Yahweh, or more precisely transliterated, Yahowah (pronounced using His “Towrah – Instructions” as our guide), is the Creator’s name. Since it is based upon the Hebrew verb “hayah – to exist,” it answers mankind’s most basic question: is there a god?
“Yada’ means “to know in a relational sense, to recognize, to acknowledge,” and to use what you learn “to understand.” Therefore, the stated goal of Yada Yah is to come to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself to us.
Since we have broached the topic, and since there is considerable confusion over this issue, recognize that “knowing” and “believing” are not the same thing. In actuality one is a substitute for the other. Those who do not know believe. Faith fills the void when evidence and reason are insufficient for understanding. So let’s be clear: if you read this book, and if you are willing to dispense with your faith, you will come to know Yahowah. That is a promise.
As a surprise to many, God actually proves His existence well beyond any reasonable doubt – using prophecy. And in the process, He proves that He authored the testimony we are going to consider. He did this in the best possible way – at least considering that His prime objective is for us to choose to get to know Him and then to elect to develop a personal, family-oriented relationship with Him. This goal necessitates the auspices of freewill. And that means that God cannot make the choice to ignore Him impossible, which any other form of proof of His existence and inspiration would do.
So how, you may be wondering, did Yahowah conclusively demonstrate that He authored the testimony known as the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms? How did He prove that His witness can be trusted? The answer to both questions is prophecy. And that is why this book of books will focus on God’s predictive statements.
By accurately reporting in our past what would happen in our future, and by committing these very specific prognostications to writing centuries prior to their fulfillment, Yahowah demonstrated that He is unconstrained by time. As is the case with light, Yahowah sees the past, present, and future as if they were all here and now. So since He has already witnessed that which has yet to occur in the ordinary flow of time, God isn’t so much predicting what might happen, but He is instead reporting on what He has already witnessed.
What that means to us is that if Yahowah got so much as one very specific and highly improbable prophecy right, we’d be foolish to ignore what He had to say. But rather than one prediction, He has committed many hundreds, if not a thousand, of these to writing – many of which were memorialized in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even a relatively small sampling of these often detailed and usually highly-unlikely predictions reveals that their chance fulfillment is less than winning a million-to-one lottery grand prize with a single ticket ten times in a row. Taken collectively, the odds of lucky guesses as opposed to absolute knowledge underpinning the prophecies in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is more akin to playing a thousand, million-to-one lottery jackpots in a row, and never once failing to win. Yahowah is so confident regarding His predictions He says that we are free to reject Him should we find a single error.
So while we will focus on God’s predictive testimony, do not assume that prophecy will completely monopolize our time. I say that because with every prediction Yahowah teaches us something important, often profound. And since these instructions are coming from God, the guidance He is providing along with them is vastly more important than the fact He reliably foretells our future. In reality, the only reason for God to prove His existence and authorship is so that we come to trust His testimony – a message which is devoted to explaining the conditions associated with His Covenant. In no uncertain terms, Yahowah will tells us who He is, what He wants, and what He is willing to offer us in return for our affection.
These things known, please do not assume that this is a religious book. It isn’t. The God of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms (errantly known as the “Old Testament”) is anti-religious. His animosity toward Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is extreme and unambiguous. More than anything man has conceived, God hates religion most of all – every religion without exception. Walking away from these corrupt human institutions is in fact the lone prerequisite for participating in the Covenant relationship. This is perhaps the greatest of all ironies.
As an interesting aside, if you are an agnostic, God’s complete disassociation from religion may eliminate most of your objections to Him. The idiocy is religious, not Scriptural. In fact, most of those who have benefited from the testimony which is set out before you were formerly agnostics. It is much easier for them to examine evidence logically than it is for those plagued by religious beliefs. And ultimately, the case Yahowah makes is rationally irrefutable.
While this book is not about me, you are entitled to know that I am both irrelevant and unqualified. My role is simply to serve as your guide. I had nothing to do with the sights you will be witnessing.
I am not part of any organization. I do not accept donations. And I have striven to be as anonymous as possible. At best I’m a flawed implement, a dented, dull, and misshapen tool.
I say these things because I do not want you to trust me or to rely upon me. Instead, I want you to verify everything you find in these pages for yourself. While God can be trusted, no man is worthy of such esteem.
As proof that I am fallible, this is the eighth rewrite of Re’shyth and the seventh overall of Yada Yah. The last time I tried to edit this Prologue, an entirely new book emerged entitled An Introduction to God. Even now, I’d prefer that you read it than this. That is because An Introduction to God is foundational. The book which grew out of this one presents the seven things you need to know and understand to form a relationship with Yahowah and to be saved by Him. These include knowing and understanding Yahowah’s Word, His Name, His Teaching, His Covenant, His Terms, His Invitations, and His Way.
The purpose of An Introduction to God is to establish a proper foundation from which to embark on your quest to know and relate to Yahowah. In it you are given the tools and the perspective required to observe Yahowah’s testimony on your own. In that book, the unique nuances of Hebrew, the language of revelation, are revealed. You will discover why there is no past, present, or future tense in Hebrew. You will learn that most Hebrew verbs feature a relational stem and are written in a volitional mood. This means that a relationship is being developed between the subject and object of each discussion and that the message being conveyed is subject to freewill. But since the Introduction to God review of these things is comprehensive, there is no reason to replicate what is accomplished there in this book. So my advice is: please read An Introduction to God before you continue with Yada Yah.
That is not to say that we won’t cover some of the same ground. That is unavoidable. And so in Yada Yah you will discover a wealth of information which is not revealed in the Introduction to God – just as there is an overwhelming amount of pertinent material presented in the Introduction to God which isn’t duplicated in Yada Yah. For example, the first volume of Yada Yah is devoted to Creation, to the Garden of Eden, to the Flood, and then to Abraham’s life – topics which are sparingly discussed in the Introduction to God. The only common ground between these books in this case is the Covenant.
By contrast, the Introduction to God contains but a subset of the information presented in the second and fourth volumes of Yada Yah – one of which focuses on the Seven Invitations Yahowah has provided for us to meet with Him while the other details God’s prophetic portrait of exactly how He has gone about enabling His plan of salvation. In this way the Invitations and Salvation Volumes of Yada Yah became the more abbreviated Invitation and Way Volumes of An Introduction to God.
In this vein, the Good News Volume of Yada Yah details how the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha fulfilled the first four Mow’ed Miqra’ey, describing how He has become the literal embodiment of the Towrah in the process. This backward-looking perspective isn’t part of An Introduction to God because what occurred is much more accurately predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures than it is chronicled in the Greek eyewitness accounts. Also, those who focus on Yahowsha’ seldom find Yahowah. And coming to know and embrace Yahowah is the only reason Yahowsha’ exists.
Also unique to Yada Yah, less than one percent of the Going Astray Volume is replicated in An Introduction to God. It features a comparison between Howsha’ / Hosea’s Israel and today’s troubled world. And in it we discover something very few people have considered: the overwhelming preponderance of human souls simply cease to exist and do not go to either heaven or hell.
The most significant omission in An Introduction to God is that it lacks a focused and comprehensive review of what constitutes Babel, known as Babylon. While you will find ample evidence that God hates religion, and that “babel – corruption” is the method behind Satan’s madness, there is far more to learn about the reasons why Yahowah asks us to walk away from human religious schemes than is presented there. So while several hundred anti-religious and anti-political statements are scrutinized in An Introduction to God, I have yet to comprehensively demonstrate that Babylon is universally symbolic of the means Satan has used to beguile humankind. But at least that effort has a genesis in the God Damn Religion Volume of Yada Yah. Over time, it will be further developed therein.
That means that Yada Yah is still a work in process. The most riveting volume has yet to be written. Someday I hope to present most everything which can be known about the Last Days on earth. Witnessing the fulfillment of Yahowah’s prophetic testimony before our very eyes is riveting, reassuring, and motivating.
When that mission is complete, my goal will be to provide you with a rendering of Yahowsha’s Words Only as they were memorialized in the books attributed to Mattanyah and Yahowchanan – the only eyewitness whose testimony can be trusted. And even then, we will have just begun. There is always more to learn.
So now you know: in Yada Yah we will begin where God began, by examining what occurred during the formation of our world. By carefully observing God’s Towrah testimony we will come to better appreciate the prophetic, spiritual, and scientific implications associated with the creation of the universe and life within it. And by so doing, we will prove that there are no material disparities between science and Scripture. From there we will consider life in the Garden of Eden, even locate the Garden geographically. Here our focus will be on the prophetic implications of life with God and how we will one day very soon return to where we began. Also as it relates to the Protective Enclosure of Great Joy, we will consider why Satan was allowed into the Garden, and then consider how he corrupted Yahowah’s testimony once inside, because once you come to understand what occurred then and there, you will appreciate how most every popular religion has gone astray. Moving on, we will turn our attention to the flood, also pondering its implications from a prophetic, spiritual, and scientific perspective. This will then lead us to the heart of the Towrah – to Abram who became Abraham – and to the formation of the Covenant.
In the third book of Yahowah’s “Towrah – Instructions,” fittingly named “Qara’ – Invitations to be Called-Out and Meet with God,” Yah presents His Mow’ed Miqra’ey, or “Scheduled Appointments to Meet” with Him. An anathema and enigma to the faithful adherents of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Secular Humanism, these seven “mow’ed – scheduled appointments” with Yahowah, serve as the one and only, the narrow, unpopular, and restrictive, way to be “miqra’ – invited to become called-out and encounter” God. It is this path which the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ (our Redeemer’s correct title and name, meaning “Implement Doing the Word of Yahowah” and “Yahowah Saves” (corrupted by religious clerics to “Christ Jesus”)) followed. It is the way we must come to understand, to trust and rely upon, if we choose to participate in the “beryth – covenant relationship” with our Heavenly Father. There is no other path to Heaven, no other means to salvation.
And so we will devote an entire volume of Yada Yah to Yahowah’s “Mow’ed Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.” By carefully observing them, we will become privy to God’s most sweeping prophecies relative to our salvation. Specifically, we will analyze what really happened during the three most important days in human history—Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits in 33 CE. We will discuss who the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ really is (the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah set apart from Him to do the work required to save us), and who He is not (the Lord Jesus Christ). We will contemplate what He did (by observing, fulfilling, and enabling the Torah’s promises), and what He did not do (die on a cross to save us). We will detail every material aspect of the seven-step path Yahowah provided to enable us to live forever in His home as part of His family.
As a surprise to many, the means to meet with God and to be saved by Him, are presented in the Towrah – and nowhere else. So that is why in the second volume of Yada Yah, after considering the terms and conditions of the Covenant, we will contemplate every conceivable nuance of Yahowah’s seven Invitations. You will learn how to observe His Festival Feasts, and in so doing come to understand God’s plan of salvation.
The book of Hosea (actually Howsha’, meaning “Salvation”) is pivotal in the lives of God’s chosen people. So we will examine it from beginning to end. In the process we will learn the consequence of rejecting the Towrah and its Covenant. And we will also find God’s promise to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el.
The means to reconciliation is the focus of the Salvation Volume of Yada Yah. But here, rather than examining the work and words of the Ma’aseyah from the perspective of the Greek historical texts, we will instead come to understand what He did and said by reading Yahowah’s prophetic, albeit eyewitness, accounts of what occurred in Yaruwshalaim in Year 4000 Yah (33 CE). As a result, you will experience the method and means behind the most extraordinary offer ever made. It will be as if you were there, and better, because unlike the actual eyewitnesses you will have a copy of Yahowah’s plan, and thereby know exactly what happened and why it had to occur that way. And as a result, you will discover that God did not die, there was no cross, there was no resurrection (at least not bodily), and that what occurred on the most important of the three days is completely unknown to Christians. The actual story is far more magnificent.
That is not to say that we won’t analyze the Greek text, but only that the Christian New Testament is not inspired, and thus is not nearly as enlightening or insightful. For the most part, it isn’t even accurate. And yet by devoting the fifth volume of Yada Yah to the Good News associated with Yahowah honoring His Towrah promises, we will find a wealth of reassuring affirmations. The very testimony Christians find confusing will make complete sense. For example, have you ever wondered why Yahowsha’ said that His upcoming sacrifice could be equated to Yownah’s (meaning Yah’s Dove/Spirit, but corrupted to Jonah’s) ordeal over the course of three full days and three full nights when the eyewitnesses seem to speak of events which began on Friday afternoon and conclude before sunrise on Sunday? And have you ever wondered why Yahowsha’ asked, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” How does God die? If it was Yahowsha’s body which rose from the dead, why didn’t anyone recognize Him? Or more troubling still, since Christianity is predicated upon its “New Testament” replacing the “Old Testament,” why did Yahowsha’ say that the Towrah would never be annulled? These are the very questions God, Himself, answers.
But that is not to say that Christians will find God’s answers acceptable. They will reject them outright, preferring Paul’s testimony instead. And that is why the sixth volume of Yada Yah is called God Damn Religion. In it, we will consider the adversarial role of Babylon, and more specifically babel, from the beginning of recorded history to the final prophetic comment issued by God. And as a shock to the souls of Christians, especially Roman Catholics, they represent Babylon in today’s world. Of the “Church,” Yahowsha’ says in His prophetic Revelation letters that they are the seat of Satan, married to Satan, and are dead as a result. God will even tell us that He does not hear the prayers of those who do not observe His Towrah.
Should you be able to endure this level of detail, should you be willing to invest the time required to examine all the connections and associations God has made, contemplating the symbols and metaphors which permeate His every thought, you will come to “yada’ – know” Yahowah. Should you be able to open your mind, to alter your perspective, and change your thinking, you will come to know God as He revealed Himself. What’s more, you will be properly prepared to capitalize upon Yahowah’s Covenant Relationship, including the plan of salvation which makes it possible.
This progression of things, of coming to know Yahowah first, capitalizing upon His Covenant Relationship second, and then relying upon His plan of salvation, is one of many things Christians get wrong. They never come to know God as He revealed Himself in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Their religion focuses instead on a diminished subset of God, and on what one has to believe to be saved.
Long after God introduces Himself, in the first book of the Torah, “Bare’syth – In the Beginning,” He explains the nature of the “beryth – family-oriented covenant relationship” He wants to develop with us. And as part of those “Towrah – Instructions,” Yahowah describes what is required of us to participate in this relationship. And that is why most of the Introduction to God is devoted to the Towrah and its Covenant. It is why I implore you to read it if you have not already done so. Understanding the process of Creation is fascinating, as is coming to know the what, when, where, and why of the Garden of Eden and the Flood. But this all pales in comparison to understanding the Yah’s Towrah Teaching, especially as it pertains to the Covenant.
As a direct result of reading the Introduction to God, you will discover the surprising prerequisite, and the four requirements associated with this relationship, in addition to an amazing array of benefits. Coming to understand and embrace these things is so vital to the health and survival of your soul I would encourage those of you who have not yet read the Introduction to God to do so at this time.
As we turn the pages of the Towrah we find Yahowah not only explaining His name, but also revealing how He wants us to view Him, and how He wants us to live our lives, scribing His perspective in stone. Therefore in both books we will carefully examine the words Yahowah personally etched on those two tablets. So unless you are already a student of the Towrah, I dare say you will be shocked by how different God’s revelation is from man’s popular renditions of the “Ten Commandments.”
