37An Introduction to God

Dabarym

…Words

2

Dabar ‘El | Word of God

Leaving a Lasting Legacy…

The evidence abounds that the testimony found within the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr | Torah, Prophets, and Psalms was inspired by Yahowah. These books were as inerrant as language allows when they were revealed to Moseh | Moses and the prophets who spoke for Yahowah over the course of the next one thousand years.

Proof of Divine inspiration is provided by prophecy – by accurately reporting a previously unknown or long-forgotten past or correctly presenting the future before the predicted events transpire as they were foretold. In this regard, there is no other document in the history of humankind which is even remotely similar to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

Originally scribed in Ancient Hebrew – mankind’s oldest phonetic alphabet – God’s message is readily understood and easily pronounced using the seventeen consonants and five vowels which comprise the Hebrew alphabet. Each letter was originally presented using pictographs which clearly depict its meaning and help to define the words comprised of these characters.

Every book presented within the current configuration of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, with the lone exception of Esther (the only one without Yahowah’s name), was retained for us among the scrolls found in bluffs above the western shores of the Dead Sea. These parchment scrolls were preserved within ceramic jars 38because, even when they had aged to the point they were no longer serviceable, it was deemed unacceptable to discard or destroy any document containing Yahowah’s name. Therefore, they were given a secure resting place, sealed within these vessels by the Essenes, who then placed them within the caverns located above their Qumran enclave.

The world’s greatest archeological discovery was unearthed between Jerusalem and the northwest shore of the Dead Sea by accident when a Bedouin shepherd boy and his cousin stumbled into a cave and found the first of these scrolls in November of 1946. After being told that they were worthless, the boys finally found a buyer who paid them $28 ($325 in today’s currency).

With the 1948 Arab-Israeli War in the offing, the scrolls were moved to Beirut, Lebanon, where they languished during the conflict. Although their discovery was announced by John Trever and Millar Burrows of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) on 11 April 1948, it was not until 1949 that Cave 1 was rediscovered by a Belgian United Nations observer, Captain Phillipe Lippens, and an Arab Legion Captain, Akkash el-Zebn. At that time the Judean Desert below Jerusalem was under the control of Jordan and known as the “West Bank,” because it was on the Israeli side of the Jordan River. As a result, the Jordanian Department of Antiquities claimed ownership.

Two years later, in 1951, Roland de Vaux and his team from ASOR began a full excavation of Qumran. They discovered 300 fragments from 33 manuscripts in Cave 2 – all written in Hebrew. Subsequently, scrolls and fragments were removed from Caves 3, 4, 5, and 6, and finally, in competition with Bedouins, from Caves 7 through 11.

The treasures found in Cave 1 include two Isaiah 39Scrolls, 1QIsa^a and 1QIsa^b, which are featured throughout Yada Yahowah, and Habakkuk (1QpHab) which undergirds Twistianity. The Beginning, Man, Family, Invitations, Harvests, and Appointments volumes were translated relying upon the scrolls of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (1QGen, 1QExod, 1QpaleoLev/Num, and 1QDeut) which were also found within Cave 1. This cave provided an ancient text of 2^nd Samuel (1QSam) and the Psalms (1QPs) which support Observations and Coming Home. Fragments comprising the first three chapters of Daniel (1QDan) were also discovered in Cave 1 – underscoring our shocking review in the opening volume of Babel.

Cave 2 was a similar Godsend, with 2QGen, 2QExod, 2QpaleoLev, 2QNum, and 2QDeut, along with 2QJer, 2QPs, 2QJob, 2QRuth. Caves 3 through 11 would provide additional copies of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, adding ancient texts of Kings, Amos, Malachi, and the later chapters of Daniel. Then from Cave 11, we were given the Great Psalms Scroll (11QPs) which was used to complete the translations found in Coming Home.

Over time, between 970 and 980 distinct manuscripts were discovered in eleven separate caves. Many had crumbled into fragments which had to be pieced together as one would complete a puzzle. Although two – the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Great Psalm Scroll – were miraculously persevered, still intact and easily unfurled.

Of the minor prophets, in particular Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi, whose books we will detail, there have been 10 copies unearthed. There are 8 copies of Daniel, 6 of Jeremiah, and 4 each of Kings, Samuel, Judges, Lamentations, and Ruth. As a waste of time, parchment, and ink, there are 25 fragments of Enoch, which is no more credible than Homer’s Odyssey. There are 21 fragments of Jubilees which cite Enoch and are equally worthless, as are the copies of Job and Jonah.

40Some 40% of the surviving scrolls exist as copies of books which currently comprise the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms / Writings. Another 30% reveal the propensity of the religious to have gone astray during the Second Temple Period, including spurious contrivances such as Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Sirach. The remaining 30% are either sectarian documents describing life at the time of their authorship, or they detail an early imposition of religious rules in the Manual of Discipline and Community Rule and War Scroll.

The parchments containing books of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms were all written in Hebrew and have been dated using paleography. The oldest is thought to have been copied around 400 BCE and the most recent scribed shortly after 50 CE. These same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon, dating them more accurately to 385 BCE, with the most recent scribed shortly before 80 CE.

The scrolls were written in carbon black, an ink made from the carbon soot (atomic number 6, the number of man) of olive oil lamps (symbolic of enlightenment and the Spirit). Honey (representing eternity), vinegar (from wine), and water (symbolic of cleansing and life) were then added to the mixture to obtain the proper consistency and indelibility for writing using reed pens.

The scrolls themselves are vellum, which is parchment processed from an animal hide – mostly from sheep and goats. The National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Sicily, Italy recently determined that the parchment itself was fabricated in Qumran using local water sources.

The protection provided by the pottery jars and the lack of moisture in the Judean Desert, combined with the limited airflow in the caves, proved capable of preserving the vellum principally because of the lack of tanning materials used when processing the hides. Also interesting, 41the sections of parchment were sewn together using linen thread.

What is particularly telling, with the last of the scrolls scribed within walking distance of Jerusalem between 30 and 80 CE, there are no references to anything found within the Christian New Testament, even with copious descriptions of other current events. As such, there was so little fuss around Dowd’s pursuit of the fulfillment of Chag Matsah that it is unlikely that he performed any miracles. If he ruffled the religious, it was not perceived as a threat to the Pharisees or Sadducees. Simply stated, the claims made of the Christian imposter, and of Jewish leaders scheming to kill him, are not credible considering that there was no mention of “Jesus” by the Essenes or Romans.

As for the rest of the scrolls, even though nineteen centuries had passed since they had last been read, much of their content was hidden from the public for decades. They fell under the control of the Rockefeller Museum, the Roman Catholic Church, covetous and scheming theologians, and the Jordanian government, none of which were motivated to share what they revealed. It was not until 1991 that the Biblical Archaeology Society was able to publish the Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls after the threat of a lawsuit, the intervention of the Israeli government, and the advent of some clever technology.

This initial publication in 1991 was subject to considerable intrigue. Researchers at the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio, Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin Abegg, announced the creation of a computer program capable of using previously pictured scrolls to reconstruct the unpublished texts. Thereafter, Attorney William Cox, representing an undisclosed client, provided a complete set of undistributed photographs and contracted for their publication. Professors Robert Eisenman and James Robinson worked on the images which the officials at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, 42announced that they had provided. Thereafter, Willian Moffett, the Head Librarian, disclosed that he would now allow researchers unrestricted access to the library’s photographic images of the scrolls. By the fall of the year, Wacholder, using his algorithms, published 17 documents he had been able to reconstruct from a concordance the covetous scholars had used to index the scrolls they had kept under wraps.

Immediately after this Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls was published, Professor Elisha Qimron sued Hershel Shanks, Eisenman, Robinson, and the Biblical Archaeology Society for copyright infringement for publishing, without authorization or attribution, his decipherment of one of the scrolls. The courts sided in favor of Qimron in 1993 and awarded damages for copyright infringement, a decision that was upheld by Jerusalem’s District Court and Supreme Court. Therefore, it wasn’t until 2007 that the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation commissioned a London publisher to produce a facsimile edition of The Great Isaiah Scroll and Habakkuk.

On 19 October 2010, nine years after I engaged in this journey of discovery with Yahowah, it was announced that the Israeli Antiquities Authority would scan the images NASA had produced of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms to produce high-resolution images of the texts which would then be posted online in a partnership with Google. The project is scheduled for completion in 2025 – more than 75 years after its initial discovery.

All the while, the scrolls have been deteriorating rapidly through exposure, careless handling, and transportation back and forth between Jerusalem and Aman. In an Ottoman Bank vault, they began to mildew, such that, by 1958, much of what had been found had been completely destroyed or had darkened appreciably and was no longer legible. Even through the 1970s, the scrolls were allowed to deteriorate as a result of careless storage, 43adhesives, tapes, leather bindings, and moist, sunlit environments. It was not until 1991 that the Israeli Antiquities Authority established a temperature-controlled laboratory for the safe storage and preservation of the scrolls and the tapes and adhesives were removed.

