—Ignorance Shall Abound - a “Little” Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing (like holding a gun but not knowing whether to point it toward yourself or away from yourself—and not knowing what a gun is)

By on

Someone emailed me the below article, first his introduction, then the article that he sent, then my comments follow.  

[Note: There is no evidence this article was copyrighted, and I did a web search and nothing turned up.  I assume that this is written by an Australian of Dutch descent (possibly related to Adam de Witt ...?).  Unfortunately, the U.S. does not hold a monopoly on poor thinkers and poor writers in the Christian Anglo-Israel faith.


Someone emailed:  This was around six or more years ago and I’m urged to share it again.  It’s for any brethren that have fallen into yiddish ‘Hebrew’ and all that goes with that deception.  Maybe the Spirit of our God will lead someone out of the errors of such foolishness.    



Saxons are a branch of the Kelts.  Kelts went by many names ...very few Keltic clans called themselves Kelts.  The Kelts were all over Europe and even in Asia as far as China before the Israelites were even born.  The Keltic tongues, for that matter, have not gone through the Persian ‘language filter’ which the tongue of then Israelites did.  That is why we can see links between the Keltic tongues and the Germanic tongues (Dutch, English, German, Danish) in several words, but sentence structure and many other things seem as if they had a different root.  The root is the same, but the influence is not.

Saxons are Kelts, but Kelts can not be called Saxons as such because Saxons came out of the Kelts.  The the same way a New Yorker is an American, but not all Americans are New Yorkers.  The Saxons were Caldeans because they came from Caldeans with a particular Caldean being named in the Bible as one of their forefathers, Abraham.

But no new race was made.  It was simply a new family from and out of existing families.

Abraham spoke Chaldean and Canaanite, and Canaanite is a Chaldean dialect.   The difference between the two dialects was most likely as little as American-English and English-English.  For instance, Americans do not pronounce the 'a' with the original 'a' sound as in 'car' for 'can't', 'dance', 'chance'...but the English, New Zealanders, Australians, Rhodesians do.  The Americans use the flatter 'a' as in the 'a' of 'cat' for 'can't', 'dance' and 'chance'.  Likewise the Americans make the 'u' name sound in 'cut' but not in 'tube' and pronounce tube as toob...whereas in English-English it is not toob, but t-u-b-e, as in cute.  Americans write neighbour as neighbor when the bour is actually a word, because neighbour is a compound word, meaning the nearby bour (bour being old English for farmer).

The point I am making here is that American-English is very easy for other English speakers to understand and read, and also the other way around.  And thus one should look at this issue when one speaks of Canaanite and Chaldean.

An American that migrates to Australia does not need to learn a new tongue;  likewise a Chaldean speaker would simply slide into Canaanite.  Yes the Chaldeans did use cuneiform but that was only the written form and in time that written form was replaced.  But the tongue stayed.

In the same way that some Germanic tribes used the Runic alphabet, but that was later replaced by the alphabet that was created out of the Phoenician alphabet...but that did not change the tongue.

Paleo Hebrew is simply a way of saying 'Canaanite' without saying Canaanite, because Canaanites have a bad name.  And using the word Hebrew somehow made it all sound so much more befitting for the Hebrews.  It is sort of like saying the the Texans do not speak American English, instead they speak Texan.  It is a silly stance.

There are many sources that show that Paleo-Hebrew is Canaanite (the tongue) and the letters they used are the same.

The Bible speaks of the Hebrews and customs and ways of the Hebrews, but that does not mean that Heber (Abram's father) developed his own tongue.  There are many sources that show that Paleo-Hebrew is Canaanite (the tongue) and the letters they used are the same.  Early Chaldeans did use a Sumerian script for a short while but they soon went to the script that one sees when one thinks of the Phoenician or Paleo-Hebrew script.

Because the Hebrews spoke Canaanite and isolated themselves at times, thanks to God's Laws, they would no doubt have made their own accent and dialect variations to the existing tongue they inherited from their Chaldean forebears.

Later in Assyrian captivity they picked up many words and idioms from the Persians and this basically became the Germanic dialects of which came today's German, Dutch, Danish, Icelandic, English.

The rest of the Kelts were never under the Persians and had long before settled in Europe, as did even earlier migrating Kelts called the Proto-Kelts.  When they mingled (all the same race) these then formed the Keltic dialect from whence came Welsh, Gaelic, Bretton, and so on ....Dialects of the same root tongue.


The Jews' translation from 1000 AD (i.e. KJV, NAS, etc) which Christendom clings to and mistakenly calls 'Hebrew' today isn't Hebrew....It is incumbent upon all of us to use the Bible that Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the early Christians used, that being the Greek Septuagint.  The yiddish Hebrew most all Christians use, will not benefit Christ or Christians, and the fruit of a deceived church's usage is all about us today.

What folks call Hebrew is basically the text that is in the Massorite text and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Abraham would have spoken Chaldean as that was the land he lived in, in the same way you speak American English and I 'English' English based on the influences in my life (I lived in the UK for 7 years) and in the same way Paul spoke Greek because he was in the Greek-speaking world.  That's the way we can tell what they spoke.  Now for him to move to Canaanland and get on in that land, one would logically take it that he spoke and understood Canaanite.  Certainly he would not have converted the Canaanites to speak Chaldean.

This is from Wikipedia (a site edited by Jews and pro-Jews, hence the term CE):..."The Canaanite languages are a subfamily of the Semitic languages, which were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, including Canaanites, Israelites and Phoenicians.  All of them became extinct as native languages in the early 1st millennium CE, although Hebrew remained in continuous literary and religious use among Jews, and was revived as a spoken, everyday language in the 19th century by Eliezer Ben Yahuda.  The Phoenician (and especially Carthaginian) expansion spread their Canaanite language to the Western Mediterranean for a time, but there too it died out, although it seems to have survived slightly longer than in Phoenicia itself."

The things to note here are (1) that Israelites spoke Canaanite and (2) suddenly the text speaks of Hebrew, but makes no link to Israelites in the statement.  But it does link it with Jews and their religion.  The point that can be taken is that Hebrew is a Jewish rabbinical dialect, one that the Jews call 'Hebrew' as if it is Hebrew.  But there was never a tongue called Hebrew, as the true Hebrews spoke Canaanite.  But the Rabbis had to try and prove that their hybrid race is Israelite and the only way to do so was to keep alive at the time of Christ, a dead Canaanite dialect which they wrote with Assyrian square script ... and thusly blended, they called it Hebrew.

