God (what Or Who Is It?)

According to the social collective consciousness of the earth’s world(s), the concept of the word “God” entails the idea (belief) of an Absolute Being; the All Knowing, the All Powerful, Allah (God), the Almighty, the Creator, Divine Being, the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity and Infinite Spirit: also, by the names of Jesus, Jah or Yah, Jehovah, Yahweh, King of kings, Lord of lords, Prince of peace, Maker of makers, Master worker and the most two famously used, “The LORD,” or “The GOD.”  It seems that in the world’s collective coagulum, there are many gods/Gods who are Creators of the universe and of our earth.

In the Canaanite religion, Eli (meaning deity) is the Supreme Being of mankind and of all creatures of the heavens, as well as of our earth.  In the modern Hebrew language, Elohim (meaning multiple gods), or Yahweh (meaning He brings into existence whatever exists) is the Creator of all the universe and of our earth.  In Christendom/Christianity, Yahoshua (the Christ Jesus of Nazareth) is no other but God itself, in which he (Jesus) is figuratively felt (believed) of being part of a divine Trinity (i.e., the God, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit), for whom is also responsible for creating the universe, and our earth according to the lineage biblical translation of the Bohairic Coptic language (of the Northern side of lower Egypt).  In the legendary biblical account, Jehovah is the One Almighty God who is responsible for creating the entire universe and all that which is in it, including our earth and all life itself within there, of course with the help of its’ firstborn creation, which is Michael the archangel (later to be known as the terrestrial Jesus itself), in whom is the only known seraph—the illustrative biblical Jehovah is not considered to be of multiple gods merged into one, nor of a divine Trinity according to the lineage biblical translation of the Sahidic Coptic language (of the Southern side of upper Egypt); for in Jehovah, there is only One Almighty; secondly and separately is its son, Yahoshua (Jesus Christ of Nazareth), who is the promised Messianic King that shall return back to earth to implement righteous divine peace, not the peace from man, in the entire surface of our globe by first eradicating presently existing nations, along with all of their citizens who did not listen to Jehovah‘s heeded warnings about the arrival of the end of the-World(s).  In Egyptian mythology, it is Khnum to be the creator of the bodies of human children, in which IT made them from its’ potter’s wheel, from clay, and placed them in their mother’s wombs, where then the Egyptian goddess Heket takes over from there and breathe life on into them while developing in their mother’s womb:  In the Yoruba religion of Africa, it is the orisha, Obatala, who is the Creator of human bodies, which were then supposedly brought to life by its wife breath, Olodumare’s (the Self-Existing Being):  In the Yaounde people of the Cameroons, it is Zamba who is the Creator God that made the universe and our earth.  In Greek mythology, it is Zeus who’s the Creator:  In Latin mythology of Rome, it is Jupiter who is the Creator:  In Islamic belief, it is Allah (God) who is the Creator: and the list goes on and on, and on—it’s so long that my being cannot mention/list all of them here.  There are so many god/Gods, so many Creators that even the concept and idea of a ‘God’ has become extremely ambiguous, and therefore, the light that was meant to come from IT has become aphotic.  The etymology of the word ‘god/God’ not only entails the idea of a Supreme Being; but it also entails that there are certain specific biblical spirit persons who are godlike as well: in other words, there are certain specific biblical spirit species (i.e., cherubim and seraph) also known to be gods.  So it seems that there are many lesser and greater gods after all, that have participated in some specific creations.  Additionally, if you look even further into the etymology of the word ‘God,’ it entails that the word itself is just a ‘title;’ in other words, the concept of the word ‘god/God’ is a title like such is president or king: even Lord/lord too is a pseudonym for the biblical Creator’s name, capitalized or not.  Hence, in all biblical actuality, there are actual multiple gods in the heavens above, however, this biblical actuality is not referring to the mythical gods of the nations: those kind of pseudo-gods are a whole different kind of quasi-deities.  Therefore, one is then to wonder which god/God is then rightfully entitled as ‘the God of all gods?’  Does IT (God of the bible) has a name to separate itself from other biblical gods?  And with the word ‘God’ being so ambiguous in the world, can there really then be an Almighty and an All-knowing Supreme Being?  Does “God” (known as the one and only biblical “divine name” of the Supreme Being when the title “god” is capitalized) really exist?

