For Isaac Mozeson. Isaac – in the context of Igbo and Hebrew language.

January 12, 2013


Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka.

The Isaac of God and the Isaac of Mozeson.


(1) Isaac Mozeson is popular for Edenic, which is a collection of words from several languages and how these languages connect to each other. Mozeson has worked hard to show that human languages is a mono-genesis, began in one place mono-genetic, for instance in Eden and seem to have survived in different versions of current world languages. Mozeson has also argued that Hebrew was the language that most likely relate the very languages of Eden which God gave to man. In order words, he tried to show how some of these similar words appear in many languages of the word, how for instance ‘Isaac’ show a lineage in form or structure evident in many languages of world. Needless to say that these words and languages are quite related to Hebrew (ominous), that enormous talent and grace is necessary for attempting such feat in the first place.


(2) There is a second reason. We must be careful closing the meaning of some words in terms of the relationship to others. Sometimes, we are tempted to carry on a mistake from previous era, and try to stamp this meaning in whole new language and a whole new purpose. There is a word that amuses me sometime because of its meaning and application. That word is ‘Federal’, what  can we say about such a name than its relevance to national constitution. Yet, this term may have started its journey as Edda, Jedda, Qedda, Hedda, Vedda,  Federa, Rada, and in recent times we can still hear, Fedayeen, which some miraculously describe as the ‘Feather men’ . No relations whatsoever. We can try to ask the question, how does this set of words appeal to our argument? It delimits the knowledge of a word Fedda (Federa) to a language, and shows a conurbation of  consonants ranging from J (Arabic) to  Q (Hebrew, North Africa, Aramaic, Ge’ez) V  (Sanskrit) to F (Latin) to R (Russia) to H (Hebrew) to the bare body of word Edda (Igbo) . Each of these languages show a geographical distribution and separation that has a history, it spells a descent of word that is now a life of its own. Like in the word Federal, the highest constitution a country, the Al-Qedda is also a certain constitution. But there is a big difference between these two that they can be called different words in terms of our recent world, yet the idea that ‘feda’ and feather are remotely close is as comforting as the error of calling Isaac ‘laughter’.



(3) If we lead Mozeson’s argument that all languages converge in the tenets of Eden, then we suggest that the word-name ‘Isaac’ as a word that is supposed to mean ‘laughter’,  should at least find itself in much of the languages of the world – including Hebrew. In terms of Hebrew for a start, we have problems accounting for the name and meaning of the word ‘Isaac’ ‘Yishaq’ as remotely close to ‘laughter’ as a word in-of-itself. In essence, when we exhaust Hebrew and Greek, and throw in Aramaic and Arabic, is quite difficult to achieve Isaac as laughter in all of these languages – irrespective of the consonants and sound shift. Why? I personally think and therefore believe that Isaac as a word-name does not mean laughter.



(4) While Mozeson’s arguments are quite compelling, we are made to understand that history of language and language of history, assume that his Edenic philosophy is flawed. We are led by the evident nature of history to indicate that Mozeson’s arguments are not bereft of reasons, and are in fact correct to some extent, yet there are so many gaps in Edenic that should not travel to world of reasonable doubt to make the point. For the record, it is common sense to make the point that languages of the world, from written and spoken sources – did not begin in one place for instance in Eden, or in Babylon as aspersion would seem, neither did it converge in Hebrew as the affinity of written language would also seem? That some of his words are European and as well Hebrew, does not mean suggest a paternity to Semitic language, neither does it mean Hebrew ascendent. Some of these of words are notable induction but as Babylon it is not correct.


(5) There is a group of us who once suggested that some of these Hebrew words are also similar to Igbo words, that as many Igbos  study and understand Hebrew language, they will make a better comparison between Igbo and Hebrew languages and probably agree with us.

Some of us were able to point out that some of the Hebrew words and translations – in context of Igbo – are probably wrong. That for instance, Hebrew word for Judeah and Judah, may have alternate meanings, since in Igbo we have ‘uda’ referring to the word ‘loud’, a verb form of a term in Igbo that refers to praises, for instance ‘ude’, which is a form of praises and spreading of good news. In Igbo, Oolu-uda, means ‘loud’, a term which figures in the English word ‘loud’. The word in English ‘loud’ is perhaps derived from a ‘Portmanteau’ of two word ‘olu’ or similar term referring to the neck – as with the Igbo-, and the term ‘uda’ referring to high and haughty pitch of the voice. It is not quite the same as ‘ude’ as in Igbo, may therefore suggest that Yudah (Judah) as in Hebrew as different from Yudeh (Jude)in Hebrew. Apparently, the word-name ‘Jude’ or ‘Yude’ or even ‘Uday’ is the right name of the Hebrew Patriarch of Genesis and of Genesis 49. Prove of these difference will be the term ‘oiudas’ in class Greek, which some anthology render as the root or the Judah or similar veracity as in ‘order’.


(6) There was a host of other examples which we pointed out, including the particulars of the word Sabbath, which I personally mentioned denote ‘asaa’ (pronounced ashaa) in Igbo for Seven and ‘abaa’ or ‘obaa’, for ‘he father’ That this term possible means, Seventh for the father. Abba to be, is without doubt a reference to God as pe Hebrew and Jewish teachings, it may also take the form of the holy father which also refers to God. In the circumstance, Isaac Mozeson, who had earlier encouraged the efforts, placed doubts on the language parity. He even joked like his name Isaac, that in terms of Igbo and Hebrew comparative, that may be someday we will discover that Isaac is no longer word for laughter but something else. He was probably right.


(7) Today, I wish to address this issue that the Hebrew word ‘Isaac’ (English translation) does not mean ‘laughter’ in of itself, that based on the subtext or context of the word-name ‘Isaac’ in the Bible, Isaac refers to a whole sentence and is insubordinate to the word laughter. I will use Igbo language to demonstrate just that and I will use several citations from the Bible and from civilized sources sources as Jonathan Kirsch ‘The Woman who laughed at God; 2001’ to throw more light on the subject. I will begin with popular citation on this word ‘Isaac’ which Isaac Mozeson and his brother used in Edenic, which also appear elsewhere, and draw aside the specific corrections of these words. I will resolve the issue with Biblical quotation that tend to suggest that Isaac refers to statement and not one word.


(8) Jonathan Kirsch (The Woman who laughed at God: 2001), a book about Isaac and the ‘untold story of Jewish people’ and the ‘Chutzpah’ on a much comprehensive basis. That he mentioned in his book the root of Sabbath as word derived “from ‘Shappattu’, a Babylonian word that means “day of the quieting of the heart (of the god)…”, means that he is right there at the center of our puzzle about certain Hebrew words. In his book, he recites this incident between Sarah, Abraham and the Messengers of God, who were doubted by Sarah since she was old. Sarah laughed at some point in the course of the discussion and according to Kirsch, “The all-knowing and all seeing God of Israel is so taken that he is forced to ask why she is laughing at the solemn promise.” “And, as if to symbolize how little Sarah fears God, the child she bears in fulfillment of God’s promise is named Yitzhak (“I laughed”), a pun on the Hebrew word for laughter (tsa-hak)”


(9) In terms of the given name ‘Isaac’ as in many other sources, there is no short of the ‘Edenic’ comparative literature on Isaac. His Edenic Hebrew anthology for Isaac is ‘Yitskhat’, Yiddish ‘Yitskhok’, Tiberian ‘Yishaq’, Classic Greek ‘Isaak’, Latin ‘Isaac’, Arabic ‘Ishaq’, all of which amount to a parallelogram of the saying ‘he laughed’, ‘he shall laugh’ and ‘he laughs’, as if the name Isaac is same as saying ‘he laughed’ or ‘he shall laugh’. These comparative literature and etymology on Isaac appear elsewhere, but it is possible that these languages got it right on the translation but wrong on the parallel meaning of the word Isaac. Once more, it is common sense to indicate that Isaac is a total sum of a sentence and not one word.




(10) The Body of the subject which must use is Genesis 17; 17-22 and Genesis 18; 10-15 from the NIV; 2011, with particular reference to Genesis 17; 19, “Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[a] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” The Bible said here that “…Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac”, and goes on about the covenant that the lord wishes to establish with Abraham, Isaac and the house of Israel. Of course, the story is perhaps the work of a latter redactor – that is if we take the story from the populist point of view that Isaac of the Bible is the father of Jakob, who became Israel. We must maintain that the continuation of the story of Israel from Jacob started with Abraham – who was called by God and whose name changed from Abram to Abraham, to his son of promise called Isaac – who was so to speak called after ‘laughter’ and who defied death in the covenant making epic at the altar of Sacrifice. We move from here to meet Jacob whose name was also changed to Israel, whose father was Isaac.

(11) Genesis 32:28; “Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” (NIV). The above term show beyond doubt that Israel refers to a statement, like in the case of Isaac, it refers to the whole statement, that is, “your name shall no longer Jacob, but Israel”. The evolution of these words can also replaced with the translation, ‘you shall not be called Jacob (the cheat or con man who cheated his brother), rather, you are called ‘(‘no-cheat’, or ‘not cheat’, and you shall become one with your brother) – essentially the opposite of who he was. What we spy from here is the term ‘you are called’ which in Igbo would easily mean, i zara, and this term like the term concerning Isaac – if not actually about Sarah – concerning a name or a response, is rooted in the term ‘you are called’ or ‘your name is’…which if translated in Igbo, will also mean ‘i zara’ what ever they want to name you. There is no hiding that these terms ‘i zara’ in izrael (Israel), does not leave us with one end of the term el, or El, where as the term Isaac, leaves us with c or perhaps a ‘ch’ or k after ‘i zara’.


(12) To say to an Igbo, nna, i zara nkume, means you are called ‘rock’, i zara okwute means ‘you are called the stone’ – possibly from a time of the incident going forth. How will an Igbo man who is a ‘church father’ or ‘mother superior’ responds to a situation where a new convert (man or woman) is no longer a con artist but now new creature and become a new person. During the baptism of such a person, the Igbo church father or mother superior, or Reverend would say, you shall no longer be called ‘ Con Artist’ or ‘Cheat’, i-zara-ezi-okwu (you called truth). We must note that truth is ezi okwu, where izaraeziokwu, does not mean truth in of itself. The explication is the same with Jacob and Isaac.


(13) For sure, Yakob or Yako (nyarko), trickster,  which what it means in Igbo, refers to the following, that Jacob – who was the trickster and con artist in Genesis – possible a clever man as in Igbo ‘ako’, shall no longer be called Jakob – the low life or cheat, but shall be called after ‘el’ or in Igbo ‘elu’ means ‘high one;(onye elu)’, ”elevated’, or ‘exalted’. The root carnal of the word Israa-el, may mean the term ‘from’ in terms of m-izra-ayim, which means saved from the land of the rivers, or in terms of Elohist tradition, Israel, simply follows the same format as Isaac, that is, i zara el; ‘you are called elevated or most high’ or even in some weird connection ‘high and mighty’. This is actually powerful thing, that Jacob was born again after his encounter either a messenger of God or an angel of God. “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel” why? he, Jakob (con artist or cheat) proved himself a man of God or changed man – he is no longer his past rather a name creature and would be called ‘elevated’ or ‘son of el/son of the most high’ or ‘man of God’ ‘man of honor’. There is also Isaac, or ‘i zara ochi’ by Igbo; you shall be called laughter, etc…


(14) For that we can also say, i zara ochi, may a theme within Elohist or Yahwist tradition if – or assuming if, we place the incident of Jacob who became Israel as Elohist or Yahwist. ‘I zara el’, was a name after a person in the Bible called Jacob which is Yako meaning in Igbo onye-ako> a con artist, who contended with an angel who blessed him by calling a new name ‘Israel’.

Genesis 17:17-22. New International Version (NIV)

“V.17, Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” V.18, And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!”

“V.19, Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[a] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”
“V.20, And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.”

“V.21, But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.” 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.”
Genesis 18:10-15; New International Version (NIV);2011.

“V.10, Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”

“Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. V.11, Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing.”

“V.12, So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”

“V.13, Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”

“V.15, Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”


(15) These quotations are stated in full for it seems to me that very the meaning of the word ‘Isaac’ must be understood as a statement or a saying, and at no point does it mention the word ‘Isaac’ as same and similar to the word ‘laughter’. Therefore the root of the meaning of the word Isaac can be found in the word ‘name’ or the tautology > ‘he shall be called ‘Isaac’, disguising the word Isaac as equal to laughter, where ‘he shall be called laughter’ – the statement – is the total meaning of the word-name ‘I-saa-c’ (I-zaa-‘o’k, for Greek where ‘o’ is addition). Laughter therefore must mean something else in either Hebrew or similar languages such as Aramaic and Greek. If this is clear enough, we can hint that as far word is concerned, a ‘response’ in Igbo also means, I zara okwu.


