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


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.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: