Ralph Ellis Finding Adam and Eve

[Speaker 1] (0:00 - 0:07) You are now listening to the Year for the Truth podcast, hosted by Joel Rafiti and Yerasimos. [Speaker 2] (0:11 - 1:49) Yo, yo, what's up, Yerasimos? What's up, Joel? How you doing? How you doing, man? Good. I hope everyone liked our fresh new intro. Yeah, brand new intro, brand new narration. You know, we're mixing it up for you guys. Ralph Ellis returns. And this time, he believes he's found Adam and Eve in history. Right before we get to that, yearforthetruth.com. As always, all our previous episodes can be discovered there. We highly recommend watching Ralph's first episode, episode 49, before venturing down this rabbit hole. Grab some merch if you're feeling inclined. Subscribe to our mailing list to keep in touch with all future episode releases. Join our Telegram community at areyouhereforthetruth. And that's pretty much it. Guys, also one thing, if you're watching this on our website or on YouTube, the visual is going to be a little bit different. We had some internet issues, so we're using another recording of this podcast. It's in Speaker View, so you'll be seeing a lot of Ralph, a lot less of us. You know, that's not a big deal, but just wanted to let you guys know anyway. And we'll bring on Ralph. All right, everybody. Let's welcome the return of Ralph Ellis back to Here for the Truth. Now, Ralph doesn't know this yet, but you're our most viewed episode of all time, Ralph. Okay. And most listened to as well. And most listened to. [Speaker 1] (1:49 - 1:53) Yeah, that's right. No, I didn't know that. I wasn't following. Well, that's good news. [Speaker 2] (1:55 - 2:21) Yeah, definitely. For those looking for an introduction to Ralph, please check out our previous episode with Ralph on the real history of the biblical stories and the real Jesus. And you'll get a nice little intro to Ralph and who Ralph is. But today we're diving deeper into some other familiar biblical characters, I believe. Just before I get into that, Ralph, you're quite the man of controversy on Facebook these days, I've noticed. [Speaker 1] (2:23 - 4:07) Yes, a little bit. I was. Yes, I was defending poor old Dr. Robert Price, who got kicked off a YouTube site. I thought it was a little bit unnecessary. That's you don't need to do that. He got kicked off for his political views, not for what he was saying about religion. And I think that's unnecessary. I still go with the freedom of speech, which I think we should have. And so I defended Dr. Price, because I think he's a, he's a font of knowledge. He knows more about biblical literature, I think, than anybody else in the world at present time. Whether he has the correct interpretations. Well, that's up to you. But generally, he's fairly reasonable in his interpretations of what happened at those times. He's generally a mythicist. So he's looking at the mythicist story that most of this story was made up from previous literature, you know, Roman and Greek literature and so on. I differ from that a little bit, of course, because I say there's a lot of historical truth within the mythology. As ever, with all of the mythologies I've looked at, there's always a kernel of truth within the mythology. So we disagree on that. But, you know, that's, that's academia. That's, that's research. You're not going to get everybody to agree. If you did, there would be no valid research if everybody agreed. And so, yeah. God forbid people disagree with each other else. Sorry, say again. [Speaker 3] (4:08 - 4:09) God forbid people disagree. [Speaker 1] (4:12 - 4:50) You're not allowed to at present. Yes, in the current political climate, you're not allowed to disagree. Yeah, people get kicked off time and time again. I've been railing against that, you know, whether it's, you know, medical matters or political matters or even religious matters, people are being kicked off platforms because they said the wrong thing. And I don't think that's how it should be. I think we should have a little bit more discretion that if you don't like what someone is saying or disagree with it, well, you know, you have the off button if you want, you can turn it off. You don't have to listen to them. I think we should be able to make up our own minds. [Speaker 2] (4:50 - 5:06) Yeah, I agree with you. And I know we'll get into the subject of Adam and Eve, but I'm curious, why do you think this whole cancel culture and the censorship and everything seems to be on steroids these days? [Speaker 1] (5:07 - 6:55) Do you want the easy answer or the non-PC answer? It's basically a continuation of Marxism. Marxism for centuries has been trying to take us into a communist type society. And they tried it all the way during the 20th century with class warfare, setting the classes against each other, you know, workers arise and, you know, unburden yourself from your masters and bosses. And that sort of worked when it worked in Russia. But it didn't work in the West because the common man was too wealthy. Why would you want to have an uprising, you know, a revolt against the masters when you're actually fairly comfortable yourself? You've got your own car, your house, you have two holidays a year, whatever it happens to be. You're comfortable, you don't want to start a revolution. And so the revolution, the class warfare, never worked in the West. And so now they've just gone back to having divisions from race and divisions. What's the other big division they keep on about? It's basically divide and rule. If you can divide society along various lines, whether it's class, race or whatever they want to do, you can divide society and start a revolution. And you can rule by default, having set the people against each other. And I think that's basically what they're trying to do. [Speaker 2] (6:56 - 7:33) Yeah. One of the things I want to touch on before we dive into the main subject here of Adam and Eve is there seems to be like certain portions of conspiracy culture or truth culture where there's just this, they easily write off all history beyond 100 or 200 years ago. How can we know anything? How can we discern anything? You know, this apparent rapid influx of technology only the last 100 years, the whole Tartaria, mud flood theory. There's a lot of the some of the comments that were coming through on the last episode as well. Just wondering if you could address that on any level. [Speaker 1] (7:33 - 9:16) Yeah, it's been difficult. We have a lot more information at our fingertips. And, of course, the mythicists gained ground because they were beginning to question the texts, no longer being literalists and just taking the text at face value, which has happened for hundreds of years, began to ask questions and were unable to get any answers. And because of this, they invented mythicism because they couldn't find the history in the real historical record. And so your only conclusion is that this did not exist, that it was made up. It was mythology. But I think they were researching without opening their eyes. Now, the history of the New Testament that we were looking at was actually very, very, very difficult to pass. I mean, that took me 20 years to find the core of that story, that mythology, and prove it was more history than it was mythology. But with this, some of the stuff we're going to talk about now, this is fairly obvious, and I still don't know why people cannot see it. You know, things like the Exodus story. It's so obvious that the Exodus story is the history of the Hyksos people and their Exodus out of Egypt. It's untrue. So why cannot people see that truth within, you know, the biblical text, that these two Exodus stories are exactly the same? Did we go through the Exodus in the last? [Speaker 3] (9:17 - 9:18) Yes, we did. [Speaker 1] (9:19 - 11:39) But it is so obvious that we have two Exodus stories that are identical, apart from being about 300 years displaced in the chronology. So why cannot? Well, we know why theologians don't want to do that, but why can't historians, especially historians who are looking into the mythology? Why can they not see it? So they're looking for any evidence that might, you know, prove that the Exodus story happened. And then they gloss over the Hyksos Exodus and don't even mention it. And you think, well, that's a bit strange. They're missing the obvious data that's right before their noses and then saying it's all mythology. Well, it's only mythology because you've missed out half the story. And the same with the Adam and Eve story. But that's harder, again, to pass and get to the truth of what's behind the Genesis story. Because even I didn't attack that at first because it was obviously mythological. You know, you're talking right at the very beginning of the biblical story. It's supposed to be a creation story. And we all know that the creation story is incorrect. That's not how the world was created. So, therefore, it has to be mythology. I mean, that's an obvious one. The fact that I found history within it was a bit of a surprise to myself as well. So I didn't look at this for ages, for maybe 10 years or so. I was looking at the, you know, the united monarchy of David and Solomon. I was looking at the Exodus story and all of that. Connections with history. And we've looked at that and we've seen there's a lot of history there. But when I was doing all of that, of course, I had to research all of Egyptian history and the history of the Amarna dynasty of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. And I kept coming across familiar little snippets of history. And that's what's got me interested in the Adam and Eve story. [Speaker 2] (11:40 - 12:05) All right. Well, the real history of Adam and Eve. With Ralph Ellis, I'm incredibly intrigued as to what's going to be extrapolated in this conversation. So most of our listeners, and I guess it's been the collective psyche on some level, is very familiar with the Adam and Eve story. What's come to pass for you and what can you enlighten us with? [Speaker 1] (12:06 - 19:06) Yeah, well, probably actually quite surprising if you're just used to the standard Adam and Eve