Gearing Up For Apollo: Part 3 – A Time of Great Change… And The Death of God

This page contains some random thoughts, potentially related to the Flat Earth Controversy. If you are not familiar with that material, please watch the following videos first:


TFR – 29 – Revolutionary Radio: Examining Flat Earth Clues – Part 1


TFR – 30 – Revolutionary Radio: Examining Flat Earth Clues – Part 2






Gearing Up For Apollo: Part 1: Architects of a Spherical World

Gearing Up For Apollo: PART 2: Examining An Ancient Motive

Gearing Up For Apollo: PART 3: A Time of Great Change… And The Death of God

In Part 1 of this series, I began to draw together a few strings concerning some key players in a timeline of events, which I believe illustrates a gearing up for Apollo. As I covered in my Mythology and the Coming Great Deception videos as well as in my book, Babylon Rising: And The First Shall Be Last, Nimrod became known by many names after the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel. The two names that really seemed to take and hold firm even into our modern age are Osiris and Apollo. From the first century times of the New Testament to the modern era, both are still highly regarded by certain segments of the world’s elite, particularly through Secret Societies. Once your eyes are open to this, you will see a real undercurrent within certain movements and organizations, all pushing toward his return to the land of the living. In Part 2 of this series, I took a look at the ancient motives, which may be driving what likely could be at least a part of the Great Deception, which was promised by Yeshua to come upon us in these Last Days. In this blog, my goal will be to start with Nimrod and work my way forward through the late 19th Century and the start of the 20th Century where we’ll see a new attempt by man to kill God and bring about the reemergence of Nimrod. So here, we go…


Click to Enlarge


Click to Enlarge

Nimrod was born in 1908AM. He became king of the world in 1948AM. These are two very interesting dates in the 20th Century as well. In Part 2 of this series, we learned about the real intent of the Tower of Babel. It was to wage war with YHWH, God Almighty. After “reaching into heaven” through this tower construct, the plan was to assault Heaven and take over. The plan was thwarted by the confusion of the languages. This was a brilliant plan by YHWH. What ever pre-Flood knowledge, which may have been retained in Noah and his three sons, was instantly cut down – significantly.

Because “nothing which they have imagined to do would be restrained from them,” YHWH limited their imagination and ability to be so united in evil by separating not only by language, but also by accumulated knowledge. Now, instead of having many united with combined wisdom and understanding, there were many dispersed with fragments of knowledge and understanding and no one could communicate with the others. This caused a separation of proximity to occur. Man began to spread out across the earth, assembling into language groups, which would later develop into nations and ultimately what we would call “races.”

I must pause here and say that I really hate the whole notion of different “races” of people. There is only one race: the human race. Whatever our outward appearances may be and how they may have slight variations in shape, size and color, inside we are all the same. But how did these variations accumulate and manifest? Selective breeding within controlled conditions.

Skin color is only the result of an increase or decrease in the body’s production of melanin, which is YHWH’s way of protecting our skin from the harmful radiation of the sun. He cares so much about this that He even placed specific types of plants, fruits and vegetables in the equatorial regions, which actually cause the body to produce more melanin. Thus, those who ended up migrating into those regions began to become darker skinned. In the regions further away from the equator, people don’t need as much melanin, so they retained lighter skin. Simple as that.

I say “retained lighter skin” because it is my belief that prior to the Flood, there was a very different atmosphere than what we have today. Many Creationist scholars believe that there would have been a lot less harmful radiation from the sun reaching this earth prior to the Flood. If true, then our bodies would not have produced as much melanin, which means our skin would not have been dark. Adam’s name means “red” so it seems likely that man may have originally had sort of a lighter skin with a pinkish-red hue. If true, then the “red man” may be the closest to what Adam and his much later descendants, Noah and his sons may have looked like. From the three sons of Noah, the variations of skin color would have therefore developed based on where their descendants settled, and how much melanin production would have been needed in those regions.