But there is no natural tongue called Hebrew and there never was !  That is the point.  What is 'Hebrew' is a death-warmed-up tongue by a dead-to-Christ rabble called Rabbis using a Babylonian-Assyrian script.  That is Hebrew ... it is a false name in the same way that Jew is a false name to imply Judean.  This specie of Hybrids is an imposter specie like GM crop is to a natural crop.

Canaanite is a dialect akin to Aramaic which was the tongue of the Chaldeans.  An easy way to get a grip of how it may have been for Abraham shifting home to Canaanland would be to liken this to someone shifting from Holland/Belgium (Dutch speakers) to South Africa to live with Afrikaners.  Afrikaans is from Dutch but with notable changes, changes greater than what has happened between USA English and UK English.

But it is very easy for a Dutch/Flemish person to be understood in South Africa.

Thus it would have been for Abraham in Canaanland.

The spell that YHWHers have is an idea that prayers have failed because they have not addressed God fittingly enough because they want to call in his name, never fully understanding English.

English speakers are shocking at understanding English ... that is to say, what English is all about.  I often cringe when I hear folks say "We must speak English" and then go on saying 'sufficient' ... 'prior to' ... 'expensive' ... 'commence' ... 'comprehend' ... 'purchase' ... 'residence,' etc.  Now for the English words:  'enough' ... 'before' ... 'dear' ... 'begin' ... 'understand' ... 'buy' ... 'house' and so forth.

Back to YHWHers:  They for that matter often cast off the word 'God' because they have gotten it into their head that it is a heathen word on a Germanic basis for a god.  Somehow being Germanic makes it heathen ... logic please?

Well, yes it is Germanic.  But so too are the words "word, it, me, you, the, there, here, house, cat, dog, tree, is, was, had, have, ..."  Where does one then stop ?  God is indeed a Germanic word for a god, and a god means a law giver, hence the kings were called gods.  Hence the Bible says there are many gods.  There are many 'law givers' ... but there is only one True Law Giver because there is only one True Law, ... that of the True Law Giver, thus the True God, and that God is our God, our Law Giver ... now what is wrong with that ?

Why on earth would a name brewed up by Rabbis in a Rabbinical dialect based on a Dead Canaanite tongue with Babylonian letters, be a Holy name ?  Logic please ?  The YHWHers are quick to point out all the ills of the Rabbis, but they insist a Rabbinic uttering is Holy and somehow better than a word created by their own Germanic race.  Why then do they not all learn Rabbinic Hebrew ?  After all, if one word is right then so too is the rest.

English is a name taken from Angli; the Angli had, and still have, a tribal area in Germany called Anglin, which literally means England.  The Anglin folk are Germanic.  That means that the English are all a bunch of German colonials !


My comments:

This poor thinking (in the above article) is terribly confused.  The writing / articulation is just as bad as the mental conceptualization.

[One example, out of the tedious plethora will suffice.  He writes, “Americans make the 'u' name sound in 'cut' but not in 'tube' and pronounce tube as toob...whereas in English-English it is not toob, but t-u-b-e, as in cute.”  Maybe toddlers or savages who have never been accustomed to language may express a person speaking words as “make the sound”.  “Pronounce”, “articulate”, would be adult words to use.  Also, the pronunciation of the letter “u” (whether any variety of short or long) is not a “name sound”.  It is a vowel sound.  It is a short u sound.  Tube is not pronounced with the same short u sound as in “cut” because of that little vowel called an “e” on the end of the word, which makes the vowel in the middle, the u, a variation of the long u sound, toob (but not the u sound in book).  If British-English (the better term, rather than “English-English”) speakers pronounce the letter u in the word tube as the u in the word cute, they are not pronouncing a pure u sound, but a dipthong—two letters blended into one new sound, which would be represented by “tyoob”.  This is all evidence of a person who can neither think, nor articulate—yet who imagines that he can prove wrong things that he does not even understand.  This is evidence of a person with a little learning (from bad teachers) and not a full, deep, broad, well-rounded education / understanding.]

Saxons are not Kelts.*  Kelts are Keltic (Goidellic). Kymri / Kymbri (Welsh, Cornish, Bretons) are Brythonic.  Saxons (and other Germans and Norse) are Germanic. Sclavs are... guess what...? —Sclavic. Balts are Baltic.

[* Kelt is an older spelling and the proper pronunciation of Celt.  The c is a hard c, like a k; and it is only pronounced like “selts” because of the ignorance of followers of the Boston basketball team.]

Some Kelts indeed may have been “Isaac’s sons”, but not necessarily Saxons or Sakae, unless they had actually migrated into those areas and their direct ancestors were known by those specific tribal names.  Germans were not Kelts; the Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, and related people migrated from where Israel was deposited as captives and made their way slowly north and westward and arrived around 500 b.c. in Europe and Scandinvia, the Baltic, and the Russias.  The Kelts had arrived 1 to 2 centuries earlier—IF archaelogical and scientific methods of dating can be trusted.  Abraham was born c.1967 b.c. and Isaac was born in 1867 b.c. and Jacob was born in 1807 b.c.; Jacob’s sons were born 1722-1699 b.c.  Israel then moved down into Egypt to escape famine and grew into an immense multitude over the next 215 years before the Exodus in 1462 b.c.   See my very large, full-color, illustrated wall chart / poster, A Coordinated Chronological Table of the Patriarchs (from Adam to the Exodus, with over 3,000 coordinated dates); 38” x 50”, 27.50 + 7.50 P&H.

While the very earliest Kelts may not have been Israelites, they could have been Hebrews or sons of Abraham through Keturah, some of whom may have broken away from the main body of their kinsmen and migrated westward.  Israel went into Egypt in 1677 b.c.  Any time from the point that Israel began to multiply (before Israel was put to bondage), groups of Israelites could have split off from the main body in Egypt and migrated into Europe.  After Israel left Egypt other waves could have migrated and met up with them; and further still, after Israel fulfilled her captivity in Assyria and 135 years later in Babylon, groups of Israelites could have also migrated and met up with their kinsmen who preceded them.