story. This might be rather shocking to some people. I don't know. I think it's a piece of history that's been displaced from where it should be. And we get the idea of this from, well, from the description of Eden itself. So if you go to Genesis 2.10, it says, what does it say? It says a river went out of Eden to water the garden and from thence it was parted and it became four heads or branches. So you have a river that runs through a garden and then is divided into four branches. Well, there is only one river in this sort of region that does that. And that's the River Nile. It runs through the Garden of Egypt, which is a strip oasis all the way through Egypt. It gets to Cairo or Giza, you might say, and it splits into four branches. Well, it doesn't now. It only splits into two. But, you know, in history, it used to split into four. And so we have the, you know, the four rivers of Eden, which were the Pison, the Gihon, the Chikadel and the Perath. And that's sort of pointing us towards Egypt, not towards Mesopotamia, where everyone is looking for the Adam and Eve story. I don't know why everything became focused on Mesopotamia. I think maybe it's because the people who wrote this story, the Israelites, the Jews, don't really want you to know what this story is referring to. Because it is not the story that they've told you and therefore they have to avert your eyes. You know, look over here, you know, this glittering little bauble over here in Mesopotamia. Don't look in Egypt, whatever you do, don't look over there. So we're looking into Egypt. And we end up with, you know, the two naked lovebirds in the Garden of Eden. So what does it say about that? It says, God planted a garden eastwards in Eden. Eastwards in Eden. That's interesting. And there he put a man who he had formed. And they were both naked, the man and his wife. And they were not ashamed. Okay, so now if we're looking into Egypt, where in Egypt, eastwards in Egypt, would you find a naked man and woman who were very famous? It's Akhenaten and Nefertiti. So forever, if you look at the artwork from Amarna, and of course, remember that Amarna is on the east bank of the Nile. That's important. So it's eastward in Eden. We have a very famous man and woman, king and queen, who are always naked. And that must have been probably, I don't know, probably quite shocking to the Egyptians as much as it would be shocking to us. It's like, you know, having a celebration in Britain, and Queen Elizabeth II and her husband comes onto the balcony of Buckingham Palace naked. It would be sort of shocking. And they were doing that. They weren't just strolling around Amarna naked. They would actually come to the window of appearances, which is the equivalent of, you know, the balcony of Buckingham Palace. And they would give out awards to their people naked. And what was the reason? Like, were they just a couple hippies? Yeah, they were a couple of hippies. And we'll come into this in a minute, actually, because there's a film about it, which is very interesting. Yeah, they were a couple of hippies. They were the original 1960s flower power hippies who set up a commune in Middle Egypt. Because remember, I don't know if people know the history of Akhenaten, but he got thrown out of northern Egypt. He was the son, of course, of the king, Amenhotep III, and he had this vision of starting up this new cult. He was the first monotheist, so he disregarded all of the gods of Egypt. He said there was only one god who was called the Aten. And because of his contention and the number of people he managed to gather around him, his little cult, his father threw him out of Egypt. Well, out of Egypt proper. So he got thrown out of Egypt and went down to Amarna on the east bank of the Nile, which is important, we'll come to that again, and set up his own commune. So literally, he was a hippie in a new commune, where they had to make their own new city and their new palace and temple and whatever, to their new monotheistic god, the Aten. And, of course, then we start to see all of these similarities between this and the Genesis type story, because the god that he venerated was called the Aten, or the Aden, sometimes it's called the Aden, with a D. And then you look into the biblical texts, and you find that the Israelite god has four or five names. He is Yahweh, of course, he's Elohim, Elah, which became the Arabic Allah, of course, it's again, it's the same god, Shaddai, and of course, he was called Adon. So the god of the Israelites has the same name as the god of Akhenaten. It's the same god, it's the same religion, and it's monotheistic, of course, you know, Abraham and Moses and Aaron set up a monotheistic religion, with their god being the Aden. And that's exactly what Akhenaten did. And now we have this similarity between the two lovebirds in Eden, being the two naked lovebirds of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Can I ask you this question quickly? [Speaker 2] (19:06 - 19:15) Sorry, say again? Can I ask you this question quickly? Where did this god come from initially? How did they come to venerate this particular god? [Speaker 1] (19:16 - 23:45) Well, he's a manifestation of the sun god. Nobody quite knows exactly what the Atenos is, but they say he's not the sun god itself, but a manifestation of the power behind the sun god. And so he was worshipped effectively as the sun god, the rays, the warming rays of the sun, which made the world, you know, even they knew at that time that the sun was the primary provider of life. Without the sun, there was no life. They used to prove this by putting Osiris beds in tombs. An Osiris bed is a piece of wood or a piece of brick made in the shape of Osiris, and you fill it with seeds and it grows in the shape of Osiris, because Osiris was the god of life and regeneration. And of course, if you do that in the sunshine, you get green shoots. But if you do it in a tomb, they're white and they die. So without sunlight, they knew that all life would die. And that's why it was a symbol of Osiris to have these Osiris beds. And so the sun was one of the primary gods to venerate because the sun provided all life. And we'll see how that played out later. So what we have, well, oh, another similarity before we go on, we have the tree of life. We have this strange story about, you know, a tree that you're not supposed to eat the fruits from. And again, it just seems mythological because it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. Why would God give you a tree and then not allow you to eat the fruits from the tree? Well, the answer is to be found at Karnak. So if you go down to Karnak and have a look at the Karnak temple, not the other one, you will see the tree of life down there. And it's a physical tree. Well, physical tree. It's a carving of a tree. And it's a tree of, it's a family tree. It's a tree of remembrance. So you've got this big tree and Thoth, the god of writing and record keeping, he is writing the names of the pharaohs on the fruits of the tree and hanging them on the tree. And Seti I, he is looking at those fruits and every fruit has his name on it, of course. So it's a family tree. It's exactly the same as you'll see if you go around some of the big houses, the aristocratic houses in Britain, where they would actually draw this on a wall and they'll have a big tree with all the family members of that particular family sitting there as fruits on the trees. That is the tree of life. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a family tree. And of course you can't pluck the fruits from that tree because you're taking pharaohs and destroying the history of pharaohs, if you take their name away from this tree. And that's why you were not allowed to take the fruits from that particular tree. So it does make sense if you look at it in historical terms. And so what we have is Akhenaten down here in the new city he created on the east bank of the Nile. And effectively this is, if it's difficult for people to visualize what actually happened at this time, we actually have a video of it, which is really good. A video of it happening at the time, which is a bit strange. But what I'm talking about here is the establishment of the Rangesh community in America. I don't know if you remember this, the Rangesh, they came out of India, they got thrown out of India. Yeah, Osho. Wild, wild country. [Speaker 2] (23:45 - 23:45) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (23:46 - 36:10) Yeah. Yeah, I think you may have touched upon it a little bit in the last interview. Yeah, we did. So I won't go through it very much. But anyway, you've got this cult that came out of India and set themselves up in Oregon somewhere. And their history of setting up this new hippie community in Oregon is exactly the same as the establishment of the city of Amarna by Akhenaten. And that gives you a very good idea of what they were doing. So you have this charismatic leader who gets his people together. They have this new monotheistic religion, worshipping the Aten. And they have to set up this new community on the east bank of the Nile down in Middle Egypt. And as I said, their god was called the Aten. It's the same as the same as the Israelite gods. So it's not so surprising that when you read the Old Testament, you find so many links to the Amarna dynasty. And one of the famous ones, which it won't be taught by theologians, but it's certainly taught within history. This is not my discovery. This has been known for hundreds of years. That Psalm 104 is the same as the Hymn to the Aten. So the Hymn to the Aten was a hymn made by, apparently made by Akhenaten himself. Which I think was probably sung at the dawn of each new day because it's a celebration of the dawning of a new day. But when you go through it and you read the Hymn to the Aten, it reads as the Genesis story. So the Genesis story is supposed to be, you know, the creation of the whole world. But if you look at it in a slightly different light, it's actually the celebration of a dawn of a new day. And so the birds, you know, they arise, the sun comes up over the