As for variations in body types and facial features, I believe the Tower of Babel likely accounts for this as well. Anytime you have a controlled breeding environment, you can accentuate dominant characteristics. We have over 350 varieties of dog, which all came from basically one wolf-like source due to careful and selective breeding. Now we have such variation in size and shape as this:

The ancient Hebrew texts say there were about 600,000 people at the time of the Tower of Babel, which got separated into 70 different language/people breeding groups. Within those groups, it is easy to imagine how YHWH could have separated them by similar facial/body features when He confounded the languages. Over time, certain traits would have thus manifested more in some groups than in others and been retained by specific language groups as defining characteristics. Now we have a wide variety of shapes, colors and sizes in humans, just as we do in dogs, which should all be embraced and appreciated not persecuted and rejected.

Side note: Many subscribe to the notion that Shem is the father of Middle Easterners and Asians, Japheth is the father of Europeans and Ham is the father of Africans. This is largely due to charts like this, depicting the Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”:

While it is true that, by in large, these are the areas where the descendants of Noah’s three sons settled, we can not draw such defining lines. First of all, by the time we get to the Tower of Babel, if the Jasher account is true, there were some 600,000 men living at the time. That’s not counting the women. According to Genesis 11, they were all gathered together into one place (the plains of Shinar) and were thus thoroughly intermingling with one another – for more than 300 years since the Flood. So, if you have the mistaken idea that Shem was Asian/Middle Eastern in appearance and Japheth was white and Ham was black, you need to rethink that idea. (Nemos Notes: Ham’s Son, Cush, may be the first black man, whose name translates to Black: Terror and whose name appears all over ancient African history and mythology.) Where have you ever heard of one man producing three different colored children of differing facial structures? No. The three sons all favored their parents. Besides, by the time you get to the Tower of Babel, the cousins of this family would all be quite mixed by this time anyway. So, you can’t isolate one people group per son, even if they were vastly different in appearance.

Furthermore, while many want to assign all people of African descent to Ham, we must note that his children were the most prolific and widespread. His son Canaan settled the Levant, right in the middle of where Shem’s children eventually settled. Ham’s son Phut settled north Africa and Cush settled in east Africa. But Ham’s grandson Caphtor, son of Mizraim (who settled in Egypt) settled the island of Crete. His children later settled both Greece as well as the Levant. Thus, it would seem that at least a fair amount of Europeans trace back to Ham too.

Over time, as men began to learn the other languages, intermingling clearly happened once again. So, I completely reject the idea of categorizing “races” by the three sons of Noah, who would have all looked the same as their father, who himself would have looked the same as the first man, Adam. Therefore, as already discussed above, the differences in size, shape and color did not originate with three sons from the same father, somehow all looking totally different from one another. No. Rather, the differences came much later, over time as the result of controlled breeding due to the selective population centers, which resulted from the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel.

I felt the need to address this topic up front because it is so easy for us to become prejudice against certain people groups. This should not be the case. Inside, we are all exactly the same, no matter what visual differences there may be on the outside. Yet, the governments of the world love to get us to vilify one another. To make the white man or the black man or the red man or the yellow man the enemy. It breeds an “us vs them” mentality. But the Apostle Paul said,

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Today the U.S. government has got us thinking the Russians are evil. The Chinese are evil. The Arabs are evil, etc.. Sure, there are always bad people in every people group. We live in a fallen world. But having been a missionary in over a dozen countries – many of them Communist, former Communist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim countries – I can tell you that the average person is just like you and me. No matter where you go on this earth, people just want to love and be loved, live in peace and care for one another. Simple as that. It is the governments of the world, many of which are controlled by Luciferian elites (who are all related to each other), that are the ones trying to get us to hate and kill each other. We need to redirect our thoughts to the real enemy who is trying to destroy us through perhaps the oldest and most basic tactic of war: divide and conquer. Remember, we are in a SEED War here.

Genesis 3:15 (GWT) I will make you and the woman hostile toward each other. I will make your descendants and her descendant hostile toward each other. He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel.

