This week’s post comes from chapter 5 of Rebooting the Bible, Part 2. This is part 2 of 3 parts regarding NIMROD, one of the more sinister characters in the Scriptures. Truth about NIMROD is quite different than what most Bible students believe. It takes the right chronology (as supplied by the Septuagint-LXX) and an Egyptologist that has reverence for the biblical account (David Rohl). You will see that while Nimrod was truly the world’s first Emperor, he was not likely the leader of the rebellion at Babel. Enjoy!
ENDORSEMENT BY MARC GEIGER
This book is so very important. In Rebooting the Bible Part 1, S. Douglas Woodward does a masterful job of documenting and explaining how and why the Masoretic text that is used for the Old Testament in our Bibles, was corrupted by the Rabbis at the beginning of the second century A.D. They changed the Messianic prophecies that would point to Jesus being the Messiah. They also altered the chronology of both Genesis chapters 5 and 11, so as to shorten the timeline from Adam to Abraham by almost 1400 years. They believed this would disqualify Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah. The Septuagint (LXX), which was created almost 400 years earlier, does not have the corruptions that were put into the Masoretic text. This is all summarized quite well in the first 2 chapters of this book, Rebooting the Bible Part 2.
Once you’ve got a hold of the fact that there is a missing 1400 years in the chronology of Genesis chapters 1 to 11, it changes so very much of this important Biblical history. The corrected chronology starts to align with the science of archeology and also Egyptology. This book casts new light on the creation of Adam and Eve, the meaning of Cain and Abel, the fall of humanity, Nimrod, Peleg and the dividing of the nations, the tower of Babel, and the flood of Noah. Wow! That’s a lot! It addresses common misconceptions that are held about this ancient history. I found Rebooting the Bible Part 2 to be very interesting, in fact fascinating. It has many pictures, graphs, tables, etc. that really help in telling this so very important story. There is a ton of detail here, but Doug Woodward has a way of presenting this important information in a very easy to understand way. If you are a truth seeker, get this book. You won’t be disappointed!
SETTING ARIGHT THE BIBLICAL FACTS ABOUT NIMROD
First off, we need to make note that Nimrod is the son of Cush and grandson of Ham. While his Uncle Canaan bears the primary shame of his father’s indiscretion (which is itself an important issue to clarify), the entire line of Ham saw itself doomed to be the slaves to the other two lineages (Japheth and Shem). “And he said, ‘Cursed be the servant Chanaan (Canaan), a slave shall he be to his brethren.’” (Genesis 9:25, LXX) And as Noah blesses Japheth and Shem, he reiterates the curse against Canaan, “And he said,’ Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Chanaan shall be his bond-servant. May God make room for Japheth, and let him dwell in the habitations of Shem, and let Chanaan be his servant.’” (Genesis 9:26-27)
The reason that Ham was not the subject of Noah’s curse was likely that God had previously blessed Ham (along with his two brothers). “And God blessed Noe and his sons, and said to them, ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and have dominion over it.’” Noah remembered God’s blessing to his sons – and despite Ham being the offender, his son Canaan received Noah’s curse, a curse that could not supersede God’s blessing.
Secondly, it is not a foregone conclusion that the Tower of Babel happened right after the Flood. Nor is it likely that Nimrod led the rebellion. Remember, the Bible doesn’t say that Nimrod was the instigator. The Bible seems to take pains to point out it was a collective decision that all those gathered in the plain of Shinar, who came to dwell there, agreed to build a tower to (1) make a name for themselves and (2) so that they would not be scattered across the entire world. “’And they said one to another, ‘Go to, let us make brick…’“And they said, “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower… and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad…” “So the Lord scattered them abroad … and they left off to build the city.” (Genesis 11:3, 4, 5)
The passage never mentions Nimrod. “The people are one” (they were of one mind – they did not need Nimrod to motivate them to build a tower and a city).
Furthermore, once God apparently destroyed the tower, the people abandoned the city. This sequence of events isn’t consistent with Nimrod’s modus operandi. Nimrod becomes the city-builder mentioned in Genesis, Chapter 10, and conquers cities to build an empire. It is quite the opposite of what conventional orthodoxy believes about Nimrod as the leader at Babel.