(16) With Igbo language, we can the point quite clear that the laughter refers to ‘ochi’, rendered ‘ouch’ elsewhere, where the word ‘answer’ or ‘you answered, with laughter’, would in Igbo, ‘i za ram ochi’ which is clearly different from Igbo saying ‘i zara ochi’, shows an affinity of verb form ‘zara’ for you are ‘called’ or you ‘answered’….then ochi is laughter in Igbo, where as ‘okwu’ is word. Like Vocum in classic Latin which mean a saying or a spoken word, okwu in Igbo refers to spoken word, where as okuu in same as a ‘call’, slightly different from ‘eku’ which is within the meaning of the word ‘echo’, like a fan that transfer the sound of the voice. None of this is similar to the term ‘answer’ which in Igbo is ‘zaa,’ or ‘answer me’ for Igbo ‘zaa m’. Yet the phrase, ‘you answered’ will mean in Igbo ‘i zaara’ and if you then say ‘your answer is…’, it will mean in Igbo ‘i zara si’. O zara okwu (o-zara-okwu) is Igbo for English (”he/she responded to> the statement; or he/she answered to the word/postulate). And in Igbo, we may say ‘i zara okwu’ should also mean the following in English ‘you are called ‘word’ or ‘you responded with word’ ‘your name is word’.


(17) Alternately, these terms refer to same thing in Igbo for laughter, where as okwu for word, may be replaced with the term ‘ochi’ for laughter.

In the instance, we may have ‘i zara ochi’ (i-zara-ochi) may simply mean in English, ‘you are called ‘laughter’. Where as, the dialect in igbo or more plausible Igbo language, i sara ochi (i shara ochi>dialect) may strickly mean ‘i/you, saara;shaara/answered’, or i/you, shaara/’responded’, or your response was ‘laughter’. It does not mean name strictly speaking, neither does it mean, ‘you are called laughter’, the verb that qualifies it in Igbo is ‘zara’, suggesting as far the name Isaac, it must have to do with ‘zara’ what he is called, unless, the name ‘Sara’ has something to do with the whole passage.


(18) I, for one, encourage Hebrew and Jewish Theological students to take Igbo language very seriously. Besides the formally known languages such as Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, there is hardly any language on earth that comes close to classic Greek (Ancient Greek) as Igbo does. In fact, Hebrew, may yet benefit from Igbo, same goes for Classic Greek, since Latin and Arabic are abridged versions of the old, the Igbo will less rigor and less sound shift, still retain the original quality of Greek and Latin – at least in standard meaning. Classic Greek in terms of how it is understood today will pale in comparison when cast in the light of this new facility of Igbo. But this is besides the point of Hebrew in terms of Igbo, and we are only interested in these terms because it throws some light how these words are actually formed and meant to be understood. It thrown a new light, a lot of light on the subject of Hebrew language.


(19) If we for instance intend on finding the lasting meaning of some of the Greek words and some of the words in Aramaic and Hebrew, we must look at alternate sources that are found in India such as Sanskrit and in deep bottom of the African continent facing the Atlantic, such as the Nigerian Igbo, or Bini for that matter. The word-names, Isaac and eventually Israel, will make the point. Question is, what is the meaning of the word Isaac in context of Hebrew language? The answer will differ from one age to another but may lead us like Mozeson, into believing that Isaac means ‘laughter’. ‘Yah chia’ in Igbo should also mean ‘he/she laughed’.


Why “Benoni: Son of My Sorrow” is a Wrong Translation – Using Igbo language

November 16, 2012

For Hebrew, may we suggest that a noun form of word and a name ‘Benoni’ translated ‘son of my love’ may in fact be wrong, and that it consequently means that ‘Benyamun/Benyamin’ translated ‘son of my right hand’ ‘son of my lord’ may also be wrong. The interpretation is a victim of its past, a translation that is not unlike other probable wrong ‘translations’ from Hebrew to English. To stray a bit, we may look at Genesis 3;17, “cursed (arurah) is the ground because of you” or similar translations “cursed (arur) are you than the ground because of you”. And these curses follow after Ham and his descendant in the Bible. Well with Igbo, there is no way we can overlook the blunder that ‘curse’ is supposedly ‘arur’ or ‘aruh’ since the right translation of the word ‘aru’ or ‘arurah’ in Igbo is evil and forbidden and not ‘curse’ in particular. In Igbo, ‘aruh’ means ‘forbidden’ and in Igbo ‘aruru-ala’ means, ‘evil against the land’ or a form defiling of the land. What follows aru or aruru-ala in Igbo is a ‘curse’. To be clear as part of the ‘omenala’ of Igbo, aruh or aruru-ala, means ‘evil’ or ‘forbidden’, making it clear that Ham and his his children > possibly Canaan, committed ‘evil’ and defiled the land. But say such a thing as a Nigerian would look the part of defense inspite of the incomparable injury that is done to history and the Bible via Genesis.


With Igbo language, I for one, can demonstrate that ‘Beni-oni’ means ‘son of my lord’ and that Benyamun/Benjamin (Benjamin) is more accurately translated ‘son of my love’ or ‘son of my sorrow’. It will be fitting – at least to me – that during the birth of Benyamin by Rachel, she, seeing her child as a boy wouldn’t have uttered ‘son of my sorrow’ for Benoni. A woman who just had a child has no benefit in naming her child ‘son of my sorrow’ …what sorrow? Child bearing was a time of Joy – not sorrow. It was Jacob who spent years (14 years of hardwork) trying to win Rachel hands in marriage. For this commitment, he was duped twice. Leah (Rachel’s elder sister) was not a bad choice but in terms of Rachel and Jacob, it was a question of the heart, a matter of love. If there is anything that Rachel didn’t have which Leah had, it was the Children – especially male Children. When Leah gave bith, he named his Children ‘Reuben’ > first son of his father, Judah > ‘praise the lord’, etc. Rachel on the other hand was the sum of Jacob’s defiance of ‘love denied’ and their love affair was already legendary by the time they left Laban, yet she didn’t have male children until much later. And throughout the life of Jacob, he loved Rachel more than any woman. It was Jacob who loved more, he lost more when Rachel died. Benjamin was the ‘son of his sorrow’ ‘son of his old age’ ‘son of his love’, prove of this was that the disappearing of Benjamin towards end of Jacob’s life broke his life. In all possibility, reason does not exist that any sorrow could have come over Rachel when the baby male was born. In essence, what sorrow could have filld her heart at the birth of yet another son ‘Ben jamin’. Benjamin was not to be a factor, couldn’t have been more than any he was alloted to by providence saving for the death of the dearly beloved ‘Rachel’. it was in this hour that the name began to count, the boy was the sum of his labor of love, now lost at old age of Jacob.



When we draw the first blood that ‘Benoni’ refers to ‘son of my love by Hebrew’, we realize that easy that ‘beni’ or ‘bin’ or ‘bini’ in Hebrew refers to ‘son’ or ‘offspring’. The only puzzle as we shall also realize is that final word at the end of Beni-oni (bin-oni) – is possibly ‘oni’. In terms of Benjamin or in Hebrew ‘Benyamin’ ‘Benyamun’ ‘Bin-yamin/amun’, we realize that the question of the word for word interpretation of the said words can be reduced to two separate and independent words, ‘oni’ and ‘amun’ (amin). For here, we shall begin by suggesting that if there is any Hebrew or Arabic word ‘oni’ that refers to ‘love’ or if there is a word in Hebrew or Arabic that speak of ‘amun’ or ‘amin’ as ‘lord’ ‘master’ or ‘father’, many pundits would have used it buttress on the matter.



Yet in terms of other languages of the world, we may yet suggest that the word ‘amun’ is ever so close to the word ‘love’. For instance, we read in Igbo of the translation for the word ‘smile’ and we learn that to ‘smile with joy’ in Igbo is ‘imu amu’. In Igbo we learn that ‘onuma’ is the translation of the English word ‘mourn’ > to mourn. In Igbo we learn that ‘omu-iko’ is a term that is used a form of ‘endearment’, explains a condition of the heart driven my pity and sympathy, like ‘meek’. In Igbo, the word for ‘joy’ is ‘oyoyo’, where as ‘oyi’ in Igbo is just my partner. The meaning of these words of love is not denied in Spanish or even Latin. For ‘in Spanish and Latin, the word for ‘love’ is ‘amore’ ‘amor’ ‘amo’, accordingly, and when we speak on the word in Spanish ‘mi amore’, we are only saying ‘my love’ But of course this must be taken with as much grain of salt for reasons of the root of Spanish language which as they say is a ‘footnote’ to Arabic. But we know too well the version of the Arabic spoken Spain and wthat is Kufic of the Moors. Among these Moors is also saying ‘amorosa’ meaning ‘beloved’ or ‘my beloved’. Between these terms ‘amun’ ‘imu amu’ (smiles of joy in Igbo), amore (love in Spanish), amo/amor (love in Latin), the Hebrew term ‘amun’ – assuming the transcription is correct, should only – only yield these words ‘love’ ‘joy’ ‘smile’ – if not ‘sorrow’.



But as far African languages, we shall begin here with Igbo and if necessary Bini and Yoruba of Nigeria. There is plenty of evidence that in Igbo, the word for ‘son of the father’ or ‘son of my lord’ is ‘obinna’, with teh given parsimony we may write the word as ‘Binna’ refering to the ‘son of the father’. To be sure, Obi in Igbo does not particularly mean ‘son’, yes, it refers to son/s ‘Obi’ and to be quite sure, Igbo use Obi as a title for a lord. Where as in Igbo, the word for father is ‘nna’. Yet, we cannot pretend that ‘Obi nna’ does not conjure up images of the father’s son – and may lead that Obi is the word for ‘son’ where as it may refer to a descendant – possibly -, if not ultimately refers to the ‘male’. In Igbo, words such as ‘ono’ ‘onu’ refers to someone honorable. In Bini and in Yoruba of Nigeria, there is a term for a chief called ‘Ooni’. An Ooni (Oni) is a Chief or a kind of ruler, but definitely a Chief of ‘honour’. In some parts of Igbo, the word ‘Oni’ is lightly used for a Chief or a man of honour. In a combination of these languages, we can easily suggest and conclude that ‘Obinna’ which is close but not same with Hebrew’s ‘Benoni’ refers to ‘son of the father’ ‘son of my lord’. That it is possibly – if not reasonable to suggest that ‘Bin-oni’ is a term that cannot in any wide refer to ‘son of my love’.



Considering the term, ‘Bin-yamin’ ‘Ben-yamun’ as in Benjamin, translated ‘son of my right hand’ ‘son of my love’, we will now properly understand why Jacob missed his wife. Also, we msut quickly – if not entirely defeat the claim about a Jew who discovered a place in South Africa and didn’t know what to do with it and called it ‘Benoni’ in supposed memoirs of his wife. According to the story, the man latter discovered that the place was bedecked with Diamonds. Tyrants always have a creative affection. It is common sense that the man expriopated the land from the natives knowing fully well that it was rich in diamonds. In order to calm the people chasing after him, he gave a name that will wet the emotional appetite of others. In essence, the land was named after the facts of the Diamond. We can indicate that the word ‘Bini-oni’, most probably refers to ‘son of my lord’ and not probably ‘son of my love’.


Isaiah 7; 14 ‘Almah’ and ‘Immanuel’ in the context of Igbo and Hebrew languages (Part V)

October 7, 2012


If the book of Genesis 1; 11 mentions ‘Ruah Elohim’ which many Rabbi and Hebrew experts believed referred to the ‘spirit/wind of God’, we must then insist that the Idea of God either as a form of wind or something else began with the interpretation in Genesis. That it continued over the space of time and from then on, we can begin to see why there is a great deal about the visible Spirit of God that hovered over the waters. Some may even think of these Spirits as angels or spirit beings. But we must indicate that there is a great possibility that the meaning of the term ‘ruah elohim’ referring to the ‘spirit of the most high God’, may in fact be a mistaken synonym ‘ruah’ > ‘arua’ in Igbo, which means ‘premonitions’ which is not different from the premonitions of God or God’s spirit, but not the same as the ‘ruah elohim’ which Genesis 1 speak of.


It is possible that the word ‘ruah elohim’ which appear in Genesis 1; 1-2, speaks of a word that is closer to Egyptian Kemit ‘rah’ than what became Hebrew. Without indicating that Genesis was probably composed at a time when the Hebrews and the Jews were still fresh from Egypt, it is possible to indicate that the use of the word ‘Rah’ and ‘Elohim’, may not be far from Rah as the ‘Sun’ and Eloyim as the ‘most high’.  In essence, the word ruah which appear in Genesis 1, may become a new word if we look at the word from the perspective of Rah as Sun, for instance, the face of the God or the face of Rah was upon the waters, then understanding the long standing History of the word ‘Ruah’ in context of ‘Rah’ may dilute some of the assumptions about the spirit of God.


Isaac M. Kikwanda and Arthur Quinn tell us something similar to these translations in their book ‘Before Abrahim’ p.20, that as far as ‘Ruah Elohim’, they translated it as the ‘spirit/wind of the most high’. Their proof of the statement was based on Genesis 41; 37 “And Pharoah said to his servants, ‘can we find a man like this in whom is the ruah elohim.”, abd the point they made is that Pharoah was looking for a man who has the spirit of the most high. And that person was Joseph.  It will seem to make all the natural sense of the world that the ‘Man’ in whom there is spirit of Ruah elohim, would easily reduce the word Ruah to spirit and elohim as the most high. We resist this kind of appreaciation since by the look of the statement, enough exist for us to show that the Man who has the spirit of Rah Most Ra, may not exactly disappoint as far the word ‘Ruah Elohim’.