horizon, it warms the land. The birds awake and they stretch their wings and so on. They're not being created. They're just celebrating the birth of a new day. And so if we look at Psalm 104, we find some, you know, glaring similarities. So the Hymn to the Aten will say, how many, it's talking about God. So where it says you, it's talking about the Aten himself. And it says, how many are your deeds? You made the earth as you wished. You alone, all the peoples, herds and flocks. And then you go to the Psalm and it says, Yahweh, how many are your works? In wisdom, you have made them all. The earth is full of your creatures. And then the Hymn says, when you, the Aten, set in the western light land, earth is in darkness as if in death. And the Psalm says, you make the darkness and it is night when all of the animals of the forest come creeping out. And the Hymn says, every lion comes from his den. And the Psalm says, young lions roar for their prey. When the sun rises, they withdraw and lie down in their dens. And the Hymn says, when you have dawned, they live. And when you set, they die. Talking about the sun again, of course. And the Psalm says, when you hide your face, they are dismayed. And when you take away their breath, they die. And the Hymn says, you set every man in his place. You supply their needs. Everyone has his food. And the Hymn says, men all look to you to give them their food in due season. Their entire land sets out to work. And the Psalm says, people go out to their work and to their labor until the evening. And the Hymn says, the fish in the river dart before you. Your rays are in the midst of the sea. And Psalm says, yonder is the sea, great and wide, creeping things innumerable they are. The Hymn says, birds fly from their nests, their wings greeting your car, the soul of the sun. And the Hymn says, by the streams, the birds of the air have their habitation. They sing among the branches. And so on and on and on. So we have all of these similarities between Psalm 104 and the Hymn to the Aten, which tells us that the authors of the biblical texts were familiar with the Hymn to the Aten by Achanaten himself. So we have direct proof that a lot of the information, a lot of the history that went into the Old Testament came from Achanaten and it came from Amarna, this new city they set up on the east bank of the Nile. And we have so many similarities, you know, they were both monotheists, the first of the monotheists. They both fought against bull worshippers, remember Moses killed 3000 bull worshippers on the Exodus. They both had a garden called the Eden or the Aten, because remember the Eden, the god of Achanaten was called the Aten. But the Aten is actually spelt with the reed glyph and the reed glyph is more of an E than it is an A. So it's not the Aten as we normally pronounce it, it's more the Aten, the Eden. And it's the garden of the Aten. Now, where would we find a garden of the god Aten or Aten? Well, you've got two possibilities. I mean, the whole of the Nile itself is a strip oasis, it's a garden of this god, which is Egypt. But also all of the pharaohs, including Achanaten, they used to make a garden to the god, which was a walled garden. Which in Persia, it's called a paradise, which is where our word comes from for a paradise. It's a walled garden to the god, full of all of the trees and animals of God's creation. And that was the garden of the Aten, the garden of the Eden. And Achanaten had one of those gardens down at Amarna, he made one of those gardens. So both had a city on the east bank of the Nile. We'll have a look at that in a minute. Both were forced to make mud bricks to Pharaoh. And now we're coming back into the Exodus story. So what I'm saying here is that Achanaten and Nefertiti had two starring roles within the Old Testament. They had this initial mention in the Genesis story, because someone had this hymn to the Aten. And they were looking at this hymn to the Aten, and it sort of looked like a creation epic. And where do you put a creation epic? Well, you stick it at the front of your book. So it became Genesis. But in reality, Achanaten is more connected with the Exodus story than he is with Genesis. And so we had this story of the Israelites having to make mud bricks for Pharaoh from the book of Exodus. Well, that's exactly what Achanaten was doing to his people in Amarna. He was kicked out by his father. He went to the east bank of the Nile and he set up a new commune there, making his own city and his own palace and his own temples. And of course, he had to goad his people into making all of these new structures. They had to make mud bricks, and they had to make mud bricks whether they had straw or no straw. It is the Exodus story. So when they are saying, you know, Pharaoh is saying to the Israelites, you are idle, you are idle, you must make mud bricks whether you have straw or no straw. The only thing they don't tell you in that story is the name of the Pharaoh. And the reason they don't do that is because it was their own Pharaoh who was urging his own people into making more mud bricks so he'd have his nice city on the east bank of the Nile. And that's why they don't tell you the name of the Pharaoh. So it wasn't an evil Pharaoh that was oppressing the Israelites. It was their own Pharaoh, their own boss, who was trying to lash the whip and get them to make more mud bricks. That's where this story comes from. That's why it says in the book of Exodus, what does it say? The king of Egypt, because remember, Egypt was divided. Akhenaten's father was still alive. He was Amenhotep III. He was still alive and living up in northern Egypt in the delta. And so it says in Exodus, the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, who were called Shipprah and the other was pure. And he said, when you do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, the Israelite women, and see them upon the birthing stools, if it is a son, then you will kill him. But if it is a daughter, then she will live. This is historical, because Akhenaten had no sons. He had six daughters, but no sons. Why? Because Shipprah and pure killed all of the sons when they were on the birthing stools. It is real history that matches up with the biblical story. They are one and the same. And they both had a god that was called the Aten or the Aden, of course. And so the Aten was a dawn god, I suppose. There were three aspects of this god. There was the Aten, which was the dawn, rising god, because Aten means to rise, is the rising god in the east. There was Atem, who was the god of the dusk, because tem means to disappear. And then there was Amen, the one we're more familiar with, Amen, who was the god of the night. Amen being darkness or invisibility. So we have three aspects of this sun god. We have the Aten, the Atem and the Amen. [Speaker 2] (36:11 - 36:18) Is there any reference, sorry, is there any reference with the Amen through the closing prayer? [Speaker 1] (36:18 - 37:15) Amen is directly comparable, because that's the end of the day is Amen. And that's why you would say it after a prayer. And I imagine that Akhenaten chose the Aten because it's full of hope for the dawn of the new day. Things are going to happen. Whereas if you're celebrating Atem, well, that's the end of everything. That can be linked, as it were, to destruction and decay. It's the end of the day. And Amen is just everything is nighttime and fearful. So Amen is not necessarily the best aspect of God to be worshiping. But Aten is the new dawn of a new day, a dawn of a new life. And I presume that's probably why he chose that aspect of the sun god. [Speaker 2] (37:19 - 37:25) So Ralph, back then, were they saying Awomen as well, to be inclusive? [Speaker 1] (37:26 - 47:31) Yes, of course, yeah. You can't get away with anything today. Yeah, it's gone a bit mad, hasn't it? But we have an account of this very event, which is the setting up of the city of Omana. And this comes from Manetho, who's an Egyptian historian, 3rd century BC. And it comes to us via way of Josephus and Egyptus and various other people, because we've lost the text of Manetho, unfortunately. So it's only what other people commented on it and copied it. And he's talking about the history of Egypt. So this is not from the Bible. This is the history of Egypt. And it's talking about a contention between two pharaohs, as it were. But it's linking them into the biblical story because it names various people from the biblical story. So it names that Moses was called Tisithen and Joseph was called Ptasef. Ptasef means son of, so Ptasef means the son of Ptah. With Ptah being the god of architecture and stone working. And so it's saying that they were scribes of Egypt. And then it goes on to say that the king cast all of these people into the stone quarries on the east bank of the Nile to work segregated from the rest of the Egyptians. And among them were some of the learned priests who had been attacked by leprosy. So this is when the 80,000 lepers and maimed priests were kicked out of northern Egypt and had to set up a new place on the east bank of the Nile. Now, Josephus goes overboard with this and says, you know, priests are not allowed to be imperfect. So this is impossible. You cannot have maimed priests or leper priests. But he's being a bit stupid here because it's quite obvious that they're just saying that these are theological lepers. They're not real lepers. They are priests who had a different idea about a different god, and that's why they were being exiled to the east bank of the Nile. Now, who was the pharaoh who was kicked out of Egypt and had to make a new city on the east bank of the Nile? He's talking about Akhenaten here. And we know this because it names the pharaoh that was doing this, which was Amenhotep III, who was the father of Akhenaten. So we know the era in which this actually happened. And then it goes on to say that they were there on the east bank of the Nile for 13 years, which is about right. It's about the right amount of time for the establishment and life of Amarna. And then it says, when the men in the stone