Thirdly, we should discern that the story of the Tower is the story of how the dispersal of humanity began. It is not about Nimrod. Chapter 10 chronicles the so-called Table of Nations. Chapter 11:1-9 gives us the reason why humanity was scattered. This pattern is typical in Genesis. As elsewhere, Genesis provides us with an overview, and then supplies some vital detail in a “sidebar.” Chapter 11:1-9 is such a sidebar.
Next, we should notice that when the Scripture lists the six sons of Cush, the sixth son – Nimrod – is distinguished from the other five. “And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca.” (Genesis 10:7) “And Cush begat Nimrod…” (Genesis 10:8) Make no mistake: Cush was Nimrod’s father. But Nimrod was special. Genesis 10:8 states that Nimrod was the first on earth to be (become) a mighty man. Alternatively, the wording may be translated more accurately, “he (Nimrod) began to be a mighty man on the earth.” (ESV). The LXX flat outs states what many authors today believe, “And Chus (Cush) begot Nebrod (Nimrod); he began to be a giant upon the earth. He was a giant hunter before the Lord God; therefore, they say, ‘As (Nimrod) the giant hunter before the Lord.’”
The word chosen, giant, is gibbor in Hebrew (and gigantes in Greek). While gibbor may only mean a strong man or great warrior, in this context it appears obvious that Nimrod is different than the other sons of Cush due to an attribute that amounts to far more than just being the strongest of his brethren. It’s possible that the narrative in Genesis 10 supplies a Nimrod pericope (a parenthetical comment in modern parlance) merely to emphasize that Nimrod became the first empire builder. And, it certainly seems important to underscore that Nimrod, as a descendant of Ham (and Cush) is warring against Noah’s curse which implied the line of Ham (not just Canaan) would be a servant to the other two lineages.
The likely motive was revenge – to reverse the curse against Ham and his descendants. Nimrod championed this cause by conquering the cities built by the Sumerians who were a combination of tribes from Canaan (son of Ham) and Asshur (son of Shem) about 200 years after the Tower of Babel event. Nimrod may have done this to regain his father’s honor and to show everyone “who’s boss.”
Was NIMROD a Giant?
However, as many have speculated, Nimrod may have genuinely become a demigod somewhere along the line. If he was a hybrid, he mirrored the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4. So, it begs the question, “Did something happen to Nimrod – altering his nature – so that he ‘began to be a giant?’” I join other authors in today’s prophecy community to speculate that it did. Precisely what happened, we do not know. Perhaps his DNA was altered in a deal with the devil. Maybe he was possessed. Some argue the Antichrist will be a hybrid like the Nephilim of old. Nimrod may have become a child of Satan, the “seed of the serpent.”
Moreover, we wonder such things as: “Did he grow 2-4 feet taller? Was he truly a giant? Did he have six fingers on each hand?” We can’t keep from speculating. But in the final analysis, we only know that something happened, not what nor why it did.
Of course, we can be confident that Nimrod was a rebel. The word “before,” lipn in Hebrew, means “facing or stand in front of.” Many interpret this to say, “in opposition to.” And this seems accurate if for no other reason than the fact he sought to conquer and suppress the leadership of others. However, there is a nuance to this statement that needs elaboration. Our modern-day phrase, “got in his face,” might be a better translation of lipn . Nimrod stood opposed to God and “got in His face.”
Thus, rebellion became his “second-nature” just as gigantism became his unnatural physical state (a “mortal makeover” if you will). Additionally, as I mentioned before, many have pointed out that the name Nimrod itself means “rebel.” The consonants are M-R-D, which can be pronounced “marad” or “murad.” 
The connection between M-R-D and Marduk also suggests a link to the god Mars – the warrior God. And so, it connects the warrior archetype, i.e., Nimrod. Bryce Self expands on this idea and supplies facts that the name of Nimrod has strong ancient roots:
It is remarkable that there is a syllable with the consonant value “M*R” which is found everywhere in connection with the planet Mars, the god of Mars, and its associated emblem, the dragon. The source of all these words is to be found in the Semitic root “marah” (M*R) which is Hebrew means bitterness as well as disobedience. From this root is derived “marad” (M*R*D), or rebellion, which is the original both of Nimrod (the Babylonian Nin-Mir-Rud), or (N*M*R*D), as well as Marduk/ Merodach (M*R*D*K). The Bible tells us that Nimrod was the founder of Nineveh, and Nineveh’s own half-legendary history ascribes that honor to one Ninur or Nimur (N*M*R).
