A New, Authentic, and Astounding DVD

January 10th, 2011

The Serpent’s Side of Eden DVD. 63 Minutes. Narrated by Nancy Griggs.

DVD Cover of The Serpent's Side of Eden

The intricate connection between Genesis and Greek art will unfold right before your eyes.

A detailed and provocative visual introduction to the magnificent story Greek art tells. See Adam and Eve, Kain (Cain) and Abel, Seth, Noah, Lamech, Ham, Naamah, Cush, and Nimrod depicted in ancient Greek art.

Greek artists, in their temple sculptures and vase-paintings, tell us exactly what happened after Noah’s flood: the way of Kain triumphed over Noah and his Yahweh-believing children. The great secrets of humanity’s true origins are hidden in plain sight, irrefutably confirmed through artistic repetition and simplicity. We were meant to understand the artistic boast and triumphal celebration of the ancient Greeks! $19.95 includes S&H ($16.95 + $3.00 S&H = $19.95).

Recommended by Marvin Olasky, editor of WORLD Magazine

Your DVD order includes a free copy of the book NOAH IN ANCIENT GREEK ART.

Order your DVD with free book now

Email Exchange

May 18th, 2010

From: Robert Bowie Johnson
>Sent: May  2010
>To: >Subject: Re: Thank You

Hi .  Good to hear from you.

I suggest you read the Noah book carefully, especially the last
chapter. Also the appendix.

The Sacred Scriptures, as Paul calls them, claim throughout to be the
Word of our Creator. Those who deny this have never examined them.

Many are turned off by the many man-made creeds of Christendom, and
rightfully so. Today a pall covers the Scriptures. I refer to it as
Athena’s cloak. The key is not to look away from Christendom, but to
pull off the cloak and look beneath it to the truth that has been
covered. Revelation in Greek is apo-kalupsis, literally an uncovering.
We need God’s revelation to get to the truth. More details on this here:


The Concordant Publishing Concern offers “The Greek Text” of the so-
called New Testament, based on the oldest extant manuscripts. They
also have a book for learning Greek called “The Greek Elements.” If
you get nothing else, you must get THE CONCORDANT LITERAL NEW
inspired by God in the Hebrew and Greek, then translation is
everything.  www.concordant.org

I was able to decode the meaning of Greek art, by God’s grace, because
I took Genesis seriously. All truth, scientific and otherwise, is
founded on God and His word.

Hope this helps.  Nancy and I look forward to seeing you again.

Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. (bob)

May 2010, wrote:

Dear Mr. Johnson,
It was a pleasure to meet you and your wife yesterday.
How nice to have met someone who has studied and written books about
the art and origins of Greek mythology/religion while reading an
ancient history book myself!

Thank you very much for the book that you gave me. I have already
read a few pages of it and browsed your website. Your thesis (as I
understand it), that the figures depicted in Ancient Greek art,
rather than characters in “Greek mythology,” are actually the same
historical figures that are described in the Torah and
representations of which are found in other ancient Near East
cultures, is interesting. I had heard that the great flood described
in Sumerian literature corresponded somewhat with the account of the
Great Flood given in the Bible, but never before that the Greeks
memorialized the same events and people. Without a doubt, this
perspective on the Greeks, their art, and their myths is very
different than that which is commonly proposed.

As I mentioned yesterday, ancient history is one of the topics which
I am studying this summer. Some of the others are Spanish, French,
Latin, and music theory. I am also considering beginning to study
Greek – do you have any suggestions or comments on this endeavor,
since you yourself have studied the Greeks? I am starting with the
earliest civilizations, Sumer, Akkadia, Assyria, and Egypt, and will
be continuing chronologically to the Greeks and Romans.
Thus, the beginning of this summer was a splendid time for us to meet.

Do you have any advice on how to study ancient history, e.g., which
themes to pay special attention to, which books to use, and which
eras and city-states to study in depth?

Thank you again for your book.

Solving Light Books Adds Two New Titles

May 7th, 2010

Solving Light Books is pleased to announce two new titles to our online store.

The first item is a new paperback by Robert Bowie Johnson titled “A Truer God”.  The second item is a DVD titled “The Serpents Side of Eden” produced by Robert Bowie Johnson and Nancy Johnson.

Both are now available at our online store.  Check them out!

Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Narcissus and Echo

July 21st, 2009

Narcissus and Echo

From Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Volume I, Book III, pages 149 – 161, translated from the Latin
by Frank Justice Miller

[The Seer Tiresias], famed far and near through all the Boeotian towns, gave answers that none could censure to those who sought his aid. The first to make trial of his truth and assured utterances was the nymph, Liriope, whom once the river-god, Cephisus, embraced in his winding stream and ravished, while imprisoned in his waters. When her time came the beauteous nymph brought forth a child, and named him Narcissus. When asked whether this child would live to reach well-ripened age, the seer replied” “If he ne’er know himself.” Long did the saying of the prophet seem but empty words. But what befell proved its truth – the event, the manner of his death, the strangeness of his infatuation. For Narcissus had reached his sixteenth year and might seem either boy or man. Many youths and many maidens sought his love; but in that slender form was pride so cold that no youth, no maiden touched his heart. Once as he was driving the frightened deer into his nets, a certain nymph of strange speech beheld him, resounding Echo, who could neither hold her peace when others spoke, nor yet begin to speak till others had addressed her.

Up to this time Echo had form and was not a voice alone; and yet, though talkative, she had no other use of speech than now – only the power out of many words to repeat the last she heard. Hera had made her thus; for often when she might have surprised the nymphs in company with her lord [Zeus]upon the mountain-sides, Echo would cunningly hold the goddess in long talk until the nymphs were fled. When Hera realized this, she said to her: “That tongue of thine, by which I have been tricked, shall have its power curtailed and enjoy the briefest use of speech.” The event confirmed her threat. She merely repeats the concluding phrases of a speech and returns the words she hears. Now when she saw Narcissus wandering through the fields, she was inflamed with love and followed him by stealth; and the more she followed, the more she burned by a nearer flame; as when quick-burning sulphur smeared round the tops of torches, catches fire from another fire brought near. Oh, how often does she long to approach him with alluring words and make soft prayers to him! But her nature forbids this, nor does it permit her to begin; but as it allows, she is ready to await the sounds to which she may give back her own words. By chance the boy, separated from his faithful companions, had cried: “Is anyone there?” and “Here!” cried Echo back. Amazed, he looks around in all directions and with loud voice cries “Come!”; and “Come!” she calls him calling. He looks behind him and, seeing no one coming, calls again: “Why do you run from me?” and hears in answer his own words again. He stands still, deceived by the answering voice, and “Here let us meet,” he cries. Echo, never to answer other sound more gladly, cries: “Let us meet”; and to help her own words she comes forth from the woods that she may throw her arms around the neck she longs to clasp. But he flees at her approach and, fleeing, says: “Hands off! Embrace me not! May I die before I give you power o’er me!” “I give you power o’er me!” she says, and nothing more. Thus spurned she lurks in the woods, hides her shamed face among the foliage, and lives from that time on in lonely caves. But still, though spurned, her love remains and grows on in grief; her sleepless cares waste away her wretched form; she becomes gaunt and wrinkled and all moisture fades from her body into the air. Only her voice and her bones remain: then, only voice; for they say that her bones were turned to stone. She hides in woods and is seen no more upon the mountain-sides; but all may hear her, for voice, and voice alone, still lives in her.

Thus had Narcissus mocked her, thus had he mocked other nymphs of the waves or mountains; thus had he mocked the companies of men. At last one of these scorned youth, lifting up his hands to heaven, prayed: “So may he himself love, and not gain the thing he loves!” The goddess, Nemesis, heard his righteous prayer. There was a clear pool with silvery bright water, to which no shepherds ever came, or she-goats feeding on the mountain-side, or any other cattle; whose smooth surface neither bird nor beast nor falling bough ever ruffled. Grass grew all around its edge, fed by the water near, and a coppice that would never suffer the sun to warm the spot. Here the youth, worn by the chase and the heat, lies down, attracted thither by the appearance of the place and by the spring. While he seeks to slake his thirst another thirst springs up, and while he drinks, he is smitten by the sight of the beautiful form he sees. He loves an unsubstantial hope and thinks that substance which is only shadow. He looks in speechless wonder at himself and hangs there motionless in the same expression, like a statue carved from Parian marble. Prone on the ground, he gazes at his eyes, twin stars, and his locks, worthy of Bacchus, worthy of Apollo; on is smooth cheeks, his ivory neck, the glorious beauty of his face, the blush mingled with snowy white: all things, in short, he admires for which he himself is admired. Unwittingly he desires himself; he praises, and is himself what he praises; and while he seeks, is sought; equally he kindles love and burns with love. How often did he offer vain kisses on the elusive pool? How often did he plunge his arms into the water seeking to clasp the neck he sees there, but did not clasp himself in them! What he sees he knows not; but that which he sees he burns for, and the same delusion mocks and allures his eyes. O fondly foolish boy, why vainly seek to clasp a fleeting image? What you seek is nowhere; but turn yourself away, and the object of your love will be no more. That which you behold is but the shadow of a reflected form and has no substance of its own. With you it comes, with you it stays, and it will go with you – if you can go.

No thought of food or rest can draw him from the spot; but, stretched on the shaded grass, he gazes on that false image with eyes that cannot look their fill and through his own eyes perishes. Raising himself a little, and stretching his arms to the trees, he cries: “Did anyone, o ye woods, ever love more cruelly than I? You know, for you have been the convenient haunts of many lovers. Do you in the ages past, for your life is one of centuries, remember anyone who has pined away like this? I am charmed, and I see; but what I see and what charms me I cannot find” – so serious is the lover’s delusion – and, to make me grieve the more, no mighty ocean separates us, no long road, no mountain ranges, no city walls with close-shut gates; by a thin barrier of water we are kept apart. He himself is eager to be embraced. For, often as I stretch my lips towards the lucent wave, so often with upturned face he strives to life his lips to mine. You would think he could be touched – so small a thing it is that separates our loving hearts. Whoever you are, come forth hither! Why, O peerless youth, do you elude me? Or whither do you go when I strive to reach you? Surely my form and age are not such that you should shun them, and me too the nymphs have loved. Some ground for hope you offer with your friendly looks, and when I have stretched out my arms to you, you stretch yours too. When I have smiled, you smile back; and I have often seen tears, when I weep, on your cheeks. My becks you answer with your nod; and, as I suspect from the movement of your sweet lips, you answer my words as well, but words which do not reach my ears. – Oh, I am he! I have felt it. I know now my own image. I burn with love of my own self; I both kindle the flames and suffer them. What shall I do? Shall I be wooed or woo? Why woo at all? What I desire I have; the very abundance of my riches beggars me. Oh, that I might be parted from my own body! And, strange prayer for a lover, I would that what I love were absent from me! And now grief is sapping my strength; but a brief space of life remains to me and I am cut off in my life’s prime. Death is nothing to me, for in death I shall leave my troubles; I would he that is loved might live longer; but as it is, we two shall die together in one breath.”

He spoke and, half distraught, turned again to the same image. His tears ruffled the water, and dimly the image came back from the troubled pool. As he saw it thus depart, he cried: “Oh, whither do you flee? Stay here, and desert not him who loves thee, cruel one! Still may it be mine to gaze on what I may not touch, and by that gaze feed my unhappy passion.” While he thus grieves, he plucks away his tunic at its upper fold and beats his bare breast with pallid hands. His breast when it is struck takes on a delicate glow; just as apples sometimes, though white in part, flush red in other part, or as grapes hanging in clusters take on a purple hue when not yet ripe. As soon as he sees this, when the water has become clear again, he can bear no more; but, as the yellow wax melts before a gentle heat, as hoar frost melts before the warm morning sun, so does he, wasted with love, pine away, and is slowly consumed by its hidden fire. No longer has he that ruddy colour mingling with the white, no longer that strength and vigour, and all that lately was so pleasing to behold; scarce does his form remain which once Echo had loved so well. But when she saw it, though still angry and unforgetful, she felt pity; and as often as the poor boys say “Alas!” again with answering utterance she cries “Alas!” and as his hands beat his shoulders she gives back the same sounds of woe. His last words as he gazed into the familiar spring were these: “Alas, dear boy, vainly beloved!” and the place gave back his words. And when he said “Farewell!” “Farewell!” said Echo too. He drooped his weary head on the green grass and death sealed the eyes that marveled at their master’s beauty. And even when he had been received into the infernal abodes, he kept on gazing on his image in the Stygian pool. His naiad-sisters beat their breasts and shore their locks in sign of grief for their dear brother; the dryads, too, lamented, and Echo gave back their sounds of woe. And now they were preparing the funeral pile, the brandished torches and the bier; but his body was nowhere to be found. In place of his body they find a flower, its yellow centre girt with white petals.