If indeed the Flat Earth Controversy is justified, I believe we can see some interesting patterns emerging from the original motive of Satan and his best Chess piece, Nimrod in the early to mid 1900s AM (after Creation), coming full circle and developing in the early to mid 1900s AD. Summarizing these early developments, I will refer back to my earlier research, which led to the creation of The Nimrod-Abraham Timeline chart (above). Please refer to the Timeline Highlights list I pulled from that chart, which is pictured to the right.

Now, based on my research, I lean toward 1993 AM as the time of the Tower of Babel incident. Dr. Ken Johnson says 1988 AM (in his edition of the book of Jasher). Regardless, when looking at how the post-Flood timeline lays out in years since the creation of the first Adam, I cannot help but wonder if there may be parallels to the years since the Second Adam (i.e. comparing the events of AM with the events of AD). If indeed there are (and will be) parallels lining up, then 2018 and 2025 may prove to be very interesting years. But I’m getting way ahead of myself.

Nimrod was born in 1908 AM. By 1948 AM, he had been made king of the world. His first order of business was to build a tower, in order to “reach into Heaven,” kill God and set himself up as ruler of all. Keep this in mind because although I wish to focus on events of the 20th Century, there are a number of things I must point out, which took place beforehand, setting the stage for what would follow. These things involved the quest for Antarctica.

While I certainly understand man’s need for adventure into the unknown in search of answers and “new frontiers,” the more I look into this subject, it appears that Antarctica had been an obsession for quite some time. But prior to the advances of the mid-20th century, few actually made it there. It wasn’t until we were able to build better ships and the equipment needed to cut through the ice that such a trip was even possible. But why the big push for this “end of the earth” anyway? Could it be that man was after more than mere adventure and the discovery of new land? What if they were actually testing an ancient theory? What if they were trying to access Heaven through the ground floor door instead of the sky dome windows? What if the ultimate goal was to once again “reach into heaven” and… kill God? Sounds crazy? Let’s see…

Prior to the 20th Century AD, there were a number of expeditions to Antarctica worthy of note:

Pre-19th century:

At this point, several people got close, but they still had not seen the mainland yet. Looking into the Cook expedition proved interesting though. Here are some intriguing quotes I recently found thanks to a Facebook friend pointing them out to me:

As for the Southern latitudes being larger than the North, they most certainly are and have shown to be so time and again. In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”

On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face. We might with equal chance of success try to sail through the cliffs of Dover, as to penetrate such a mass.”


The earth is (allegedly) only 25,000 miles in circumference. Looking at a typical globe, Antarctica is about the same size as Australia. Yet, if the above article citation is true, why did it take Cook 60,000 miles to circumnavigate Antarctica? By the way, this is the “massive glacier wall” the article referred to -it is the coastline of Antarctica:

In the Flat Earther model, it forms the outer barrier, which would of course prevent anyone from “falling off the edge of the world.”

Antarctic expeditions really ramped up in 19th and 20th centuries, aided of course by advancements in technology and ship building. Prior to these expeditions however, it should be noted that there was a man named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who in the early 1800s had begun to toss out the Biblical model of Creation, wherein Genesis tells us how the earth, sun, moon and stars were created and how man was formed of the dust of the earth in the image and likeness of YHWH. Lamarck’s work called all of that concept into question.

In the modern era, Lamarck is widely remembered for a theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, called soft inheritanceLamarckism or use/disuse theory.[6] However, his idea of soft inheritance was, perhaps, a reflection of the wisdom of the time accepted by many natural historians. Lamarck’s contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution,[7] in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.[8] Scientists have debated whether advances in the field of transgenerational epigenetics mean that Lamarck was to an extent correct, or not.[9]

Religious views

In his book Philosophie Zoologique, Lamarck referred to God as the “sublime author of nature”. Lamarck’s religious views are examined in the book Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution (1901) by Alpheus Packard. According to Packard from Lamarck’s writings he may be regarded as a deist.[30]