quarries had suffered hardships for a considerable time, they called them the stone quarries because all they were doing was quarrying stone to make this new city. Mud, bricks and stones was all they were doing, quarrying all of this material. They begged their king, who would have been Akhenaten, of course, to assign them a dwelling place as a refuge, the deserted city of the shepherd kings, which was called Avaris, which we know as Pyramacy, of course, the city of the Exodus. And the king, Akhenaten, consented. According to religious tradition, this city was, from the earliest times, was dedicated to Typhon, which is correct. You'll see loads of statues of Typhon, Seth, when you go up there. So this is going back into the sort of Exodus story again. Because we discussed the Exodus story before, which we said was to do with the Hyksos pharaohs of Egypt. But Manetho is clear that there was a great Exodus and a small Exodus. And I think the biblical story has somewhat conflated these two into one story. So the great Exodus was the story of the Hyksos being thrown out of Egypt, which we've talked about previously. And the small Exodus of 80,000 lepers and maimed priests was the Exodus of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Because, of course, there is no evidence that Akhenaten and Nefertiti died in Amarna. You'll see if you read historical books on Amarna, they'll say, oh, Akhenaten died there. Well, there is no evidence for that. His tomb was not finished. It didn't even have any magic bricks in it, which means it was never used for a burial. So Akhenaten goes missing. So does Nefertiti. Her tomb was not used either. What happened to them? Well, it seems clear from Manetho. And remember, this is a historical text that everyone is fairly sure is a proper history. It's not mythology. It's proper history, if you can interpret it properly. Manetho says that they went on an Exodus. And so they didn't die in Amarna. They went off on an Exodus. And so where did they go to? Well, I think they probably went up towards perhaps Crete, because there was a lot of connections between Egypt and Crete. We know this because the Amarna artistry, because remember, he not only changed the gods, he changed the artistic styles as well. Instead of having the formal artistry of ancient Egypt, he went into this free-flowing naturalist artistic style, which was completely different to anything that had been done before in Egypt. And everyone says, you know, what a revolutionary pharaoh he was to have this new innovation in artistic styles. Well, it wasn't new at all. It was Minoan. It's exactly the same as if you go to Crete and have a look at Minos. The Minoan Empire had this same artistry. And there was a Minoan palace in northern Egypt. It was there because the Minoans got semi-destroyed by the great eruption of Thera. And that's why a lot of their people were scattered throughout the Mediterranean. And I think that Akhenaten had a lot of connections with these Minoans. And that's where he got this artistic style from. So where would you go to if you were kicked out of Egypt? Well, one of the places you might go to is Crete. Another place you might go to would be perhaps Greece, because Greece wasn't... There was no classical Greece at this time. Virtually sort of uninhabited sort of lands, as it were. Not developed anyway, lands. You could go up to Greece. And I think another person who went up there... Because we have this story about the exile of Danus who went up to Argos, which is Greece. Danus was supposed to be a... Let's get this right. Danus was the husband of an Egyptian princess. And he was exiled up to Argos, which is Greece. And his name was Danus. And the Greeks became known as the Danoi. And I think that was actually Pharaoh Ai. We will look at that in a minute. Who was also exiled from Egypt. And I think Danus Ai went up to Greece and formed the Spartan society of the Greek Spartans. Because he was kicked out of Egypt as well. So how did that happen? Well, we had the exile, which I do think that Akhenaten and Nefertiti were both exiled from Egypt. And they were told to go somewhere and they went off. We have no evidence for where they went to. But we do have evidence of a later pharaoh. So after Akhenaten and Nefertiti, the next pharaoh was Tutankhamun. And they went back to the old gods. So Tutankhamun was only eight years old, I think, when he became pharaoh. And obviously his guardians said, you must go back to the old gods. And so they abandoned the Aten and they went back to the old gods. And then he died early and I became the next pharaoh. [Speaker 2] (47:33 - 47:38) Real quickly, Ralph, what's the time period around this? About 1323. [Speaker 1] (47:39 - 56:39) So, yeah, 14th century BC. So this is quite early in terms of the rest of the civilizations that we know around the Mediterranean. This is still very early. There was no Greece in this era. There had been the Minoans because they had been active way back even 1600 BC. The Minoans were quite an empire. Greece would have been quite small. There was no classical Greece at this time. It didn't arise until another four stroke, 500 years later. So the next pharaoh was Ai. And he married Ankesanamun, who was the wife of Tutankhamun. And he became pharaoh. And he was kicked out of Egypt after only about four years because he went back to the old gods. He went, sorry, he went back to the Aten. So we had the Aten. They went back to the old gods under Tutankhamun. And then Ai brought back the Aten again. Now, the Aten was rather unpopular because Egypt had not fared very well under Akhenaten's reign. And so, of course, a lot of people blamed Akhenaten for changing the gods. I tried to take them back to the Aten again. And the people didn't like that. So he got kicked out of Egypt. Now, we have this, not from the history of this region. We have this from the history of the Scots and the Irish. Funnily enough. And this is called Skotikronikon, which is the ancient history of the Scots. And this goes back quite a long way. I mean, Skotikronikon is 14th century BC, 14th century AD. The Lebor Gabala from Ireland is 6th century AD. And they record the history of the Scots and the Irish. And it's quite detailed. And it's all about Akhenaten, funnily enough, which I found very strange because, of course, Akhenaten was the heretic pharaoh whose name had been cut out from every Egyptian text. So nobody knew about Akhenaten very much until we started exploring his city in the sort of 19th century. And yet the Irish and the Scots knew all about Akhenaten. Now, a lot of the information they took came from Manetho, the same guy that we've been talking about, the Egyptian historian. But they seem to have understood it fairly well and linked it much more closely with the biblical texts and with Akhenaten. Which, if you read Manetho, it's not obvious that it's talking about Akhenaten at all. And so what these texts are saying, and, of course, standard history will say it's all mythology. It's just mythology. There's no history in it. Yeah, there's lots of history in it because it copies Manetho and Manetho is real history. And therefore there is real history within Scotty Cronicon, you know. So we can look at it and decipher it. And what it says is that Pharaoh Ai, because they call him, do they call him Danus? Anyway, you can link him up with Pharaoh Ai, was kicked out of the country. He was kicked out of Egypt. But he wasn't just chased out of Egypt, you know, as a renegade or something. He was a god. He was a pharaoh. He was a son of God. You couldn't just kick this guy out of Egypt. So they advised him to leave because the people were displeased with him. And so they gave him 60 ships. Which were obviously quite large ships because you had to actually row out to them on a smaller ship to get to them. So these were quite large ships. He was given 60 ships and told to go somewhere else. And so we have an exile, but an organized exile where you can take all of the people, the materials, all of the necessities of life with you on this exile. And we know what these ships look like because we have one of them. So this is one of the reasons why we think they went up to Asia Minor and Greece. Because one of them sunk off the coast of Bodrum on the southwest coast of Anatolia. And it has everything in it. Now if you go to Bodrum and have a look, it's very interesting because it's sitting in the castle there in Bodrum. They will say it's a trading ship. Yeah, okay, possible. But this was, you know, when I think of a trading ship, I think of like a bulk carrier, you know. You carry one or two items. You're carrying wine or oil or maybe raw materials or something. This boat didn't have that. It had everything you could possibly imagine in it. Everything from the raw materials of copper ingots, bronze ingots, glass ingots of different colors for all of the glass you might need. I don't know, fish hooks, ostrich eggs and all sorts of things. Everything you could possibly imagine for a new life was on this ship, which sunk off the coast of Anatolia. And we know it was from this era because it had a ring, a gold ring of Nefertiti on it. So we're talking about the right sort of era. And so I think some of these refugees went up to Greece. And we have various texts which sort of confirm that. But in Scottish history, they say the majority of these ships went westwards. And they went to Spain, first of all. They went to the Ebro River, which is on the east coast of Spain. And funnily enough, the Ebro, I don't know if they knew about it before they went there. But the Ebro is a delta. It's exactly the same as the Nile Delta. So if you had farmers and people who were familiar with living in a delta land, they would know exactly how to farm the Ebro Delta because it's just a smaller version of the Nile Delta. So they went there for a number of generations. They also went to the Balearic Islands, which are just off the coast there of Spain, and set up a society there. And I track all of the similar monuments they set up. So they set up boat tombs. Now, who would be likely to set