So while these books are complementary, you’d be better served to read An Introduction to God prior to Yada Yah so that you become more familiar with the basics. I want you to more fully appreciate the uncommon and surprising nature of Hebrew grammar. I’d like you to be aware of the textual history surrounding Yahowah’s Word. It is important that you come to realize that there is a proper way to pronounce Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s Name. But most of all, since the Towrah is the introduction to God, nothing is more important than you coming to understand how and why Yahowah wants you to observe His Teaching and Guidance – which is the very definition of Towrah.
God wants you to know that the primary purpose of the Towrah is to direct your attention to the terms and conditions of His Covenant so that you choose to participate. He wants you to know and understand each of the five things you must do if you want to engage in a relationship with Him. Equally relevant, it is Yahowah’s hope that you come to appreciate the reality that salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant, and thus is not His primary objective.
As we embark on this journey we will scrutinize the terminology Yahowah revealed under a microscope, amplifying His every word, so that we learn as much as possible. During our voyage through words and time, the overall portrait God has painted will be brilliantly illuminated.
As I have mentioned, we will focus on prophecy because precise predictions which consistently materialize as they were written serve as the means Yahowah uses to prove that we can trust the words He spoke in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. God not only proves His existence, He proves beyond any reasonable doubt that He inspired His testimony. He did so because He wants us to know Him, to choose to engage in a relationship with Him, and to understand the path He has provided home to the point we are capable of trusting it and relying upon Him.
And yet with all of this before us, finding God in the Torah is so contrary to the teachings of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions, most will simply reject this possibility, choosing instead to cling to the misguided tenets of their faith. For the religious, God’s Word remains insufficient to free them from their beliefs. In fact, the onslaught of irrefutable evidence and unassailable logic which God provides continues to be squandered on those beguiled by man’s religious schemes. Jews disregard Moseh’s (Moses’) eye-opening proclamations in favor of their Talmud’s mind-numbing rabbinical arguments. Christians disregard Yahowsha’s (errantly known as “Jesus’”) “Sermon on the Mount” in favor of Paul’s hopelessly conflicting epistles. And Muslims disregard the fact that Muhammad’s Qur’an is the antithesis of Yahowah’s Torah, even though Allah’s most basic claim is that his book confirms that which it consistently contradicts. Sadly, most of those seeking God will be precluded from finding Him by their faith.
A thorough investigation of the evidence pertaining to mankind’s presence in the universe, and to an accurate understanding of God, leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Scripture Yahowah inspired—His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms—remains the world’s only rational candidate for divine inspiration. Now, I don’t expect you to concur with me, or Him, in this regard, seeing as you are reading the ninth page of a three-thousand-page volume of book, but I have no doubt that, somewhere along this journey, those of you who are intellectually honest will render a similar verdict. Frankly, the case Yahowah makes on behalf of His revelation is so compelling; I’m amazed most people continue to stumble in the dark.
By reading Yada Yah you are going to find that much of what you have been led to believe isn’t true. Religious founders, clerics, and politicians have deceived you to empower and enrich themselves—most knowingly, many purposefully. It isn’t that everything they say is a lie; it’s that so many lies have been blended with the truth that what’s left is more poisonous than beneficial. And there is nothing more beguiling, more destructive, or more deadly than half-truths—deceptions which have been crafted to seem plausible. Well-crafted counterfeits fool even those who are not foolish because while they are actually worthless, they appear genuine.
So that you might clean your mental slate, and be properly prepared for what you are about to read, understand that it is absolutely impossible for the religions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Mormonism to be reliable. Each claim that the “Bible” is the inspired word of God, and each draw their authority from it. And yet all of these religions conceal, change, convolute, contradict, criticize, curtail, and counterfeit the very testimony they claim was inspired. Therefore, if Yahowah’s testimony is true, they are false based solely upon their variations from God’s revelation. But if Yahowah’s testimony is untrustworthy, then they are unreliable as well, because these religions claim to represent what would then be an unreliable deity—a reality which undermines their authority and credibility. It is thus impossible to be an informed and rational Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or religious Jew. For this reason, it is foolish to trust these human religious schemes—no matter how they make you feel or how popular they have become.
If what Yahowah says is true, there is only one God, He has but one name, and there is only one path to Him. If what Yahowah says is true, nothing is more important than knowing what He revealed. Therefore, accurately presenting God’s Towrah testimony is the primary purpose of Yada Yah.
The verdict you will ultimately be able to render on what is true and what is not, on what leads to life or to death, will soon be based upon considerably more accurate information than has been made available to you previously. Together, we are going to scrutinize the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of Yahowah’s Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms and consider the earliest Greek witnesses of Yahowsha’s (once again, “Jesus’” actual name meaning “Yahowah Saves”) testimony. I will translate and amplify God’s revelations for you using the best scholastic tools. (More on this in a moment.)
As we journey down this road, we will discover what God wants us to know about His nature, our purpose, and His plans, even His timeline. And in the process of closely examining His revelation, we will uncover something profound, perhaps even surprising: Yahowah wants us to enjoy an engaged yet relaxed, personal, conversational, upright, and familial relationship with Him. He wants to adopt us. God doesn’t want us to fear Him, to bow down to Him, or even to worship Him. He despises religions—all of them. He adores relationships and will sacrifice everything (save His integrity) to achieve them.
Now for a word of warning: Yada Yah, like An Introduction to God, is a book comprised of long books. It is more detailed, better documented, and more insightful, than most anything you have ever read. God is much smarter than we are, and His writing style is brilliant. Every detail is included for a reason, and most every passage communicates on several levels simultaneously. God’s every word is a story in itself. Collectively they serve to explain the who, what, where, when, and how of the relationship our Heavenly Father seeks to develop with each of us. Exacerbating this intellectual challenge, most Yahowah has to say is so contrary to many of the things you have been taught, most will have to spend as much time unlearning as they do learning, especially those who want to know God as He revealed Himself to us.
To appreciate how everything relates to the ongoing story of our purpose and of our redemption, to understand how the provision Yahowah has delineated leads to the establishment of an eternal family, will require considerable time and an open mind. Your willingness in this regard could well determine the fate of your soul, in addition to those you love. To form a relationship with God, to be saved by Him, you will first have to change your perspective, your attitude, and your thinking. And that my friends will be difficult, if not impossible, for those of you who consider yourselves religious.
For most, especially Christians, faith has become synonymous with religion, and belief is all that matters. And yet with God, these things are irrelevant, even counterproductive, because faith is nothing more than belief in the unknown. And belief is simply a religious substitute for evidence.
In opposition to faith and belief, Yahowah wants to be known, to be understood, to be trusted, and to be relied upon. This is the reason He encourages us to closely and carefully observe His Torah. It is why He revealed it and filled it with prophetic proclamations.
While Yada Yah is among the best-researched and most-accurate presentations of Yahowah’s Word, and while the many unique insights contained within it are especially relevant and revealing, it is but a pale reflection of God’s testimony. So, since my best efforts to till the depths of God’s Word seldom reach much below the surface, at the very least, I owe it to you and to God, to share as much of His revelation as I am capable of understanding. And while that is admittedly a pittance compared to what is actually there, it is the least I can do.
Yet in spite of my deficiencies, the richness of Yahowah’s Word is more than sufficient for you to know God, to appreciate the benefits of His Covenant, and to rely upon His plan of salvation. That is, so long as you are willing to open your mind, so long as you are willing to walk away from religious and political affiliations, and so long as you are willing to invest the time.
The evidence affirms that Yahowah’s Word was as inerrant as words allow when it was revealed in Ancient Hebrew to Moseh and to the Children of Yisra’el. But God makes no claim that your human translation is inerrant because He knows that it is impossible. While language is mankind’s most important tool, it is an imprecise one—especially apart from Hebrew, the language God, Himself, authored. Further, no language translates perfectly from one dialect to another. And while these are issues with which we will grapple, the biggest problem with translations is that there is often very little correlation between the text of the oldest manuscripts and what is printed on the pages of the most popular “Bibles.” As a rough rule of thumb, at least with regard to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, I have found that the oldest manuscripts (those found in Qumran dating from the first, second, and third centuries BCE and first century CE) differ from the more recent ones that serve as the basis of our translations (the oldest Masoretic Text dates to the 11th century CE) by one word in five—especially considering the variances in vocalizations. In places where they agree, another one word in five is errantly conveyed, and yet another one in five is so inadequately presented the full meaning is lost. In other words, only fifty percent of what you read is reliable.
By way of example, you may be surprised to learn that God told us His name—Yahowah—exactly 7,000 times in His Covenant Scriptures. That is an average of seven times per page when His message is formatted in a standard fashion. But on each occurrence, religious men elected to copyedit the Author, replacing His name with a title of their own choosing—one associated with Lord/Ba’al, better known as Satan.
But that’s comparatively good news. The oldest extant manuscripts from Yahowsha’s Disciples, the Greek codices dating to the first- through third-century CE, differ so substantially from one another, and so overwhelmingly from the more complete fourth-century manuscripts like the codex Sinaiticus, that there is no hope of accurately reconstructing the preponderance of what is errantly known as the “Christian New Testament.” Philip Comfort, the world’s leading authority on this subject, wrote the following indictment in his “Introduction” to the Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts: “This book provides transcriptions of sixty-nine of the earliest New Testament manuscripts. All of the manuscripts are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100 – 300). We chose A.D. 300 as our terminus da quem because New Testament manuscript production changed radically after the persecution under Diocletian (A.D. 303 – 305) and especially after Constantine declared Christianity to be a legal religion in the empire.”
Beyond this unpopular reality, we must also deal with Paul’s credibility, and the veracity of his letters, in our quest to understand what is and is not trustworthy. (Again, should you not concur with my assessment of Paul, feel free to jump ahead in time and consider the recently completed first volume of Questioning Paul, called The Great Galatians Debate. In it, Paul’s letters are compared to God’s Word, so that you will be equipped to make an informed decision.)
With regard to the Greek texts known as “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, First and Second John and Peter, James, and Revelation, virtually all “bible” translations either corrupt or change most names and titles, including all of the most important ones. And yet, none of the seven names or titles attributed to Divinity (errantly rendered as: Lord, Jesus, Christ, God, Father, Spirit, or Son) were written out on any page of any of the pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts. Placeholders were uniformly used to tell us where to insert: Yahowah (God’s one and only name), Yahowsha’ (meaning Yah Saves), Ma’aseyah (which means “Implement Doing Yah’s Work”), and Set-Apart Spirit (from Ruwach Qodesh). There are two reasons that these Divine Placeholders were universally presented on every codex written by Yahowsha’s Disciples dating to the first- through third-century. Names like Yahowah and Yahowsha’ cannot be transliterated using the Greek alphabet. And God’s titles are meaningful in the original language—where the words themselves convey important instructions.
Correctly designating the proper names and titles God chose shouldn’t have been difficult since He and His human messengers told us where to look for answers: the Torah, Prophets and Psalms. But sadly, religious men and women have conspired to hide the evidence contained therein. Further exacerbating this problem, most Christians have been misled by Paul into believing that their religion serves as the replacement for the Torah’s teachings, not recognizing that there is only one Covenant.
Every name and title Yahowah chose to reveal conveys essential truths, and yet these messages are routinely ignored. “Jesus” is actually Yahowsha’. In Hebrew it means “Yah Saves.” The name “Jesus” was conceived by men. It is recent in its origin, erroneous, and meaningless etymologically. Yahowsha’ tells us that Yahowah manifest Himself in the form of a man, and that in this corporeal fashion, He Himself saved us. Yahowsha’ defines the Ma’aseyah’s identity and describes His mission. Whereas “Jesus” was named after “Gesus,” sometimes transliterated “Hesus,” the savior of the Druid religion where the “Horned One” is god. (For those seeking a more in-depth analysis of Yahowsha’s name, as well as the etymology of man’s errant moniker for Him, these subjects are not only covered in future Yada Yah chapters, these topic are discussed in depth in the Name Volume of An Introduction to God.)
“Jew” is actually Yahuwdy, and means “related to Yah.” “Israel” is really Yisra’el, which means “individuals who engage and endure with God.” “Isaiah,” the most prolific of the prophets, is Yasha’yah; which can be translated: “Salvation is from Yah.” “John” both the Apostle and the Immerser, is Yahowchanan; which tells us that “Yah is Merciful.” And on and on it goes, with a lost lesson encapsulated in every name. In fact, as we shall discover, there are 260 names and titles like Ma’aseyah and Yahowsha’, which are based on Yahowah’s name and found throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Collectively these affirm aspects of God’s character and purpose no less than ten thousand times.
The same is true with many of the words Yahowah selected. Men have changed them. “Holy” is actually from qodesh, meaning “set apart and cleansing.” It is one of Scripture’s most oft repeated and revealing concepts—one applied to the Ma’aseyah, to the Spirit, to the Sabbath, to the Temple, to the Ark of the Covenant, to the Seven Called-Out Assembly Meetings which facilitate our salvation, and of course, to those who are saved.
In this vein, “Church” is a corruption of ekklesia, meaning “called-out assembly.” It is the Greek equivalent of miqra’, the title Yahowah chose to describe His seven annual appointments with humankind. And therein lies an essential truth.
“Cross,” is a corruption of stauros, meaning “upright pole.” Its root is histemi, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew quwm, meaning “to stand up so as to enable others to stand, establishing them and raising them up.” And interestingly, stauros was never written out in the text of any pre-Constantine Greek manuscript. It is represented by a Divine Placeholder, signifying that the “Upright One” and the “Upright Pillar” which serve as the “Doorway to Heaven” represent God. This now hidden truth serves as the foundation of the Word and the Way.
“Angel” is derived from transliterating aggelos, meaning “messenger,” rather than translating the Greek term. “Gospel,” however, is without basis. The revealed term is euangelion, a compound of eu, meaning “healing and beneficial” and aggelos, “message and messenger.”
The concept of an “Old” and a “New Testament” was derived from Marcion, an anti-Semitic Christian who shaped and promoted the new religion Paul had conceived. According to Yahowah, there is but one “Covenant,” one which He will “renew” upon His return. Moreover, the term “covenant,” is from beryth, which speaks of “a family-oriented relationship.” I say that because beryth is based upon beyth, meaning “family and home,” further defining the kind of relationship Yahowah is interested in establishing.
The simple truth is: God did not replace Judaism with Christianity, Jews with Gentiles, nor Israel with the Church. He has consistently described and facilitated the relationship He originally established with Abraham and developed through Moseh.
Yada Yah does not claim that every obfuscation of truth was purposeful, yet each publisher’s reluctance to correct their “bibles” serves as an indictment against them. Moreover, at times the comparison between the oldest manuscripts and today’s revisions will leave us with no alternative but to assume that the Christian copyedits were purposeful. And since these deceptions have been willfully and knowingly advanced by pastors and priests, clerics are complicit in the corruption—coconspirators if you will. Hopefully, this realization will lead you to the place Yahowah wants you to be—trusting Him and not men.