The philosopher of biology Michael Ruse described Lamarck “as believing in God as an unmoved mover, creator of the world and its laws, who refuses to intervene miraculously in his creation.”[31] Biographer James Moore described Lamarck as a “thoroughgoing deist”.[32]

The historian Jacques Roger has written “Lamarck was a materialist to the extent that he did not consider it necessary to have recourse to any spiritual principle… his deism remained vague, and his idea of creation did not prevent him from believing everything in nature, including the highest forms of life, was but the result of natural processes.”[33]

Like most of our so-called American Founding Fathers, Lamarck was also deist, who questioned, or flat out disagreed with any notion of the miraculous. Throughout the late 1700s and into the 1800s this appears to have been the norm among the academic and political elite. Such thought combined with positions of power and authority over the minds of men formed the foundation of ideas, which would ultimately aim to overthrow anything based on the testimony of the Scriptures. It is in this climate that men began to test and doubt everything concerning the Biblical descriptions of Creation. On the surface, that would seem to be a very good thing to do. We are, after all, told by the Scriptures themselves to “test all things.” So, perhaps that is what led to the obsession concerning exploration of Antarctica? As men began to come up with new theories for our origins and accept new ideas concerning the nature and shape of our world, they would have to go south. It would be the only way (prior to space travel) for man to see if there was a south pole on our alleged globe or a southern boarder to the Biblically defined enclosed Earth. For Evolution to be true, this would have to be false:

Considering the Scriptures (and numerous other ancient writings from other cultures), the question they would have to ask is, “Are we really in the above, enclosed model of Creation, just as the ancient texts say, or are we actually on a globe, where there is there is allegedly a “south pole” as put forward by the ideas of men like Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton?” Thus, the quest to find out begins.

Each of the following expeditions in the 19th Century provided exciting tales of exploration and the overcoming and failures that come from such adventures. Many of the names of Antarctica’s various features come from the expeditions listed below.

19th Century

It is in this time period that a man named Charles Lyell rises to fame for calling the Biblical timeline of Creation into question with the publication of his book, Principles of Geology.

Sir Charles Lyell, 1st BaronetFRS (14 November 1797 – 22 February 1875) was a British lawyer and the foremost geologist of his day. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology, which popularized James Hutton‘s concepts of uniformitarianism—the idea that the Earth was shaped by the same processes still in operation today. Principles of Geology also challenged theories popularized by Georges Cuvier, which were the most accepted and circulated ideas about geology in England at the time.[1]

His scientific contributions included an explanation of earthquakes, the theory of gradual “backed up-building” of volcanoes, and in stratigraphy the division of the Tertiary period into the PlioceneMiocene, and Eocene. He also coined the currently-used names for geological erasPaleozoicMesozoic and Cenozoic. He wrongly conjectured that icebergs might transport glacial erratics, and that silty loess deposits might have settled out of flood waters.

Lyell was one of the first to believe that the world is older than 300 million years, on the basis of its geological anomalies. He was a close friend of Charles Darwin, and contributed significantly to Darwin’s thinking on the processes involved in evolution. He helped to arrange the simultaneous publication in 1858 of papers by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace on natural selection, despite his personal religious qualms about the theory. He later published evidence from geology of the time man had existed on Earth.

Lyell first received a copy of one of Lamarck‘s books from Mantell in 1827, when he was on circuit. He thanked Mantell in a letter which includes this enthusiastic passage:

“I devoured Lamark… his theories delighted me… I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!… That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed…”[21]

In the second volume of the first edition of Principles Lyell explicitly rejected the mechanism of Lamark on the transmutation of species, and was doubtful whether species were mutable.[22]However, privately, in letters, he was more open to the possibility of evolution:

“If I had stated… the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradistinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me, which are unfortunately opposed at every step to any philosopher who attempts to address the public on these mysterious subjects”.[23]

This letter makes it clear that his equivocation on evolution was, at least at first, a deliberate tactic. As a result of his letters and, no doubt, personal conversations, Huxley and Haeckel were convinced that, at the time he wrote Principles, he believed new species had arisen by natural methods. Both Whewell and Sedgwick wrote worried letters to him about this.[24]

Later, Darwin became a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first scientists to support On the Origin of Species, though he did not subscribe to all its contents. Lyell was also a friend of Darwin’s closest colleagues, Hookerand Huxley, but unlike them he struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on. He had particular difficulty in believing in natural selection as the main motive force in evolution.[25][26][27]

Lyell and Hooker were instrumental in arranging the peaceful co-publication of the theory of natural selection by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858: each had arrived at the theory independently. Lyell’s data on stratigraphy were important because Darwin thought that populations of an organism changed slowly, requiring “geologic time”.