As for photographic images, the first were filmed by John Trever as the second set of scrolls were removed from the caves in February 1948. His pictures remain the clearest because of the rapid deterioration thereafter. The most comprehensive photo session began in 1952 and concluded in 1967. It was focused upon documenting the five-stage process of sorting and assembling the scrolls using infrared photography. Thereafter, beginning in 1993, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration in conjunction with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory used digital infrared imaging technology to produce photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments. They developed the technology to decipher illegible ancient texts so that they could be read. And today, DNA analysis is used to determine which fragments belong to which scroll so that they can be restored to their rightful places.

By way of comparison to the Masoretic Text (compiled by rabbis in Europe during the 11^th century CE), the Dead Sea Scrolls differ by one word in fourteen on average. Many of the variances are minor and do not affect the meaning God conveyed. And most of the differences were inadvertent, while others were deliberate.

While having 13 of 14 words match, providing a 93% fidelity, may sound encouraging, the Masoretic Text is fundamentally flawed because it exists to impose a forced rabbinical vocalization using diacritical markings designed to alter word meanings upon a plethora of religious copyedits. And this, to a significant degree, is why the translations provided within the Yada Yahowah Series are my own.

44Fortunately, by using the Dead Sea Scrolls and by bypassing the Masorete diacritical vowel markings, we can turn back the clock on textual accuracy to within a few centuries of the time the last of the prophets spoke for Yahowah. A systematic approach with an amplified translation, designed to more completely and accurately reveal every relevant connotation can achieve remarkable consistency with the original text.

To claim, however, as the religious are wont to pontificate, that their favorite translation is inerrant is ludicrous. Most Bibles bear only a passing resemblance to the words which were actually inspired. Beyond this, ensuring continual inerrancy would require God to interfere with freewill – something He will not do.

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 the cultural baggage is almost always lost.

As a rough rule of thumb, at least with regard to the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, I have found that the text of the oldest manuscripts (those found in Qumran dating from the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and perhaps 4^th centuries BCE and 1^st century CE) differs from that found in the Masoretic Text, which serves as the basis of most translations (the oldest reasonably complete Masoretic Text dates to the 11^th century CE) by a considerably wider margin after the needless imposition of unnecessary vowel pointing. Rather than one word in 14 diverging from the older manuscripts, after the diacritical markings, the variance grows to one word in five as a result of the rabbinic vocalization process. In places where the manuscripts agree, and where the “niquwd – dot pointing” system of diacritical signs does not alter the nature of the words themselves, another one word in five is errantly translated. Yet another one word in five is so inadequately represented in modern languages 45that the full meaning is lost. In other words, less than fifty percent of what you read in the “Old Testament” of an English “Bible” is reliable.

By way of proof, you may be surprised to learn that God told us His name – Yahowah – 7,000 times in the Hebrew text of His prophets. That is an average of seven times per page when His message is formatted using today’s publishing guidelines. However, on each occurrence, religious institutions elected to copyedit the Author, replacing His name with a title of their choosing – one associated with the Lord, better-known as Satan, all seven thousand times.

Fortunately, with a little effort, we can reverse the damage done by Jewish rabbis and Christian theologians and return the text back to its original intent. Demonstrating how this can be consistently and systematically accomplished is the purpose of this chapter of An Introduction to God.

But that’s comparatively good news. The oldest extant Greek codices, dating from the 2^nd to the early 4^th centuries CE, differ so substantially from one another, and so overwhelmingly from the Roman Catholic formulations of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, there is literally no hope of accurately reconstructing the preponderance of what is errantly known as the 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 2^nd century to the beginning of the 4^th century (A.D. 100 – 300). We chose A.D. 300 as our terminus ad quem because New Testament manuscript production changed radically after the persecution under Diocletian (A.D. 303 – 305) and 46especially after Constantine declared Christianity to be a legal religion in the empire.”

To illustrate this point, John Mill, an Oxford scholar in the 17^th century, using some one hundred manuscripts centuries older than the 13^th-century codex used to create the Textus Receptus, systematically noted over 30,000 discrepancies between them. Over time, especially now that we have unearthed nearly seventy pre-Constantine manuscripts dating from the late 2^nd century to the early 4^th century, the list of discrepancies between the relatively recent and highly-regarded Nestle-Aland edition and the earliest witnesses has grown to over 300,000 – which is almost twice the number of words contained in the text. This problem is so enormous in scope and consequence, it’s not surprising that Christian clerics sweep the evidence under the doormats of their churches, hoping that no one learns the truth. For if they did, the reliability of the “New Testament,” the dubious source of credibility underlying Christianity, would be destroyed.

The problems for Christianity are many. God does not have a Bible, much less a New Testament, because He does not contradict Himself. The language of revelation is Hebrew, not Greek. We do not have a credible record of anything anyone associated with the mythology of Christendom may have said. Further, there was no Jesus Christ, and the actual Messiah and the Son of God is Dowd | David. Even then, his body was sacrificed and incinerated during his second advent so there was no resurrection. Making matters worse, the oldest extant manuscripts of the Christian New Testament were all scribed in Alexandria, Egypt, a nation away from where the events took place.

Beyond this unpopular reality, that it is impossible to accurately reconstruct the Greek text which forms the New Testament, and no reason to do so considering its lack of integrity, we must also deal with Paul’s credibility, and the veracity of his letters, in our quest to understand why the 47New Testament is essentially worthless. We must ask ourselves if it is rationally possible for letters which overtly undermine Yahowah’s Towrah to have been inspired by the very God whose word is demeaned and negated in those letters.

For anyone who is wrestling with this issue, for those who are not aware of Paul’s criticisms of the Towrah, should you not concur with my assessment after you have read the Towrah, feel free to jump ahead in time and consider the recently completed five-volume set of Twistianity: Appalling, Towrahless, Devil’s Advocate, Incredible, and Foolology. In it, Paul’s 14 letters, and the other books he inspired – including Mathew, Mark, Luke, and Acts – are compared with God’s Words so that you will be prepared to make an informed decision.

Other than to prove that it is invalid and counterproductive, we will ignore the Christian New Testament and focus entirely on the Hebrew Text of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. By dispensing with the Christian scriptures, we will not be distracted or confused by the litany of contradictions contained therein. And even then, we will be discriminating, disproving the books which do not belong.

In the process of translating the words found within the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr, we will endeavor to accurately transliterate and explain each name Yahowah has selected, including His own. English Bible translations either corrupt or change God’s chosen names and titles, including all of the most important ones – and replace them with things of their own choosing. A glaring example is “Bible.” In Hebrew, Babel is the name of Babylon – the very whore out of which Yahowah is calling His people home. It is a compound of “ba – with” and “bel – lord,” which is problematic in that the Lord is Satan according to God.

48As previously noted, religious institutions have summarily removed YaHoWaH from His testimony, doing so 7,000 times. And on each occurrence, they replaced Yahowah’s name with “the LORD” which is the Adversary’s title.

Every name and title Yahowah chose to convey essential truths, and yet these messages are routinely ignored. For example, should God have voiced a name to the mission He and His Son fulfilled, it would have been Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Saves, not “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” is manmade, recent, erroneous, and meaningless at best. Or worse, because “Jesus” was named after “Gesus,” sometimes transliterated “Hesus,” the savior of the Druid religion where the “Horned One” is god. The letter “J” was the last added to our alphabet and did not exist until 1524.

This begs the question: since “Jesus” is not an accurate transliteration of anyone’s name in 1^st-century Judea, why did religious men conceive and promote the name “Jesus” beginning in the 17^th century? What was their motivation in propagating this myth? You might as well believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.

Moving on to other misnomers, “Jew” is from Yahuwd. It means “Beloved of Yah.” “Israel” is based upon Yisra’el, which is a compound of ‘ysh sarah ‘el and can mean either “individuals who engage and endure with God” or “those who strive and contend against the Almighty.” “Isaiah,” the most prolific of the prophets, is Yasha’yah; which means “Yahowah Delivers, Liberates, and Saves.”

And on and on it goes, with a lost learning opportunity encapsulated in every anglicized name. As we shall discover, there are 260 names and titles in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms which, like Yahuwd, Yasha’yah, and Yahowsha’, are based on Yahowah’s name. Collectively, these affirm aspects of God’s character and purpose no less 49than ten thousand times. If you rely on an English translation of the Bible that is how many occasions you have been robbed of meaningful, and sometimes essential, insights.

