|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 17, 2004 10:55:36 GMT -5
LOL!! aight sorry bout the puttin words in your mouth. All jokes aside though, I dunno where youre gettin at with this. Youre spelling it phoenetically. Okay I see you substitute ayin in place of Yod and tav with Tet. Damm! Im really tryin to see what youre saying bros. Help a broham out. Bro, I didn't say I didn't like the femi9 ending. Goodness, talk about putting words in my mouth. I said I don't prefer that understanding of the word because of it's femi9 ending. I prefer the 2 part division not the 3 part divison of the word. YOu say it's good because of the female aspect of the womb? I prefer B'ra seeing ass how B'rashyt is spelled Bet / resh / ayin / shyn / and tet. The word B'ra (to create) in ibry is spelled Bet / resh / ayin. JUST LIKE B'ra - shyt. And then the word shyt itself. According to your logic B Resh yt would be In the First womb? LOL. nah bru, the suffix is possessive meaning that it belongs to resh making rash femi9. As if to say In her head or "In the First Her" ish don't be making sense. Thats why I put that Yahweh bullshit down! IHaWaH makes much moor sense as does B'ra Shyt as to say Creation's dressing or the dressing or placing of the garment upon creation or the Appointed time of Creation. Hell I have a dozen moor combinations |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 17, 2004 11:15:50 GMT -5
okay 1dell i THINK [emphasis on think] I know what you are saying here. Regarding the name of G-d - YHWH. But youre gonna run into a problem since you have always argued about mathematics within these names. Phoenetically I dont have a problem wit where you wanna go wit this. However if you want to stand by the alternate spelling IAEHAVAH then you will have to admit sometimes mathematics take a back seat to law of sound [psonix]. I will explain in the nxt post where you encounter a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 17, 2004 11:28:15 GMT -5
Here is the problem you encounter 1dell. According to the manuscripts we have , the spelling of the tetragrammaton is yod, he, vau, he. But you prefer the alternate phoenetic spelling - ayin, he, vau, he. I am kewl wit that since my cypher revolves around the law of sound [psonix]. But you of all people who have argued using phoenetic break down desecrates the mathematics in the words should know better then IAEHAVAH.
Here is the math.
YHWH = 26
IHWH = 86
See what I mean. The values change. I aint got no problem wit that cause it can logically be explained but you my brother have a conflict on your hand. The math was changed in the word therefor according to what you subscribe to and what you have advocated many times on the board its INVALID.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Sept 17, 2004 17:54:19 GMT -5
No no no bro. nothing could be further from the truth. When I say the name is IHaWaH. I STILL spell it Yud Hey Waw Hey. I pronounce Yud as EE. The long E. I could spell it YHaWaH and it would be the same pronounciation. See languages follow rules. I don't like how in today's hebrew people do what they want with it. Here a couple of examples as to how the rules are no consistant: Ysrael YHaWaH Many people pronounce Ysrael as EEs-rah-yel. But they will pronounce Yshua as Yay-Shoo-uh Da hell? There is no vowel between the Y and the S but in one instance it's EE and in the next it's Yay. WITHOUT warning!!! The error began when the vowel points were installed. Thats why when I read hebrew now I read it without the vowel points. I hate the vowel points. Does it make sense? To pronounce YHWH Yahweh? huh?? Why do they place the vowel A and E in there? I would prefer they pronounced it YaHaWaH I mean is there a rule in hebrew that if there is a word with no vowels you should attribute Ah to the first grouping and Ey to the next grouping? Thats some bull jank. I can't stand that inconsistency. Thats like saying 1+1=2 today but come next week or whenever you feel like it you can make it equal 3 or 4. Here is the problem you encounter 1dell. According to the manuscripts we have , the spelling of the tetragrammaton is yod, he, vau, he. But you prefer the alternate phoenetic spelling - ayin, he, vau, he. I am kewl wit that since my cypher revolves around the law of sound [psonix]. But you of all people who have argued using phoenetic break down desecrates the mathematics in the words should know better then IAEHAVAH. Here is the math. YHWH = 26 IHWH = 86 See what I mean. The values change. I aint got no problem wit that cause it can logically be explained but you my brother have a conflict on your hand. The math was changed in the word therefor according to what you subscribe to and what you have advocated many times on the board its INVALID. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 17, 2004 18:10:44 GMT -5
What youre talkin about is what they teach at ICUPK. The problem wit that approach at hebreaic language is there are words having the same consonantal spelling yet different meanings. The vowels are what helps you make the distinction between the words with the same spelling. I learned that the hard way after leaving ICUPK and entering the *real* hebrew world. I was at A LOSS! Had to re-teach myself and I still aint master it!. Classic example - Edom and Adam, both spelt Alef, Dalet, mem. Each having different meaning. No no no bro. nothing could be further from the truth. When I say the name is IHaWaH. I STILL spell it Yud Hey Waw Hey. I pronounce Yud as EE. The long E. I could spell it YHaWaH and it would be the same pronounciation. See languages follow rules. I don't like how in today's hebrew people do what they want with it. Here a couple of examples as to how the rules are no consistant: Ysrael YHaWaH Many people pronounce Ysrael as EEs-rah-yel. But they will pronounce Yshua as Yay-Shoo-uh Da hell? There is no vowel between the Y and the S but in one instance it's EE and in the next it's Yay. WITHOUT warning!!! The error began when the vowel points were installed. Thats why when I read hebrew now I read it without the vowel points. I hate the vowel points. Does it make sense? To pronounce YHWH Yahweh? huh?? Why do they place the vowel A and E in there? I would prefer they pronounced it YaHaWaH I mean is there a rule in hebrew that if there is a word with no vowels you should attribute Ah to the first grouping and Ey to the next grouping? Thats some bull jank. I can't stand that inconsistency. Thats like saying 1+1=2 today but come next week or whenever you feel like it you can make it equal 3 or 4. /me |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Sept 17, 2004 18:47:11 GMT -5
