The Süleyman Paradox FAQ

What motivated WRL to begin an investigation into religious anthropology; especially an investigation that has a particular emphasis on “end-times” prophecies connected to the religions of Abraham?

In the multifaceted debate between people of faith, atheists, scientists, secularists, humanists and others—with each proponent arguing their list of subjective points from a clearly apparent agenda that has included, from an intractable minority, profoundly violent acts involving mass murder —it seemed prudent to conduct an investigative analysis of this topic in search of objectivity, commonality and reason.

In the body of The Süleyman Paradox, WRL posits that the “end-times” prophecies (replete as they are with horrific imagery of destruction, disease and death) are not necessarily depicting the militaristic-style warfare between the forces of good and evil that the vast majority of religious scholars, zealous fundamentalists and authors from the laity disseminate as a mantra for consumption by unblemished faithful innocents. So, what does the Apocalypse really mean?

Influenced by interpretations of prophecy forwarded by the groups mentioned above, who have apparently been biased in their analysis by bloodlust revenge for admired martyrs, the nearly global general consensus has adopted an equivalence between religious, secular and/or sectarian warfare and the term apocalypse. This common misuse of the Greek word apokálypsis, or the Latinized revelation, obscures the fact that the term has the relatively sedate meaning of ‘lifting a veil of ignorance’, ‘revealing hidden truth’, and, perhaps, exposing misconceptions about the true image of god. Given the mythical scale of the apocalyptic prophecies and the ease with which one can find definition of the imagery in a naturally occurring catastrophe that destroyed a garden paradise many millennia in the past, then it can be argued that Omega is about Alpha; this is to say, that the revelation of hidden truth, lifting the veil of the apocalypse, clarifying the image of god, is indeed about a devastating upheaval, but its cause was wrongly attributed by well meaning elders to a jealous, angry and wrathfully punitive god. Hence, god is good, not evil; god is Love.

In following the overall thrust of WRL’s propositions in The Süleyman Paradox and the geomythology studies, is it accurate to conclude that the garden plains of Atlantis-Bakhu, located on the Saharan Atlas steppe region of Algeria, are also those of the Garden in Eden discussed in the Hebrew testament of Genesis?

Given that traditional writings about Moses tell us he was raised in a house of the Egyptian pharaoh, we must assume he was well educated, knowledgeable and conversant in Egyptian lore, including the Book of the Heavenly Cow (presumably one of the sources Solon and Sonchis translated from Egyptian to Greek that WRL argues was a basis for Plato’s Critias and Timaues dialogues). It is a simple step in logic to directly connect Moses’ youthful education with the Egyptian lore and Plato’s subsequent works. So, following this argument to its natural extension, yes, it does appear as though it is possible that Moses’ Garden of Eden is sourced from the same writings as those later used by Plato; writings for which WRL has offered a measurable hypothesis placing the gardens of Poseidon, or the Garden of Eden, on the hard steppes of the Saharan Atlas in Algeria. A cursory review of geologic, geographic and general descriptions of the Garden in Eden of Genesis, including the flora present after its abandonment, closely match the physical reality of the Saharan Atlas steppe today. There are even four major ephemeral or extinct rivers that can be seen crossing the steppe region and esparto grasses and wormwood are found growing in the harsh environment.