The same is true with many of the words Yahowah selected. Men have changed them. “Holy,” which means “diseased” in Hebrew, is a corruption of qodesh, which conveys “set apart and separated, unique, special, and uncommon, even cleansing and purifying.” It is one of God’s most oft-repeated and revealing concepts – one applied to the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit, to Yahowah’s shem | name, to the Beryth | Covenant, the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, the Shabat | Seventh Day, Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem, Yisra’el | Israel, and Yahuwdym | Jews.

“Angel” entered our lexicon by transliterating aggelos, meaning “messenger,” rather than translating the Greek term. As a result, most do not understand the nature or purpose of Yahowah’s “mal’ak – spiritual messengers and heavenly representatives.”

The concept of an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament” was derived from Paul’s poison pen. Yahowah’s testimony is consistent; it has not changed, been renewed, or updated. In this regard, there is only one Beryth | Covenant. There will never be a “new” one, although it will be reaffirmed through the integration of the Towrah upon Yahowah’s return. The Hebrew basis of beryth is beyth and means “family and home,” thereby defining God’s purpose.

The simple truth is: Yahowah did not replace Judaism with Christianity, Jews with Gentiles, or Israel with the Church. He has consistently described and facilitated the relationship He originally established with ‘Abraham and developed through Moseh and Dowd. The very concept of Replacement Theology upon which Christianity is built is 50an abomination to God.

This Introduction to God does not claim that every obfuscation of the truth was purposeful, yet each publisher’s reluctance to correct their “Bibles” serves as an indictment against them. Furthermore, at times the comparison between the oldest manuscripts and today’s revisions will leave us with no alternative but to assume these copyedits were deliberate. 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.

Often, Modern Hebrew speakers will claim that there is little need for such detailed analysis and scrutiny, inferring that the Hebrew language spoken today is the same as that which was written long ago. But that is not true. Between the second and third Roman invasions of Yahuwdah, from 70 to 133 CE, Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Shortly thereafter, it became an unspoken and unwritten language, with knowledge of its grammar, vocabulary, and letter pronunciations largely forgotten. Meanings would then be reverse-engineered from Aramaic in the vicinity of ancient Babylon and in occupied Spain by exiled rabbis.

To turn back the clock on what they have done, and to ascertain the Author’s intent, we will seek to deduce meanings from the alphabet’s initial pictorial forms and from each word’s first use within the Towrah itself. Delving further into the purpose of these books and their translations, fewer than 1,000 scholars understand Ancient Hebrew and only 5,000,000 people worldwide are fluent in Modern Hebrew. The Hasidic speak Yiddish as their native tongue. And because 25,000 of the 33,000 words spoken by Jews today are either from the Talmud (20,000) or from English (5,000), the modern language is poorly suited to 51understand the Towrah and Prophets – which are decidedly averse to the Talmud as well as to American and British influence.

Of Jews living in Diaspora, including the United States, as few as 200,000 speak and read Hebrew – but 7,000,000 speak and read English, which is the most popular language even among Jews. Further, there are between 1,400,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 English speakers worldwide – more than any other language (1.3 times more than read Mandarin Chinese, 3 times more than read Hindi, and 4 times more than speak Spanish – the world’s next most popular languages).

Therefore, the Ancient-Hebrew texts of the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr are presented for your consideration and evaluation in English – the lingua franca of the world. With Yahowah wanting to reintroduce Himself to His people, by writing His Nes | Banner in English, we can reach 10,000,000 more Jews than we could through Hebrew in addition to 1,395,000,000 more people worldwide – and now billions more as a result of translator apps.

This known, 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 keywords 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, as Towrah, Mow’ed or Miqra’ey do for example, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings. In other words, we are going to scratch well below the 52surface. This will require you to read most passages several times to fully appreciate what Yahowah is communicating. To understand God’s perspective, you are going to have to want to know it.

You may be surprised to learn that there are just shy of 6,300 distinct Hebrew words and 2,400 proper names used throughout the Torah and Prophets. Of these words, just over 1,600 are verbs. Therefore, recognizing that the average English speaker can recognize and deploy 25,000 words, the challenge of accurately conveying Yahowah’s intended message is not insurmountable. God’s most repeated and telling terms will become welcomed acquaintances and then good friends.

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, Paleo-, or Babylonian Hebrew. This problem, however, at least relative to the start of a new sentence, was usually remedied by the inclusion of a conjunction, typically “wa – and,” which designates an additional or related thought. Using this as a guide, we can apply English grammar rules to capitalize the first word in a sentence and add a period or question mark to designate its completion. We will also capitalize the initial letter of proper names, titles, and places in our quest to bridge the gap between ancient practices and modern expectations.

As it relates to this issue, those who protest by suggesting that, since pronouns for God were not capitalized in the original language, they should not be capitalized in our translations are dealing with half-truths. There simply was no distinction between lowercase and uppercase forms.

Second, speaking of conjunctions (and, but, so, yet, 53nor, or, for), in Hebrew they 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).

Written using either a prefix or suffix, for example, the opening line of the book of Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 1:1 reads: “wyqara’ ויקרא ‘elmosheh אל־משׁה wydabar וידבר yahowah יהוה ‘elyw אליו mw‘ohel מאהל mow’ed מועד la‘amar לאמר ,” which says: “And He (wa y) called out (qara’) to (‘el) Moseh (mosheh), and He (wa y), Yahowah (yahowah), spoke (dabar) to him (‘elyw) from (min) the shining shelter (‘ohel) of the eternal witnesses to the appointed meeting (mow’ed) to (la) say (‘amar):…”

In this regard, you will notice as we proceed that the transliterated sound of each Hebrew word set within the parenthetical will be 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’, Moseh, Yahowah, dabar, min, ‘ohel, mow’ed, and ‘amar in a wide variety of online Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries, you will not find the prefixed and suffixed forms, such as wyqara’, ‘elmosheh, wydabar, mw’ohel, or la’amar. To keep this proliferation of forms in perspective, when the 6,300 unique root terms are embellished with all manner of Hebrew prefixes and suffixes, there are actually over 36,000 different expressions and a total of just over 300,000 words.

Also, 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 becomes more effective and efficient.

54While we are on this topic, you will find I routinely demonstrate that the a’ sound in words like qara’, the ‘o in ‘ohel, the ‘e in mow’ed, and the ‘a pronunciation in words like ‘amar were derived from the Hebrew letters Aleph (א) and Ayin (ע), which were depicted using apostrophes. Similarly, while Torah and Towrah are pronounced the same way, and are thus both acceptable transliterated spellings, the advantage of ToWRaH is that it properly discloses the four letters which comprise the title while also providing the basis for the word’s pronunciation.

This brings us to a third challenge: completeness. Qara’, which was translated as “called out” in this passage, also means “to summon, to invite, to recite, and to read,” in addition “to welcome, to greet, and to meet,” as well as “to announce and declare.” Therefore, in this context, it would have been equally correct to say that Yah “summoned” Moseh, thereby conveying a judicial, authoritarian, and commanding connotation. It would also have been within the definition of qara’ to say: Yah “invited” Moseh to listen to what He had to say, which would have provided a sense of choice, longing, and relationship. Similarly, it would not have been improper to write: He “read and recited something (qara’)” to Moseh,” because He, Yahowah, spoke the Word (dabar) to him. Moreover, it would have been perfectly appropriate to write that God “welcomed” Moseh, that He “greeted” him, and that He “met with” him. The fact is, all of these things are true.

The fourth challenge to providing an accurate and complete translation is symbolism. For example, ‘ohel, in this statement, could have been translated as “tent.” But had I done so, you would have missed the fact that ‘ohel is also “a covering, a home, a shelter, and a protected place suited for living.” And yet, those symbolic implications are just the beginning. ‘Ohel is based upon, and in the text is written identically to, ‘ahal, which means “to shine 55brightly, clearly reflecting light.” Then in a practical sense, to ‘ohel is “to pitch a tent so as to provide a moveable residence.”

Collectively, rather than a nondescript “tent,” the ‘ohel / ‘ahal represents a “protective enclosure of radiant light,” a “shining shelter,” a “covering which is conducive to life,” and a “home” associated with “Yahowah, Himself,” by way of His “mow’ed – eternal witnesses to the appointed meeting times.” 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 God’s presence and camp out with Him on the Mow’ed Miqra’ of Sukah | Shelters.

With the examination and amplification of a word, we come to understand Yahowah’s purpose and the means to achieve it. So, then the question becomes: how much of this can we expect to process and understand before the sheer quantity of information becomes confusing and disorienting?

This leads us to the fifth challenge where we are compelled to consider every reasonable vocalization of each word. The diacritical markings, or vowel points, in the Masoretic Text are the product of rabbinical interpretations. This was highlighted by our discussion of ‘ohel versus ‘ahal, where the meanings were different, albeit complementary.