up a boat tomb? An upturned boat, made of stone, of course, but a boat tomb. It's likely to be people who had been on an exodus in a boat, and that's how they escaped. And then it says a few generations later, because they were continuously attacked by the people who were in Spain. And although they won every single battle, they always lost one or two of their people, and they didn't have enough people to lose. So a lot of them up sticks and went to Ireland. And they landed in the Dingle Peninsula. And of course, we have similar monuments in Western Ireland. We have upturned boat tombs, exactly the same, and they're the same size. They use the Egyptian royal cubit in their measurement systems. So although historians will say all of the Scotty Cronicon is simple mythology, I think there's a lot of information and evidence that points towards them being exiles from Egypt. [Speaker 2] (56:42 - 56:59) Ralph, real quickly, in terms of Adam and Eve, as Akhenaten and Nefertiti, is there anyone else that has come to that conclusion? Any other historians, or is that primarily just you? [Speaker 1] (57:00 - 1:07:11) This is all my work. I'm pretty confident there is no other historian that has linked up Adam and Eve with Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Probably for the same reason I didn't touch this to start with either, because it just reads as complete mythology when you read it. And so what's the point of even investigating when you know that it's all mythology? And so it's not a great leap of faith. It's a great deal of broad-minded vision about the information you're getting. You can't just parcel this off and say, oh, this is mythology, when you suddenly see lots of links towards Egyptian history. I mean, everybody has known that the Hymn to the Aten is in Psalm 104 for 150 years or more. That's been obvious. And yet people still can't link it up with the biblical text. We had Freud, Sigmund Freud, who wrote Moses' Monotheism, who was linking Akhenaten to the Exodus sort of story, saying that there were many similarities between Akhenaten and the Israelites. And that was, okay, when was that? 1930s or something. He was getting there, but still didn't see the links that could be drawn within the Genesis story. And what I do is I go through the whole of the Genesis story, and I try and retranslate it back into Egyptian from the Hebrew. Because there is another forbidden thing that you're not allowed to say, which is that Hebrew, Aramaic, is ancient Egyptian. It's the daughter language of Egyptian. And, of course, Jews today will say, no, that's impossible. We brought our language down into Egypt. It's the Jewish language. It's nothing to do with Egypt. No, it's very much to do with Egypt. I've got an academic text here, which gives 250, 300 words, which are the same. But the title of the book is Hebrew Loanwords in Egyptian. And you think, well, hold on a minute. That's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? You know, who was the dominant society here? Even from the biblical story, it was the Israelites who went down into Egypt as a small section of society and lived in Egypt for 400 years. Now, how does this normally work? If an immigrant comes to America, do you learn Arabic? Or do they learn English? That's the way it works. That's how it's always worked with small groups of people who move to another country. They learn the language of the dominant society. And we know this because some of the words are basic loanwords, you know, number systems, bread, man, woman, all these sort of basic words. You don't change those words within Egypt. If you have a new technology, like you had, I don't know what you could have, you know, iron, I suppose, because this was the Bronze Age. If you had iron, then, of course, the Egyptians might copy that name you had for iron because it's a new technology. But you don't change the fundamental basic words of Egypt just because you've moved there. So it's pretty obvious this book should have been called Egyptian Loanwords in Hebrew. And then I expanded on that because if you read Wallace Budge, who made the first Egyptian dictionary, Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, the way they translated Egyptian hieroglyphs, apart from the, you know, the very start by Champollion, who was comparing the Rosetta Stone, the way they persevered with this and found out all of the words, because, I mean, there's two volumes, there's a vast number of words here that they have translated. They did it by comparing with Coptic, and of course, Coptic is Hebrew, with Coptic and Hebrew and sometimes with Arabic. That's how they managed to translate the rest of the language of ancient Egypt, because they are very similar languages. And, of course, we know that they're going to be similar languages because Joseph, him of the coat of many colours, he was Prime Minister of Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. You don't attain that position if you don't understand the Egyptian language and all of the Egyptian customs and gods and everything else that goes with it. Same with Moses. Moses was the chief army commander of the Egyptian army. And you won't get that from the Old Testament, that only comes from Josephus. So, why should we rely on Josephus? Well, because Josephus, A, he was a historian, but B, he took the sacred books from the temple when the temple was destroyed in AD 70. So he had the oldest Torah that we know of. It came from at least 600 BC, much older than any of the Torah's extent today. And from that, he wrote his Antiquities, which is his own personal secular history of the Israelites, which parallels, of course, the biblical story. But it's a secular story, it's not a religious story. And so he tells the same stories, of course, he tells the stories of the Exodus and Moses and everything. And he says that Moses was the chief army commander of the Egyptian army. And he went down and he fought a battle with the Nubians down in the south, and he defeated the Nubians. And then he married the Nubian queen who was called Tharbis. Okay, now from what we're talking about here, it's axiomatic that Moses and Joseph would have spoken fluent Egyptian. And of course, all of their understanding of the Egyptian language would have flowed into his people as well. And doubly so if you go along with my idea that the Hyksos were the Israelites, the Hyksos were those people who took over Egypt circa about, I don't know, call it somewhere around 2000 BC. Because the Hyksos spoke Egyptian in the end. I don't know if they did initially, because of course, like the Israelites, they were said to be Semites who had come down from Mesopotamia and lived in Egypt. But when we know most about them, you know, during the Hyksos Exodus era, they were speaking Egyptian. And so these Hyksos Israelites, when they were kicked out of Egypt, they would have spoken Egyptian. And then when they came back again under Akhenaten, they came back with Yuya. Yuya was, you'll have to look him up perhaps on wiki. He was the father, the patriarch of the Amarna dynasty, was called Yuya. And of course, he was another gingerhead. We were talking about gingers before. Yuya was ginger again. And he set up the Amarna dynasty. It's very similar to the Joseph story. The best book on this, I think it's called Stranger in the Valley of the Kings by Ahmed Osman. And Ahmed Osman demonstrated, and I think he is correct, that Yuya is Joseph, him of the coat of many colors. There are so many links between the two. But the bottom line here that we're talking about is that, of course, Yuya, Joseph, would have all spoken Egyptian. And so what I tried to do in my book, this is my book Eden in Egypt. I did a translation of it. I made a dictionary, basically, Egyptian Hebrew dictionary. And then I went through the Genesis story and translated it back into Egyptian. Because it gives a slight difference. Because, of course, if you're translating it from another language, you can have a slightly different interpretation. If you go back to the original language, you can find some possibilities of what they were actually talking about, which make more sense of the Genesis story. [Speaker 2] (1:07:12 - 1:07:27) Are there any other links to some of the, I guess, popular aspects of the story, be it whether it's, you mean, Adam's rib or even Abel and Cain, for example? Have you found anything else in that? [Speaker 1] (1:07:28 - 1:15:21) No, I didn't find too many links with Abel and Cain. Although it does have similarities to the Seth and Osiris story, because Seth and Osiris had the same battle of the two brothers, exactly the same as Cain and Abel. But what I did find is that persevering on, there were many, many links between the names of the early pharaohs and some of the early patriarchs from the biblical story. And we can take that right up to the era of the judges going into the United Monarchy. We talked about the United Monarchy, didn't we, I think, last time? I forget. But anyway, if you go up to the era of the judges, you've got this era of Israel just before the United Monarchy, when it was ruled by the judges who have great similarities with the Sea People invasion of Egypt. So, again, it seems to be another slice of ancient history that has worked itself into the Tanakh story. And we can sort of tell this because things like quick history of the Sea People. The Sea People were a confederation of islands in the Mediterranean who suddenly thought it was a good idea to all get together and send 1,000 ships to invade the greatest nation in the Mediterranean Basin, Egypt. So 1,000 ships got together from all of the Mediterranean islands, and they invaded Egypt, the greatest empire of the era, the most powerful empire of the era. And they nearly defeated Egypt as well. They chased Ramesses III all the way back down to Thebes. And Ramesses III had to pay them tribute. They were so successful, they took over northern Egypt. And the question then has been, who on earth were the Sea People? Why did they do this? Why did they suddenly think they could take over Egypt? This was circa 12th century