They also translated Genesis 1; 1, 2; 3 “And the earth was tohu wabohu and the ruah elohim was hovering the face of the Waters.” We may imagine that the interpretation of this statement is within the meaning of what is meant by the ‘tohu wabohu’  and the statement may make all the difference when we compare what we find in the book of Genesis 1 with what we find in the story of Joseph. The recent academic consensus – including those of Isaac M. Kikwanda and Arthur Quinn – on the Hebrew word ‘tohu wabohu’ is that it refers to ‘plain’’waste’ and without purpose or ‘without form’. Using the line of argument from much of King James Version Bible, we must read from Genesis 2; 3 that “…the earth was ‘without form’ (tohu wabohu)”, but then the second line of the statement makes all the point clear that “…the Spirit of the Most high/Lord (Ruah Elohim) was hovering the face of the waters.”


 What does the Bible mean by “the spirit of the lord was upon the face of the deep (Waters)”? It may mean to suggest that the initial composers of the Genesis (mistaken as the Elohist) had a certain mental description of what was going on at the beginning of the world, that they were from a school of ‘theologers’ or spiritual scientist (or Educated prophets), who may or may not have kept a tradition concerning the beginning of the world or the face of God upon the deep. It may seem to suggest that the face upon the waters that they had in mind was no other than the Sun shinning upon the body of waters.


In essence, Ruah Elohim couldn’t have been the ‘wind or spirit’ of God, for sure,’ wind and spirit’ has no form and no face, the wind couldn’t have been shon itself upon the body of the ever visible body. At least we can infer from the narrative in Genesis that the Ruah Elohim spoken of Genesis  – at least in the way we finally understand it in the Bible or so described in the scriptures – does not refer to something invisible such as the Wind or Spirit Beings of Ruah. ‘In the Beginning’ Genesis mentioned that God said let there be ‘light and there was light’. And from this light, God created much of the world so to speak. The earth was without form and shape and the spirit of the lord was upon the face of the deep – so to speak.  For sure, when we preach in the Bible, that the ‘spirit of the lord was upon the face of the waters’, it gives us reasons to look at the possibility of spirit-like being swimming upon the ‘tohu wabohu’, but we may have missed the first opening lights in Genesis of 1, that the ‘light’ was created at the beginning, at some event horizon, and afterwards and from this light, God created the rest of the World.


In essence, the face of the Sun could have replaced the face of lord except for some event that involved the Logos. Let the saying go, let there be light and the affirmative ‘and there was the light’. The Statement is quite clear that the word of God manifested itself as the Sun over the waters. The Sun as a form of attribute of God is by nature elevated above the Earth, it has the broad covering over the waters of the deep and therefore true to the word ‘most high’, which is not the same as God.  The Spirit of God which is so demonstrated in Genesis was perhaps a descriptive appendage to the Light which proceeded from the Creator, which is not the Sun or Sunshine or Sunlight, which is ruminative of the well conceived understanding of how the Word of God works. This understanding that Elohim means ‘most high’gives us a second look at the word and its direct interpretation. For sure, Elohim is a term that refers to God – no different from Eloi – but does not directly mean God. This is one point that must be taken into context and there are other points to note.


This view should put to rest the emerging function of the fact that there is a fasle understanding about the so-called Elohist writers of Paschal, Spinoza and eventually Graf-Wellhausen documentary critic of Genesis. It is such elaborately conceived theory that is not mindful of the common meaning of the words from the Bible and the incident of translation.  The allusion to these great minds is necessary since many of them were variously capable of noting the gaps in the language of translation and interpretation. In all careful study of Julius Wellhausen ‘Prolegmena to the History of Israel’, we see that sharp and shark indicia of four apparent schools of thought who may or may not have influenced the Bible, may have sufficed the teachings of Wellhausen. But we may still didact that that the new facility of Igbo language in comparative performance to Hebrew and Kermit is not entirely necessary to point some of the lapses in the documentary hypothesis. Yet we may be happy enough to remind ourselves that Igbo plays a great deal of hand towards this process, for sure we may look at the merest domestic interpretation of the ascriptive ‘eyes/face of lord was upon the waters’, as to reduce to Igbo, and may be surprised that Igbo language alone may describe the eyes overlooking the world’ as ‘anya-n’eluwa’. If the Igbo would say ‘anya n’eluwa’ as mimises for the bright sun over the earth, there is no denying that between the presumed Hebrew ‘ruah (rah) eloyim’ and proven Igbo ‘anya n’eluwa’ lies at the near  – if not complete understanding of the incident in Genesis 1.


To be sure, the Hebrew term ‘tohu wabohu’ which reflects the formless of the earth as the Bible made clear, is not far from the Igbo saying ‘togboro n’efu’ ‘togboroh n’ofu’ ‘togboro n’ohu’ meaning ‘lies fallow’ ‘plain, good for nothing, or nothingness’ or ‘that the land is just there without use’. But it is amazing how lands werein existence at this point, even without the creation of man or animal which came later. It seems that the story of creation may have influenced the attitude of today’s scientist to synthesizing the biological history of the world – they follow the creationist pattern of a beginning and a creation. But with Igbo language, we can still further the understanding that the way God’s spirit is portrayed throughout the Bible and the way we look at the coming of the holyspirit seem to have been foreshadowed by the same traditional and institutional interpretation of the Bible. Challenging the institution was some point a crime but correcting the institutions and scholars that challenge is what the etymology can do best, especially when there are new linguistic facilities relating one new language to another.


When upon at time that people consider or look at the teachings of the Bible concerning Christ and his holiness tradition, we may be tempted to compose our view in the context of a Father that is heaven – or in some recent sense, the mother that is heaven. This consummate parentage of Christ is not without human thinking and not without the biological understanding of these words ‘begotten’ of the Father. Yet the confirming truths about the teachings of Christ – concerning the Emmanuel of our God or their God, may inspire the rest of us to insist that by the Holy Spirit – God is here with us> ‘God with us’wouldn’t have required a father in of itself saving in respect to the early beginning of Creation. And, the Bible strictly meant the coming of light or God’s spirit from its source. The more important fact is that the Bible statement that the  But what the Bible probably meant by Emmanuel, especially Emmanuel in comparative relationship to Christ is so removed from what the authors of the Bible understood about the word ‘Emmanuel’ and about the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. If we Emmanuel (Emmanua-a) is not Ra/Re-amun or Ya-amun – or in Igbo ‘anya-anwu’, then Emmanuel is the realized meaning of the holy word ‘Y-H-W-H’ > Yahweh.


The error would only amount to the incident of printing and copious duplicity of the Holy name through the years. The meaning would also be common to its kind and its time since in the book of Psalms, we learn of the short stops such as ‘Hagoin’ and ‘Selah’ and some times Haggoin Selah. Then there is a full Stop, which terminates an encomium for prayers like in Psalms. We at the end of certain fevered Psalms a word that is not far from ‘Y-W-H’ (Yahweh) and may mean Emmanu-el (God with us). That is ‘Amen’ meaning let it be so – or simply affirming the faith in one God, Amen, after Egyptian (African titles) ‘Amenhotep’ ‘Amenophis’ – possibly Amenophis but two which affirms Amen as Amun, ‘God with Us’ or Amun is God with us. The Ugaritic versions of the Book of Psalms as expedited by Mitchel Dahood in the Anchor Bible Series, adds to the aplomb.


The common evolution of Emmanuel from a theme about ‘One God’ of the days of Akhenaton (Ikhenaton) meaning as they claim ‘Living Spirit of Aten’. But based on one’s knowledge of Egyptian Kemit and its use, and coming to fully grasp the relationship between Igbo, Hebrew and Kemit, there is reason to believe that ‘Ikhen-aton’ or ‘Ikhe-aten’ probably means ‘In the Spirit of Aton/Aten’. Prove of this is that Igbo word for strength and power is the word/term ‘ike’. For instance, ikechukwu or ikhechukwu (Ikechi) would mean in Igbo ‘the Strenght of God’ or would be a reference to one ‘driven by the strength of God’. In Igbo we may also read ‘Ike-nna’, which means ‘In the strength of Father’, and the general use of the word ‘nna’ for father is a part and style of speech in Igbo that usually refers to God. The only probably factor in the whole tryst is the root of the word ‘Aton’ ‘aten’, that is if it means anything other than God. It is miscellaneous to indicate that ‘Ikenatu’ as in Igbo – unrelated to Ikhenatun – would mean ‘spirit of direction’, that is the ‘creative director spirit’or ‘the spirit or the force that directs’, a form of ‘living medium’ for a group of devotees. However we can stick with primary words in the whole terminology. Second prove of this term that ‘ike’ or ‘ikhe’ or ‘iyke’> modern writing is same as ‘strength of’ or ‘living strenght’ is the word ‘ki-netic’ in English>energy in motion like the word Ken, or Kine/n (kinnen) as in Icelandic or Kine-sis as in Greek. The rattle snake urns the rest.


But as far as Amen, we are dealing with ‘Amun’ – nothing more than the affirmative ‘let it be so’ in recent terms, or a form of affirmative Amen (Amun) may also mean ‘God with us’.  The en-fleshing of God’s spirit on human is a final page in this whole event has, since the Ra-Amun shines his ray on the man whom he has chosen. The coming of the Sun which we behold is no wise different from emerging of the glorious sun from the descent and then after the revelations, the light is resplendent  The parallel interpretation of Sun and Sunlight, and its chosen vessel the ‘ ‘Pharaoh’ is a practice so well practiced that in term of the Gnostic of Jewish background Christ was the fitting model as the Divine (Logos) word made flesh, the one who God (Ra) has chosen, the suffering servant of God-son of man (Son of Anu) >Ra-Amun, and in matters describing El as Yah (Jah), Christ was the ‘mmanu-yah>Yah-mmanu of our God.’

Isaiah 7; 14 ‘Almah’ and ‘Immanuel’ in the context of Igbo and Hebrew languages. (Part IV)

October 1, 2012

To be sure, we may transfer the word ∆ Aryavanus, which refers to S(∫)-airus (Cyrus II) and of course popularly dedicated to D-arius II, to a word that is similar in thought and meaning to the saying,‘follower of the Sun’s path’ for Zoroastrian or ‘Son of Rah’ for Egyptian religious experience. We must look at the word ‘Aryavanus’ or ‘Aryavus’ as a word that speaks of Rah – assuming the word Rah is correct and interpretative of the copied symbol from Egypt. ‘Rah’ as a word from all points of view seem to be the word that best defines ‘aryavus’ saving that it looks nothing like it. We can indicate that the reason why ‘aryanvus’ looks nothing like Rah, is that Rah is not the same thing as ‘aryavus’. There is no language other than Persian and what is considered ‘hieroglyphic’ (Egyptian Kemit) that speak of speak of Rah in context of ‘aryavus’ as we have them today.

As such, we are indebted to what the experts say about ‘aryavus’ as main event in the Behistin. We are left to accept that ‘aryanvus’ means ‘Arian’ or referred to it, that it speaks to a religion and not necessarily a people – or perhaps both. We find ourselves likely to accept it because they are proven to be reasonable and reasonably faithful to some of the instances discovered elsewhere  But now we must yield to the role of language in its effort in helping us understand this term ‘Aryavanus’ – and throw much light on the subject since the role of say Igbo language in helping us understand the relation between ‘Arya’ and ‘Rah’ is meaningful, and words such as ‘Arya-vus’ may mean ‘Ra-Amun’ or ‘Ya-manu’ as the case would be, but only in terms of Igbo>Hebrew>Kemit and the bi-polar nature of the cuneiform? What if Igbo will show that these words are similar to the word ‘Emmanuel’ or strictly speaking ‘Emmanu-a’, that there are two and only possible takes on Emmanuel, which reveals that it speaks of the Prince of Peace as the ever abiding light of God, ‘God with us’ as a Sun and Sunlight, terms in Igbo that referes to ‘Anwu’ and in Kemit ‘Amun’.

It will ease our understanding of the word ‘Amun Ra’ as nothing else than ‘Ra Amun’, which refers to the eye of the Sun in principle – whose glory ‘shines’ as the Golden Sun. In Igbo, we notice that Ra Amun is more correct than Amun Ra, for sure, the word for the Sun in the Sky in Nigerian Igbo is ‘Anya-Anwu’ (anyanwu), a term that can exist independent of each other. For instance, ‘anya’ is Igbo word for the ‘eye’ and anwu is Igbo word for ‘sunshine’. But the Sun in of itself is known in Igbo as ‘anya-anwu’ and the moon in Igbo is ‘onwa’.

We must also note that the star in terms of astrology in Igbo is known as ‘kpa-kpando’- as it parries the word cha-chando, (kpa-kpando) or the negligible but dialectic K/wa k/wando. The point of bringing this last bit of comparative performance is that Egyptian kpensu or kponsu which refers to a kind of new moon (as opposed to ekwensu which the Igbos blame for everything – including the name of the devil) is not the same as kpando or chando. Perhaps there is an Egyptian word for the Star which is not well known – or at least known to me, but we infer these terms about the ‘Stars’ because the Sankrist speak of the African Cha ‘Chando’ or ‘Kpando’ as ‘Chandos’, whereas its term ‘Chandra’ (Sandra) refers to the color ‘white’ or ‘bright’ which in Igbo, is White meaning ‘Ucha’ – deep white (bright) Icha-ucha or Uchita. The color bright or human behavior is in Igbo ‘Osita’, the example, the trait, the good/fair character – if not gene, like ‘onovo’ in Igbo which means ‘novel/noble character’. So how does the Igbo word ‘Anyanwu’ (the sun; the eye of the Sun) compare with the Greek/Persian term ‘Aryavus’ (Arya-vu(s)) and what does it tell about the term ‘Darius’ and how does dialectic help out knowledge of Emmanuel ‘God with us’.

