The issue is that to pursue the truth we want to remove strands that aren't true, so that people don't throw out the whole presentation. True, there's a big satanic sacrificial system connected through these periods, but if we speak inaccurately about it then people will not listen. And on points where I can be confident something is inaccurate, I say so. Facts can be debated without resorting to obscenity or invective; it seems you think I'm harming your narrative when I'm seeking to improve it by affirming the correct parts of it. I would hope your grasp of your narrative is not that fragile.

Historically, Nimrod (Naram-Sin) probably did burn Semitic (Shemite) babies alive and eat them, as indicated by evidence of his gods and practices, but that is not the origin of the word "cannibal", which comes from "Carib" and "kari'na" meaning person. If the devil is causing a recycling of the sounds of Canaan and Baal, let's say that directly instead of saying it is of human derivation.

Bel-Baal was then a title of any god or deified human, so Nimrod could easily have been called that. However, in his day Marduk-Merodach was a minor deity called Amar-Utuk (derived from Utu or Shamash the sun, also allied with Sin the moon), found in a list of minor underworld deities from Abu Salabikh as d-Utu-Amar. We have an old inscription (YOS 9:2) taken by Lambert and Beaulieu as saying the ruler of Babbar (Babilu-Babylon) built a temple to d-Amar-Utu, but this hardly means the ruler and the god were the same person. (Add: Both Babbar and Sippar may mean "sunny" in Sumerian, later punned as "gods' gate".) The ruler's name is preserved as "son of Ahu-Ilum [semitic for "God's brother"], man of Ilum-Beli, man of Ur-Kubi" [Kubi is an even more obscure demon or consortium]. If we take this as Nimrod building Etemenanki, he is not merged with Marduk at that time (though we might infer that his uncle Canaan is merging with El-Ilum). The merger of Nimrod with Marduk was over a millennium later in the Babylon revival; he wasn't "Marduk" during his lifetime, and so if we want to say the religion merged him in much later we should say that.

The hexagram may today be associated with 666, hag-hexing, Remphan, Moloch-Baal, and Saturn (and thereby Nimrod and Osiris), by very modern imaginative combination, but this recent nexus is not its original meaning. If we just want to point out the hexagram has been recently roped into the cluster of symbols for this sacrificial system, we should say that.

By the same token, Edom, Canaan, Kenan, and Judah are all easily distinguished, as are their religions, and we should not act like they are all one. In particular, the religion of Judah is testified as monotheism and was distinct from the polytheism infiltrated into it by his descendants. If you want to say that all these peoples had common elements, including the Jews having elements of baalism in their professed monotheism (much as many nominal Christians do today), we should say that, like the Bible does.

Since you appear to reject the Jews as a race, it's odd that you should take the testimony of Graham, who intends it as faithful to Judaism. Just as odd as that you should affirm him in saying the hexagram really is the sign of Solomon but not the sign of David, without any evidence, mechanism, or rationale. Semiotics can be made an exact science.

The issue is that to pursue the truth we want to remove strands that aren't true, so that people don't throw out the whole presentation. True, there's a big satanic sacrificial system connected through these periods, but if we speak inaccurately about it then people will not listen. And on points where I can be confident something is inaccurate, I say so. Facts can be debated without resorting to obscenity or invective; it seems you think I'm harming your narrative when I'm seeking to improve it by affirming the correct parts of it. I would hope your grasp of your narrative is not that fragile.

Historically, Nimrod (Naram-Sin) probably did burn Semitic (Shemite) babies alive and eat them, as indicated by evidence of his gods and practices, but that is not the origin of the word "cannibal", which comes from "Carib" and "kari'na" meaning person. If the devil is causing a recycling of the sounds of Canaan and Baal, let's say that directly instead of saying it is of human derivation.

Bel-Baal was then a title of any god or deified human, so Nimrod could easily have been called that. However, in his day Marduk-Merodach was a minor deity called Amar-Utuk (derived from Utu or Shamash the sun, also allied with Sin the moon), found in a list of minor underworld deities from Abu Salabikh as d-Utu-Amar. We have an old inscription (YOS 9:2) taken by Lambert and Beaulieu as saying the ruler of Babbar (Babilu-Babylon) built a temple to d-Amar-Utu, but this hardly means the ruler and the god were the same person. The ruler's name is preserved as "son of Ahu-Ilum [semitic for "God's brother"], man of Ilum-Beli, man of Ur-Kubi" [Kubi is an even more obscure demon or consortium]. If we take this as Nimrod building Etemenanki, he is not merged with Marduk at that time (though we might infer that his uncle Canaan is merging with El-Ilum). The merger of Nimrod with Marduk was over a millennium later in the Babylon revival; he wasn't "Marduk" during his lifetime, and so if we want to say the religion merged him in much later we should say that.

The hexagram may today be associated with 666, hag-hexing, Remphan, Moloch-Baal, and Saturn (and thereby Nimrod and Osiris), by very modern imaginative combination, but this recent nexus is not its original meaning. If we just want to point out the hexagram has been recently roped into the cluster of symbols for this sacrificial system, we should say that.

By the same token, Edom, Canaan, Kenan, and Judah are all easily distinguished, as are their religions, and we should not act like they are all one. In particular, the religion of Judah is testified as monotheism and was distinct from the polytheism infiltrated into it by his descendants. If you want to say that all these peoples had common elements, including the Jews having elements of baalism in their professed monotheism (much as many nominal Christians do today), we should say that, like the Bible does.

Since you appear to reject the Jews as a race, it's odd that you should take the testimony of Graham, who intends it as faithful to Judaism. Just as odd as that you should affirm him in saying the hexagram really is the sign of Solomon but not the sign of David, without any evidence, mechanism, or rationale. Semiotics can be made an exact science.