Nehemia Gordon and the Name of Yehovah

We are living in the information age, with the internet giving the opportunity to anyone and everyone who desires, to post whatever information they want to, whether it be written articles, audio teachings or even video teachings. The problem that arises, is that many people post so many 'things' on the internet that are not factual,things which are even downright lies and falsehood. There is not really any control over this, this situation is beyond control. Also, many people, who call themselves scholars, have the opportunity to teach their own personal doctrines, topics and opinions,as if the absolute truth, and that without any restraint at all. Two such people who have taken advantage of the wide audience of the internet is Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson who claim to teach the only correct pronunciation of the Name of the Almighty, even make lots of money by doing so.

This article has been written to test the so called “proofs” of Nehemia and Keith, and see if it is in fact true or not (factual or opinionated). This article is in no way an attack on Nehemia or Keith and I certainly do not want to speak any bad things about them. It is written purely to bring the truth to the light and to hopefully encourage others to test everything that they hear, no matter who they hear it from. This article is also not intended to diminish anyone’s faith and I am certainly not trying to make anyone believe what they do not wish to believe. Everyone has a right to do and believe whatever they want to. All I will be doing is to provide evidence and facts on this topic, and then it is up to the reader to do with it whatever they like.

The topic of this article is to see whether the pronunciation of the Name of the Almighty is “Yehovah,” as Nehemia and Keith proclaim it is, or not. Keith Johnson has written a book trying to “prove” or justify this pronunciation and the book is endorsed by Nehemia who taught Keith that the Name if pronounced is “Yehovah.” Both Keith and Nehemia influence thousands of people by touring the world and speaking, through their books and even through internet radio and other forms of communication, and try to convince them all that this is the only correct pronunciation and that the other people are all wrong. They do this, all while making a lot of money in the process. That is why I am writing this article, to give an objective look at their theory for other people to see the whole truth and not just a snippet taken out of context, which Nehemia has done as we will see below.

Now, to get to the explanations…

While listening to a recording that Nehemia and Keith did on an internet radio station, called Truth2u with Jono Vandor, about the Torah portion, “Beshalach – Exodus 13:17-17:16”. Nehemia explained in short why he teaches that the Name is to be pronounced as “Yehovah.” His explanation might sound clever and impressive to anyone who does not know any Hebrew grammar rules. But to anyone who has a good understanding of the Hebrew grammar rules, will see that Nehemia contradicted himself and actually rendered his theory to be false, as will be explained in detail below.

I am attaching a short MP3 file of Nehemia explaining it, for you to listen to it and analyze it for yourself. (It is attached below). I will be analyzing what Nehemia says and compare it according to the facts and grammar rules to see if he is telling the truth or not. I suggest that you listen to the audio MP3 (less than 3 min) before you carry on reading this article. Then after reading the rest of this article, you can listen to it as many times as you want and compare it to the facts for yourself.


(Listen to audio below before you carry on reading).

In order to download the MP3, right click the play button and then choose the first option, "download document".

Okay, now let us break it down and tackle what Nehemia said piece by piece. I have transcribed the audio to text and will now analize it piece by piece. I am also going to color code it for ease of reading and understanding. Keith’s words will be the color of  green, Nehemia’s words will be in the color of blue and the reply will be in the color of red.

Keith: The second issue I want to bring up, is for all of my brothers and sisters out there that say, “well now Keith, you should change your pronunciation. Here it clearly says, Nehemia Gordon, the great Hebrew scholar, just said, the way you pronounce this two letter name, is what Nehemia… how do you pronounce it?

Reply: Here Keith admits that many people have challenged him about the Name of the Almighty. He also sees Nehemia Gordon as “Great” Hebrew scholar. The fact of the matter is that Nehemia is more than competent in the Hebrew language, but there are many people who are far more advanced in the knowledge of the Hebrew language than Nehemia is.

Nehemia: Yah

Reply: Regarding the name, “Yah” one does not need a Hebrew expert to know that it is written and spelled as Yah and cannot be anything else. There is absolutely no dispute about this word at all.

Keith: Yah, so that’s why we should call Him Yahweh. And I am not going to move from this until you can help us understand, Nehemia, What is this YAH…

Nehemia: … Well, I mean, so look, the poetic form, if you can call it that, of the name Jacob in some languages is James. Does that mean…..

Reply: I do not want to argue this statement too much, but James is not a poetic form of Jacob. It is merely a result of the confusion of a language (English) which is made up of mixed multitude of other languages. This often results in many words, often totally different from one another, having the same or similar meaning. This is what has happened with James and Jacob… the one is not a poetic form of the other.

Nehemia: Lets take the example of Michael (which in Hebrew is Micha’el, where the English name is Michael), but what’s the nickname for Michael, Its Mickey. Does that mean that really… lets say that I didn’t have the vowels of the word Michael but I knew it was Mickey, would I then call him Michal? I guess I would call him Michal, Michi’el.

Reply: Here Nehemia did not say anything that has anything to do with his case. Theoretically, the statement he just made is more proof of the opposite of what he is trying to teach. But this is not where the problem is. We will see, when we get to the Hebrew grammar, where Nehemia makes his errors.

Nehemia: So that’s the type of logic that they’re implying when they say that YAH as the poetic form, therefore, it means that the full form is Yahweh, um, I mean there’s absolutely no connection there.

Reply: Firstly, I am not saying that the pronunciation of, “Yahweh” is perfectly correct. This article is about testing the pronunciation of Yehovah. So I am not going to get into why Yahweh is not perfectly correct.

To say that “Yah” has absolutely no connection to the pronunciation of the Name of the Almighty is not true at all. We will see this below when we get into the grammar rules.
Nehemia: Its, uh, you know, YAH… and actually the significance of YAH is that it almost always appears at the end of a word, like HalleluYAH. That’s the form you will normally find.

And even in Ex 15:2 (g¡I Z¡X¥N¦F¥E I¦i¡R – Ozi v’zimrat Yah) and that word Yah is attached toward zimrat which is called smuchut, or the construct case. Its attached to the previous word.