If we think of the word marauder, we may have a very accurate modern translation of the name of Nimrod. This word means “pirate, pillager, plunderer, looter, robber” – stealing something that does not belong to him. When we recognize that Nimrod’s empire is built by conquering cities in Mesopotamia and later, Assyria (most notably Babylon in ancient Sumer (Shinar) – and Ninevah in the northern parts of the land, between the Euphrates and the Tigris), Nimrod “takes over,” stealing these cities. He’s the great robber.
But did Nimrod conquer the Sumerian cities immediately after leading the Tower of Babel event? It would seem to be impossible. And the reason is yet another strong argument (reflected in Josephus and carried forward in the Talmud) against Nimrod having led this rebellion. Why is that?
Nimrod occupied the cities in southern Sumer, and Nimrod built new cities in northern Sumer. If the people were all on the plain in the land of Shinar (Sumer) in one place, no other cities would exist after the Flood and before the Babel event. This incident suggests ruins of antediluvian towns (such as those theorized that Cain, son of Adam, had built), may have served as the foundation for this ancient “urban renewal.”
To clarify, it appears Nimrod created cities in the North rather than occupying them. The Bible states that Nimrod built these. “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech (Uruk) Accad (Akkad), and Calneh, in the land of Shinar (Sumer). From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. (Genesis 10:10-12, ESV) It seems unlikely that the leader of a failed rebellion at Babel (with a Tower destroyed and a city deserted) would bounce back to build many more cities in Sumer and Assyria. It would more likely be the case that the people would run him out of Sumer and Assyria for leading a failed rebellion. Failures at empire building seldom get a second chance.
However, while Bible teachers give undeserved credit to Nimrod for the Babel rebellion, in contrast, he gets no credit for what he did in eastern and northern Africa. And this is our next point. Based on the biblical information we possess about his father and brothers, we should suppose Nimrod’s empire transcended Sumer and Assyria. Specifically, it included other ancient civilizations to the south and east.
Indeed, we should also take careful note that Cush (the name means “black”) settled in Arabia and Africa. The Bible is clear about this. (See the map on the Empire of Cush/ Nimrod above.) Most identify Cush as the founding father of the peoples in Ethiopia. His sons populated North Africa, including portions of Canaan (verse 19 tells us this was Gaza). “The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt (Mizraim), Put (also Phut – Libya), and Canaan.” Again, Cush’s sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. Raamah’s sons were Sheba and Dedan. Raamah means “horse’s mane.” (See earlier figure on the lineage from Ham.) And of course, we think of Arabian horses as the most fabulous ones in existence. There is little doubt that scholars and the Bible associate Cush with Africa and Arabia. So what was Nimrod’s origin when he comes to conquer the Northern cities? Perhaps he already was a king (maybe “the Scorpion King”) bringing together the two “camps” in Egypt (known as Upper and Lower Egypt)? We are getting a bit ahead of our story but do note the hint I’ve just given: Nimrod was “born and raised” in Africa. Most likely, he originated in Ethiopia, before he became “acquisitive” and returned to the land where his father lived at a much younger age. When Nimrod came, revenge was on his mind. He likely resented the fact that his grandfather’s line (the Hamites) was cursed. If so, his ambition was understandable enough: Become the master race rather than a race of slaves. No surprise that Hitler, an anti-Christ figure, sought the same thing.