Although Lyell did not publicly accept evolution (descent with modification) at the time of writing the Principles,[28] after the Darwin–Wallace papers and the Origin Lyell wrote in his notebook:

3 May 1860: “Mr. Darwin has written a work which will constitute an era in geology & natural history to show that… the descendants of common parents may become in the course of ages so unlike each other as to be entitled to rank as a distinct species, from each other or from some of their progenitors”.[29]

Lyell’s acceptance of natural selection, Darwin’s proposed mechanism for evolution, was equivocal, and came in the tenth edition of Principles.[4][30] The Antiquity of Man (published in early February 1863, just before Huxley’s Man’s place in nature) drew these comments from Darwin to Huxley:

“I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell’s excessive caution” and “The book is a mere ‘digest’ “.[31]

Quite strong remarks: no doubt Darwin resented Lyell’s repeated suggestion that he owed a lot to Lamarck, whom he (Darwin) had always specifically rejected. Darwin’s daughter Henrietta (Etty) wrote to her father: “Is it fair that Lyell always calls your theory a modification of Lamarck’s?” [32][33]

In other respects Antiquity was a success. It sold well, and it “shattered the tacit agreement that mankind should be the sole preserve of theologians and historians”.[34] But when Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man and beast could be bridged, Darwin wrote “Oh!” in the margin of his copy.[15]


So, Lyell was influenced by the likes of Lamarck and Hutton. And Darwin was influenced by Lyell and others who were, at the time, putting forth similar theories and ideas concerning essentially a Godless Creation.

Charles Robert DarwinFRS (/ˈdɑrwɪn/;[1] 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist,[2] best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory.[I] He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors,[3] and in a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.[4]

Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species.[5][6] By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution.[7][8] In modified form, Darwin’s scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.[9][10]

Darwin’s early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge (Christ’s College) encouraged his passion for natural science.[11] His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell‘s uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[12]

Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[13] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[14] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[15] Darwin’s work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[7] In 1871 he examinedhuman evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[16]

Darwin became internationally famous, and his pre-eminence as a scientist was honoured by burial in Westminster Abbey.[17] Darwin has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.[18]


Sadly his influence has caused the influence of the real hero of history, Yeshua (Jesus Christ), to have been diminished greatly. Darwin’s agnosticism came about as the result of no longer trusting in the Bible, which he had once believed.

Darwin’s family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism, while his father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding school were Church of England.[20] When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.[25] He learned John Herschel‘s science which, like William Paley‘s natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.[27][28] On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality.[169] He looked for “centres of creation” to explain distribution,[50] and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct “periods of Creation”.[52]

By his return he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid.[169] In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with his wife Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.[87] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator’s laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[170] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralyzing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[135] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin was reluctant to give up the idea of God as an ultimate lawgiver. He was increasingly troubled by the problem of evil.[171][172]

Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Brodie Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[173] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[168] He considered it “absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist”[174][175] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally … an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”[87][174]

The “Lady Hope Story“, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[176]

Source: and

Darwin died in 1882. That same year, a German philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed, “God is dead.”

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann [bold emphasis mine]

Wikipedia provides some interesting insight into this particular subject concerning the alleged death of God:


The phrase “God is dead” does not mean that Nietzsche believed in an actual God who first existed and then died in a literal senseRather, it conveys his view that the Christian God is no longer a credible source of absolute moral principles. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis that the death of God represents for existing moral assumptions: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.”[3] This is why in “The Madman”, a passage which primarily addresses nontheists (especially atheists), the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.