It seems that in every single mythology, or in almost every single different translated versions of the legendary bibles, there is a Creator of all things in the universe—But what of the mythical gods of the nations, what really are they and where did they come from if not from biblical origin?  These antiscriptural fabled gods of the nations are more like the gods of mankind’s origin (i.e., Zeus, Jupiter, Aphrodite, Baal, Apollo, Chango, etc.): man has the potential to idolize a something/someone and deify him/her/it as a god: such as the fabled Zeus is known to be the god of lightning and thunder: the tale of Aphrodite is known to be the goddess of love and beauty; and the list goes on and on: but these kind of multiple illustrative gods are known as deities/entities created by man when long ago humans try to make sense of what they saw in the heavens above (i.e., in order for the Egyptians to make sense with the sun, the magic practicing priests of Egypt began to describe the sun as a god named Horus or Rah/Re (god of the sun/or the sun-god).  Please keep in mind that these man made pseudo-gods are not mentioned here to be debated as to whether they are true or false gods, for my being cannot simply know that; however, IT does notices the differences between the mythical gods of the nations (which are the gods of man), and the legendary biblical gods of the heavens (which are the biblical cherubim and seraph class; and the Creator itself).  Some people may suggest that the gods of the nations are no other than the actual biblical demons (known as rebellious fallen angels):  And some have even suggested that the mythical gods of the nations are no other then the imagination of the mind—a creation of man to help him explain the many phenomenal aspects of the universe, and of nature itself.  The odd thing about the whole “lore gods of the nations” thing is that to some figurative feelers (believers), calling out to those pseudo-gods in order to receive guidance, blessings and protection from those entities, claim that it actually works for them.  But a person should keep in mind that someone can easily create a god for him-/her-self and claims that such creation still works:  But what exactly then are these lore gods of man that may seem to work for some devotees?  If they do exist, where do they reside if not in the heavens as many suggest?

In order to answer that question, a person should first understand that the-Mind is capable of being divided in multi-dimensional/regional realms:  Automatically, the-Mind creates dimensions/regions as much as it is needed to help the-Mind itself to understand all that we feed it with.  If it needs to create a new region with its’ own separated conscious (an automaton actuation for automaton thoughts), it will do so from its conscious factory (a region of the-Mind that can sort of manufacture several mental consciousnesses as needed).  So if you feed your mind with irrational and emotional idealistic beliefs, the-Mind is not just going to sit there and do nothing about it, it will respond with all that you’re feeding it with, and creates itself a region to try to make sense with your irrational and illogical figurative feelings (beliefs): hence, if you believe (figuratively feel) that even though your parents are dead, but that they live on even after their death, your mind might just create itself a separate region with its own mental conscious that can assimilate deceased parents so that in some of your experienced instances, that particular facsimile deceased conscious, known as a “schizoconscious” (a conscious that produces hallucinations and delusions), will purport all that your parents were when they were alive—it can even give you images and audio affects that will make you believe (feel) that you’ve spoken to some of your dead loved ones, when indeed, they’re nothing more but your own mental Frankenstein that you’ve created within your own mind.  You should understand that just as the material cerebral brain is always busy to keep your soul (animating physical body) fully functional and animated, likewise, your immaterial mind too is always busy to keep your mental actuation fully functional (sanity)—the-Mind is never still—it actuates endlessly until the death of your soul.  If you begin to believe (figuratively feel) that you can create your own god, your mind is going to take all the information that you put into it to create your entity (your mental Frankenstein)—it will create a mental region, or a dimension, with a schizoconscious in it that will eventually purport all the aspects that you mentally created and fed it with: it will take full control of that new actuated region, and work its capacities and distinctions you bread/breathed it with.  When fully developed inside of your regional mind, and you began to pray to your quasi-god, your schizoconscious may respond with visual images and audio effects because the-Mind has the capacity to transsis (go through) with one conscious and on to another, simultaneously: therefore, giving you the opportunity to even converse with your own mental Frankenstein:  This kind of mental schizoconscious has the automatic mental capacity to live on within its’ own dimension of your mind, side by side you, while collecting and filtering all sorts of data from within you and from your social external environments you come into contact with.  So the lore gods of the nations are nothing more but the schizoconsciousnesses of the-Mind:  That is why, in some legendary biblical accounts, when the gentile’s mythical gods of the-Mind were put to the test by the biblical Creator God itself, they failed the test put before them because it’s not so much that their quasi-gods did not exist, but because their mental gods are really of psychological origin, and can only work from within you, within your mind: hence, even though the gods of man does have the capacity to help you with your mental self-esteem, and perhaps even in giving you helpful advises as in automated epiphanies; but when put to a literal biblical divine challenge, it won’t be able to perform, nor protect you, as an actual external god because it is only purely internally, of mental origin—an internal mental Frankenstein that can advise you better than your own-self, or even better than others since it can know you better from within you—it can even help you shape a better self-esteem to a state that you will start to believe that your mental Frankenstein has the capacity to even bless you with plenty and bountiful gifts, even though on all occasions, the external blessings are just purely circumstantial and coincidences because, it was really nothing more but your own self-esteem that helped you achieve your own desires (feelings) in conjunction with the help of your mental schizoconscious.  Hence, the gods of man (aka: the gods of the nations) are nothing more but the schizoconsciousnesses of the-Mind that can mentally aid and help when used safely; nonetheless, the mythical gods of the nations are not actual external authentic gods but only an internal mental Frankenstein, conjured by one’s own desire to create a god that is convenient for him/her when the legendary biblical Creator God begins to become an inconvenience to its believer.  Do keep in mind though, that just because the mythical gods of the nations (the lore gods of man) are nothing more but schizoconsciousnesses, that doesn’t mean that they are then harmless—au contraire, they can even become destructive and even deadly and fatal when they start to put destructive images and ideas within the-Mind of its’ believers (i.e., extremists/terrorists); hence, even though they are not actual external gods, however, still be exhorted and admonished that you should not underestimate their mental influences and capacities to impact external manifestations through their possessors—many have built shrines and even killed others in the name of their mental Frankenstein.  Even a possessor of his/her own schizoconscious should be cautious because it has the mental actuation to even go against its own maker and try to dominate its creator’s physical vessel (i.e., quasi-demonic possession).