We shall begin by stating the word ‘Aryavanus’ does not mean ‘Arian’ (Aryan) as a race, that it means something quite religious. Very so often we find the word ‘Arian’ associated with Darius, with some believing that the preceding pyramid symbol /\ before the words ‘Aryavanus’ or ‘Aryanvus’ means that he is Arian. There is a grain of truth in that but the very salt of it, is that Darius or the man associated with Darius II was a follower of Ra – which is the root of the word ‘Aryan’. This word may also mean or refer to the eyes as opposed to human beings, and when we find the presence of the Pyramid which represents the Temple of Amun aside the baptismal oasis from whence the four forces were said to have emerged, it is the symbol of Ra > a kind of all seeing eye> and in Igbo; anya-nwu and Persia/Greek arya-vu(s)> that mounts the top.

From this baptism new converts by immersion in the Oasis (the ‘Delta’ from whence the four forces where said to have emerged) near Amun Temple or Temple of Amon in Egypt are raised to new live. The new convert will be covered with white Ropes as he/she is taken from the waters (Oasis) and as he looks up, he becomes one with Ra and a dove is sent in the world. Old things or ‘old Adam’ so to speak have passed away and new thing has started and he – the convert – has become one with Rah. But of course these practices had near Pagan dimension which Christianity may or may not remedied. But it is amazing how much of the early years of Christ life was outside the Jewish practices of the time.

The name of the four forces is called ‘nu’ – anu (nunet), a term that may not cease to impress, that in the context of ‘amun’ we are at once at once the presence of the ‘anu’. But despite the respective similarity ‘amun’ and ‘anu’, the ‘transcendent’ realia of God’s spirit and experience which the two words inculcate, there is reason to adopt the consensus that amun and anu is related. That does not mean that are one. Anu (Aanu) – means the four forces that compose man or the world is different from the ‘amun’ whose meaning without the available interpretation of the said word is the Ray from the Sun. In Igbo by the way, the word for 4 is ‘ano’ which of course is the letter N, may or may not related to the Greek sign N for Nu. In Igbo, the word for the Sun and Sunlight is ‘anya-anwu’ and ‘anwu’. Anwu is the ray of the sun, the purity of its essence.

The Sanskrit mentioned some of these people we call Aryans, and believe them to have come from land far afar. The holy records of the Sanskrit is quite clear about the position set above, that a certain people from what is probably Near East came through the Sind and into Asia, and they were of a race that celebrated the purity of the Sun. Yes, the sun, is believed to be the main event in the interpretive history of Aryans, but little would we have wondered that the Sind is East Africa and the culture of pure Race as nearly as Ra, was a African cultural practice – no other. It is only the Jews that attempted to get close and Judaism as confirmed is a mere branch of holiness tradition that is original to Africa. Africa is no doubt the place where much of human every day experiences were tried, but we must understand that some of these terms that seem quite sinecure to some religious others may have started as a form of every domestic use and experience.

The title that is closest to Amun (Yamanu/Yamahu) – is ‘God with us’. The point is that several centuries and years of writing has passed between what was written some centuries ago in Egypt and what was copied some time later. There is an etiological problem of noting the relationship between several words of African origins (Egypt), which retained its form over a period of time and Hebrew and Arabic that borrowed from it. By the ever changing nature of writing and human biology, we note that after a while, there were the new forms of the same word appearing all over and these words involve all kinds of understanding about God and his role in the very given framework of the world. In reality, the real meaning of Yahweh as the name of God – may only fully known if we take God’s word as they which the rays of the Sun, came forth from the Sun.

Isaiah 7; 14 ‘Almah’ and ‘Immanuel’ in the context of Igbo and Hebrew languages. (Part III)

September 29, 2012

By Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka




2, WE should also be able to pick apart some of the teachings of Isaiah by looking at the words and the wordings evident in the Bible. For instance, we read of ‘Emmanuel’ ‘Immanuel’ which means God with us in the Book of Isaiah 7;14. This term Emmanuel is so original to Hebrew that nothing has been done to compel out knowledge of Emmanuel in its descriptive curve for a ‘Christ’ that is already with us. In a essence, the meaning of Emmanuel is that ‘God is with us’, but we have to suggest that Christ died to bring in the Holy Spirit, as such Christ was an event leading to the Holy Spirit and not the ever-abiding holy spirit. In some surface explicating, the Holy Spirit was the ever-abiding spirit of God, which Christ was to initiate, to which Christ was to perform as his ministry teaches. The prophets of old preached with this holy spirit, so also those who were considered suffering servants of God.


So how what did the Apostles of Christ say about Jesus and how did they themselves see Christ. Luke 7; 16 mentions Christ as one of the Prophets, a point which may perhaps suggest that the disciples of Christ saw Christ as perhaps a prophet, perhaps ‘more than a prophet’ (Luke 7; 26) – for in John 6; 14 we also read “This is indeed the prophet – who is to come into the world.” 2 Chronicles 1; 20, Jesus is “the anointed one in whom God’s promises have become yes and amen.’ By tradition (Lk 7; 39) explains the position of the Jewish generality, some of which is still a lasting phenomenon in our time, for it seems that the even today the tradition prevalent among the Jews is that Christ is all probability a Prophet and in some sense, a suffering servant of God .


From additional citations in the Bible, we read in Mt. 21; 21-11, 46, (Lk 9; 7-9; Jn 6; 14-15 and in 1; 21. Luke 24; 19> regarding the two men on their way to Emmaus> that Christ was in his time considered a prophet by his people, who must remain blessed since he is the one “who comes in the name in the name of the Lord”>Hossannah in the highest – as go the tedium. C/c Luke 11; 14-23 and Matthew 12; 22-30. In essence, enough exist to indicate that the Disciples of Christ and ministerial years of their early beginning of his ministries, the pastoral ministries of their Letters to the Church and Epistles, the Apostolic of later years say that Christ is one of the prophets – according to the tradition of Israel and ven eventually the son fo God according to the scriptures. The Disciples of Christ were probably drawn to Christ because of this unusual ability and only with time later recognized as Peter would famously proclaim that he is the ‘ anointed one’> the Christ.


Edward Schillebeeckx in his book ‘Jesus; an experiment in Christology’ was serious about the fact that Jesus was perceived as a prototype of Moses, Elijah, Samuel, who in their lives were extraordinary men of God. All three of them were suffering servants of God – meaning that prayed for the sins of the people of Israel. Moses was the prophet that set in order things to come for a prophet greater than him. So did Elijah, so did Samuel who may or may not have laid the foundation of priestly head and function of Israel. These men are believed to cited, that in the future a prophet that was greater than them was coming. In that tradition of these prophets was John the Baptist – walking in the tradition or ‘spirit of Elijah’ also mentioned that there is one coming after him ‘whose sandals he was unworthy to untie . In the transfiguration it was ‘Elijah and Moses’ that appeared along side Christ, as if Christ was a prototype of these two. Samuel was not among the people that appeared to Disciples of Christ, but Samuel I and II in keeping to David’s life, brought the instruments of God’s divinity to bear against his people. Schillebeeckx indicated that according to the scriptures, that “Jesus, saw ideas about a Davidic messiah behind that popular reaction (Jn 6; 15); and ‘he withdrew’.”


But one prophet that best embodied all these teachings of Christ and the very nature of his transfiguration is Isaiah –known to us through his Book – who some believe is composed after the passions of Jeremiah. Perhaps, there was such a person who suffered in the Bible like Isaiah and Jeremiah, perhaps such as Job in the Bible, but these suffering servants of God were also expected to remove the Sins of Israel. These Israeli believe that according to the promises of the most high when Israelite obeyed the words of God and did them, they will always be saved from their enemies. This man as the Bible indicated would be a prophet or minister of God from his mother’s womb. That a prophet is a prophet ‘from his mother’s womb’> (Jeremiah 1; 5, Isaiah 49; 1-3, Psalms. 110), so was Christ who the people believed in – even though they say he is one with the prophets. That according to the Scripture however, Christ Jesus was the messiah that was expected.


While this essay is not about Edward Schillebeeckx, it is proper to indicate that in (p.475), he inserted the fact that “According to the people of Israel Jesus is ‘one of the prophets’ a Semitism for: he is a prophet (Mak 6; 15, 8; 27-28). Herod said the same thing in of Mk 6; 14-15 and of Christ Jesus he said that “John the Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore these powers are at work in him” But we take from that page a section of Mk 6; v.15 concerning the teachings and saying about concerning Christ, that people said that in terms of Christ, “It is Elijah” And others said, “it is the Prophet, or like one of the Prophets.” In summary of these incident reports, we read that Jesus Christ at some point in Mark 8; 27-28 turned to his disciples and asked, ‘who do men say I am’? v.28 ‘So they answered, “John the Baptist; but some say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And in v.29, we learn that Jesus turned to his disciples and asked them, now who do you say I am? And Peter made the famous confession that ‘you are the Christ.’ These portions discussed in this paragraph largely appeared according to the commentary of Schillebeeckx. They may or may not have seen something in Christ to have even hung around him, especially when he was not among the greatly rich. That’s – going by the above scenario.


John 1 ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God’; John 1; 2 ‘He was with God in the beginning ‘; and John 1; 14 ‘The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only son, who came from the father, full of grace and truth”


Genesis 1; 1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” We learn from these portions of the Bible, the theme of Creation (okike in Igbo – as if to say o’kere>he created), through the word of God. The Bible book of Genesis 1; 1-3 says the following, that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. V.2, The Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. V.3, And God said, “Let there be light and there was light.” This Divine Logos; this creator spirit, this spirit from which all things were made, from which things came to be is known as the word of God – which is the spirit and as many theological language would deem, is the Holy Spirit of God. Christ came to bring this event of the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Creation; Creator Spirit), Christ brought the event because the event was a re-awakening of the Divine Logos. In the beginning was this Holy Spirit which was one and only with the father and the Egyptian called it the ‘Ptah’>Creator Spirit.


The Holy Spirit may be a new event, as according to the teachings of Christ disciples, but may have been around since the creation of the divine logos by John I. The main point is that Emmanuel is a person of highly derived salvific import or Emmanuel is the beginning of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Both themes are hardly new and we know that the Gnostic themes from the desert also proves a point, and the point mentions that, “In the beginning was Ptah and his Ka was with him”, a theme not far from John of St John Gospel (The Fourth) who also a Gnostic. But Ptah and its career as a creed seem to have been quite old. How old?


The etymology of the name Emmanuel is rooted in Hebrew as ‘Emmanu-a’ (Immanua), pronounced as we have been told as the Ewwanu-a (Ewwanuel) or whatever. He can indicate that Emmanuel which means ‘God with us’ is not a term unfamiliar to African languages such as Kemit. As far as recent family of languages are concerned, Hebrew is part of the world language family called ‘Afro-Asiatic’, and one of the reasons why Hebrew and Arabic are called Afro-Asiatic is that words in Hebrew as in Arabic are very close to Aramaic. These words such as Emmanuel, or Christ and the saying ‘God with us’, have Afro and Asiatic origins which is quite clear in terms of the meaning of the words above.


Why Hebrew and Arabic or Aramaic should be called Afro-Asiatic and not Greek and Latin is not clear. It does appear that Greek language as much as Hebrew has as many common words and its meaning, as they Igbo words are close to Greek as words and language. Greek contains as many words of Hebrew as there are many words in Nigerian Igbo that is also Greek, same with Latin. If Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic along with Arabic then Greek like the Igbo is Afro-Asiatic.


The word Emmanuel as many Afrocentric have argued (without really mentioning George G.M James) is very original to Kemit or Ancient Egyptian language/s. These words are true and if we are likey to indulge the mystics, Africa languages can help to widen the ground support of points made by these great minds such as George James, Martin Bernal, and Dr. Ben. Their stock of American Intellects are deserving of all the praises, despite the fact that they are not the first to have written about Hebrew, Christian, and Islam as footnotes to African religious experiences. The missing gaps in G.M James argument is the connection of what they termed mysteries of Egypt to Zoroastrian, and in the sophistry of Martin Bernal, he failed to show that the reasons why there is so much connection between Egyptian religion and rest of Middle East religion is because of the Zoroastrian.


There is a determined and fitting finale for some of the argument about the Creature God and his words which Jews (Hebrew-Israelite) hold dear and true. If we place these significant cog of religious experience and understanding within the context of its revelation in the Bible, we may yet suggest that the paternity of Divine Logos – which some undoubtedly place at the biological genus of Greek in spite of the fact that logic and civilization is without doubt a reference to understanding the difference between God (Ra – to speak), his divine speech through Creations materialized (Ptah>Putah) and the very spirit of Ra – (his Ka, Ki, Chi, or Christ). The overall philosophy of Logic and Logos is the attempt to find the meaning and mind of God in his creation>either/or. Reread the book of Exodus concerning the coming out of the angel or spirit of death, the word ‘pesah’ ‘pusah’ does not mean ‘ Passover’> concomitant to ‘God passed over’, rather, Passover was the closest word-meaning for the ‘coming out’ (becoming) or the en-fleshing of the word of God (Putah, Ptah), and in terms of the angel of death as the Exodus incident will show, Ptah was a function of God’s act. That may also be saying that there is such a thing as form or function Ptah, which is God in action and God doing his work.


