Whereas the research for this book's predecessor, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, was New Testament based, Genesis of the Grail Kings concentrates on Old Testament times, particularly on the early stories from the books of Genesis and Exodus.
As discovered in previous studies, the Gospel texts which have been in the public domain for centuries often bear little relation to the first-hand accounts of the era to which they relate.
The New Testament, as we know it, was contrived by the 4th-century bishops to support the newly manipulated Christian faith and, in just the same way, the Old Testament scriptures were designed to uphold the emergent Hebrew faith, rather than to represent historical fact.
Clearly, one has to get back to the pre-biblical writings in order to find any anomalies, but the problem in scriptural terms is that the earliest Hebrew writings (which were restructured many centuries later) were themselves only written between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, so they are not likely to be wholly authentic in their telling of accounts from thousands of years before. Indeed, it is plain that this is the case because, when these books were first written, their express purpose was to convey the history of a religion which did not actually emerge until well into the ancestral story.The Bible explains that the Bloodline story began with Adam and Eve, from whose third son Seth evolved a line which progressed through Methuselah, Noah and, eventually, to Abraham who became the great patriarch of the Hebrew nation. The text relates that Abraham brought his family westwards out of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) to the land of Canaan (Palestine), from where some of his descendants moved into Egypt. After many generations, they journeyed back into Canaan where, in time, David of Bethlehem became king of the newly defined kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
If viewed as it is presented in the scriptures, this is a fascinating saga, but there is nothing anywhere to indicate why the ancestral line of David and his subsequent heirs was in any way special. In fact, quite the reverse is the case; his ancestors are portrayed as a succession of wandering territory seekers, who are seen to be of no particular significance until the time of King David himself.
Their biblical history bears no comparison to, say, the contemporary pharaohs of ancient Egypt, but their significance, we are told, comes from the fact that Abraham and his descendants were designated as 'God's chosen people'. This, of course, leaves us wondering because, according to the Old Testament, their God led them through nothing but a succession of famines, wars and general hardship, rather than acting throughout as their merciful shepherd - an image which is only portrayed from time to time.
Given that the first group of these ultimately canonical books was written while the Jews were held captive in Mesopotamian Babylon in the 6th century BC, it is apparent that Babylon was where the original records were then held. In fact, from the time of Adam, through some nineteen said generations down to Abraham, the whole of Hebrew patriarchal history was Mesopotamian. More specifically, the history was from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, where the ancient Sumerians did indeed refer to the grass-lands of the Euphrates delta as the Eden.
When researching for Bloodline of the Holy Grail, it was apparent that good sources for background information were the various Gospels and texts that were not selected by the bishops for inclusion in the canonical New Testament - the books that were strategically ignored. Similarly, there were books that were excluded from the Old Testament: the books of Enoch and Jubilees, for example.
A further work, to which attention is specifically drawn in the Old Testament books of Joshua and 2-Samuel, is the book of Jasher. But despite Jasher's apparent importance to the Hebrew writers, it was not included in the final selection. Also, the book of Numbers draws our attention to the book of The Wars of Jehovah, while in the book of Isaiah we are directed towards the book of The Lord. The very fact that these writings are mentioned in the Bible means that they must pre-date the Old Testament. Indeed, they are all cited as being important but, for one reason or another, the editors saw fit to exclude them when the canonical selection was made.
It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through trials, tribulations, floods and disaster when, from time to time, he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced in a general context as the One God by the Jewish and Christian churches, there was originally a distinct difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in practice, quite separate deities. The god referred to as Jehovah was traditionally a storm god - a god of wrath and vengeance, whereas the god referred to as the Lord emerges as a god of fertility and wisdom.In early times, the prevailing Hebrew word for Lord was Adon, whereas the apparent personal name of Jehovah was not used at all. It came from the original Hebrew stem YHWH (Yahweh), which meant 'I am that I am - a statement said to have been made by God to Moses on Mount Sinai hundreds of years after the time of Abraham. However, the Bible also makes it clear that the God of Abraham was actually called El Shaddai, which means Lofty Mountain.
Jehovah was, therefore, not a name at all. The early texts refer simply to El Shaddai and to his opposing counterpart Adon. The Canaanites called these gods El Elyon and Baal, meaning precisely the same things: Lofty Mountain and Lord. In modern Bibles, the definitions God and Lord are used and intermixed throughout as if they referred to the same Jehovah character, but originally they did not. One was a vengeful god (a people suppressor), and the other was a social god (a people supporter). Additionally, in contrast to Bible teachings, the various traditions relate that these gods both had parents, wives, sons and daughters.
