yeah. And also, does that answer your question? Does that make sense? Yes.

There's a lot of knowledge, for example, a lot of knowledge that's encrypted. And I'm going to get back to Cusco in a minute. There's a lot of knowledge that's encrypted in these complexes, these megalithic. Yeah. You said that encrypted in the geometry of the site itself. The, the Great Pyramid. Great Pyramid of Giza. Now, this is, this is, um, contended, but I don't think very well. I, I'm very, very convinced that the Great Pyramid of Giza, in it, in its geometry, conveys the shape of the Earth. Really? It conveys, in its geometry, the circumference, the diameter of the Earth. Oh. And that's one thing. Okay. And again, archaeologists, Egyptologists will contest that. But I, I'm quite convinced that that's the case. And you can look that up, and you'll see.

But let's be specific to where I'm more familiar with, which is back to Cusco. So remember when I said that the Sphinx was timestamped to, and this again, the work of Bouval. I'm trying to remember his first name. Robert Bouval, I think it is. No, I don't recall his first name. Um, but he proposed that this Sphinx was aligned to the Age of Leo, sometime around 10,500 BC. Is Robert, Robert Bouval? When you say Leo, are, sorry, you were saying something. The Age of Leo, which would be the, the constellation. This is the precession of the, um, and that's, that's a very important topic to understanding all of this. But let's just, for the sake of argument, say that the Sphinx was positioned to timestamp its building, and probably at least the foundation levels of the pyramids at Giza, to the Age of Leo, sometime around 10,500 BC, in the neighborhood of, let's say, 10,000 BC. Uh, because an age, an astrological age lasts 2,160 years. And they're cyclical. Correct. Yeah. Well, it's based on the, the procession, the equinox, the wobble of the Earth, the axis of the Earth, 23 degrees. Uh, and which the ancients knew.

So go over to Cusco. And most people don't know this. I did a film. I did a film series. I don't know if you saw my film series in my members community, but I have a film series available to to annual subscribers in my members community where you can see it's never been published. It's a TV series, three episodes in a TV series, very, very well, um, polished, in which I feature this information. I have a friend in Cusco. His name is Andre Sadas. Andre is a brilliant guy. He's a Chilean. And he is a, what's called an archaeoastronomer. And an archaeoastronomer dates, attempts to date complexes or monuments based on their alignment with celestial phenomena. That's what an archaeoastronomer does. And in many cases, this is the only way to date these structures. And, and the field of archaeoastronomy is becoming more and more mainstream. Before, it was thought to be sort of, um, pseudoscience. Not anymore. It's being taken very seriously now. For example, we know, as I referenced earlier, that the, that Stonehenge, and archaeologists accept this universally, is precisely aligned to certain celestial phenomena. And that was the purpose of Stonehenge. That's archaeoastronomy.

So, uh, Andre is an archaeoastronomer, brilliant guy, really good friend of mine. And he figured out the dating of the city of Cusco. Because Cusco itself, the foundations of the city of Cusco, which is was the capital of the Inca Empire, are megalithic. Indeed, they're diorite. They're, they're megalithic stones that are that are diorite stones, green diorite. That's the base level. And then on top of that, you get andesite and you get, andesite and, um, sandstone. Not sandstone, rather limestone. Andesite, and limestone. So you have diorite, andesite, limestone. And if a lot of the walls in Cusco are made of andesite, for example, the, what was once the, the principal temple of the Inca, called the Coricancha, which means a place of gold, its walls are made of andesite. Is that, uh, important? What do you mean? Like, what they're made out of? Or is it? I'm just demonstrating that, uh, there's various levels of construction, ancient construction, megalithic construction. The base level is green diorite. So there might be different periods of time here. Got it. That the city was, was, was worked on. But, uh, Andre was able to determine, and I think it's conclusive, when the city of Cusco was built, the megalithic city of Cusco, those foundations, when they were laid. And he does this, and I'm not going to go into this, you can go see the films if you want the details. But he does this by calculating a very specific phenomenon that happens over the city of Cusco.