That the words Emmanuel meaning God with us, also applies to Amun, who is believed to be the God transcendental  There are no mistakes about the same group of words applied to the very presence of God or otherwise the ray of God or the shine of Ra. The Ray of the Sun is the revelation of God and it is his presence in more domestic terms that may be referred to as the shine which ever abides. While these accouterments about the eye of the Sun (Ra) and the light or rays of the Sun (Amun), are within domestic meaning, they are also used as a reference to eternity of the most high God. While we are arguing that Emmanuel is Christ, we trying to show that Christ as a name is a term variously reserved for the holy ones, for instance the Greek Chrisma, which they have argued means, ‘ anointed one’.


Some of us may disagree, since Chrisma is not the same as Kerygma and Kerygma not the same as Misaiich. Older versions of the same word, literally meaning ‘isma’ from a term closer in meaning to ‘maran atta’ referring to anointed lord, suggest that the word Chrisma – particularly the ‘chr’ as in Christ was added sometime later. No doubt that ‘isma’ or ‘iesma’ is close to the Hebrew word Misaiich (whose spelling I doubt is correct), prove of this would be an Igbo meaning and translation of the ‘annointed one’ literally meaning, ‘onye etere isi manu’ or ‘isi etere manu’ – part of the ‘ekke-iza’ (ecclesia) where ‘isi’ means head and ‘manu’ means oil in Igbo respectively. ‘Isi-manu’ as a term in of itself in Igbo language will mean, ‘head of oil’ – alludeds to some oil on a head or one ‘with head of oil’ but does not necessarily mean a ‘head anointed with oil’ or ‘ anointed one’ as the overall context will deem.
But the word Emmanuel is quite the same if not similar to the word yamanu or Yamahu, and it is this idea of ‘ transcendence’ without Hegelian ‘ Phenomenon of Spirit’, that envelops a sense of the ever abiding God or the sense of God’s presence as the rays to the Sun of the more realized meaning of the word ‘Emmanuel’. For sure, there is an understanding that God created man in his ‘own image and likeness’ and breathed on him, the breathe of life. This breath of life is believed to be one with the creator spirit. The direct meaning of the word man in context of Divine pre-eminence is not that dissimilar from Man as a name that has roots elsewhere. In all reality, the word of God which surpasses all understanding goes along way to wet our appetite on the working nature of God’s word and the meaning of God’s Holy Spirit>the Creator Spirits which is said proceeds from the father, a term that is within the meaning of the saving Christ come from the Father, and somehow relates to the coming of the Holy Spirit – which is a parallel remediation as in light that shines from up on high.

Isaiah 7;14 ‘almah’ and ‘Immanuel’ is context of Igbo and Hebrew language (Part II)

September 26, 2012

Part II Isaiah 7; 14
Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka


“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a Virgin (Almah) will be with child and bear a son, and shall be called Immanuel”


The word ‘Almah’ – according many sources such as Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, etc, refers to a Virgin, refers to a Maiden. It also refers to a young female of a marriable age or at least capable of conceiving a child. The issue is whether the verse refers to a Virgin or the Virgin, and from that position we mean to choose between the present continues language of the Virgin and the promise of a child, or the futuristic conception of a Child who will be called Immanuel.

We shall begin by looking at the Greek interpretation of these said words and have it placed along side Igbo language or any similar language to help our understanding of how some of the words such as ‘almah’ and eventually ‘immanuel’ is arrived at.


When we read about the Greek saying, ‘pneuma’ of the prophet – that in terms of Christ, he will come in ‘form’ of a prophet, we can also arrive at the same statement in Igbo for instance, uma – as if to say ‘f-orma’ – , uma as if manner of Christ. The inserting of the Igbo term ‘uma’ which means manner and form, is to introduce the Greek ‘eumenal’>’things are they are’ or as they are donem, and the second Greek word ‘pheumenal’ ‘things became the norm’ or simply ‘things which became the way they are. The latter translation is my inserting. We compare this Igbo word ‘omenala’ meaning ‘things are they are done’; the tradition and iso-omenala, to ‘follow tradition’. In essence, Christ was a ‘p-neumal’ of the prophets, that as in the form and tradition of the prophets, but seem to have become the form or seem to have become the author of the ‘new man’ where as he was a new and different sort of prophets.


We may use the Igbo language to show that all of the above premise may in fact be accurate, that the main crux of the problem is with the very structure of the verse and the second important word in the sentence called Immanuel. To be clear, we must note that in Igbo, the term young girl refers to the word ‘nma’ and is very close to the word ‘Almah’ and probable root to the pronunciation ‘Almah’ in the very Hebrew and Aramaic dialectic. In essence, the word Almah may simply also mean ‘nma’ meaning beauty in Igbo – that is referring to a ‘young girl’ (or ‘nwa nma’; young beautiful girl) and not necessarily a virgin.


But why will anyone use the Igbo language in context of Hebrew to draw some conclusion on these matters. Enough connection between Igbo and Hebrew does exist, and in fact, several Hebrew words spoken at the time of Christ can be redeemed by certain languages, particularly Igbo. An argument concerning these things may in fact come down to the connection between Igbo and say Greek language at the time of Christ and sometime later. These languages are very related to the Igbo language and we can still infer from these two languages what these words do mean….For instance, what is the similarity between Greek words such as ‘neumenal’ meaning ‘things are they are’ and the Igbo word ‘omenala’, ‘things in the way they are done’. Omenala or Omenana/Omenani is Igbo word referring to tradition or ordinance, which is same as the English word ‘ordinance’.


We can cross check ‘odinani’ in Igbo with the word ‘ordinance’ in English meaning the best laid tradition, and compare them in light of form and tradition of the prophets, which Christ came as Paraclete  These words are alike in meaning, alike in sound, but spoken by two different languages and two different people>Igbo and English.


As we have stated in previous article that in terms of the meaning of some of the Greek words via Igbo, much need to be appreciated. Some of these words defy common meaning and as such a second coming of the words concerned may inject additional meaning to the exercise.

But in terms of pneumenal or phenomenom, the term may in fact be same with the Igbo words such ‘Ihie unu mere’ or ‘ihie unu n’eme’. The saying, ‘ihie unu n’eme’ is also similar to another Igbo saying ‘ife/fe unu n’eme’, lliterally meaning, ‘things you do’. The saying is quite different from another Igbo saying, ‘ife neme’ – perhaps relevant to this type of writing ‘Iphe neme’ meaning in Igbo, ‘things that are happening’, like a phenomenom, saving that the English word ‘phenomenom’ if broken in bits will resolves itself as ‘phe-no-me-nom’, which will be closer to Greek ‘phenumenal’ and in terms of Igbo may yet resolve itself as ‘i-phe-(u)nu-neme’ >phe-nu-neme’ > meaning ‘the- things- ‘you’ – are doing’ > ‘things-‘you’- do’. Apparently, ifeneme is close to the context of ‘what happening’ – present continues events, e.g,’ …things as they unfold’. So Christ was ipheneme (ifeneme>ihie neme) of his time, and they were other things which Paul have allude to regarding the events as they were unfolding.


As such, Hebrew word such as Almah and Bethulah cannot be that far from Igbo words ‘nma’ or ada-nma for young woman. In spirit of the Igbohebrew dialectics, we look at the word ‘Bethula’ as Hebrew for Virgin and its Greek counterpart ‘pethula’ (the p-b or b-p ballad), as a word that is not far from the Igbo word for Virgin, ‘ebeghi-ugwu’ ‘uncircumcised’, for both male and female. Where as, the word ‘virgin’ for a woman is really ‘nwayi or nwa-aghogho na amaghi nwoke’, meaning, a ‘woman that has not been with a man’, which is properly short of the meaning virgin in direct sense of the word. Virginity in Igbo is not the same as ‘chastity’, but that virtue is primary to the meaning of chastity. A good woman is well trained and well brought up, and a woman with proper sense and mind is of higher importance – her virginity is secondary, a form of insurance or whatever!


The Igbo word that is close in sound to the ‘bethula’ is ‘otula’ (othula) or in some Igbo dialect ‘otele’ (othele), yet in some other Igbo dialect ‘otule’ (othule), meaning the ‘ass’ or the rear or just below the bottom. For instance, othele-maako is an Igbo saying literally meaning ‘wise ass’, ‘smart ass’ or ‘clever fool’. We can only reduce this term to Hebrew ‘Bethula’ to a profusion of two Igbo words >ebeghi otula; where ‘ebeghi’ meaning ‘uncut’ or not ‘yet to be cut’ and ‘otele’ or ‘otula’ meaning the rear, resulting to a near meaning ‘uncut rear’ and better said as ‘uncut bottom’. This may look like the word Bethulah, but sure it ain’t. The other term that is not quite close to this terms is ‘ebere Otula’ one whose ‘rear is cut open’ which should literarily mean nothing saving for the joke on a ass that was slashed or a cut buttocks, the other meaning which may not be useful is the term ‘ebeghi otu’, which is closer to uncircumcised and nothing more. These terms may yet reveal the meaning of the word ‘bethula’ may probably refer to a form of circumcision – although some Jewish sources force the argument that it renders its meaning to a woman and a virgin.


Second bunch of a example on why Igbo words are relevant to the discuss and to Hebrew is the word ‘Shammah’ referring to the ‘place of God’ or ‘holy place’ and the Igbo translation of a lord’s place or God’s place will respectively mean ‘ulo chi’ or ulo chukwu’ and stretching the dialects we may insert that the word chi and shi relate to some degree, and above all, the set of words that is the right Igbo word for public place is ‘ama’. In the circumstance, we may read ‘Chi-ama’ or ‘shi-ama’, referring to the public house or general place of God, a kind of Shilo, where in Igbo, ulo is a for house. The difference here is a public platform ‘amah’ and a house which may or may not be a public place ‘ulo’; hence, shi-amah for platform of God or shi-ulo (shilo) house of God. These terms are Igbo and may spell a bad dialect to people familiar with Igbo language but if these terms are pronounced from the right as old Hebrew is read from right to left, we may read ama-chi or ama-shi, or ulo-chi or ulo-shi, all of which is root of the Hebrew word ‘Sha’lo ‘m’ – all of the above correct –, including the said Igbo words > if only we add the second Igbo word ‘oma’ meaning ‘well being’ ‘peace’ (Shalom, by Igbo will mean, ‘peace of God to this house’) if not in Hebrew in Igbo nonetheless.


Apparently these Hebrew terms such as ‘shilo’ ‘shammah’ and ‘shalom’, may sound correct but are probably if not actually wrong. With Igbo language, it is possibly to arrive that the meaning of these Hebrew words are correct but how it was pronounced are only possibly if we proceed from the right of these words.


Arbitrarily speaking, we can still project that Chi-amah (chamah) or Shammah are terms within the meaning of the word ‘charm’ – a definite drive through of the word ‘shama’, word/s and meaning dislocated from more older language but now given a new and realized meaning in the another language and in another age.


The Virgin version of the word ‘Almah’ like the Igbo ‘nma’ is primary to a ‘young girl’ and the addition of Virgin is a second possible meaning, a derivative and not the direct meaning. The new perspective on this view is that another Igbo word exist that we can also refer to the above sentence and that word is ‘oma’, meaning ‘well behaved, mannered’ ‘well being’ ‘well born’, as such the incident of the Igbo word ‘nma’ (beauty) and the indicative Igbo word ‘oma’ (good, well born, fitting, and deserving), often if not always apply to a ‘young woman’ in Igbo language.


The real Igbo word that may throw addition meaning to the sentence is the term ‘Ada’ meaning daughter or a beautiful daughter. Ada in Igbo can also mean a young girl, but when we bind this Igbo word ‘ada’ (daughter) to the Igbo word ‘nma’ (beauty) and the Igbo word ‘oma’ (well born, well behaved, et al), we arrive another word ‘ada-nma’ or ‘ada-oma’, which in context of Hebrew Almah, chime, to the more common meaning that ‘almah’ or in Igbo ‘adanma’ speaks of a woman>perhaps a beautiful, well behaved, young girl or woman in present tense of worthy characters. She may or may not necessarily be a Virgin.

We can borrow a leaf from a common example, for instance, madam, refers to a woman, or Ada-nma for Igbo, refers to a woman, a young woman, hardly a Virgin – but well be – but of a person who manners are well and already known. Another instance is the issue of ‘Dama Eche’ which is supposedly Latin for ‘beautiful woman or Elche’. This word ‘dama’ or ‘adanma’ means a lot to Igbos. It is in fact close to Igbo language word for word. It means in Igbo, ‘beautiful girl of Elche or Eche’- just alike other languages, and in this case, Indo-European languages.

It does mean that an ‘Adanma’ >that is well born woman will not suffice as a prototype for mother of Christ.



Isaiah 7;14, ‘Almah’ and ‘Immanuel’ in context of Igbo and Hebrew languages

September 22, 2012

Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka

Isaiah 7; 14

The book of Isaiah is popular for several portions of its 66 chapters. Two of the more outstanding portions of Isaiah that may have created much problem with Christians and Jews are (1) Isaiah 7; 14; the theme of the Virgin Conception of Christ; Emmanuel ‘God with us’, and the other is (2) Isaiah 53 ‘Suffering Servant’ who will take away the sins of the world. In fact the greatest summary of Christian teaching and formation of Catholic doctrines of holy incarnation of Christ and the doctrine of ‘immaculate conception’ is based on these two chapters. It will make perfect sense to interpret much of the Bible in context of Hebrew than any else.