In that vocalization influences almost every word in the text, it is important to realize that the rabbinical choices were often reasonable, but at times arbitrary, and sometimes purposefully misleading. For example, the Masoretes chose to vocalize every word and name in the passage we just read, save one: Yahowah’s name. And yet, it was written using the same twenty-two-letter alphabet in which every other name, title, and word was conveyed as it would have been spoken. The fact is, these rabbis didn’t 56want you or anyone else to know, much less call upon, or proclaim Yahowah’s name.

The way we resolve this problem is by considering every Hebrew word comprised of the same letters regardless of subsequent diacritical markings. When this is done, we can choose the rendering which best suits the sentence, context, and Yahowah’s intent.

On the subject of vocalization, there is but one hard and fast rule in phonetically conveying foreign words: names and titles must always be transliterated (properly replicating the sound using the new alphabet) while words should be translated (properly conveying the meaning in the new language). The pronunciation of the names of the Pharaoh Thutmose, Genghis Khan, Albert Einstein, Ben Gurion, and Islamic Jihadist Osama bin Laden does not change from one language to another. Nor does Yahowah, Yahuwdym, and Yisra’el, Yasha’yah, Yirmayah, or Zakaryah.

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.” Also, along these lines, 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 may come as a surprise. Ancient and Paleo-Hebrew exist as an aspectual language, meaning that the same form of a verb can be translated as either reflecting past, present, or future action depending upon the subject and timing of the conversation. Hebrew tenses are inclusive with regard to time. So, while we can almost always deduce the proper tense based upon the context of a discussion, the realization 57that the message itself was not limited to a certain period of time makes everything God revealed applicable for everyone throughout time.

Also revealing in this regard are the perfect and imperfect conjugations. The perfect addresses action that has a finite duration and is thus completed in the past, present, or future. The imperfect describes things which are ongoing, continual, and habitual.

As an example of the eternal truth expressed by Hebrew verbs, in the preamble Yahowah wrote to His Three Statements and Seven Instructions, He said: “I am Yahowah, your God, who, for the benefit of the relationship, brought you out of and delivered you from the realm of the crucibles of oppression, out of the house of slavery.” While it is true that He personally engaged in human history and performed this miracle on behalf of the Children of Yisra’el nearly 3,500 years ago, it is also true He re-engaged 1,500 years later and will return 2,000 years thereafter to deliver the Covenant’s children from more modern forms of oppression.

Yahowah has always been, and will always be, ready, willing, and able to liberate those who are receptive to relying upon Him. It should, therefore, be noted that Yahowah’s Word, like Yahowah, Himself, is always trustworthy, regardless of time or place. In this way, the lack of tenses serves to affirm the eternal reliability of His testimony.

To develop this further, in the Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Terminology for Hebrew, we learn that in the original form of the language: “verbs convey perspective” and “they reflect the kind of action being performed,” but do so “without respect to the time of the action,” and thus “do not reflect chronological processes.” They report: “The Hebrew perfect, for example, is not a tense, a grammatical term that speaks of the time of the verb’s action (past, 58present, future, etc.). The textual form of Hebrew does not have tenses like English or Greek (because the timing of the action is conveyed by context). The perfective aspect refers to a kind of action, not the time of the action. An action in Hebrew may be viewed or conceived as completed even if that action has not yet taken place.”

Then, describing the imperfect prefixed conjugation, the GMST states: “It views the action of the verb from the ‘inside’ or from the perspective of the action’s unfolding. This imperfective aspect can speak of (depending on context) habitual actions, actions in progress, or even completed actions that have unfolding, ongoing results. The term ‘imperfective’ does not refer to tense though, because ancient Hebrew does not have tenses which convey timing. An action can be viewed in process in the past (‘was walking’), the present (‘is walking’), or even the future (‘will be walking’). The only possible exception to this rule is the imperfect waw consecutive, known as the ‘preterite’ form, which at times is construed to convey a previous action.”

To provide an example which may hit close to home, the Seven Instructions Yahowah wrote on the Second Tablet were all conveyed with the imperfect conjugation. This means that we are no longer in conflict with God’s guidance the moment we stop doing whatever is offensive. Continually lying is a problem where one lie is not condemning. Similarly, the instruction is to not make a habit of killing or of being covetous.

While you do not need this Introduction to God to include a thesis on Hebrew grammar, a slightly more comprehensive overview might serve as a helpful handrail as we proceed. In this light, the most important thing to remember is that we are translating a conversation out of a language which was specifically created and perfectly designed to communicate God’s intent accurately and then into one which is considerably less adequate.

59Relative to the verbs, the issues are considerable. The fact that Hebrew verbs are temporally infinite is just the beginning of the opportunity because that which is in Hebrew also was and will be. And while these conditions exist almost every time a verb is deployed, if the resulting translations consistently reflected the past, past perfect, present, future, and future perfect aspect of each verb, the sentences would become so complex, they would test your patience and forestall comprehension.

The plethora of Hebrew stems adds to this complexity – although in an enriching manner. But they are challenging to reflect without adding so many words that the focus of the discussion is lost. And yet, if their relational influence is ignored, much of the meaning is lost.

Beginning with the most popular form, be aware that the qal stem encourages a literal interpretation. It tells us that the message is real, that the action has or will actually occur, and that the sentiment being expressed is genuine. And because it is by far the most common stem, it reveals how to properly interpret Yahowah’s testimony. And like all stems, the qal establishes a relationship between the subject and object of the verb’s action, letting us know how one influences the other. Using the verb, ra’ah, in the qal stem, it would be commonly conveyed as “to see.”

While that is simple enough, the influence of the piel, niphal, and hifil stems is considerably more demanding to communicate in English. Like the qal, each establishes a relationship between the verb and either its subject, its object, or both. With the hifil stem, the subject causes the object of the verb to participate in the action, often becoming a secondary subject. The hophal then becomes a more passive version of the hifil. Using the same verb, ra’ah becomes “to be seen” and thus “to appear” in the niphal. With the hifil stem, since the subject causes the object to participate as a secondary subject, we render it as “to show” or “cause to be seen.”

60By using the piel stem, the object of the verb endures the effect of the act. It thereby puts the object into play but not necessarily as a result of the subject. The niphal, as the reflexive counterpart of the qal, is then the inverse of the piel, as it establishes a genuine relationship between the subject and the verb. Akin to this, the hafel stem is the causative form of the niphal, while the piel exposes this process. But that is just the beginning. There are two score of stems, all adding their own unique flavor to the discussion while developing the relationships between subjects, objects, and verbs.

The most common conjugations in Hebrew, the perfect and imperfect, are relatively straightforward. With the perfect, the action is to be considered total, whole, and complete and, yet, without any reference to time. With the imperfect, the action is consistent, sometimes habitual, and always continuous. The imperfect conjugation speaks of something that is ongoing throughout time so as to deliver unfolding results.

If this were not sufficiently expansive, within this mix we have to consider participles which, as verbal adjectives, can either modify a noun or substantiate one. Then there are verbs fashioned as infinitive constructs, whereby the word serves as both a verb and as a noun, making the action particularly descriptive. Also, on occasion, we will come across the consecutive form, which blends the ongoing influences of the imperfect with an expression of volition.

Enriching translations all the more are the imperative, cohortative, jussive, and paragogic moods. The imperative communicates a purpose or a request and is always volitional. Therefore, the imperative presents the action as being a choice or desire expressed in second person. The cohortative then presents a first-person perspective on the exercise of freewill. The jussive conveys volition as a third-party expression, reflecting a conscious choice of those being addressed. Also, the paragogic heh and nun suffixes 61typically mirror the cohortative but add a degree of emphasis or empathy.

Collectively, then, by adding or omitting a letter, Hebrew verbs can convey a wealth of insights which require the addition of many words, including extra pronouns, conjunctions, and prepositions along with multiple tenses, to replicate each statement in English. So, while I am being more open and honest with you than other translators, I am admittedly an imperfect guide in the English sense of the word but not the Hebrew. I say that because to properly understand the message being conveyed by Yahowah you ultimately have to transition from just reading Hebrew to actually thinking in Hebrew – which given time comes quite naturally. We were designed based upon this language and function best when guided by it.

The eighth challenge is that in Hebrew, like most all languages, words have more than one meaning. To appreciate the consequence of this reality, I’d like you to consider Yahowah’s introduction to Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations. In this statement, I’ve highlighted the words which convey more than one thought:

“Then Yahowah declared the word to (dabar – communicated with) Moseh, saying, ‘On the tenth of the seventh (shaby’iy – from shaba’, to vow or make a solemn oath on the basis of seven) month (chodesh – time of renewal) is the Day of Reconciliations (yowm kipurym – the day of pardons by being purged and covered).

This exists as (hayah – this was, is, and will be) a set-apart and cleansing (qodesh – a separating and special) Invitation to be Called Out and Meet (miqra’ – a summons for reading and reciting and to proclaim a welcome; based upon qara’ – to be invited, summoned, and called out, to proclaim and announce, to welcome, meet, and greet) for you.