Scholar Dr. Raquel Gilboa, who earned her Ph.D. on the book of Genesis, comments in her paper on Genesis 9-10, that distinguishing the races (noting attributes that set them apart) appears to have begun with the sons of Noah:
The old anthropological definition of the “white-black-yellow” color-division of races underwent a change during the 20th century into four categories, dividing the “black” group of the populations of Africa into two groups: the “Black African” and the “Khoisanid” (resorting to the old biblical name-sound “Khush” (or Cush, in K.J.), thus defining the new brown color-category. This later racial distinction had already been taken for granted in ancient Egypt and is expressed in wall-paintings depicting processions of people bringing offerings to the Pharaohs, in which various neighboring races are presented. (See Figure 17) 
Gilboa argues that the verses in Genesis supply the names of Cush and his descendants from north to south. She also contends that the distinction of Nimrod’s name from his brothers is because of his exceptional qualities. Her primary thrust, however, is to convey that Nimrod’s empire included all of the Nile Valley (he had united both upper and lower Egypt) and continued through Canaan, covering the entire Mesopotamian region. If so, then Nimrod indeed was the first true emperor – he presided over a vast territory on two continents. He controlled both the Egyptian as well as the Sumerian/Akkadian/ Assyrian worlds. Thus, he was King of kings. And I don’t have to remind my readers that this is a title Christians have reserved for someone else.
Turning once again to David Rohl: This Egyptologist supplies essential data to support the view that Nimrod was a native of Ethiopia, conqueror of Egypt, and thus Egypt’s first Pharaoh – before he was ever the ruler of Mesopotamia. To support this thesis, we must dig into Rohl’s analysis for it squares with other scholars, not to mention supports an obvious inference from the Bible.
To begin with, Africa was settled after Sumer because it was the easiest to access. To the north lay mountains between the Black and Caspian Seas. Likewise, to the east lay the Zagros mountains behind which the Elamites eventually would come to attack the cities of Sumer and Akkad toward the end of the third century B.C. (brining about Akkad’s “dark ages” after Sargon I). But, not far beyond the aftermath of the Tower of Babel, it was most likely that the Kushites sailed down the Persian Gulf, around the Saudi Arabian Peninsula, and up the Red Sea until they came to what is today Port Sudan (see Figure 18). They crossed the mountains of Northeastern Africa in search of gold and precious pelts from leopards and other animals (this knowledge had been gained by humankind during the previous 360 years post-Flood, and 150 years after the Tower of Babel event). They reached Upper Egypt at the “Great Bend in the River Nile.” According to Rohl, the date would have been 2980 B.C., and he points out that the Kushites came to be called The Black Pharaohs. Says Rohl, they remained kings of this region for 3,500 years, the longest enduring empire of any in the history of the world.
Ham’s son Mizraim (Masri) and his descendants likely were already in Lower Egypt (the North) before the Kushites came to conquer North Africa. One of Cush’s sons arrived at the town known as Mersa Alam. Their search was specifically for gold since there was none in the Mesopotamian region. Wepwawet, known as the wolf-god or “opener of the way,“ led the way (one of the earliest navigators of the people who would be called the Phoenicians – see below). With the spring floods (four times more vast than today), Cush’s sons could sail to the northwest, come ashore, and then drag their barges up and over Egypt’s eastern hills until they arrived at the Nile. (In effect) the Kushite clan carried their “black boats” to what is Hierakonpolis – “the ‘city of the hawk,’ (by which) the Horus kings of Upper Egypt would soon succeed in conquering the whole of Egypt.” This area was quickly regarded as superior to the “land between two rivers” since it had gold, a surfeit of water, and myriad animals. Another son of Ham, Put (Phut – Cush’s brother) along with his descendants, had founded Libya earlier. Early navigators led this expedition through the Persian Gulf, around Arabia, and into the Red Sea. They were known as the Poenites (from Poene). These people would give rise to the Phoenicians who would settle further north still until they came to the locations we know as Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. Concerning these cities, some other details from another source are helpful:
At the dawn of history, Byblos was just a sleepy fishing village on the sandy shore where the Lebanon Mountains came down to the Mediterranean Sea. This was the first home of the Phoenician people. World-famous cedars of Lebanon grew on the sides of these mountains and provided not only excellent wood for boats but also something valuable to trade with others, particularly the Egyptians.
When sea trade began booming, the Phoenicians hung up their fishing gear and never looked back. As they grew, they expanded to Sidon, about 47 miles (77 km) south of Byblos on the coast, and then to the island of Tyre which was 23 miles (38 km) farther south. All three of these cities would become famous in their own right, and we find them mentioned often by ancient historians.
