It uses "Sasquatch" from the Coast Salish language of British Columbia.
In effect, the term Elohim is the most important because Elohim is a plural term in the Hebrew language, but it is always translated as God—singular.
So in my translation, I point out these three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
Because it's necessary to say that Hebrew is a polysemic language, and so it's only the context that allows us to understand which is the real meaning in that verse.
It is a name which was pronounced when the Hebrew language did not exist—yeah—yes—many centuries before.
And it's not sure—absolutely—because—because we don't know in what language it was pronouncing the first—the first time.
They understand the real meaning so the problem is with the translation out of Hebrew into other languages, exactly.
You were translating into Italian or into which language?
No, it's not it's not correct because nobody knows the real meaning of the tetragrammaton because when it was pronounced the Hebrew language did not exist, so nobody knows in what language it was pronounced.
You're saying the Hebrew language did not exist and when it was pronounced, are we talking about to Moses?
5th Century BC, so much later, so there is some argument about when—yes but nobody is sure about this—ok but when did the Hebrew language come into existence?
In that moment Aramaic was the international language, as with English now, but we don't know in what language the so-called Yahweh spoke, but for example we do know that the vowels of Yahweh were inserted two thousand years after their first pronunciation, so nobody knows so the real sound of this name.
If we accept the early date for Moses, 1200 BC, you're saying that the language that Moses spoke could not have been Hebrew.
No the language—could have been ancient Egyptian, yes, perfect.
Is it controversial to say that the Hebrew language did not exist in 1200 BC?
In that time a form of language started to exist which is defined as a previous Hebrew, Old Hebrew, but it's not Hebrew because the Hebrew really started to exist as a dialect of Western Semitic only in the 10th Century before Christ.
Right, so this entity called YHVH, or Yahweh, we don't know what language he spoke to Moses in then, no we don't know but since Moses was reared in the household of the Pharaoh it's most likely to be in the ancient Egyptian language, yes.
So later on, much later on, it is imposed into another language which is Hebrew, yes, and they don't use vowels at that time, yes they don't use vowels, so YHVH are all consonants and we don't know what the vowels are in between, no we don't know we don't know.
Had the Elohim—they didn't call them Elohim of course because it was another language, but I think they were the same.
Oh it's a very interesting topic because the narration of the Tower of Babel is very strange because those people wanted to reach the sky so Yahweh wanted to intervene to destroy it and after the Bible says that Yahweh divided languages but if you read carefully the previous chapters of the Bible, you read that the languages were already divided.
Each people had their own language so when Yahweh destroyed this tower and divided this alliance, he distributed these people among the others so he didn't create a new language, because the diverse languages already existed.
I think that's a good system, especially when we're dealing with a document that is quite old so difficult to understand and is very difficult to understand, and has been through already multiple changes of language which causes further problems we cannot always be sure, absolutely we must not be dogmatic, absolutely we must not be dogmatic, and yet it is a book which has promoted a great deal of dogma, and been responsible for many of the problems in the world certainly in the last 2000 years because in my translation I'm using several dictionaries theological and non-theological dictionaries for the Hebrew language and so I think that it's necessary to be open to all possible solutions I agree but we must know that there are several possible solutions, not only one absolutely agreed, yeah.
The fathers of the church in the first centuries after Christ said that the translation of the Bible and this theological narrative was a useful misinterpretation so when it comes to these kind of translations for example with the Elohim, or with the serpent "deceiving" or "elevating"—I understand that because Hebrew is a much more fluid language and you have to pay attention to context much more, that you can't put a flat interpretation on a word, is there a correct and incorrect way of translating it?
Sumerians have moved from Eastern Anatolia bringing a new language and advanced culture to the existing Ubaidian peoples who have already started developing population centres in the lower Tigris Euphrates.
Even news anchors say, "Oh, I was channeling so and so." I mean, it's a common lexicon in our language.
It didn't… It didn't care what color your skin, what language you spoke, where you lived.
The father and son spent two years below the surface, learning the language of the giants and gathering knowledge about their lives.
Since they spoke the language, the local population was also always friendly.
Olaf and his father learned about the giants: their language (similar to Sanskrit), culture, and customs.
People have anomalous experiences, close encounters, and there's no language available there to describe what's happening.
It's a mystery word with no etymology in the Hebrew language.
There are all these clues there that we're looking at the arrival of forces with technology who are now going to interact with our ancestors and our ancestors have to interpret what's going on with the language they had at the time.
It's written by an ancient person with an ancient worldview, but in the thought forms of the day, he's trying to process experiences and cultural memory using the language that he had available.
Now, "father" was the language that Jesus used to address God.
The perfection of style is variety in unity, freedom, ease, clearness, the power of saying anything, and of striking any note in the scale of human feelings without impropriety; and such is the divine gift of language possessed by Plato in the Symposium and Phaedrus.