The Kelts and Kymbri preceded the Scythians [pronounced Skithians] and Cimmerians [pronounced Kimmerians] across Europe and into the Isles.  Germans (Cherusci, Angli, Allemanni, Saxoni, Marcomanni, Suevi, Juti, etc.) came in a later wave long after the Kelts; and the Germans replaced most of the Kelts in Europe (as they also did in England), such as Germanic tribes replaced the Celtic Helvetti in Switzerland; even as Slavs replaced the Celtic Boii in Bohemia; the Franks displaced many Celts in northwestern France / Gaul, in Brittany and surrounding areas.  However, each Germanic group that displaced a Keltic (Celtic) group absorbed the people and parts of the Keltic languages.  Furthermore, those areas under Roman influence also absorbed more Latin influence in their languages (hence, some became known as the “Romance” languages—and thus Frankish / Franconian passed from being a dialect of Germanic to a Romance language, also having been influenced by the Celtic language, and later being influenced by the Norse tongues by the invasion and settlement of the Normans / Northmen, primarily Danes and Norwegians).

Neither did the German language come out of the Keltic; both derived independently (as did the Sclavic and the Baltic), some from the original mother proto-Indo-European tongue, some not.  The Israelites did not adopt the Indo-European language, the true Hebrew (not to be confused with “Yiddish”, as unscholarly or utterly ignorant people do) developed further over the centuries.  Hebrew did not “go through the Persian language filter” (whatever that unscholarly babbling means).  The WRITTEN form of Hebrew was changed while in Assyria and Babylon—but it was not Assyrian or Babylonian or even the later Persian!  It was the written alphabet of the Chaldeans, Aramaic!  Any scholar would know that.  A transition was made from the paleo-Hebrew written alphabet [or more properly, alef-beth] (not from the actual Hebrew language itself), to a written alphabet utilizing the “square Imperial Aramaic” script (also called “Assyrian Block”, because Assyria also adopted the script, hence, it was known as Imperial and it became the lingua franca of the day, all modern Middle Eastern alphabets having descended from it); around the time of the scribe Ezra around 516 b.c.  Thus, about 1,200 years after Ezra began writing in unpointed square Hebrew, the vowel points were added for those not fluent in the language, who did not know which vowels to insert, and where.  Around the same time as pointed Hebrew, pointed Syriac came into use, which eventually devolved into modern Arabic.  

[Furthermore, the Greek alphabet and language derived from the Hebrew; even as the original Greeks descended from the ancient Israelites / Hebrews.  The ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek alphabets look more like the Roman (which is the one English uses) because the Romans themselves descended from the ancient Greeks, and the Roman language / alphabet from the ancient Greek.  However, simply because the written Greek alphabet changed into more squiggly characters does not make it “Yiddish Greek”.  Such false inferences are moronic.  There is no doubt that aliens introduce corruption into any language that they speak, even with ebonics / baboonics, and the degregation and deterioration of German, Swedish, French, or any other language that savages learn.  However, Ezra did not write in a polluted language (and either did the New Testament writers), though at times they may employ a foreign word, in very rare instances, the language itself was not corrupt.  All languages change over time.  American-English drops double consonants and the letter u, as a means of simplification (and maybe even originally just to be different than the British; there was rivalry, you know), thus “neighbour” became neighbor, and traveller / counsellour became traveler / counseler.  English is a Germanic language (with influence from French, Latin, and Greek).  Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon) is nearly unreadable by modern English or modern German writers—and Old Saxon was even more archaic than Anglo-Saxon.

One of the only worthwhile things in this article was the cursory explanation of the English word neighbour.  By removing the “u” in neighbour, more-modern English readers lose sight of the word’s actual meaning.  So also is the case in the rejection of the Sacred Names (which shall be explained shortly), but this author does not seem to be able to see the clear parallel.  It should be pointed out that the Afrikaans (South African variant of the Dutch language, closest to Frisian or Flemish) word Boer (whose plural is Boere) means, “farmer” and is also comparable to the German word and name Bower, which seems to retain the more specific meaning of “mower” and not the general meaning of the Germanic and Slavic “meyer, meier, mejer, mayer, maier, majer”, etc., which loosely also means “farmer”, but more specifically to a larger farm administrator (mayor) or even “tenant farmer”, “steward”, “overseer”, which then eventually became “village headman” or “Mayor”.]

Thus, the Israelites adopted not an alien alphabet (or any “filter”) but the alphabet that was developed by speakers of Abraham’s mother tongue, though the alphabet certainly changed since Abraham’s time.  This author also erroneously calls Abraham a “Caldean”, instead of Chaldean, and Chaldean is the name that comes to us through the Greek, the Hebrew form is Kesedi.  Similarly, the word misrendered in the Old Testament as Syrian is “Aramaean” [Aramniy] (but the people living modernly in Syria bear no relation to the original Aramaeans, even as the people living in Israel, Persia, Egypt, and Arabia, bear no relation to the original progenitors of those races).

Abraham was POSSIBLY a Chaldean, in a VERY LIMITED sense, because in all likelihood the Chaldeans descended and derived their name from Shem’s son Arphaxad (Chaldean is the Greek form, the Hebrew is Kesed, which most probably is from the -xad / -ksad part of Arphaxad’s name, as I show in my Sacred Truth Expository Commentary on Genesis / Judges)—however, the Chaldeans were not the chosen line, but a lateral line descended from Arphaxad.  Nowhere was Abraham (or his ancestors or his descendents) ever referred to as a “Chaldean” in Scripture.  Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees (in far-northeastern Mesopotamia, not southern; again, see my book above); but that does not mean that he was a Chaldaean himself.  After leaving Ur with his father and brother and nephew and family, having travelled only a short distance, they set down roots in Padan-aram, the highland plateaus of Aram (far northern “Syria” [Su-ros, short o], as it became known as in New Testament times; the Greeks began to call the nation or geography after the city of Tyre, in Hebrew, Tsor; long o).  However, that did not make Abraham or his kinfolk, or their descedents, “Aramaeans” racially.  Moses spoke to the Israelites and referred to their father as a “Syrian” [actually, an Aramaean] “ready to perish” (Deuteronomy 26:5), in reference to Abraham, who was without seed.  However, this is a figure of speech, not literal.  Abraham did not descend from Shem’s son Aram, but from Shem’s son Arphaxad.  But Abraham dwelled in the land of the Aramaeans, even as he had dwelled in the land of the Chaldaeans, right next door; even as he would later dwell in the land of the Canaanites (which I shall explain) and also in the land of the Egyptians and the land of the Philistines (who descended from the original, pure Hamite, non-negroid, non-Arab, non-Turkish, white Adamic Egyptians).