BC. So after the Amarna era, after the Exodus era, we're talking 450 years after the Great Exodus. And it's been a total mystery to history ever since. Why did the Sea People come and do this? My idea is that we had this exodus. We had the two exoduses out of Egypt. We had the Great Exodus of the Hyksos Israelites out of Egypt. And then we had the smaller exodus of Akhenaten and his 80,000 maimed priests and lepers out of Egypt. And they all settled in these small islands across the Mediterranean. So now we have this advanced society with the knowledge of smelting and bronze making and later on iron making and so on. All scattered throughout the Mediterranean islands, including Argos, of course, who were involved in this. Because one of the chief contingents of the Sea People were the Danoi again. Remember, we were talking about the Danoi, the Greeks. They were a part of the Sea People invasion, including Sardinia and Corsica and all of these other islands from around the Mediterranean. The reason I think they did this was because these were exiles from Egypt. OK, they've been in these islands for like 400 years, but their homeland was still Egypt. And they probably had memories and stories, mythologies about them being in Egypt. And that's why they got together and decided to invade Egypt. And they did very successfully and they took over the whole of the eastern Mediterranean with the Sea People, who were not rustics from Mediterranean islands. They were great bronze workers. We know they had high technology in these small islands. The similarity with the biblical story is that the era of the judges seems to be very similar. So the names of a lot of the judges appears very similar to a lot of the Sea People pharaohs. After they had taken over Egypt. And the description of their battle is the same as well. So if you look at the temple of Ramesses III down in Thebes, and he gives his account of the Sea People invasion. He said that the Sea People came with fire before them when they attacked the Egyptians. And it goes on and on with this big long story about the invasion. And if you look in the story of the judges, it gives even more details about what I think is this very, very same battle. So when the Israelites attacked, they had burning brands in pots. So it's giving even more detail than the Egyptian side of the story. And so this was a midnight attack. And when they came upon the encampment of the enemy, they broke their pots so you could see the fire within them. And then they advanced with fire before them. It sounds very much like the same battle and the same story. So all the way through this Old Testament story, we seem to be seeing elements of this same group of people. The Hyksos. And Akhenaten would have been a son of the Hyksos because they came back into Egypt, as per the Joseph story. They came back into Egypt and resettled those lands, just the same as Amenhotep III, Yuya, and Akhenaten did. It appears we've got the full story of the Hyksos peoples. All the way from the initial Hyksos invasion, circa 2000 BC, all the way through to the United Monarchy, 1000 BC. We seem to have a thousand years of Hyksos history, all contained within the biblical story. So it's quite interesting. [Speaker 2] (1:15:25 - 1:15:36) I want to broaden this and ask you a bit more of a general question, if you don't mind. Why do you think the Bible was, from your perspective, compiled in the first place and preserved? [Speaker 1] (1:15:38 - 1:23:11) Well, it was the day book. Apparently, within Egypt, they kept, like the Jews do, like the Israelites, they kept assiduous records of their life. And in Egypt, this was known as the day book, which was the diary, I suppose, of the royal court and all of the events of that royal court, both international and domestic and petty as well, you know, with what's happening in the royal court. And I think this is just a record of that. And so somebody kept this record. It was passed down through the ages. It was added to as more information came in in later eras. And it eventually turned itself into the Old Testament, the Tanakh. It was changed somewhat because the Israelites were kicked out of Israel. They were, well, they were kicked out of Egypt, of course. But even when they had been in, because they eventually ended up in Judea, after these exoduses from Egypt, they did end up in Judea. But they were then invaded by the Babylonians and taken off on the Babylonian exile, circa sort of 600 BC. Well, now they were stuck in Babylon. And that's when a lot of this material was becoming composed and written down in its final form. And so from the perspective of the people sitting in Babylon, everything in Egypt became evil. That was the cause of all of their downfalls. And so you have all of this negativity about Egypt. It was all Egypt's fault, you know. That's why I think it was written in this fashion, because they wanted someone to blame for their misfortune, that they had been pharaohs of Egypt. They'd been pharaohs of Egypt under the Hyksos, under Akhenaten, and under the united monarchy of David and Solomon, who I say lived in the Nile Delta at Tanis. And on each occasion, their rule had come to an end and they'd been exiled. So they'd had three misfortunes when they had fallen from positions of great power and great wealth. And who was to blame for this? Boy, it was the Egyptians. It was the evil Egyptians, you know. And so that's when the Tanakh in its final form was composed, during the Babylonian exile. And that's the book that we have today, because that's the book that Josephus was using when he wrote his version of the Tanakh, which is called Antiquities. And yeah, so we've had the same text and the same commentary for the last 2,600 years. And it's close to the truth, but it's not the real truth, because they didn't want to admit that they had actually been in control of these regions as pharaohs of Egypt. Because that's a difficult sell, you know. You want to keep your people together as a society. And how do you sell the fact, well, we were powerful, but we were defeated and kicked out of the country. That's not a very easy sell to your people, to keep them together as a cohesive unit. The way you do it is you sell misfortune. Oh, it was nothing to do with us. We got kicked out because of these evil Egyptians. And that's why we had this downfall. It's because you didn't keep the covenant with God and the Egyptians took advantage of that and they kicked us out of the country. That's a much easier sell. You see this all the time today with Muslims will do it all the time. Every misfortune in Islam is always to do with the West. It's nothing to do with Islam and the incompetence of Islam of running a society, which is demonstrably true that they are often incompetent because they have, what do you call it when everything is predestined. Anyway, let's call it predestined. Everything is predestined in Islam and God will provide everything. So why bother working? Your life is predestined, so you can't change it. So there's no point working harder because you can't change your life and God will look after you anyway, even if you sit on your doorstep every day and do nothing. So what's the point? And it breeds a lethargic society, which is what we've seen through the whole history of Islam. When they don't have a slave population to do all the work for them, which they had during the golden age of Islam, because the golden age of Islam is a complete lie. The people who did the work were always the unbelievers. It was the Jews, the Christians, the Sabians and everybody else who were the Kufr unbelievers who paid the Jizya tax. And the whole society ran on that Jizya tax from the unbelievers. And so when they ran out of unbelievers, of course, society collapsed, which is exactly what happened in most of these Eastern countries. But what's their response to that? They say, oh, well, it's the fault of the West. It's the fault of the Crusades. It's the fault of everybody except ourselves. You even see that in modern society. I don't want to get too political, but you know the aspirations of BLM. It's nothing to do with them. It's always other people. It's not the fact that there's any faults in our particular slice of society. We have no faults at all. It's all because of other people. So that's a guaranteed way of establishing a group, a society, is by blaming other people and playing the victimhood card. And that's exactly what they did with the Old Testament. They're playing the victim card, not giving the full truth because the full truth goes against that, that they were powerful people within Egypt. But I mean, that's pretty obvious by looking at the historical data. And that was the formation of the Tanakh. [Speaker 2] (1:23:15 - 1:23:20) And now it's in 85% of the hotel bedside tables. [Speaker 1] (1:23:21 - 1:26:03) Yes, this chap called Gideon went around every single hotel in the world, dropping his book off. Yes, it's become very, very successful. But that is, of course, courtesy of a new offshoot, the Christian offshoot. That's not the Tanakh as such. It's certainly not written in Hebrew. But yes, it's become a very, very successful story. And a lot of these bandwagons do become, if it's the right sort of bandwagon, it does become very successful. And it's strange that it became successful in two different formats. So the Israelite Hebrew format was very self-contained. You had to be a Jew in order to be a part of that society. So that limited the number of people who could be in that society. And it was successful because they stayed together as a group and they were assiduous record keepers and they kept the story of the history of their people. And then it went across to the Christians who opened this up to anybody, as we said before, courtesy of Saul, who became the apostle to the Gentiles and broadened this out to the whole of the Roman Empire. And it became successful for them, A, because they had more numbers, which helped, but also because it became a very, I think, well, you might argue about this, but I think it became a much more personal God. This was