From this there are many fallings-off in the Laws: first, in the structure of the sentences, which are rhythmical and monotonous,—the formal and sophistical manner of the age is superseding the natural genius of Plato: secondly, many of them are of enormous length, and the latter end often forgets the beginning of them,—they seem never to have received the second thoughts of the author; either the emphasis is wrongly placed, or there is a want of point in a clause; or an absolute case occurs which is not properly separated from the rest of the sentence; or words are aggregated in a manner which fails to show their relation to one another; or the connecting particles are omitted at the beginning of sentences; the uses of the relative and antecedent are more indistinct, the changes of person and number more frequent, examples of pleonasm, tautology, and periphrasis, antitheses of positive and negative, false emphasis, and other affectations, are more numerous than in the other writings of Plato; there is also a more common and sometimes unmeaning use of qualifying formulae, os epos eipein, kata dunamin, and of double expressions, pante pantos, oudame oudamos, opos kai ope—these are too numerous to be attributed to errors in the text; again, there is an over-curious adjustment of verb and participle, noun and epithet, and other artificial forms of cadence and expression take the place of natural variety: thirdly, the absence of metaphorical language is remarkable—the style is not devoid of ornament, but the ornament is of a debased rhetorical kind, patched on to instead of growing out of the subject; there is a great command of words, and a laboured use of them; forced attempts at metaphor occur in several passages,—e.g.
parocheteuein logois; ta men os tithemena ta d os paratithemena; oinos kolazomenos upo nephontos eterou theou; the plays on the word nomos = nou dianome, ode etara: fourthly, there is a foolish extravagance of language in other passages,—'the swinish ignorance of arithmetic;' 'the justice and suitableness of the discourse on laws;' over-emphasis; 'best of Greeks,' said of all the Greeks, and the like: fifthly, poor and insipid illustrations are also common: sixthly, we may observe an excessive use of climax and hyperbole, aischron legein chre pros autous doulon te kai doulen kai paida kai ei pos oion te olen ten oikian: dokei touto to epitedeuma kata phusin tas peri ta aphrodisia edonas ou monon anthropon alla kai therion diephtharkenai.
Most of them do not appear to have retained any hold on the later language of Greece.
Like several experiments in language of the writers of the Elizabethan age, they were afterwards lost; and though occasionally found in Plutarch and imitators of Plato, they have not been accepted by Aristotle or passed into the common dialect of Greece.
There would be nothing surprising again in his losing somewhat of his powers of expression, and becoming less capable of framing language into a harmonious whole.
Such reflections may help us to bring home to ourselves by inward sympathy the language of Plato in the Laws, and to combine into something like a whole his various and at first sight inconsistent utterances.
In this case there is the advantage that the new colonists have a community of race, language, and laws.
Modern enquirers, like Plato, have found in infinite ages the explanation not only of states, but of languages, men, animals, the world itself; like him, also, they have detected in later institutions the vestiges of a patriarchal state still surviving.
And yet we might fairly ask, a little parodying the language of Plato—O legislator, is unanimity only 'the struggle for existence'; or is the balance of powers in a state better than the harmony of them?
In these quaint forms of thought and language, great principles of morals and legislation are enunciated by him for the first time.
Two rules may be given for their management: first that they should not, if possible, be of the same country or have a common language; and secondly, that they should be treated by their master with more justice even than equals, out of regard to himself quite as much as to them.
'How do you mean?' What I am going to say may seem absurd and at variance with the usual language of age, and yet if true and advantageous to the state, and pleasing to God, ought not to be withheld.
In this way does the language of the many rend asunder the just and honourable.
'That is true.' But is our own language consistent?
Now madness is of various kinds; in addition to that which arises from disease there is the madness which originates in a passionate temperament, and makes men when engaged in a quarrel use foul and abusive language against each other.
There is a distinction of language to be observed in the use of the two terms, 'thrower away of a shield' (ripsaspis), and 'loser of arms' (apoboleus oplon), one being the voluntary, the other the involuntary relinquishment of them.
Hence the necessity for what in modern language, and according to a distinction which Plato would scarcely have understood, might be termed persecution.
And Plato's 'Book of Laws,' if described in the language of modern philosophy, may be said to be as much an ethical and educational, as a political or legal treatise.
They are to be addressed only in the language of command.
This is the language of naval warfare, and is anything but worthy of extraordinary praise.
There is an element of friendship in the community of race, and language, and laws, and in common temples and rites of worship; but colonies which are of this homogeneous sort are apt to kick against any laws or any form of constitution differing from that which they had at home; and although the badness of their own laws may have been the cause of the factions which prevailed among them, yet from the force of habit they would fain preserve the very customs which were their ruin, and the leader of the colony, who is their legislator, finds them troublesome and rebellious.
ATHENIAN: Yes, Cleinias, temperance in the vulgar sense; not that which in the forced and exaggerated language of some philosophers is called prudence, but that which is the natural gift of children and animals, of whom some live continently and others incontinently, but when isolated, was, as we said, hardly worth reckoning in the catalogue of goods.
Now you in the capacity of legislator must not barely say 'a moderate funeral,' but you must define what moderation is, and how much; unless you are definite, you must not suppose that you are speaking a language that can become law.
For I imagine that all this language of conciliation, which the legislator has been uttering in the preface of the law, was intended to create good-will in the person whom he addressed, in order that, by reason of this good-will, he might more intelligently receive his command, that is to say, the law.