Since my being has clearly identified who the mythical gods of the nations really are, who then are the legendary biblical gods of the heavens?  According to translated biblical accounts, when the bible is studied as a whole book, God, in which always is and always was, began creating; IT began creating its firstborn as an almost entire copy of itself, the only difference is that this first creation was not immortal (i.e., indestructible and self-sustaining) although endowed with everlasting existence; and also not without a beginning:  When this mighty god (a god with a beginning) was fully created, Its’ name became Michael, the one and only archangel, the seraph (represented as a four winged paired angelic male:  The greater class of a god-spirited creature; almost identical to its Creator) who is also known, according to the lineage biblical translation of the Sahidic Coptic language, as the word of God.  After God created Michael, together they then began creating the second class/rank known as cherubim (the lesser class of god-spirited creatures, represented as three winged paired angelic males):  When they finished creating the cherubim, God, Michael the seraph, and the cherubim race began creating the third rank/class of the messenger angels (the lesser supernatural-spirited creatures, represented as one winged paired angelic males):  When they finished, God, Michael the seraph, the cherubim race, along with the help of the messenger angels, began to continuously create celestial bodies (i.e., planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) for the finite universe that’s within the infinite dark vacuumed space; but the rank/class of the messenger angels instead would take the already created materials and began to also form celestial bodies from those exact materials for they could not create out of nothing from their own powers because unlike Michael (the mighty god seraph) and the cherubim race, they are not god-spirited creatures, only supernatural-spirited creatures, for they are not “godlike,” or of the race of gods.  As eons and eons came and went, on one of the Creator’s best day, God found a planet straying in the universe, and began to create life conditions in the earth, and life itself within the earth: in this created instance, it was only Elohim (God, and secondly Michael, together) who began creating it while the others (the cherubim and the messenger angels) just watched and clapped with joy after every successful completion of a creation in our planet earth.  Perhaps, that is why my being can somehow see why in Judaism, the term “Elohim” (meaning multiple gods) is used as a name in place for the biblical God while creating all things in the earth because in all biblical actuality, creations were done not just by one God alone, but also along the side with its’ mighty god, known to be as the word of God.  With this in mind, it is then obvious that the legendary biblical gods of the heavens are:  1st) God:  2nd) Michael the archangel (the only seraph, firstborn):  and 3rd) the cherubim race (the god-spirited persons):  although the messenger angels are not “godlike,” they still had in some way participated with some creations.  In all fairness, all have participated in creating the finite universe that’s within the infinite vacuumed dark space.  So, in all biblical actuality, there are many gods, of course accompanied together by endless of myriads, myriads and myriads of supernatural-spirited species—hence, the term that there is then only one God, that there is then no other god, is not a biblical actuality; as a matter of biblical facts, it is a lie—[Deuteronomy 10:17 / Psalm 136:2]

