This is a theory, not an opinion or a belief

Image Source

Do you believe in the power belief?

The power of belief is widely accepted when observed through the context of the placebo effect. If one believes their health is going to improve, more often than not, it will. But is the placebo effect truly bound to the confines of the human body, or can one's belief invite change to occur within the universe as a whole?

Many will swear by the law of attraction and its efficacy in manifesting our desires into reality. And yet many others will swear that the law of attraction is the epitome of nonsense, so who is right? Is it at all possible, that the only difference between the former and the latter is that one had enough faith to yield results, while the other couldn't escape their doubtful nature long enough to truly believe?

We all know one person who seems to win at every game they play, whether it is a game of chance or otherwise. Are they truly so special that they defy all mathematical probability? Or does their belief that they're going to win improve the chances that they will?

Magick itself seems to be powered by belief. A magician need only repeat a spell or ritual until they arrive at a point where they're convinced they've done enough, at which point the power of belief takes over and their goals are actualized. So is it possible that the power of belief has been the dictating force behind the progression of the universe all this time?

They tell us knowledge is power, but does this mean as so many interpret it to mean? Is knowledge powerful because we can use what we know to manipulate those who are ignorant? I would ask you to consider if there is a difference between what we know and what we believe. If you find that there is not, then you may look upon this ancient wisdom in an entirely new light. Perhaps knowledge is power, far more simply, because what we know, and consequently what we believe to be true, has the potential to influence the universe.

The Bible tells us that Jesus said the following;

Matthew 17:20
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

If belief truly is as powerful as the Bible suggests, then it surely calls into question the agenda of the Bible, and other Holy scriptures, which serve the purpose of transforming people into believers.

Whether one is a follower of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, regardless of which domination, they share the belief with all other followers of either religion, that the God of Abraham, is the God of this world. "Abraham" is a rather interesting name. Not only because "abra" is notably the first part of the well-known magical phrase "abracadabra," but also because "ham" is a character in the Bible, and one whose story is steeped in mystery and controversy.

For the purposes of this theory, I ask the question whether the God of the Abrahamic religions is truly "God," as we understand the word. Or if the scriptures are the most sophisticated magick spells ever concocted, written or perverted towards the intention of usurping the beliefs of the billions of readers, and using their power to Create a God, or elevate a mere man to such a position.

If there is any truth to this admittedly insane theory, then the suspected usurper we ought to look at first, should be Ham. For a character who has such a short mentioning in the Bible itself, their name shows up all over the English and Arabic languages. In terms of English, consider how many names of cities end with "ham." Birmingham, Nottingham, Tottenham, Fulham etc. And consider also the very interesting fact that we will revisit later, that the palace the royal family dwell within, is called "Bucking-ham palace."

To get to the meat of this theory, let's take a look at the passages in Genesis that mention Ham, who was one of three sons of Noah.

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

It would seem rather over-the-top for Noah to place a curse because Ham saw his naked flesh, and it is also rather odd for that curse to be aimed at Ham's son, rather than he himself. But Leviticus can offer us potential insight on what has occurred within these passages.

The following verses can be found in Leviticus 18:

8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.

These passages speak to the laws of sexual relations, and so it is possible that the nakedness of Noah's in genesis speaks to his wife, and that Ham's sin against his father may have been raping, or having sex with Noah's wife, who was Ham's own mother. This would make the act of cursing Canaan, rather than Ham, a far more sensible response, and if the passages where written in retrospect, then there is no reason to assert that Canaan was born before Ham's sin.

More interestingly, if Ham did rape or have sex with his mother, and if Canaan's birth was the result of this event, then Canaan would be both brother and nephew to Shem and Japheth, creating a rather jumbled family tree.

• As a side note, another place we see the word ham, is in the Shakespeare play "Hamlet." Which rather coincidentally is about a man who becomes both son and nephew to another, upon the marriage of his uncle to his mother after his fathers death. The play is also about a jumbled family tree, much like would have resulted if this theory's assertion about Ham's sin is true.

The Nephilim

There are many theories about the nephilim. Most assert them as giants and the offspring of fallen angels, and many also speculate the royal families of the world are the descendants of the nephilim, making them nephilim themselves. But language carries many clues, and perhaps we need only look at the "neph" to find a clue on the true identity of the nephilim. The only other common word I'm aware of that begins with "neph" is "nephew." So perhaps whomever the nephilim are, the notion of "nephew" may be a part of their identity.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I am asking the question whether the nephilim are the progeny of Ham, or his brother/nephew hybrid son Canaan.

All seem to agree that the nephilim are the offspring of the Sons of God and the daughters of men, as mentioned in genesis. But if the Bible is a magickal spell, and if the God portrayed is not truly the Creator, then the Sons of God could refer to the offspring of Ham.

Most who read the Bible, at least at first, question the morality of God's choices in the old testament. This is explained away, by the inferiority of man and our inability to discern good from evil without the help of God. This is interesting enough considering we are supposed to have learned knowledge of Good and Evil from the original sin in the garden of Eden. But if we can admit to ourselves that God's notion of Good does not align with our own, then God becomes a perversion of good in all ways including the spelling itself.

Put simply. Perhaps God is not Good. Maybe only Good is Good, and perhaps the assertion that God is good is a rebellion against good, and an attempt to redefine it.

I mention this because if we revisit the fact that the Royal family, who are often theorised as nephilim descendants, and who live in Buckingham palace, we may find another clue hidden in plain sight. "Bucking" means "rebelling against an oppressive force," so Buckingham palace contains within it the notion of Ham rebelling against good- not God. Good is undoubtedly an oppressive force, for if one intends to live and act in good intentions, then much of their possibilities are diminished. It is a constricting force, even if it is also a rewarding one.

So, this theory asks the question if the God of Abraham is "Ham," and if the Abrahamic religions are not serving the agenda to "abra-cadabra" Ham's way towards Godhood. It further asks whether Ham was the first, as many already agree, to rebel against Goodness, and whether the act he committed in rebellion resulted in a new line of nephew/brother hybrids that we have named nephilim.

Revisiting the power of belief, we would then understand the great tales of the nephilim and their giant stature and great strength. For if you were part of a ruling class, descended through incest, if you wanted to prevent your mutated lineage from dying out, what better way to go about it than convincing everyone else that you are in fact the offspring of gods, giants and angels? What if the nephilim would have died out by now through inbreeding, if not for our belief that they are so much more powerful than we?

I do not think this theory is true. But, it is entertaining to me, even to consider. The wizard of Oz comes to mind, and the frail old man behind the curtain. So many of us have convinced ourselves that our enemies are so much stronger than we could ever be. But what if the opposite is true? What if they are far weaker, after millenia of inbreeding, and what if it is only our belief that they gave us, the one that tells us they are of a greater and stronger line, that provides them with the strength they need to survive?

Thanks for reading the contents of my crazy mind.

---

Click here to enter the latest round of the Information Finding Championship

---

^{It would be far more fruitful for me to spend my time seeking than surviving, so if you would like to help with a donation so that I can have more time to be reading, researching, deliberating and sharing my findings, then I thank you for any contributions to my BTC address. 15ys7RiuzXRhEcsPn8cb37W1RPqnph2BX9}

---

All opinions on this blog are subject to change upon new information and fresher understandings

---

All images on this blog are free to use or created by me personally

Follow @the.seeker for more