So all of the, by the way, I guess I should say this in a minute. Let me, let me save that. So if you look at the temples, the, the, the temples and palaces in the city of Cusco, all of the Inca temples and palaces, most of them, in fact, I would go so far to say all of them, have megalithic foundations. And today, it's hard to, it's hard to tell because the Catholic Church built on top of them. They built their cathedrals on top of them, and convents, and other kinds of buildings were built on top of the Inca palaces and temples. But if you line up the palaces and temples in the city of Cusco, you get an X. It's an X configuration. And Andre's noticed this, and he thought, "That's interesting. I wonder if this corresponds to a celestial phenomenon." As an archaeoastronomer, this is what he does. And I won't go into all the details again, you can go to watch the film if you're interested. He figured out that there's a particular phenomenon that happens, and I don't remember when it happens, what time of the year or whatever, but the Milky Way, at a particular period of time, it'll cross the, it'll, it aligns directly with one of those axes on this, on this line of temples and complexes. And then at another time of the year, if you're in, only in this, only happened in one specific time, the Milky, the Milky Way aligned on the other axis. So it literally makes an X in the sky that directly overlays the configuration of those temples. You understand? Am I making sense? You are. Now, this phenomenon with the Milky Way, in that area of planet Earth, only happened during one period of time. When? Guess. 10,500 BC. The flood? Well, it's the same as the Sphinx. Yeah. In Egypt, circa 10,000 BC.

Now, I said that the, the Sphinx is a, it's either the Sphinx in Egypt had a lion's head. Wait, hold on. Sorry, can I pause you for a second? Yeah. Do you, can you keep that trail while we do a quick breadcrumb? Yeah. I just, I, I've read your work. So your hypothesis that the flood was 12,500 BC, was that pre-Adamic?

Well, we can, I don't think so. I believe that Noah's flood, oh, and that it corresponds to what's called the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, or Younger Dryas impact event. Okay. During the end of the last ice age. Let's finish the Sphinx thing. Let's go there. Is that okay? So, so you are, okay, this is awesome. I'm just enjoying the ride. My wife just arrived.

So you have the X configuration. This only happens at one. And again, I know this is all very abstract and amorphous right now, but the details are in the film. Yeah. It makes an X. The Milky Way makes an X configuration over the city of Cusco. This only happened one time, uh, in the, in, in the past. And it's the same as the Sphinx. And it happened to be circa 10,000 BC. Now, the Sphinx is either just a lion. Today, you have the head of a, of a Pharaoh carved into to it. But if you look at it, the head is disproportionate to the body. So that head was recon, different time. Yeah. So it either had a lion head, or, and I don't think it had a lion head, actually. I think I said that earlier. That's one of the options. I actually am, I actually like the second option better. It had the head. It had a, it was a, it was a lion-woman composite. So the head was a female. Why do I think that? Because it's astrological. It's Leo. And, um, Virgo. Virgo's on the, on the, on the, on the zodiac. Virgo is, is the Virgin. It's a woman. And Leo is the constellation right next to it on the zodiac. And something happened in the middle, the transition between these, between these astrological ages. And so when you want to express that, you take the two astrological signs and you combine them into a composite being. I don't know if this is making any sense. So if you take Leo and you take Virgo, what do you get? Sphinx. The body of a lion, the head of a woman. Right? So I think it was that. That is what the Sphinx was. It was a body of a lion and the head of a woman. And it's looking due East at the constellation Leo, circa 10,000, on the Spring Equinox. And that's how you mark an astrological age.

So, so the, the marker, we can say, of 10,000 BC, astrologically speaking, circa 10,000 BC, is Leo. And Leo is a lion, right? Right. The city of Cusco is famously configured in, it's configured to to match the anatomy of a particular animal, the lion. The lion. So the dating of Ollantaytambo, specifically, the dating of Cusco, the dating of the Sphinx, is the same. Both of them are associated with the Age of Leo, and they line up to the same age. So what, what that's demonstrating is that there was a ubiquitous megalith-building culture, civilization, on Earth, sometime around 10,000 BC, 10 to 11,000 BC, that was obliterated in a cataclysm.

