"This is Way Worse Than I Thought"... | Göbekli Tepe Prophecy
Off The Kirb Ministries | 14 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEPtDZ9hIX4
9:13 Pounding stones were used to create a contemporary moa on Easter Island, before the eyes of Thor Heyerdahl
10:17 There was certainly ONE man who "began to be a giant" or "began to be mighty" at Göbekli Tepe.
For more details, see Genesis 10 and Genesis 11.
10:26 I most certainly DO deny they were ante-diluvians.
Nimrod made a relatively clumsy attempt at regaining pre-Flood technology. He was decent in astronomy and trigonometry, though.
Carbon date 9500 BC = real date 2607 BC, death of Noah
Carbon date 8500 or 8000 BC = real date 2556 BC, birth of Peleg
Carbon date of 2957 BC (year of the Flood)? 39 000 BP / 37 000 BC.
10:31 Stone henge is, most parts, younger than Genesis 14.
There was some ground laying of a circle in "8000 BC" (after Babel) and next level is "3200 BC" in carbon dates, while Genesis 14 goes back all the way to "3500 BC" in carbon dates.
11:53 "and then it was buried"
= and they ceased to build the city (Genesis 11).
Leaders, like but not limited to Nimrod, didn't want to even see the place where communication broke down between the work teams.
17:31 Against his theory:
1) you find unclean animals and unclean birds priorised in GT
2) and you find depictions of decapitated people with vultures on the shoulders that look like Polynesian birdmen.
It's an insult to Noah.
In Göbekli Tepe you have also found perforated skulls, that were probably stringed on top of each other. Nimrod boasting his capacity for "punishment" ....
18:18 If Nimrod had roamed the earth as the mightiest of Palaeolithic hunters prior to GT, he certainly knew animals.
18:48 There is not much "South", there is SW by W from Ararat to GT.
"Removing from the East" as the correct translation says ....
19:35 What if Nimrod was trying to preserve his excuse for not trusting the promise of God?
If my carbon tables are correct, the Younger Dryas is a certainly post-Flood layer, and it involves a comet strike.
THE excuse Nimrod took to telling people "we can't trust the promise of God, we must make sure 'never again' that Flood" ...
Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!
Josephus, Antiquities, Book I, Chapter 4, § 2
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link2HCH0004
20:32 Nimrod would have had a motive to look back at the Flood to drive home the point (if Josephus is correct) that God had already sent destruction and they needed to get higher up, by their own efforts.
The "handbags" are probably buckets. This is known from later Assyrian art and texts.
21:56 The one assumption I do change is a stable carbon 14 level of c. 100 pmC.
A carbon date two halflives ago would be 9435 BC, but the samples only go back that far if the sample started out with 100 pmC. Mainstream scientists would agree with me, that a thing dated to (better match) 8295 BC would have been, in 2565 BC, down to 50 pmC. And the difference is, I also think it was at 50 pmC in 2565 BC, I just think it was then that the sample started, i e the atmosphere was 50 pmC back then.
A relative stability of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is to be expected, since the atmosphere functions as a very big sample, and a century of constant flux between very high and very low carbon 14 levels would be more costly in radioactive origins of carbon 14 plus other events, than simply a few centuries of a fairly steady rise would be.
22:01 We do know that what was in the sample to begin with is likely to reflect what was in the atmosphere previously, with some delays.
For instance, grass will reflect what was in the atmosphere the last year. A tree what was in the atmosphere for c. 50 or 100 years. An animal living mainly on grass or cereals (including man) would reflect the atmosphere the last 7 years. By living on meat, one would increase that delay. By eating fish and shellfish, one would get some pretty old carbon, getting the carbon age to a few centuries before one lived.
So, it's not as if the original carbon content was "just anyone's guess" prior to decay starting, if one holds to Young Earth Creationism, as I do, one has to admit that the carbon 14 content rose relatively slowly in the armosphere, and this started after the Flood.
Hence, a carbon rise from 1.6 pmC to 100 pmC over 1778 years, from Flood to Fall of Troy, definitely is feasible. A constant wobble up and down isn't. Having a shorter time between Flood and Fall of Troy, like Ussher chronology instead of Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day ... just maybe. Or maybe not.
23:10 "4000 BC" for Ur is definitely NOT lining up with the Biblical timeline, unless you admit it's a carbon date that's off.
I have Abraham born in 2015 BC, as per Roman Martyrology saying so.
I have the carbon date "4000 BC" in the actual date 2020 BC, as per intercalations between end of Babel (birth of Peleg at youngest layer of Göbekli Tepe) and Genesis 14 (archaeology of En Geddi carbon dates, at the end, to "3500 BC"). For 2020 BC to carbon date as "4000 BC" we need to have had then a carbon 14 level in the atmosphere risen as high as 78.688 pmC, which is feasible, if you accept 51.766 pmC at the end of Babel and 82.763 pmC when Abraham was 80 years old, in Genesis 14 (actually, between 75 and 85, Ishmael born when he was 86, but 80 is a round medium value of his age in Genesis 14).
24:50 I would rather say that the vultures in Apocalypse 19 are God's REVENGE for the vultures that Nimrod, at Göbekli Tepe, used as terror like punishments.
Göbekli Tepe, vultures are used by a slave hunter to punish shirkers.
Apocalypse 19, God is reversing the set-up, punishing slave hunters.
26:05 Yes, exactly, and the Flood narrative like pictures on some pillars, as per the impression you shared, would fit the propaganda narrative of Nimrod.
Like Nimrod, some people are now reducing God's motive for the Flood to being a "genocidal maniac" (but with superhuman powers).
You may have noticed, some enemies of God have also spoken about the Flood.
And if you ask me to answer them, before the Flood, slavery was even more complete than at Göbekli Tepe.
26:19 And you may want to know where we see Noah's emphasis on animals?
On much more beautiful art, like Lascaux or Altamira. Where, along horses, along mammoths, the animals are often clean animals (an Aurochs has fully cloven hoofs and is a real ruminant).
27:14 Another nail in the coffin for Göbekli Tepe as God's altar, the stones at Göbekli Tepe are hewn stones. Quarried stones.
The stones for patriarchal altars were of un-hewn stones. Stones you simply pick up from the ground and make a roughly regular pile of, with a roughly flat top.
27:36 sqrt(1600) = 40.
28:09 God. I checked if "built" was an appropriate verb, Genesis 2:22 says it is.*
30:08 "not through being religious, not through doing rituals"
Sorry, but your individual soteriology is off. The sacraments would fall under what you call "rituals" and the way we approach them would fall under what you call "being religious" ...
And the Church preserves that, because Jesus gave that (Mt 26:26)
30:32 If you double-check John 3 as a chapter, Jesus is actually requiring us** to believe what He has chosen is good. He is requiring us to act it.
If that involves what you would call rituals, see verse 5, btw, why would I bother with your characterisation over Jesus' words?
* Ps. 138:5 prefers "formed" ... a few verses lower "made" ...
** Meaning, go to a Catholic Catechism and not to Joe Kirb's words, about how to get saved!
No comments:
Post a Comment