At their best, translations are a compromise between attempts at word-for-word literalism and loose thought-for-thought interpolations. Either way, much of the intended message is lost or misrepresented for the sake of readability, brevity, or familiarity. So we will dig for truth the hard way. We’re going to work for it. The key words in most passages will be amplified from the original languages. Amplification is a process whereby many words are used to properly convey the full meaning and nuances of the original term as it was known and used in its time, context, and culture. If a Hebrew word requires a paragraph to adequately communicate its meaning, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings. In other words, we are going to scratch well below the surface. This will require you to read most passages several times to fully appreciate what Yahowah is saying.
When it comes to translations, my goal is to accurately communicate the totality of the message Yahowah intended. But that does not necessarily make the translations literal for the following reasons. First, like most ancient languages, there was no capitalization or punctuation in Ancient Hebrew. Therefore, the moment we apply English grammar rules we begin making accommodations and assumptions.
Second, conjunctions (and, but, so, yet, nor, or, for) in Hebrew are usually attached to a noun or verb, as opposed to being rendered independently. This is also the case with articles (a, an, the), prepositions (in, by, with, of, on, to, from) and pronouns (I, me, we, us, you, she, he, they, them). But in English, we will have to separate all of these into individual figures of speech.
In this regard, you’ll notice that the transliterated sound of each Hebrew word set within the parenthetical was written without reference to conjunctions, articles, prepositions, or pronouns. Had I not done this, you would not have been able to verify the meaning of the Hebrew words for yourself. While you can look up qara’ or dabar in any Hebrew lexicon, you will not find the prefixed and suffixed forms, such as wyqara’ or wydabar.
The reason that I’ve taken the time to convey the Hebrew basis of each sentence is because verification is an essential component of discovery. Questioning leads to understanding. So by presenting the Hebrew for your consideration your search for answers is facilitated. (On this topic, you will find that I routinely demonstrate the source of the vowel sounds in words composed by using the Hebrew letters Aleph (א) and Aiyn (ע) by way of apostrophes.)
This brings us to a third challenge: completeness. Let’s consider qara’, for example. It forms the basis of Miqra’ (the plural being Miqra’ey), and is most often translated “called out,” but it also means “to summon, to invite, to recite, and to read.” Even more than this, qara’ speaks of “being welcomed into someone’s company and meeting with them.” Therefore, depending upon the context, qara’ could be rendered many different ways, most of which might apply. And in an amplified translation I will consistently err on the side of too much information rather than too little.
The fourth challenge to providing an accurate and complete translation is symbolism. For example, ‘ohel is the Hebrew word for “tent.” But if this is all you read, you would miss the fact that ‘ohel is also a “covering, a home, a shelter, and a protected place suited for living.” And these symbolic implications are just the beginning. ‘Ohel is based upon, and in the text is written identically to, ‘ahal, which means “to shine brightly, clearly reflecting light.”
So, like so many Hebrew concepts, there are both physical and spiritual dimensions associated with the word. Therefore, rather than depicting a nondescript “tent,” the ‘ohel / ‘ahal often represent a “protective enclosure of radiant light,” a “shining shelter,” a “covering which is conducive to life,” and a “home” which is associated with Yahowah Himself by way of His Covenant. As such, this “radiant shelter” is symbolic of the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light which makes us appear perfect in God’s eyes, enabling us to enter His presence and camp out with Him on the Miqra’ of Sukah – Shelters.
This leads us to the fifth challenge, where we are compelled to consider every reasonable vocalization of each word. The diacritic markings, or vowel points in the Masoretic Text, are the product of Rabbinical interpretation. This was highlighted by our discussion of ‘ohel versus ‘ahal, where the meanings were different, albeit complementary. In that vocalization influences most every word in the text, it is important that you realize that the Rabbinical choices were often reasonable, but at times arbitrary, and sometimes purposefully misleading.
While we are on the subject of vocalization, there is but one non-negotiable rule in a field of approximations where variant means to phonetically convey foreign words are all considered valid. Names and titles must always be transliterated (replicating the sound in the new alphabet) while words must always be translated (conveying the meaning in the new language). The pronunciation of names of the Pharaoh Ramses, Genghis Khan, Der Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, and Islamic Jihadist Osama bin Laden do not change from one language to another. Similarly, the name and title Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ should never be altered, much less substituted for something of man’s choosing.
Sixth, word order in Hebrew is less significant than it is in English, and is often reversed. Rather than write “Yahowah’s Torah,” or “Set-Apart Spirit,” the text reads “towrah yahowah” and “ruwach qodesh.” Further, verbs don’t always sit in the middle of the action, as is required in English, between subject and object. So in the transition from Hebrew to English, one cannot slavishly follow the word order of the original language.
Our seventh challenge to a proper translation is a surprise to most everyone. Ancient and Paleo-Hebrew exist as an aspectual language, meaning that the same form of a verb can be translated as past, present, or future. Hebrew tenses are inclusive with regard to time. So while we can often deduce the proper tense based upon the context of a discussion, the realization that the message itself was not limited to a certain period of time, makes everything God revealed applicable for everyone throughout time. Yahowah’s Word, like Yahowah Himself, is always true, regardless of time or place.
The eighth challenge to providing a complete and accurate translation lies in determining when enough is enough. The more completely each word is defined, the more nuances and shadings which are conveyed, the more difficult each sentence becomes to read and comprehend. After a while, it all becomes information overload. So, when the number of relevant insights exceeds our ability to process them within the context of a sentence, and still retain the flow and substance of each discussion, we will color Yah’s linguistic palette in subsequent paragraphs. Further, recognizing the difficulty of processing such an enormous amount of new information, I will endeavor to introduce Scriptural passages in such a way that you are grounded within the relevant context.
In this regard, while the floodgates of understanding are opened by the unique nature of Hebrew stems, conjugations, and moods, there is no succinct way to communicate their contribution. A stem can necessitate a literal interpretation or might demonstrate a causal relationship. A conjunction can be used to reveal the continuous and unfolding nature of something, or just the opposite, that something has been completely accomplished. And the moods all convey volition, which is to say that they express a desire which is subject to choice. So while these ideas are all germane to our relationship with God, they cannot be expressed in English as fluently as they are conveyed in Hebrew. But to ignore them, as most every English bible translation does, is to shortchange the message.
The ninth consideration is also surprising. Many of the best lexicons were published by the very institutions which have brought us such horribly errant translations. And while lexicons, interlinears, and dictionaries bearing titles such as the New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries and The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament often provide the best window into the etymology of the Hebrew words themselves, if their definitions are correct, their translations are not.
Along these lines, a dependence on one, or even two lexicons, dictionaries, or interlinears will produce unreliable results, as they are individually filled with errors. Strong’s Lexicon is a valuable tool, especially in helping to identify word roots, but yet it exists in large part to justify the King James. Many hundreds of their definitions were religiously inspired, and are not the result of scholastic etymology. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon uses Arabic to define Hebrew terms, not recognizing that written Hebrew existed 2,500 years before the first Arabic word was penned. And the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament is filled with theological opinions, most of which are invalid. Moreover, every Hebrew lexicon and interlinear is synced with the Masoretic Text and their vocalizations, which are wrong nearly twenty percent of the time.
The tenth challenge is unlike the others. An accurate translation of Yahowah’s testimony is so radically different from what is found in popular English Bibles (all of which profess to be “the word of God”), the Introduction to God and Yada Yah translations will be hard for many people to accept. How is it, some will ask, that an individual without professed qualifications could be right, and every other translation be wrong?
The answer is typically: motivation. The more English Bibles differ from what Christians have become comfortable hearing, the harder they are to sell. So, rather than losing money publishing new translations of the oldest manuscripts, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NLT provide modest revisions of their own previous translations which were simply stylistic interpretations of the King James Version, which was a revision five times over of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was itself an amalgamation of Old Latin texts based upon the Greek Septuagint, a highly unreliable translation of the original Hebrew text. And with each subsequent translation, from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, the message became confused and corrupted, and ever the more distanced from the original. Then, from this point forward, all subsequent translations became nothing more than financially-inspired revisions. Specifically, the King James Version was a modest modification of the Bishop Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which amended the Cloverdale Bible, which was a revision of John Wycliffe’s translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was a blend of Old Latin texts, which were translations of the Greek Septuagint, which was a translation of the Hebrew text.
The bottom line in marketing, and especially publishing religious texts, is familiarity sells. As a result, every popular modern Bible translation is similar to every other popular Bible translation, because had they not been similar, they would not have become popular. So their similarity shouldn’t be surprising. Bible translations are all style over substance. And their authors have no compunction against changing God’s testimony to suit their faith.
Many have sought to dismiss the translations found in Yada Yah with an uninformed: “I can’t believe God would allow His Bible to be corrupted.” They are saying, in essence, that the translation they prefer is perfect. And yet to hold this view, one enormously popular throughout Christendom, a person has to ignore an ocean of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Moreover, God, Himself, told us that men would pervert His testimony. He even revealed the consequence of such corruptions. But, even if you choose not to believe Him, as is the case for most Christians, what about the evidence?
Well, for this religious myth to be plausible, there could be no divergent parchments among the 215 Scriptural manuscripts found in the cliffs above Qumran, collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from 250 BCE to 68 CE). And yet the small differences we find among them are magnified exponentially by the time these texts reemerge under the auspices of the Masoretic Text. Septuagint copies (dating from the 2nd-century BCE to the 5th-century CE) differ so wildly that in the 3rd-century CE, Origen, one of the few early theologians to study Hebrew, was compelled to dedicate most of his life to resolving the conflicts between them, creating his Hexapla (which unfortunately has been lost to time). If God had intervened to keep His Scriptures from being corrupted, both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (dating to the 11th-century CE) would have mirrored the Dead Sea Scrolls, and yet this is not what the evidence reveals. These texts differ by as much as twenty percent.
Turning to the Greek texts, the situation only gets worse—much worse—which is catastrophic to the Christian myth of “Godly protection” and “inerrancy.” The sixty-nine pre-Constantine codices which have now been unearthed differ substantially among themselves. This variance then becomes irresolvable as these first- through third-century textual witnesses are compared to those scribed in the wake of Catholicism’s emergence in fourth-century with their remarkably divergent Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And yet the biggest discrepancy of all exists between these manuscripts and the Textus Receptus—which was acclaimed as being “without error” by the religious community in the 16th-century. However, the known disagreements between it and the older codices have now been shown to exceed 300,000 in an 182,000-word text. Further, for the “always accurate” myth to be valid, the Textus Receptus would have had to have been word for word identical to the more scholarly and modern textual blend known as the Nestle Aland, but they differ almost as much as they agree. And these inconsistencies still don’t take into consideration a myriad of religious copyedits or countless invalid translation choices.
So for you Christians who are still murmuring: “I can’t believe God would allow anyone to corrupt His message,” for your faith to be grounded in something remotely credible, at some point you will have to deal with the fact that the Masoretic differs significantly from the text found in the one-thousand-two-hundred-year-older Dead Sea Scrolls. You will have to account for the fact that the 16th-century Textus Receptus and the 20th-century Nestle Aland differ materially, and both are overwhelmingly divergent from the now extant first- through third-century manuscripts of the text they purport to present. So, if your current “Bible” is accurate by happenstance of fate, it means that every prior witness to the text was inaccurate. As a result, the question now becomes: was the Christian God unable or unwilling to protect His message from human corruption, because the notion that “God would not allow anyone to corrupt His message” requires complete ignorance of the textual evidence to the contrary. It requires faith in that which is not true, completely undermining the value of religious belief.
Then we must face the issue of Roman Catholicism, and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which served as the only “bible” for most of the world for over one thousand years. As a blend of divergent Old Latin manuscripts which were free translations of wildly divergent copies of the Septuagint, which were themselves imprecise translations of the Hebrew text, the Vulgate is predictably in substantial conflict with the five-centuries-older Qumran parchments. But yet inexplicitly, it is eerily similar to today’s most popular English translations, which casts a dark shadow on their validity. Equally damaging, for over one thousand years, no one outside of Roman Catholic clerics could read the official Latin text, effectively preventing any layperson from knowing God’s Word, even if it had been preserved without corruption. The Roman Catholic Church, by way of their marriage of cleric and king, made it a crime punishable by death to own a translation of the Vulgate. And to make matters worse, in the rare case that someone would attempt a translation into a language which could be read and understood, as was the case with John Wycliffe in 1384, the perpetrator and their product were labeled heretical and burned.
Simply stated: none of these variations or eventualities would have been possible if God had intervened and refused to allow His word to be corrupted by man. So since He obviously allowed it, isn’t it incumbent upon us to not only come to understand why He did so, but also to strive to discover what He actually revealed?
Considering, therefore, the complexity of these many challenges, none of which are properly conveyed in other translations, we will not rely upon the Latin Vulgate, KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, NLT, or any other popular Scriptural rendition. All English translations vary from poor to horrible. There isn’t any worth recommending. Even those with the good sense to write God’s names back into the text, do very little to correct the message Yahowah is revealing.
In that the biggest obstacle to knowing the truth about God is the inaccuracy of today’s Bible translations, I’d like to linger here a bit longer, even at the risk of being repetitive. The King James Bible is nothing more than a politically-inspired revision five times over of that text. The Geneva Bible, which had become popular at the time, used marginal notes to highlight passages which demonstrated that God had not anointed any king with the right to rule. Since this was contrary to the claims made by all kings, including King Iames (as he was known at the time), it became politically expedient to pen a new bible, whereby the marginal notes were removed, the translations tweaked to please the king, and Paul’s letter to the Romans was recast in the thirteenth-chapter to reclaim the Divine Sanction. So Iames hired the era’s most acclaimed secular humanist, Rosicrucian, and occultist, Sir Francis Bacon, to create a more accommodating rendition of Catholicism’s Vulgate.
Until quite recently, the Textus Receptus was touted as the foundation of all English translations of the Greek text which is errantly known as “the Christian New Testament.” And yet it was little more than an intellectual fraud and financial hoax. In October of 1515 CE, a Dutch secular humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, and Johann Froben, a publisher of low repute, took five months to mark up, adding and taking away from, a flawed 12th-century Medieval Greek manuscript, and they set type directly from those arbitrary scribbles. Then in places where their manuscript was void, they filled in the blanks by translating portions of the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. Worse, when Roman Catholic clerics protested that some of their pet passages weren’t included, to quiet their critics, Erasmus and Froben added them without any legitimate basis. Such an example is the story of “Jesus and the adulterous woman” recounted in John (actually Yahowchanan, meaning Yahowah is Merciful) 8:1-11, whereby the “one without sin” was told “to cast the first stone.” This, the most famous and often quoted “New Testament” abstract is false. It did not occur. The alleged discussion, which if true, would have Yahowsha’ disavowing the Torah. But it is not found in any manuscript prior to the 8th century CE. Similarly, you will not find the ending of Mark, chapter 16 verses 9-20, in any pre-Constantine manuscript, nor even in the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.
But in the absence of a viable competitor, Erasmus’s and Froben’s scholastic and financial fraud was said to be “a text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted.” This myth was thus rendered: “the Textus Receptus.” And while the evidence is overwhelming that the King James Bible, which was first printed in 1609, was actually a revision of prior English translations of the Latin Vulgate, its authors attributed their text to this very same and highly flawed Textus Receptus. The KJV then became so popular; no English translation has yet been offered which dares to correct its familiar phrasing, especially of the most memorable passages.