The misunderstanding then that there is only one God, that there is no other god, is probably a misconception of one’s own subjective ego’s interpreted perspectives, and perhaps from personal reflective introspection.  When the biblical God inspired scriptural writing, through certain chosen servants, that there is no other like itself, IT did not meant to inspire that there is no other god; what the biblical God meant to impress is that there no other god like itself (a god without a beginning)—the biblical Creator meant to inspirit that out of many gods, IT itself is more powerful than all the other celestial theological gods; and that like the other scriptural gods who are/were created, IT itself is the only one that has never been created because IT itself is a “something” without a beginning and without an ending:  Hence, according to biblical accounts, the God of the bible does not deny that there are other gods, instead, IT itself is admitting that IT itself is the God of all gods; hence, the term “Elohim” is appropriate as an illustrative name when creating all life forms within our planet earth.  Therefore, it is then obvious that the biblical God is the God of all the legendary biblical gods of the heavens, but not of all the mythical gods of the nations, because those kind of deities are really of mental quasi-entities in man, and not of biblical origin although some are mentioned in the bible, but only as a reference to them, not in terms of their authentic actual existences as real gods: as a matter of biblical facts, they’re even described and acknowledged as false gods within several scriptures them-selves.  So now that the existence of multiple biblical-gods are literally proven to be a scriptural actuality, what does the concept of “god” then really mean?

Oxygen Volume 14

The etymology of the word god/God not only entails an existence of a Supreme Being, but it also entails that there are other “godlike” spirit species as well; and if you look even further as my being has searched on the Internet, its etymology also entails that the word and idea of ‘god’ is only a title.  So the term and word of god/God is just a title, just as if you would call your mother as mother: hence, there are many mothers in the world just as there are many legendary biblical gods in the heavens:  But like all mothers in the earth, which one then can be determined as Mother of all mothers, likewise, who then in the bible can be rightfully determined as God of all gods.  The etymology root also indicates that the idea of the word ‘god/God’ is the nature itself of the living thing/creature (i.e., like the concept of the word human is to us to describe our nature of our existential beings, out of many other different physical species).  Nonetheless, the main Latin etymology root entails the word ‘god/God’ as something/someone to be invoked, or evoked; to call upon; and to deify or make an entitative being come into existence:  This, however, is not really fitting because “something” or “someone” that is without a beginning and without an ending, calling IT a god/God is not enough to phantom (imagine) IT in such a measured capacity and existence: this kind of biblical God is beyond anything that’s measured and encompassed as an entity/deity, and therefore, should be called in a fitting and respectful correspondence to its’ real measure(s) of its’ description, existence and capacity: but then again, this is just what my being has objectively observed, and IT can’t imagine the Creator of the bible as a “God;” that’s just my being, but that doesn’t mean that it is also wrong for anyone else to use that term to describe and measure the capacity of such unspeakable and unimaginable existential power; even Jesus him-self referred to this enormous unimaginable power as a “God.”  But back to the matter of using the title God as a personal divine name:  If someone were to ask you who your mother is, would you simply just say that your mother is just your mother: or would you personally identify your mother by her name and not just by her title as a mother?  In like manner, should you then not identify your god/God by name instead of by its’ title when indeed there are many biblical spirit specie gods?  How can you tell them apart if you don’t know the Almighty scriptural God by its’ personal name?  How can you know anyone personally without a personal or an exclusive name?  Even the angels, the lesser class of the spirit-specie creatures, have names:  Even the firstborn creation, Michael the archangel (the mighty god) has a name, who’s name was then superimposed to Jesus during his terrestrial existence of our earth:  So then, wouldn’t it be rational and logical that the God of all gods too have a name?  Of course IT does, but its name has many different pronunciations so that even the name of the biblical God is ambiguous (i.e., Jehovah, Yahweh, Jah, Yah, Jesus, etc.).  Maybe, as it is commonly believed (figuratively felt) in the superstition of Judaism religion, the ambiguous state and nature of the divine Almighty’s name was done intentional to protect the name of God itself from misuse of witches, sorcerers and warlocks, so as they say in modern Judaism—if this is so, why would the biblical God itself need humans to protect its name when IT itself can protect itself from anything else?  Is not the scriptural God the Almighty?  If so, what then, even as a collective global coagulum, can our own minuscule biological might can achieve in protecting the ecclesiastical God’s personal name?