Reply: The question is, is the short form of the Name of the Almighty, “Yah” (spelled yud hey) ever pronounced differently when it is not attached to another word? No it is not, it does not ever have to be attached toward another word for it to be pronounced as Yah. (Ex 15:2; 17:16; Ps 68:4 & 18; 76:11; 89:8;)

Nehemia: And that’s very similar to what we would find when we have, “Yud hey vav”, the three letters of the full name in a larger name, as a compound name, for example, Isaiah, is YeshaYAHU, Elijah is, EliYAHU. So we always have YAHU, which is exactly what we find with YAH, the poetic form.

Reply: The Hebrew grammar rule teaches us that, in a “compound” word (as Nehemia calls it) the suffix (end part of the word) ALWAYS keeps its original form and pronunciation of the word it is using as the suffix, where the prefix (beginning of the word) ALWAYS shortens its syllables whenever possible. Nehemia and Keith so conveniently “forget” to quote the whole grammar rule and only part of it to try and justify their theories.
Nehemia: Now here’s the thing, whenever Yud Hey Vav appears at the beginning of a word its never YAHU, or YAH, its always Yeho, Yehoshua, Yehonatan, Yehonadav.

Reply: Remember that what the Hebrew grammar rule says, the prefix (beginning) always shortens its original syllables whenever possible. Let us look at a simple example. (Please note that this is also true according to ALL Hebrew grammar books. You can look it up for yourself)

Lets use the “Compound” name of Yehonatan (which is Jonathan in the English). It is constructed by joining two words together. The two words are Yahu (from the Name of the Almighty) + natan (give)

Yahu + natan = Yehonathan

Now lets join these two words together but in the opposite order, namely, natan + Yahu. If we do so, then we get the following:

Natan + Yahu = Netanyahu (Nethaniah in the KJV)
Notice how 'natan' shortened its 'vowels' and became 'netan' when used as a prefix.

(found in 2 Kings 25:23, 2 Kings 25:25, 1 Chr 25:2, 1 Chr 25:12, 2 Chr 17:8, Jer 36:14, Jer 40:8, Jer 40:14-15 (2), Jer 41:1-2 (2), Jer 41:6-7 (2), Jer 41:9-12 (4), Jer 41:15-16 (2), Jer 41:18)

As you can see, according to the Hebrew grammar rule, the suffix (end of the compound word) always keeps its original form and pronunciation of the word used for the prefix and that the prefix (beginning part) always shortens its syllables whenever possible.

Let us look at another example quick:

Yasha (to save, be saved, be delivered) + Yahu (from the Name of the Almighty) = Yeshayahu (Isaiah in the KJV)

Notice once again that the prefix shortened its syllable and that the suffix keeps its original pronunciation.

So if the prefix shortens and the suffix keeps its original form and pronunciation, then …yahu at the end of a word is the original form and pronunciation of the Name of the Almighty.
Nehemia: Now here’s the question you have to ask, In the Father’s Name (yud hey vav hey) are those three letters at the beginning of the Name, like in Yehoshua, Yehonatan, Yehonadav, Yehochanan, etc. Or are they at the end of the Name, like in, YeshaYAHU, EliYAHU etc. Obviously they’re at the beginning of the Name.

Reply: This is Nehemia’s explanation on why the Name must be “Yehovah”. As you can see by the above Hebrew grammar rules concerning “compound” words (two words joined to create one word/name), that the Name of the Almighty cannot be Yehovah as Nehemia professes to be true (the Almighty's Name is not a compound word). Now ask yourself, is Nehemia ignorant concerning Hebrew grammar, or is he purposely hiding this rule from you in order to promote his theory (which would be an outright lie)? (Remember that the Almighty's Name is not a compound word).

Once again, the Hebrew grammar rule proves that the original form of yud hey vav, the three letters of the Name of the Almighty, is Yahu and NOT Yeho

But it does not end here, there are a couple more problems with the pronunciation of Yehovah and also with what Nehemia said about it. He really does like to contradict himself a lot, which is the result of not standing by the truth.

Now, Nehemiah said above, that because the three letters, yud hey vav, are at the beginning of the Name, like that of Yehoshua, Yehonatan, Yehonadav etc. proves that it must be pronounced as Yehovah. But there is a very obvious problem with his statement. All the other names that Nehemia compared it to are all “compound names” (as Nehemia called them). The question you need to ask is, is Yud hey vav hey (the full Name of the Almighty) a “compound word”? And if it is, then from what word does the final “hey” come from and what is its meaning?

The fact of the matter is that the Name of the Almighty is NOT a “compound” word comprised of two or more words (as I mentioned above). Therefore, the grammar rule that Nehemia twists to try justify his pronunciation does not and cannot apply to the Name of the Almighty.

Now let us look at another Hebrew grammar rule that does not apply to “compound” words. In Hebrew, the general rule is that the accent falls on the final syllable. The syllable that is accented always keeps its original form and so does the syllable that directly precedes the accented syllable. So, the general rule is that the last two syllables of a word keep their original form (when the accent falls on the final syllable).

In Nehemia’s pronunciation of Yehovah, the accent falls on the final syllable. That means that the last two syllables must keep its original form. This is NOT the case in the pronunciation of Yehovah. Once again, it has failed to meet the Hebrew grammar rules.

Let us look at such an example of a similar type of word and see what the result is.

The Name Y’hudah is a “compound” word which is a combination of the two words, Yahu and yadah. Leah named her son Y’hudah because she, “gratefully praised YHVH” (Gen 29:35).

The accent falls on the last syllable of the name of Y’hudah. That means that the final syllable retains its original form and so does the syllable directly before it. That is why the name is Y’hUdah and not Y’hodah.

Now we have to apply this grammar rule to the Name of the Almighty too. If the accent falls on the final syllable, then the syllable directly before it has to keep its original form as it does in Y’hudah. Therefore, if Nehemia is correct, then the Name should be Yehuvah and cannot be Yehovah.

So once again we have proved the pronunciation of Yehovah to be false.
But we can even go a step further. And this is a clincher.

Nehemia outrightly admitted that the first three letters of the Name of the Almighty, when in the beginning of a word, is “Yeho...” Now if this is the case, all we are left with is the single letter, “hey”. Now the question that you have to ask yourself, once again, is, “is it ever possible to get the pronunciation of “…vah” from a single hey?”