Abraham’s 6x great-grandfather was Arphaxad.  However, his 4x great-grandfather was Eber (Heyber).  Abraham was a Hebrew.  The true line descended through Eber and became known as Hebrews.  Laban (Abraham’s brother’s grandson) and his father Bethuel were born and raised in Aram (Padan-aram, the Highland plateaus of Aram) and thus they are each called a “Syrian” [more properly, an “Aramaean”] (Genesis 25:25), even though they descended from Eber and Arphaxad, not from Aram.  For the same reason Ruth is called a “Moabitess”, Moses an “Egyptian”, Judah’s wife a “Canaanitess”, and Solomon’s wife (mother of Rehoboam) an “Ammonitess”—even though they were not those descended from races, but were merely born in those lands.

People who do very little study and who do not know how to think, often have the cart before the horse and are blindly going in the wrong direction.  Canaanite was not a dialect of Chaldean.  Hebrew was not a dialect of Canaanite!  What abominations!  Those who think such thoughts need a purgative to relieve mental flatulence.  It is an additional mind fart that the Hebrews developed no language of their own!  Likewise, Paleo-Hebrew is NOT “simply a way of saying ‘Canaanite’”...!  There is SO MUCH ERROR in this short article, I will not be able to address it all;* but hit the highlights.

[* “Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.” —Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832), English clergy, who also expressed, “Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; anything but—live for it.”  However, in this case, it is not that the error cannot be addressed and easily refuted, but that it requires a lot of time; and I believe that which I will point out shall be sufficient for those who can see to not follow blind guides into a Spiritual Outback.]

How odd of God to use the phrase “in the Hebrew tongue” 6 times (if there were no such tongue) and not merely the “the Judeans language” which is also used 6 times.  The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, not Chaldaean, not Canaanite.  WHAT AN ABOMINATION for a Christian to imagine that God wrote His Revelation to His people in the language of His enemies whom He cursed forever...!

Abraham spoke Hebrew... lateral branches spoke Chaldean and Aramaic, very different, though related.  

Hebrews originally occupied the land of Promise before the Canaanites (who were interlopers—and the same parallel can be drawn with the so-called “Native” Americans).  The Canaanites were inbred Hamite-Cainites.  Canaan was born of incest and was forever cursed by God.  Canaan then went out from the presence of God’s elect and married a woman descended from Cain—thus joining the two curses together (see my book, What Was the Mark that God Placed on Cain?, 584pp., pb., 30.00 + P&H).  Canaan was probably born (at the earliest) 6 years after the Flood; 9 years would also be likely, according to Bible Numerics (6 = Man / Sin; 9 = Judgment / Finality).  

About 196-199 years later God confounded language at Babel (see my A Coordinated Chronological Table of the Patriarchs, mentioned earlier herein).   The Canaanites would have spoken a Hamitic language.  The Hebrews were already occupying the areas now known as Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and more northern and northeastern regions of northern Mesopotamia—which they had for over 400 years—(which was the general region of where Eden had been located, and where the Ark came to rest after the Flood) and outlying areas (such as modern Armenia, and part of what is now western Turkey, etc.), sharing areas with their kinsmen, the Aramaeans and Chaldaeans.  

What would become known as the Land of Israel was the Land that God had prepared for His people—and enemies came in and took it (even as an enemy sowed his spurious seed in among God’s seed in the Garden of Eden, which Christ’s parable referred to; see my book, S.T.E.C. Who Was the Serpent in the Garden...? ... and the Waters that Covered the Earth, 774pp., 40.00 + P&H).  Other of Ham’s pure (but very sinful) progeny, Nimrod, had also settled in Mesopotamia and attempted to become dictator-god of the area.  Nimrod being a mighty “hunter”* before the Lord, should be translated “tyrant” or “warlord” in God’s Face—for he hunted men flagrantly, violating the spirit and the letter of the morality that God had established via word of mouth from Patriarch to Patriarch!  The Tower of Babel was not a tower that literally reached to the clouds, but at whose top was a shrine to the heavenly bodies, eventually to be replaced by the worship of Nimrod himself (again, see my S.T.E.C. on Genesis / Judges, 711pp., pb., 40.00 + P&H).  

[* #6718 tsah-yiyd / #6719 tsah-yawd mean “hunter”, but context refines the meaning of the word in certain cases (especially those used figuratively).  In Genesis 10:9, Nimrod is a “tyrant / warlord” (hunter of men).  In Jeremiah 16:16 the intention is “tracker / trapper”, since the intention of the hunters and fishers to seek out scattered true Israel (the very people for whom Christ appointed the disciples to be “fishers of men”) was not to bring them back as a trophy strapped to the hood of their horse or carved up and smoked in the back of their ox-cart, but to bring them back alive.]

God then had ordained for the squatters to be driven out; which also parallels the Messianic Age / the Kingdom, when Christ Himself will drive out the squatters / enemies—which was part of the DUTY of the Kinsman Redeemer / Avenger of Blood, in which it shall be victoriously declared, “there shall be no more the Canaanite in the House of the Lord”.  It also parallels the founding of North America / The United States in driving out the savages (many of whom descended from the Canaanites, having arrived here, not necessarily through any “land bridge” but having travelled by ship mixed in among Phoenicians, Iberians [Hebrews], and Danites).  Again, as promised by God as Judgment for disobedience in not driving them out and KEEPING them driven out, that they would become pricks in our eyes and thorns in our sides (Numbers 33:55) and vex us!  Pricks in our eyes (the tares that cannot be discerned from the wheat) and thorns in our sides (inextricable; even as Eve was taken from Adam’s Side, even as the redeemed of true Israel are taken from Christ’s side, Who had a spear shoved there, and Who had a crown of thorns crushed down upon His Brow, His Blood bleeding into His Eyes, obviously making it difficult for Him, on the cross, in agony, to see through both the sweat and blood).  This again parallels the final kingdom of this earth’s age, as depicted in the Statue with the feet and toes of iron mingled with clay in Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream-Image, which represents integration (the tares having so intermingled with the wheat, only the angels of God can discern and remove them).