Sowing Atheism Summary

March 14th, 2009

SOWING ATHEISM: The National Academy of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re
Descended from Reptiles
By Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.


Evo-atheists (evolutionist-atheists) dominate the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). They boast that 85% of their members reject God, and demand to know why the other 15% don’t.


The atheistic hierarchy at the NAS has arbitrarily excluded the scientifically valid design hypothesis (creation hypothesis, God hypothesis) in favor of their own materialistic speculation that they insist on calling, without the requisite evidence, a “theory” and even a “fact.” Natural “selection,” their be-all and do-all of evolution, turns out to be nothing more than an overworked figure of speech (a metaphor and a personification).


Out of the two million or so species alive on this planet, the NAS cannot pick one (an anchovy, a pine tree, a polar bear, a bluebird, or anything else) and identify the species from which it allegedly evolved. They cannot explain how the sexes allegedly evolved, the documented efforts of The Washington Post and Nature magazine to falsify evidence for it notwithstanding. Further, the NAS admits that they do not have a “plausible hypothesis” for the chemical origin of life.


Absent actual evidence for speciation, for the evolution of the sexes, and for the chemical origin of life, the NAS resorts to seduction. Their deceptive techniques include: authoritative repetitive false affirmations, disguised tautologies, authoritative obfuscations, baiting and switching, and slapping “sciency” lipstick on their no-evidence pig.


The NAS uses atheist professor, Michael Zimmerman, to round up thousands of apostate Christian ministers (i. e., unbelievers) to function as “religious” witnesses for evolution in front of school boards, parents, and the media.


Instead of welcoming an open-ended search for truth in nature, the NAS insists upon a closed materialistic philosophy of science with roots in the ancient philosophical enchantments (Gk. = epodai) of Sokrates. In that they cannot tell the difference between saying something is true and proving it is true, they reveal themselves to be incompetent as scientists.


The spontaneous chemical generation of life from matter, the evolution of the sexes, and speciation have never been observed or proven, yet evo-atheists share an unshakable belief in all three. The atheistic NAS foists its evolutionism on our children, not because it is true or proven, but because it is their mal-angelical faith. Thus, their relentless proselytizing in our public schools violates the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment the U.S. Constitution.


The widespread efforts of the NAS to suppress criticism and free thought in science is reminiscent in many particulars of the successful effort of the government welfare industry to ban a controversial board game in the 1980s.


The pall of evo-atheism has so darkened the comprehension of academics that they are unable to accept or even evaluate any evidence in any field that contradicts their own belief that they themselves evolved over hundreds of millions of years by chance from worms. Especially taboo is any evidence from ancient art or literature that tends to validate the Genesis account of human origins. The author’s analysis of the Parthenon sculptures and Greek vase-paintings is a case in point.

www.solvinglight.com RBowieJ@comcast.net

McLeroy Recommendation

March 14th, 2009

1 February 2009

Sowing Atheism Recommendation

In the current culture war over science education and the teaching of evolution, Bob Johnson’s Sowing Atheism provides a unique and insightful perspective. In critiquing the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) missionary evolution tract—Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, he identifies their theft of true science by their intentional neglect of other valid scientific possibilities. Then, using NAS’s own statements, he demonstrates that the great “process” of evolution—natural selection—is nothing more than a figure of speech. These chapters alone are worth the reading of this book.

Next he shows how the NAS attempts to seduce the unwitting reader by providing scanty empirical evidence but presented with great intellectual bullying—both secular and religious. He actually embarrasses the NAS with a long list of their quotes where they make the obvious claim that evolutionists believe in evolution. He then shines light on the Clergy Letter Project, again showing the obvious—theistic evolutionists believe in evolution.

Again, Sowing Atheism brings a unique perspective to an always interesting debate; advocates for both sides should find the book intriguing. The questions it raises are important; they deserve a hearing.

Don McLeroy
Chair, Texas State Board of Education
9277 Brookwater Circle
College Station, Texas 77845

Obama And Oprah

November 20th, 2008


The Obamas Look to Oprah as Their “Global Role Model”
Oprah Looks to Her Mentally Deranged Guru, Eckhart Tolle
Tolle Looks to His “Source,” an Exact Match for Satan

By Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.

The overlooked imperious theme of Michelle Obama’s convention speech was “the world as it should be.” She used the phrase four times, emphasizing that she and Barack are “committed” to “building the world as it should be.” Mrs. Obama often speaks about remaking the world, as she did at the end of her UCLA speech: “We can change the world. Yes we can.” But how do she and her husband imagine that they are going to effect this change? Michelle’s own carefully considered written words give us a frightening clue, suggesting that the Obamas look to television personality, Oprah Winfrey, as their guide and inspiration in world affairs. What is doubly frightening is that Oprah looks, in turn, to her mentally deranged guru, Eckhart Tolle, and Tolle looks, in turn, to his inner “Source,” an exact match for Satan.

On May 20, Time magazine published Mrs. Obama’s tribute to Oprah as part of its 100 most influential people of 2008. It read in part: “Oprah is a wonderful friend and an incredible force. Her friendship and support have meant so much to Barack and me . . . Using her platform to serve as a global role model, she challenges us [Barack and me] to make the world as it is, the world as it should be. And she is always the first to show us how it can be done.” The Obamas’ vision of the “world as it should be” jibes with Oprah’s.

Oprah’s Obama-admired remake of the world is well underway. There is “a new kind of tribe emerging – a global community of seekers learning from and teaching each other how to be with our humanity,” Oprah says. This new “global community” is made up of the millions who have responded favorably to her relentless promotion of her pathologically narcissistic, anti-Christian guru, Eckhart Tolle.

In March of this year, Oprah kicked off her ten-week global Internet online class touting Tolle’s book, A New Earth, and its importance in raising everyone’s “consciousness.” The interactive webcast reached 500,000 people in more than 139 countries. Since that time, according to Oprah’s Web site, millions more have downloaded Oprah’s and Tolle’s teachings. When Michelle Obama, two months after the Tolle kick-off, lauded Oprah as being “a global role model . . . show[ing] us how it can be done,” to what was she referring, if not this most focused effort on Oprah’s part to “benefit” humanity by building a one-world multi-cultural tribe?

When Barack speaks of himself as “a fellow citizen of the world,” is he visualizing world peace becoming a reality through Oprah’s expanding tribe? Don’t doubt it. Michelle introduced Oprah in Iowa prior to Oprah’s introducing Obama, gushing that the talk-show queen “touches the souls of so many of us” and “empowers us all.” Michelle’s “us” includes Barack. In his Berlin speech entitled, “A World that Stands as One,” the Oprah-empowered Barack said that the “walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” That’s exactly what Oprah is all about, promoting the lunacy that Tolle’s teaching transcends and unites all religions. Once the Christians, Muslims, and Jews join Oprah’s tribe and accept Oprah’s guru as their chief prophet, then Presto: world peace!

Oprah’s guru, Eckhart Tolle, is a troubled and troubling individual. He claims to have experienced “a reincarnation as a spiritual teacher” through a self-admitted psychotic episode. He is a case study in the development of the mental illness of malignant narcissism. Like the original Narcissus, Tolle is obsessed with the two-dimensional reflection of his image. In his The Power of Now, Tolle writes about what he learns from viewing his own image in a mirror: “If you accept the image, no matter what it is, if you become friendly toward it, it cannot not become friendly toward you. This is how you change the world.”

Here, in a nutshell, Tolle expresses the fundamental delusion and extreme grandiosity of his own malignant narcissism. A mirror image is not true, but backwards. Tolle is not the greatest spiritual teacher in the world as he imagines, but one of the least competent. Oprah welcomes Tolle’s preposterous claims with uncritical glee because they justify the adoration of her own backwards and exalted mirror image of herself. Obama also exhibits the characteristics of malignant narcissism, most notably the delusions of grandeur that lie at the heart of the complex. His entire campaign is nothing more than a demand to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements.

To review: Barack and Michelle Obama look to Oprah Winfrey as their “global role model” for change. To effect this worldwide change, Oprah, in turn, relies on the “infallible” teachings of her guru, Eckhart Tolle. Tolle, in turn, looks in the mirror and makes friends with the backwards image of himself, thus enabling him to “change the world.”

Beyond his backwards reflected image, Oprah’s guru relies on something even more disturbing to change the world. It is a spirit or a force Tolle calls the “Source” which he claims resides within himself and Oprah, and within all those others who have learned through his teachings to “dissolve” their egos. That “Source” has told Tolle that the word of the God of the Bible is not reliable, that there is no death, and that he and Oprah both are as God, able to say of themselves “I Am That I Am.” These things that the “Source” has told Oprah and Tolle are the exact same things the serpent told Eve in the ancient garden.

Let’s review one more time: To change the world, the Obamas look to the New Age babblings of a self-adoring talk-show host, she looks to her mentally deranged guru, he looks to a friendly, backwards image of himself and relies upon the utterances of a “Source” that Christians, Jews, and Muslims recognize immediately as the deluding “wisdom” of the Genesis serpent.

But to Oprah, in her morally backwards narcissistic state, Tolle’s recycled serpent’s “wisdom” does not seem delusive, but true. Oprah goes on to attribute that same “wisdom” to Barack Obama. She praises his “intelligence” and calls him “brilliant.” She says he has the “gift of wisdom,” and a “tongue dipped in unvarnished truth.” According to Oprah, not only does Obama always tell the truth, but also knows how “to be the truth,” a straightforward messianic reference.

Oprah has said, “I don’t think there’s anything more important than awakening and also knowing what your purpose is.” To her, awakening means embracing and spreading the ludicrous, grandiose notions of her guru, as she shamelessly tries to reconcile all of humanity to her and Tolle’s “Source.” Oprah and Tolle believe that “the transformation of human consciousness” is an “urgent task.” We must “evolve” or perish. Oprah refers to Obama as an “evolved leader.” After Obama’s convention speech, before meeting with him, Oprah said, “We have to do whatever it takes to get [Obama] in office.” Oprah’s purpose is to expand her mutually parasitic coupling with her guru into a politically powerful triumvirate, getting Obama elected president so he will help her “save” the world, on behalf of her and Tolle’s “Source.” That is frightening.

Revelation 12:9 refers to “the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth.” Oprah Winfrey leads a global tribe that is part of that sinister process. She is backing a man for president whom she views as being part of that process, as well. Now we have a better understanding of what the Obamas and Oprah mean by “the world as it should be,” and what their guru really means when he says, “This is how you change the world.”


Mr. Johnson, a West Point grad and an airborne ranger infantry veteran of Viet Nam, is the author of “The Parthenon Code: Mankind’s History in Marble” and “Noah in Ancient Greek Art.” His Web sites are www.welfaregame.com and www.solvinglight.com, where you can find more details on the Obama/Oprah connection.

The Real Obama Is The Obama Oprah Knows

August 23rd, 2008

(This essay appeared in slightly different form at www.humanevents.com)

By Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.

Author’s Web sites: www.solvinglight.com www.welfaregame.com

Barack Obama’s connections to Oprah Winfrey and her New Age guru, Eckhart Tolle, are the least examined, yet most revealing, and by far the most potentially ruinous of the senator’s nefarious associations. Obama claims to be a “committed Christian,” yet appears to support Oprah in the worldwide dissemination of Tolle’s and her virulent anti-Christian doctrine.