It wasn’t until 1707 that the Textus Receptus was challenged—effectively undermining the basis of the Reformation and Protestantism. John Mill, a fellow of Queens College in Oxford, invested 30 years comparing the Textus Receptus to some one hundred much older Greek manuscripts. In so doing, he documented 30,000 variations between them. And even this was just a rash on a donkey’s posterior. Known variations between the oldest manuscripts of the Greek text, and those which publishers now claim serve as the basis for their translations, may actually exceed 300,000.
Even though some improvements were made in the later Westcott and Hort (1881) and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (1898 (also known as Novum Testamentum Graece)), both texts, while differing substantially from the Textus Receptus, remain more in sync with it than with the earliest extant (and recently discovered and published) Greek manuscripts from the first- through third-centuries CE. So while Christian pastors hold up their favorite English translation of their “Bible” and proclaim that it is “the inerrant word of God,” factually, the book they are touting isn’t even remotely consistent with the earliest witnesses.
Some of these same issues exist with the Hebrew text—albeit to a lesser degree. All English Bible translations claim to be based upon the Masoretic, an 11th century vocalization of Babylonian Hebrew (itself a pseudo-translation of Ancient and Paleo Hebrew) composed by politically- and religiously-minded, and very misguided, rabbis. Their copyedits of Yahowah’s Word are now legend, revealed courtesy of the 3rd-century BCE through 1st-century CE, Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, in the Great Isaiah Scroll in which the entire text has been preserved, we find that the oldest witness from Qumran and the Masoretic Text differ by 14% with regard to the textual root of the words alone. To this we must add innumerable errant vocalizations which significantly alter the meanings of the words Yahowah selected.
So while God’s words in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and Yahowsha’s words properly translated and accurately retained in the eyewitness accounts, were inspired, and while much of what they revealed has been preserved in old manuscripts and thus can be known, translations are strictly human affairs. As such, I do not claim that my Scriptural presentations are perfect, only that they are as accurate and complete as I can render them using the oldest manuscripts and best research tools. For this purpose I have relied upon:
The Dead Seas Scrolls Bible
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament
A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
The Complete Word Study Guide of the Old Testament
The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Morphology
The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible
Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear
Logos Scholar’s Platinum Edition Software
The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
The Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition
The New American Standard Greek Dictionary
The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
The Complete Word Study Guide of the New Testament
Synonyms of the New Testament
Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament
The New International Greek Testament Commentary
Word Studies in the New Testament
The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, with McReynolds English Interlinear
Marshall’s Parallel New Testament in Greek and English
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
Therefore, in An Introduction to God and Yada Yah you will find a complete translation of each Hebrew and Greek word, all rendered in accordance with the definitions and synonyms provided by the world’s most reputable resources. I most always have a dozen or more scholastic tomes open, surrounding me on revolving Jeffersonian carousels, and another score of research tools electronically linked to the text via Logos interactive software. It’s a lot of information, so recognize that in the quest to be thorough and accurate, fluidity will suffer. Scripture will not roll off the tongue in familiar word patterns. But if you question, verify, and study the words Yahowah revealed, you will come to know the truth—as God revealed it.
And yet, this will not be easy. As I have already mentioned, there is a substantial difference between the definitions rendered in the lexicons which bear the names of popular bible translations, and the translations themselves. So if their word definitions are accurate, their translations are not. And in this way, serious students of God’s Word quickly come to appreciate the Achilles’ heel of their bible. If believers questioned the texts they were reading, if they did their homework, they would reject their bibles, their pastors, their church, and their religion.
That is not to say that we cannot know what God revealed. But it is to say that our quest to understand will not be easy. And that, surprisingly, is exactly as Yahowah wants it to be—at least between now and His Yowm Kippurym return in 2033 – when He will write His Towrah inside of us. He wants all of us to value knowing Him sufficiently to prioritize this endeavor.
Along these lines, when Yahowah introduces a new term, one that seems to defy normal translation, we will study other verses to see how He initially deploys the concept. For example, the singular Hebrew noun zarow’a, is usually translated as “arms,” and yet Scripture suggests it means “sacrificial lamb.” And at other times, we will find that a good translation just isn’t possible. In that case the word will be transliterated in the text and then explained in subsequent paragraphs. Nesamah, whose best analog is “conscience,” is such a term, one we will examine at the end of the “Chay – Life” chapter.
For your benefit, the genitive case (scrubbed of pronouns and conjunctions) of the actual Hebrew words found in Scripture are italicized and set inside parentheses within the text itself. The most generic forms are provided so that you will be able to look them up in Hebrew lexicons. This is also done so that you might gradually become more familiar with God’s most commonly used terms.
In this regard, understanding is based upon evidence and reason. And the best source of information, at least as it relates to the existence of God and the means to salvation, is a complete and accurate translation of God’s testimony—replete with a comprehensive evaluation of the words He selected to communicate to us. That is why this book is dedicated to Yahowah’s predictions and instructions, not mine—or anyone else’s. This is a conversation with God, not with me. All I have attempted to do is provide a handrail, an augmentation, a running commentary, and a contextual framework for considering and connecting His insights so that they are as revealing as possible. Hopefully, this will encourage you to reflect upon the significance of His words.
To maintain a clear distinction between my observations and Yahowah’s, Scripture is printed in a bold font. Yahweh’s words (correctly translated) can be trusted. Mine are only there because I want you to think about His. I do not purport to have all the answers—but fortunately I don’t have to because He does, and He has told us where to find them. Revealing them, and where to find them, is the intent of His testimony and thus of this book.
While my opinions are mostly irrelevant, I think that it’s useful for you to know that I am of the conclusion that the Hebrew Scriptures were without error, so far as language makes that possible, as the inspired writers of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms (everything from Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis through Malak / Messenger / Malachi) put quill to parchment two-thousand-five-hundred to three-thousand-five-hundred years ago. But as time passed, occasional scribal errors, a considerable onslaught of religious editing, and changes in language and customs, conspired to rob us of the message which originally permeated the divine texts. These problems were multiplied when the Hebrew manuscripts were translated into Greek, then Latin, en route to being rendered in English. And this issue was exacerbated by political and religious agendas—all designed to make the flock easier to control and fleece.
In rendering Yahowah’s Word in English as completely and accurately as possible, I have favored the preferred meanings of the Hebrew terms unless a different vocalization of the text or a secondary definition provides a better, more consistent fit considering the context. Etymological roots will be our principle guide as we explore. If a phrase still begs for elucidation, we’ll consider colloquialism, and will always be attuned to metaphors and especially symbolism.
Hebrew provides a rich linguistic palette—especially for subjects related to human nature and relationships, things Yahowah cares deeply about and about which He had a lot to say. And the language is spiritually revealing. It speaks to mind and soul.
Some say that there may be a deeper, mystical meaning to passages, some esoteric code latent in Gematria and Equidistant Letter Sequences. While there may be merit to these claims, no matter what’s buried under the words, their plain meaning, and the mental pictures they provide, is primarily what God intended for us to understand.
Since words comprise the totality of Scripture, and thus prophecy, and since God calls Himself “the Word,” it’s important that we render His correctly. Words are Yahowah’s most important symbols. His Scripture represents Him, His Word defines Him; it explains His purpose and plan. That shouldn’t be surprising. Words are the basis of most everything: communication, thought, consciousness, relationships, and causality. It is even possible that a communication medium lies at the heart of what we consider matter and energy—the very stuff of creation. We think in words. Without language, virtually nothing can be known and nothing happens. There are no meaningful relationships without words. Written language is considered man’s greatest invention and our most important tool. So when it comes to the Word of God, we will examine His thoughts closely.
As mentioned previously, the reason I have chosen to focus on prophetic Scripture is because these passages provide assurance of divine inspiration. Foretelling the future is how God proves that He authored His Scriptures. Only a Spirit who exists beyond the constraints of time can know what will happen in the distant future. When events play out precisely as He said they would, historical reality demonstrates that what He revealed is trustworthy and true. Faith is replaced by logic, probability, and reason. For example, during this study, I have grown from believing God exists to yada’ Yahowah—to knowing Him. Hopefully you will too.
Proving that His Word is reliable, and thus worthy of our consideration, is one of three ways our Creator uses prophecy. He also uses it to reveal His nature, His plan, and His instructions. Most every prediction is designed to “towrah – teach” us something. That is why we will dissect fulfilled prophecies, not only to validate their veracity, but to better understand Yahowah’s message. And then we will examine yet unfulfilled prophecy, not only to understand what lies in our future, but more importantly, so that we may be prepared to help others deal with what’s coming. All along the way, we will analyze the profound lessons attached to God’s prophetic proclamations so that more souls will: Yada Yah, and be inclined to enjoy an honest and open conversation with God.
The third purpose of divine prediction is to let us know how the whole story fits together from Adam to Armageddon, from the first family to the eternal one. Prophecy provides us with the skeleton upon which to flesh out the body of information Yahowah has given us regarding our redemption—past, present, and future. There is virtually nothing of consequence that can be effectively understood without tying prediction to fulfillment, dress rehearsal to final enactment. The Covenant is affirmed by the Ma’aseyah’s fulfillments, just as the Towrah defines Yahowsha’s purpose while explaining His words and deeds. It is all one unified message.
Therefore, our principle textbook in this voyage of discovery will be Yahowah’s Covenant Writings, augmented by the eyewitness accounts of Yahowsha’s words and deeds. Outside sources will only be consulted when they are necessary to appreciate the historical or scientific implications of a passage.
Beginning at the beginning, you will soon discover that Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis One lies at the intersection of prophecy, history, and science. It tells three stories in one, all designed to reveal God’s purpose and plan. Yahweh’s opening salvo provides the framework upon which all significant prophetic events are fulfilled. It is accurate scientifically, right down to the specifics, providing a precise accounting of the order things were manifest over the course of six days from the perspective of the Creator. It even provides us with an overview of mankind’s history—past, present, and future. More important still, each verse is laden with guidance, essential insights for continued and better living.
In this regard, Scripture itself quickly dispels the misconception that the earth is 6,000 years old—a myth that is held by the majority of Christians. As a result, the debate between science and creation should never have existed. The first three chapters of Yada Yah demonstrate that both are correct. The universe is just shy of 15 billion years old and it took God exactly six days to create it.
It should be apparent that Yada Yah is not going to tickle your ears nor shy away from controversy to win friends and influence people. You will find its commentary as blunt as God’s Word.
In fact, if one passage seems to contradict another, we will examine both without reservation. We will trust God to resolve the apparent inconsistency. When Yahowah says something that is contrary to established religious teaching, we will stop what we were doing long enough to evaluate a sufficient quantity of related passages to understand what is actually being revealed. And if what we find undermines the teachings and credibility of religious and political institutions, so be it. I do not belong to any organization, and I am not advocating for any human institution. My only concern is properly reporting what Yahowah has to say.
We are going to give God the credit He deserves. If He is providing multiple insights in a single account, we will examine all of them (at least as many of them as my feeble mind can grasp). When God decides to ascribe teaching to His predictions, as He most often does, we will contemplate His advice. When God broaches a new subject in a prediction, we are going to follow His lead and study related passages to better appreciate His prescriptions.
That leads us to another delightful challenge, one that has caused these volumes to expand in length and complexity. We will not rest until we understand the essential lessons of Scripture. Consider this example: a score of verses say that some souls, upon death, will experience eternal life in the company of God. Half that number say that some souls will end up in She’owl, where they will experience perpetual anguish. Yet hundreds of passages reveal that most souls will simply cease to exist. That is to say, when they die their soul will dissipate to nothingness. How can this be?
Rabbis, priests, and imams all teach that there are only two eternal destinations: heaven or hell. Yet eternal anguish is a completely different result than death and destruction. Therefore, for Scripture to be trustworthy (and for God to be lovable), there must be three options—eternal life with God, eternal separation from Him, and the option to fritter away one’s soul, wastefully squandering it. This is one of many profound insights that you will find in these pages and perhaps nowhere else.
The same is true with the concept of worship. There are a score of verses which seem to suggest that God wants to be worshiped and hundreds that say otherwise—that He wants us on our feet, not on our knees. The truth in this regard is essential to our understanding of the Covenant where we are asked to walk and talk with God—to be upright with Him. This perspective lies at the heart of the debate between Yahowah wanting to enjoy a familial relationship with us as opposed to imposing a submissive religion.
Similarly, our translations tell us that God wants to be feared, and yet in Yasha’yahuw / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah, Yahowah states that “the fear of God is a manmade tradition.” Moreover, one cannot love that which they fear.
Some statements seem to say that we can’t know the timing of things, such as the date Yahowah will return. Yet Scripture begins by detailing Yahowah’s chronology and timeline, something Yahowsha’s testimony in Revelation amplifies and affirms. If prophetic timing is unknowable, why did God provide a specific timeline and a thousand revealing clues?
I suspect that my willingness to date Yahowah’s prophetic fulfillments—past, present, and future—will be one of the most contentious aspects of Yada Yah. I’m going to tell you exactly when God is going to fulfill His prophecies, because He told us. All I had to do was contemplate the Scriptural evidence and then connect the data. As for the warning “no one knows the day,” we’ll examine the Olivet Discourse from many perspectives to conclusively demonstrate that God was not saying that we wouldn’t be able to figure this out.
Another point of contention may arise because I am opposed to quoting or commenting on any verse out of context. So if you write me and ask how one verse or another fits within the universal truths contained in the whole, I’ll tell you to read the book. The practice of referencing isolated phrases leads to false assumptions which in turn lead to incomplete and errant thinking. For example, if we want to understand why Yahowsha’ spoke of His upcoming Passover sacrifice in the context of Yownah / Yahowah’s Dove / Jonah’s “three days and three nights in the belly of the whale” (when the eyewitnesses say that Ma’aseyah was only tormented two days and two nights), we will find ourselves reviewing the historic context of Yahowsha’s discussion with the religious leaders which led to the comparison, and then we will find ourselves on board the ship with Yownah to see what really happened that stormy day. In the process, we will resolve the apparent contradiction, demystify the reference to the whale, learn a great deal about how God communicates with us, and come to appreciate the Creator’s sense of humor.
Quoting passages out of context is what led to the doctrines of heaven or hell, to the three persons of the Trinity, to replacement theology, to the impossible notion that the Ma’aseyah is completely God and completely man, to the diminished relevance of the Torah, to Sunday worship, and to disputes over the timing and existence of the harvest of souls known to Christians as “the rapture.” While an errant theological position can be supported with isolated verses, for a conclusion to be valid, no passage should be able to refute it.
There are a few more things you need to know at the outset. I’m nobody special, at least among men. I’m just a regular guy, albeit more passionate and flawed than most. Although I’m not hard to find, you may have noticed that I haven’t ascribed my name to this mission. My only qualification for compiling this witness to expose deception and proclaim the truth was my willingness to engage when Yahowah asked. If that is not sufficient for you, if you are more interested in the messenger than the message, if you are impressed with accomplishments and credentials, find a book written by someone in the religious or political establishment. Such authors will gladly exchange your money for a confirmation of what you have already been led to believe.
So now you know: these volumes are not religious. This message does not portend to be popular either. One of the more limiting factors in this regard will be the unfamiliar vocabulary promoted throughout this book. I avoid many of the terms you are accustomed to hearing, even though using them would attract a much larger audience. God does not combat deception with lies, nor shall I.