Throughout the patriarchal era, the emergent Hebrews endeavoured to support Adon the Lord but, at every turn, El Shaddai (the storm god Jehovah) retaliated with floods, tempests, famines and general destruction. Even at the time of the Captivity (around 586 BC), the Bible explains that Jerusalem was overthrown at Jehovah's bidding. Tens of thousands of Israelites were then taken hostage into Babylon simply because one of their past kings (a descendant of King David) had erected altars in veneration of Baal the Adon.
It was during the course of this Captivity that the Israelites finally conceded. They decided, after generations of Adon support, to succumb to the opposing god of wrath, developing a new religion out of sheer fear of his retribution. It was, in fact, at this time that the apparent name of Jehovah first appeared - little more than 500 years before the time of Jesus. Subsequently, the Christian Church took Jehovah on board as well, calling him simply God, and all the hitherto social concepts of Adon were totally discarded. The two religions were henceforth both faiths of fear, and even today their followers are classified as 'God fearing'.
This leaves us with the knowledge that, within an overall pantheon of gods and goddesses (many of whom are actually named in the Bible), there were two predominant and opposing gods. In different cultures they have been called El Elyon and Baal, El Shaddai and Adon, Ahriman and Mazda, Jehovah and Lord, God and Father - but these styles are not personal names; they are all titular definitions.To discover the identities of these gods, we have to look no further than where they were first recorded as being operative. In this regard, ancient Canaanite texts (discovered in Syria in the 1920s) reveal that their respective courts were in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in Mesopotamian Sumer - above the Eden delta of the Persian Gulf.
Sumerian written records can be traced back to the 3rd millennium BC and they explain that the gods in question were brothers. In Sumer, the storm-god who eventually became known as Jehovah was called Enlil or Ilu-kur-gal (meaning Lofty One of the Mountain) and his brother, who became Adon the Lord, was called Enki - a very appropriate name because Enki means Archetype.
The texts inform us that it was Enlil who brought the Flood; it was Enlil who destroyed Ur and Babylon, and it was Enlil who constantly opposed the education and enlightenment of humankind. Indeed an early Syrian text relates that it was Enlil-Jehovah who obliterated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Dead Sea - not because they were dens of wickedness as is generally taught, but because they were great centres of wisdom and learning.
It was Enki, on the other hand, who (despite the vengeful wrath of his brother) granted the Sumerians access to the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. It was Enki who set up the escape strategy during the Flood, and it was Enki who passed over the time-honoured Tables of Destiny - the tablets of scientific law which became the bedrock of the early mystery schools in Egypt.
Many books mention the hermetic school of Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, who reigned about 1450 BC, but it is not generally known that the school he inherited was the original Court of the Dragon, founded by the priests of Mendes in about 2200 BC. It was later ratified by the 12th-dynasty Queen Sobeknefru as a sovereign and priestly Order, to be eventually passed from Egypt to the Kings of Jerusalem and the Black Sea Princes of Scythia. Around 600 years ago King Sigismund of Hungary reconstituted the Order, which exists today as the Imperial and Royal Court of the Dragon Sovereignty under the auspices of the House of Vere of Anjou.The kings of the early succession (who reigned in Sumer and Egypt before becoming Kings of Israel) were anointed upon installation with the fat of the Dragon: the sacred crocodile. This noble beast was referred to in Egypt as the Messeh (from which derived the Hebrew verb 'to anoint') - and the Kings of this dynastic succession were referred to as Dragons or Messiahs (meaning Anointed Ones). In times of conflict, when the armies of different kingdoms were conjoined, an overall leader was chosen and he was called the Great Dragon (the King-of-kings) or, as we better know the name in its old Celtic form, the Pendragon.
An interesting aspect of the word 'kingship' is that it was identical with kinship - and kin means 'blood-relative'. In its original form kinship was kainship, and the first King of the Messianic succession was the biblical Cain (Kain), Head of the Sumerian House of Kish. On recognizing this, one can immediately see an early anomaly in the traditional Genesis story, for the historical line to David and Jesus was not from Adam and Eve's son Seth at all. It was from Eve's son Cain, whose recorded successors (although given little space in the Old Testament) were the first great kings of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Two more important features then come to light when reading the Bible with this knowledge in mind. Conventional teaching generally cites Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve - but he was not; even the book of Genesis tells us that he was not. In fact, it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain's father was the Lord, who was of course Enki the Archetype. Even outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite plain that Cain was not the son of Adam.So what else is wrongly taught about this particular aspect of history? The book of Genesis (in its English translated form) tells us that Cain was 'a tiller of the ground' - but this is not what the original texts say at all. What they say is that Cain had 'dominion over the earth', which is a rather different matter when considering his kingly status.