Who is Eckhart Tolle? According to his own account, after a childhood of trauma and a young adult life of despair and depression, Tolle, at age twenty-nine, experienced a psychic split in his personality during which his ego or his false, suffering-self collapsed, leaving him with the realization of his “true nature as the ever-present I am, consciousness in its pure state prior to identification with form.” Not long after that, he entered into what he calls his “new incarnation as a spiritual teacher.” Believe it or not, Tolle thinks that he has become the greatest living spiritual teacher on earth by overcoming “egoic delusion.”

Oprah accepts Tolle’s doctrine completely and promotes it globally with a fervor unmatched in her other pursuits, so we may call the foundation of their joint venture, the Oprah/Tolle doctrine. But what exactly is it?

According to Tolle, the Sacred Scriptures (the apostle Paul’s term) are no longer sacred, having lost their essence, power, and inspiration. Tolle himself is now the ultimate interpreter of all things spiritual. Tolle’s words, not Christ’s, “contain a great deal of spiritual power.” Tolle’s books, not the Bible, are “spiritually alive.”

The Oprah/Tolle doctrine says that God the Father is a worn-out phrase disguising the true “it” behind all things: “universal intelligence,” in and of which, Tolle and Oprah imagine they partake abundantly. Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, but rather a “rare” human being, in contrast to the stoic Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, whom Tolle describes as an “exceedingly rare” human being. The second coming of Christ is not at all what the scriptures describe, but rather “the transformation of human consciousness, a shift from time to presence, from thinking to pure consciousness, not the arrival of some man or woman.” According to Tolle, when Christ spoke of “salvation,” He actually meant “enlightenment,” more specifically, the “radical transformation of human consciousness.”

If we were to put the Oprah/Tolle doctrine into the form of a bumper sticker or a sound bite it would be this: “Forget Christ and the Bible. Believe Tolle and Oprah.” In short, the Oprah/Tolle doctrine makes a mockery of Christ and all of scripture.

The false teaching inherent in the Oprah/Tolle doctrine is bad enough. What makes it a thousand times worse, egregiously reprehensible even, is the fact that Oprah tells the lie of lies about it. She introduces her online class presenting the Oprah/Tolle doctrine by asserting that it “is not for or against any religion.” Not against Christianity? For the purpose of grasping the destructive violence that the Oprah/Tolle doctrine does to Christianity, picture the complete word of God as existing on baked clay tablets. Now visualize Oprah and Tolle taking sledgehammers to them. Those who seek to obliterate the very foundation of Christianity are not against it?

On Oprah’s Web site, next to the words, “This online class is not for or against any religion,” she has placed an image of the spire of a Christian church with a cross at its top. How much more morally corrupt could Oprah be?

The Oprah/Tolle doctrine asserts that “A significant portion of the earth’s population will soon recognize, if they haven’t already done so, that humanity is now faced with a stark choice: Evolve or die.” Oprah and Tolle, in their own minds, have “awakened” and “evolved.” Oprah sees Barack Obama as having “awakened” and “evolved” as well. In South Carolina, Oprah called Obama “an evolved leader who can bring evolved leadership to our country.” This suggests that Oprah, who describes her relationship with Obama as “very, very personal,” knows the senator to be one who subscribes to the Oprah/Tolle doctrine.

At a UCLA rally, Oprah said, “I’m just following my own truth, and that truth has led to Barack Obama.” Oprah’s “own truth” is the anti-Christian Oprah/Tolle doctrine. Is the real Obama the Obama Oprah knows?

In Iowa, Michelle Obama said that Oprah had touched her soul and empowered her. How so? Through the blatantly anti-Christian Oprah/Tolle doctrine?

Is Obama a “committed Christian” as he claims, or is he on board with Tolle and Oprah in their global anti-Christian crusade? Or, as a third explanatory possibility, is the Tolle-entranced Oprah, “the richest and most influential woman in the world,” not the Oprah Obama knew?

Tolle describes those who embrace his teaching as being “not for ‘my’ country but for all of humanity, not for ‘my’ religion but the emergence of consciousness in all human beings, not for ‘my’ species but for all sentient beings and all of nature.” Sound familiar? Are those the values we want in an American president? Time magazine called Tolle’s book, The Power of Now, so much “mumbo jumbo.” Even if you’re not a Christian, do you want a president whose vision of the American future is based, to any degree, on Tolle’s mumbo jumbo?

The writer is the author of The Parthenon Code: Mankind’s History in Marble. More on the Oprah/Obama connection at www.solvinglight.com

Oprah’s Guru, Oprah, and the Fall of Obama

August 21st, 2008

The Real Obama Is the Obama Oprah Knows

By Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.

Author’s Web sites: www.solvinglight.com www.welfaregame.com


Barack Obama’s connections to Oprah Winfrey and her New Age guru, Eckhart Tolle, are the least examined, yet most revealing, and by far the most potentially ruinous of the senator’s nefarious associations. Obama claims to be a “committed Christian,” yet supports Oprah in the worldwide dissemination of Tolle’s and her virulent, albeit partially disguised, anti-Christian teachings. While the mainstream media (MSM) may not care that the Oprah/Tolle doctrine makes a mockery of the teachings of Christ and all of scripture, they have already recognized that what Tolle presents to a gullible public is nothing more than so much, according to Time magazine, “mumbo jumbo.” Thus, the MSM must reluctantly join with evangelical and other Christian media in a detailed examination of the Obama-Oprah-Tolle connection, in order to determine to what degree Tolle’s “mumbo jumbo,” through Oprah or otherwise, influences Obama’s current thinking and his vision of the American future. The evidence presented here suggests that Obama’s candidacy cannot survive such a detailed examination.


Obama is Barack Hussein Obama, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States who claims to be a “committed Christian.” Oprah is Oprah Gail Winfrey, the richest, and some say, the most influential woman in the world. Oprah has enthusiastically endorsed Obama in person and raised millions of dollars for him. Oprah’s New Age guru is Eckhart Tolle, a self-styled “spiritual teacher” whose doctrine, in the form of the books, The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment and A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose, Oprah continues to promote as truth throughout the world on her show, in her monthly magazine, and in free classes on the Internet.

As the illustration (modified from The Fall of Adam by Hugo van der Goes, circa 1470, oil on wood) suggests, we’ll see that Oprah, through Tolle, has welcomed with specificity, each and every lie the serpent fed to Eve in the garden. We’ll see that Oprah’s grandiose plan to lead the human race to a higher level of “consciousness” as part of a new “awakening” does nothing less than spread the serpent’s lies and false promises throughout the world, in furtherance of her own exaltation as a great spiritual innovator and leader. We will further see that Oprah and Tolle meet the scriptural definition of antichrists. And we will see that the scriptures identify Tolle and Oprah as rapacious wolves in sheep’s clothing whose New Age fangs rip to pieces the written revelation from the Supreme Spirit of Light and Love to His creations.

The illustration also suggests that Oprah shares with Obama the “enlightenment” she has received from the Tolle-headed serpent, and that Obama receives it willingly. We’ll see that the public record proves this to be so beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that when Obama claims to be a Christian, committed or otherwise, he is lying. We’ll see that it would not have been possible for Oprah to endorse Obama for president if he were a bona fide Christian; that is, a member of the body of Christ. By Oprah’s own admission, the spread of the Oprah/Tolle doctrine is the most important thing in her life, and as Christians and Christianity are the foremost obstacles to the spread of that doctrine, she would never, she could never, endorse a Christian, someone who actually believes the word of God. Oprah needs someone who approves of, and is willing to go along with, her grandiose plans to bring her brand of “consciousness” and “awakening” to an “unconscious” world, not someone who would get in her way, balking at the flagrant and delusional megalomania of it. She needs someone who entertains grandiose global delusions as well.

We will get to the details of Obama’s relationship with the guru presently, raising some questions as we go along, but first we need to understand the key details of the Oprah/Tolle religious doctrine.

Who is Eckhart Tolle? According to his own account, after a childhood of trauma and young adult life of despair and depression, Tolle, at age twenty-nine, experienced a psychic split in his personality during which his ego or his false, suffering self collapsed, leaving him with the realization of his “true nature as the ever-present I am, consciousness in its pure state prior to identification with form” (The Power of Now, p. 5). Not long after that, he entered into what he calls his “new incarnation as a spiritual teacher” (The New Earth, p. 274). Believe it or not, Tolle thinks that he has become the greatest living spiritual teacher on earth by overcoming “egoic delusion.” He writes that his book, The Power of Now . . .

. . . can be seen as a restatement for our time of that one timeless spiritual teaching, the essence of all religions. It is not derived from external sources, but from the one true Source within, so it contains no theory or speculation (The Power of Now, p. 10).

The heart of “that one timeless spiritual teaching” Tolle embraces should be very familiar to us because it goes right back to Eden. Tolle simply repackages the serpent’s sales pitch to Eve in the garden. Same lies, same false promises, same rotten fruit. Oprah buys it all, including the phony warranties.

In Chapter Three of Genesis, the first thing the serpent did was undermine the word of God, injecting doubt into Eve’s mind as to whether God could be believed, insisting as it proceeded with Eve’s seduction, that the words of God have no inherent validity. The serpent challenged Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” Tolle likewise insists that the word of God is not true. It can only make sense, Tolle says, if the words and phrases of scripture are interpreted solely in accord with his own contrary doctrine. According to Tolle, the deeper meaning of the scriptures has been lost. Only he has the power to reveal their true meaning and restore their transformative power. Referring to himself and his teachings, he writes that “there is no need to go elsewhere for the truth” (The Power of Now, p. 10).

Does Obama share the same misplaced reverence for Tolle that Oprah does? Obama has said, “I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through Him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.” Does Obama believe that Tolle is a legitimate interpreter of scripture?

After convincing Eve that what God had said was not to be taken seriously, the serpent offered two false promises which Eve readily accepted. Oprah accepts these very same false promises as channeled through Tolle and his books. The first promise to Eve is that she would not die, contradicting God’s warning to Eve that death would be the consequence of eating from the forbidden tree. The serpent told Eve, “You shall not surely die.” Tolle makes the same false promise as the serpent, and Oprah receives it as truth. Tolle writes that “there is no death . . . you are indestructible, immortal. This is not a belief. It is absolute certainty that needs no external evidence or proof from some secondary source” (The Power of Now, pp. 46, 220). On one of her shows exalting Tolle’s teaching, Oprah questioned him about death. He responded, “There is no death . . . [There is] something inside saying, ‘I know there is no death.’” Oprah nodded in agreement, just as Eve probably did, as she welcomed this same false promise from the serpent.

The second false promise from the serpent to Eve was “You shall be as God.” Tolle teaches that he himself is God (“the ever-present I am”), and that all of his “enlightened” followers can become God also. Tolle applies directly to himself the self-authenticating words of God to Moses from the burning bush, “I Am that I Am” (A New Earth, p. 79). Tolle says that all of his followers can proclaim of themselves, when they become “conscious” and “awakened” enough, “I Am that I Am.” In Hebrew, this is YHVH, or Yahweh, the sacred name of God. Oprah fully receives this false (and some would say, blasphemous) promise that she is a “divine presence” as well. (The Power of Now, p. 196).

Larry King asked Oprah why she decided to endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in her life. She answered in reference to Obama: “Because I know him personally . . . I didn’t know anybody we’ll enough [before Obama] to be able to say I believe in this person.” Why does she believe in him? Does she see in him another “divine presence,” like herself?

In the process of undermining the authority of God’s word and offering two false promises, the serpent devised an insinuation that convinced Eve to abandon God altogether. Not only would Eve be “as God” but she would be “knowing good and evil” as well. The serpent deftly ascribed the prohibition of eating from the serpent’s tree to jealousy on the part of God. The serpent insinuated that God’s motive in forbidding Eve to eat of the fruit was to keep her from progressing spiritually and intellectually. Only by defying a jealous God could Eve obtain the intellectual knowledge she thought she should have, and be the spiritual person she thought she should be. God, supposedly, was jealous of her and her potential to be as He is. The serpent’s false imputation of a jealous motive is what sealed the deal for the Adversary of God and Christ. Any glimmers of faith Eve may have retained at this point dissolved completely. Then, relying only upon her senses, her sight primarily, she turned eagerly to the fruit of the serpent’s tree.