ATHENIAN: He is a troublesome piece of goods, as has been often shown by the frequent revolts of the Messenians, and the great mischiefs which happen in states having many slaves who speak the same language, and the numerous robberies and lawless life of the Italian banditti, as they are called.
Two remedies alone remain to us,—not to have the slaves of the same country, nor if possible, speaking the same language (compare Aris.
The language used to a servant ought always to be that of a command (compare Arist.
CLEINIAS: But how must the state educate those who do not as yet understand the language of the country, and are therefore incapable of appreciating any sort of instruction?
Do not then suppose that we shall all in a moment allow you to erect your stage in the agora, or introduce the fair voices of your actors, speaking above our own, and permit you to harangue our women and children, and the common people, about our institutions, in language other than our own, and very often the opposite of our own.
ATHENIAN: Perhaps what I am saying may seem paradoxical, and at variance with the usual language of age.
ATHENIAN: Just so, Megillus and Cleinias; and I maintain that our citizens and our youth ought to learn about the nature of the Gods in heaven, so far as to be able to offer sacrifices and pray to them in pious language, and not to blaspheme about them.
CLEINIAS: There you are right, if such a knowledge be only attainable; and if we are wrong in our mode of speaking now, and can be better instructed and learn to use better language, then I quite agree with you that such a degree of knowledge as will enable us to speak rightly should be acquired by us.
What they ought severally to be in language and song, and in the admixture of harmony with rhythm and the dance, has been often declared by the original legislator; and his successors ought to follow him, making the games and sacrifices duly to correspond at fitting times, and appointing public festivals.
ATHENIAN: The declaration that they are unholy, hated of God, and most infamous; and is not the reason of this that no one has ever said the opposite, but every one from his earliest childhood has heard men speaking in the same manner about them always and everywhere, whether in comedy or in the graver language of tragedy?
MEGILLUS: Yes; but will he ever succeed in making all mankind use the same language about them?
For of this you may be very sure, that if one of those empirical physicians, who practise medicine without science, were to come upon the gentleman physician talking to his gentleman patient, and using the language almost of philosophy, beginning at the beginning of the disease and discoursing about the whole nature of the body, he would burst into a hearty laugh—he would say what most of those who are called doctors always have at their tongue's end: Foolish fellow, he would say, you are not healing the sick man, but you are educating him; and he does not want to be made a doctor, but to get well.
ATHENIAN: In this discordant and inconsistent fashion does the language of the many rend asunder the honourable and just.
But they leave the occasion, and the when, and the where, undefined and unsettled, and from this want of definiteness in their language they do a great deal of harm to themselves and to others.
ATHENIAN: O Cleinias, a man when he is about to die is an intractable creature, and is apt to use language which causes a great deal of anxiety and trouble to the legislator.
In Genesis 1:1 of the King James Bible, it states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." However, the original Phoenician language says: "In the beginning of the creation, Elohim created the heavens and the earth."
Let's say you gave these four gospels to a remote desert tribe on an island who's never heard of Christianity, translated into their language, and said, "Hey, read these four gospels about this man named Jesus.
Do you want me to also tighten the language (cutting out speculative parts like time dilation and Avatar references) so the article reads smoother, or should I keep those for your style and perspective?
He claimed to have discovered the tablets during a 1925 visit to the Great Pyramid of Giza or channeled them, translating from an alleged Atlantean language.
We understand this in the language of Nature very exactly and accurately.
It seems incredible, but Mayan is still spoken in Tibet, and the Mayan language is a sacred, ritual language of Tibet.
Jesus of Nazareth learned Mayan language in Tibet.
For this reason, when the Jews heard that the Christ said "Heli, heli, lamah zabactani", they said to themselves: "But, this one calls Elijah, what language is this"...
The Gospel of John is known for its high theological language and unique style, often emphasizing the divine nature of Jesus ("the Word").
(Sigh) The terms of this language are not sufficient.
Pan also goes by Whaga, meaning “the first place” in Oahspe’s language.
Behavioral Traits: They live in small, nomadic groups, engaging in basic survival activities like hunting and gathering, without social organization, language, or cultural practices (Oahspe: Book of Sethantes, Chapter V).
Sethantes, through Jehovih’s angels, guides the I’hins to establish early communities, teaching them language, rituals, and the principles of Faithism (monotheistic worship of Jehovih without idols).
Many Indigenous people were absorbed into aldeias (Catholic mission villages), where they were pressured to abandon their languages and spiritual traditions.
This blending preserved African spiritual frameworks hidden in Catholic symbols and language.
He claimed the title "Kriste" (Christ, meaning "all knowledge" in Ahamic language).
We speak in a third language with you, regardless of the three-dimensional languages that are being spoken here [English and Spanish].
We call the communications "a third language." For the number three is a catalyst.
Other things are being transmitted along with the 3D language, and they go into the heart.
Language was an issue, communications was new, travel was very slow, and sovereignties had never even been tried.
Here's a term that may not translate correctly in all languages, but the time you are in now will come to be known as the age of conflicting monotheism.
The number seven signifies completeness in biblical language.