The fact of the matter is that it is never possible and that what Nehemia teaches is false and has been proven to be a lie.

We once again need to ask ourselves the question, is Nehemia Gordon ignorant of these Hebrew grammar rules? Or is he outrightly lying to thousands, if not millions, of people? If he is lying, what is his reason for doing so?

The problem that Nehemia has gotten himself into is that his only audience, and the only people who buy his books and support him are the Christians and Messy-anics. Nehemia does not have any Hebrew following at all. For that reason, he is seen as a leader and makes a very pretty penny on the book sales and support from such people.

After realizing how Nehemia so blatantly lies about such an important topic, how then can he be trusted with anything else? Yes, many of the things that Nehemia teaches is truth, but the problem is that he mixes a lot of falsehood in-between. Everyone has the duty to test everything that they hear.

Every time that I have asked Nehemia about all this, He simply ignores me and has even deleted me as a friend on Facebook. If someone makes such a declaration, like he does, then is it not fair to give explanations and answer questions? Maybe he is unable to answer them without contradicting himself?


I posted a comment on the website where this teaching of Nehemia comes from. Jono Vandor, the owner of the website, has still not moderated my comment for others to see. It seems as if Jono is very biased and does not like anyone to speak against the doctrines of Nehemia, even if he speaks falsehood.

The comment I left was on 27 Jan 2012 and Jono has still not approved it as a comment.

I will post that comment in the comments section below for you to read for yourself.

May the Almighty open all our eyes to the truth of His Word.

In the beginning was the Word

Can it be that the Messiah is the Almighty Himself? This is what the churches teach us, that the Almighty came to earth and died for us, and they use the passage in John 1:1-3 to justify their teaching. But does John 1 really teach us that? Let us read the passage in the KJV Bible first (which is a translation) and then in a different translation that is more correct according to the original writings second. Then we can look at the wording and see if the statement can be true by comparing it to other passages in the Scriptures too.

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1-3 KJV)

Now let us look at a more correct translation.

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. He was in the beginning with Elohim. All came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be” (John 1:1-3 The Scriptures).

One should notice that the difference between the two is that the KJV Bible, and also most other English translations, uses the term “God” and the more correct translation uses the term “Elohim” which is the actual Hebrew word. For those who do not know what Elohim means, it is a Hebrew word which is the plural form of the root word “Eloah” meaning either “mighty ones” or Mighty One” and can be used to refer to other things too, as we will see below.

Now to really understand what the true meaning of the text found in John 1:1-3, we need to first do a more in-depth study on the Hebrew word “Elohim.”

We have seen above from where the word comes from, but for what exactly is it used for in the Hebrew Scriptures?

The Hebrew word Elohim appears 2605 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The great majority of the time when this word appears, it is translated as “God” in the English translations, in fact, 2366 times out of the 2606 (the word ‘God’ is not a correct translation of the word “Elohim” and should never be used). But that is not the only English word that is used to translate the Hebrew word “Elohim.” Let us have a look at a few other uses, or meanings, of the word “Elohim.”

”then his master shall bring him before Elohim (Judges), and shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl. And he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6). Here the word is used to speak of Judges, who bring the righteous judgments concerning any cases that are brought before them. They represent the judgments of the Almighty

“If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought before Elohim (Judges) to see whether he has put his hand into his neighbour’s goods” (Exodus 22:8). Here, once again, the word “Elohim” is used to speak of Judges.

“Yet You have made him a little less than Elohim (Messengers (Angels)), And have crowned him with esteem and splendour” (Psalm 8:5). Here the term Elohim is referring to Messengers of the Almighty.

”So יהוה (YHWH) said to Mosheh, ‘See, I have made you an elohim to Pharaoh, and Aharon your brother is your prophet’” (Exodus 7:1). Here Mosheh (Moses) is being referred to as an elohim to Pharaoh, which means that Mosheh is a mighty one to Pharaoh.

”And the sovereign said to her, “Do not be afraid. What did you see?” And the woman said to Sha’ul, “I saw a spirit (Elohim) coming up out of the earth.” (1 Sam 28:13). Here is where King Sha’ul went to a medium to call up the prophet Samuel. When the Medium saw the spirit of Samuel coming up from the grave, she referred to his spirit as Elohim.

So the Hebrew word Elohim can mean “Mighty One”, “mighty ones”, “judges”, “Messengers”, “spirit”, “great” and even called Mosheh, Elohim.

So now that we know that the Hebrew word “Elohim” does not always refer to the Almighty, we can start to understand what John 1:1-3 really means.

Let us then try and translate it correctly so that it stays perfectly in line with the rest of Scripture.

”In the beginning was the Word (Torah), and the Word (Torah) was with Elohim (the Almighty), and the Word (Torah) was Elohim (Mighty, Superior, Perfect). The Word (Torah) was in the beginning with Elohim (the Almighty). All came to be through the Word (Torah), and without the Word (Torah) not even one came to be that came to be” (John 1:1-3).

This Word that is being spoken of is the Word of the Almighty which is called the Torah. 4,000 years later, the Torah became flesh and walk upon this earth, and His name was Y’hoshua haMashiyach (The Messiah).

This Word is NOT the Almighty, but rather the Word of the Almighty that comes out of His Mouth. The Church falsely teaches that there is a Trinity where the Messiah is the Almighty. But that doctrine does not meet the requirements of the rest of Scripture. In fact, in order to teach this false doctrine, they need to falsely translate the Scriptures to say things that it does not really say. The Church has even added entire verses that never existed in the original writings to push the false Trinity doctrine.

John 1:1-3 makes it very clear that the Messiah is the Torah in the flesh and that He is NOT the Almighty, but rather the Son of the Almighty who is a being on His own.

Now, with this understanding of the word Elohim, we can understand Matthew 1:23

“See, a maiden shall conceive, and she shall give birth to a Son, and they shall call His Name Immanu’ĕl,” which translated, means, “Ěl with us” (Mat 1:23). This verse is also use a lot to try and justify the false Trinity doctrine. In the KJV Bible and the great majority of the other English translations of the Bible, it is translated as “God with us.”