Hey guys, real quick. I have to jump in here. I have some sad news. Um, right here, unfortunately, the microphone Tim was using got muted right after a quick break during this podcast. So that meant that in editing, I've had to take over one of the camera microphones that was near to Tim. And then we ran some AI and ran some effects and did everything we can. That way, you guys can still enjoy the rest of this episode. But the audio quality from this point forward on Tim's microphone specifically is going to be a little bit worse for the remainder of the episode. So stick through. Honestly, it's my favorite part at the end. It gets extremely good. So hang on, keep watching, and we're going to make sure this does not happen for future episodes. Thank you guys for being here.

Okay, so what's, what's relevant of that is Cusco. And, uh, means that they're, they're so they're operating on the same playbook. The megalith builders in Egypt and in Peru were building at the same time, using the same technology. It was the same knowledge, building in the Age of Leo, circa 10,500 BC, with the same foreknowledge. Yeah, because they were building it with the message. That's right. To be communicated. And they timestamped their constructions to the Age of Leo. And both of those civilizations were obliterated in a cataclysm. But the megaliths, but the foundations of the megaliths remain. And as you said before, there's two things that, that, there are two things that persist through time: symbols and stones. Megalithic foundations and symbols. And those symbols relate, in many cases, to astrological phenomena. Beautiful. Okay.

If no one's ever told you yet, your brain is a national treasure. So just stay alive. It's something. Stay alive as long as you can. Maybe nothing I'm saying is true. Okay. May just confuse this all. Restart. Um, I want to talk about Jesus for a second. But before we do that, uh, we have to go back to the flood because 10,000 years ago would be what? 12,000? It, you, approximately 12,500 years ago. And it's your hypothesis that that was, like, obviously, Adam had already happened. Yeah. So I think that the, the creation of mankind is is much more distant in the past than is traditionally conceived.

Do you have an idea of like, how, how long ago?

No idea. But, and this, this kind of goes down a rabbit hole here. But a lot of Christians will get confused about that statement and perturbed about that statement because they think that you can make a calculation, and many, many have attempted to do this, from Adam to Christ, and that we have genealogical records that give us a precise dating system. All of our Bibles are are versions of the Masoretic text. Um, but there's a, but there's another text that was very popular, in fact, this was the text that was most popular in the period of the New Testament, the early church age, and that is the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, of the Hebrew Old Testament. And it was, it was compiled about 300 years before the birth of Christ by 70 or 72 Jewish scribes. And they translated the the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek in the city of Alexandria. And the Septuagint, for the most part, it conforms to the Masoretic text. But there are quite a few variations. And one of the, one of the most remarkable variations is is in the Genesis 5 genealogies. Because for whatever reason, the Masoretes, when they were compiling the Bibles that we hold in our hands today, decided to subtract 100 years from the lifespans of each patriarch on the list. And we don't know why. No. The [Music] Septuagint. So there's a problem right away. You, you, I don't, I don't see why we should prefer the Masoretic text over the Septuagint as it pertains to the Genesis 5 genealogy. And these are the pre-flood patriarchs, right? So trying to make these kind of linear calculations doesn't work. Doesn't work. No matter, no matter what you're trying to do.

Yeah, I'm just doing it based on what the Bible says.