Isaiah 7; 14

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a Virgin (Almah) will be with child and bear a son, and shall be called Immanuel”
The main event in this verse is the word ‘Almah’ which is believed by both Christian and Jewish teachers to be a word for a Virgin and a Maiden, a term the Jews and Christians believe to same as true. Christian throughout their very existence, do believe that this verse, Isaiah 7:14 is a Prophesy concerning the coming of the messiah, which Christ Jesus essentially fulfilled. Christians have maintained that this passage, referred to Christ, that Christ was the messiah as portion of the Scripture said, and according to the teachings of the Apostles – many of whom saw Christ alive, for instance John the Disciple of Christ whom Jesus ‘loved’ as the Scriptures said, believed that Christ was the son of God.


This St. John has been removed as the author of the St John gospel. It is this Saint John’s gospel that sponsored all kinds of interpretation about the person/s of Christ and about the issue of the divine Logos. And we shall discuss, the person/s of Christ has always been the bone of contention between what Christians considered Christ’s Immaculate Conception, derived as it were from the promises evident in the Bible and the person/s of Christ which without these references in Old testament is really of little if any consequence to much of Christian believe and faith in Christ.


Nothing, forces us to broach the subject any clearly than the incident of very nature and interpretation of the word ‘Almah’ in the above portion Isaiah 7; 14, considering in the circumstance how and why it was basis for Christian futuristic expectation of a Messiah…given the eons  More than anything, Christians believe and Christians argue that the word ‘Almah’ and the theme of the statement and the theme of the Virgin birth of Christ, is about the coming messiah > the promised one, who the Jews believe is not Jesus Christ. They also believe that the ‘statement’ above does not refer to Christ or any one from the future and such the Christian claims about Christ is considered by Jews as untrue and inaccurate in spite of the account.

But Jews however believe that the citation of ‘almah’ in the verse above refers to a single event of a woman giving birth to a child and nothing more. Prove of this they mention is that the prophet at the time of the incident was referring to the Kingdom of Hezekiah of Northern Israel in about B.C 722.


Jewish Rabbi at least the returning 200 years – referring to the era following the revival of Jewish Intellectual life by Ralph Hirsh (Samson Ralph Hirsh), has led many to contend that Christ was another great prophet and a great suffering servant of God but not particularly the messiah. Some Jews equally believe in this claim and it is a term that is not unlike the claims made by Muslims that Christ Jesus was a prophet. We read that a great opposition exists for this on either side of the Christian and Jewish divide, and many of the foreboding reasons for these sets of disagreement is rooted in the contention, that Christ as the four synoptic gospels claim, is the promised one in the Old Testament.


All of the disciples of Christ who saw Christ in his life, called him the promised one – it’s actually a statement that must be understood in the context of what the disciples of Jesus Christ – of mostly Jewish background – meant by the suffering servant of God, or what they meant by the ‘Son of God.’ And the tradition of interpreting Christ as a prophet which was how his disciples saw him, has been passed on from St. John who as the Scriptures say Christ loved, who saw Christ in his life and heard Jesus Christ teach, how he lived and died. St. John was met by a certain Ignatius – who as they claim but probably not true – was the Bishop of Antioch and both of these men were possibly met by another pastoral bishop of the early Churches by name Polycarp of Smyra (80-167). The most verifiable source of connection between these people who met Christ’s followers in life and latter day ‘ Ecclesiastical Bishop’ was Clement of Alexander. The whole theme of the Eusebius’ ‘Ecclesiastical History of the Church, is that ‘Christ Jesus was the promised messiah, the incarnate logos and word of God made flesh. That this tradition is also the history of the Church as handed down through the ages, beginning with the Disciples of Christ till the age when Rome Empire took over the church.


Yet the Greek versions of these statements about Christ also have sponsored its own learning curve. For sure, a lot of redeeming argument exist concerning the plurality of the word Virgin in context of Isaiah 7;14 and to the more sponsored faith that Christ as the Son of Mary would not have escaped the controversy over his persons and over his ideas from the early years were he even man.


That word ‘almah’, which we now take into cognizance is a word reduced to the corruption of the ever changing printing press, as such weighs itself against the ‘mold’ of the word ‘Almah’ in the years that the Disciples of Christ lived. In one language, these Disciples of Christ are within some reason to suggest that ‘Christ’ was the son of God. There are reasons why this statement may be accurate, yet it is for the fact that these Disciples of Christ who are from Jewish background may have also misunderstood Christ. It now seen that the case of Christ may have suffered the corruption of translation, and we may now seem that the Disciple of Christ spoke of Christ with due respect to his person as a prophet (and not just any prophet but a Suffering Servant of God). These ministers of Christ saw Christ as most perhaps a suffering servant of God. But the realized interpretation of Christ as one of the Prophets to the suffering servant of God, then to the risen savior follows a pattern of birth, life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. Half of the time, the problem was a matter of language.


In a sense, the very basis of Christ as a Savior is a base that is not unfamiliar with ‘suffering servants’ of God in Bible. In other words, the Jewish contention of Jesus Christ is in terms of his Virgin Birth only, yet without the people of Christ via immaculate conception – as expedited to us in the New Testament – His divinity can be doubtful and contested. Or so it seems. Christians – like many peoples of the world, who the Greeks call ‘humanum’, believe that the passions of Christ and the experience of the Holy Spirit is worthy of devotion. In Igbo, the word ‘ahumadu’ means ‘human flesh’, for instance ahum>my flesh, my body. There is an Igbo word that also refers to human beings in terms of all flesh. This statement will natural mean in Igbo ‘uhu-m’madu’ means ‘all flesh’, both of which does not mean all humans in direct sense of the word.


To be fair, we may add that this Greek term ‘humanum’ refers to human kind, and in language if not in words, these terms can be localized in Igbo as ‘umu-uwa’ ‘Peoples of the world’ or a second Igbo word ‘umu-uwa-dum’ meaning ‘all peoples of the world’ or simply ‘all the world’. We notice Igbo and Greek exchanging tackles in words, meaning and sound of the word in terms of Greek ‘humanum’ and the Igbo ‘umu-uwa’. It will amount to little controversy to indicate that these Greek terms ‘exousia’ referring to divine and collective appearing or the a form of parousia, is close in meaning to its Igbo word ‘izu-puta’, perhaps the Greek term ‘eschata’ “of things remembered” or “of things which come last” or the “ re-collective” is not far from the English word ‘etchetera’, which altogether is not far from the Igbo word ‘echetara’ which literary means “of things remembered” – perhaps at last.

The word ‘almah’ is from a period that is at least 700 years before the birth of Christ, and the meaning of the word ‘almah’ and its translation may have seen a fair share of mislabel and may have forced people to take sides even in the days of Christ. But assuming we insist that the Gnostic who parallel the history of these ‘words’ regarding the mother and the birth of Christ as the coming messiah, were not really referring to a young woman but a Virgin, then the incident about Virginity of the woman becomes a primary issue and almah as a young woman will win out outrightly, but will prebend to Christian expectations for the mother of God only in terms of what Isaiah 7; 14 really meant in 722 BCE.


The error about this Child birth of Christ may have started with copyist, especially pre-Gnostic or eventual Gnostic or other Messiah seeking groups such as the Eboin, Essene, who by the apartment of the second (deturo) and third Isaiah was discovered among their keeping. In praise of these desert dwellers, we yield to the pressing matter of the hymn concerning the suffering servant of God in Isaiah 53, who these Jews in the Sinai peninsula and desert frontiers believe to the prototype of a savior – not unlike their leaders – who will restore the desecrated Jerusalem as the holy city of God.


Isaiah made insertion fitting to the theories of their Knossus (Gnostic) faith, made matters elaborately sane to the realized and disputable degree that we read from Isaiah the word ‘almah’ which looks a term referring to then and now, to a form of futuristic event in the context of Detero Isaiah – particularly Isaiah 53. This Isaiah 53 was a hymn among the Gnostic who were either still waiting for the coming messiah as at 170 CE or had managed to retain relatively ancient papyrus that speaks of Christ as both prophet, suffering servant of God and Messiah. Perhaps, it was based on their knowledge of who Christ was, or perhaps like Isaiah 53, the whole canticle – yes canticle, called book of Isaiah – refers to a prototype of Christ.


Apparently, the definition is from early years of Christ’s life and is riddled with many perspectives. And this perspectives lead to a legacy of confusing differentials between the schools of translation and interpretation. In the whole evolution of the process of translation and interpretation, we may look at some other languages of the world such as Igbo of Nigeria as an instrument for analyzing the complex grammatical situation with Hebrew. But the point must be made that Hebrew words such as ‘almah’ ‘Immanuel’, etc, at the time of its writing in Isaiah in 722 BCE often if not always changes over thing. When there is a Phenomenon like the time of Christ or the phenomenon regarding the many eye witnesses of the appearing of Christ, there is always room for interpretation. It is only with the surviving version of these Afro-Asiatic languages such as Igbo can we make inroads into the fragile nature of the argument.


Beginning with the term ‘ phenomenon’, we shall build some argument around this word from both the English and Greek languages, and we shall place enough emphasis on some of the general make-up of the word in Hebrew and how the Greek ‘phenumenal’ is essentially close to Igbo, and from its Igbo dialectic we widen on the meaning of these words in terms of Christ. Since phenomenon refers to Christ, or was used in terms of Christ, it makes sense to gravitate additional reasons for how Christ was understood by his disciples. From this infraction, we gyrate on the rest based on the meaning of the word ‘unu’. Let us begin with a term that is closer at heart than we think. The word is a kind of thanks and greeting in Hebrew, and that means ‘kalunu’ literary meaning, ‘greetings to all you’ or ‘greetings from all us’. This word ‘kalunu’ is easily Nigerian Igbo. The Igbos greets ‘kaa’ ‘ndewo’ for a person but ‘kaanu’, means ‘I greet you all’. Ndewo-nu also means ‘I greet you all’. But some Igbo dialects say ‘kalunu’ for ‘greetings to all of you’.


Hebrew reference in Isaiah 52 and 53 such as “nunu” “nu” meaning “others, we, you” especially the last English term ‘y-ou’ – without the (y ) – ou is also available in Greek ‘eu’ ‘ou’ – where ‘oui’ is closer to ‘we’. Yet in Igbo, like in Hebrew, as in English, and in Greek, the word ‘nunu’ or ‘nu’ meaning ‘you’ is also similar to Igbo word ‘unu’ meaning ‘you people’, ‘these people’ etc. For instance ‘unu ndi mgbassa ozi oma’ is Igbo for ‘you the messengers of good news’ and in Greek, we remember the classic version of evangelion – which is not Greek at all – to be same and equal to the word ‘eu meggaliziomia’ ‘messengers of the good news’ c/c (Oxford Guide to Ideas and Issues of the People, Oxford Guide to people and places in the Bible, Michael Coogan, Bruce Metzer, et al).


But in terms of pneumenal or phenomenon  the term may in fact be same with the Igbo words such ‘Ihie unu mere’ or ‘ihie unu n’eme’. The saying, ‘ihie unu n’eme’ is also similar to another Igbo saying ‘ife/fe unu n’eme’, literally meaning, ‘things you do’. The saying is quite different from another Igbo saying, ‘ife neme’ – perhaps relevant to this type of writing ‘Iphe neme’ meaning in Igbo, ‘things that are happening’, like a phenomenon  saving that the English word ‘phenomenom’ if broken in bits will resolves itself as ‘phe-no-me-nom’, which will be closer to Greek ‘phenumenal’ and in terms of Igbo, may yet resolve itself as ‘i-phe-(u)nu-neme’ >phe-nu-neme’ > meaning ‘the- things- ‘you’ – are doing’ > ‘things-‘you’- do’. Apparently, ifeneme is close to the context of ‘what’s happening’ – present continues events, e.g,’ …things as they unfold’.

So Christ was ipheneme (ifeneme>ihie neme) of his time, and they were other things which Paul may have allued to regarding the events as they were unfolding.

So we can show that the word pnenumenal is relative close to an Igbo word. Here we stray from dialectics to exercise the portmanteau which anyone can censor as they see fit.

Herbert M Wolf’s ‘Interpretating Isaiah; The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah’ >22;5, in context of Igbo language

September 17, 2012


Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka

Herbert M Wolf’s treatment on ‘Interpretating Isaiah; The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah’, where instances of Isaiah 22; 5 was made especially evident in terms of its Hebrew meaning. By his interpretation of Isaiah 22;5, we read for instance “The lord has in store “a day of ‘tumult’ and ‘trampling’ and ‘terror'”, and in tems of his translations to Hebrew, these are his words, (me’huma, me’busa, me’buka). These connection to Hebrew via Wolf, suggest that story or prophesy about the day of destruction was to be done in context of several departures, that the event would be swift and then a realia of awe.


Preceeding this information and the prophesy of Isaiah is instances of a woman by name ‘Almah’, who is supposed to be a girl as opposed to a name of a woman. But out concern is that the statement in terms of Igbo was never about a man and his Amah or wife, rather a story about the destruction because of God’s wrath. For at least in Igbo, we are learn that that these Hebrew terms ‘m’huma’, ‘m’busa’,’m’buka’, literally means, trauma and shakes, destruction and scattering, and mbuka (mgbuka) in Igbo will mean ‘demolition’. That fact further complicates the claim that Yahu was a human being as opposed Yahu as a notable imperative, all part of the story.