We can now know that it is not a correct translation at all. If one wanted to translate it correctly, then it should either say, “Elohim with us” or “a Mighty One with us”

In order to really understand the Scriptures, you have to go back to the Hebrew text and read it with a Hebrew mindset as it was written in Hebrew by Hebrew’s. As soon as we “Westernize” the Scriptures, it looses most of its true meaning and actually changes the meaning of what should be taught.

If we truly want to know the truth of the Scriptures, then we really do need to start learning Hebrew. The English can NEVER convey what is written in the Hebrew text.

Genesis 1:1

The very first verse in the Bible is one of the most quoted verses of all. To many it is a very simple concept that does not need much thought in order to understand it. But the fact of the matter is that it is so simple because it has lost so much meaning and value when it was translated from Hebrew into the other languages. The result of this is that in every English Bible, this verse is not correctly translated.

The Hebrew language is filled with such a large amount of knowledge and wisdom that cannot be translated into any other language. Every single Hebrew word has a much deeper meaning than anyone could imagine.

In order to really understand the Word of the Almighty, one needs to examine each and every word in detail first. Once you can do this, then you can start seeing the true value of the Word of the Almighty and His true will. You will also start seeing many things that are simply just not in any English Bible at all. This is because it is impossible to translate.

Let us try and examine the very first verse of the entire Scriptures, but in the Hebrew, and let us see how much more we can learn, even from one small verse, by examining it in detail. You might even see truths that you have never seen before in your life. You must also keep in mind that in order to really understand the Hebrew, then you have to read it with a Hebrew mindset and with a Hebrew cultural understanding and not from a westernized mindset. This is because it was written in Hebrew and for the Hebrew people.

Let us first read Genesis1:1 together in the English King James Version Bible, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1 KJV). The idea that almost everyone gets from this verse  is that there was a single beginning of all time and that “God” (who is the only supreme being) created the universe from scratch in this time. Is there anything else that we can understand from this verse, even if we look at it in more detail? Well, I certainly cannot.

Now let us look at this exact same verse in the Hebrew text:

בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃

 (B’reishit 1:1)

(b’reishit bara Elohim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz)

Now we are going to analyze every single word and see what the meaning is of every word, and then put it all together again and then see what it really means.

The very first word (בראשׁית) b’reishit

“b’reishit” is a very interesting word, but has simply been translated as “In the beginning,” the word “b’reishit,” however, does not really mean “In the beginning.” Let me explain.

Firstly, we need to break up the word and find its root. Every single Hebrew word has a root word which gives it its particular meaning. The root word of “b’reishit” is the Hebrew word “reishit.” Now if you go throughout the Scriptures, you will notice that the word “reishit” is almost always translated as “first fruit.” This is because this is the meaning of this word and all other uses of this word comes from the concept of “first fruits”

The “beit” or “b’….” in front of the word “b’reishit” is a prefix which means “in” or “in a.” So far we can see that it means “in a first fruit.” Suddenly we can see a whole new concept from the very first word already. Let me explain what I mean.

What is needed for a first fruit? Does it just appear? Or does one need to work the ground, plant the seed, give the plant food and water, prune the plant and protect it from the elements, birds and insects? Only after all the effort of planting and looking after the plant so that it can grow into a tree, then only can it produce a first fruit.

Now there is also the Hebrew word “rosh” found in the word “reishit.” In fact, the word “rosh” is the root word of the word “reishit.” The meaning of “rosh” is head which can also be used for the concept of “top”, “beginning”, “start”, “summit” or even “chief”

So the proper meaning of the first word “b’reishit” is “in the head (start) of a first fruit”

Now the question is, what preparations needed to be going on before Genesis 1:1 in order that it speaks of “a first fruit” instead of “the beginning”? Was the earth created out of nothing? Well, let us carry on reading to answer these questions.

The second word (ברא) bara

The Hebrew word “bara” is usually translated as “create” in the English translations. According to most theologians, the word “create” is understood to mean “to make something out of nothing.” This definition is an abstract concept with no concrete foundation and is therefore not a Hebrew concept.

In Genesis 2:7 it states that the Almighty “formed” man. The Hebrew word translated as “formed” is the verb rxy “yatsar” and is best understood as the process of pressing clay together to form an object such as a figurine. We can plainly see from this verse that man was made from something; however, in Genesis 1:27 we read, according to most translators, “God created man.” As we have discovered, man is made from something, therefore the word “create” in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27 cannot mean to make something out of nothing.

If the word “bara” does not mean “create” then what does it mean? By examining other passages where this word appears, we can begin to uncover its true meaning.

“‘Why do you kick at My slaughtering and My offering which I have commanded in My Dwelling Place, and esteem your sons above Me, to make yourselves fat (bara) with the best of all the offerings of Yisra’ĕl My people?” (1 Sam 2:29).

Believe it or not, the word “bara” is translated as “fat” in the verse above and is the original concrete meaning of this word. What does it mean in Genesis 1:1 when it literally says, “Elohim fattened the heavens and the earth”? When an animal is chosen for the slaughter, it is placed in a pen and fed grain so that it can be fattened, or “filled up.” This idea of “filling up” is now more relevant to the next verse.

“And the earth became formless and empty (unfilled)…” (Genesis 1:2)

With a better understanding of the word bara we can now also see the meaning of Genesis 1:27. “And Elohiym filled (bara) the man with his image, with his image he filled (bara) him, male and female he filled (bara) them”

The Hebrew word translated as “image” above is “tselem” meaning an outline of a shadow, a representation or image of the original. Once Elohim “formed” the man, he filled him up with a representation of Himself.

So the Hebrew word “bara” is more accurately translated as “fattened” or in this instance “filled”

The third word (אלהים) Elohim

This is a noun referring to the Almighty. This noun denotes the Almighty in His attribute of Justice, as Ruler, Lawgiver and Judge of this world. By using this Name exclusively in the narrative of “Creation”, the Torah indicates that Justice is the ideal state of this world, meaning that man should be treated exactly as he deserves, according to his deeds. However, because man is not virtuous enough to survive such harsh scrutiny, the Almighty added His attribute of Mercy to the story of “Creation” (Genesis 2:4), so that judgment would be tempered with mercy.