Well, you're doing it based on what the Masoretic text says, not the. I think that, I don't believe that the reckoning of time from Adam to the flood as recorded in Genesis is linear, is literal. And I think that we have, I think that the, as I said, the creation of Adam goes way further into the past than we are accustomed to contemplate. Got it. Okay. And, and as a, as an addendum to that thought, I believe that the flood happened much longer ago than we are accustomed to contemplating. So we're talking circa 10,000 BC, right? Circa 10,500 BC, some, approximately 12,000, some years ago, 12,900 years ago, whatever it ends up being in that time frame, in that ballpark, give or take a thousand years. So, um, and that corresponds [Music] to what is becoming increasingly apparent is that in that time frame, there was some sort of a cataclysmic event that that rocked the Earth at the end of the last ice age, the Younger Dryas. And this theory has been popularized by Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, like them. But there's a team of scientists, I believe it's called the Comet, the Comet Impact Research Group, I think is the name of that group. And I've interfaced with a gentleman from that group. And, um, they're doing a lot of work. And I believe that they have proven scientifically that there was a comet impact during that period of time. And that that impact, specifically, or impacts, happened on the North American ice sheet, specifically the Laurentide ice sheets of North America. Much of North America was under a mile to two miles of ice. What happens when you bombard those ice sheets with a comet? Water goes everywhere. Exactly. Flood. That's what happens. Catastrophic flooding, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. Uh, the, the, and, and not only flooding, but the ejecta from the impacts. I mean, we're talking about impacts that are, that would be many times more powerful than a nuclear bomb. And on ice, right? Impacting ice. Yeah. And so you would have, obviously, the, the instant, liquidation or liquefaction, rather, of that ice. And you would have literally walls of water moving across North America like, you know, massive tidal waves. But, but you would also have ejecta, the debris that's flies up into the atmosphere. Some of that's going to land thousands of miles away and ignite massive forest fires. They fall into forests that weren't covered in ice and snow. And then you're going to get a lot of that ejecta going up into the atmosphere. And you're going to get what's called an impact winter, very likely, which is a deep freeze. Mhm. Um, so it accounts for, if you look at the, the flood myths from various cultures around the world, they all record this cataclysm that happened in the distant past, after which humankind had to rebuild civilization, had to start over, like children, as as the priest of Saïs says to Solon in Plato's Critias dialogue. And what you, what you find is that in many cases, they describe a flood. But not always. Sometimes they describe earthquakes, sometimes they describe black rain, they describe, um, sort of volcanic activity. What would account for all of these different variables, all of these different, uh, catastrophes, calamities, cataclysmic fallout, is precisely a comet impact on the North American ice sheet. Yeah.

And before, before we go too far on that, you've mentioned even at different times, the Younger Dryas is essentially that it's like, um, cyclical, right? So it's, so not, um, okay, so that, that gets us into a very complicated topic in which you would have to discuss the celestial, the cataclysmic transition of aeons, the zodiacal procession, and that feels like, that feels like another conversation. But we'll come to Boseman and we'll hang out. Right? We'll do that. Maybe we can end briefly on, um, on that, just as brief as we can get your research brain to to brief it down. But can we talk about, um, Jesus for a second? Yeah. And how, because we talked earlier, like, what's your favorite thing to talk about? Like the gospel. You're using all of this history and research to to connect the dots together.

Well, in my book Birthright, I traced a particular thread. And I start in a pre-Adamic context, like we did in this conversation. And I end at Armageddon. And Armageddon, in my, from my perspective, hasn't happened yet. It's not a war with Israel. It's a war with the Son of God, the King of Heaven, returning to the Earth. You're talking about the Second Advent? Like, not the war, the second advent of Christ. That's what happens at Armageddon. Christ returns to vanquish the Beast, much like he vanquished the dragon. And we were talking about that in Rahab and all of that. And indeed, he vanquishes the dragon as well. And so you have this culmination, this culminating event. If you look at the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you read it through, the culminating event is Armageddon. And then after Armageddon, you know, there's this amazing declaration at the end of the book of Revelation, Revelation, in which, in which we read that, "Now the habitation of God is among men." That's, that's like the end of the book. Which is really, I mean, I can't think of a more, uh, in declaration than that. And there's a lot, you know, there's a lot of implications there. But, you know, so this thread that I follow in Birthright is is basically tracing, I mean, I'm kind of following a few threads in Birthright, but but the primary thread is tracing the gospel of Christ from the beginning of the creation of Adam all the way to Armageddon. And this is a long conversation too, so I'll try and summarize it by saying that it's apparent when you read the the biblical narrative that there have been many attempts to stop the coming of the Son of Man, to foil, to, um, to inhibit the coming of the Son of Man, coming of Jesus of Nazareth, which failed, right? And now the focus is on stopping his return. Is on is on resisting the return of Christ. And when I say the focus, I'm talking about, of course, the devil and his angels. But that is now the focus. They couldn't prevent him. There's a prophecy that that unfolds in Genesis 3. It's, it's the prophecy that that that is declared after the incident with Adam and Eve and The Serpent. And there's judgment on The Serpent and on Eve, which is interestingly enough, reproductive in nature. But the judgment to the serpent, part of the judgment to the serpent is that your seed is going to be in contention with the seed of the woman. Well, that's contradictory. That's, that's a conundrum. Women don't have seed. So that is right in the beginning, in in Genesis 3, what we have here is a prophetic intimation of a virgin birth. The seed of the woman, right? There's going to be a child born of a daughter of Eve. A male child will be born of a daughter of Eve. This child is going to, you're going to bite his heel, the serpent. You're going to bite his heel. But he is going to crush your head. And so I call this the dragon slayer prophecy because it's predicted that that a dragon slayer was going to emerge from the womb of a daughter of Eve. And that was, of course, Mary, who was going to crush the dragon, finish the job, so to speak. From the inversion, we talked about earlier, that happens at Armageddon. And so there's this culminating event that everything is leading, even now. And this is another conversation we'll have to have in Boseman. There's a, there's a, we're moving towards a culmination. And that culmination is an insurrection against the King of Heaven. And it's going to unfold on Earth. And at the end of the age, we are literally going to see not a spiritual war, a kinetic war, wow, with Christ returning. And so there's a lot that can be said there. But that's, you know, that's the through line of of of Birthright, again, from starting in a pre-Adamic context and going all the way to to Armageddon.