The Canaanites clearly moved in among Hebrews who possessed the land.  The Canaanites learned and corrupted the Hebrew language into Canaanite (even as the Jews polluted German into Yiddish*) and eventually displaced the Hebrews or killed them and the remaining Hebrews migrated away (once they realized, “there goes the neighborhood) to relocate among their kinfolk** or were absorbed by the vile heathen.

[* Those who refer to Hebrew as Yiddish also show their ignorance, in that Yiddish is a modern language that is a hybrid of GERMAN and Canaanite with some Polish influence too.  To infer that Ezra spoke and wrote in Yiddish is to claim that Yiddish existed about 2 millennia before it did.

* While most may have simply migrated north back into Aram or other northern regions “between the rivers” (which is what Mesopotamia means) and the lands below the Black Sea, it is quite possible that this hostile takeover by the Canaanites is what set some tribes of Hebrews / Iberians into motion to appear elsewhere as “Kelts”.]

The Septuagint is corrupt and has been changed many times.  This is clearly evident in the ages of the Patriarchs, which the subverters amateurishly played with several times until they got all the data at least not contradicting other data in the text (see my, A Coordinated Chronological Table of the Patriarchs).

No, the tribal area of the Anglii in southern mainland Denmark and northern Germany does not literally mean “England”.  It can be considered similar to England, but the German language and the Latin (which is what Anglii is: the plural form* of Angli) predated the English language by CENTURIES and the word Angli (most of these words being Latin forms of the original German names) existed for centuries before the word England ever existed, so Angli cannot literally mean “England”.  Angliland would mean “land of the Angles”.  England itself was formed by the conglomeration of various different kindred tribes, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes,* later to receive waves of Danes and Normans.  The word England is English, not German or Danish; though they bear similarity.  Greek bears similarity to Hebrew in many words because Greek derived from Hebrew, even the letters of the alphabet show this: Hebrew—alef, beth, gimel, daleth... yod; Greek— alpha, beta, gamma, delta... iota (or jot, as rendered into English), etc.  But to claim that the two languages are identical is absurd.  A son proceeds forth from his father, shares relation and biology from his father—but unless you are talking about the DIVINE GODHEAD the son is not identical to his father.  Language is complex and words take on secondary, implied, figurative, and / or extended meanings that, after several liguistic generations, the original meaning is lost except to those who see the logical relation and who study language and history.

[* The letter “j” is a modern invention.  In most Germanic languages (excepting some of the Romance lanuages, such as French and Portuguese), the letter “j” is an “i” or “y”; actually, by comparing the three, “j” looks like a combination of an “i” and a “y”.  Regardless, before the written letter j was invented, it was written either “i” or “y”—which is also how it was pronounced.  Likewise, the letter v and w are more-modern inventions, being derived from the u (hence, w or vv uu is called a “double-u”).  Thus, Julius Caesar, more anciently, was written “Ivlivs Caeser”.  It is not that the v was pronounced u, in this case, but that the v was more suitable to the chisle than the rounded u (which does not explain why the letter o was not a square, but all languages and cultures do things inconsistently and “fads” develop).  Regardless, the J was always pronounced in Latin as an i / y.  Greek had no j (even though the iota in English is called a “jot”).  In German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, etc., even modernly, the j is an i or a y.  This preface is important to realizing that the tribal name of Jute is actually pronounced yoo-teh (not “joot” as it is pronounced in modern English).  In Anglo-Saxon, few words, vowels included, were silent.  An “e” on the end of a word was sounded, even as in modern German, though de-emphasized.  Jute (yoo-teh) is nearly etymologically identical to Judah (yoo-dah).  The d and t are interchangeable, quite commonly in Indo-European languages.  It is also revealing to point out, that Greek, Roman, Norse, Germanic, Slavic mythologies were corruptions of ancient Israel’s history and theology, mixed in with more modern legendized history and even some paganism.  Regardless, the chief God of the Romans was Apollo, who was also called Jove.  Men swear by the higher power, thus the English expression, “By Jove!”  However, the most-enlightening feature is to realize that in ancient Roman the v was often pronounced w and thus, the proper pronunciation is not the English “joav” (or long-o sound however you wish to write it), but yo-weh, which is etymologically identical to Yahweh.  The Tetragrammaton YHVH could also be represented in all vowels IAUE which would be pronounced ee-ah-oo-ey; pronounce it fast and tell me what you have.  This itself is a small nail in the coffin of those “Christians” who divisively deride and insult their Maker’s Name!  “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!” (Isaiah 45:9)  Is not mocking the Sacred Name the grossest example of “taking it in vain”...?  Is not ignoring it also a form of “taking it in vain”...?—that is, treating it as if it is NOTHING.  The Name Jehovah is actually a corruption of the Sacred Name Yahweh.  The Jews wanted to hide God’s True Name from us His people, and thus the rabbins declared, that God’s Name was “too holy” to pronounce, speak, write, or use.  HOW SILLY of God to give us a name by which we were to call upon Him—but to give us a Name “too Holy” to use...!  Thus, the rabbins took the vowels of the Hebrew word for Lord / Master, Adone and inserted them in reverse order into the Tetragramaton, to form yehovah; the y was eventually replaced in German and English with a J, though initially in English, as still in German, the J was pronounced “i” or “y”.  Likewise, the v was replaced with a w in Yahweh.  However, the w in German is pronounced as a v; and in Hebrew, the letter could be either a w (wau) sound or a v (vau) sound.  Regardless, the word Jehovah represents a more-subtle form of attempting to obscure and hide the Sacred COVENANT Name, than the outright error of simply rendering the Sacred Name into a title, “God” or “Lord”.]

The Romans’ written records were more extensive and were better preserved in the south of Europe, so the Roman records more widely known, and therefore, the Latin names of the Germanic tribes prevail.  In the cold, damp northern regions, more time had to be devoted to hunting, raising food, building shelter, collecting wood, etc., before the harsh cold of winter set in (while fighting off other tribes) and not as much time was devoted to writing literature, poetry, developing the written language, keeping records.  Records may have been destroyed due to molding and rotting, or invasions of hostile tribes may have resulted in the burning and loss of such records or literature entirely.  Just because few such records exist, does not mean that the Germanic peoples did not have a written language or that they did not write records or poetry or literature more anciently.  It simply means that fewer records survived.  Thus, in the south, such as Rome, a warmer, and in some places more-arid climate allowed for the greater development of the arts—and their preservation.