Born was another vast empire, Phoenicia (which included Carthage) that prospered for 3,000 years and whose explorers may have circumnavigated the globe a thousand years before Christ. Author Steven Collins documents this speculative history in Israel’s Lost Empires. The Phoenicians would also merge into the Canaanite peoples until the two became the same. At some point, they likely crossed the Atlantic, possibly in the time of Solomon. Furthermore, we know that Tyre begat Carthage and eventually Tarshish. The “Merchants of Tarshish” figure into the last days’ scenario in a pivotal way (See Ezekiel 28). It is not accidental that there are explicit links to the Princes of Tarshish and Assyria as eponymous titles for Satan himself in prophetic passages of Ezekiel and Isaiah. It seems merchants have a terrible name – being synonymous with Canaanites – and closely associated with the real leader of all rebellions, the Old Adversary – Satan. Just don’t tell capitalists that there is this connection between merchandising and the Devil.
Rohl comments that the Greek word “har” stands for Horus and means “far distant.” Indeed, the word horizon references Horus. But far distant, he asserts, refers to Ham, then revered as the Sun God (i.e., Horus was the Sun God in Egyptian mythology when the sun rises or sets near the horizon – an apparent allusion that still exists in our language today). And Ham came from far distant – the mountains to the north of Sumer and Assyria (Arrata – the mythical land surrounding Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, the ancient kings of Uruk), perhaps the place where the ark came to lay in the area of Armenia. The “followers of Horus” would be exalted and become the dominant dynasty in ancient Egypt, overcoming the far weaker earlier settlers of Egypt. (Mizraim’s descendants probably reached Egypt first having set out for the territory from the time just before the Tower of Babel). On the other hand, Cush’s descendants came considerably later and took a southeastern route by sea (the Persian Gulf) from the land of Sumer. Cush’s tribe would overtake their cousins, and the two would come to populate the areas from Egypt to Ethiopia, becoming the People of Horus.
Rohl asserts a later second migration from Mesopotamia attempted to crowd into the area, but the incumbent Horus people confronted them. This second group also claimed to be descendants from the conquering Kushites, but it didn’t win them friends nor entry.
However, at this point, we should make note that Cush was also known as “the great divider,” for he had divided the world (from the provincial Egyptian perspective) among his six sons (if we include Nimrod in the count). If Cush did in fact lead the rebellion at Babel causing vast dispersion, a name related to division (and chaos) would be a good fit. Moreover, there are other intriguing points in the name, Cush. First, the second incursion ties to the “peoples of Set,” as Rohl tags them. How did they come by this name?
Rohl tells us that the name of Set comes from the word for division, which symbolizes chaos to the peoples of the ancient world. (Set also happens to be known as the “God of Chaos” – Cush/ Kush/ Khaos/ Chaos.) While the Set contingent sought to depose the Horus establishment, they failed utterly. (Recall that in Egyptian mythology Set was the evil brother who killed Osiris and whose son, Horus, fought against Set and got his revenge on behalf of himself and Isis.) This concept presumes that Horus and Set were icons of the two peoples.
Additionally, the leader of this Horus army was known as Scorpion (aka “the Scorpion King”). During the next fifty years, the victors would continue to garner more and more territory. One day, a warrior or fighter arose known as King Horus Aha (or Hor-Aha). History would name him Menes, as his non-kingly name. His Pharaonic name would be Narmer. It remains the considered opinion of many teachers and scholars that Narmer (NRM*R) is Nimrod. Rohl does not quite declare that Nimrod and Narmer are the same persons. Nor does he suggest that Narmer/Nimrod physically returned from Africa to conquer the four cities in Sumer. However, as conveyed above, Nimrod (son of Cush) first became a divider of peoples, a source of chaos, and an usurper in Africa. (This outcome means he had overcome all his brothers.) 
But usurper he most likely was when he became the Pharaoh who united Upper and Lower Egypt, making the land the first one nation-state. (To this day the Egyptians consider themselves “the people of two lands”). Afterward, Narmer/Nimrod returned to Mesopotamia, likely taking the already populated cities in the south as his next conquest. Then he built the cities in the north, most notably Nineveh (reflecting the names Ninus, Nin, Ninurta, Nimurda, etc.) The northern cities, still lying between the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, existing in the land that would be known as Assyria. From there, Narmer/Nimrod could have traveled westward toward Palestine, quickly reaching the Mediterranean and taking control of the ancient land of the Phoenicians and the land of Canaan. (The Epic of Gilgamesh partially reflects the story of Nimrod when the giant Gilgamesh and his hybrid friend, Enkidu, go to war against Huwawa – Yahweh. Huwawa resided west of Assyria, dwelling in the land of Canaan.) Thus, Narmer/Nimrod truly did become the first world conqueror.