Oprah’s own story about how she finally decided to abandon God in favor of Tolle’s teaching involves the same insinuation of God’s “jealousy.” Oprah says she had accepted the Baptist teaching with its demonstrative worship and preaching until, during one sermon, she heard the preacher say that the God of the Bible “is a jealous God.” Although I was not there, there is no doubt the preacher was speaking of God’s jealousy for, and on behalf of, his chosen people, Israel. That is the context in which God’s “jealousy” almost always comes up in church. But Oprah understood it to mean that God was jealous of her: Oprah said snidely on her show:

“Go figure. God is all, God is omnipresent, God is all, and God is also jealous? God, God is jealous of me? And something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit. Because I believe that God is love and that God is in all things. And so that’s when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me” (My emphasis).

Just as was the case with Eve, only by defying what she conveniently perceives as a “jealous” God and turning to the fruit of Tolle’s tree (his teachings), can Oprah obtain the intellectual knowledge she thinks she should have, and be the spiritual person she thinks she should be. This same false “realization” is the final impetus that led both women to turn away from God and toward poisonous fruit, the poisonous fruit offered by the serpent and the poisonous fruit offered by Tolle.

Let me interject here, briefly, that when Oprah says “God is love,” as in her above television statement, she is not referring to sacrificial love which requires concern for others and effort, but to something more akin to a mere inner sensation. Tolle: “What is love? To feel the presence of that One Life deep within yourself and within all creatures” (The Power of Now, p. 155).

Jesus said to the Adversary who tempted Him in the wilderness, “Not on bread alone shall man be living, but on every declaration going out through the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Oprah lives by the words of Eckhart Tolle and the fruit of his tree, rooted in the soil of the serpent’s deceptions. Tolle and Oprah have agreed that belief in God is a pointless exercise:

Oprah: God in the essence of all consciousness isn’t something to believe. God is.

Tolle: Yes.

Oprah: God is. And God is a feeling experience, not a believing experience.

Tolle: That’s right.

Oprah: . . . If God for you is still about a belief, then it’s not truly God.

Tolle: No.

Oprah: That’s what you’re saying?

Tolle: Yes.

According to Washington Post staff writer, Matthew Mosk, the Obamas know Oprah very well. Obama and his wife, Michelle, met Winfrey on the Chicago social circuit before his 2004 Senate bid, and they have remained friendly since. Three years ago, the Obamas attended the white-tie Legends Ball at Winfrey’s Montecito home, where she first broached the idea of hosting a political event, something she had never done before. Since then, Winfrey has had the Obamas as guests on her television show, featured them in her magazine, and raved about the senator’s potential to change American politics in repeated public appearances. Do the “Christian” Obamas realize what kind of contrary doctrine Oprah is spreading throughout the world?

Tolle has convinced Oprah, or more likely, Oprah has used Tolle to convince herself, that faith in God and His word must be abandoned in favor of feeling. This is just what happened when Eve abandoned her trust in God’s word and turned to examine in detail the fruit of the serpent’s tree using her senses and flawed reasoning. The fruit of the serpent’s tree had the same attraction to Eve as the fruit of Tolle’s teaching now has to Oprah.

First, Eve saw that the serpent’s fruit was “good for food.” Likewise, Tolle’s fruit looks good, too. It will feed Oprah’s desire to grow and prosper intellectually and spiritually. It will nourish her delusions that she will be as God, and that she will not die.

Second, the serpent’s fruit brought “a yearning to the eyes” of Eve. Likewise, Oprah longs for the fruit of Tolle’s poisonous tree. Oprah is eager to make use of Tolle’s teaching. The “awakening” and “enlightenment” it offers will separate her from the “still unconscious majority of the population.” (The Power of Now, p. 218). If Tolle’s doctrine is attractive to her, it will be attractive to others. She will lead others to it, glorify it, and urge others to partake, and she will take the credit for bringing them into this new “awareness.”

Third, Eve saw that the serpent’s tree was “to be coveted as the tree to make one intelligent.” This is exactly what the fruit of Tolle’s doctrine offers to Oprah. Tolle gives her the ability to embrace and align herself with flawless “consciousness,” what Tolle also calls “universal intelligence.” (The New Earth, p. 289). The serpent’s and Tolle’s lies, and their fruit, and what Oprah accepts, all meld into one. This, then, is what the Oprah/Tolle doctrine presents as “that one timeless spiritual teaching.”

At a UCLA rally, Oprah said, “I’m not voting for Barack Obama because he’s black, I’m voting for Barack Obama because he’s brilliant.” Does Oprah see a manifestation of “universal intelligence” in Obama?

The apostle Paul enjoins Christians, “As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth) testing what is well pleasing to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:9). Embracing as they do the serpent’s “enlightenment,” how can anything that Tolle and Oprah teach be well-pleasing to the Lord?

Obama has said, “Oprah, you’re my girl.” What did he mean by that? Oprah has called Obama, “my favorite guy,” and “my choice.” What did she mean?

Revelation 12:9 mentions “the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth.” Ephesians 2:2 describes Satan as the “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness.” This evil spirit opposes Christ, and is thus, by definition, an antichrist spirit. The literal meaning of antichrist in ancient Greek is instead-anointed. It refers to one who takes upon himself (or herself) the office of the Anointed One, thus displacing Him, not so much as his outward opponent, but rather as a false messiah coming in the true Messiah’s stead. I John 2:18 tells us that “there have come to be many antichrists.” The question is, do Tolle and Oprah meet the scriptural definition of antichrists as defined by I John 2:22: “Who is the liar, if not he who is denying, saying that ‘Jesus is not the Christ’? This one is the antichrist, who is disowning the Father and the Son”?

According to the teaching of Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey, Jesus Christ is not the Son of God Who reconciles mankind to God the Father through the blood of His cross (Luke 1:35, Colossians 1:20), the Image of the Invisible God (II Corinthians 4:4), the Mediator of God and Mankind (I Timothy 2:5), or the Savior of all mankind, especially of believers (I Timothy 4:9). Tolle sees Jesus instead as a “rare” human being, in contrast to the stoic Roman emperor, Marcus Aurelius, whom he describes as an “exceedingly rare” human being (The New Earth, p. 89, The Power of Now, p. 179).

Oprah and Tolle do not believe that God the Father gave his only-begotten Son so “that everyone believing in Him should not be perishing” (John 3:16), or that God the Father has made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). To them, God the Father is a false phrase disguising the true “it” behind all things: “universal intelligence,” in and of which, Tolle and Oprah imagine they partake abundantly. Oprah and her followers do not believe that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are concealed in Christ and God (Colossians 2:3), but rather in the writings of Eckhart Tolle, a man who is himself, in my opinion, an “extremely rare,” and deeply disturbed human being.

Jesus said “The declarations I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63). Paul added that the word of God is “living and operative” (Hebrews 4:12). Not so, according to Tolle. The scriptures have lost their essence, power, and inspiration. It is Tolle’s words, not Christ’s, that “contain a great deal of spiritual power;” it is Tolle’s books, not the scriptures that are “spiritually alive” (The Power of Now, p. 8, The New Earth, p. 7).

Does Obama believe that Tolle is a truly great teacher whose “spiritually alive” words countermand those of Christ? Has he discussed this with Oprah or with his wife, Michelle?

Thus in Tolle’s and Oprah’s scheme, Tolle replaces Jesus Christ and himself becomes, in their minds, the chief spiritual teacher of all mankind. Oprah promotes him worldwide as such. Tolle and Oprah both deny God the Father and replace Him with the “it” they call “universal intelligence.” (The New Earth, p. 132). Tolle and Oprah take upon themselves the office of Jesus Christ, the True Anointed One, thus denying, disowning, and displacing Him and the Very Source of His anointing, God the Father. In no uncertain terms then, we are justified according to I John 2:22, in referring to them both as antichrists. If we were to put the Oprah/Tolle doctrine into the form of a bumper sticker or a sound bite it would be this: “Forget Christ and Scripture. Believe Tolle and Oprah.”

At a UCLA rally, Oprah said, “I’m just following my own truth, and that truth has led to Barack Obama. The truth has led me to Barack Obama.” Let’s not forget, as Oprah speaks of her “own truth,” what she means by it. We’ve seen that she has embraced the exact same lies from Tolle that Eve accepted from the serpent – that God is jealous of her spiritual and intellectual development, that the word of God cannot be trusted, that she is, in some sense, God, and that she will not die. She thinks these lies are the truth. Oprah’s “own truth” turns out to be the serpent’s lies, and that is what has led her to Barack Obama, encouraging her to extol his imaginary virtues. Does Obama realize this? Does he understand where Oprah is coming from spiritually?

Jesus warned us to “Take heed of those false prophets who are coming to you in the apparel of sheep, yet inside they are rapacious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). The phrase, “rapacious wolves,” presents us with a grim and vicious image. The evil in the image is magnified by the idea that the “rapacious wolves” pretend to be harmless sheep. In relation to the effect Tolle’s and Oprah’s doctrine has on the body of Christ and the word of God, are we justified in comparing them with rapacious wolves who wear the deceitful apparel of sheep? Let’s see.

Wolves attack their prey in packs. Tolle, Oprah, and her entourage make up the pack of rapacious wolves. The word of God is their prey. Once wolves sink their teeth into their victim, they don’t let go until it is dead. They shred it to pieces and chew it up. With the word of God ripped apart, discredited, and devoured, only the teachings of Tolle and Oprah seem to have life in them.

In what sense do Tolle and Oprah wear the apparel of sheep? Rapacious means ravenous. That conjures up the image of scavenger birds feasting on a dead body. Tolle and Oprah do indeed scavenge from the carcass their bloody fangs have made of the word of God. They peck out a few phrases here and there, and drape them over themselves to make it appear that they respect a Man whom Christians believe is the Good Shepherd of the sheep. They also make it appear that they admire a book which most people, at least to some degree, revere. In The New Earth, Tolle quotes more from the Bible than any other book, and more from Jesus than any other person, but always out of context, and always to bolster his antichrist philosophy.

Let me give you just four out of more than a score of examples. Tolle quotes the words of Jesus, “Man does not live by bread alone,” but ignores the part about living by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. He instead relates the phrase to the needs of his followers to feed upon the timeless intelligence within their inner bodies. (The Power of Now, p. 116) According to Tolle, when Christ spoke of “salvation,” He actually meant “enlightenment,” more specifically, the “radical transformation of human consciousness” (The Power of Now, p. 13). Likewise, the second coming of Christ is not at all what the scriptures describe, but rather “the transformation of human consciousness, a shift from time to presence, from thinking to pure consciousness, not the arrival of some man or woman” (The Power of Now, p. 105). Tolle steals the inspiration for the title of his latest book from Revelation 21:1 which refers to “a new heaven and a new earth.” According to Tolle’s private interpretaton, the “new heaven” is not a future creation of God, and the “new earth” is not the promised, future glorious abode for redeemed Israel. Tolle’s infallible esoteric discernment tells him that:

Collective human consciousness and life on our planet are intrinsically connected. “A new heaven” is the emergence of a transformed state of human consciousness, and “a new earth” is its reflection in the physical realm (The New Earth, p. 23, emphasis in original).

Further, Tolle claims that this is what Jesus really meant. Thus, wearing makeshift cloaks haphazardly strung together from out-of-context quotes from scripture, Tolle and Oprah give the deceitful impression that they are part of the flock of believers. As recently as March, Oprah has said, “I am a Christian.” By contradicting scriptural prophesies with a prophesy of their own, and by acting toward the truth of God as rapacious wolves disguised as non-threatening sheep, they meet the scriptural criteria for identifying them as false prophets.

In Iowa, when Michelle Obama referred to Oprah as a woman “who empowers us all,” what did she mean? Did she mean that it is the Oprah/Tolle doctrine which empowers her and her husband?

Tolle and Oprah have no standing or depth whatsoever when it comes to the body of Christ. They are not part of it, and have nothing to contribute to it. Christ gives to Christians whom the scriptures refer to as “the ecclesia which is His body” evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the specific purpose of edifying them (Ephesians 4:11-12). The word ecclesia, used in the Concordant Literal Translation, gets closer to the original meaning of the Greek word ekklesia (Greek = out-called) than the word “church” used in the King James Version. The body of Christ is not a building, but rather a called-out group of individuals who believe that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the scriptures” (I Corinthians 15:3-4). Tolle and Oprah deny that Christ rose from the dead.