Exactly bro. Now we know the translators made errors. Dare I trust them? We can tell what word is which much like the word read and read. They are spelled the exact same but the usage dictates the meaning. One means that you are reading a book, the other means that you have read a book. They even sound different Reed / Red. Then again there are plenty of english words that have a plethora of meanings. which makes english one of the hardest languages in the world to learn. I just don't agree with the scholars and never will. IHaWaH makes much moor sense than Yahweh, which means nothing in hebrew. I know what I am saying isn't going to mesh with modern hebrew. MOdern hebrew to me is in error. I am taking it back to originality. If not originality then purity. What youre talkin about is what they teach at ICUPK. The problem wit that approach at hebreaic language is there are words having the same consonantal spelling yet different meanings. The vowels are what helps you make the distinction between the words with the same spelling. I learned that the hard way after leaving ICUPK and entering the *real* hebrew world. I was at A LOSS! Had to re-teach myself and I still aint master it!. Classic example - Edom and Adam, both spelt Alef, Dalet, mem. Each having different meaning. /me |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 17, 2004 19:07:21 GMT -5
Which is why I agree with peeps like Dr. MZyork. The translators were europeans so you know when they were translating they had *their* story called HISTORY [his story] in mind. Hence the first man is called Adam, meaning Pale-man or he whose blood shows forth thru his skin. We have to ALTER their txt in order to put it in the original form. After all they are the flip side of OUR story. The different mystiq approaches out there enable us to do this. Exactly bro. Now we know the translators made errors. Dare I trust them? We can tell what word is which much like the word read and read. They are spelled the exact same but the usage dictates the meaning. One means that you are reading a book, the other means that you have read a book. They even sound different Reed / Red. Then again there are plenty of english words that have a plethora of meanings. which makes english one of the hardest languages in the world to learn. I just don't agree with the scholars and never will. IHaWaH makes much moor sense than Yahweh, which means nothing in hebrew. I know what I am saying isn't going to mesh with modern hebrew. MOdern hebrew to me is in error. I am taking it back to originality. If not originality then purity. |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Sept 17, 2004 20:04:21 GMT -5
Yeah bro, I can dig it. Even with Adam, I know what they wish us to believe about that. But even THEY will call brown indians redskins or the red man. I say that to say Adam is taught to come from the root word dam meaning blood. well at least in some circles. But I can't help stick to the Adammah theory. Adammah is the hebrew word for dust, ground, earth, dirt. yada yada. Since that is the origin of man, I see that as the relation. Sure YT is gonna try and slip a Mickey in our drink. I see Adam as earth man or earthling. They may secretly teach that he is paleman but our roots are different. Which is why I agree with peeps like Dr. MZyork. The translators were europeans so you know when they were translating they had *their* story called HISTORY [his story] in mind. Hence the first man is called Adam, meaning Pale-man or he whose blood shows forth thru his skin. We have to ALTER their txt in order to put it in the original form. After all they are the flip side of OUR story. The different mystiq approaches out there enable us to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Sept 17, 2004 20:31:34 GMT -5
They can never seperate us from them. Hidden in their lies are our truths or as they say herein LIES the TRUTH. Which is why I personally alter the scripts or apply mystiq perspectives to 'em. They are the people of history while we are the mystery of ancient writings. History is always WHITE WASHED [clean leprosy]. Mystery is always kept in DARK. Example - first male called ZAKAR. Phoenetically near kin to SHAKAR. Coincidence ? Heck nah! Who was SHAKAR ? Father of HAYLEL [lucifer the LIGHT BEARER] just as out of the Koshekh [dark] came forth Ur [light]. Where was Koshekh, in maim, a qabalistic kinsword to misraim. Its sorta like the changing of the guards, from the kingdom of Khem [black] to Babel [semi-white]. Its all in there, intertwining. We just have to learn how to alter [altar] the txt. to get our version of the creation tale. Yeah bro, I can dig it. Even with Adam, I know what they wish us to believe about that. But even THEY will call brown indians redskins or the red man. I say that to say Adam is taught to come from the root word dam meaning blood. well at least in some circles. But I can't help stick to the Adammah theory. Adammah is the hebrew word for dust, ground, earth, dirt. yada yada. Since that is the origin of man, I see that as the relation. Sure YT is gonna try and slip a Mickey in our drink. I see Adam as earth man or earthling. They may secretly teach that he is paleman but our roots are different. |
|