Therefore, in the closing pages of the Prologue, I’m going to share a truncated portion of the Name Volume of An Introduction to God to demonstrate why each of the following names, titles, and words are inappropriate: Lord, Jesus, Christ, Christian, Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel, Grace, Church, and Cross. And in their place, I’m going to refer to the same text to present Yahowah’s preferences.
The reasons this must be done are many. It is vital that people have the opportunity to know that they have been deceived by those who have preyed upon their devotion. God wants us to stop trusting clerics so that we might choose to rely on Him. Therefore, providing readers with reasons to jettison their associations with political and religious institutions is consistent with Yahowah’s instructions. Further, there is a lesson in every human deception and vital insights in every divine revelation.
In this light, I have often been accused of being overly zealous regarding terminology. But this is the only rational option available to us. If we see the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms as being from God, then its every word was inspired and chosen by Yahowah. Changing His words to suit us is then arrogant, misguided, and counterproductive.
Therefore, throughout Yada Yah you will find Yahowah’s name properly written, even though it may be unfamiliar to you, in each of the 7,000 places He cites it in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. I will not use “LORD” in reference to God because “lord” is synonymous with Ba’al, which is Satan’s title throughout Scripture. It describes the Adversary’s ambition, which is to rule over God, to lord over men, and to control the messages pontificated by cleric and king, so that the masses submit to him. After all, the nature and ambitions of a lord are the antithesis of a father.
God’s aversion to being called “the Lord” is why Yahowah revealed that upon His return, on the Day of Reconciliations when the Covenant is finally renewed, He will never again tolerate its use. “And it shall be (hayah – will exist) in (ba – at, with, and on) that (ha huw’ – or His) day (yowm – speaking of His return on the Day of Reconciliations), prophetically declares (ne’um – predicts, reveals, and promises) Yahowah ( ), you shall refer to (qara’ – read and recite, summon and invite, and call out to) Me as an individual (‘yshy – Me as a marriage partner and as Me as one who exists in your presence); and (wa) shall not (lo’) call Me (qara’ – summon Me or read aloud) ‘My Lord’ (ba’aly – my Master, the one who owns and possesses me) ever again (ly ‘owd – now or forevermore). For I will remove (suwr – reject, separating Myself from, and revolt against, renounce and repudiate) the Lords’ (Ba’alym – the masters, owners, possessors, and false gods) names (shem) out of (min – from) her mouth (peh – speaking of the lips and language of Yisra’el), and (wa) they shall not be remembered, recalled, or mentioned (lo’ zakar – proclaimed or be brought to mind) by (ba) their name (shem) ever again (‘owd – any longer).” (Howsha’ / Salvation / Hosea 2:16-17 / 18-19)
Ba’al isn’t the only Hebrew title for “Lord.” There is another. It is ‘adown (אָדוֹן). But since the word was commonly used to describe ambitious and covetous men engaged in politics and religion, as well as merchants and military leaders who have schemed to “lord over” the masses and be their “master,” the arrogant and oppressive human title was pointed to read ‘adoni or ‘adonay so that it could be used to replace Yahowah’s name all seven thousand times YHWH appears in the Covenant Scriptures.
But there is more to the story than this. You see, the commonly contracted form אדן in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, can be pointed to read ‘eden (אֶדֶן), ‘edon, or ‘adon. These vocalizations describe an “upright pillar rising up from an established foundation.” It is used to depict the upright, strong, and reliable nature of Yahowsha’s legs in the Song of Solomon 5:15. In Yowb / Job 38:6, ‘eden is the “foundation” upon which the “cornerstone is laid,” thereby serving as a reference to Yahowsha’ being the cornerstone of Yahowah’s Tabernacle. ‘Eden, which is more accurately transliterated ‘edon, emphasizes something which is “firm, strong, and solidly reliable,” as in a “well designed and constructed foundation.” As such ‘eden / ‘edon is used to portray the “base into which tent pegs were inserted to hold the upright pillar of the Tent of the Witness, whereby the structure, which is symbolic of Yahowah’s home and of Divine protection, is enlarged and held erect by the upright pillar, which is symbolic of Yahowsha’, whose work and words make it possible to enter into God’s protective custody. You will find the Hebrew letters אדן vocalized ‘eden fifty-seven times in the Tanakh, with all but the two instances referenced above describing an aspect of the Tabernacle of the Witness—and all in the Torah.
Once the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are scrubbed of the most obvious Masoretic copyedits—that of writing ‘adownay above YHWH, or more accurately , some 6,873 times, you will find ‘adownay on 434 occasions in the Masoretic Text. However, a comprehensive review of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveals 127 places where religious Rabbis simply erased Yahowah’s name and scribed ‘adownay in its place. Once these are removed, the context dictates that the first person singular suffixed variation of אדן, which is יאדן, should have been vocalized ‘edownay, and translated “Upright Pillar,” “My Upright One,” or “My Foundation,” all 307 times it applies to Yahowah.
As evidence that ‘adown is descriptive of men, not God, it shares the same root as ‘adam, the Hebrew word for “man.” Further, all 335 times ‘adon appears in the Tanakh, it applies to politically or religiously empowered men, with two thirds of these translated “lord,” and one third rendered “master.” Strong’s defines ‘adown and its contracted form ‘adon, as “a reference to men” who are “owners, strong lords, and masters.” They suggest that it may be derived from an unused root meaning: “to rule.” As such, it also describes the Adversary’s ambition: to be called Lord by men, to rule over them and to be their master, to control, intimidate, and overpower men—to own their souls.
Therefore, it is completely appropriate to attribute the Towrah’s own definition of ‘eden / ‘edon to Yahowah. He is the “Upright One,” the “Foundation,” and the “Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle.” He stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. But, it is not appropriate to associate Satan’s ambitions with God. Our Heavenly Father is not our “Lord.” His Covenant is based upon an entirely different kind of relationship. Lord is inconsistent with both freewill and family.
Now that God has affirmed that He does not like being referred to as the “Lord,” and now that you understand why, let’s consider His name, and whether we can and should pronounce it. The most telling passage in this regard is found in the book Yahowah entitled Shemowth – Names. You may know it as “Exodus.”
“And (wa) Moseh (Moseh – the one who draws us away from human oppression and divine judgment) said (‘amar) to God (‘el), the Almighty (ha ‘elohym – the Mighty One), ‘Now look, if (hineh – behold, look here, and note if) I (‘anky) go (bow’ – arrive and come) to (‘el) the Children (beny – sons) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – a compound of ‘ysh – individuals, who sarah – strive and contend with, engage and endure with, are set free and are empowered by ‘el – God), and I say (wa ‘amar) to them (la), “The God (‘elohym – the Almighty) of your fathers (‘ab) has sent me out (salah – has extended Himself to dispatch me) to you (‘el), and they ask (wa ‘amar – question) me (la), ‘What is (mah) His personal and proper name (shem),’ what (mah) shall I say (‘amar) to them (‘el)?”’” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 3:13)
While God would give Moseh a direct answer, He didn’t do so directly. And that is because there is a bigger difference between Amen Ra, Amun, Aten, Horis, Seb, Isis, Osiris, Sobek, et al, and Yahowah, than just a name. Yahowah is for real. He actually exists. So by revealing the basis of His name first, Yahowah answered the most important question we can ask: yes, there really is a God. “God (‘elohym) said (‘amar – answered and promised) to (‘el) Moseh, ‘ehayah (אֶ הְ יֶ ה) ‘asher (אֲ שֶׁ ר) ‘ehayah. (אֶ הְ יֶ ה) – ‘I Am Who I Am.’” (Shemowth / Exodus 3:14) In His response, God conveyed: “I Exist.” “I was, I am, and I always will be.” “I am exactly who I say I am.”
‘Ehayah is the first person singular of hayah, meaning: “I exist, I am, I was, I will be.” ‘Asher denotes a “relationship, an association, or linkage,” and is often translated “with, who, which, what, where, or when.” ‘Asher is also a “blessing.” So by using these words, Yahowah told us: 1) He exists, 2) that our continued existence is predicated upon His blessing, 3) that relationships are of vital interest to Him, and 4) how to pronounce His name (Yahowah is based upon hayah).
“And (wa) He said (‘amar), ‘So this is what (koh) you should actually say (‘amar – answer (scribed in the qal relational stem, affirming the reliability of this advice, and in the imperfect conjugation, telling us that this pronouncement would have ongoing consequences which would unfold throughout time)) to (la) the Children (ben) of Yisra’el (yisra’el – those who engage and endure with God), “I Am (‘ehayah – first person singular of the verb hayah, meaning I exist; written in the qal stem, imperfect conjugation, affirming the reliability and ongoing consequences of His existence on our existence), He has sent me (salah – He has reached out and extended Himself to actually dispatch me (in the qal perfect, telling us that this act of God is indivisible, whole and complete, and valid throughout all time, and as a result, should not be compartmentalized into separate chronologies)) to you (‘el).”’” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 3:14)
There may be no more profound a statement, no more important a mission, no higher authority. The source of our existence, the one God who actually exists, was going to go from Arabia to the Nile Delta with an eighty-year-old shepherd to rescue His wayward and oppressed children from Egypt—the most oppressive religious, political, and military power man had yet conceived.
Those who promote the myth that God’s name isn’t known, that it isn’t important, and that it cannot and should not be pronounced, stop reading at this point. But God was not finished speaking “And (wa) God (‘elohym – Almighty), moreover (‘owd – besides this and in addition), said (‘amar – declared) to (‘el) Moseh (Moseh – from mashah, the one who would draw us away from human oppression and divine judgment), ‘This is what (koh) you should say (‘amar – promise and declare (also scribed in the qal imperfect)) to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny yisra’el – the children and sons who strive, contend, and struggle with, those who engage, persist, and endure with, those who persevere with, and who are set free and empowered by God), “Yahowah ( - - יהוה – Yahowah), God (‘elohym) of your fathers (‘ab), God (‘elohym) of Abraham (‘Abraham – Loving, Enriching, and Merciful Father), God (‘elohym) of Yitzchaq (Yitzchaq – Laughter), and God (‘elohym) of Ya’aqob (Ya’aqob – One who Supplants and Digs in His Heels), He sent me (salah – He has reached out and extended Himself to actually dispatch me (in the qal perfect, revealing that this act of God is indivisible, whole and complete, and valid throughout all time)) to you (‘el).”
This is (zeh) My name (shem – My personal and proper designation (scribed in the singular construct form, making Yahowah inseparable from His one and only shem – name)) forever (la ‘olam – for all time and into eternity). And (wa) this is (zeh) My way of being known and remembered (zeker – My status and renown, My way of being mentioned and recalled, My commemoration and memorial, My inheritance right, symbol, sign, and signature) for (la) all places, times, and generations (dowr dowr).’” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 3:15)
So, how does anyone justify calling God “Lord” when God said as clearly as words allow: “My name is Yahowah. That is the way I want to be recalled, the way I want to be known, and the way I want to be remembered. Yahowah is My signature. Tell those who want to live with Me, those who want to be saved by Me, that Yahowah has sent you.” Know it, say it, remember it.
Now that we have allowed God to resolve the myth that He has many names, some of which are too sacred to be spoken, what about the myth that no one knows how to pronounce the “Tetragrammaton,” or “four consonants” which comprise His signature.
To begin, Yahowah’s name is comprised of vowels, not consonants. Flavius Josephus, the most famous of all Jewish historians, wrote in the first-century CE, in his The War of the Jews, Book 5.5.7: “the set-apart name, it consists of four vowels.” Weingreen, a noted scholar in Hebrew grammar, subsequently stated in 1959 for Oxford University Press: “Long before the introduction of vowels signs, it was felt that the main vowel sounds should be indicated in writing, and so the three letters, Wah (ו), Hey (ה), and Yowd (י) were used to represent long vowels.”
In actuality, the easiest way to dispense with the “consonant” myth with regard to the Ancient, Paleo, and Babylonian Hebrew scripts found in Scripture is to examine the many thousands of words which contain the letters Wah (ו), Hey (ה), and Yowd (י), and consider how they are pronounced. Almost invariably, the Waw, or Wah ( - - ו), conveys the vowel sounds “o,” “oo,” or “u.” In this regard, it is similar to the vowel form of the English W, which is pronounced “double u.” The Hey ( - - ה) is pronounced “ah” and, to a significantly lesser degree, “eh.” The Yowd ( - - י) communicates an “i” sound, and is otherwise similar to the vocalization of the vowel form of the English Y.
In reality, these three vowels, in conjunction with the Hebrew Aleph ( - - א) and Ayin ( - - ע), made it possible to pronounce every Hebrew word several millennia before the Sheva System was developed, or vowel points were introduced, by the Masoretes.
With this in mind, let’s consider the three vowels which comprise Yahowah’s name. Perhaps the most familiar Hebrew word known to us today beginning with the letter Yowd (י) is “yada’ (יָדַע),” meaning “to know.” You often hear it repeated: “yada, yada, yada.” Indirectly, we know the Yowd sound from Israel, which is a transliteration of Yisra’el. It is also the source of the vowel I/i in: Isaiah (Yasha’yah), Messiah (Ma’aseyah), Zechariah (Zakaryahuw), Hezekiah (Chazayah), Nehemiah (Nachemyah), and Moriah (Mowryah).
Those who have sung “kumbaya (quwmbayah (stand with Yah))” or “hallelujah (halaluyah (radiate Yah’s light))” know this Yowd (י) sound all too well. The י provides the vowel sound for the common Hebrew words yad – hand, yadah – to acknowledge, yatab – good, and yahad – united.
There are literally thousands of Hebrew words where the Yowd (י) is pronounced just like the Y/y is in the English words: “yes, yet, yield, yarn, yaw, yawn, yawl, yea, yippee, year, yearn, yeast, yell, yellow, yelp, yeoman, yesterday, you, young, yolk, yonder, and yummy. And just like Hebrew, in English, the letter Y is often a vowel. Consider: “myth, hymn, my, fly, and cry.” In fact, according to the Oxford Dictionary, “the letter Y is more often used as a vowel. And in this role it is often interchangeable with the letter I.” This similarity to Hebrew is not a coincidence, because Hebrew served as the world’s first actual alphabet—a word derived from a transliteration of the first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet: Aleph and Beyt.
The second and fourth letter in Yahowah’s name is the Hebrew Hey (ה). Curious as to how Yahowah’s name could be based upon hayah (היה), which begins and ends with ה, and yet most often be transliterated “Yahweh,” where the first Hey is pronounced “ah,” and the second is pronounced “eh,” I examined every Hebrew word inclusive of the letter ה – especially those words concluding with Hey. What I discovered is that just like hayah and ‘elowah (the basis of ‘elohym), the Hebrew ה is almost invariably pronounced “ah.” In fact the ratio of “ah” to “eh” in Hebrew words is nearly one hundred to one. So in hayah, Yahowah told us how to pronounce all but one letter of His name.