Peter Goodgame gives us an excellent summary of what had transpired over these 200 years (although he reverses the “tribe” of Nimrod from Set to Horus):
According to the Sumerian King List that was referenced earlier, Enmerkar of Uruk was the son of a king who “went down into the sea and came out at the mountains.” We identified this figure as the biblical Cush who established the Land of Cush in Ethiopia. His heir, Enmerkar, who built Uruk, is the biblical Nimrod. However, as a royal heir of Cush, it is quite likely that Nimrod was born among the original Falcon Tribe [Horus’ symbol is the Falcon] colonizers of Ethiopia, before he returned to the homeland of Sumer and initially established his kingdom of Uruk.
What the Egyptian evidence tells us is that right around this very same time a leader of the Falcon Tribe emerged, known as Narmer, who swept through Egypt with a mighty army, conquering and uniting the northern and the southern regions of Egypt. The evidence suggests that King Narmer was in fact the biblical Nimrod who, in addition to founding the civilizations of Sumer and Assyria, also became the first king and pharaoh of the great civilization of Dynastic Egypt.
The consonant sounds of N-M-R show up in all three historical accounts of this great king: the Sumerian Enmer-kar, the biblical Nimrod, and the Egyptian Narmer. The names fit, as well as the times that date the end of his career on earth sometime around 3100 BC.
We could also add Nimurda, another name for this personage. I would quibble with Peter over a slight timing difference. I argue that the timeline suggests that Nimrod returns to the first land of Cush (Mesopotamia) circa 2900 B.C. He secures his empire there and may, according to some intriguing myths, return to Egypt. Purportedly Shem kills Nimrod circa 2850 B.C. Shem becomes the adversary Set in Egyptian mythology (another reversal of Set and Horus as good cop/bad cop). Other stories, however, have Nimrod living and ruling for 200-400 years in Mesopotamia. Perhaps this remains the most likely case.
PURCHASE THE REBOOTING THE BIBLE BUNDLE AT FAITH-HAPPENS STORE. REGULARLY $50.00. THIS WEEK PRICED AT $42.00.
Due to space, I will only make mention of the conclusion that the Osiris myth in Egypt is an approximation of the legend of Gilgamesh in Sumer – and both are allusions to some aspects of the life of Nimrod. Furthermore, ancient historians Diodorus (60-30 B.C.) and Plutarch (46-120 A.D.), give accounts of Osiris marching eastward and founding cities in India. India’s earliest gods also reflect Osiris/Horus/Nimrod.
Again, remember my objective is limited to (1) isolate when Nimrod lived by considering the empirical evidence for those figures who reflect Nimrod in archeological history; (2) the likelihood that Nimrod came “out of Africa” as a result of the earlier migration of Cush and his six sons to Ethiopia and Upper Egypt; and therefore, (3) began his reign perhaps 150-200 years after the Tower of Babel event when it was already distant history. (Recall: I place Babel at 3159 B.C., 200 years after the Flood; Nimrod was born afterward and lived 300-400 years, circa 3100 B.C. to 2700 B.C.). While the Book of Jasher indicates that Nimrod ruled “the people of the land” 185 years, it likely creates a truncated reign to accommodate the MT chronology. And its accuracy can be disputed on many points, not just false dates, as I go on to show.
NOTES (Don’t miss the information here!)
 Ronald Hendel comments that Nimrod (from Nimrud) probably mimics the Mesopotamian god Ninurta. “Ninurta was a great hunter and warrior and was the patron-god of Mesopotamian kings, characteristics that make him an apt model for Nimrod. The name Nimrod in Hebrew, however, is transparently a verbal form, from the root mrd, “to rebel,” and means either “we will rebel” or “let us rebel.” (From Hendel, Ronald. “Genesis 1-11 and Its Mesopotamian Problem,” p. 30.) Douglas Petrovich disagrees, first of all, stating that Ninurta did not possess an empire. Petrovich’s second reason is more problematic, claiming that Nimrod was never seen as divine (i.e., more than human): “Nimrod was fully human, having derived ultimately from Adam, through Ham and Cush. Ninurta was a Sumerian and Akkadian deity.” This may be true – however, his becoming a gibbor or gigantes according to the Bible deserves some consideration which Petrovich ignores. As stated above, many believe that Nimrod was known as a gibbor, not because he was the first emperor, but because of something in his physical makeup that changed. (Petrovich, Douglas M. “Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. p 291.)