The biblical God does not need our protection to protect its name and itself; instead, it is known through biblical accounts that it is the people instead that need the protection of God:  Hence, wouldn’t it then make sense that we should know and call out its name when we do need its protection?  Would not the name of the scriptural God separate that God from other lesser biblical gods?  Of course it would: that is why it is so imperative, according to that biblical God, that its’ people shall know “Him” by name; and the ones that knows “Him” by name are the chosen ones by “Him” [Isaiah 52:6].  If you were a father, or a mother, would you appreciate for everyone to address you as your title whenever you are at work, or at a school, or at a church, or even at a community centre or club?  Of course not, you would want/need everyone to call you by your name and not just by your title, otherwise, how would you be identified if everyone would call you father, or mother, like almost everyone else who is also a father, or a mother, around you are: you wouldn’t even be personal with those around you if they didn’t call you out personally, out from the collective others, by name.  Even my own being, that IT itself is the not-I, the no-self, also needs a name because if IT itself had no name of its’ own, then how would my internal extroverold alien being be identified, or how could it be addressed exclusively?  A name says a lot about a person, and about a person’s records and reputations as well; hence, the question, “What’s in a name?”  The answer to that question is simple, and the answer is that everything is in a name: a name that would be personally applicable if you possess the “I,” or exclusively corresponding if you don’t possess the “I.”  So what exactly than is the “personal” name of the legendary biblical God, in order to then know IT personally or exclusively?

Keep in mind, before you continue to read the following paragraph, that when the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י], the personal name of the scriptural Godis written in the Hebrew alphabet characters within the displayed brackets, the characters should’ve been read from right to left as is the case in the Hebrew language instead of from left to right as it is in the English language.  Because my being was unable to correctly write them in their proper order with the WordPress application, they must be read from left to right in this article; please make a note of it.

Accordingly to the 66 mini-books of the legendary bible, through many translations, there are variations of spellings when it comes to the name of the scriptural God: however, even the Hebrew consonants of the name of God are ambiguous.  For example, the spelling of God’s name (known as the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י]) is as follows:  It starts out with the first Hebrew consonant “yud” ( י ) = y):  The second Hebrew consonant is “hei” ( ה ) = h):  The third, according to ancient Hebrew language, consonant is “waw” ( ו ) = w), it wasn’t the “vav” (v) sound then as it is now for the modern Hebrew consonant alphabet ( ו ), because then, the Hebrews would instead use the alphabet “bet” ( ב ) for the sound of ( v ) as well as ( b ).  It seems more than circumstantial and coincidence, though, that doubling the “v” side by side (as in, “vv“) equals to the English alphabet “w:”  But when you split the English alphabet “w” in half, you now have a “v” instead; a method maybe used in modern Judaism, by either Hasidic or Orthodox rabbis, to intentionally hide the actual pronunciation of the personal name of God, that is based upon their superstitions of guarding the actual divine personal name from misuses of witches, and the likes of those kind of people:  The fourth Hebrew consonant is a repeat of the second consonant, which is”hei” ( ה ) = h) again:  When you translate the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י] into English, it is literally and correctly spelled as accordingly, “Y  H  W  H.”  In ancient Hebrew, there were no vowels used in that language, instead, the consonants were pronounced without vowels:  In modern Hebrew language, vowels are now used, in which are known as nekudot (sound dots) that are used to help pronounced Hebrew words with vowels appropriately, especially if you are a beginner in that language.  Once you’ve become accustomed with the Hebrew Language, you may not need the sound dots (vowels) to pronounce certain Hebrew words any longer: in modern English, vowels are placed in between of each of the Hebrews consonant of the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י].