And yet, in the definitive statement “’elowah hayah – God exists,” all of our questions are answered. We can simply look to the title Yahowah selected for Himself in this revealing discussion, “‘elohym (אלהים) – God,” to ascertain how to properly pronounce the Hebrew vowel Wah (ו). You see, ‘elohym is the contracted, and thus less formal, plural, and thus more inclusive, form of ‘elowah (אלוה), meaning “God Almighty.” And it is in ‘elowah (אלוה) that we find definitive proof of how to properly communicate the Hebrew ו.
Ironically, even the title Rabbis ultimately pointed to add the first common singular suffix, “my” to “lord,” ‘adoni, or more correctly, ‘adonay, to replace Yahowah’s name, was derived from ‘adown (אָדוֹן), which actually helps us pronounce His name.
But there is another, perhaps even better known, Hebrew word which can assist us in our quest. Scripture’s most often transliterated title, “towrah – Torah,” meaning “instructions,” provides all the direction we require to properly pronounce the Hebrew Wah (ו) specifically, and YHWH generally. In the Divine Writ, this title for “instruction, teaching, direction, and guidance” is written TWRH (right to left as: תּוֹרָה), where the “o” sound is derived from the Wah ו.
In addition, the most oft’ repeated Hebrew word over the last one hundred generations has been “shalowm (שָׁלֹום) – peace,” where once again, we are greeted with the means to properly annunciate the Hebrew Wah ו. And I suppose Zion and Zionist, would be almost as well known. Its basis is spelled tsyown in Hebrew, once again telling us how to pronounce the Wah.
Other familiar Hebrew words which are pronounced similarly include: gowym – people (specifically Gentiles), yowm – meaning day, ‘adown – master, ‘owy – alas, ‘owr – light, ‘owth – sign, qowl – voice, towb – good, ‘acharown – last, and of course ‘elowah – God, in addition to the names: Aaron, Jonah, Job, Judah, Moriah, Zion, and Jerusalem from ‘Aharown, Yownah, Yowb, Yahuwdah, Mowryah, Tsyown, and Yaruwshalaym.
Therefore, the obvious pronunciation of YHWH (or - - יהוה written left to right using Hebrew characters) is Y·aH·oW·aH. Mystery solved.
Since Yahowah invented the language of revelation, we are wise to observe its lessons. In Ancient Hebrew, the first letter of Yahowah’s name was a Yad, which today is called a Yowd. It was conveyed using a pictographic depiction of an open hand reaching down and out to us. This hand symbolized the power and authority to do whatever work was required. Even today, yad means “hand” in Hebrew, and metaphorically, it still represents the ideas of “engaging and doing,” and thus of “authority and power.” With Yah, the reveals His willingness to reach down to lift us up, to extend Himself and reach out to us with an open hand, hoping that we will grasp hold of Him.
The second and fourth letter in Yahowah’s name is a Hey. It was drawn as a person standing and reaching up while pointing to the heavens . In Ancient Hebrew it conveyed the importance of observing what God has revealed, of becoming aware of Him, and of reaching up to Him for help. Affirming this, the Hebrew word hey still means “behold” in addition to “pay attention.” The key aspect of this character, which is repeated twice in Yahowah’s name, is that the individuals depicted are standing upright, so as to walk to and with God. They are not shown bowing down in worship. Further, both hands are raised as if to grasp hold of Yahowah’s hand, trusting Him to lead us home.
In this regard it is interesting to note that there are five hands depicted in Yahowah’s name – – just as there are five terms and conditions associated with His Covenant which we must accept if we want to engage in a relationship with God. And like our hand which is comprised of a thumb and four fingers, there is one prerequisite associated with our participation in the Covenant and then four subsequent requirements. Therefore, Yahowah is telling us that while He is offering to do the work, we control our destiny by our response to Him.
The third letter in - - יהוה - YHWH is the Wah, which was called Waw in Ancient Hebrew. Its pictographic representation was drawn in the form of a tent peg or stake . These were used to secure a shelter and to enlarge it. And as such, the preposition wa communicates the ideas of adding to and of increasing something.
Bringing this all together, we discover that Yahowah’s name is about our response to His offer. says that God has the power, the authority, and the will to do whatever work needs to be accomplished to assist those who look to Him, who observe His revelation, and who reach up to Him for help. Those who do these things will be added to His family. They will be sheltered and become secure.
Now that we understand the most important name in the universe, let’s turn our attention to the second: Yahowsha’ – or sometimes transliterated Yahuwshuwa’, or simply Yahushua, even Yahshua. The alternative ending (shuwa’ versus sha’) is derived from Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 3:21 and Judges 2:7, where we find יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, as opposed to יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. Each of the other 216 times His name is scribed we find the preferred “Yahowsha’.”
This name – or – is equal parts an identity designation and a mission statement. As a compound of Yahowah’s name and yasha’, the Hebrew word for “salvation and deliverance,” Yahowsha’ tells us that Yahowah, Himself, is engaged in the process of saving us.
As for the name “Jesus,” which is more familiar, it is important to note that it cannot be found anywhere in God’s Word. As a matter of fact, there was and is no J in the Hebrew alphabet—nor one in Greek or Latin. The letter was not invented until the mid 16th-century, precluding anyone named “Jesus” existing prior to that time.
The first English book to make a clear distinction between the “I” and “J” was published in 1634, where the new letter débuted on loan words from other languages, specifically Hallelujah rather than Halaluyah (meaning: radiate Yahowah’s brilliant light). For those who relish dates, you may have noticed that 1634 is twenty-three years after the first edition of what was then called “The King Iames Bible” was printed in 1611. In it, Yahowsha’ was called “Iesous.”
Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that no one named “Jesus” lived in the 1st-century CE. “Jesus” is a 17th-century forgery. More troubling still, “Jesus” is most closely allied linguistically with “Gesus” (pronounced “Jesus,”), the savior of the Druid religion (still practiced throughout England), wherein the “Horned One” was considered god.
There are a plethora of Christian (a title we will refute momentarily) apologists who errantly claim that “Jesus” was a transliteration of the Greek Iesou, Iesous, and Iesoun. The problem with that theory is four fold. Yahowsha’ wasn’t Greek; He was Hebrew from the tribe of Yahuwdah. The Greek Iota is pronounced like the English I, rather than the come-lately J. The “u,” “us,” and “un” endings were derivatives of Greek grammar and gender rules without a counterpart in Hebrew or English. And most importantly, you won’t find Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun written on any page of any first-, second-, third-, or even early fourth-century Greek manuscript of the so-called “Christian New Testament.” Divine Placeholders were universally deployed (without exception) by the Disciples to convey Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name. Simply stated: it is impossible to justify the use of “Jesus.” And it is wrong.
Yahowsha’, as a compound of “Yahowah” and “yasha’ – salvation,” means “Yah Saves.” Yahowsha’ tells us that Yahowah manifest Himself in the form of a man, and that as a man, He, Himself, delivered us. Yahowsha’ explains who He is and it defines His purpose.
So that there be no dispute: in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, you will find Yahowsha’ – - - יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – written 216 times—first in Shemowth / Names / Exodus 17:9. The Savior’s name was written Yahowshuwa’ (יְהוֹשׁוּעַ) twice (in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 3:21 and then in Shaphatym / Judges 2:7). In addition, Yashuwa’ was scribed in the revealed text on 30 occasions. And Yashuw’ah appears another 78 times. Collectively, these 326 Scriptural witnesses to the descriptive name and title of God’s implement and mission tell us that Yahowah is the source of our Salvation.
There are many Messianic Jews, countless rabbis, and otherwise misinformed pseudo-intellectuals who choose to ignore the Scriptural pronunciation of Yahowsha’ (even though it is written 216 times in this form) in favor of Yeshu (which was never written in the Torah, Prophets, or Psalms). The earliest undisputed extant occurrence of Yeshu is found in five brief anecdotes in the Babylonian Talmud (a collection of rabbinical discussions constituting Jewish Oral Law circa 500 CE). Yeshu is cited as the teacher of a heretic (in Chullin 2:22-24, Avodah Zarah 16-17), as a sorcerer scheduled to be stoned on the eve of Passover (in Sanhedrin 43a), as a son who burns his food in public (in Sanhedrin 103a), as an idolatrous former rabbinical student (in Sanhedrin 107b), and as the spirit of a foreigner who is an enemy of Israel (in Gittin 56b and 57a). Yeshu is also used in the Rabbinical Tannaim and Amoraim as a replacement for Manasseh’s name (he was Hezekiah’s only son, and at twelve upon assuming the throne, he instituted pagan worship in direct opposition to his father) (Sanhedrin 103s and Berakhot 17b). The earliest explicit explanation of the Rabbinical term “Yeshu” is found in the mediaeval Toldoth Yeshu narratives which reveal: “Yeshu was an acronym for the curse ‘yimmach shemo wezikhro,’ which means: “may his name and memory be obliterated.”
If that isn’t sufficiently sobering, if that isn’t enough to make you scream every time you read or hear “Yeshu” or its clone, “Yehshu,” then you don’t know Him very well.
These things known, the second most misleading myth has been lampooned. The human manifestation of Yahowah, the corporeal implement God would use to do the work required to save us, is Yahowsha’. This name, as a synthesis of Yahowah and yasha’, the Hebrew word for “salvation,” affirms that: “Yahowah is our Savior.”
In Hebrew, the first three letters of Yahowsha’s name mirror those found in Yahowah: . So by way of review, the Yowd represented an open hand at the end of an arm reaching down and out to us: . It symbolized the power and authority to do whatever work was required.
The second letter in Yahowsha’, like Yahowah, is Hey, which was drawn in the form of a person standing, reaching up and pointing to the heavens . It conveyed the importance of observing what God has revealed, and of reaching up to Him for assistance. It show us engaged, standing and walking with Yahowah, while holding His hand.
The third letter, a Wah, was pictographic depicted via a tent peg . They were used to secure a shelter and to enlarge it so that more people could come inside, be accommodated and protected therein. It spoke of adding to and of increasing something, of being associated with and being connected to someone.
In Ancient and Paleo Hebrew, the fourth character, a Shin, was drawn to represent teeth, or , making it symbolic of language and nourishment, even the word. As such, we should see Yahowsha’ as “ – the Word” “ – associated with and connected to” “ – Yah.
Ayin is the final letter in the designation Yahowsha’. Scribed in the form of an eye, it was used to convey the ideas of sight, observation, and knowledge. Even today, ayn is the Hebrew word for “eye, sight, and perspective, leading to discernment and understanding.”
Bringing these images together from Hebrew’s past, we discover that Yahowsha’s name, – reveals that He represents the word of Yah. He has the power and the authority of Yah to do whatever work is required to assist those who look to Him, who observe His words, and who reach up to Him for help. Those who accept and understand this perspective will be added to His family. They will be sheltered and become secure.
Moving on to the next religious deception, if “Christ” was Yahowsha’s title, and it’s not, there would still be no justification for writing or saying “Jesus Christ,” as if “Christ” was His last name. Moreover, without the definite article, “Christ Jesus” is also wrong. Should “Christ” be valid, and again it is not, the only appropriate use of the title would be as “the Christ.”
As we dig deeper, what we discover is that Classical Greek authors used chrio, the basis of “Christos – Christ” to describe the “application of drugs.” A legacy of this reality is the international symbol for medicines and the stores in which they are sold—Rx—from the Greek Rho Chi, the first two letters in chrio. So those who advocate “Christ,” and its derivative, “Christian,” are unwittingly suggesting that Yahowsha’, and those who follow Him, are “drugged.”
Christians who protest that “Christ” is simply a transliteration of Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, either are not aware, or don’t want you to know, that you will find only one place in the whole of the Greek text prior to the mid 4th-century where any variation of chrio was actually written—and it does not apply to Yahowsha’. All references to the Ma’aseyah’s title were presented using the Divine Placeholders ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, and ΧΝ.
The only time we find a derivative of chrio in God’s voice is when the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ toys with the Laodicean Assembly (representing Protestant Christians living in today’s Western Democracies) in His seventh prophetic letter. To appreciate His sense of humor, and to fully understand the point He was making, realize that the Laodiceans were wealthy and self-reliant. They made a fortune promoting their own brand of ointment for the ears and eyes known as “Phrygian powder” under the symbol “Rx.” So referencing their healthcare system, Yahowsha’ admonished: “I advise that you rub (egchrio – smear) your eyes with medicinal cake (kollourion – a drug preparation for ailing eyes) in order that you might see.” (Revelation 3:18) Therefore, in the singular reference to chrio, the root of christo, in the totality of the pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts of the so-called “Christian New Testament,” Yahowsha’ used it to describe the application of drugs.
To further indict “Christ” and “Christian,” even if the tertiary definition of chriso, “anointed,” were intended, that connotation still depicts the “application of a medicinal ointment or drug.” And should we ignorantly and inadvisably jettison this pharmaceutical baggage, we’d still be left with other insurmountable problems associated with “Christ.”
First, the Scriptural evidence from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms strongly suggests that Yahowsha’s title was not “ha Mashiach,” which means “the Anointed,” but instead “ha Ma’aseyah,” which translates to “the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah.” (More on this in a moment.)
Second, “ha Ma’aseyah,” as a Hebrew title, like the name Yahowsha’, should have been transliterated (presented phonetically) in Greek and also English, not translated. For example, the titles Rabbi, Imam, Pharaoh, Czar, Sheik, and Pope were all transliterated, not translated.
Yahowsha’ was not Greek, did not speak Greek, and did not have a Greek name or a Greek title, so to infer that He did by crudely transliterating Ieosus Christos “Jesus Christ” is grossly misleading and deceptive.
Third, there is no justification for using Hellenized nomenclature when addressing a Hebrew concept. And since Yahowsha’ did not communicate in Greek, that language is nothing more than a translation of what He actually conveyed in Hebrew and Aramaic – a language closely allied with Hebrew. This would be like transliterating Genghis’ “Khan” title, which means “ruler” in Mongolian, “Sheik Jinjeus,” because we like the letter J, the “eus” ending derived from Greek grammar, and sheik has the same meaning in Arabic. Worse, how about rendering Caesar Augustus, “Hairy August,” as that is what caesar means in English. It’s idiotic.
Fourth, the textual evidence suggests that the Divine Placeholders ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, and ΧΝ were not based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, as those who have an aversion to all things Hebrew would have you believe. Consider this: writing about the great fire which swept through Rome in 64 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus (the classical world’s most authoritative voice) in Annals XV.44.2-8, revealed: “All human efforts and propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestucians (Chrestuaneos) by the populous. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. And a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Iudaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired.” Chrestus and christos are different words in Greek with very different meanings.
But there is more, the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament reveals that Chrestus (χρηστὸς) was scribed in 1 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 2:3, not Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant witnesses of Peter’s (actually of Shim’own Kephas’) letter.
In Shim’own’s epistle, one attested by both ancient manuscripts, the Disciple and Apostle tells us: “As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos – in a genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible manner), earnestly desire and lovingly pursue (epipotheo – long for, showing great affection while yearning for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos – that which is completely devoid of dishonest intent or deceit, and thus is perfect) milk in order to grow in respect to salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai – partaken and tasted, have been nourished by) Yahowah (ΚΣ – from a Divine Placeholder) as the Useful Implement and Upright Servant (Chrestus – the Upright One who is a superior, merciful, kind, and good tool).” (1 Shim’own / Peter 2:2-3) The fact that we find Chrestus written in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the placeholder ΧΡΣ written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have an early affirmation that the Divine Placeholder representing the title “Ma’aseyah” was based upon the Greek Chrestus, not Christos.