62Your soul (nepesh ‘atah – your consciousness, which is your ability to be observant and responsive) should respond and answer (‘anah – should reply, making a declaration after engaging in thought, vocally communicating), appearing before and approaching (qarab – coming toward and drawing near, being present with) the feminine manifestation of God’s fiery light which elevates (‘ishah – the feminine word for fire) unto (la – to approach) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence).’” (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 23:26-27)

‘Anah, translated above as “shall respond and answer,” is a verb with a light and dark side, providing a translator with a variety of viable options. According to the primary definition of ‘anah found in the world’s leading lexicons, our souls can “answer a call and respond to a summons,” and they can do so “by replying and making a declaration.” Or, if the context dictates, an individual can “be afflicted, disturbed, and oppressed in a state of anxiety and distress, bending down and being miserable and wretched, being raped and violated in humility.” However, the subject and context render these definitions nonsensical. A nepesh | soul is incorporeal and thus cannot be subjected to physical deprivation or abuse. And one cannot reconcile a relationship by debasing a party to it.

A third option is akin to the first: our souls can be “concerned,” which is “to be engaged in deep thought.” A fourth consideration which can be derived from the most reliable Hebrew lexicons is: our souls can “sing, vocally communicating with” God.

Therefore, of the five potential ways to translate ‘anah – four are similar and consistent with the theme of reconciliation, and one is diametrically opposed to it. And since the choice as to how to render ‘anah is obvious in this context, it’s appalling that every English Bible translation 63selected the lone variation that conflicts with God’s purpose and nature.

These things known, there are two potential reasons behind the existence of such radically divergent definitions which I’d like you to consider. Rabbis and priests, in the process of turning Yahowah’s merciful message of redemption into the mean-spirited legalistic rant of a fearsome god, may have redefined ‘anah somewhere along the way to serve their oppressive religions. After all, if God can be made to say that He wants us to oppress ourselves, what could be so bad about enduring religious oppression?

Or it is possible that the dual connotations were intended to provide an essential insight? For example, on the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet of Pesach | Passover and Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, Dowd voluntarily “afflicted” his soul in the worst sense of the word, so that we might “engage in deep thought and carefully consider” his sacrifice, and as a result “answer His Father’s invitation” and “respond to his summons” on this day so as to be “reconciled.” This contrast thereby provides us with an explanation of what Father and Son did on our behalf, all so that we wouldn’t endure the same fate. But to upend this profound and merciful act, by afflicting ourselves, we not only ignorantly display our utter contempt for Dowd’s sacrifice, but we are also inferring that, by making a meaningless gesture ourselves, we somehow believe that we can contribute to our own salvation.

The ninth challenge we face when developing a correct and complete translation is also manifested in this Towrah passage. It is apparent that time and religion have conspired to rob us of the intended meanings of many words, specifically ‘ishah, which was translated as “the feminine manifestation of God’s fiery light which elevates” in the Qara’ / Leviticus pronouncement. ‘Isheh | female or ‘ishah | fire, depending upon how the word is 64vocalized, is almost always rendered as “burnt offering” or as “an offering made by fire” in English Bibles. However, neither ‘isheh nor ‘ishah has an etymological connection with any Hebrew word even remotely associated with “making an offering” – nor is any offering delineated or specified.

‘Esh, the masculine word for “fire,” is used to describe Yahowah’s appearance to Moseh and later to the Children of Yisra’el. Further, since Yahowah has a maternal manifestation of His nature – the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit – it is apparent that we are being encouraged to approach the feminine aspect of God’s fiery light which elevates us toward Yahowah during Kipurym | Reconciliations.

Yahowah, who is akin to Light, is obviously comfortable using fire to describe His nature, using radiant energy to convey His ability to enlighten and empower His children – even to refine and elevate them. It is one of the many ways He has revealed Himself to us and one of the devices He has deployed in His meetings with us.

Further, “fire” is used throughout the Towrah as a metaphor for judgment, which is the separation of good from bad. It represents purification in the sense that gold is separated from the dross in a crucible. Fire is symbolic of light and enlightenment, and it conveys the concepts of warmth and comfort. And with regard to the Miqra’ey, fire is used to express the idea of something which elevates and uplifts – a reference to the primary direction a fire’s smoke and energy travel.

More convincing still, fire is the result of combustion, transforming physical organic material into light and energy. Such is the purpose of Yahowah’s seven Mow'ed | eternal witness to the appointed meeting times where we as mortal beings are remade in God’s image, becoming spiritual beings akin to light energy. And so, by asking us 65to approach the maternal manifestation of God’s fiery light throughout the Miqra'ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, Yahowah is providing us with the opportunity to reflect His nature and inviting us into His Family and Home.

But there is more to ‘isheh than this. Based upon its Aleph-Shin-Heh (ה ש א) composition, the word Yahowah selected could well have been ‘ishah, meaning “a female individual, a wife, woman, and non-biological adoptive Mother.” It is the feminine version of ‘iysh, which designates “a male individual.” Yahowah referred to Himself and His associates as ‘iysh in His meeting with ‘Abraham. God calls Himself an ‘iysh during Ya’aqob’s transition to Yisra’el | an Individual-Who-Engages and Endures-With-God.

It is obviously senseless for God to ask us to “appear before and approach” an unspecified or unidentified “fire” or a human “wife or woman” in the context of a Miqra’ dedicated to reconciliation with God. So, rather than investigate what ‘isheh /‘ishah might have meant in this context, translators followed the rabbinical lead and changed qarab to “present,” as opposed to reflecting its actual meaning which is “to approach and draw near,” and then they rendered ‘isheh as “an offering made by fire,” even though there is no support for “offering” or “made” in the Hebrew term.

Moreover, the Hebrew word commonly translated to convey the idea of a “burnt offering” is ‘olah. And although it is deployed 286 times in this context, ‘olah is based upon the actionable root, ‘alah, which means “to rise.” There is no etymological basis for it being rendered as “burnt” or “offering” either.

The purveyors of religion have robbed many words of their original meanings, twisting and perverting them to suit their oppressive agendas. As a result, I have found that 66the best way to properly translate a corrupted term, and return to God’s intended meaning, is to consider how it was used the first time the word appears in the Towrah.

And for the first use of ‘isheh, we turn to the Towrah, where we find it used in connection with the consecration of kohen | priests among the Lowy | Levites…

“And (wa) you shall render as smoke (qatar – you should transform by burning and send up as fragrant smoke which rises to be enveloped and transformed (hifil perfect – you should instigate the transformation which creates this result at this moment in time)), accordingly (‘eth – with), the entire (kol ha – all of the) lamb (‘ayil – ram, empowering male lamb, the most valuable member of the flock, the one who is the most protective and willing to lead, the sacrificial lamb who serves as the doorway) of the sacrifice upon the altar (ha mizbeach – the place of sacrifice; from my – to ponder the implications of zabach – the sacrifice which is slain and prepared for consumption).

It (huw’ – or more accurately “he” speaking of the lamb) rises up (‘olah – ascends and elevates as the perversity is withdrawn and goes away; from ‘alah – to go up, ascend, and rise, to withdraw and go away and ‘alwah – iniquity and unrighteousness) to approach (la – according to and in the direction of) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) as the spirit of soothing acceptance (reyach – as a satisfactory aroma to facilitate approval, authorization, and acceptance and to come close and meet; based upon ruwach – meaning Spirit).

It (huw’ – or more accurately “he” speaking of the lamb) serves to reconcile the relationship, bringing appeasement (nychowach – affords acceptance and tranquility, satisfying and settling outstanding issues to comfort, to live, abide, and remain; from nuwach – to 67create a restful place where one can live and remain) through the feminine manifestation of the fiery light who purifies and transforms, enlightens and elevates (‘isheh), to approach (la – to draw near according to) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 29:18)

We turned to the statement because ‘isheh was used in a definitive way, but there are many more things we can learn about the translation. In that learning is the stated purpose of this Introduction to God, let’s explore all of them.

First, there are three interrelated thoughts, but only one verb – qatar – which was translated as “you shall render as smoke.” Affirming the idea of converting matter into energy, a physical body into a spiritual being, and thus mortal life into eternal life, qatar conveys the idea of “transforming a physical entity so that it rises up to the heavens as radiant energy.” This is the very connection we shared moments ago so that we would understand why Yahowah has invited us to “approach the maternal manifestation of the fiery light” during the Miqra'ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet.

Discovering these kinds of affirmations is among the principal benefits of an amplified translation. And along these lines, we also learn that qatar speaks of “enclosing and enveloping” so that we can rise. As such, qatar is evocative of the work of Yahowah’s Set-Apart Spirit. She is responsible for enclosing and enveloping the beneficiaries of the Miqra’ey and Beryth in Her Garment of Light (which is a form of radiant energy) so that we appear as light and, thus, perfect before God.