While we can only be too careful about the language and selection of words from the language, we must indicate that Campbell for instance, may have relied on a text that was proven for right reasons to be accurate, yet the teachers of Modern Hebrew are the greatest of all the experts. The occasional error occur in the translation of Hebrew words into English for one major reason, that current Jews are not natural speakers of the language. The language has been forgotten and the lines of the text also forgotten.


Herbert M Wolf Campbell, not unlike Edward Campbell treated his topic very well, and Edward Campbell treatment of Ruth is of the greatest importance. In fact his work is seriously recommended, along with other works of E.A Speiser (Genesis), Nahum Sarno (Exodus), Robert Alter (5 books of Moses), Baruch Levine (Numbers), Jacob Milgrom (Leviticus), Joseph Blenkinsopp (Isaiah), George Wesley Buchanan (To The Hebrews), Craige R Koester (Hebrews), and a certain Mary Douglass (Leviticus). But in the above dedicate example, the translation is essentially wrong.


The main point is the word yahu, and several instances of the word essentially appear in several parts of the Bible, for instance, in Biblical Hebrew, Isaiah 22;15-16, it reads ‘This is (sepulcher of…) Yahu who is over the house. There is no silver and no gold here, but (his bones) and the bones of his ‘amah’ with him” This particular translation or adaption is from a book on ‘Ruth’ written by Edward Campbell, published by Anchor Bible Series. Campbell argument was quite simple that the word Amah refers to a slave Girl or any kind of girl, where the word Yahu, is meant to be the owner of the slave girl, who carried the sepulcher of the young wide or slave. It is possible to note that can that current Biblical interpretation of these two verses may be more accurate than the Hebrew, for at least we know that the Yahu in the way the book of Isaiah portrays refers to a third person, which chimes well in Igbo with the saying ‘Onye ahu’.


We may pretend that the lessons concerning the transition of the words from Yahu to Onye ahu, may explain how and why the domestic term yahu in Isaiah may now be noted as a name or a noun form when it is really an adjective. Onye ahu or Ye-ahu in Igbo, means ‘that person’, and the word ‘amah’ means his house or his square, or his domain which makes all the point accurate in the context of the discourses. As such the mistake with the Hebrew translation began with the definition of Yahu as a personal name or a name, which means it a noun, and the inscription ‘amah’ with indirect respect to corpse or sepulcher, relate the story to Israeli practice of preparing the body of the dead wife.


In very clear sense, the word amah as a woman or young girl, may have also descended from Isaiah 7;14, where the story abounds of a virgin who shall conceive and bear the child called Emmanuel. In all, the theme of the Virgin appearing in Isaiah as almah, refers to a ‘girl’ and not particularly a virgin girl, and by Igbo, Alma which some Hebrew experts interpreted as ‘nma, means any young girl.


The difference between amah and alma (nma) in Igbo, will here clarify the confusion behind Isaiah 22;15-16, where the word amah does not refer to a woman but a personal place in the public or a lot, and the Isaiah 7;14, alma or nma which in Igbo refers to a young girl and not necessarily a virgin. The whole fact is that Yahu considered also as a personal name, perhaps at the initiation of other names in Hebrew relating to the word Yahu, added to the confusion. In Igbo, ye – ahu, or onye – ahu, essentially means ‘that person’ where the imperative in the line ‘onye ahu’ could not have led to a particular name of a person, as such wrong to claim that he brought the corpse of his amah with him.


The words are similar in comparative performance to other words in the Bible, but in the whole, they are two different. The same conclusion affect our knowing of God’s name, believed by name Israelite as Yahweh, whose meaning may yet yield a third person singular like Yahu, which is a definition, an imperative, but no particular name.

‘Cherubim and Seraphim’ in context of Igbo, Hebrew, Assyria, and Kemit, using El Roi (God of Light) (II)

September 10, 2012

Part II

By Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka

The El Olam or El Oroi, which appear Genesis 21.33, was interpreted by everyday Bible teachers like the rest of us, as a God of Light, a title Abraham used in making an offering to God when he saved from the enemies. It is not wrong to indicate that nearly all the places in the Bible where the names of God were used, they were used with some degree of emphasis on the miracle and the incident of Sacrifice involves a very important. These exercises eventually led to the altar of God. The presence of still-like angels called Cherubs in worshipful manner at the Altar of God of Israel reveal some degree of unusual importance to the beginning and the age of these Israeli altars of God and why these altars are of great importance.


These Cherubs are supposed guard the altar of God and ark of God, for in history, great warrior creatures such as lion, Bull, Eagle (sometimes Griffin or a Vulture) or the face of man, are used to guard ancient religious people of Near EAST – particularly Egypt – to protect the soul of a departed King. The Soul and Body of the King of Assyria for instance is generally left open and placed on a high mountain or an elevated rock and besides these open coffins will be the image of a creature which is left to guard it. In real history, soldiers of Near EAST and Assyria are in high alert when the King is about to die. Such spectacular is accompanied by the lush of creatures at its coffin during which ceremonies are offered to heavens to reach the soul of the ‘Released Servant’ of El (Most High). It is Egytians more than any one that transformed these practices from normal to rock formations.


We may say that the presence of these Cherubs as guardians in the Levitical outline for constructing the ark of God, reveal that the altars of Jewish essence started with a practice, and that practice is neither far from Egyptain practice or far from near pagan practices of Near EAST. It is easier to perhaps say that the practice is actually closer to emblems of Nerids on Egyptian altars than anything else, and perhaps, it is not wrong to draw enough comparison between the Israel altars and the Ziggurats of Mesopotamia. These Ziggurats of Mesopotamia began as outlines of mountains and high places above the waters or many waters that occasionally overflow in the Mesopotamia.


Once every now and then, – with due to respect 2, 000 years – it is believed that the waters of Mesopotamia oveflows and covers the Seas, the highlands in the land of two rivers and the mountains where people live. Through much of world history, the episode is believed to have given reason for the offering of sacrifice on high place – where the high place is the most surviving pinnacle of a mountain after the waters are receded. Point of import would be the sacrifice made by Noah after the Raven has confirmed that the waters have dried up


This term appear in similar fashion in Phoenician text as the “God Almighty” or the “Everlasting Sun”, a serious memises on light everlasting – a mere domestic term describing the eminence of the sun but now preserved as also a meaning for God. The transfer of essence from astrological objects in the sky to events and believes here on earth is believed by many as the casaulity of of most religious beliefs. Apart from this unfortunate destiny, it is the above prescription is the literal meaning of the word metamorphoses.


The main point is that El in context of Phoenician and Ugaritic language is used to alternately describe images exulted or set on high, images like the Sun, where as Oro or Oroi, at least in Igbo if not in Yoruba refers to revelation and not necessary light. We have also indicated that the reason exist for the argument to be made about the word Ra in terms of Igbo and in terms of Hebrew. In fact, Ra is an African term (Egyptian) meaning Sunlight or the ‘eye’ of the Sun, as if to say as with Igbo ‘anya’. The exaltation of Ra as Sun is and was for the Egyptian, the fitting term for God – most high God. It is fitting to remember that these terms generally refer to God as a mere adoration in praise of the all-knowing, inaccessible, only wise God. This point makes it clear that Ra is not the name of God despite the etymological innuendo.

Part II b

When we read for instance, guardians of light or the guardians of light, we are only trying to uncover the left and right of the word ‘Cherubim’. This word Cherubim – meaning the guardians of light and in this case God of light – does not fly in the face of very similar terms such Che`roi – as if to play on the term Cheroi-b-im , where the last two letters ‘im’ is by itself a morpheme of a thing and nothing more. Far too common will the direct implication of the term ‘guard’ or ‘guardian’, in context of Igbo language. The meaning of the term ‘guard’ or ‘guardian’ in Igbo means ‘’Iche nche’ and ‘onye nche’ respectively.


These terms ‘nche> guard’ or I che nche > to guard exfoliates here the particulars of term Che’ in terms of Che-roi, literally indicating that the guardian of light as in ‘El Roi’ descends with care to ‘Guard/Guardian of Roi’ ‘Guard of Rah’ ‘Che of Ra’ or in Igbo ‘Ne’ Che Rai’ ‘N’ Che roi’ Cheroi’ (plural ndi n’eche ra) and then the inflectionary ‘im’ as in ‘Che-roi-im’. This short play is mere distraction from Kemit, ‘2 cents’ away from Nigerian Igbo, literally meaning in Igbo> Guardians of Light, Guardians or Sons of Light (one of which believed to be Lucifer, so to speak a certain Satan) or, Guardians of the throne or Altar of God. In angelology, these creatures besides man are surposed to be closer to God.


In the circumstance we may also re-introduce in this context, a term called ‘Seraphim’, meaning-, or at least referring to those ‘who Worship God’. The immediacy of the term r\a\\ aph preceding the ‘im’ implies a plural tense, a morpheme of things. As such the main event in the term Cherubim or Seraphim is the ‘two’ letters preceeding the didactic ‘Roi’ or Ra-ph’, portending God. We explicating that the word ‘Sera’ is the same word as ‘Fera’. We are trying to show plurality in these names in context of it Kemit origins, for instance Fe means in Kemit, worship or worshipful, and represented with a symbol of a snake (s) on a tree, a pole.


Snake on a pole is a symbol of Ra worship, a symbol equal in later years to pyramid sign, which began its career as a symbol of duck or griffin, pointing its beacon to the group. This is letter N which is older than the letter Z that it became in hands of the Greeks. N symbol is the original symbol of the Pyramid; that is, Temple of Amon where the four forces seem to have started. N is the letter 4 but this particular letter is ‘ignobly’ pronounced ‘D’ for reason of 10 page discoursion, but can reduced to the difference and confusion over terms such as Nesus (Nexus), Ze-(s)us (Zerxer, Xerxer), and Jesus.


These names refer to the ‘followers’ or simply the follower, for instance, Shemuzo Rah or Shemuzo Horah, translated ‘of the party or Ra’, or ‘followers of Ra’, is a term describing a party after the will of Ra, like Shem who covered the nakedness of his father – whose name cannot be complete as Shem. Where as a single expression of a man or woman or chief who followers Rah, may be described as nsus Rah (Nesus Rah). In essence, the symbol of N is a beacon of the duck or griffin pointing to the earth and is a Horus (servant, son, followers), it looks like an upturned and slanted Z – as if to push the Z forward on its head – it is the look of N is slant position towards the right.


In one strange Way, Zeus means Nesus or Nexus, which refers to Knosus and in modern term ‘Gnostic’. The word Zeus is hardly complete and means to suggest that Zeus Rex as it appears in its entirety shows that the name refers to a particular kind, that Zeus was a Nesus Ra>Nexus Rex, and perhaps the solution to the riddle of Zeus as head of The incident of light also indicate that much as the statement about God inspire all kinds of interpretation about God of light and righteousness, but of the Sun elevated as a resplescedent light.


In reality to the themes of the Sun religion, I dare say that terms such Zorastra may or may not only be reduced to the followers of the divine pre-eminence of Rah or the movement of the Sun as we with the Magi and Chaldeans. Among these traveling pants of hordesmen mistaken as Aryans as after their horses as opposed to their names ‘sons of Rah”, we may look at the error of seeing the burial site and Tomb of Darius I of Persia at Naksh-i-Rustam in the form of a Huge Cross as a courseway with no direct significance ot the term Rustam, but celebrating a coming of a ‘messiah’ (King of Kings) who the Magi of Persia under Smendes spoke of following the death of Cyrus.


These Magii opposed and rebelled against Cambysses who survived the War with Egypt and returned to massacre these Magii. According to them, Cambysses was not the Chosen or the promised the King of Kings. Neither was Darius. Cambysses died on his way back from war in Egypt and Darius became head of Persia. But the word Darius began with the symbol of Pyramid ∆ and then Aryanvus; ∆ arya(v)nus pronounced by those we may now call Afrocentrics and eventually Arabs as ‘∫aryavus’ or the term ‘fa(e)aryanus’ which is Greco, but nicely done as fe-aryan –possible a Fera>Pharoah.


In essence, the D is derived from pyramid symbol which usually means worshippers of Rah, or speaks of the divinity of Ra, like a snake on a pole simple whose marginal enfleshing is the lower f, now known as one of the S symbols. Same will cast enough light on why the incident of the bible about Moses has more to do with incident of Numbers 21;48, “where the Lord said to Moses “Moses to put a snake on a Pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live”, apparently, this all about language and symbols of the language – with or without Egyptian influence.


By that we suggest that Che-roi or Se-raph are terms within itself, local and domestic in meaning, for sure, Cheroi or Cherub is a portmanture of two miniature words ‘che’ and ‘roi’, words respectively meaning ‘guard’ and ‘light’ – fact perpetual to ’the guardians of light’ as in Ndi N’eche Ra (Roi). Then the term Seraph is also driven by two major words ‘Se’ and ‘ra’, meaning perhaps ‘worship’ and ‘God’, that Se is the older version of the letter F, that it is the lower majuscule of the letter F, being f that in sound similar and same as s. For this lower f placed at some angle (degree) to the right shows its orign to ‘fe’ is actually a snake on tree, a pole with an s looking symbol…..