 Self, Bryce. (July 30, 2014). “Nimrod, Mars, and The Marduk Connection.” Retrieved November 10, 2019 from: https://anunnakialiengodsandspirituality.com/2014/07/30/nimrod-mars-and-the-marduk-connection-by-bryce-self/. Self goes on to point out a connection to the people of Atlantis, called Merodes (MRD), descendants of Merou (MR) or Merod (MR*D), and the angel Moroni and the Mormons. Interesting reading to be sure. Hislop will argue that Nimr is the Chaldean name for leopard, and that Nimrod wore the leopard skins prepared by God to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness – which became a symbol of sovereignty and kingship. They might have stunk a lot since they would have been about 2,500 years old in the LXX timeline. Additionally, Nimrod supposedly trained a leopard to be his hunting companion. We see the figure of Gilgamesh with a lion under his arm. Was this a lion cub or a full-grown lion, illustrating that Nimrod was a giant as the legend of Gilgamesh asserts? The lion has a mane which cubs don’t have, so you be the judge.
 The venerable Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895-1960) was of the opinion that Resen, Nineveh, and Calah were actually one great city – a metropolis – the first one in the antediluvian world.
 Gilboa, op. cit. p. 4-5.
 Rohl, op. cit., p. 84.
 Retrieved November 14, 2019, from http://www.phoenician.org/byblos_sidon_tyre.htm.
 Author Damien Lackey has written numerous papers on Nimrod, the Tower of Babel, and other related topics. He uses the Masoretic Text chronology as an unquestioned premise. He states that “my preference for Pharaoh (had been) the long-reigning pharaoh, Hor-Aha (circa 3100 or 3000 B.C., conventional dating). Hor -Aha, in turn, is often considered – based on his nomen – to have been the same as the legendary ‘Menes.’…And, given the legendary association of Abraham with Menes [legendary thanks to Hislop and the Book of Jasher], I myself [Lackey] am inclined to think that the Egyptian identity of Abram’s (biblical) “Pharaoh” was Menes. [In contrast, I see them separated by about 800-900 years]. Certainly, we know form (sic) archaeology … that Narmer, too, was a contemporary of the patriarch Abram.” [Perhaps, if we rely on the MT chronology and that Menes was Narmer and Narmer was Nimrod.] Lackey finds support from the grand master of conservative archeology, W.F. Albright, who ventured that Naram-Sin of Akkad (c. 2200 B.C.) conventionally dated about a millennium after pharaoh Menes [i.e., 3000 B.C., and conventional for academia and for those of us that believe the LXX chronology.] Albright concluded with misgivings to identify Naram-Sin as Narmer (and implicitly Nimrod). However, he was indicating that the King of Sumer/ Akkad was also the conqueror of Egypt and Egypt’s first Pharaoh. Citing Albright, “Before proposing a synchronism between the first dynastic king of Egypt and the greatest of early Babylonian kings, one cannot but hesitate, fearful of seeming reckless” (“Menes and Naram-Sin,” JEA, Vol. 6No. 2, April 1920, p. 89-98). What made Albright uncomfortable was the dramatic compression of a millennium to reconcile a biblical belief that Nimrod and Narmer were the same figure in primeval history, with a principal reliance on the MT chronology which forces the elimination of dozens of names from the Sumerian King List. If Albright had been aware that the LXX’s biblical chronology was the authentic chronology, he would have ventured that the King of Sumer and the Pharaoh of Egypt were the same character, without lopping off 900 years of archeological history. Albright’s devout Christian faith and loyalty to the MT Chronology compromised his typical scientific genius. Case in point: The LXX is the better chronology for apologetics. And he MT destroys the correct understanding of the Bible’s accounts in Genesis 1-11.
 Goodgame, op. cit. Kindle location 3305.