I've found that when you're dealing with these ancient names/descriptions, you've always got to allow for two factors. One is that they come from languages that didn't generally have vowels, and the other is that these existed and came down to us across thousands of years of alteration and corruption. This is to say you have to be both alert and flexible to their current presentations.
For example, "bel" is a variation of "baal", as are "ba'al", "bil", "belu", "bilu", etc. If you research the etymology of Belzebub, you'll see that it's generally agreed that it translates as "Lord of the Flies". (Some think it's actually "Lord of the Flyers", which is interesting.) But given all this, you may wish to reconsider whether "Baal" and "Beelzebub" are really two distinct entities.
As for Nebo (as the KJV spells it), we find it vowelized differently here: Nabu. Look closely at the top of the page and you'll see that Wiki previously used the other spelling.
Are you certain that Baal was only an agent of Lucifer? In the Bible, Baal is often mentioned in conjunction with Nebo. Who was Nebo? More importantly, who was said to be his father?
And indeed, the Baal worshippers went to Bablyon but I'm not so sure they were enslaved. When they were "set free", only 4% came back. And recall it's also when they compiled that wonderful document known as the Babylonian Talmud In any case, who was the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon?
If you have the answers to those questions, another question is: have we mere coincidence on our hands?
Yes, absolutely. I came to all his same major conclusions before I'd ever heard of him. I think he is precisely on target.
I might be tempted to say I've gone farther than he did, but I might also guess that he's holding back quite a bit. This area is beyond sensitive to many, many people. Their ideas about the Bible and related topics are not just opinions they hold, they're central to their very identity.
Yes, I believe 100% that they are one and the same. "Baal" is typically translated as "Lord" but also has the connotation of ownership, so also something like "Master". Both of those are generic titles, but I've only seen a couple of instances where "Baal" was used in this generic way.
My working thesis is that this entity was so prevalent for such a long period of time no specification was necessary. If you say "the President" today, 99% of the time it's already clear who you're talking about.
The word "moloch" comes from the Hebrew word root "mlk". It can be vowelized many different ways, so you'll see it as Molech, Molek, Melek Milcom, Milchcom, or other variations so don't be thrown off by this.
The root "mlk" means "to rule", so "moloch" would mean "ruler" and "Moloch" is often translated as "King". That would be a title rather than a specific name, but in my research I have never seen it applied to any other deity.
Here's a couple of notes for those interested in very deep research:
From Biblical times to this day, "Amalek" is held to be the most dire enemy of the Israelites. No scholar seems to have noticed, but I would suggest this is just another volewization of "mlk" and reference to Moloch. (And yes, I do know that the Zionists ultimately serve Satan. That's how jacked up everything is.)
Also, in the Book of Ezekiel, Yahweh blasts the King of Tyre. If you research that city, you'll find that it's "tutelary deity" was Melqart. A minority of scholars believe this is a corruption of "melek qart", or "King of the City", and I would suggest this is simply Moloch yet again. Can the king be a deity, or a deity be a king? Is there a solution to this apparent conundrum?
He says it's not sustainable, but I don't agree. In fact, it's their most fundamental modus operandi: they tell more lies and do it longer than all others collectively can promulgate the truth.
If someone wants to know the truth about the world, they can almost certainly get it. We have to understand that the vast majority not only do not want it and actively reject it, they consider you a threat for seeking it.
DAE think we're beyond expecting anything like "journalism" from anyone that calls themselves a "journalist"? The first thing any actual journalist would report on is the state of what passes for "journalism".
Just ask Udo Ulfkotte. Oh wait--you can't! He talked about the pervasiveness of CIA subversion in the mainstream press then died.
The true sickness (be it mental illness or demonic possession or both) is that they are 100% convinced that indeed they are the good guys, irrefutably and unalterably. Everything they are flows from that. You might as well try to tell them that the sky is no longer upwards.
I propose a new class of people we should call "The Order of the Hidden Star". That is, everything said by certain groups of people seems to come with an asterisk at the end which only they are able to see. Satanists and Democrats appear to share this "quality". Coincidence?
Hey, doesn't everyone remember when the Satanic Temple came out strong against masking, vaxx mandates, and lockdowns citing the inviolability of the body? You don't? Come to think of it me neither.
It's almost like they're admitting they have no fixed principles at all, only those chosen for the convenience of a covert political and social agenda. Oh wait--it's exactly like that.
Let's do the math: Jesus despised hypocrites, Jesus rejected Satan, and Satanists demonstrate that they're ultimate hypocrites. Well, maybe it does all add up after all.
I think you may skipped over the essential fact that you have exposed: the vast majority of people do not think like you do. I don't mean that they disagree politically or hold different values, I mean that their entire mentality is not what you have assumed it to be. You're far from alone: look at all the other comments and no one else has noted this.
Certainly events will continue on their "natural" course and we can only stand back and watch as long as we remain in ignorance of this state of affairs.
Frankly, I see it as the greatest secret the Elite possess. Virtually no mention is made of it in scholarly research, but then again, you can see that virtually no one realizes it exists as a phenomenon.
At some point, everyone needs to accept and really internalize that these Leftists have no inherent sense of morality, only that which is installed and updated externally.
I keep looking for a counterexample, maybe something in the form of, "It's terribly politically disadvantageous, but here's something I just could not go along with ethically or morally...."
It's sometimes hard to grasp the level of inversion in the world in which most people live. Here we have "less censorship will damage free speech".
Some say that God spoke the Universe into existence, but look what the MSM can speak into existence. A power not to be underestimated.
This is actually the most correct thing I've read on this subject, although it gets many of the details and some major points incorrect. I came to the same main conclusions as Biglino before I'd ever heard of him (going by his presentations as I haven't read his books).
Since Biglino lives in the land of the Roman Catholic, I think he actually shies away from some of the "spicier" and "controversial" implications. (Well, maybe better to say he's prudent with public disclosure.) And if you're wondering, yes, it all ties back to the Elites and their doings.
Did you think that the word "EL"-ite was mere coincidence?
It's surreal now how they'll play every side of any issue, no matter how contradictory it may seem.
The out on this one is easy: "And historically government has served to protect and defend those rights, by establishing, defining and limiting them." Gotcha!
Good Lord, here's Lula saying this while his opposition is the Brazilian Trump who says things like everyone should buy guns The NWO is out of the frying pan and into the fire in the "Global South".
And it gets printed in Time Magazine? Chaos must be reigning over there! Or should we step back and more properly characterize it as a return to order?
When I think about the logical progression of all this, it's not Orwell or Huxley that comes to mind: it's Kafka.
The police break into your house and haul you directly into a courtroom, where the judge hands down a lengthy sentence. "For what?!" you scream, And the judge just says, "Oh, you know what you did."