When using the divine personal name translation as “Yahweh,” you are missing a vowel between the consonant “hei” ( ה )h) and the consonant “waw” ( ו )w); this is incomplete and therefore an inappropriate translation, especially that the Hebrew utterance of the name is known to be pronounced with three syllables (i.e., Yud – heiwah) and not just with two (i.e., Yud – wah) because the very utterance of the personal divine name should sound close to the uttered phrase, “I am that I am,” with a middle sound that must refer to the word ‘that.’  Without that proper sound in the middle of the name, the ‘that’ word is then replaced with a ‘who,’ or a ‘what’ word to compensate in ‘what’ happened to the sound, or ‘who’ was the sound missing.  The following displayed photograph explains in what the sound must utter and mean, as close as possible as anyone can:

Holy Name - I AM THAT I AM sound

Therefore, the translation of the name “Yahweh” is highly inappropriately missing the second ‘sounding‘ syllable that must be in between the two existing first and last syllables—with just two syllables, the translation and pronunciation in that form alters the actual meaning of the name (i.e., as the Yahweh” translation, the name have multiple meanings, such as, “I am what/who I am,” or “to be,” or “to create:” and in some Judaic traditional translation of “Yahweh,” the name also means, “He brings into existence whatever exists,” thus also attributing male gender with the biblical God:  This certain translation has many ambiguous meanings that it actually loses its divine meaning altogether; further, when the name reflects with the meanings and phrases of, “I am what I am,” or, “I am who I am,” that is surely inappropriate in so many ways simply because, the actual biblical God would not have used such a phrase with a “what” or a “who” to make references to itself, for such words only indicate someone is always in question, and this scriptural God will never refer itself as Onewho” is in question about itself, or “what” about IT is IT in question about itself: in either case, this also could be intentional to protect the proper pronunciation of God according to Judaic superstitious beliefs (figurative feelings):  Because of all these existing ambiguous nature of this translation of God’s name, there really is no definitive meaning of what exactly “Yahweh” means: even its’ syllables were played and altered with, probably because of the connoted superstition of protecting the personal divine name of God, so that sorcerers would not find out the secret meaning of the name and misuse it.  It’s just obvious that the name “Yahweh” is inconsistent with the phrase meaning name, “I am that I am,” the very meaning of the name that was given to Moses when he asked God for its name.  It must be noticed that the sound effects of the Hebrew language is of importance because the sound itself embodies the very meaning of itself).

When using the transliteration, “Jehovah,” which is the imperfect causative form state of the Hebrew verb “ha·vah” (I become) instead of the perfect causative form state of the Hebrew verb “ha-wah” (I am), you can inappropriately transliterate the first Tetragrammaton consonant of “hei” ( ה ) = y) with a non-existing Tetragrammaton consonant of the English alphabet “j” instead: you are also using modern Hebrew when you use the “vav” ( v ) sound to compensate for the ancient Hebrew consonant “waw” ( ו ) = w) instead of just trying to preserve the appropriate utterance  of that ancient Hebrew consonant.  The proper translation of the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י] is “Y  H  W  H,” in accordance to ancient Hebrew, that is.  When instead transliterating the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה יwith “J  H  V  H,” you are rendering it in accordance to, not just with modern Hebrew language, but also with the altered English “j,” and also in accordance to the popular and more acquainted collective global modern use of the divine personal name—besides, the Jehovah” transliteration is based also upon mundanely collective subjective interpretations, and not scriptural objective translations—just because many words can either change its complete meaning, or attribute new multiple meanings to a same word, that doesn’t mean that “personal” names too should be altered and superimposed as well: a word is just a word, but a “name” is everything about a person—so a name should not be presumptuously changed unless the person It-/him-/her-self changes in accordance to that altered or superimposed meaning of the name:  And according to the legendary Hebrew and Greek scriptures, the biblical God impressed that IT itself does not change whatsoever [Malachi 3:6 / James 1:17]—just because the world changes, that doesn’t mean that God itself changes one with the-World(s) as well.  The biblical God is not bound by time and by the global illusion of The-Self to persistently and consistently change like many humans do.  Why then change the translation of a personal name just because the-World(s) speaks a modern language with every other words; why then not keep the ancient translation only when it comes to the divine personal name of the biblical God?