And while Chrestus isn’t Yahowsha’s title, it is at least an apt translation of it. Chrestus means “useful implement,” and “upright servant,” as well as “merciful one.” It was used to “depict the good and beneficial work of a moral person.” So rather than being “drugged,” a Chrestucian is a “useful implement, an upright servant, and a moral person working beneficially” with Yah. Therefore, while using Chrestus would have been an honest mistake, at least, unlike Christos, it would not have been a deliberate deception.
With a second and third myth resolved, let’s turn our attention to Yahowsha’s actual title. To begin, let’s consider the issues of consistency and relevance. Most every important name, title, and word associated with Yahowah and our yashuw’ah / salvation bears God’s signature: “Yah.” As I have mentioned previously (and actually reveal in the Dabar – Word chapter of this Volume of Yada Yah), there are 260 names appearing over 10,000 times in Scripture which incorporate “Yah” within them. So please consider the likelihood that Yahowah’s most important title would not be included in that list.
The second insight I’d like you to consider relative to the validity of Ma’aseyah versus Mashiach and Messiah is the number of times one versus the other appears in God’s Word. You may be surprised to learn that we know for certain that Ma’aseyah and Ma’seyahuw were written twenty-three times throughout the Prophets and Writings (in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah, in 1&2 Chronicles, in Ezra / Ezrah, and in Nachemyah / Nehemiah). Mashiach, on the other hand, may have been scribed twice, both times in Dan’el / Daniel. (The reason I wrote “may” will become evident in a moment.)
Third, the textual spelling from which Ma’aseyah and Mashiach are vocalized is identical save the concluding letter. Throughout Yah’s Word in Ancient and Paleo Hebrew (twenty-three times in five different books), we discover that the final letter in Ma’aseyah is Hey (ה), providing the same “ah” sound as we find at the end of Yahowah’s name. But in the book of Daniel, the only one originally scribed in both Aramaic and Babylonian Hebrew, we find a Chet (ח) conveying the hard “ch” sound. And while these letters would never have been confused in paleo-Hebrew, they are very similar in Babylonian Hebrew (ה vs. ח). Once a scroll has been unfurled and handled a number of times this minor distinction (the length of the left leg) is often lost.
Since the evidence is our guide to the truth, be aware that there are eight partial manuscripts of Dany’el / Daniel in the Dead Sea Scroll collection. These were copied between 125 BCE and 50 CE. It should be noted that all four scrolls containing material from the first eight chapters of the book are initially scribed in Babylonian Hebrew, but they switch to Aramaic in the midst of chapter 2, verse 4, and then revert back to Hebrew at the beginning of the eighth chapter. (Along these lines, it is also interesting to be aware that the longer Roman Catholic version of Dany’el, with the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of Three Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, isn’t supported by any Qumran manuscript.)
None of the eight scrolls found in the Dead Sea caves provide any witness to the text between Dany’el / Daniel 7:18 and 10:4. And unfortunately, the two passages with references to the Ma’aseyah or ha Mashiach, Dany’el 9:25 and 9:26, are right in the midst of this void. That means the oldest manuscript attesting to this minor difference (the length of the left leg on the concluding letter) with major implications (Ma’aseyah or Mashiach) was written by rabbinical Masoretes in the 11th-century CE. In this manuscript, known as the Codex Leningradensis (dated to 1008 CE and published in 1937), it is clear to me that the rabbinical agenda affirmed in the 3rd of Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Judaism, which states that God is incorporeal, is on display to distance the Rabbinical Mashiach from Yahowah—a G-d whose name rabbis will neither write nor speak. As such, the evidence on behalf of Ma’aseyah is strong and on behalf of Mashiach is weak.
Fourth, every Scriptural name and title, from Isaiah to Zachariah, from Mount Moriah to the Messiah, which is transliterated “iah” today, is actually “yah” in the revealed text. Just as Qumbayah and Halaluyah speak volumes to those with an ear for Yah’s Word today, so does the legacy of “iah” at the end of “Messiah.”
Fifth, Ma’aseyah provides a perfect depiction of how Yahowah used Yahowsha’. As Ma’aseyah, He was “Yah’s Implement, Doing the Work of Yahowah.” Ma’aseyah even serves as the perfect complement to Yahowsha’, whereby we are told: “Salvation is from Yah.”
Sixth, now that we know that the Divine Placeholders used in the Greek text to represent the Ma’aseyah were based upon Chrestus, not Christos, we find a perfect match. Both words convey the same message: Yahowsha’ is Yah’s “Useful Implement,” His “Upright Servant,” who does “Good, Moral, and Beneficial Work.” And that is better than being “Christ/Drugged.”
It is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that Yahowah assigned the title Ma’aseyah to Yahowsha’.
As has been our custom, let’s examine Ma’aseyah through the lens of Ancient Hebrew—the language of revelation. The first letter, Mah, which is now called Mem, was conveyed by way of waves on water. It symbolized the origin of life and cleansing. And even today, mah in Hebrew means “water.”
The second letter isAyin. This character, which is also found in Yahowsha’s name, was drawn to depict an eye. It was used to convey the ideas of sight, observation, knowledge, perspective, and understanding.
The third letter in Ma’aseyah is Sin, which is called a Samech today. Its graphic symbol was akin to a thorn, a hard sharp object which was known to pierce. It came from a bush which served as a protective barrier from carnivores and ill-tempered men. It conveyed the ideas of cutting, piercing, separating, and dividing, in addition to shielding and protecting.
The last two letters in Ma’aseyah are mirrored in the beginnings of Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s names: . As we now know, the Yowd was drawn to represent the outstretched arm and open hand of God, and it symbolized His power and authority to do whatever work was necessary.
The final letter in Ma’aseyah is Hey, whose pictographic form revealed a person reaching up and pointing to the heavens. It conveyed the importance of observing God, and of reaching up to Him for assistance. No one was better at this than Yahowsha’ ha Ma’aseyah.
The picture painted by these historical characters – – collectively reveals that the Ma’aseyah is the source of life and of spiritual cleansing for those who know and understand Him, who observe His words and deeds from the proper perspective. While He was pierced for our sins, and while He came to bring division, He has the power to protect and shield. As Yahowah’s representative, the Ma’aseyah comes with the power and authority of God. He is literally the hand of God doing the work of God. Those who recognize these things, and who reach up and rely upon Him, will find Him ready and willing to assist.
When it comes to the next corrupt term, a modicum of investigation leads to the inescapable conclusion that the title “Bible” was derived from the name of an Egyptian goddess. Especially incriminating in this regard, biblos was not used to describe “Scripture” until the fourth century CE, coterminous with the formation of Constantine’s Roman Catholic Church. Prior to that time, biblion, or in the plural biblia, simply described the material upon which the words had been written. This is not unlike calling the Torah “parchment.”
The papyrus reeds which grew along the Nile in Egypt were imported into Asia by way of the Phoenician port known as Byblos by the Greeks. Priests taught that the city had been founded by the Phoenician sun deity, Ba’al Chronos, “the Lord of Time” (a blending of the Hebrew word for Lord, ba’al, and the Greek word for time, chronos), according to the scholarly tome Mythology of All Races. As such, it was the seat of Adonis (also meaning “the Lord,” albeit this time from the Hebrew ‘adonay).
More incriminating still, according to Ausfuhrliches Lexicon of Grecian and Roman Mythology, “the ancient city of Byblos in Phoenicia was named after Byblis in Egypt.” This town “was named after the sun goddess Byblis, also known as Byble.” Byblis was the granddaughter of Ra, and was eventually inducted into Roman mythology as a descendant of Apollo. According to Bell’s New Pantheon, “Byblia was also the name of Venus,” and thus “she must be equated with Ishtar,” the Babylonian Queen of Heaven and Mother of God for whom “Easter” was named. This connection was affirmed in An Illustrated Dictionary of Classical Mythology and also in Crowell’s Handbook of Classical Mythology. Therefore, considering the title’s heritage, “Bible” is a horrible designation for God’s Word.
Compounding this mistake, God did not reveal anything even remotely akin to an “Old Testament” or “New Testament.” The perpetrator of this fraud was Marcion, a raging anti-Semite, who rejected Yahowah and the entirety of His Torah testimony. In the early 2nd-century CE, Marcion became the first to refer to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms as the “Old Testament.” The reference was intended to demean it as a document which contained the will of a now deceased deity. In its place, Marcion promoted his “New Testament,” a canon comprised of Paul’s epistles and of his heavily edited versions of Luke and Acts (written by Paul’s assistant)—in which most everything prescribed in the Torah was removed or demeaned. In the process, Marcion established a division which had not previously existed, and he created the notion that the Torah was now obsolete, having been replaced by the Pauline concept of the “Gospel of Grace.” Anything which didn’t support this view was either erased or ignored. It was a transition in perspective from which Christianity would never recover.
And while Marcion was ultimately labeled a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church for his Gnosticism, most everything Marcion promoted remains indelibly woven into the fabric of the Christian religion—especially his influence on the text of the now “Christian New Testament” along with it allegiance to Pauline Doctrine. Marcion was kicked out of the Church, but all things Marcion have remained in it.
In support of this anti-Yahowah perspective, Paul, in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, wrote of “two covenants,” and he said that the one formalized in the Torah on Mount Sinai was of the flesh and thus evil, a cruel taskmaster, that had not, could not, and would not save anyone. And while we will contemplate Yahowah’s perspective on this to prove otherwise, what about the notion of a “second, new and different” Covenant? Didn’t the prophet Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah predict the advent of a “New Covenant?”
At first blush, the answer appears to be yes, at least if you consider errant translations and don’t read the entire discussion. The fact is: Yahowah did speak of eventually “renewing, repairing, and restoring the Covenant,” and of this “Renewed Covenant” “not being exactly the same as” the existing one. But the stated beneficiaries are Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, not the Gentile “church.” And their reconciliation with Yahowah has not yet occurred. Therefore, the Covenant has not yet been renewed.
Further, those who actually consider Yahowah’s explanation of how His Renewed and Restored Covenant will differ from the Covenant described in His Towrah, discover that “Yahowah will give the Towrah, placing it in their [Yisra’el’s and Yahuwdah’s] midst, writing it upon their hearts” so that “I shall be their God, and they shall be My family.” Therefore, this is not about Gentiles, the Church, or a replacement of the Torah with Grace. Indeed, it is just the opposite.
As a result of this announcement from God, it would be wrong to refer to the Greek eyewitness accounts as the “Renewed Covenant,” much less the “New Testament.” The Covenant has not yet been “renewed.” There will never be a “new” one. And since it is His Word, I think it’s reasonable to use His terms.
The most sinister terms which lie at the heart of the Christian deception are both Pauline: “Gospel” and “Grace.” So this would be a good time to expose and condemn them.
Christian apologists almost universally say that “Gospel means ‘good news’” as if they were translating it from the pages of their “New Testament.” However, no such word is found there. And even if there were a Greek word, “gospel,” whose meaning was “good news,” why wasn’t it translated: “good news?” Or more to the point, since euangelion actually means “healing and beneficial message,” why didn’t Christians translate the Greek term which actually appears in the text accurately?
Christian dictionaries go so far as to say that “gospel is from go(d) meaning ‘good,’ and spell meaning ‘news.’” But “god” was never an Old English word for “good,” but instead for “god,” a transliteration of the Germanic “Gott,” an epithet for Odin. The Old English word for “good” was “gud.” And the Middle English “spell” is from the Old English “spellian,” which means “to foretell, to portend, and to relate.’” As such, “gospel” does not mean “good news” and is therefore not a translation of euangelion. Other dictionaries, suggest that gospel was “derived from an Anglo-Saxon word which meant ‘the story concerning God’” even though there is no etymological history of such a term in the annals of the Anglo-Saxons.
It is also insightful to know that according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the English word “spell,” came to us “from Old English by way of Middle English.” And “circa 1623 (which would be around the time the KJV was being popularized) a spell 1) was a spoken word or form of words which were held to have magic power, 2) was a state of enchantment, or 3) was used in the context of casting a spell.”
Webster’s Twentieth-Century Dictionary says: “The word ‘god’ is common to the Teutonic tongues. It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the Christian sense.” Then, further affirming that “Gospel” conveyed the idea of being under “Gott’s spell,” Merriam Webster explains: “god is from Old English by way of Middle English and is akin to the Old High German got, which was derived before the 12th century CE.” And gottin, therefore, was the Old High German word for “goddess.”
Digging a little deeper in our quest to understand the religious origins of “gospel” circa 17th-century Europe when the religious connotation was first conceived, the Encyclopedia Britannica reports: “God is the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worship applied to all superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies. The word god, upon the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity, was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being.” So like every Christian corruption of Yahowah’s Word, man’s religious term is drenched in paganism.
Moving on to Charis, no credible source disputes the fact that it is a transliteration of the name of the three Greek Graces known as the Charities (Charites). The English word “charity” is a direct transliteration. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and beauty, were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and rejoicing over fertility. Collectively, they make four appearances in Homer’s Iliad and three in the Odyssey.
The Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is particularly troubling because Paul puts one of Dionysus’ most famous quotes in Yahowsha’s mouth during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it would transpire, Paul’s faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus in Roman mythology) which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your consideration in the “Kataginosko – Convicted” chapter of The Great Galatians Debate in Questioning Paul.)
These “Graces” were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Their naked form stands at the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens. Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes throughout Pompeii, Italy which means that they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form, was that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the founder of the Rosicrucians, would have loved them.
And yet, the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis – Charity, memorialized today under their Roman moniker Gratia – Grace, is the operative term of Galatians—one which puts Paul in opposition to the very Torah and God which condemns the use of such names. Simply stated: the “Gospel of Grace” is pagan. It is literally “Gott’s spell of Gratia.”
In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, were goddesses of joy, beauty, charm, happiness, and feasts. As personifications of prosperity and well-being, and as the messengers for Aphrodite and Eros, the Gratia served as clever counterfeits for euangelion—Yahowsha’s healing and beneficial message. Therefore, those who conceived the religion of Christianity simply transliterated Gratia, and then based their faith on a new mantra called “the Gospel of Grace,” unashamed by the fact that their credo bore the name of pagan deities. This is deeply troubling. It is a scar, indeed a mortal wound to Paul’s epistles, and a deathblow to Christendom.
To be fair, in ancient languages it’s often difficult to determine if the name of a god or goddess became a word, or if an existing word later became a name. We know, for example, that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Rome, bore names which described their mythological natures and ambitions. Such is the case with the Charites. The Charis came to embody everything that the word charis has come to represent: “joy, favor, mercy, and acceptance, loving kindness and the gift of goodwill.” So, while we can’t be certain if the name Charis was based on the verb chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the name Charis, once Charis / Gratia became a name, it doesn’t matter, as saying it violates Yahowah’s instructions.
There are two Hebrew equivalents to the verb charis which are devoid of pagan baggage. Hen, sometimes vocalized chen, is used in its collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Chen is derived from the verb chanan. As a noun, it means “to favor and to accept by providing an unearned gift,” which is why it is often translated “grace” in English bibles. To be chanan is “to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor,” and as such chanan is usually rendered “to be gracious” in Christian literature. The author of the eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s life, whom we know as “John,” was actually Yahowchanan, meaning “Yah is Merciful.”