no longer the art and looking after the people, the source of all energy on earth, maintaining society. The Christian God became very personal. It was a humanoid God who was now looking after you. So this God would now look after you, your family, you at your work, you when you went for an exam, you know, at school, it would be God that was looking after you, not all of the other people in the class. It would be God looking after you. And I think this personalization of God became very successful. People like that. They want some strange force that's looking after me. Not my friend, because we're both in competition for the same job. You know, there's five of us in the interview room, but God is going to look after me, not those other people. [Speaker 2] (1:26:05 - 1:26:24) It became a selfish religion. That's what I always find amazing. Like, you know, I follow sports throughout my life and the winning team and they're thanking God. And I'm sure there's people on the losing team who were praying to God, but they lost. So someone explain that to me. [Speaker 1] (1:26:24 - 1:28:52) Yeah, yeah. Yes, but the end result was that it became very successful. And that's why we have Gideon Bibles in every single hotel. Even when I go abroad to, you know, the Middle East and so on, you'll still see a Gideon Bible sitting around there. They normally supplement them with the Koran as well when you go across there. But yeah, a hugely successful bandwagon, I like to call them. Because there's no compulsion. You're not made to go and do this. It's just open to you. But if we present a nice enough sort of story, then people jump on that bandwagon. Yeah. For whatever reason, because it sounds nice. It makes them look virtuous. It may well help them as they think within, you know, work, society, their family and everything else. And so people jump on this bandwagon. So where did we get to on Adam and Eve? Did we cover all of the points, I think, on Adam and Eve? This is an Egyptian story. It's a story of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. They were a very successful cult that came out of Egypt. And they've kept themselves together as a cohesive little society and spread their information and their beliefs to the people of the West. It's been very, very successful. I always find it very strange, but you'll get a Chinaman in China whose main belief is in a Jew from Judea. And you think, what on earth has that got to do with China? Why have you got into this belief system? But they do, you know, across the world. They find it fascinating and they join it. But it really doesn't have much to do with their society. They join it, nevertheless. It's been very successful. [Speaker 2] (1:28:55 - 1:29:46) Yeah, it's pretty wild to think, like, the kind of stranglehold that some of these stories have on people's psyches. And they live and die, you know, going through this entire process of being subservient to what are merely stories. And what I find that comes about from the conversations with you, it kind of dilutes that stigma that this is something that is to be beholden on some level. Which so many people carry. So many people are so scared of blaspheming and even questioning any of the concepts of these stories, you know. But yeah, I guess people need to pretend like they're sitting on some kind of truth, like there's something known, you know, that they can rely upon. [Speaker 1] (1:29:47 - 1:31:54) Well, there's always been a degree of compulsion with these groups, of course. If you left early Judaism, I mean, it doesn't apply now. But if you read Leviticus, it does say if one person in your town changes their religion, you must kill everybody in that town. So there was a degree of compulsion within early Judaism. There was during early Christianity. If you didn't believe in the right version of Christianity, never mind that you were still a Christian, but you didn't have the right version, you could be burnt at the stake. That's why we had people like Bloody Mary, who was a Queen of England, who took over after Henry VIII, and she tried to convert the nation back to Catholicism. And as a part of her conversion, she burnt about 70 people at the stake, burnt them alive. That's a degree of compulsion. And it wasn't until she died, and we had Elizabeth I, who was a Protestant, that everything calmed back down again, and we had a very profitable era within British society. It was very wealthy. It was a lot of the grand buildings we still have come from the sort of Elizabethan era. It was very successful. But there was always this degree of compulsion, and of course there is within Islam. There are still nations today in Islam where if you apostate to Islam, the punishment is death. And I think even Pakistan is one of those regions where the punishment for leaving Islam is death. So there is a degree of compulsion always within these religions. Once they get going, and they get enough people on this bandwagon, they want to keep this bandwagon going. [Speaker 2] (1:31:56 - 1:32:08) Well, I think you see it even in modern society. You can say more secular if you don't follow the mainstream narrative, especially in the medical establishment. You're burned at the stake, so to speak, as well. Yes, you are. [Speaker 1] (1:32:08 - 1:33:31) Yes, that's been happening a lot recently. It's getting worse, I have to say. I didn't notice this in my youth so much. This has only come in the last 10 years. But yes, cancellation culture is the same as burning people at the stake. It's not quite so dramatic, but it's fairly dramatic on your own household. There are people who have lost their jobs, their houses, their wives. I was reading someone recently, just a couple of days ago, who had been kicked out and he had lost everything. One of our comediennes in Britain, she lost everything. She lost her house, her family, her bank accounts were closed. She ended up on the streets because of cancel culture. Now, she's managed to drag herself back up again and become fairly successful. But for a while, she was out. No one would even host her for her comedy routines. So, yes, that's almost as bad as getting burnt at the stake. Not quite so painful, but the effects are very much the same. If you find yourself living in a bus stop. Yes, of course. End of life. [Speaker 2] (1:33:31 - 1:33:44) If you get burnt at the stake, it's painful, but it doesn't last as long as what's happening right now. Our entire careers and families are going for years. Maybe you get 10, 15 minutes being burnt at the stake and it's all over. [Speaker 1] (1:33:46 - 1:36:55) Yes, we have people like, I don't know if people are aware of all these things, but we have people like Professor Ridd, Peter Ridd in Australia. He was a barrier reef scientist, professor, been doing it for many decades. And he stood up and said, actually, a lot of the papers that you are writing within his own institution, which was the JCU, I think was the James Cook University in Australia, are either inadequate because there's been inadequate controls and peer review or they're downright fraudulent. And he pointed out all of the data, which was actually incorrect data. And what did they do? They sacked him. And he complained about being sacked, so they took him to court. And that's been going backwards and forwards in the courts now for years. But he lost everything. Now, he wasn't quite so badly affected because he was coming up to retirement. And that's part of the reason why he did it, because he was fairly secure in his position and he was coming up to retirement. But the reaction was to dismiss him. Now, think of that as a young professor just starting out on your career. You could not take those risks. So you could not stand up to your institution and say, actually, a lot of the papers you're producing are actually incorrect. Because you'll lose everything. We had it in Britain as well, where a professor who was the greatest, the most popular ecologist we had in Britain. And he was kicked out. So he was on the BBC making all of these BBC films. He was kicked out of the BBC just for mentioning the fact that wind turbines might have some problems. And he lost everything. Again, he was at the end of his career, so he didn't mind too much. But he still lost everything. He lost his job. He lost his position. He lost his voice to the people. Because I think he was making very valid points. He was talking about the intermittency of turbines, the amount of energy it takes to actually make these things. And are they actually valuable? And how much backup do you need in order to make them work? You know, for every turbine you make, you need to make a backup storage system. Otherwise, there's no point having it. And for saying those obvious truths, he was kicked out of the BBC. So this has been happening time and time again. I can probably name 20 or so professors who have been kicked out of their institutions. For telling the truth. And so, yes, we do have coercion within academia. [Speaker 2] (1:36:58 - 1:37:31) Yeah. I mean, it's just a subset of collectivism, really. I mean, the premise of Ayn Rand's masterpieces were pretty much based on the cancel culture. If you're going to look at it through a different lens, you know. I mean, this is the problem. How do you try to be authentic in an incredibly inauthentic society and still maintain property rights and independence should that society come for you? [Speaker 1] (1:37:33 - 1:39:27) It's very difficult. This is one of the reasons why I'm the only person, or one of a very few, who can actually do this research. Because I'm independent. I've never been associated with an academic institution, upon which I will be dependent for my career, my job, my money, my house, my wife, my everything. Dependent on that academic institution. I'm completely independent. I've always had an independent income. Which is a bit of a pain because I can't do a lot of my research sometimes because I have to do other work in order to earn money. But it does make me completely independent of all of this pressure. Although I have to say some of the pressure has been