The root word for the noun “Elohim” is hla (Eloah) meaning "power." This word is used for anyone or anything which, has "power" and is often translated as "God" in the English Bibles. The suffix ~My at the end of the noun Myhla (Elohim) is a suffix which denotes a plural for masculine nouns. While English plurals convey quantity (more than one), Hebrew plurals convey quantity or quality (very large or great). The word Myhla can be translated as "mighty ones" (quantity) or "a great mighty one" (quality). The idea of "a great mighty one" is generally written in the English Bibles as "God" which is a perverse translation as the word “God” originates from pagan idolatry.

So the word “Elohim” refers to the Might and Power and Ruler attributes of the Almighty.

The fourth word (את) et

This word ta is used over 11,000 times (and never translated into English as there is no equivalent) to point to the direct object of the verb. It is a sign of the definite direct object, not translated in English but generally preceding and indicating the accusative. Basically it means that the word after this one is the subject of the sentence.

Many people falsely claim that because the Messiah said that he is the alef and the tav, the first and the last (Rev 22:13) that he created the heavens and the earth. They make these claims because of this very little word (et) found in this verse. It is spelled, "alef tav" and is the first and the last letter of the Hebrew language. It does not, in any way, mean that the Messiah created the heavens and the earth, which is not in line with the rest of the Scriptures

What we can say is that the heavens and the earth were created through the Words of the Almighty. It is even an indication of how we know that the original language of the world, and the language of the Almighty, is that of Hebrew. 

The fifth word (השׁמים) hashamayim

This is a very interesting word that is typically translated as “the heavens” which is not really wrong at all. Even though it is correctly translated as ‘heavens’ it has a much more descriptive meaning that explains what and where the heavens are.

The first letter “hey” is the prefix which means “the.” The next two letters (shin and mem) make up the root word “sham” which means “there” referring to the sky. The last two letters (yud and mem) “…iym” is the suffix which makes the word plural.

Now the interesting part of this word is that the Hebrew word “mayim,” which means “water” also appears in this word, which gives the meaning of “between the waters.”

Now this gives us a very different understanding of Revelation 22:1 which says, “And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of Elohim and of the Lamb”

So the Hebrew word “shamayim” gives a meaning of “there between the waters” but is translated as “heavens” which is not incorrect. The Hebrew word just gives a better understanding of where the heavens are.

The sixth word (ואת) v’et

This word is the exact same word as the fourth word mentioned above. The only difference is that it has the prefix (extra letter in the beginning) “vav.” Now when the “vav” is added to a word as a prefix, it then mean “and.” Therefore, the word “v’et” is translated as “and” because of the “vav” in the beginning of the word.

The seventh word (Xrah) ha’aretz

The last word in this verse is the word “eretz” which means, land, ground, earth, world, country, field or nation. It always depends on the context of the sentence to which one it means at that time. In this verse it means Earth. The word eretz has the prefix “ha” in front of it which means “the” so the word “ha’aretz” means “the Earth.”

Conclusion

So the literal translation on Gen 1:1 is the following, “In the start of a first fruit the Mighty One filled the heavens and the earth”

Does this not give us a very different story to the mainstream translations out there? For us to really understand the Word of the Almighty, we need to learn His language as it has a far deeper meanings of words than our other languages.

Just to leave you with a question that you can search for… what first fruit is being spoken of in Genesis 1:1?

Church, the origin of the word

This is the word used in most English versions as a rendering of the “New Testament’s” Greek word ekklesia. This word really means “a calling out,” a meeting or a gathering. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew qahal, which means an assembly or a congregation. Neither ekklesia nor qahal means a building. Tyndale, in his translation, uniformly translated ekklesia as “congregation” and only used the word “churches” to translate Acts 19:37 for heathen temples!

Where does the word “church,” come from then? Ecclesiastical sources give the origin as kuriakon or kyriakon in Greek. However, to accept this, one has to stretch your imagination in an attempt to see any resemblance.

Also, because kuriakon means a building (the house of Kurios = Lord), and not a gathering or meeting of people, as the words ekklesia and qahal imply, therefore this explanation can only be regarded as distorted, even if it is true. Our common dictionaries, however, are honest in revealing to us the true origin. They all trace the word back to its Old English or Anglo-Saxon root, namely circe.

And the origin of circe? Any encyclopedia, or dictionary of mythology, will reveal who Circe was. She was the goddess-daughter of Helios, the Sun-deity! Again, another form of Sun-worship, this time the name of the daughter of the Sun-deity, had become mixed with the Messianic Belief.

Some interesting facts emerge from the study of the word circe. The word is related to “circus,” “circle,” “circuit,” “Circean,” “circulate,” and the various words starting with “circum-.” Latin rules of grammar demands a pronunciation of “sirke.” The Old English word circe could have been pronounced similarly to “kirke,” or even “sirse.”

However, Circe was in fact originally a Greek goddess where her name was written as: Kirke, and pronounced as such – just as in numerous similar cases of words of Greek origin, e.g. cyst and kustis, cycle and kuklos, cylinder and kulindros. The word “church” is known in Scotland as kirk, and in German as kirche and in Netherlands as kerk. These words show their direct derivation from the Greek Kirke even better than the English “church.” However, even the Old English circe for “church,” reveals its origin.

Let us rather use the Scriptural “assembly” or “congregation,” and renounce the word that is derived from Circe, the daughter of the Sun-deity!

(Article from a book called: "Come Out of Her My People" by Chris Koster)

Romans 2 – Judging, practice what you preach and circumcision

Romans chapter 2 has a couple of teachings that are misquoted so many times and used for so many false doctrines. The one that is the most evident is that of, ‘Don’t judge me, because if you judge me, then you will also be judged.’ Another one is that of, if one subjects themselves to follow the Torah, then that person is under the law. This chapter is also one of the most used verses used to justify that one does not need to be circumcised in the flesh. All of these points are totally false and I will show you why in this article, by using what Shaul wrote here in Romans 2.

One key point that we do not always remember about the letters that Shaul wrote is that they did not originally have chapters or verses, but were written as a continual piece of writing as they were letters sent to the Gentile believers living in Rome.