Germanus (which means, “authentic people”) is Latin; the name in German is Deutsch / Teutsch and the Romans also called them Teutoni.  The Angli also have place names in southern Denmark, as well as northern Germany (because that modern boundary area was predated by the Anglii tribes, who knew no artificial boundary between Denmark / Jutland and Germany that would be established many centuries later)—but that does not meant that the southern Jutland Peninsula of Denmark is “literally England” either.  This person who wrote this is “literally confused”.

[* This itself is testimony to the common origin of the Indo-European languages, and as I show on my full-color, illustrated Language chart / poster (The Migrations and Languages of Israel after the Captivity, 14” x 20” and 12.50 each + 6.00 P&H in rolled tube; and in the fold-out chart in my book, God’s Plan For Mankind, the Sin Factor, and The Restoration of Creation (Including: A Study of The Theocentric-Scientific “Evolution” of The Modern Nations and Languages of Christendom; 176pp., plastic comb-bound, 14.50 + P&H.  As stated earlier, the Greek language derived from the Hebrew and the Roman from the Greek.  We know that the Hebrew employs a plural ending in -iy, -im, -in, etc.; and here we see that the Latin plural often ends in -i, or even “ii” if the word already ended in “i”.  We also saw that the Afrikaans-Dutch plural is often achieved by adding an “-e” on the end of a word; the German plural is often achieved by adding an “-in” on the end of a word (Amerikaner / Amerikanerin).]

It is the other way around.  England literally means, “Angli-land”; but the Angli-homeland back in Europe was not England.  Anyone who stopped to think for even a moment would realize that.

This article is a little truth (the mortar) mixed with a LOT of error (anything on hand that would fit) and backward thinking (upside down tiles).  

His defamation of the Sacred Name is likewise built on ignorance.

The notion that prayers are not answered if not prayed in the Sacred Name is both true and false... and just because some terribly confused people think that they cannot take a breath without pronouncing the Sacred Name before each step... does not invalidate Divine Truth.  On the other hand, just because carnal, stubborn, closed-minded, dark-hearted individuals reject any Bible Doctrine because it is cross-grain to their carnal notions and the way that think that reality has to be, based upon their skewed logic and selfish lusts does not invalidate what God decreed!  Just because some imbalanced people think they need to be “rebaptized” each time they learn a “reputed” new pronunciation or spelling of the Sacred Name (and I have actually met such confused souls like this!) does not mean that their mental and spiritual and emotional imbalance and delusion is reality and it does not mean that the existence of the Divine Name and God’s ordination of it does not invalidate the sane usage of the Sacred Name.  Just because a tennis racket fails miserably when taken into battle in place of a broadsword does not mean that a tennis racket is a foolish invention, with no practical use, to be mocked.

Christ commanded us to pray is His Name.  Christ did not speak English when He walked the earth; English would take another millennia and a half to develop.  God gave us His Covenant Name: and it wasn’t in English—and if Hebrew was not the tongue of the Patriarchs from Abraham on down, then the Bible would have been written in a different language.  The Sacred Name would not have been Greek because Greek did not come into existence until after the Israelites came out of Egypt... and the Israelites were not speaking Chaldean or God would not have called it Hebrew.  If they were speaking Canaanite God would not have called it Hebrew.  God’s people would not have been speaking the language of God’s enemies—and had they been God would have commanded them to repent, reform themselves, and learn their mother-tongue.

Historians refer to Kaiser Wilhelm III. of Germany—but that does not necessitate their writing the whole of their discourse in German!  That is an juvenile infantile, false inference of (il)logic.  It is a spurious exaggeration akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Because you can’t eat an entire year’s supply of food in a sitting, does that mean that you should eat nothing?  Because you give in to temptation on your diet (or in any matter) on one occasion, and because you cannot be perfect, does that mean that you should not even try to do what is right?  That is the general mentality of those who make such blasphemous statements, having no concept of that which is HOLY.  They are carnally minded, and Scripture says that is “death” and those who function in the flesh cannot please God and the carnal mind is enmity with (hostile to) God.

Furthermore, God REVEALED TO US His Name as His Covenant Name by which we are to call upon Him, and Christ REVEALED TO US His Name and said to pray in His Name!  Christ spoke Hebrew and Aramaic.  The Israelites spoke Hebrew.  God revealed His Name to us in Hebrew.  If He has a name in a nonhuman, nonearthly tongue, we don’t know it and it is possibly not even pronounceable by human tongue.  But we do know the Name that He revealed to us.  Find me ANY ancient Biblical manuscript that has the English words  “God” or “Lord” instead of Yahweh.  Jesus (pronounced hey-soos) is also a name that Hispanics call often name their sons, and “Chucho” is a nickname for Jesus.  Do you pray to Chucho or in Chucho’s name?  Christ Yehoshua declared,

“13And whatsoever ye shall ask in My Name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  14If ye shall ask any thing in My Name, I will do it” (John 14).... “that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in My Name, He may give it you” (15:16)... “23...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My Name, He will give it you.  24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My Name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16).... “18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.  20For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18).

There are many other verses, including those that say there is POWER in Yehoshua’s Name and there is no other name given among men whereby we may be saved.  This does not mean that Yahweh / Yehoshua does not know what we mean when we use a SUBSTITUTE for His Name—but the Promises are attached to HIS NAME and we are commanded to study, learn, to show ourselves approved—and to make corrections when the Word reveals that we are in error!  If I say, “go to the store and tell them “Robert” sent you and they will give you a 25% discount, and you walk in and say, “Hi, Bob sent me”—and they don’t know me as Bob, you won’t get the discount.  Furthermore it is a LEGAL issue.  If you go into court you and all other parties are addressed by your LEGAL name, as is the Judge, referred to as “your honor” (whether right or wrong).  If you speak about someone by any other name, the court does not recognize it.  Yahweh is the COVENANT Name that He gave us to USE.  How DENSE can people be...? —that rather than obey and be blessed, all they do is want to argue about their ignorance!  How would you like it if someone called you by a name other than yours all the time, or mispronounced it every time?  Now, God is not fragile egoed as we are, but if it would insult you why don’t you care whether it insults God or not?  God said if we have unconfessed sin in our hearts He will not hear our prayers, and if we turn our ear from hearing His Law even our prayers are an abomination.  So when you know what His Name is (again, get any Bible Concordance, Lexicon, Interlinear Bible—it’s not “rocket science”) and look to see what the ANCIENT BIBLE MANUSCRIPTS record in abundance and harmony (tens of thousands of different manuscripts).