The risen Christ commissioned Paul to take the evangel (well-message, or good news) of the grace of God to the people of the nations, “to open their eyes, to turn them about from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, for them to get a pardon of sins and an allotment among those who have been hallowed by faith that is in Me [Christ]” (Acts 26:18). Paul, who therefore has authority to teach the body of Christ, issued two very clear guidelines to believers to make certain they retained the true teachings built upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. First:

You, then, child of mine, be invigorated by the grace which is in Christ Jesus. And what things you hear from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who shall be competent to teach others also (II Timothy 2:1-2).

Tolle and Oprah do not even acknowledge that Christ is the Son of God, much less “hear” anything that Paul has to say about Him. Tolle and Oprah exhibit no faith whatsoever in the words of Paul or Christ. Their god, “universal intelligence” does not require a belief, only a “feeling.” They are thus not competent to teach anyone anything about the truth of God. Second:

Have a pattern of sound words, which you hear from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. The ideal committed to you, guard through the holy spirit which is making its home in us” (II Timothy 1:13-14).

When you change the words and their pattern, you change the teaching. This is exactly what Tolle and Oprah do. In Paul’s teaching, there is no “alignment with the evolutionary impulse of the universe,” “transformation of consciousness” – “awakened,” “arising,” “flowering,” or otherwise. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit, which will lead us into all truth, “is making its home in us.” We cultivate love, the sacrificial kind, not some vague inner “awareness” unless it is the awareness inherent in the fact that we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices (II Corinthians 2:11). Coincidentally, Tolle refers to his book, A New Earth, as “a transformational device that has come out of the arising new consciousness” (The New Earth, p. 6).

Tolle’s teaching is completely contrary to Christ’s and Paul’s, contradicting them on every meaningful point. The true teacher’s purpose is to build up the body of Christ. Tolle’s purpose, and Oprah’s as well, is to tear it down. Their teachings are poison to the body of Christ, and they want vulnerable Christians to drink that poison.

When Michelle Obama said in Iowa that Oprah “touches the souls of so many of us,” what exactly did she mean? Has Michelle’s soul, through Oprah, been touched by the teachings of the Tolle-headed serpent?

Jesus refers to His and our Adversary as a thief, explaining that the “thief is not coming except that he should be stealing and sacrificing and destroying” (John 10:10). Oprah steals away the attention of her followers from Christ to herself. She sacrifices them to the antichrist doctrine of Tolle, and ultimately, she and Tolle together, through repetition and insistence, destroy the faith of her followers in Christ.

In many cases, the word of God has been recently sown in the lives of Oprah’s viewers, but it has not had time to take root, and they remain babes in Christ. They need a qualified teacher of the scriptures to help them mature, and they need to study the word more on their own; but before either is able to transpire, “coming is the wicked one and snatching what has been sown in [their] heart[s]” (Matthew 13:18). This is exactly what Tolle and Oprah do.

In direct opposition and contradiction to the words of Jesus in the prayer he taught his apostles, Oprah leads her followers, especially the vulnerable members of the body of Christ, into temptation and delivers them into evil. She turns them away from God’s revelation, toward herself and Tolle. The scriptures are very terse and right on point about matters such as these. According to Romans 1:25, Tolle and Oprah “alter the truth of God into the lie, and are venerated, and offer divine service to the creature rather than the Creator.”

The false teaching inherent in the Oprah/Tolle doctrine is bad enough. What makes it a thousand times worse, egregiously reprehensible even, is the fact that Oprah tells the lie of lies about it. She introduces her online class presenting the Oprah/Tolle doctrine by asserting that it “is not for or against any religion.” The Oprah/Tolle doctrine is not against Christianity? Most of the scriptures were written on scrolls, but for the purpose of grasping the destructive violence that the Oprah/Tolle doctrine does to Christianity, picture the complete word of God as existing now on baked clay tablets. Now visualize Oprah and Tolle taking sledgehammers to them. Those who seek to obliterate the very foundation of Christianity are not against it?

On Oprah’s Web site, next to the words, “This online class is not for or against any religion,” she has placed the above image of the spire of a church with a cross at its top. How much more morally corrupt could Oprah be?

How deeply involved in all of this deception is Barack Obama? Let’s look first at Oprah’s perspective. Why did Oprah feel “compelled” to endorse Obama? The answer is to be found in what Oprah considers the most important issue of our time – the new awareness, the “awakening,” “the evolution of human consciousness” (The New Earth, p. 229). In promoting worldwide Internet classes teaching Tolle’s doctrine, Oprah gushes with unbridled enthusiasm, “I don’t think there’s anything more important than awakening, and also knowing what your purpose is.” If this really is the most important consideration in her life, by endorsing Obama, Oprah must believe, she must know, that he shares her “spiritual” outlook, the Tolle/Oprah doctrine, and that he sanctions her worldwide crusade to raise everyone’s “consciousness.”

Oprah spoke of her intimate relationship with Obama as she introduced him in Iowa:

I am not here for partisan beliefs. Over the years I’ve voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats, so this isn’t about partisanship for me, this is very, very personal. I am here because of my personal conviction about Barack Obama and what he can do for America (my emphases).

Michelle Obama wrote the tribute to Oprah as part of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2008. In it she said:

Oprah is a wonderful friend and an incredible force. Her friendship and support have meant so much to Barack and me . . . Using her platform to serve as a global role model, she challenges us to make the world as it is, the world as it should be. And she is always the first to show us how it can be done.

Michelle’s tribute was published on May 20, 2008, two months after Oprah had kicked off her ten-week global Internet online class touting Tolle’s mega-bestseller, A New Earth, and its importance to everyone’s “spirituality.” The interactive webcast reached 500,000 people in more than 139 countries, becoming “one of the largest single online events in the history of the Internet.” Since that time, according to Oprah’s Web site, millions more have downloaded Tolle’s teachings. What is Michelle Obama referring to, if not this? Is not the promotion of the Oprah/Tolle doctrine Oprah’s most focused effort, in Michelle Obama’s words, “to make . . . the world as it should be”? Do Michelle and Barack Obama feel that the esoteric doctrine of the Tolle-headed serpent should be the ruling philosophy of the world?

Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Oprah Winfrey know each other very well. Their relationship is “very, very, personal.” Common sense tells us that Obama and Michelle have read, and agree with, the doctrine expressed in Tolle’s The Power of Now and A New Earth. If you were running for president and had the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the most influential woman in the world, would you look into what mattered most to her on a casual basis, or would you look into it seriously and deeply?

The Oprah/Tolle doctrine asserts that “A significant portion of the earth’s population will soon recognize, if they haven’t already done so, that humanity is now faced with a stark choice: Evolve or die” (A New Earth, p. 21). Oprah and Tolle, in their own minds, have “awakened” to the purpose of their lives and “evolved.” Oprah believes Obama is one of them, imagining that he has “evolved” as well. In South Carolina, Oprah said:

The reason I love Barack Obama is because he is an evolved leader who can bring evolved leadership to our country.

Does not this imply that she knows Obama has read Tolle’s books and agrees with the Oprah/Tolle doctrine, a doctrine that spreads the Tolle-headed serpent’s “enlightenment”? We have to ask, what kind of person must Obama be in order for Oprah to consider him “evolved”? Here’s the answer according to the Oprah/Tolle doctrine: Obama must:

Realize that “The Truth is inseparable from who [he is],” that “[he is] the Truth,” and that “If [he] look[s] for it elsewhere, [he] will be deceived every time” (The New Earth, p. 71).

See himself as aligned with universal intelligence “which means be [a] conscious participant in the unfolding of that higher purpose” (The New Earth, p. 194).

See himself as being in “alignment with the evolutionary impulse of the universe” (The New Earth, p. 163).

Believe that he possesses the intelligence that underlies the evolutionary impulse of the universe, is in conscious alignment with this “universal intelligence,” and that he will express it “on a higher, more wondrous level” (The New Earth, pp. 268-69, 277).

Believe that “All spiritual teachings originate from the same Source.” (The Power of Now, p. 115).

“Know” God “not as something outside [himself] but as [his] own innermost essence.” (The Power of Now, p. 146).

See himself as one of the few people on the planet “who can sustain a state of continuous presence” in the now (The Power of Now, p. 191).

Believe that “Only through awareness – not through thinking – can [he] differentiate between fact and opinion” (The New Earth, pp. 68 – 69).

Believe that the “ultimate purpose of human existence, which is to say, [his] purpose, is to bring that power [awareness] into this world” (The New Earth, p. 78).

See himself as a bringer of “the new consciousness,” and as a man whose “mere presence” has a “transformational effect on whoever [he] comes in contact with” (The New Earth, p. 108).

Believe that the “intelligence” operating through him, “is the same intelligence that manifests as Gaia, the complex living being that is planet earth” (The New Earth, p. 132-33).

Believe that “Real love doesn’t make you suffer” (The Power of Now, p. 30).

Imagine that “All problems are illusions of the mind” (The Power of Now, p. 64).

Think that “Who [he is] requires no belief” since “every belief is an obstacle.” (The New Earth, p. 189).

Believe that “There is only one perpetrator of evil on the planet: human unconsciousness.” (The New Earth, p. 160).

Believe that “self-esteem and humility” are “one and the same” (The New Earth, p. 109).

Believe that to be enlightened means to “regain awareness of Being and to abide in that state of feeling-realization” (The Power of Now, p. 13).

Imagine himself to be an aware and enlightened being who is “not for ‘my’ country but for all of humanity, not for ‘my’ religion but the emergence of consciousness in all human beings, not for ‘my’ species but for all sentient beings and all of nature” (The New Earth, p. 290).

Does any of that ring a bell?

At a Los Angeles rally, Oprah spoke of the “energy and intelligence” Obama has already brought to the election process. At a UCLA rally, Oprah said, “I’m not voting for Barack Obama because he’s black, I’m voting for Barack Obama because he’s brilliant.” This suggests that Oprah sees Obama as embodying “universal intelligence” and expressing it “on a higher, more wondrous level,” as per the Oprah/Tolle doctrine. The real Obama is the Obama Oprah knows.

In Iowa, Oprah said,

But when you listen to Barack Obama, when you really hear him [as Oprah is uniquely and personally qualified to do], you witness a very rare thing. You witness a politician who has an ear for eloquence, and a tongue dipped in unvarnished truth.

According to James 3:8, the tongue is “a turbulent evil, distended with death-carrying venom” that no man can tame. But Oprah sees Obama as having tamed his tongue – with “awareness,” “universal intelligence,” and “higher consciousness.”

Let me reiterate what I mentioned, above. At UCLA, Oprah said, “I’m just following my own truth, and that truth has led to Barack Obama. The truth has led me to Barack Obama.” Let’s not forget, as Oprah speaks of “truth,” what she means by it. We’ve seen that she has embraced the exact same lies from Tolle that Eve accepted from the serpent, and that she believes these lies – that God is jealous of her spiritual and intellectual development, that the word of God cannot be trusted, that she is, in some sense, God, and that she will not die. It is the lies of the Tolle-headed serpent, not the truth of the Creator God, that have led her to Barack Obama, and to extol his imaginary virtues.

Referring to Obama in South Carolina, Oprah said, “It isn’t enough to tell the truth. We need politicians who know how to be the truth.” Tolle and Oprah believe that each “evolved,” “aware” person can say of himself or herself, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” wrenching these words right out of the mouth of Christ to their own perverted purpose. (The New Earth, p. 71). Of course, they ignore the immediate follow-up statement of Jesus, “No one is coming to the Father except through Me.” By calling Obama an “evolved leader,” and affirming that he knows how “to be the truth,” Oprah reveals that she believes that he is qualified to make the statement, “I am the way and the truth and the life” in referring to himself. From the standpoint of Oprah/Tolleism, Oprah sees Obama’s leadership as messianic.


Now let’s turn to Obama himself. Elements of the Oprah/Tolle doctrine show up in many of the things Obama has to say, particularly the things relating to global issues. In his Berlin speech on July 24th, entitled “A World That Stands as One,” Obama said “now is the time” twice, and “this is the moment” fourteen times, as in “This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet,” and “This is the moment to give our children back their future,” etc. He also said, “Now the world will watch and remember what we do here – what we do with this moment,” and “People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.”