Racham, which appears 77 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, means “merciful, loving, compassionate, and tenderly affectionate.” Its shorter form, raham, meaning “mercy,” makes 44 appearances, and the longer form, rachuwm, which also means “merciful,” is scribed 13 times.
The bottom line is: if we are being asked to take the Greek manuscripts seriously, at the very least, the words contained therein should be rendered accurately. And to the extent that Yahowsha’s words have been translated accurately from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, and retained appropriately by scribes over the centuries, we are not at liberty to alter His testimony, at least not without consequence.
Charis only appears once in Yahowsha’s voice, but even then, it is neither accurate nor credible. Yahowsha’ was speaking to Yahowchanan in Heaven, and based upon the rest of His Revelation, we know that He was speaking in Hebrew. Therefore, He would have said “chesed – mercy,” not “charis – charity,” much less “gratia – grace.” And since we do not have a copy of this portion of Revelation dating prior to the time Constantine legitimized Paul’s faith, there is no credible evidence to suggest that Yahowchanan changed chesed to charis.
This then brings us to the only other problematic placement of the pagan name—in the first chapter of Yahowchanan’s eyewitness account. But even here, the oldest extant copy of the Disciple’s introductory narrative dates to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. And it was professionally scribed in Alexandria, Egypt, where Pauline influences had long since permeated the profession and place. Therefore, while I’m convinced that Yahowchanan didn’t use the term, I cannot prove it, nor can anyone disprove such a claim. And frankly, charis was not among the best words in the Greek lexicon to describe the Hebrew concept of “chesed – mercy.” (For more on this, I invite you to read Questioning Paul, where this topic is covered in much greater detail.)
At best, charis / gratia / grace is misleading. At worst, it attempts to associate one’s salvation to faith in a very popular pagan goddess. So, while using the term to convey “mercy” is misleading, promoting salvation under the auspices of “you are saved through faith by Grace” is unquestionably deceitful, deadly, and damning.
Since Yahowah’s descriptive term for “mercy” is chesed, let’s consider its meaning in Ancient Hebrew. Here, the ch sound is from Chet, which, drawn in the form of a barrier, conveyed the idea of protecting by separating. The Shin was depicted using teeth. It spoke of language and nourishment. And the Dalet was a doorway. Therefore, chesed is the Doorway to protection provided by the Word of God. It is the means Yahowah uses to set us apart from the world and unto Him, the very doorway to life eternal in Heaven.
Now that we understand who Paul was opposing, let’s see if we can ascertain what he was promoting. And for that, we must come to understand the consequence of replacing euangelion with “gospel” in the King James as well as in most all subsequent translations. The result is that Christians now believe that Paul’s preaching was not only focused upon, but was also limited to, what have become known as the “Gospels” of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” But there are a host of irresolvable problems with this theory.
First, Sha’uwl never quoted a single line from any of them. He didn’t even reference them. Worse, in Galatians we learn that Paul not only despised the three most important Disciples—Shim’own – Peter, Yahowchanan – John, and Ya’aqob – James—he openly condemned their witness. As such, the notion that Paul preached the message contained in their “Gospels” is ludicrous.
Second, the biographical accounts attributed to “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” were not called “Gospels.” No such word existed at the time they were written. “Gospel” was a product of the 17th century.
Third, since Paul wrote Galatians around 50 CE, the evidence suggests that Mattanyah – Matthew’s eyewitness account was still in its original Hebrew. And while it was cherished in Yaruwshalaym – Jerusalem, it wasn’t widely distributed at this time, and thus would not have been known to the Galatians, or the Corinthians, Thessalonians, or Romans.
Moving on to Mark, Eusebius wrote: “Marcus, who had been Petra’s interpreter, wrote down carefully all that he remembered of Iesous’ sayings and doings. For he had not heard Iesous or been one of his followers, but later, he was one of Petra’s followers.” Origen, Tertullian, and Clement concurred, writing at the end of the 2nd century that “Marcus compiled his account from Petra’s speeches in Roma.” As such, Paul’s letter to the Galatians predates Mark’s presentation of Shim’own / Peter’s testimony by a decade.
Further, according to the book of Acts, Luke, its author, hadn’t appeared on the scene by this time. Therefore, his historical portrayal would not be written for at least a decade following the time Galatians was penned. Also, based upon the enormous popularity of Yahowchanan – John’s eyewitness account (evidenced by the sheer volume of extant pre-Constantine manuscripts), had his portrayal of Yahowsha’s life been circulated by this time, Paul would have been compelled to reference it. And that is especially true in Asia Minor, because Yahowchanan had established himself in Ephesus.
Therefore, at the time this letter to the Galatians was written, Scripture existed solely of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It still does. And that means that Paul’s “Gospel of Grace,” rather than being a summation of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,” was unassociated with them—even hostile to them.
As you shall discover if you read Questioning Paul in The Great Galatians Debate, the self-proclaimed apostle’s “Gospel of Grace” was overtly opposed to the message Yahowsha’ affirmed and fulfilled. Simply stated, neither “Gospel” nor “Grace” are Godly, appropriate, or reliable. The Old English moniker, “Gospel,” like the use of the Greek goddess’ name, Charis, known by the Latinized “Gratia – Grace,” has caused millions to believe that the “Gospel of Grace” replaced the Torah, when according to God, the Torah is the source of His “chesed – gift of favor and mercy.” No Torah, no “Mercy.”
Therefore, you will not find “Gospel” or “Grace” in these pages—unless it is to expose and condemn the terms. Yahowah’s actual designation is far superior and it has no demonic overtones.
Throughout Yada Yah, and thus also in An Introduction to God, the title “Church” is only used in a derogatory sense. So this is the perfect time to uncover another of Christianity’s most ignoble myths. With “church,” we discover that nothing remotely akin to it appears anywhere in Scripture.
The notion of a “church” began when Catholic clerics chose to replace the Greek word, ekklesia, meaning “called-out assembly,” rather than translate it (replicating its meaning (which is required for words)) or transliterate it (replicating its pronunciation (which is permissible with titles)).
This counterfeit has served to hide the fact that the source, the meaning, and the purpose of the “ekklesia – called out” was delineated in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms by way of the essential Hebrew title, Miqra’, which means “Called-Out Assembly.” Yahowah used Miqra’ to describe the nature of the seven annual meetings He established with mankind, whereby we were invited to answer His summons to appear before Him, reading and reciting His Torah. Simply stated: Yahowah’s Miqra’ey (Called-Out Assembly Meetings) gave birth to Yahowsha’s Ekklesia (Called-Out Assembly). Observing the Torah’s presentation of “Mow’ed Miqra’ey – Called-Out Assembly Appointments to Meet” on “Pesach – Passover,” “Matsah – Unleavened Bread,” “Bikuwrym – FirstFruits,” “Shabuwa’ – Seven Sabbaths,” “Taruw’ah – Trumpets,” “Kippurym – Reconciliations,” and “Sukah – Shelters” represents the Way to enjoy eternal life as a child in our Heavenly Father’s family.
Christian apologists, however, will protest that their “church” was derived from the Greek kuriakon. But that’s absurd in the extreme. Why would someone translate a Greek word by replacing it with a different Greek word, especially one with an entirely divergent meaning? It is as odd as replacing Torah with Tadpole. Worse, even if the Greek text said kuriakon rather than ekklesia, the case cannot be made that kuriakon sounds like church, further incriminating the religious men who justify this exchange. As such, all of the religious arguments that “church” is a transliteration of kuriakon, which is somehow a translation of ekklesia, fail the test of reason.
Should you be curious, kuriakon, or kuriakos as it is sometimes written, is based upon kurios, which means “lord and master, the one who rules by usurping freewill.” This of course is wholly unrelated to ekklesia, which literally means “to call out”—and thus serves as an invitation. And yet, since the Catholic Church needed a system whereby they could control and fleece the masses, subjecting them to their control, buildings were built and a religious institution was established under the moniker of: “the Church.”
I find it interesting to note that a derivative of the Greek kuriakon was used by the false-prophet Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (verse 11:20) to obfuscate the celebration of “Pesach – Passover,” replacing it with the religious notion of “the Lord’s Supper”—which has subsequently evolved to become the Eucharist and Communion.
Turning to Webster’s International Dictionary, in the 1909 edition, their explanation begins: “Church, noun. [of Medieval origin. Chirche from the Anglo-Saxon circe].” They then describe church as “1. a building; 2. a place of worship for any religion.”
Since there is no connection of any kind between “ekklesia – called out” and a building or a place of worship, we must conclude that the religious corruption of the Greek word has effectively hidden and then changed its original meaning. And in so doing, the Church severed God’s overt linguistic association between miqra’ and ekklesia, erasing the essential connection between Yahowah’s Called-Out Assembly Meetings and Yahowsha’s Called-Out Assembly, thereby separating billions of souls from their Creator, Father, and Savior.
While “church” isn’t a translation of ekklesia, or even a transliteration of kuriakon, there is an unmistakable phonetic link to the Druid, and thus Anglo-Saxon and Germanic words chirche and circe—consistent with what we just discovered in Webster’s Dictionary. The Oldest Druid temples were built as circles, a transliteration of circe, to represent their god, the sun. Worse, most every encyclopedia of mythology reveals that Circe was a sun goddess, the daughter of Helios. And if that were not enough to make you want to scream, the “Savior” of the Druid religion (where the “Horned One” is god) was named “Gesus,” which was pronounced: “Jesus.”
The best that can be said is that “Church,” unlike the word it replaced, ekklesia, conveys no relevant spiritual message. Whereas Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqra’, telling us that Yahowsha’s Called-Out Assembly is based upon the Torah’s Called-Out Assembly Meetings.
There is also no Scriptural basis whatsoever for the primary symbol of Christendom. The gruesome crucifixes that ghoulishly adorn Catholic cathedrals and the towering crosses set atop Church steeples and worn around the necks of Protestants are a legacy of Babylon’s sun-god religion. The Ma’aseyah’s body was indeed affixed to an upright pole on Passover, but just like Passover, His blood was smeared on an upright pillar and on a lintel forming the doorway to salvation.
Yada Yah, as you are now discovering, was written to confirm what Yahowah had to say regardless of how many money-making myths and convenient religious rituals it skewers. In that regard, the commentary exists to encourage you to think more deeply about His message. If I feel inspired after examining an amplified passage up close, I’ll share what I have learned. Hopefully, my comments will stimulate your thought processes as we travel together through this remarkable voyage through time, space, and words.
This Re’syth – Beginning Prelude to Yada Yah composed long after I had completed the first twenty-five-hundred pages of this book on Yahowah’s book. Therefore, I already know much of what you are going to discover. And I know that these revelations are going to affect everyone differently.
If you are an atheist reading Yada Yah, you will soon come to realize that your faith in science and man is misplaced. Secular Humanism requires an abandonment of reason. To believe that life is the result of random chance requires a much greater leap of faith than does acknowledging the obvious signs of intelligent design. In reality, the primary axiom of Darwinian Evolution, and the very foundation of secular humanism, that random mutations coupled with natural selection led to life as we know it, is irrefutably false. Further, every attempt man has made toward understanding his existence has led to far more questions than answers. And the attempts mankind has made to govern our affairs apart from God have resulted in more deaths and destruction than have come from the hands of all those who have falsely claimed to have ruled in the name of God. While all religions are bad, the religion of man is the most deceitful, destructive, and deadly of all.
If you are an agnostic, you are going to be pleasantly surprised. Most all of the rational reasons you have used to see God as unknowable will vanish. You will discover that the lack of reason and silliness which permeate religion, things that may have kept you from forming a relationship with Yahowah, don’t exist in Scripture. The idiocy is clerical, not divinely inspired.
According to Yahowah’s revelation, Buddhists will achieve the state of nothingness they desire. But one doesn’t have to be a Buddhist to find this place. Scripture refers to this result as the dissipation of the soul.
Yah’s Word doesn’t have much to say about Hinduism. It is replete, however, with countless insights into the nature of the spirit who benefits from pagan doctrines which advance the false notion of reincarnation and which obliterate choice. Scripture is not kind to doctrines which oppress through the establishment of restrictive caste systems.
As for Muslims, Yahowah has a great deal to say about you, and it is all bad. Everything you have been led to believe is the inverse of the truth. Allah is Satan, not God. Muhammad was a perverted pirate, not a prophet. While I doubt many of you will be capable of abandoning the religion that is so good at being bad, for those of you who can, you will find truth and God in these pages.
If you are a religious Christian, especially if you are Orthodox or Catholic, you will be horrified, even angered for having been purposefully deceived—for having been played for a fool. Hopefully, you will be awakened from the demonic trance that has been perpetrated upon you. But your ability to accept Yahowah’s testimony and reject man’s, will depend upon your willingness to abandon those who have abused you. And that’s not easy because it means leaving your comfort zone and confronting established customs, as well as family and friends. Catholicism, and its stepdaughter Protestant Christianity, is a very well woven lie, a superbly crafted counterfeit, one which covers the Light like a dense, dank, and dark blanket.
Many evangelical Christians have come to know that something is dreadfully wrong with their church. For those who do, you will discover exactly what that is in these pages. Yet for the evangelicals who think their church is divine, you will find Yah’s Words as unfamiliar to you as “Lord Jesus Christ,” “Sunday Worship,” and “Pauline Doctrine,” are to Him. I’m afraid you will have to unlearn what you’ve been taught before you will be able to accept what is actually true.
If you are Jewish, you will come to realize that if Yahowsha’ is not the Ma’aseyah, there can be no Ma’aseyah. Most of the prophecies He satisfied can no longer be fulfilled. If He didn’t walk into Yaruwshalaym on Branch Monday, four days before Passover in 33CE in accord with Dany’el 9’s prophetic timeline, if He wasn’t the Suffering Servant and Sacrificial Lamb of Yasha’yahuw 53 and Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 22, the Scriptures which brought us the concept of the Ma’aseyah (the Implement of Yah) aren’t reliable.
It’s a catch 22. If the Hebrew Scriptures weren’t inspired and aren’t reliable, then the Babylonian Talmud can’t be reliable either because it is based upon the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Psalms). Further, since Rabbinical Judaism is based upon the Oral Law of the Talmud, it can’t be rational because its teachings routinely contradict the Torah—the very book from which it derives its authority. If the Scriptures are true, then books and doctrines which contradict them cannot be true. If the Scriptures aren’t true, then religions which claim they are, aren’t reliable.
As stated earlier, this logical paradox is the bane of religions like Judaism, Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam, all of which contradict the Scriptures they acknowledge were inspired—the very book from which they all pretend to garner their authority. When clerics replaced God’s teachings with their own, they embarked upon a lose-lose scenario. If Scripture is inspired, and thus right, they must be wrong because each of these religions advocate positions that are the antithesis of Yahowah’s teaching. And should Scripture not be inspired, each of these religions, based upon their own claims, must be errant because they all purport otherwise. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that Judaism, Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam are false.
From Yahowah’s perspective, religion is mankind’s greatest foe, and our most unrelenting enemy. And in that light, Yada Yah may be the most unreligious volume of books you will ever read. It will be like having a conversation with God.