In conclusion, considering in placing appropriate vowels in between the Hebrew Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י] consonants, the proper vowels, that is without slightly altering the correct utterances (sounds) of the consonants, are as follow, a  o  a (Ah – O – Ah), an excellent three syllables sound that can congruently merge with the three sounding syllable consonants of the Tetragrammaton [ה ו ה י], these are excellent vowels formed from the initial and final letters of the Latin Alphabet (thus:  AlphaOmegaAlpha); a perfect combination for a perfect personal divine name:  Combining the consistency vowels in excellent symbolic amity with the proper ancient Hebrew consonants, the spelling is as followed, Y  a  H  o  W  a  H.  Some might suggest that perhaps the proper vowels are instead, “e  o  a” (Eh – O – Ah), as in the case is with the transliteration of J  e  H  o  V  a  H; the first vowel can be attributed to the Latin root “aeon” (eon or eternity in the English language), in which would then emphasize that Jehovah is eternal, but the word ‘eternity,’ or ‘eon,’ accentuates “ages” that goes on forever:  Since the God of the bible is known to be a person that’s without a beginning and without an ending, anything then that attributes “age” is not fitting because that God is beyond age:  IT itself is ageless in the literal sense for IT itself is without origin and lineage.  Additionally, the “e” vowel doesn’t coincide properly when the name of the scriptural God is pronounced short as “Yah,” as in Halleluyah (a phrase that means, “praise Yah you people”)—there’s no short version for “Jeh” of the J  e  H  o  V  a  H name transliteration: and even the short version use of “Jah,” as in Hallelujah, is in consistent with its first three letters of that rendering name, so the first vowel as an “e” would be most inappropriate.  Further, with the translation of Yahowah, using the proper vowels to closely preserve the meaning sounds of the consonant themselves, in congruent with the proper ancient Hebrew consonants, the meaning of the name is thus fully preserved as, “the One who causes to become,” in full harmony with the utterance of, “I am that I am.”  If the transliteration instead is with Jehovah, it’s meaning, with the first vowel “e” changing the sound of that first syllable utterance, would than entail that the biblical God is described as, or embodied as, with male gender because that name emphasizes the God of the bible as a He, to then mean, “He who causes to become,” or “He is that I become;” and we all know that God is neither a male or female.  Referring the biblical God as a ‘He’ should only remain figuratively, or metaphorically, it should not be considered literally in the spelling and sounding of the Tetragrammaton Hebrew consonants; besides, the use of the subjective imperfect causative form state of the Hebrew verb “ha-vah” that utters the sound to hint at the meaning, “He is that I become,” can only demonstrate fitting for those who serve/worship the biblical God according to what they feel what God is in relation to what they are, as oppose to that which the scriptural God really is apart from what they are, or who they are:  Hence, Yahowah is the most proper translation name-preserving meaning for the biblical God’s name because the vowels are in harmony with the ancient Hebrew consonants, in which to preserve its’ proper and rightful divine personal sound meaning name to itself.  Since my being has helped to clearly identify, however not discover, the name of the biblical God, Yahowah, it is now easier to separate the biblical Almighty God from its’ firstborn mighty god, Michael (now known as Jesus Christ the Nazareth: the word of God), as falsely being one in the same.  The class of cherubim are the lesser spirited-creator gods, and the messenger angels are the spirited-supernatural creatures—all have participated in creations of some sort.

It is imperative to take notice that the belief (figurative feeling) of the Divine Trinity is purely a subjective interpretation and not an objective translation, insinuating that the biblical God may be bound to the global illusion of The-Self; integrating itself like The-Self (the-Ego) does.  The concept of the Trinity is a begotten idea of The-Self itself.  Since The-Self is understood as a person made up of multiple aspects, integrated into a summed being (i.e., an individual), it is therefore comprehended that they’re prone to believe that their “God” too would be the same as an individualized human being is.  The concept and idea of the Holy Trinity is nothing more than just a reflection of The-Self, introspecting itself onto the legendary biblical God: in this way, the-ego sees itself in the image of its own god.  The actuated mental idea of The-Self is one thing, and the biblical God is another.  Just because most men and women are actuated with the mental idea that people are made of multiple integrated aspects or dimensions, that doesn’t mean that the scriptural God too is made up the same as a summed individualized entity/deity.  For all we know, the legendary biblical Creator of all things may actually be far more beyond than just an individual.  Hence, the subjective personal interpretation of the Holy Trinity is nothing more but that which subjectively reflects the concept of God with the idea of “individualism.”

*

…How vain, without the merit, is the name…“—Homer

*

“…A nameless force is without distinction…”—Sabiazoth

*

“…An indiscriminate name is nameless…”—Sabiazoth

*

“…A nameless God, addressed only by title, is without eponym…”—Sabiazoth

*

Originally, this article was posted in my Tumblr account on:

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Heptaspace, Sophocycle 10, 7 R.M. E.C. (Solar West)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

[Gregorian: April 20, 2013]

*

[Updated: Pentaspace, Sophocycle 2, 8 R.M. E.E. (Solar West) / Gregorian: May 1, 2014]

0 votes

Leave a Reply