But did anything really happen during the “moment” or the “now” of his speech, other than his giving a speech? When he said, “This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it,” did terror get defeated at that “moment,” or did the well of extremism dry up at that “moment”? No. None of Obama’s references to “the moment” and the “now” make any sense unless we relate them the writings of Eckhart Tolle.

Tolle urges his followers to go ever deeper into the Now, growing in awareness or “presence power” because

It generates an energy field in you and around you of a high vibrational frequency. No unconsciousness, no negativity, no discord or violence can enter that field and survive, just as darkness cannot survive in the presence of light. (PN 75)

As his speech progressed, Obama moved deeper into the Now. I expect that Senator Obama experienced some anxiety before speaking to those 80,000 Berliners. Here is Tolle’s solution to such nervousness: “You can stop this health- and life-corroding insanity by simply acknowledging the present moment” (The Power of Now, p. 85). Obama acknowledged the present moment nineteen times. His invocation of the “moment” had no meaning, no relevance, outside or beyond Tolle’s teaching. Obama has bought into Tolle’s “Power of Now.” Here are a few more of Tolle’s gems:

Narrow your life down to this moment (The Power of Now, p. 63).

The present moment holds the key to liberation (The Power of Now, p. 23).

Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have. Make the Now the primary focus of your life (The Power of Now, p. 35).

. . . honor and acknowledge the present moment and allow it to be (The Power of Now, p. 48, emphasis in original).

Always work with [the present moment], not against it. Make it your friend and ally, not your enemy. This will miraculously transform your whole life (The Power of Now, p. 35 – 36).

Saying “this is the moment” over and over in his speech appears to have been some kind of mystical incantation Obama gleaned from the Oprah/Tolle doctrine.

Consider this excerpt from Obama’s Berlin speech:

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down (my emphasis).

Barring the return of Jesus (the only Man qualified to rule humanity spiritually and politically) none of those walls will be torn down in this century or the next, except in the twisted imaginations and wishful dreams of those who embrace the Oprah/Tolle doctrine. Why does Obama say that these walls “must” come down now? Because, as per the Oprah/Tolle doctrine, there is a “profound shift in planetary consciousness that is destined to take place in the human species” (The New Earth, p.5). And because, “A new species is arising on the planet. It is arising now, and [if you have read Tolle’s books and welcome the Oprah/Tolle doctrine] you are it!” (The New Earth, p. 309).

Can you fathom the chaos that would ensue having a president of the United States who actually believes these kinds of things?

Obama is talking about the entire world in the above quote. How much realistic thinking went into these remarks? None. The Oprah/Tolle doctrine is not about analyzing or thinking: “If there is an apparent conflict between [thought and emotion], the thought will be the lie, the emotion will be the truth” (The Power of Now, p. 122). Obama’s words reveal that he is only slightly more sophisticated than Rodney “Why can’t we all just get along” King. In his Berlin speech, Obama expressed nothing more than a feeling, a globalist feeling of “universal consciousness,” grounded not in reality, but in the magical fantasies of the Oprah/Tolle doctrine.



Obama, Oprah, and Tolle share with the mainstream media (MSM) many mistaken beliefs, the most foundational of which, in my opinion, is the notion that they are all descended by chance over millions of years from worms, reptiles, and monkeys (The New Earth, pp. 1-3). This mistaken belief often serves as a unifying condescension toward those of us who believe that the Sacred Scriptures, in the original Hebrew and Greek, represent the living and true words or our Creator. However, in this case, the MSM’s shared, imagined origins with Obama, Oprah, and Tolle as worm-reptile-monkey people is not enough of a unifying connection for them to accept, without examination, Obama’s association with Oprah and her guru.

After Tolle released The Power of Now in 1997, Time magazine referred to it as so much “mumbo jumbo” (The Power of Now, p. xv, author’s preface to the new edition). This indicates that even the worm-reptile-monkey crowd can see right through the superficiality and idiocy of the Oprah/Tolle doctrine, when they do their jobs and take a critical look at it. While the MSM might not care whether Obama is a genuine Christian, or whether the Oprah/Tolle doctrine makes a mockery of Christ and scripture, do they really want a president whose vision of the American future is based, to any degree, on Tolle’s “mumbo jumbo”? The MSM has turned a blind eye to this huge story for about as long as it can.

Taking the Tolle-headed serpent’s fruit from Oprah appears to have been the greatest mistake of Obama’s career. He and his wife are in too deep, and the details are much too public. He cannot ignore his connection to Oprah and Tolle, and he cannot lie his way out of it. Without making a fool of himself, Obama cannot say, “This is not the Oprah I knew.”

The endorsement from the “most influential woman in the world” that propelled Obama to his party’s nomination is a thing of the past. This has become the moment that Obama needs to explain his relationship with Oprah and her New Age guru. That is the Power of Now.

Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., is the author of The Parthenon Code: Mankind’s History in Marble, Athena and Kain: The True Meaning of Greek Art, Noah in Ancient Greek Art, and most recently, Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Science’s Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re Descended from Reptiles. He is also the co-inventor of the controversial board game, banned in the 80s, Public Assistance: Why Bother Working for a Living?


Chapter 9: The Forbidden Theory of Ancient Greek Art

August 21st, 2008

The cover of the February, 2008 issue of the Smithsonian featured a photograph of the Parthenon with the words “Secrets of the ancient temple.” The nine-page article focused on the precision of construction. This has never been a secret, but rather something known since the time it was built on the Acropolis of Athens in the 5th century BC.

The structure, with all its precision, had three purposes that the Smithsonian barely touched upon: first, to make a covered space for the 40-foot-tall gold and ivory idol-image of Athena; second, to elevate the seven sculptural themes; and third, to make sure their messages to posterity as expressed in the sculptures survived as long as possible.

The evo-atheist editors at the Smithsonian accept academia’s lame explanation that the sculptures depict “mythical themes,” so they do not even question their real meaning or their relevance to us today. Is that what the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials in our nation’s capital depict, mythical themes? No, these monuments, these modern temples, say to the visitor, “Look at the historical foundations of our society. Look at the ideals we value and live by.” The ancient Greeks, who created the living basis of our Western culture, expressed the same kind of sentiment to their own citizens and to posterity with their magnificent temples. But the art historians, the archaeologists, and the anthropologists who examine the Parthenon today cannot see it. The reason: evo-atheism rules those fields of study, and even when presented with the most obvious artistic depictions of Genesis events on the Parthenon, or in any other part of Greek art, they must be summarily denied and dismissed. The Genesis interpretation of Greek art is forbidden.

As we look at my forbidden theory of ancient Greek art in this chapter, we’ll see specifically how the NAS’s taboo against postulating a Creator works against the progress of understanding in the historical sciences, and against true scientific understanding in general.

Figs. 1, 2, and 3. Greek artists made certain there was no mistaking Athena’s association with the serpent and its wisdom. Above left, from her pre-Parthenon temple, she wears a crown of serpents. In the vase-depiction below left, she wears the Gorgon Medusa, the head of serpents on her aegis, or goatskin. And as a part of her reconstructed idol-image in the Parthenon in Nashville, the ancient serpent rises up next to her as a friend. She holds Nike in her right hand: her friendship with the serpent has led her to Victory.


I started thinking about ancient Greek art when I was a cadet at West Point. The helmet of Athena, goddess of war and wisdom, is the centerpiece of the academy crest which we wore for four years on our caps and shirt collars. Beginning with senior year, we carried the academy crest, with Athena’s helmet, on our class rings. When I first saw a replica of Athena’s Parthenon idol-image in the officers’ club, I was most struck by the huge, friendly serpent rising up next to her. As a rule, women don’t like serpents and men aren’t crazy about them either. I remember thinking, “The Genesis serpent befriended Eve. Could this be the Genesis serpent?” Such was my speculation, based on something tangible and real in humanity’s past. Scientific study begins with a question about something we observe, but don’t yet understand.

Most mythology books refer to Athena as the goddess of wisdom, but as I looked deeper into her ancient idol-image and other depictions of her, I learned that the ancient artists made a point to associate her irrevocably with the serpent. On one sculpture, she wore a crown of serpents (fig. 1). This suggests that the serpent ruled her thinking. She was often depicted wearing a serpent-fringed aegis, or goat skin, as a symbol of her authority. On that aegis, she wore the Gorgon Medusa—the head of serpents (fig. 2). Was she, in truth, the goddess of the serpent’s wisdom? The wisdom of the ancient serpent from Genesis?

From that point, I developed this working hypothesis: “Greek art depicts the early events described in Genesis, but from the standpoint that the serpent enlightened, rather than deluded, mankind.” I called it the Genesis hypothesis. For my hypothesis to progress, I needed more factual connections. Did the Greeks speak of a first couple in an ancient paradise? Yes. You can examine the plentiful evidence for this, and for other connections between Genesis events and ancient Greek art in detail in my publications and at solvinglight.com. Let me here present a brief outline of what I have uncovered.


There is no Creator-God in the Greek religious system. Ancient Greek religion is about getting away from the God of Genesis, and exalting man as the measure of all things. You may think to yourself that the Greeks are exalting gods, not man; but haven’t you ever wondered why the Greek gods looked exactly like humans? The answer is the obvious one: for the most part, the gods represented the Greeks’ (and our) human ancestors. Greek religion was thus a sophisticated form of ancestor worship. In Plato’s Euthydemus, Sokrates referred to Zeus, Athena, and Apollo as his “gods” and as his “lords and ancestors.”1 Greek stories about their origins are varied and sometimes contradictory until their poets and artists present Zeus and Hera as the couple from whom the other Olympian gods and mortal men are descended.

This brother/sister and husband/wife pair, the king and queen of the gods, are a match for the Adam and Eve of Genesis. This couple is the beginning of the family of man, and the origin of the family of the Greek gods, Zeus and Hera. With no Creator-God in the Greek religious system, the first couple advances to the forefront.


According to the Book of Genesis, Eve is the mother of all humans, and the wife of Adam. Since God is the Father of both Adam and Eve, some consider them to be brother and sister as well. After they had both eaten the fruit, Adam named his wife Eve (“Living” in Hebrew) and Genesis 3:20 explains why: “… for she becomes the mother of all the living.” In a hymn of invocation, the 6th-century BC lyric poet, Alcaeus, refers to Hera as “mother of all.”2 As the first wife, the Greeks worshipped Hera as the goddess of marriage; as the first mother, the Greeks worshipped her as the goddess of childbirth.

We are told in Chapter 2 of Genesis that Eve was created full-grown out of Adam. Before she was known as Hera, the wife of Zeus had the name Dione. The name relates to the creation of Eve out of Adam, for Dione is the feminine form of Dios or Zeus. This suggests that the two, like Adam and Eve, were once a single entity.

From the Judeo-Christian standpoint, the taking of the fruit by Eve and Adam at the serpent’s behest was shameful, a transgression of God’s commandment. From the Greek standpoint, however, the taking of the fruit was a triumphant and liberating act which brought to mankind the serpent’s enlightenment. To the Greeks, the serpent was a friend of mankind who freed us from bondage to an oppressive God, and was therefore a savior and illuminator of our race.

In his Works and Days, the poet Hesiod wrote of “how the gods and mortal men sprang from one source.”3 The first couple, Zeus and Hera, were that source. Hera is the single mother of all humanity, and Zeus is, according to Hesiod, “the father of men and gods.”4 The term “father Zeus” is a description of the king of the gods which appears over 100 times in the ancient writings of Homer.5 As the source of their history, Zeus and Hera became the gods of their history. Those without a belief in the Creator have only nature, themselves, and their progenitors to exalt.

The Greek tradition insists that Zeus and Hera were the first couple; the Judeo-Christian tradition insists Adam and Eve were the first couple. Two opposite spiritual standpoints share the same factual basis.


If the above is true, then the Greeks ought to have directly connected Zeus and Hera to an ancient paradise, a serpent, and a fruit tree. They did, indeed, make such a direct connection.

The Greeks remembered the original paradise. They called it the Garden of the Hesperides, and they associated Zeus and Hera with its enticing ease, and with a serpent-entwined apple tree.