The Bible translators appear to have had a constant problem with the word Earth - often translating it to ground, clay or dust, instead of recognizing it as relating to The Earth. Even in the case of Adam and Eve, the translators made glaring errors. The Bible says, 'Male and female created he them, and he called their name Adam'. Older writings use the more complete word Adâma, which means 'of the Earth'. However, this did not mean they were made of dirt; it means (as the Anchor Hebrew Bible explains in precise terms) that they were Earthlings.
Around 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve (known then as Atâbba and Kâva - and jointly called the Adâma) were purpose-bred for kingship by Enki and his sister-wife Nîn-khursag. This took place at a 'creation chamber' which the Sumerian annals refer to as the House of Shimtî (Shi-im-tî meaning 'breath - wind - life' ). Adam and Eve were certainly not the first people on Earth, but they were the first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nîn-khursag was called the Lady of the Embryo or the Lady of Life, and she was the surrogate mother for Atâbba and Kâva, who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki.
It was because of Nîn-khursag's title, Lady of Life, that Kâva was later given the same distinction by the Hebrews. Indeed, the name Kâva (Ava or Eve) was subsequently said to mean 'life'. There is an interesting parallel here because, in Sumerian, the style Lady of Life was Nîn-tî (Nîn meaning Lady, and tî meaning Life). However, another Sumerian word, ti (with the longer pronunciation: 'tee') meant 'rib' - and it was by virtue of the Hebrews' misunderstanding of the two words, tî and ti, that Eve became incorrectly associated with Adam's rib.
Both Enki and Nîn-khursag (along with their brother Enlil - the later Jehovah) belonged to a pantheon of gods and goddesses referred to as the Anunnaki which, in Sumerian, means 'Heaven came to Earth' (An-unna-ki). In fact, the Grand Assembly of the Anunnaki (later called the Court of the Elohim) is actually mentioned in the Old Testament's Psalm No. 82, wherein Jehovah makes his bid for supreme power over the other gods.
According to the Dragon tradition, the importance of Cain was that he was directly produced by Enki and Kâva, so his blood was three-quarters Anunnaki, while his half-brothers, Hevel and Satânael (better known as Abel and Seth), were less than half Anunnaki, being the offspring of Atâbba and Kâva (Adam and Eve). Cain's Anunnaki blood was so advanced that it was said that his brother Abel's blood was earthbound by comparison. It was related in the scriptures that Cain 'rose far above Abel', so that his brother's blood was swallowed into the ground - but this original description was thoroughly misinterpreted for the modern Bible, which now claims that Cain 'rose up against Abel' and spilled his blood upon the ground. This is not the same thing at all.
The story can now be progressed by considering the oldest Grant of Arms in sovereign history - an entitlement which denoted the Messianic Dragon bloodline for all time. The Sumerians referred to this insignia as the Gra-al, but biblical history refers to it as the Mark of Cain. This Mark is portrayed by the modern Church as if it were some form of curse, but it is not defined as such in the Bible. Genesis actually relates that, having got into an argument with Jehovah over a matter of sovereign observance, Cain feared for his life. Consequently, the Lord placed a mark upon Cain, swearing sevenfold vengeance against his enemies.
It has never been fully understood why Jehovah should decide to protect Cain when it was he who held the grievance against him. But the fact is that Jehovah did not make this decision; the mark was settled upon Cain by the Lord - and the Lord (the Adon) was not Jehovah but Cain's own Father, Enki.
Few people ever think to enquire about the supposed enemies of Cain as defined in Genesis. Who could they possibly have been? Where would they have come from? According to the Bible only Adam and Eve, along with their sons Cain and Abel, existed - and Cain had apparently killed Abel. Therefore, if one accepts the text as it stands, there was no one around to be Cain's enemy!
The Sumerian Gra-al, which biblical tradition calls the Mark of Cain, was an emblem dignified as the Cup of the Waters, or the Rosi-Crucis (the Dew Cup), and it was identified in all records (including those of Egypt, Phoenicia and the Hebrew annals) as being an upright, centred Red Cross within a Circle. Throughout the ages it was developed and embellished, but it has always remained essentially the same and is recognized as being the original symbol of the Holy Grail.