There are many valuable lessons that can be learnt from Shaul’s letters and even in this chapter in Romans. But in order to learn from these lessons, we need to understand what is being taught in the correct context. If we do not read it in its correct context, we stand the chance of failing to learn what Shaul was teaching, and even worse, we could learn the total opposite of what is being taught, like millions of people around the world because they follow the people who incorrectly interpret Shaul's teachings.

Now let us break this chapter into sections, and I will point out the things that Shaul was really trying to say. 

“Therefore, O man, you are without excuse, everyone who judges, for in which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you who judge practice the same wrongs. And we know that the judgment of Elohim is according to truth against those who practice such wrongs” (Rom 2:1-2). This verse is so wrongly used by millions of people to try and hide or justify their sinful behavior. As soon as someone tries to point out their error(s), the first reaction to this is a very defensive reaction with the phrase, something like this, “don’t judge me, for you will also be judged if you do!”

People only judge when they deviate from the ‘Judgment’ of YHWH. Quoting His Judgment and staying within His Judgment is not being judgmental! Only when one deviates from the Judgment of YHWH, then that person elevates himself above YHWH and will then be judged by YHWH accordingly.

The church has taught us all to be too thin skinned, so that we are incapable of accepting correction for our sinful actions, which is a very dangerous matter, and can lead us into destruction. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the time, when someone points out errors, it is done out of love, in order to help that person become aware of the problem and to fix the problem. Even if the rebuke seems harsh, it is not to be met with a defensive reaction, but rather a personal soul searching on the matter to see if the matter is true. Then we can repent of the error and continue to grow in faith.

“And do you think, O man, you who judge those practicing such wrongs, and doing the same, that you shall escape the judgment of Elohim? Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of Elohim leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of Elohim, who “shall render to each one according to his works”: everlasting life to those who by persistence in good work seek for esteem, and respect, and incorruptibility; but wrath and displeasure to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” (Rom 2:3-8). Here Shaul is speaking to those who are hypocrites, who judge other people while, they themselves, do the same evils. He is also clarifying that a person only judges if he judges outside the judgment of YHWH (as stated above).

Notice how Shaul points out that those who practice the same wrongs by which they judge others are hard and unrepentant and that these people will be met with the wrath of YHWH in the day of wrath.  These people will be judged by Elohim through His Torah (righteous judgment of Elohim) according to their works.

Also notice how clear Shaul is making the distinction between the righteous and the unrepentant sinners. He shows us here that only those who persist in good works (the Torah of YHWH) and seek for esteem and respect and incorruptibility, will inherit everlasting life. And those that do not obey the Torah (truth) but rather obey unrighteousness (anti-Torah) will receive the wrath and displeasure of YHWH.

“affliction and distress on every human being working what is evil, of the Yehuḏite first, and also of the Aramean” (Rom 2:9). Aramean, as apposed to “Greek” or “Gentile” who have no ancestral ties to Israel. Almost all our English translations of the Bible have the word “Greek” instead of “Aramean” here, which is again a twisting of Scripture. Shaul is extremely clear throughout his epistle to make proper distinction between these two, although the point of the message is clear that YHWH is no respecter of persons.  

“but esteem, respect, and peace to everyone working what is good, to the Yehuḏite first and also to the Aramean. For there is no partiality with Elohim” (Rom 2:10-11). Now do not think that a Greek or any other nationality cannot be saved because the verse reads “Aramean” instead of “Greek”, that is not what Shaul is teaching. Shaul is teaching that esteem, respect, and Shalom (peace) to everyone that obeys the Torah of YHWH, whether it be Jews or anyone else as Elohim accepts everyone who submits themselves to Him. If a person submits to YHWH, then he has to follow YHWH’s instruction which is His Torah (instruction in righteousness).

“For as many as sinned without Torah shall also perish without Torah, and as many as sinned in the Torah shall be judged by the Torah. For not the hearers of the Torah are righteous in the sight of Elohim, but the doers of Torah (the law) shall be declared right” (Rom 2:12-13)

So those who sin, not knowing the Torah, will perish without the Torah. In order to gain everlasting life, one needs to have the Torah and subject themselves to it. Also notice how those “under Torah” and those “doers of Torah” are put in opposition to one another; therefore, both cannot simultaneously be in error. This is clarified with the phrase “for the doers of Torah will be made righteous.” So, if Torah-doers are made righteous, it stands to reason Torah itself is NOT passing away! The fact that such deep pro-Torah statements are being sent to Gentiles in Rome speak volumes of how mainstream Christianity is perverting Shaul’s teachings. “Under Torah” means to look to its rituals as a form of magic; a power that needs no purity of intent to bring about blessing, but merely fixed repetition. Torah in itself provides no authority of magic. Rather, Torah has authority because it is YHWH’s instruction to man! So “under Torah” is a false teaching that has never been true according to the Tanakh: YHWH blesses man for Torah observance, which is obedience to His Commandments and obedience to Him. Notice in Matthew 15 how Yehoshua rebukes the Pharisees on this very issue, how they set aside YHWH’s Torah (instructions) in favor of their traditions.

“For when gentiles, who do not have the Torah, by nature do what is in the Torah, although not having the Torah, they are a Torah to themselves, who show the work of the Torah written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or even excusing” (Rom 2:14-15)

Shaul does not suggest that Gentiles are spontaneously Mastering Torah. Even common logic will prove this to be true. The point is that they should learn the written Torah without the distraction from Pharisaic or any other man-made traditions which are not rooted in the plain understanding of the Torah.

“in the day when Elohim shall judge the secrets of men through  יהושע (Yehoshua) Messiah, according to my Good News” (Rom 2:16). Here is a scary thought for many people, that in the end on the return of the Messiah, those that have sinned but have not been “caught out”, will be judged for all the sins that they committed in secret. YHWH knows your thoughts and even the intentions of your thoughts too. "According to my Good News" is that of the Messiah who also lifted up and magnified the Torah of His Father. So everyone will be judged according to the Torah of YHWH.

“See, you are called a Yehuḏite, and rest on the Torah, and make your boast in Elohim, and know the desire of Elohim, and approve what is superior, being instructed out of the Torah, and are trusting that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of foolish ones, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Torah” (Rom 2:17-20). Wow, Shaul makes it VERY clear in this piece that we are all to learn and conduct ourselves according to the Torah! It is very clear through out the entire Scriptures, and stated here again by Shaul, that in order to know the desire of the Almighty, then you must study the Torah. The Torah is a very beautiful Word, however, many false teachers try and claim that it is a curse and that all that subject themselves to it are under a curse.