Some mythologists have mistaken the Hesperides for guardians of the tree, but they certainly are not. Their body language, their easy actions and their very names serve the purpose of establishing what kind of a garden this is: a wonderful, carefree place. In figure 4 (next page), we see the Garden of the Hesperides depicted on a water pot from about 410 BC. The serpent entwines the apple tree with its golden fruit. The names of the figures are written on the vase. Two of the Hesperides, Chrysothemis (Golden Order) and Asterope (Star Face) stand to the immediate left of the tree. Chrysothemis moves toward the tree to pluck an apple. Asterope leans pleasantly against her with both arms. To the left of them, Hygeia (Health) sits on a hillock and holds a long scepter, a symbol of rule, as she looks back towards the tree. To the right of the apple tree, Lipara (Shining Skin) holds apples in the fold of her garment, and raises her veil off her shoulder.

The names of the Hesperides describe what the garden is like. It is a land of gold for the taking, soft starlight, perfect health, and wondrous beauty. The Hebrew word for Eden means “to be soft or pleasant,” figuratively “to delight oneself.” The Garden of the Hesperides is the Greek version of the Garden of Eden.

Figure 4: Vase-depiction of the Garden of the Hesperides, the Greek version of Eden


If Adam and Eve, in the Greek religious system, have become Zeus and Hera, there should be literary evidence for their presence in this garden, and there is. Apollodorus wrote that the apples of the Hesperides “were presented by Gaia [Earth] to Zeus after his marriage with Hera.”6 This matches the Genesis account: Eve became Adam’s wife right after she was taken out of Adam (Genesis 2:21–25), and the next recorded event is the taking of the fruit by the first couple. Connecting Zeus and Hera with the Hesperides connects them with the serpent and the fruit tree with which the Hesperides are always represented.

The chorus in Euripides’ play Hippolytus speaks of “the apple-bearing shore of the Hesperides” where immortal fountains flow “by the place where Zeus lay, and holy Earth with her gifts of blessedness makes the gods’ prosperity wax great.”7 Thus Euripides put Zeus in the garden, and his language affirms that this is where Zeus came from.

You have probably heard one time or another about Eve eating the apple. The Hebrew word for fruit in Chapter 3 of Genesis is a general term. The idea that Adam and Eve took a bite of an apple comes to us as part of the Greek tradition.

Up to this point, we have developed a sound working hypothesis. The evidence is compelling. But we must remember, the ruling evo-atheist paradigm is not about evidence, but rather, about validating their evo-atheist standpoint, and that’s all. My line of thinking challenges their evo-atheist standpoint; therefore, it is forbidden. Evo-atheist writer Joseph Campbell, articulates the operative taboo as it applies to the fields of art history, Classical studies, archaeology, and anthropology today:

No one of adult mind today would turn to the Book of Genesis to learn of the origins of the earth, the plants, the beasts, and man. There was no flood, no tower of Babel, no first couple in paradise, and between the first known appearance of men on earth and the first building of cities, not one generation (Adam to Cain) but a good two million must have come into this world and passed along. Today we turn to science for our imagery of the past and of the structure of the world, and what the spinning demons of the atom and the galaxies of the telescope’s eye reveal is a wonder that makes the babel of the Bible seem a toyland dream of the dear childhood of our brain.8

The Scriptures are false. Science is truth. Evolution is science. Evolution is truth. We’ve heard all of these atheistic assumptions before from the NAS. But where is the evidence that the Genesis events did not occur? And where is the evidence that evolution did occur? Campbell does not produce a shred of evidence to back up his speculation. Campbell’s writings express the same profane prattlings, and the same philosophy and empty seduction we find in the NAS book. Genesis events must be explained away as fairy tales, and never examined as history; Greek art must be explained away as myth, and never examined as history—even though Genesis and Greek art corroborate each other. The truth is that Genesis describes the key events in early human history, while ancient Greek art depicts those same events, albeit from an opposite perspective. Let’s see what else in ancient Greek art stares the evo-atheists in the face, but which they are forced to ignore and dismiss because of the narrow and limiting scope of their atheistic religious philosophy.


Now if Zeus and Hera are pictures of Adam and Eve, we would expect them to have two male children with antagonistic lines of descent just as the Genesis couple did. Zeus and Hera did have two male children: Hephaistos, the elder, and Ares; and they were as averse to each other as Kain (Cain) and Seth.

Adam and Eve actually had three sons: Kain, Abel and Seth, but Kain killed Abel before the latter had offspring. Greek artists knew all about that first murder. They depicted that event in a series of four metopes (square sculpted scenes) on the south side of the Parthenon (see Chapter 6 of The Parthenon Code). An explosion in 1687 destroyed the metopes, but fortunately, French artist, Jacques Carrey, had drawn them in 1674. You can see them at solvinglight.com. Classical scholars have no other cogent explanation for the four related scenes.

Since Seth replaced Abel, we look at Adam and Eve as having two sons, each of whom, in turn, had offspring. In the Scriptures, the line of Seth is the line of Christ. The Book of Matthew traces the lineage of Christ through David to Abraham; and the Book of Luke further traces the lineage of Abraham to Adam through his son Seth. This is often referred to as the line of belief in the Creator-God or the line of faith. On the other hand, the Scriptures define the line of Kain as one of unbelief in the Creator-God. According to I John 3:12, “Kain was of the wicked one,” a reference to “the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole inhabited earth” (Revelation 12:9).

The Greeks deified Kain as Hephaistos, god of the forge. They deified his younger brother, Seth, as Ares, the troublesome god of conflict and war. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, Kain is the evil one whose way is to be shunned. In the Greek religious system, Ares, the Seth of Genesis, is the traitor and the one who causes ruin and woe.


By his Roman name, Vulcan, we associate Hephaistos, the deified Kain, immediately with the forge and the foundry. According to Genesis 4:22, the members of Kain’s family were the first to become forgers “of every tool of copper and iron.” These surely included the hammer, the axe, and the tongs—the tools most often associated with Hephaistos in Greek art.

Hephaistos’ banishment from, and return to, Olympus (a place where the Creator is excluded from the pantheon) is a “myth” which constituted an essential element of Greek religion. It appeared painted, sculpted and bronzed throughout the Archaic and Classical periods. In the Greek religious system, the banishment and return of Hephaistos to Olympus corresponds, in Genesis, to Kain’s being commanded to wander the earth by God, and his defiant return to establish the first city (Genesis 4:9-17).


Zeus loved his son Hephaistos, who performed an indispensable and appreciated function as armorer of the gods. On the other hand, Zeus considered his youngest son, Ares, to be worthless, calling him “hateful” and “pestilent” and a “renegade.”9 The ancient poet, Homer, referred to Ares as “the bane of mortals.”10 The only reason Ares has a place in the Greek pantheon is that he is the son of Zeus; that is, he is one of the two actual sons of the first couple, Adam and Eve, of whom Zeus and Hera are deifications. Zeus hates Ares, but accepts responsibility for siring him: “[F]or thou art mine offspring, and it was to me that thy mother bare thee,” and then rails at this son of his, telling him that if he were born of any other god, he would have been “lower than the sons of heaven” long ago.11 Some scholars say Greek religion is anthropomorphic; that is, gods take human form. That’s not quite right. What happens is that real human ancestors retain their original identities and take on godlike qualities. Ares, as a deification of Seth, is trapped by the historical framework. His father, Zeus, had to hate him, and the Greek hero, Herakles, was expected to kill Ares’ children.

While the scriptural viewpoint defines Seth/Ares as the God-believing, or spiritual son, Greek religion defines him as hated by, and antagonistic to, the ruling gods who are part of the serpent’s system. Likewise, while Zeus-religion looks on Hephaistos/Kain as the true and devoted son, the scriptural viewpoint defines him as part of the wicked one’s system. Jews and Christians dislike and shun the line of Kain, but they can’t get rid of him or his line without altering their spiritual standpoint and history itself. Kain is part of the Scriptures, and he is there to stay. Zeus-religion has the same kind of situation. It hates the line of Ares, but it cannot eliminate the line from its history because the basic achievement of Zeus-religion, its grand celebration even, is the triumph of the way of Kain over the way of Seth. Ares is part of Greek sacred literature and art, and he is there to stay.


According to Genesis, the Flood temporarily wiped out the way of Kain. Noah, in the line of Seth, “a just man” (Genesis 6:9), survived with his wife, three sons, and their wives in the ark. All but these eight people disappeared into the earth. The Greeks pictured this cataclysmic event as half-men/half-horses known as Kentaurs (Centaurs) pounding a man named Kaineus into the ground (fig.5). Kaineus means “pertaining to Kain,” or more directly, “the line of Kain.”

Who were the Kentaurs? The original Greek word for Kentaur, Kentauros, means hundred (where we get century and cent) and most likely relates to the fact that Noah, the chief of the line of Seth, warned of the Flood for one hundred years.12 In most vase paintings of them, the Kentaurs carried symmetrical branches, a sign that they belonged to a certain branch of humanity. The Greeks, who embraced the way of Kain, did not acknowledge the Creator God, and so they couldn’t blame Him for the Flood. They blamed the survivors of it, that strange branch of humanity they didn’t really understand—the line of Seth.

The evo-atheists have no explanation for the connection between Kain and Hephaistos and Seth and Ares, nor do they have an explanation for Kaineus and the Kentaurs. Because ignorant atheists say so, entire fields of scientific enquiry must arbitrarily dismiss the only real evidence we have for the origin of mankind.

Let’s see what else the evo-atheists scholars and their spell-bound students are forced to ignore in the ancient Greek record.

Figs. 5 and 6. Left, Kaineus (the line of Kain) disappears into the earth during the Flood at the hands of the Seth-men (Kentaurs). Right, after the Flood, Athena welcomes the reborn line of Kain (the child is the seed of Hephaistos/Kain) from the earth in Athens.


For a number of years after the Flood, God’s awesome and decisive intervention in human affairs remained fresh in the minds of Noah’s descendants, and the way of Kain remained dormant. Then, gradually, a yearning for a return to the serpent’s wisdom began to take hold.

The evidence I present in my books and in my 950-slide PowerPoint presentation shows irrefutably that Greek religious art celebrated the resurgence and victory of the way of Kain after the Flood. The question is, how did the way of Kain come through the Flood? The answer is, through a woman. The evidence for this is found in an extremely well-researched 782-page book by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford called The Myth of the Goddess. The authors trace the goddesses of the ancient Near-eastern and Mediterranean world to a single original goddess named Nammu.

“The earliest Sumerian creation myth,” they write, “tells the story of Nammu, Goddess of the Primordial Waters, who brought forth the cosmic mountain, An-Ki, Heaven and Earth.”13 The Primordial Waters are the Flood waters; the cosmic mountain, where the ark landed. The peaks of the mountains of Ararat often disappeared into the clouds, so it seemed Nammu had come from above, from heaven to earth.

Most of the significant ancient goddesses were linked to the Flood in some way, beginning with the one whom they represented, Nammu. Baring and Cashford: “The images of water and sea, the unfathomable abyss of the Deep, return us to Nammu, the Sumerian goddess whose ideogram was the sea . . .”14 Baring and Cashford again: “Asherah [a Caananite goddess] was called ‘the Lady of the Sea,’ which links her to the Sumerian Nammu, and to the Egyptian Isis, ‘born in all wetness.’”15 Those descriptions of the goddess evoke the memory of the Flood. But where did Nammu come from? Baring and Cashford do not know.

Operating in the academic world under the evo-atheist paradigm, the authors cannot make the obvious Genesis connection. Genesis 4:17-22 records the descendents of Kain beginning with his son, Enoch, going down to his great-great-great-great grandson, Tubal-kain. The writer of Genesis pens one more sentence at the end of the male line of Kain: “And the sister of Tubal-kain is Naamah” (Genesis 4:22). The line of Seth (Genesis 5:6-32) mentions no women. Why is Naamah mentioned in the line of Kain?

My answer, as expressed in Section I of Noah in Ancient Greek Art, is that Noah’s son, Ham, married her, and brought her with him on the ark through the Flood. After the Flood, Naamah/Nammu reverted to the way of Kain, and instigated the rebellion which the Greeks, as well as other nations, celebrated.