And also, what I do in the book is I convey the gospel of Christ, I think, in a way that most people are very unfamiliar with. Because the, the conventional understanding of the, of the gospel of Christ today is that Jesus saves us from hell, right? He, he forgives our sins and he saves us from hell, and we get to go to heaven, right? That's sort of the, yeah, the cookie-cutter version, Sunday school, Sunday school presentation of the gospel, which isn't necessarily wrong. Mhm. Right? But it's woefully inadequate. Yeah. Because the, the, at, at its core, the gospel of Christ is about restoring the sons and daughters of Adam back into the family of God. Y. That's the heart of the gospel. And this is the message, by the way, that is conveyed through the parable of the prodigal son. We don't have to go down that path here. But that the message that's conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son. Yeah. And that's, to me, there's nothing more exciting. There's, see, this is the original story. The gospel of Christ is the original heroic story that underlays it's the archetype. It's the archetypal story that underlies all of our hero's journey stories that have that we have in in in society, human society. Yeah. Jesus is the ultimate hero of humanity. It's the, his story is the most epic. And, and what's, what's so wonderful about it is you're not just going to heaven. That's not even really the idea. The gospel doesn't convey you're going, you're going to heaven. That's not what it's about. It's about your going back into the family. MH. And the implications of that are enormous, insane magnitude. All the rights of being in the family. That's right. And the positional authority, going back into be, being becoming a son in the Father's house again. Remember, we're the younger sibling. Yeah. And we have older siblings. Yeah. And the older siblings, the ones that are still there, the most of them have been there since the beginning. Parable of the prodigal son. You have an older brother and a younger brother. The younger brother goes and and and wastes his inheritance because, and the reason why it's hard for me not to get into the parable of the prodigal son is because it's the, it's the most poetic. It's, it's the most beautiful presentation of the gospel in the Bible. Is the parable of the prodigal son. And people miss it because they think it's about, and it is on a surface level, they think it's about the Gentiles being brought into, you know, being grafted into the vine. That's, that's true. But that's just a surface level. If you really analyze the parable of the prodigal son, that's not, that's not the primary message. Yeah. Because the parable begins at the Father's house. That's where the parable begins. There's the, there's this Father figure. We're already there. We're there. And he has two sons, a younger son, an elder sibling, an an older son, an elder sibling, and a younger son. The, the, the younger sibling. And they're in the house together.

And this is not just some, you know, shack mud hut. This, this is a, this is a magnificent estate because there's servants and banquets and all of this. And, and the younger son says to his father, "Father, give me my inheritance now." Because he wanted to take his inheritance and go spend it on wild living out in the world. And his father gives him his inheritance.