Is that really what Shaul is teaching? Can that statement or idea be found anywhere in Scripture? Certainly not! The Torah is the Living Word of YHWH, it is the marriage contract between the bride and the bridegroom, it teaches us how to love the Almighty and also to love each other. One can only start reading the Torah and see for themselves that if the world was governed by the Torah (which it will be with the return of the Messiah), then there would not be any hunger or poverty or theft or murders or unrighteousness in any way.

“You, then, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who proclaim that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abominate idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the Torah, through the transgression of the Torah do you disrespect Elohim? For “The Name of Elohim is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you,” as it has been written” (Rom 2:21-24)

Now here Shaul is once again addressing the hypocrites, or is at least warning the readers to not be hypocrites. He shows us that if we claim to be followers of the Almighty and we have any influence on other people, even if it is by being observed by how we live our lives, then we are to live our lives totally according to the Torah of YHWH. If we do not do this, then we are guilty of blaspheming the Name of Elohim.

What Shaul is also saying here is one of the most important keys to deciphering all his letters (which is the majority of the Renewed Covenant). He is saying here that one has to practice what you preach. Now that is a very important statement! Let me explain why, it is taught by all of Christianity that Shaul taught that it is not any more necessary to follow the Torah, because of the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This false doctrine is never supported anywhere in Scripture nor anywhere in Shaul’s letters.

You see, if Shaul taught that we are to practice what we preach, then he himself would also have to practice what he taught, or else he would also be a hypocrite! So if it was not necessary to follow the Torah anymore, then why did Shaul subject himself to following the Torah till the day he died? He did not deviate one bit from the Torah, in fact, he went out of his way to keep the Torah even when he was in captivity.

“For circumcision indeed profits if you practice the Torah, but if you are a transgressor of the Torah, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if an uncircumcised one watches over the righteousness of the Torah, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision? And the uncircumcised by nature, who perfects the Torah, shall judge you who notwithstanding letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the Torah! For he is not a Yehuḏite who is so outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But a Yehuḏite is he who is so inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in Spirit, not literally, whose praise is not from men but from Elohim” (Rom 2:25-29)

Once again, here is a small piece of Shaul’s letter that is grossly mistranslated and many false doctrines are based on these few verses. The false teachers use this piece to teach that it is not necessary to be circumcised in the flesh. This of course is a totally false teaching.

Once again, we need a key to understanding what Shaul really meant here. Why do we need a key? Because Shaul wrote with a Hebrew mindset as he himself was a Hebrew and used Hebrew idioms. We, who are English speaking, are not Hebrews and do not read the Scriptures with a Hebrew mindset. In order to understand these Hebrew idioms we have to actually learn them and that is what the key is and not some magic formula that was “revealed in a divine way” to a single person, like many false teachers claim when they try and teach a new false doctrine to the people.

Now the key to this section is that of the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Shaul is not necessarily classifying the physical circumcision here, but is rather speaking of two different groups of people. Whenever he talks of the circumcision, he is referring to the Hebrews or Jews as that is how they were known, and the uncircumcision are the Gentiles or those that are not native to Israel.

Now with this point clear, you can read the section in the correct context. Those who are of the ‘circumcision’ who transgress the Torah, will become ‘uncircumcision’. If you do not use the key in this instance, you can try and imagine what people might believe, that those who are circumcised must be uncircumcised…. ? Who is going to have their foreskin sewn back on? OUCH!

No, what is being taught is that the Jews who transgress the Torah, will be cut off from YHWH’s people as stated in Romans 11.

Also, because a person could be physically circumcised and be a thief, liar, murderer, etc.

On the flip side, those who are of the uncircumcision (Gentiles), who keep the Torah of YHWH, will be reckoned as the circumcision (grafted into the good olive tree) again explained in Romans 11. You see, the true faith of YHWH and His Son the Messiah is to love Him and to watch over the righteousness of the Torah and to become righteous by doing the Torah of YHWH.

So are we to be circumcised in the flesh too? Well…. What does the Torah (the Living Word of YHWH) teach us on this subject? I am sure you can look it up for yourself!

So if you read Shaul’s letters in the correct context, it makes so much more sense and dismisses all the false teachings that stem from them. Shaul NEVER taught that it was not necessary to keep the Torah, but rather that it was absolutely necessary to keep the Torah of YHWH in order to inherit everlasting life.

Origin of the word “God”

A prophecy for the end-time is given in Isa 65:11 wherein our Mighty One warns of the apostasy of His people, “But you are those who forsake YHWH… who prepare a table for Gad, and who furnish a drink offering for Meni.” All commentators agree that Gad is a pagan deity, and so is Meni. Gad is usually interpreted as the well-known Syrian or Canaanite deity of “Good Luck” or “Fortune,” and Meni the deity of “Destiny.” This Gad is written in the Hebrew as GD (gimel dalet), but the Massoretes afterwards vowel-pointed it, adding an “a,” to give us “Gad.” However, we find other references in Scripture to a similar deity, if not the same one, also spelt GD in the Hebrew text but this time vowel-pointed to read “Gawd” or “God” (Josh 11:17, 12:7, 13:5), where we find “Baal-Gawd” or “Baal-God,” according to the vowel-pointed Massoretic Hebrew text. This Baal-Gawd or Baal-God was obviously a place named after their deity.

The Astrologers identified Gad with Jupitar, the Sky-deity or the Sun-deity. Other sources of research also testify of “Gad” being the Sun-deity. Rev Alexander Hislop wrote, “There is reason to believe that Gad refers to the Sun-god… The name Gad… is applicable to Nimrod, whose general character was that of a Sun-god… Thus then, if Gad was the ‘Sun-divinity’, Meni was very naturally regarded as ‘The Lord Moon.’”

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentaries on the Old Testament, comments on Isaiah 65:11, “There can be no doubt, therefore, that Gad, the god of good fortune… is Baal (Bel) as the god of good fortune… this is the deified planet Jupiter… Gad is Jupiter… Mene is Dea Luna… Rosenmuller very properly traces back the Septuagint rendering to this Egyptian view, according to which Gad is the Sun-god and Meni the lunar goddess as the power of fate.”