Qatar was scribed in the hifil stem, which tells us that there is a relationship between the verb’s subject, in this case, “you,” and the verb’s action, which is the process of transforming a physical being into a spiritual one capable 68of rising up to God. The hifil stem is also causative, whereby the subject of the verb, “you,” causes the object of the verb, “the sacrificial lamb,” to participate in the action, which is transforming us so that we rise up to God. That is to say, our willingness to do what Yahowah has asked of us enables Yahowah to respond and accomplish what He has promised. Also, with the hifil stem, the object participates in the action as a secondary subject, unifying us with the work of the lamb. And that, my friends, is especially humbling because qatar was prefixed in the second-person singular, meaning “you as an individual,” telling us that God is prepared and willing to honor this promise even if only one of us chooses to engage with Him in this way.

Also relevant, qatar was scribed in the perfect conjugation. This means that this transformation needs to only be done once and that it is whole and complete, and that it is uninterrupted and indivisible in time. It even conveys a sense of reality, communicating the idea that our transformation actually occurs at that moment.

‘Ayil, which was translated simply as “lamb,” is a much richer word. It is equally comfortable being rendered as “ram, empowering male lamb, the most valuable member of the flock, the one who is the most protective and willing to lead, the sacrificial lamb who serves as the doorway.” Providing these additional insights is another benefit of amplification. It takes more time to process, but we are all enriched by the experience.

This ‘ayil, therefore, is indicative of Dowd, who is the “Zarowa’ – mighty, male sacrificial lamb” of God, who “protects” us by serving as the “doorway” to Heaven and “leading the way” by fulfilling Passover.

Our next word, mizbeach, was translated as “of the sacrifice upon the altar.” It is one of the hundreds of words which are composed by combining one of the two most 69prevalent interrogatories, my or mah, with another word, in this case, zabach. Miqra’, which combines my and qara’, is another. The purpose of the prefixed interrogatory is to encourage us to ponder the implications of what follows, questioning the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the conjoined word. Therefore, in this case, to appreciate the meaning of mizbeach, we must consider the implications of “zabach – a sacrifice which is slain and prepared for consumption.”

Previously, I mentioned that ‘olah was based upon the verbal root, ‘alah, and thus meant “to rise, ascend, and elevate.” But it also speaks of “having something undesirable withdrawn from us and taken away.” This is the result of the sacrifice Father and Son made on our behalf when they provided “reyach – the spirit of acceptance.”

Even here, we have to be diligent because, while “aroma” is a connotation of reyach, the word is derived from ruwach, the feminine word for “Spirit.” Moreover, in the Dictionary of Biblical Languages, we find that a different vocalization of the same spelling means “to accept and receive, to come close and draw near.” By using these terms in conjunction with ‘isheh, Yahowah is painting a picture for us so that we come to appreciate what He is offering those who accept His invitation to approach the feminine aspect of His fiery light.

To this list of descriptive terms, God then adds “nychowach – which serves to reconcile the relationship by making us acceptable.” With nychowach, all outstanding issues are satisfactorily resolved so that we can “nuwach – live, abide, and remain.”

The next word is ‘isheh, letting us know that the combination of the ‘ayil | lamb and ‘isheh | the maternal presence of the fire used to purify, transform, enlighten, and elevate enables us to approach Yahowah. It provides a 70perfectly appropriate picture of the specific role the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit plays in resolving the issues which separate us from our Heavenly Father.

Therefore, when we consider the implications of ‘isheh in this context, we come to appreciate why Yahowah has stated: “your soul should respond, appearing before and approaching the ‘isheh” because we now know precisely what He is trying to accomplish. According to God, She covers us in a Garment of Light which makes us appear perfect in Yahowah’s eyes. She purifies us, nurtures us, comforts us, enlightens us, protects us, empowers us, and, most of all, transforms us from mortal physical beings to light energy and thus spiritual beings so that we can approach God.

The Set-Apart Spirit not only embodies every metaphor associated with fire throughout the Towrah, Her primary function is to provide us with access to our Heavenly Father, raising us up to heaven. Those who do not respond to Her call are disqualified from being in Yahowah’s presence. To become God’s children, we must be born anew spiritually – which is indicative of Firstborn Children following the Passover and UnYeasted Bread sacrifices.

Also, be aware that the Hebrew word used for Yahowah’s Spirit, ruwach, is feminine. And the Spirit’s responsibilities are typically Maternal.

The moral of this prolonged explanation is that spiritual insights are available to those who seek them. The truth can be known if we are willing to invest the time to closely observe and carefully consider the Towrah with an open mind.

Unfortunately, due to religious malfeasance, to learn the truth, you are going to have to work for it. That is not to say your salvation comes at a cost, but that engaging in an interactive relationship with Yahowah requires effort on 71your behalf. As evidence of this, I’d like you to consider two English translations of this passage, where all of the relevant spiritual insights were squandered.

With one exception, that of reviewing something out of context, our standard operating procedure over the next 35 volumes will be to do as we have done here. I will not only create an amplified translation for you to review but also reveal word roots when they augment the potential meaning. Then I will explain, when needed, why one rendering may have been chosen over another should there be several options. Lastly, I will share some of the insights which can be gleaned from God’s disclosure because the only thing better than knowing is understanding.

Further, I will consistently lay all of God’s cards face up on the table so that you are aware of them, come to know them, and can verify their meaning. If I don’t know the answer, or if there are many possibilities, I will tell you. When I make a mistake, I’ll readily admit it and strive to correct it – which is why I have gone back and rewritten every volume many times. Like you, I’m continuing to learn, and with new knowledge, we come to an even deeper understanding of things we may have missed previously.

Occasionally, I will summarize one of Yahowah’s statements, removing some of the amplification, and then compare it to the more common, religious translations. Here is an example. Yahowah said:

“And (wa) you shall render as smoke that which ascends, being enveloped and transformed (qatar), accordingly with (‘eth) the entire (kol ha) lamb, representing the most valuable and protective member of the flock who leads us to and serves as the doorway (‘ayil) as the sacrifice upon the altar (ha mizbeach).

It (huw’) rises up, withdrawing our perversity (‘olah) to approach (la) Yahowah (YaHoWaH) as the spirit of soothing acceptance, making us acceptable so 72that we can draw close (reyach).

It (huw’) serves to reconcile the relationship, making us acceptable so that we can live and abide (nychowach) through the feminine manifestation of the fiery light who purifies and transforms, enlightens and elevates (‘isheh), to approach (la) Yahowah (Yahowah).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 29:18)

So why do you suppose the King James Version published this as if it represented the Word of God? “And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it [is] a burnt offering unto the LORD: it [is] a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.”

Qatar speaks of smoke rising and not of “burning.” ‘Olah means “to rise up” and “to remove iniquity,” not “burnt offering.” There is no basis in the text for “the LORD” once, much less twice. “Sweet savour” misses the entire point of nychowach and suggests that Yahowah is more interested in the “smell” of burnt flesh than “reconciliation.” And while we have already addressed the issue of properly rendering ‘isheh, even in this passage which illustrates its meaning, the Rosicrucian who supervised the publication of the KJV remained clueless.

And yet, while this stilted translation is rife with errors, let’s not be unfair. After all, the King James Version was conceived to be nothing more than a politically inspired revision of the Geneva Bible, which by its own admission served to update the Bishops’ Bible, which was a revision two times over of John Wycliffe’s translation of the Latin Vulgate, which in turn was a translation of the Septuagint, itself a translation of the Hebrew text. Therefore, the KJV was filtered through five revisions and four languages. (The revealed Hebrew text was translated into Greek in the Septuagint, into Latin in the Vulgate, and then into Anglo-Saxon by John Wycliffe, which was in turn translated into Elizabethan English and revised many times 73over.)

Moreover, by the time Jerome began his translation on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, the Septuagint had been corrupted to the point it was highly unreliable. And with respect to the King James Version, the only credible manuscript of the Masoretic Text, the Codex Leningradensis, would not be published for two hundred years. So even if they had Hebrew scholars at their disposal, which they didn’t, it wouldn’t have mattered. Furthermore, the Dead Seas Scrolls, from which our translations will be derived, wouldn’t be unearthed for another three centuries.

But alas, time and evidence would not matter because religious perceptions die hard. Among the most recent attempts to convey the Divine Writ comes to us in the form of the New Living Translation. They elected to write something novel: “Then burn the entire animal on the altar. This is a burnt offering to the LORD; it is a pleasing aroma, a special gift presented to the LORD.” They plagiarized all of the mistakes found in the King James Version and then added some of their own. They transformed the ‘ayil into a common, nondescript animal as if the word defied definition. And speaking of defying definition, there is no justification whatsoever in the text for “a special gift presented to the LORD.” None.