The Greeks recognized Ham as the friendly Kentaur, Chiron. Other Kentaurs of the line of Seth were enemies of the resurgent line of Kain, but not Chiron. Although he was a son of Noah, Ham connected with the line of Kain through his marriage to the Kain-woman, Naamah/Nammu. Greek artists honored him for bringing her through the Flood, and depicted him in a radically different way from all the other Kentaurs. He is not pictured as a crude enemy, but as a civilized friend. His front legs are not equine, but human. If you stood directly in front of him, you wouldn’t even know that he was a Kentaur. They called him Chiron because it means “hand” in Greek, and suggests that he gave an early helping hand to the development of Zeus-religion.

On the following page, we see how the Greeks depicted and named Noah, his son Ham, his grandson, Cush, and his great-grandson, Nimrod. In The Parthenon Code and Noah in Ancient Greek Art, I present detailed evidence which connects these ancient historical figures.

Over several generations, Naamah, with the help of her son and grandson, Cush and Nimrod, won the adoration of the majority of humanity, taking credit for bringing civilization through the Flood. As the tribes and nations began to form, they worshipped different aspects of Naamah using different names.

Figure 7. An ancient depiction shows Herakles shoving Nereus aside. Nereus means the “Wet One.” The Greeks also referred to him as the “Salt Sea Old Man.” He is the Greek version of Noah. Herakles is the Nimrod of Genesis, the grandson of Naamah. He led mankind’s rebellion after the Flood with her as his guide.

I would change the title of Baring’s and Cashford’s book from The Myth of the Goddess to The Memory of the Adored Woman, because that’s what it is really all about. The authors cannot see this simple truth, and so remain puzzled as to why ancient goddesses so dominated ancient Mediterranean cultures: Ishtar, Inanna, Asherah, Isis, Demeter, Artemis, Athena—all, in their own scholarly judgment, derived from Nammu. Baring and Cashford confess that they do not know how the goddess image first arose, “whether from dreaming sleep or from waking vision.” But it was not a dream or a vision that led to the veneration of the goddess throughout the ancient world, but rather a real woman named Naamah, the last person mentioned in the line of Kain before the Flood. The majority of humanity adored her because she brought the way of Kain through the Flood, and through her offspring, Cush/Hermes and Nimrod/Herakles, reestablished its dominance.


A prophet of God in the line of Seth who brought mankind through the Flood.


The “good” Kentaur (Seth-man) because he brought his wife, Naamah, of the line of Kain, through the Flood.


Born on his mother’s side from the line of Kain, turned from Noah and God, embraced and spread Zeus-religion.


As Naamah’s grandson, led the armed rebellion against Noah and his God-fearing children.

Figure 8. Here is how the renunciation of Noah and his God proceeded from his son, Ham (who brought Naamah through the Flood as his wife) through his son, Cush, to his son, Nimrod. Or as the Greeks remembered them, from Chiron through Hermes to Herakles. The most influential person in this great spiritual transformation, Ham’s wife Naamah/Athena, is not shown here.

If, in the Greek religious system, Demeter, Artemis, and Athena are all personas or aspects of the real woman, Naamah/Nammu, why is Athena the dominant one? Why is she the favored daughter of Zeus? It is because Athena represents the most essential aspect of Naamah—dedication and submission to the ancient serpent and its wisdom. That is the heart and soul of Zeus-religion and the way of Kain. As Naamah/Demeter, the goddess of vegetation, she brought the seeds through the Flood; as Naamah/Artemis, the mistress of wild beasts, she brought the animals through the Flood. Both were very important, but it is the exaltation of the serpent’s wisdom that is the distinguishing, defining, and crucial achievement of Naamah/Athena. Only two ancestors are ever depicted in Greek art holding Nike, or Victory, in their hand. One is Adam/Zeus, the original purveyor to humanity of the serpent’s wisdom before the Flood. The other is Naamah/Athena, the woman who brought back the serpent’s enlightenment to mankind after the Flood. That is why Greek artists almost always depicted Athena with a serpent or serpents. That is why Athena’s temple stood in all its glory above the city of Athens. That is the secret of the Parthenon.

Naamah/Athena’s grandson, Nimrod/Herakles became the great hero who supplied the muscle to overthrow Noah/Nereus and his God-fearing offspring. At solvinglight.com, I present 37 images of Noah from ancient Greek art. In almost all the scenes, the patriarch’s authority is being usurped by the rebel, Nimrod/Herakles, or he is being forced by the artists to witness key events leading to the triumph of Zeus-religion. Noah/Nereus is a benchmark figure. Artists placed him in scenes as the known character, the constant against which they could portray the great spiritual/religious change taking place after the Flood.

Also at solvinglight.com, we restore the 12 labors of Herakles in color, as they originally appeared on the temple of Zeus at Olympia. Once you examine the images of Noah, the labors of Herakles, and the restoration of the east pediment of the Parthenon, with their respective explanations on the Web site, I think you will agree that the Genesis hypothesis of Greek art has become an authentic theory. I go so far as to consider it fact, but I leave that determination up to you.

Figs. 9 and 10. From opposite sides of the same vase, Cush/Hermes, with Nimrod/Herakles in his arms, runs away from his father, a bewildered, Ham/Chiron. Hermes has sided with his mother, Naamah/Athena of the line of Kain. Naamah/Athena inspired and led her grandson, Nimrod/Herakles, in his labors and other exploits.

Figs. 11 and 12. The sculpted scenes above the east entrance of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, restored by Holmes Bryant. Left, Herakles kills the three-bodied Geryon, symbolizing the authority of the three sons of Noah. Right, with Noah’s sons overcome, and with Athena’s help, Herakles pushes away the heavens, and with them, the God of the heavens, enabling the strong man to retrieve from Atlas the golden apples from the ancient serpent’s tree.

Herakles’ labors chronicle and celebrate mankind’s successful rebellion against Noah and his God after the Flood. The Greek hero’s labors and battles were directed toward one goal: getting back to the serpent’s enlightenment in the ancient garden, as symbolized by possession of the apples from its tree (figs. 11 and 12). Of course, Herakles did not really get back to the ancient garden; it is a figurative artistic statement: the Greeks will not live under Noah and his God any longer, but will re-embrace the “enlightenment” of the ancient serpent, and live by the fruit of its tree. Zeus-religion celebrates the great change in the post-Flood religious paradigm. Noah and his God are out. The serpent and its enlightenment are back in. Humanity has decided this: mankind is now the measure of all things.

This is exactly what the evo-atheists believe. This is the sentiment Zimmerman and Mr. X express in their Clergy Project Letter. The members of the hierarchy of the NAS go a step further than exalting mankind as the measure of all things. They exalt themselves as the measure of all things. They redefine science to accord with their atheism. They decide what our children will be taught about their origins. They determine which thoughts are mandatory in the science classroom, and which are impermissible. They insist that their atheistic philosophy and religion be honored as supreme.

Do the evo-atheists understand the meaning of Greek art in general or the Parthenon sculptures in particular? No. This is one of the great ironies of our time. The evo-atheists at the NAS, the editors at the Smithsonian, the thousands of other evo-atheist media chieftains, and the evo-atheists throughout academia do not recognize their own humanistic belief system as it appears glorified in ancient Greek sculpture and vase-painting. They are blind to it. In their enchanted state of cognitive obliviousness, it doesn’t matter to them.

In all my research, I have never encountered a sound theory of Greek art, other than the one presented here. That is because nothing but the Genesis theory fits the facts. After the Flood, the Greeks rebelled against Noah and his God, preferring to idolize their human forebears in the way of Kain who had reestablished and systematized their man-centered religious outlook. It is as simple and as obvious as that.

Modern academia has yet to learn the simple lesson that, without reference to the early events described in the Book of Genesis, it is not possible to make any real sense of ancient Greek art and religion. In fact, the entire formidable religious framework of ancient Greek society means virtually nothing without reference to those events. The problem for these academics is that they cannot entertain the Genesis theory of Greek art without abandoning, or at least seriously questioning, their own evo-atheism. The evo-atheist taboo forbids them to explore a rich world of deep intellectual (in the best sense of the term) stimulation and understanding. They are called teachers and professors, yet they fail to comprehend the meaning of the symbolic art that our ancient ancestors have left for us, just as they fail to recognize the handiwork of our Creator throughout the earth, and within all the life upon it.

Atheism leads nowhere. It is nothing more than an outright denial of what is intuitively apparent. Atheists have taken over the National Academy of Sciences. With God pushed out of the picture, they need to concoct an alternative explanation for our existence. That’s all molecules-to-man evolution is—a concocted rationale for atheism.

Today, those working in the historical sciences who want their careers to progress must rigidly follow the evo-atheist paradigm of the NAS. Mainstream archaeologists hardly think about Genesis. The NAS insists that mainstream anthropologists study chimpanzees, while ridiculing those who dare to examine with open minds the true record of our origins found in ancient art and literature.

Look what the NAS atheists have done to science in order to justify their own unbelief in God. To them, science is not an open-ended search for truth. Beginning with their denial of the obvious, they have made science into the manipulation of language, the philosophical contamination of nature, and the fabrication of evidence to validate the atheism of the NAS hierarchy.

Their illogic and their seductions cannot bear the salutary tonics of open debate and free inquiry. The NAS atheists detest the valid God hypothesis and the proven (in my opinion) theory of the meaning of ancient Greek art. They cannot disprove these ideas, so they must intimidate those who are inclined to consider them. Brandishing a club as dangerous as the one wielded by Herakles, the NAS hierarchy threatens us, spiritually attacking our children and our way of life in a most serious and sinister way. It is time to call them to account for the evil they have done, and are doing, in the name of “science.”



1. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p.125.

2. Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossister (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123. Thanks for citations 1 and 2 to Henry M. Morris in ‘The Scientific Case Against Evolution,” icr.org.

3. Richard Dawkins, “Put Your Money on Evolution,” The New York Times (April 9, 1989), section VII, p. 35.

4. Law, Stephen, “Is Creationism Scientific,” in Darwin Day Collection One, ed. by Amanda Chesworth, et. al (Albuquerque: Tangled Ban Press, 2002), p. 291.


1. Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design, DVD/VHS, Illustra Media, 2002.


1. Peter Hastie, Creation Magazine, Sep.-Nov. 1995, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 14-16. Creation Ministries International.

2. Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78.

3. Scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i1n.htm

4. Feduccia, A.; in: V. Morell, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.


1. Henry M. Morris, “The Scientific Case Against Evolution,” Institute for Creation Research, icr.org, p.4


1. Ruse M., Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1983, Third Printing, p. 280.

2. Kofman, Sarah, Socrates: Fictions of a Philosopher, Cornell University Press, 1998, p. 203.


1. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, (Basic Books, 2003), p. 29.


1. Plato, Euthydemus, from: The Dialogues of Plato, Jowett, B. (Translator), Third Edition, Vol. I, Oxford at the Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford Publisher, 1892, 302d.

2. Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1998, p. 332.

3. Hesiod, Works and Days, Evelyn-White, H.G. (Translator), William Heinemann Ltd and Harvard University Press, London, 1914, 105.

4. Hesiod, Ref. 3, 59.

5. Homer, The Iliad, Lattimore, R. (Translator), University of Chicago Press, Lattimore, R. (Translator), University of Chicago Press, Iliad Chicago and London, 1961, 503 and frequently.

6. Apollodorus, Apollodorus, The Library, with an English Translation by Sir James George Frazer, 2 Volumes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1921, 2.5.11.

7. Euripides, Hippolytus, Kovacs, D. (Translator), Harvard University Press, Cambridge,1996 , 744–750.

8. Campbell, Joseph, The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. The Viking Press, Inc., New York, 1964, p. 520.

9. Homer, Ref. 5, 885–889.

10. Homer, Ref. 5, 846.

11. Homer, Ref. 5, 895.

12. See 2 Peter 2:5; Genesis 5:32 and 7:6.

13. Baring, Anne and Cashford, Jules, The Myth of the Goddess, Arkana Penguin Books, London, 1993, p. 152.

14. Ibid., p.473.

15. Ibid., p.454.