And so the Prodigal Son, the younger son, goes out into the world and he, he blows his inheritance on wild living. And he becomes indentured to a swine herd. Mhm. Who's the swine herd? Satan. Yeah. He becomes indentured to the swine herd, way beneath his station. And he is, and, and the famine hits the land. And he, he's destitute. He's, he's living in abject poverty, feeding pigs. That's, he went from being a son in his, in his father's house, all of the, the splendor and opulence of his father's house. He went from, from being a son in that estate to being indentured, a slave of a swine herd, feeding pigs, eating the filth of pigs, covered in mud, covered in, in, in, you know, swine feces and, and worse. There's a famine, so he's got almost nothing to eat, starving. And he's ragged and he's enslaved to the swine herd. Becomes indentured, in other words, he has a debt to pay. And he says to himself one day, he realizes, "Even the servants in my Father's House are living better than me." So here's what I'm going to do. He hatches this plan. "I'm going to go back to my father, who's probably going to be wroth with me, who's probably going to be exceedingly angry with me. And I'm going to beg him to take me back, but not as a son. I forfeited that. I blew my inheritance. That's over. So not as a son, I'm going to go back and beg him to take me as a servant. I'm no longer worthy to be counted as a son. I'm going to go back as a, as a servant."

And so he sets off to see his father. And, and remember, he's ragged, covered in filth, haggard, hungry. And he goes to see his father. And, uh, is, I try not to get choked up every time we talk about this. He goes back to see his father, who he thinks is going to be exceedingly angry with him. Have to compose myself. But his father, instead of being angry, what is he doing? Celebrating him. He's waiting. He's waiting at the door for his son to come back. Yeah. This is why I told you this is my, um, that's good, man. My favorite thing to talk about, but it's also the hardest thing to talk about. I know. Yeah.

And he sees his father and he sees his father waiting for him at the door. And his father doesn't just wait, he runs out to meet him when he sees his son approaching. And he embraces his son. And he thinks that, you know, the son is thinking that his father's going to slap him in the face and send him away because he, he wasted his inheritance. But instead, his father falls on him, embraces him, kisses his neck. And he, and he, he calls for his servants to, to bring clean clothes. To clothe him in clean clothes, which is symbolic of the resurrection, very symbolic. And to shod his feet with sandals, because he was barefoot. And in the ancient world, time of the robins, you could, you could, a servant was marked. One of the things that marked a servant was the fact that they didn't wear shoes. Wow. So he shots his, he has his son's feet, the prodical son's shod in new sandals. And he puts a ring on his finger, which is the seal of his house.

So what's happening here is he's embracing his son. And by, by the way, for those who don't know, this is a parable of Christ. Not only does he embrace his son, clothe him in new clothing, put sandals on his feet, and a ring on his finger, he brings his son. And by the way, when his son sees, when, when his son gets to the father, he, he says to his father, "Father, I'm no longer worthy to be called your son. I've wasted my inheritance. Will you take me back as a, as a servant?" And what's the father's reply? "No, I'm going to take you back as my son. I'm going to reinstate you." And he goes back into the house, into his father's house, and he's, he's brought in with great celebration. His father has a fatted calf killed, slaughtered, and they have a huge celebration. And they're celebrating the return of the Prodigal Son.

And the older son hears. He's out in the field working. He hears this, this great celebration happening. And he calls his, his father. And his father, he, he goes to his father. And he says to his father, "How many times, how many times, no, let me back up. He says to his father, "I have been with you all this time, and I never went and squandered my inheritance. And yet you've never threw a banquet for me and my friends. You've never celebrated me in this way. Why are you doing this for, for, for this disobedient son of yours who went and, and this irresponsible son of yours who went and squandered his inheritance?" And the father said to him, "You have been with me forever." To the older son, "You've always been with me. But this brother of yours was lost and now he is found. He was dead and now he is alive." And so, and so they're celebrating the reinstitution of the prodical son back into the family. That's the gospel of Christ. We're, we are the prodical son. That's us. And it just rocks me to my core when I think about the, the grace of God because we realize, we realize what it cost God to bring us back into his family. 100%. Yeah. Nothing less than his only begotten son, the suffering and death of his son. And that's precisely what Jesus says to the disciples on the eve of his crucifixion, evoking the parable of the prodical son, which he had told to them earlier. "In my Father's House are many mansions, and I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will also come back to get you, so that you may be where I am." Yeah.