The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is that for which Nietzsche worked to find a solution by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the “will to power” that he described as “the essence of reality.”

Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic.

Misunderstandings of the death of God

When first being introduced to Nietzsche, a person can infer the “death of God” as literal. To Nietzsche, the concept of God only exists in the minds of his followers; therefore, the believers would ultimately be accountable for his life and death. Holub goes on to state that “God has been the victim of murder, and we, as human beings, are the murderers” (36).

Another purpose of Nietzsche’s death of God is to “unmask the hypocrisies and illusion of outworn value systems” (Pfeffer 18). People do not fully comprehend that they killed God through their hypocrisy and lack of morality. Due to hypocrisy “God has lost whatever function he once had because of the actions taken by those who believe in him” (Welshon 40). A god is merely a mirrored reflection of its people and the “Christian God is so ridiculous a God that even were he to have existed, he would have no right to exist” (Welshon 39). Religious people start going against their beliefs and start coinciding with the beliefs of mainstream society. “[Moral thinking] is debased and poisoned by the influence of society’s weakest and most ignoble elements, the herd” (Welshon 16).

Humanity depreciates traditional ethics and beliefs and this leads to another misunderstanding of the death of God. During the era of Nietzsche, traditional beliefs within Christianity became almost nonexistent due to the vast expansion of education and the rise of modern science. “Belief in God is no longer possible due to such nineteenth-century factors as the dominance of the historical-critical method of reading Scripture, the rise of incredulity toward anything miraculous … and the idea that God is the creation of wish projection (Benson 31). Nietzsche believed that man was useless without a God and “no longer possesses ideals and absolute goals toward which to strive. He has lost all direction and purpose” (Pfeffer 76). Nietzsche believes that in order to overcome our current state of depreciated values that a “strong classic pessimism” like that of the Greeks is “needed to overcome the dilemmas and anxieties of modern man” (Pfeffer 65).

“Either we died because of our religion or our religion dies because of us” (Pfeffer 73). This quote summarizes what Nietzsche was trying to say in his concept of the death of God- that the God of Christianity has died off because of its people and their beliefs. Far too often do people translate the death of God into a literal sense, do not take responsibility for the death of God, and depreciate the value of traditional Christian beliefs – all leading to the misunderstandings of Nietzsche’s philosophy of God’s death. Now in a world where God is dead we can only hope that technology and science does not take control and “be treated as the new religion, serving as a basis for retaining the same damaging psychological habit that the Christian religion developed” (Magnus 36).

Source: [bold emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, at a time when the Holy Spirit inspired truths of Scripture were being tossed out in favor of the wild imaginations of flawed “men of science” who began to think of themselves as evolved apes, which themselves were the product of countless mutations, resulting from the adaptation of things evolved from some sort of primordial ooze, which suddenly came to life having been spawned out of a lifeless slime pit millions/billions of years prior, the expeditions to Antarctica continued…

While Antarctica expeditions were beginning to become more and more prevalent (possibly in an effort to prove this up-and-coming new Godless paradigm of evolution over millions/billions of years), a remnant of Godly men rose up in opposition – namely, Dr. Samuel B. Rowbotham, William Carpenter and David Wardlaw Scott.



SCIENTISM – The Cult of False Sciences

In case you missed it:

Gearing Up For Apollo: Part 1- Architects of a Spherical World

Gearing Up For Apollo: PART 2- Examining An Ancient Motive is 100% listener funded. Thank you for your support in our mission to Break the Cycle of Fake News.

If you value our work please consider supporting us with our vetted patriot sponsors!

Sponsors: - Health & Beauty - Value Holistics & Quality CarbonShield60 - Doubled Lifespan in Mammal Studies! TimeStop - The Worlds Premier Beauty Cream! With CarbonShield60! - Gourmet Coffee for Patriots! - Censored Books for Patriots.

Other Links:
Join our Telegram chat:!