quite dire at times. What they try and do is catch you on something else. So rather than looking at your work and actually criticising your work, they'll go back into... well, you've seen it before with council culture. They go back into your history and say, well, did you see this? Did you say that? The archives. Yeah, absolutely. Troll the archives and desperately try and find something you said that might be controversial. Yeah, they're always doing that. But I've managed to withstand those assaults. I've been completely independent of them trying to cancel me. And so I can continue doing this research. So there's a lot of people out there that don't like the truth because it interferes too much with their belief system, their institution, whatever it happens to be, their political beliefs, their religious beliefs. Their bank accounts. Yeah, their natural reaction is to try and cancel you. It's sad. [Speaker 2] (1:39:28 - 1:39:55) Yeah. And what they don't realise, though, is that they're just shooting their own progress in the foot because at the end of the day, you know what I mean? A shackled mind, it cannot progress, it cannot grow. You're probably one of the only people within, quote unquote, academia or history that actually has the freedom to think without having to question what paths they go down. [Speaker 1] (1:39:55 - 1:42:49) And also, I've had a very independent upbringing as well, which has helped. I was reading Ehrman recently. What's his Christian name? I forget what his name is now. Mythicist theologian, Ehrman, and he writes several books. And so I've never really read him before, but everyone kept saying, oh, you must read Ehrman. And I was fairly disappointed. Because he has the problem that he was brought up within a religious institution. He went to seminary, and therefore, even though he's changed his mind, his early life was indoctrination by Christianity. And as I read through his book, which was supposed to be a book on mythicism, supposedly from an atheist perspective, all I was seeing was an ex-priest writing. Because his whole work had been tainted by the fact that he had been a priest. And, you know, I've never had that within my education and upbringing. And so I bring up, I would say, much fresher eyes onto the problem. I don't look at this problem from a religious perspective. I look at it from a very historical perspective. And I think that's helped me in discovering who these people are. Because I have no dog in this fight. I don't care who these people are eventually when I find them. And so if a story comes up that is similar, I can go and research it quite happily. And I think that's why I found these truths that other people have missed. Because some of them are so obvious, it's untrue. As I was saying about the great exodus of the Hyksos, that is so obvious, it's untrue. And I don't know why nobody else seems to have mentioned it before. And I think I told you before when we tried to put it into Wiki, the amount of troubles we had trying to put this information into Wiki. And all I wanted to do is put a two-line quote from Josephus. Which demonstrates that Josephus Flavius thought the Hyksos were the Israelites. And it was just deleted time and time again. We had to go through about six months of playing around with Wiki before we could get this quote actually put into Wiki. Because it's controlled by gatekeepers. And if your thoughts and ideas are different to the gatekeepers, your information will not get in there. Yeah. Wiki is not a trusted source. [Speaker 2] (1:42:50 - 1:43:37) Yeah. Well, I want to share this quote. It's one of my favorite quotes by Steinbeck. And I think it represents what we're talking about. I think it represents the path you've taken. And even Joel and myself with our podcast, really wanting to be able to explore all different types of subjects. And the quote is this. And this I believe. That the free exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for. The freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes undirected. And I think it's really important. And I think it's lost on education. And if anything I say to the parents out there to be able to instill this in the children is very important. [Speaker 1] (1:43:39 - 1:45:37) Yeah. It's become lost from education. Education has become very partisan because it became a government institution. And therefore you're dependent on that institution for your salary, for your life, for your home, for your career, for your future. And therefore the institution now has more control over you, whether you are the student or whether you are the tutor. You are still being controlled by the institution and the people who control that. That's why I like going back to the Victorian researchers. I find their views and their research to be much more valuable than any recent research. A, they took it as a career. So they did this job 24 hours a day sort of thing. It wasn't just a job for them quite often. B, a lot of them were independent. So they were independently wealthy. That's how they were able to go to college because you had to be very rich in those days to go to college. And they were independently wealthy and therefore they were not beholden to the college, the institution, academia, and they could do whatever research that they pleased. And that made them independent and that, I think, gave them a much better view of history. The only thing you have to be careful with is they were much more Christian. And so you'll get this Christian bias runs through their research. But if you look through that Christian bias, you will find a lot much better information from the Victorian historians than modern historians. Which is sad that academia has regressed, but unfortunately it has. [Speaker 2] (1:45:40 - 1:45:47) Yep. Ralph, is there anything that you'd like to leave our audience with before we wrap this one up? [Speaker 1] (1:45:48 - 1:51:14) No, I think we've been through quite a lot. Just a note to, you know, keep your mind open to the possibilities. It's difficult now because of the internet has so much rubbish on it. You have to be very careful in sifting or winnowing, you might say, the wheat from the chaff. There's an awful lot of chaff out there. So you have to be careful about what you're reading online. Take it in. See if it's reasonable. If it's not reasonable, if it has nothing to back it up, then perhaps reject it until you can find any more information. So, yeah, you've got to be careful about what you read and take on. But the information is out there. Don't get sucked into any of these bandwagons that are going around. There are an awful lot of them, especially from academia. So be independent and decide for yourself. I mean, I can't tell you what happened 2,000 years ago. I can only give you pointers to what I think is the truth. And then you have to evaluate it yourself and see what seems most reasonable. But I think my information is pretty reasonable and it's backed up by the history. I was just writing on Facebook before we came on this, about the many names of Jesus, because a lot of people have been criticising me for having too many names for Jesus and explaining why that should be so, because the guy was banned from history and therefore you've got to use pseudonyms. But at the bottom of that little article I put on there, I said that, look, this information I'm giving you is explanatory. And that's always a good indication of whether you're on the right road to a historical truth that explains things that you did not understand before. And I've done that in the Old Testament many times in my books. And this was just one article, one little pointer within the New Testament that I'm on to something with these explanations, which is that it explains the parable of the vineyard owner. And the vineyard owner is a parable about, Jesus is telling this and he's saying, a landowner, a vineyard owner, plants a vineyard and then goes away to another country and rents out the vineyard to a farmer, a tenant farmer. And then a year goes by and he writes to the tenant farmer and he wants his rent for his lands. And the tenant farmer refuses. And he sends down his servants to go and get the money and the tenant farmer stones them and kills them. And the bottom of this particular parable is, what shall we do to these wicked tenant farmers? We should kill them. And you've got to think, hold on a minute, what's the pauper Prince of Peace, the man of the people doing, championing the rights of absentee farmers to get their rents from their lands? What's that got to do with Jesus? Well, it only makes sense if you have the Jesus character as the royal character, who I said he was, the King of Odessa, because the parable only works if you replace the landowner with the King of Odessa and the tenant farmer as being the Romans who were on his lands. And so what he was saying, it's quite obvious what he was saying, is these are my lands and I've sent my people down to get my rent from the Romans and the Romans refused to pay any rent for being on my lands, which was the lands of Syria and Judea. And so what should we do to these wicked tenants who won't pay their rent? We should kill them. It was a call to arms against the Roman invasion of Syria and Judea, and that's what the parable was trying to say. So the explanations I'm giving actually make sense of things which were totally inexplicable before. And when you can do that with a theory, when a theory becomes predictive and it makes sense of things which never made sense before, then I think we can assume that it's probably on the right track. So yeah, that's pretty much it really. Keep your eyes and ears open and see if you can see for yourself what the truth is. [Speaker 2] (1:51:16 - 1:51:46) Oh yeah, 100% concur with that message. Guys, thank you so much for listening. I'm going to put all Ralph's links in our show notes, his website, where you can grab his books and research for yourself a little bit deeper. Ralph, thanks for being here for the truth once again, my friend. Pleasure to be with you. Thanks, Joel Yerasmus. Thank you.