‘Cherubim and Seraphim’ in context of Igbo, Hebrew, Assyrian, and Kemit, u sing El Roi ( God of light)

September 6, 2012

Part I

It is common sense to indicate that the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q405) – discovered among the Bedouins of desert frontiers of Egypt in 1947, containing several pastiche of Book of Isaiah 6; 1-5 – and the Book of Enoch (61;10, 71;7) mentioned that the Seraphs never stopped praising God. The eternal adoration of God by Seraph is also found in Revelation. These passages were also confirmed in the book of Revelations 4; 7 to be the routine of a certain other types God’s angel who praise Him night and day. And this type of Winged Sphinx, or angels with faces of lions and bulls, etc, are called Cherubs. We begin here by citing Isaiah 6; 1-5, where a passage concerning the throne of God is mentioned, that “Above it stood the Seraphims; each one had Six (6) wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his face, and with twain they did fly” and these creatures of Revelations never stopped saying ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty’.

We must note that the connection between Book of Enoch and Book of Revelation has always been there, that the book of Isaiah binds the rest of New Testament to Revelation and these Books of Isaiah, Enoch, Revelations and the New Testament were popular books connected to the Gnostics. These books provide us with our knowledge of the Seraph and not necessarily Cherubs. The Cherub in many portions of the Bible is often connected with Winged Creatures. In essence, it was not only the Seraphs of Isaiah that had wings the Cherubs which appear in Old Testament also have wings. In essence, we may not to in keeping to the teachings of the Cherubs and Seraphs, the angels associated with Guarding the throne of God appeared mostly in Hebrew Bible of the Old Testament where as Isaiah is the only portion that speak of the Seraphs in the Bible. Why?

Book of Revelations 4;7 mentions a parallel of these ever praying Seraphs, who are the winged creatures or the Cherubs, that “And the first beast was like a Lion, and the second beast like a Calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was a like a flying eagle.” V.8 “And the four beast had each of them Six wings about him; and they were all full of eyes within; and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come”

One will hardly miss the point about the Seraphs since no where else in the Old Testament or in the New Testament were the Seraphs mentioned saving Isaiah. We are eager to suggest that the name ‘Seraph’ is not that obscure, that it has always occurred in the Bible, that the name like monograph Fe-rah, speaks of those who worshipped God continuously. The term Fe-Rah; Pharoah, originated from a clearl given domestic standpoint. For instance a Feroah (Pharoah – written with a P) is the chosen head of the house of Rah. This point may push the interpretive history of Isaiah to a different direction, yet the surprise is hardly useful since we know too well that among the Gnostics or followers of Sun (Rah) is the religion of the Sun. The Sun, like El-Roi, is simply an alternative appellation for God. We must insist that Rah which is the Sun does not mean God, rather Rah or Rayan or Orion, is indicative of the direction of the followers of Divinity.

There is something about the name ‘Seraph’, which reveals the debt of Jewish religion to Egypt. There is something about Seraphim as those of who worship Ra or God, day and night that Gnostics inherited from Egypt. The Gnostics impacted the Christian knowledge of the Messiah (Isaiah).  Jewish teahcers say is not a Hebrew word, may have origin a place such as Egypt. Reason being that Egypt was home to the Gnostics and it influenced early Christians. Robert Eisenmen and his attempt at decoding New Testament and his ‘Damascus Convenant’ showed how much of the Gnostic gospel – original to Egypt – is discovered in New Testament and in the early life of the First Century Christians. It was Robert Eisenmann who translated the rest of the manuscript from the rest of the 11 caves of the Dead Sea area. Aside these documents connected to the Gnostics of Egypt such as the Book of Isaiah

These Seraphs who never sleeps also appear in Isaiah 6;1-8, further demonstrating that our knowledge of the Seraphs begins with the Gnostics who were originally Jews of Israel retraction, but who like many religious groups, were living in Egypt (Africa) or were simply born Egyptians from about 200 Bce to the time of Christ.

The story of Gnostics is one the most interesting eponyms of Christian history. In fact the story of these Christians, from Jewish retraction began with the destruction of Northern Israel in 722 BCE by Sargon II and his group of Assyrians following a coalition of interested parties including Israel (Northern Israel of Rehoboam) and Chiefs of Arabs. The story of the gnostics also torched the incident of Nebuchadnezzer II and the fall of the Southern Coalition.

This unfortunate brave and heroic coalition led by Samaria was opposed by prophet Isaiah, a prophet whom the name and the Book of Isaiah, meaning savior, was designate. Prophet Isaiah had warned Northern Israelites of the impending misfortune of the coalition of Samaria that it was in their best interest to stay away from the lot. This party of Northern coalition and Samaria was comprehensively defeated by Sargon II of Assyria in 722. Assyrians stayed true to their military exercise after this conflict by dislocating all Israelites from Northern Israel and those who lived in Samaria. He sent many of them who captured as Slaves to foreign lands – especially the desert frontiers of Syria and in the course of time brought other people from a different land to farm out much of Northern Israel. Southern Israel as we know too well survived this episode since they did not

Not until the time of Nebuchadnezzer II does the marginal history of these Gnostics (literally meaning followers of light) began to take shape. These terms ‘friendship with God and enmity’ and the themes of Isaiah about the Savior one, particularly 53, is show no disguises about the influence of the writers of Isaiah and about the description of Seraph.

We have correspondence on the fact that El in Hebrew terms and El in terms Igbo and Ugaritic manages to show up. We also achieve the Phoencian interpretation of El and God, for instance El-Olam, which the Phoenician indicated as the ‘Everlasting God’ as interpreted by the Phoenician and the last of the Phoenician inscription which Emerton and company dated as 700 BCE. But how these incidents amount to angels give a subtle break from the tedious work of our time. There is nothing wrong in suggesting that some names of God found in the Bible were appelations and nothing more. Proof of this is the names of angels that we find in the bible which may have started with as much lore as domestic definition, and in all, the names become the by-product of its time as in the circumstance ‘Seraphim and Cherubim’.

What we may now extend the Bible interpretation of these names of God in terms of two serious names discovered with or without reason in the Bible. These terms are Cherubim and Seraphim, angels believed in Bible Book of Revelations to worship God day and night without ceasing.  We can look at the fact that the meaning of the word of Seraph – like the Cherub in the Bible – is not well known. In fact Cherubim in Hebrew have no meaning. The meaning of Cherubim and Seraphim is rooted in Egyptian Kemet. In the circumstance, we must correct that the presence of the word ‘ra’ like ‘roy’ or ‘roi’ suggest to some extent that the object we are reffering to is Sun and is Egyptian in origin and the incident of epheh in Hebrew and all else, may refer to worship and not the Viper. Ehphe-aru (state of sin) is not same as Ehphe-Ra, and we can use Igbo language to buttress on the point so far.  The first refers to Idol worship and the other may refer to worship of God. This incident of Ephe (Ehphe) appear in Same will cast enough light on why the incident of the bible about Moses has more to do with incident of Numbers 21; 48, “where the Lord said to Moses “Moses to put a snake on a Pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live”, apparently, this all about language and symbols of the language – with or without Egyptian influence.”

In mild light, we may see that the epheh despite deviated from the more original meaning in Hebrew and in Igbo, ife, efe, ofife, ife-efe, are corresponding terms in Igbo to the idea of Worship or Faith (Fai-th). EPHE-RA, is both Africa and Hebrew, both Aramaic and English (Ephraim), meaning followers or worshippers of Divine (Ra or God). But the reason why Ehpraim (Ephe-ra) is not always connected to Seraphim is because of weight and influence of Hebrew language. Where as the Hebrew calle Ehpe as Viper (?), there is no denying that it does not speak of God and Ra – as if to say, Worshippers of Ra.

Once more it need be maintained that our knowledge of the word comes from a source other than Hebrew per se, and we can still use the incident of the god ‘Shamash’ or ‘Shemesh’ believed to be the god of the Sun to our argument a lot clearer. In the circumstance, we look Shemeshu as a name that is closer to the word ‘follower’, a name that is not complete without R which looks P, which refers to Rah. For instance ‘Horah Shemuzu (Shemezu) Rah’ means of the party of Rah as we shall discuss, and refers to a party that followed the will of Rah or God, like Shem. This name also means Samson (Shem∫on) which does not necessarily mean Sam(p)son. The difference is the P which is really an R-looking-P, and ‘Sampson’ should be more like Shem-Ra-shu, same as RaShemezu >Rameses, >Son of Rah. From the point, we can suggest that Shemesh or Shemeshu literally means ‘one who follows’ like Samson, which is a name that may lead to different ends given the s as f, but may ultimately fall short of the meaning of the Sun which is Ra as to say Rah.

As such the Hebrew and other Mesopotamian digest that resolves the words ‘Shemesh’ and ‘Shamash’ as Sun is clearly – if not holistic, wrong. Shemuel (Samuel) is the closest you gonna get to Shemshon (Sampson), but Shem does not mean Sun neither does El. El is Hebrew recognition of the most high ‘Elu’ as such as we have the most high as normative for the Sun, for instance Shem-Ra, ‘of the Sun’>Nesus Rah>Zesus Rah>Son of Rah>Son of God.  No doubt that many Nigerians and Igbos are looking at the words Shemuzo as a term no different from ‘Neso uzo’ meaning Igbo ‘followers of the Path’ and therefore, ‘Ndi neso uzo >Rah’ will also mean in Igbo ‘followers of Path of Rah’ or just ‘followers of Rah’. Where as, ‘path’ as a word and in many translations and in John’s Gnostic is due to Henry Chadwick misliteration of the word, Ptah. Ptah is God of speaking or the living and indwelling spirit which enables speech. The right Kemit would be ‘Ephe Ptah’ meaning ‘to speak’ ‘speak’ or part of the saying “In the beginning was the word”, it was Christ’s prayers abbreviated in shorts as ‘ehphe ptah’.

We consider the example of the snake in the context of the discussion via Hebrew which is wrongly stated ‘ephe’. Where as the term ‘Ephe’ right means ‘worship’ or ‘devoted’ like the term ‘Nefe-hotem’ >’devoted to Hotem’, we try a broad conception of the term snake in Hebrew, which may also mean ‘Nagast’ oe Naghashi. This term is borrowed, for instance, Cobra in today’s English rooted in African/Kemit terms such as K’oba. Here the snake we speak of is the Viper, born with a fat head and sometimes ‘coils on its tail’. A koba means cap and not necessary king. When we speak in Amharic ‘Kebra Nagast’ we are reading a mutilated version of this name from Omoric k’oba Nagash. These terms are interchangeable with Negus (Negro) Neghisi, where as Negus Neghisi, means Divine Head or Annointed One, it also denotes the cap on the head of the Priest. Symbol of the priest is this snake and in terms of the description, we are likely to compromise the meaning of the head on the crown of the high priest with the symbol of the office, the office of Neghisi or crown. This is usually denoted with a snake on a tree, which does not mean that the snake is the Nagast or Neghisi.


At some point or another, the domestic names associated with God is ‘Cherubim and Seraphim’, a name believed to be a reference to angels of God. We shall discover how these names began and in the process relate the story of the evolution of these names in context of God and in terms of say Sampson in the Bible, whose parents were initiated visited by an angel. The story of Sampson of the Bible bears a strange tapestry of how well and how easily some names of God and some messengers of God – either human or otherwise – have become heavenly messengers of somesort, and they serve their religious and intellectual purpose with no sparing on the origins of the name.


Cherubim and Seraphim are angels, historically and theologically, and they are believed to worship God day and night without ceasing. The Cherubs (Cherubim) mean ‘the Guardians’ or the protectators of God’s throne. The Seraphs (Seraphim) mean ‘burning ones’ – that is if we are going by the accounts of popular teachers. Popular sources indicate that the etymology of the word for Seraphs in Greek is Seraphus (Serpahim), Hebrew is ‘Serafim’, and in Latin ‘Seraphim’ (?). But the list is hardly complete let alone impressive. We know for sure that the root of the word Sera-fim or Sera-phim is Egyptian and Kemet not Hebrew. No small thanks to the word Ra, in stance, Sera-phim largely depends of the meaning of Rah.



The incident of light also indicate that much as the statement about God inspire all kinds of interpretation about God of light and righteousness, but of the Sun elevated as a resplescedent light. In reality to the themes of the Sun religion, I dare say that terms such Zorastra may or may not only be reduced to the followers of the divine pre-eminence of Rah or the movement of the Sun as we have the Magi and Chaldeans do. Among these traveling pants of hordesmen mistaken as Aryans as after their horses as opposed to their names ‘sons of Rah”, we may look at the error of seeing the burial site and Tomb of Darius I of Persia at Naksh-i-Rustam in the form of a Huge Cross as a courseway with no direct significance ot the term Rustam, but celebrating a coming a ‘messiah’ (King of Kings) who the Magi of Persian under Smendes spoke of following the death of Cambysses. But the Darius began with the symbol of Pyramid ∆ and then Aryanvus; ∆ arya(v)nus pronounced by those we may now call Afrocentrics and eventually Arabs as ‘∫aryavus’ or the term ‘fa(e)aryanus’ which is Greco, but nicely done as fe-aryan –possible a Fera>Pharoah. In essence, the D is derived from pyramid symbol which usually means worshippers of Rah, or speaks of the divinity of Ra, like a snake of pole simple whose marginal enfleshing is the lower f, now known as one of the S symbols. Same will cast enough light on why the incident of the bible about Moses has more to do with incident of Numbers 21;48, “where the Lord said to Moses “Moses to put a snake on a Pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live”, apparently, this all about language and symbols of the language – with or without Egyptian influence.