Therefore, let this example, among countless others we will consider, serve as evidence that understanding comes only to those who search diligently for it. To know Yahowah, and to appreciate the remedies He has provided, you will have to be willing to expend the time and effort to learn the truth. This is one of many reasons that Yahowah told us to be observant, to search, and to listen. He realized that, if we did so diligently, we would find Him.

The tenth challenge to providing a complete and accurate translation lies in determining when enough is 74enough. The more completely each word is defined, the more nuances and shadings which are conveyed, and 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 while still retaining the flow and substance of each discussion, we will color Yah’s linguistic palette in subsequent paragraphs. Then recognizing the difficulty of processing such an enormous amount of new information, I will endeavor to introduce passages in such a way that you are grounded by the associated context.

In this light, I want you to know that the more engaged you are in the process of verifying what I’ve shared and then going beyond it, the closer you will draw to the Author of these words. Not only will you understand and retain more of what He has to say, but you will also find Yah’s words positively influencing your thinking and every aspect of your life.

The eleventh 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 Dictionary or 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, the NASB and ESV 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, yet it exists in large part to justify the King James Version. Many of their definitions were religiously inspired and are not the result of scholastic 75etymology.

Making a different mistake, 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. Further, the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, while useful in many ways, are filled with theological opinions, most of which are invalid. Also challenging, every Hebrew lexicon and interlinear is synced with the Masoretic Text and uncorrected for the Dead Sea Scrolls.



The twelfth challenge to translation is unlike the others. An accurate rendering 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 translations found throughout Yada Yahowah, Observations, Coming Home, Babel, Twistianity, God Damn Religion, and this Introduction to God will be hard for some people to accept. “How is it,” they will ask, “that an individual without professed qualifications could be right, and every other translation be wrong?”

Mind you, no one who has actually studied the citations in the Introduction to God, Yada Yahowah, Observations, Coming Home, Babel, or Twistianity, and checked them for themselves, has ever asked this question. Properly translated, God’s Testimony is so clearly stated, so magnificently worded, so majestically interwoven, so brilliantly conceived, so effectively attested, so irrefutably proven, and so generously enabled, the only informed and rational response is to fall in love with the Author. And frankly, eventually everyone who has read these presentations of Yahowah’s Word comes to test the 76translations along the way, but not because they have doubts, instead because by verifying them, they not only come to know Yahowah better, but they also become more effective witnesses.

It may surprise you to know that none of those who ask this question have ever tested these translations, even though I consistently encourage everyone to do so. They never determine for themselves if they are reliable. Just as they spurn and discard evidence which lampoons their faith, they are more than willing to dismiss the witness God has provided on the basis that they don’t have the time to learn the language of revelation. And as such, they have made themselves easy prey for those eager to reinforce their mistaken beliefs. Moreover, since Hebrew is the only language spoken in Heaven, why go if you won’t be able to communicate with anyone?

These things known, the most direct answer to the question posed by superficial critics is “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 based upon the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NLT offer modest revisions of their own and other translations, most of which are simply revisions of the King James Version, which itself was a revision five times over of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was conceived as an amalgamation of wildly variant Old Latin texts which were translations of the Greek rather than Hebrew. With each subsequent translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, the message became ever more divergent from the original. Then, from this point forward, all subsequent translations became nothing more than revisions.

Specifically, the King James Version was a revision of the Bishops’ Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which was a revision of the Coverdale Bible, which was a 77revision 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. It’s like playing the children’s game of telephone or grapevine where each child in a chain tries to repeat the message the previous child has told, but this time with each successive child speaking a different language.

Also, the bottom line in marketing anything, and especially religious texts, is that 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.

If you are still prone to believe the myth that the conglomeration of English Bible translations are accurate and reliable, you may want to jump ahead in time 1,500 years from this discussion of the Towrah to a review of Paul’s Epistles. In Twistianity, you will confront just how divergent the texts are from the oldest Greek codices because I have taken the time to consistently juxtapose a literal rendering of Papyrus 46 (an early to mid-2^nd century codex of Paul’s epistles) against the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate (the longest surviving and most influential Bible translation), the Nestle-Aland (the most highly acclaimed synthesis of Greek manuscripts), the King James Bible (the most influential English translation), and the extraordinarily popular New Living Translation. Their collective variances from the earliest witness of what Paul wrote, along with the similarities manifest between them, will prove my point beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone with an open mind. Although to be fair, Paul, himself, could not provide an accurate translation of the Hebrew text and translations are the least of Paul’s problems.

Therefore, throughout Observations and Coming Home, in addition to Twistianity, I will not only compare English translations to the actual words Yahowah 78conveyed but will also provide a detailed history regarding the circumstances under which the religious texts were conceived and marketed. Then I will share rather shocking disclosures to demonstrate who actually wrote what the faithful are reading and what they got wrong.

In spite of this, some will dismiss the translations found in this Introduction to God as well as in Yada Yahowah with “I can’t believe God would allow His Bible to be corrupted.” This says, in essence, the translation they prefer is perfect. But to hold this view, one enormously popular throughout Christendom, a person must ignore a mountain of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Moreover, God, Himself, predicted that men would pervert His testimony. He even revealed the consequence of these corruptions for our consideration.

However, should you choose not to believe Him, what about the evidence? For this religious myth to be plausible, there would be no divergent parchments among the scrolls and fragments of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms found in the cliffs above Qumran, collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (radiocarbon dated from 385 BCE to shortly before 80 CE), and yet, significant scribal errors exist. Septuagint copies (with fragments dating from the 2^nd century BCE to the 5^th century CE) would differ so wildly that in the 3^rd century CE, Origen, one of the few early theologians to study Hebrew, devoted 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 Word from being corrupted, the Masoretic Text (dating to the 11^th century CE) would have mirrored the Dead Sea Scrolls, in addition to reading identically to surviving Septuagint manuscripts, and yet this is not what the evidence reveals. These texts differ considerably.

Turning to the Greek texts, as the uninspired and mistaken words of men, the situation only gets worse – 79much worse – which is catastrophic to the Christian myth of inerrancy. The sixty-nine pre-Constantine codices which have now been unearthed differ substantially. This variance then becomes mind-numbing as these 2^nd-through-early-4^th-century textual witnesses are compared to those scribed during the emergence of Catholicism in the mid-4^th century (particularly Bishop Eusebius’ Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). And yet, an even bigger divergence exists between these older manuscripts and the vaunted Textus Receptus – which was acclaimed as being “without error” by the religious community in the 17^th century even though the known disagreements between it and them have now been shown to exceed 300,000 words in a 182,000-word text.

Further, for the “always accurate” myth to be valid, the long-revered 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.

For the faithful still murmuring: “I can’t believe God would allow anyone to corrupt His scripture,” for you to enter the realm of reality, at some point, you will have to deal with the fact that the Masoretic Text differs significantly from the text found in the one-thousand-four-hundred-year-older Dead Sea Scrolls. You will have to account for the fact that the 16^th-century Textus Receptus and the 20^th-century Nestle-Aland differ materially from the now extant sixty-nine 1^st-through-3^rd-century manuscripts of the text they purport to present.

Therefore, if your current Bible is by happenstance accurate, it means that every prior witness to the text was inaccurate. As a result, the question now becomes: “Why was the Christian god unable or unwilling to protect his Word from human corruptions?” because the notion that 80“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.

Moreover, for those who are fixated on believing that God would not allow anyone to corrupt His Word, take a moment and turn to The Story of Man volume of Yada Yahowah and read its coverage of the second and third chapters of Bare’syth / Genesis. There you will find that Satan confused Chawah (the actual name of ‘Adam’s wife, meaning “to make a declarative statement,” whereas Eve is the name of a pagan mother earth goddess) by corrupting Yahowah’s instructions. Since the Adversary did this very thing, deliberately misconstruing God’s Word in the confines of the Garden of ‘Eden, God, who was present at the time, obviously allowed it. And should you wonder why, the answer is that the Covenant relationship necessitates choice. For our participation in this relationship to be meaningful, there must be the perception of a credible alternative.

When dealing with the myth of inerrancy, 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 conflicting copies of the Septuagint, which were themselves highly variant translations of the Hebrew text, the Vulgate is predictably in substantial conflict with the five-to-eight-centuries-older Qumran parchments. But yet inexplicably, 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 Latin text, effectively preventing any layman from knowing God’s Word, even if it had been preserved without corruption. The Roman Catholic Church, by way 81of their marriage of cleric and king, made it a crime punishable by death to own a translation of the Vulgate.

To make matters worse, in the rare instance someone would attempt a translation into a language which could be read and understood by the general population, as was the case with John Wycliffe in 1384, the man and his resulting translation were labeled heretical and burned. (Wycliffe died of a stroke in 1384, but then Pope Martin V ordered in 1428 that his corpse be exhumed and burned.)