God’s Name is not “God”.  Christ’s Name is not “Christ”.  God and Christ are titles.  God’s Name (one of them, His Covenant Name) is Yahweh (meaning, “I Am that I Am; the Self-Existing One”)—which is not “the Lord” (which is also a title) and the meaning of His Name is not expressed in “the Lord”.  I knew two fathers, one who named his son Jeremiah, and the other who named his son Michael.  Each, independently did not like others to call their young sons “Jerry” or “Mikey”.  The fathers specifically named their sons to contain the Holy Name Yah, and the Divine title El (God)... and to remove the context and meaning of the name is to secularize* it.  Some parents even brainstorm a certain name for their children (like Troy, Daryll, Brett, etc.) so that no one shortens their name, but calls them by the name the parent gave them.  Now, why some parents are that rigid (even neurotic and “control freakish”) is not the issue.  The issue is, as parents, that is their right.  Is God, the Creator and Master of the universe without rights to the average Christian who thinks God should just be content with whatever He is called?  Cain had that same attitude about worship too.  It didn’t end well for him.  

[* It is generally thought that the wicked king of Judah, Ahaz, was actually named Ahaziah (as the names of most other kings of Judah contained the Sacred Name or Divine title).  However, it is thought that because he was so wicked, God ordained for the Scriptural record to “scrub his name clean” of the Sacred Name, since he was godless.]

“the LORD is in His Holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him.” (Habakkuk 2:20)

“Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His Wrath is kindled but a little.  Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” (Psalm 2:12)

[The Hebrew [not Chaledean] word translated here as “trust” is #2620 khaw-saw, meaning, “to flee for protection”; figuratively to confide in:—have hope, make refuge, (put) trust”.  Fleeing to for protection has prerequisite rules (even as does prayer): you must be obedient, in submission, reverence, respect, and in exercise of faith.

“5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men [His elect] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.  6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.  For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.  7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.” (James 1)

Understand: Faith does not originate in your or me.  It is not based upon our notions.  Faith comes solely by the Holy Spirit’s imparting understanding based upon the facts in God’s Word (Romans 10:17).  If a “Christian” has faith in his own “feelings”, thoughts, or ideas (such as, “well God is Omniscient, He knows I am talking to Him” or “worship is worship, He ought just to be glad I am honoring Him in my own way) are not faith, but presumption and humanism.  Hauteur is not faith!]

Christ’s Name is Yehoshua (not “Jesus”, which is a third-hand corruption from the Hebrew into Greek into Latin into English) which means, “Yahweh-saved” or “Saved of Yahweh”.  To remove the names Yahweh and Yehoshua is one step INTO BLINDNESS.  Christ said to pray in His Name.  Since His Name is Yehoshua, why would you pray in any other name? —only out of rebellion or ignorance.  God winks at ignorance, He does not wink at rebellion.  If you know the truth and continue in error, that is rebellion.  Those who have come to the knowledge that the Anglo-Saxon and related peoples are the Israelites of the Bible, do you continue to call yourselves “Gentiles”, that is, in the confused connotation that the word means “non-Israelite”...?  Do you call yourself “Jews”...?  Of course not.  Those words are both corruptions of the truth.  So if you don’t call yourself by corrupt names, why would you so insult God and Christ?  There is nothing wrong with calling God, “God”, “Lord”, or “the Almighty”.  But those are not His Names.  It is perfectly fine to use those titles, even as “Father”.  But He did not say, “Pray in the title God or Lord”.  In fact, Christ was quite specific in regard to the verbal declaration of baptizing converts: “baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:9).  You know that “God” and “Lord” are not God’s Name.  You know that “Christ” and “Lord” are not our Redeemer’s Name, and you know that “Jesus” (which is the Anglicization of the Latin, Iesus*) was not in any ancient Greek manuscript.  So why do you rebel, like a head-strong toddler who refuses to obey or show respect?

[While the New Testament was written in Greek—because the majority of the Diaspora, the Israelites of the dispersion, spoke Greek—the Israelites in the time of Christ spoke Hebrew.  Christ also spoke Aramaic (not Chaldaean) because the area of Israel where He grew up (Nazareth, in the land of Zebulun, in Galilee) was closer to the border of the nation of Aram (“Syria”) and the Galileans had a different accent, presumably, because of Aramaic influence.  Those who were scholars may have understood, to one degree or another, Greek (historical / philosophical / scholarly lingua franca of the day) and / or Roman (the legal language of the day).  Every time the word, “the Scriptures” is mentioned in the New Testament, or “it is written” it refers to the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew.  Thus, while the events of the New Testament, the Gospels, Epistles, Apocalypse, etc., were written in Greek (to reach the elect of God scattered abroad) the Israelites depicted in the New Testament Biblical record (Christ, the disciples, etc.) were speaking Hebrew.  In fact, when Christ was crucified, Pilate had written “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS”—in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin...!  Pilate added Latin because Judaea was at this time part of, a province of the Roman Empire.]

What do you have against your Father and His Covenant Name...?  Christ is a reflection of the Father, Whose Name contains that of the Father.  What do you have against your Saviour and Redeemer’s Name?  There is no Redemption outside the Covenant.

The Septuagint (LXX) was written in Koine (coin-ey) Greek, which developed close to the Second or First century B.C.  Ancient Greek developed around 800 b.c.  From what was the LXX translated? and based upon what authority?  It was translated from the Hebrew—the same Hebrew that the Masorites used.  Who translated the LXX...?  It was translated by a team of “Jewish” scholars in Alexandria, Egypt.  Egypt is never used in a good connotation in Scripture—and God cursed Egypt in Ezekiel’s day, declaring that it would never again be a nation of any significance in the world (Ezekiel 29:12-15)—and the means by which God accomplished this was by having Egypt, left in shambles and abandoned by her several million Hebrew slaves, then imported Nubian slaves from farther south in sub-saharan Africa, with whom they eventually bred themselves into hopeless degeneration.  Ezekiel began prophesying c.564 b.c.  Why would God 3 centuries after His declaration of Egypt’s base worthlessness, then have His Word for His people translated there?  Why do those who claim that the Masorites were “Jews” who corrupted the Scriptures, then trust 70 Jews in Egypt?  It truly is mindless.  They have no evidence that the Masorites were 100% Edomite imposters—and they have no evidence that the Alexandrianite Jews were not Edomite imposters.  While many on the Sanhedrin in Christ’s day were Edomites, not all of them were.  Do these simpletons believe that God is incapable of preserving His Word and incapable of having His true children oversee it, even as sheep among wolves?  If God can preserve it among the Alexandrianite Jews, why do they think that He could not among the Masorites?  The LXX was not translated to “replace” the Masoretic text, but for those Israelites of the diaspora who had been Hellenized.  E.W. Bullinger, in his A Critical Lexicon and Concordance (1877) under the heading “Hebrew”, says,

However, the LXX was eventually corrupted.  The sheer volume of the manuscript evidence supports the Masoretic text, not the LXX.