So put those two things together, parable of the prodical son and Jesus telling his disciples this on the eve of his crucifixion, delivering us from the swine herd. Because remember, the prodical son was indentured. He had a debt. That means that that debt had to be paid. And that's called redemption. He had to redeem us first from the swine herd so that he could bring us back and restore us in the Father's House. And that would cost his own life, his own blood. And he was telling his disciples this on the eve of his crucifixion. That's, that's the gospel of Christ. Yeah. You know, it's not, you don't have to go to hell. You get to go to heaven. It's way bigger than that. It's much more majestic and magnificent than that. And I think we have, to some extent, those of us who are believers, have failed in conveying the depth, the magnitude, the splendor of the gospel of Christ. There is nothing that I can think of that is more glorious than the thought of being restored back into the family. That means everything that was lost in Adam is regained in the second Adam, the Son of Man, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. Yeah. There isn't a better story ever told in the history of mankind or with better implications for us. Yeah. Yeah.

And, and, and like the prodical son, we didn't deserve it. Mm-hmm. We were destitute. We squandered our inheritance. Yeah. But that's why, you know, one of the most famous verses in the Bible conveys this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, and whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life." That's probably a good place to end. I know. I was like, I don't think I'm going to ask you the next question. I'm going to come to Boseman and ask you questions later. What turn that in, um, on ending? We take this whole thing soup to nuts. And, and if, for the record, if you're still here watching, it's the AlberinoAnalysis.com. Yeah. And then Birthright, that's my private, that's my members community. AlberinoAnalysis.com. I think if you're, if you're, cuz you can only go cover so much in two hours. Like, you can even tell like when you're talking, like there's threads in your brain. Like I'm watching you, like, what, how do we tile these since together? It's not going to happen in two hours. But if you're curious about this, um, you just go get Birthright first, deAnalysis, and go through that. Yeah. We go in my members community. We, as you know, we go, we dig deep into very deep, various topics. You tie the loose ends up that we can't tie up here. We, we talk about a lot of controversial biblical topics. We, we talk about a lot of stuff. But, uh, yeah, and we go really deep in the Sidonia content and the Sunell in the transition, cataclysmic transition of aeons. We'll talk, we'll talk about that in Boseman, hopefully before the cataclysmic event occurs. We are in a, we are in Ogelia. But in some regards, you're proof of a statement that I make a lot of times. I've made this a lot of times with Isaac Newton, with yourself. I've never discovered anything historically scientifically that is disproven Jesus. Everything tends to point and substantiate to Jesus. And you're, I mean, what did you say? He's validated that today. Oh, yeah. That you're so smart. And you're like, it's the gospel. It all comes back to the gospel. Yeah. I am thoroughly convinced in my mind intellectually that the gospel of Christ is true. And also in my heart. Yeah. But it's important that people also be convinced in their mind because, um, and that's a whole different topic. But, but the gospel of Christ is true. Yeah. It is true. Isaac Newton knew it. Many of the fathers of, of science knew it. Obviously, the Apostles of Christ knew it. They witnessed his resurrection. And it, it is, it, everything falls into place. And you can see that if you read my book, Birthright. Everything falls into place when you have the Christocentric perspective, Christ at the center, and the gospel of Christ as that through narrative that takes you from a pre-Adamic context to Armageddon, which is, yeah, in him and through him all things have their being. He's the thread. If you delete that thread, nothing, nothing makes sense, and nothing exists. That's right.

So, man, I'm so glad we got to meet. Um, thanks for being here. Thank you for inviting me. And we'll, we'll schedule it. We got a, Boseman's probably prettier than Nashville. So we'll just spend a couple days with you, co-plunge in the, oh, that would be so fun. Frigid water. Um, and we'll link all your stuff on this video. Uh, but yeah, I don't want to, we can't talk. Let's just end there. Let's end on Jesus. That's cool. Very good. All right. I love you guys. See you.