To a lesser degree, the same situation exists with Hebrew because the language went largely unspoken and dormant after the Diaspora. Therefore, Jews would have been clueless as to the Towrah’s content.

Simply stated: none of these variations or failures to communicate would have been possible if God had intervened and refused to allow His Word to be controlled and corrupted by man. So, since He obviously allowed it, isn’t it incumbent upon us to understand why He did so and then strive to discover what He actually revealed?

Considering 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 religious rendition – including the JPS (Jewish Publication Society). All English translations vary from poor to horrible. There are not any worth recommending or studying.

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 reason that most, if not all, translations are errant and inadequate is that the popular ones come from the same polluted well because, in business, familiarity sells. A careful comparison proves that every mainstream English Bible (with the exception of the JPS which has been corrupted by rabbis) is actually a revision, five or 82more times over, of a translation of the Roman Catholic Vulgate, which was itself a translation of Hebrew conversations by way of Greek and then Old Latin, regardless of the protestations publishers have made to the contrary – something which is conclusively demonstrated in Twistianity.

Jerome’s Latin text, collected on behalf of his pope, was a blend of Old Latin manuscripts which were so varied they had lost their credibility, something Jerome admits in his letter to the Pope, as well as an amalgamation of divergent renderings of Septuagint translations of the Hebrew text. This blending of linguistic variants and anomalies served as “The Holy Bible” for one thousand years. Then in 1384, John Wycliffe created the first common language rendition for the European community by translating the Latin Vulgate into a primitive variation of English. From it, the King James Bible eventually emerged as 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 – that is after David and Solomon on behalf of Yisra’el. 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 produce a new Bible, whereby the marginal notes were removed, the translations tweaked to please the king, and where Paul’s letter to the Romans could be 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. That is hardly reassuring, but it is the truth. (As a revolting legacy of the political pandering which accompanied the King James Version, the New Testament book ascribed to the Disciple Ya’aqob | Jacob, 83was renamed “James” to placate the King.)

Until quite recently, the Textus Receptus was touted as the foundation of English translations of the Greek New Testament, and yet, it was little more than an intellectual fraud and financial hoax. In October of 1515, 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 mix of highly suspect 12^th-century Medieval Byzantine manuscripts and Erasmus’ own translation of the Latin Vulgate, and they set their type directly from his arbitrary commingling of the texts. In places where they couldn’t find a passage to corroborate the Vulgate, they filled in the blanks by translating the Latin back into Greek.

Worse, when Roman Catholic clerics protested that some of their pet passages still were not included, to quiet their critics, Erasmus and Froben added them without any legitimate basis. An example is the story of “Jesus and the adulterous woman” recounted in John 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 a complete hoax. It did not occur. The alleged discussion, which if true would have the mythical Christian misnomer, "Jesus," disavowing the Towrah, is not found in any manuscript prior to the 8^th century. Similarly, you will not find the ending of Mark, chapter 16 verses 9-20 (which speak of a resurrection), in any pre-Constantine manuscript, nor even in the 4^th-century Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.

But in the absence of a viable competitor, Erasmus’ and Froben’s commingled concoction was said to be “a text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted,” and thus the “Textus Receptus.” And while the evidence is irrefutable that the King James Bible, which was first printed in 1611, was actually a revision of a Latin translation, its authors attributed their text to this very same 84and highly flawed Textus Receptus. The KJV in turn became so popular no English translation has yet been offered which dares to correct its familiar phrasing 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 one hundred much older Greek manuscripts in his possession. In so doing, he discovered and documented 30,000 variations between them. And even this was just the tip of the iceberg. 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 2^nd through early 4^th centuries. 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. (And much to their chagrin, God did not inspire a word of their New Testament – most of it contradicts Him.)

Some of these same issues exist with the Hebrew text – although to a much lesser degree. All English Bible translations of the “Old Testament” claim to be based upon the Masoretic Text, an 11^th-century vocalization of Babylonian Hebrew (itself a pseudo-translation of ancient and Paleo-Hebrew) composed by politically inspired and religiously minded rabbis. Their copyedits of Yahowah’s Word are now legend, revealed for all to see courtesy of 85the 3^rd-to-4^th-century BCE through 1^st-century CE Dead Sea Scrolls. As evidence of this, 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 8% with regard to the textual root of the words alone. To this, we must add innumerable errant vocalizations which significantly alter the meanings of much of the vocabulary Yahowah selected.

As is the case with the sixty-nine 2^nd-, 3^rd-, and early 4^th-century manuscripts which have been discovered of the Greek eyewitness accounts, translators have universally ignored what the Qumran Scrolls reveal because they are bad for business. There simply isn’t a financial motivation for a publisher to print an accurate rendering of the Towrah or Prophets because as businessmen they recognize something this unfamiliar wouldn’t be accepted and, thus, would not sell in sufficient quantities to justify the costs. Moreover, just as was the case with the King James Version, they realize that accurate translations would undermine the authority of their religious establishments and thereby completely invalidate their businesses. The same is true with the Jewish Publication Societies’ version of the Tanakh.

So, while God’s words in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms were inspired, and while much of what they reveal has been preserved in old manuscripts and thus can be known, translations are human affairs. As such, I do not claim that my 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
• Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon
• Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
• Dictionary of Biblical Languages: Hebrew
• 86Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon to the Old Testament
• Concise Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
• New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary
• A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
• The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
• Englishman’s Concordance
• 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
• Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Werkgroep Informatica
• The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible
• Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear
• Logos Scholar’s Platinum Edition Software

For Twistianity, the following were also used…

• 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: Greek
• The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
• The Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
• Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
• 87An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
• The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
• The Complete Word Study Guide of the New Testament
• ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament
• Nestle-Aland Greek NT, McReynolds English Interlinear

I have also used the following free websites:

• QBible.com
• DSSEnglishBible.com
• DeadSeaScrolls.org.il
• BibleGateway.com
• BibleStudyTools.com
• BibleHub.com
• YadaYah.com (my favorite, but I’m biased)

Throughout this Introduction to God and Yada Yahowah, Observations, Coming Home, Babel, Twistianity, and where possible in God Damn Religion, and you will find a complete transliteration and translation of each Hebrew word, all rendered in accordance with the definitions and synonyms provided by the world’s most distinguished linguistic scholars. I almost always have a dozen or more scholastic tomes open, surrounding me on revolving Jeffersonian carousels, and another two 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. Passages will not roll off the tongue in familiar word patterns. But if you question, verify, and study the words Yahowah 88revealed, you will come to know the truth – as God revealed it.

And yet, this will not come without considerable consternation. Surprisingly, there is a substantial difference between the definitions rendered in the lexicons which bear the names of popular Bible translations and their translations themselves. Therefore, as I mentioned previously, 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 rabbis and pastors, their synagogues and churches, and, indeed, their religion.

Fortunately, with a little effort, we can know what God revealed. And that, you may be surprised to learn, is exactly as Yahowah wants it to be – at least between now and His Yowm Kipurym return. He wants all of us to value knowing Him sufficiently that we are willing to prioritize this endeavor. And that is why Yahowah constantly asks us to “shamar – diligently observe, closely examine, carefully consider, and thoughtfully evaluate” His Towrah. He wants us to “keep our eyes focused on it.” Understanding comes to those who study His Word – not to those who merely skim over inadequate and improperly translated variations of it.

Therefore, when God introduces a new term, one that seems to defy normal translation, we will find answers in other statements where the same word is used, especially in those where a new concept is initially introduced. Illustrating this point, the Hebrew noun I introduced in the previous chapter, zarowa’, is usually translated as “arms,” and yet the Towrah and Prophets suggests it means much more. Considering the context where zarowa’ is used, and to whom it is applied, ascertaining its range of meanings becomes profoundly important as we have and will 89continue to discover.

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. Neshamah, whose best analog is “conscience,” is such a term, one we will investigate throughout these volumes because of the role it plays in the process of us coming to know Yahowah.

In this regard, I will try to be consistent: transliterating names (rendering the pronunciation accurately) while translating words (properly conveying their meaning). Titles often require both and will be treated thusly.

Also, as previously mentioned, the genitive case (scrubbed of pronouns and conjunctions) of the Hebrew words will be italicized and set inside parentheses within the text itself. These are presented in their most generic forms so that you can look them up in Hebrew lexicons. I have also done this so that you might gradually become familiar with God’s favorite words. This format will serve to minimize confusion over the variants for first, second, or third person, singular or plural, masculine or feminine, in the presentation of the Hebrew words, while still rendering them accurately in English.

Success. You have survived the dullest and driest chapter of the many hundreds which comprise the Yada Yahowah series. This foundational material will serve you well as you progress toward Yahowah.

And you are going to need every bit of what you have just learned because the next two chapters are a lot to process this early in our relationship. God wants you to know: Why you? Why me?