This entire article is a cluster of error—a multi-car pile-up of a train wreck of false doctrine by someone who cannot think clearly.

No, speakers of Chaldean did not “slide into” Canaanite.  Aramaean was unintelligible to the Hebrews and Israelites—except those who had studied it or had been raised knowing it—and so was Chaldaean (if Chaldaean was even a separate language from Aramaean, which it may not have been).  Americans visiting Australia or Canada or England indeed have no problem understanding other English—but that is merely a difference of accent, not a different dialect of the same language and not a different language entirely; while a small fraction of vocabulary differs, it is minuscule in consideration of the whole.  Hebrew and Aramaean are not the same, neither are they even different dialects of the same language, they are different languages.  Showing the difference between the Aramaic and Hebrew languages, when Jacob and Laban made a peace treaty, they set up a pillar of stones in Mount Gilead, as testimony to it, “And Laban called it Jegarsahadutha: but Jacob called it Galeed” (Genesis 31:47)—both words meaning, “a heap of testimony”.  

When the Assyrians came to conquer Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah, (II Kings 18:26) the Israelite envoys speaking to the officers of Assyria asked them to speak in the Syrian (actually, Aramaean) language; because the Israelite envoy did not want the common Israelites who were witnessing the rendevouz on the wall to hear the conversation, and possible discuss mutiny and surrender to the Assyrians—but the haughty Assyrian officers refused to cooperate and spoke loudly in Hebrew, broadcasting to those on the wall, with the purpose of striking fear into their hearts to cause them to surrender the city.  When the captives were taken to Babylon in Daniels day, those who would serve the Chaldaeans were taught the Chaldaean tongue (Daniel 1:4), it was not something that they could “slide into”.

When Christ, suffering on the cross, cried out “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me” in Aramaic, “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani” (Mark 15:34)—the Israelites standing around did not understand Him, and thought that in delirium He had garbled something about the Prophet Elijah to help Him!  

It is truly amazing that anyone can write out of such ignorance when the evidence is in the Scriptures refuting their pet position.

The Greek has no equivalent of the Holy Name, and renders all appearances of the Holy name as Kurios, as it also does all other words for Lord (adonai / awdon, long o, etc.) and the word for God is even watered down to Theos.  The LXX strips the depth of the meaning of many Hebrew words that it was unable to properly convey.  Maybe this is why such carnal minds are so fond of the LXX, because they still wallow in darkness (and prefer darkness, thinking that it is light).  The Saviour’s Name “Jesus” is the transliteration or Anglicization from the Latin Iesus, from the Greek Iesous [ee-ey-sooss], from the Hebrew Yehoshua, which means, “Yahweh-saved”... thus, to deny the Hebrew is to deny that God has a Name and that Christ’s Name itself is meaningless and any substitute will do.  This is the fruit of those who have no clue concerning God’s Holiness or Majesty.  This is the mindset of those content with a “generic god” whereby they can build their own “theology” (humanism) as they please, unrestricted and unencumbered by such annoying things called “Doctrine”.  Those who deny the Masoretic in favor of the LXX, and who reject the Sacred Names, quite often are also the same persons who fall into heresy, such as “free will”, a local flood, no Devil, no demons, no angels, no Hell, no factual yet-to-come Millennia.  Often some are non-trinitarian and sometimes Praeterists, and are sometimes either Antinomians or those who believe that works contribute to salvation; including in the form of Baptismal Regeneration and Sacramentarianism.  One bad doctrine, like lies, like rotten teeth, like the Domino Effect, usually leads to the toppling and falling out of the rest.

This is the blind leading the blind...

Referring to the Holy Name as “foolishness” is coming dangerously close to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit... but, be my guest, go ahead and blaspheme away, for if you are so spiritually dead that the warning means nothing to you, then clearly you were ordained unto perdition.

[For another exposé of bad thinking, see my printing of God: Deity of the Nations (1960) Angelo Benedetto Traina (1889-1971; who was born in Sicily and his family later moved to New York City) / Scripture Research Association, 89pp., to which has been added Corrective Notes in the Hope of Making Sense of the Sacred Name Squabble by Robert Alan Balaicius; 118pp., and brief 2pp. background on the author.  It really is a terrible book; but so-many people are so-easily confused by false doctrine and some people are still interested in the topic of the Sacred Name and in Traina’s book that I decided to undertake the laborious and tedious task of correcting this false doctrine.  While it is true and correct that the Sacred Name is Yahweh (and whenever “the LORD” or “GOD” is substituted for Yahweh, it is wrong) and Christ Jesus’ Name is more properly Yehoshua, that is close to the only truthful statments that Traina makes in this work which is mostly dogmatic assertion and illogic and embarrassing error and deceitful twisting of Scripture; 216pp., total. 14.50 + P&H.]

This author’s problem, in addition to his lack of true study and inability to think logically, is that he, like many, pig-headed and “one-eyed” sees only what he wants to see, and then attempts to narrow-mindedly cramp and stuff and “restructure”* data into his own biased paradigm, rather than submit to and follow where the Truth actually leads—even if it means entirely restructuring (or discarding) his paradigm.  

[* —like cutting off corners of jig-saw puzzle pieces that do not actually fit where he wants them to, to make them fit.]

The Lithuanian (usually referred to as Russian) author, Leo Tolstoy, truthfully and eloquently expressed:

“Shallow ideas can be assimilated.  Ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility.  I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusion which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

In lieu of a real scholar, I will have to do.  Before dismissing out of hand the information I have presented, an antagonist would be honest and sincere to read the books that I have mentioned and spent thousands of hours to research and write.