Isaiah 65:11 tells us then that YHWH’s people have forsaken Him and in the end-time are found to be serving Gad, the Sun-deity as the deity of “Good Luck,” and Meni, the Moon-deity of “Destiny.”

As pointed out above, this Gad (GD with an “a” vowel pointing) is probably the same deity as we read of in the book of Joshua, GD with a vowel-pointing of “aw” or “o,” making it “Gawd” or “God.” The vocal-pointing of the Massoretes cannot always be relied on, but we can rely on the Hebrew Scriptures before the vocal pointings was done. It could well be that GD of Isaiah 65:11 is the same as the “Gawd” or “God” of the book of Joshua. But, let us not try to establish a fact on an assumption. Let us rather do some research on the word “God.”

The word God (or god), like the Greek Theos (or theos) is used in our versions as a title, a generic name, usually. It translates the Hebrew Elohim (or elohim), El (or el), and Eloah. However, in quite a few places it is used as the substitute for the Tetragrammaton, the Name of our Father, e.g. Matthew 4:4 (quoted from Deut 8:3), Romans 4:3 (quoted from Gen 15:6) etc. If the word God is then used as a substitute for the Name, it must be accepted that the word God has become a name again.

How and when did this title or name become adopted into our modern languages? Encyclopedia Britannica, 11^th edition, says, “GOD – the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worship… applied to all those superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies. The word ‘god’ on the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being…”

Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, 1^st edition, says, “The word is common to Teutonic tongues… It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the Christian sense.”

James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 6, pg 302, reads, “After the conversion of the Teutons to Christianity the word came to be applied also to the Christian Deity… Its etymology and its original meaning are obscure, and have been much debated.”

J.G.R. Forlong, Encyclopedia of Religions, on “God,” says, “It is remarkable that philologists are unable to decide the origin of this familiar Teutonic word.” Once again, we are strongly suspicious of the rulers of darkness or the Prince of Darkness, having succeeded, once again, in hiding yet another work of darkness.

There is much confusion in the European languages between the words gud (good) and god. The Scandinavian languages, like the old Anglo-Saxon, called god gud and called gud (good) god. Calling good god and god gud is bad enough to confuse us. Even worse is that the Old Netherlands languages regarded god as an idol and gud as the correct deity! Jacob Grimm recorded this for us, as well as Julius Pokorny and Jan de Vries.

This inconsistency of spelling confuses us, as it must have confused the people in those early centuries who were still completely or partially ignorant of the True Mighty One and His Name. Jacob Grimm asserts that this was done because of fear, “Such a fear may arise from two causes: a holy name must not be abused, or an unholy dreaded name, e.g., that of the devil, has to be softened down by modifying its form,” and then gives examples.

Other scholars have explained that the names of national deities were either hid, or modified, in order to prevent their enemies getting hold of these names – enemies who might use it as a magic word against them.

Another reason for this changing of spelling of idols’ names was the ritual of abrenuntiatio, i.e. a solemn renouncing of the names of major deities, whenever a pagan person became converted to Christianity. One of the three major idols of the Teutonic tribes was called Saxnot. It is well documented how this name was renounced and later on came back in a disguised form, Saxneat. We even found that some idols’ names were spelt 17 different ways.

We found further evidence that “gott” or “god” was not only a title, but used as a name too, amongst the Teutonic tribes. Simrock discovered songs wherein “Gott” was used as a Beiname for the deity Odin. In German, Beiname means: surname (or epithet, or appellation).

We further found “Goda” as a proper name of an idol. Moreover, the same author relates how Woden, “The name of the highest god,” also called Woten and Odan, was also called Godan. The Teutonic masculine deities each had its female consort or counterpart. Thus we read that this deity’s female consort was frau Gode. It is commonly known that our Wednesday was named after Woden or Wotan. In Westphalian we find this day being called Godenstag.

Although the majority of dictionaries do not acknowledge it, there are some that frankly admit it and clearly state that the origin of the word “god” is uncertain or unknown. Why uncertain or unknown? What was there to hide?

Other dictionaries propose that the most likely origin of the word “god” is the Indo-Germanic (or Sanskrit) word huta. Some dictionaries prefer to spell this ancient word ghuta. Huta (or Ghuta) was of course an appellative or another name for Indra, Indian Sun-deity, as the more comprehensive dictionaries duly admit. We do accept this, but would be happier to find a word with an “o” instead of a “u.”

In the Indo-Germanic dictionaries there is only one word which resembles the word “god,” in fact, it is pronounced exactly the same. This is the word ghodh. Dictionaries which are not Indo-Germanic, usually spell this word with an “a.” Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etomologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, pg 423 says the word ghodh means: union, also sexual union or mating. He says that from this root the following Germanic (European) word came forth: gaden, gatten, gaten, g????d, gader, guot, gut, g????oda, godina, etc.

Sanders-Wulfling, Handwörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, pg. 234, as well as Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, under “gatten,” say that gatten means, to mate. In Dutch this word is commonly used for a marriage partner, a consort, a spouse. This word is also found in the English “beget, begat, begotten.”

Prof. Dr. Eduard Kuck, Luneburger Wörterbuch, vol. 1, pg 594, admits that Gott, got, gode, gade, god and guth (gud) are all the same word! Note well: God is the same as gade! Schiller & L3bben, Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch, says the same on pg 135: got, gode, gade and Gott are the same!

A third witness is that of Wossidlo-Teuchert, Mecklenburgisches Wörterbuch, vol. 3, pg 231, which confirms this and says that the word Gott was anciently known as Gade.

Dr. Arnold Walder, Germanisches Urzeit, pg 300, says that the following words are the same or related: the German GUT, the German GOTT, the Aramaic GAD-a, the Arabian GUD, and also the Greek AGATH-os. Oskar Schade, Altdeutsches Wörterbuch, vol. 1, pg 342 and 359, still tries to distinguish between gut (gud) and got (gott, god), but the lists of variants of these two words are virtually interchangeable!

The evidence is clear: Although the two concepts “good” and “god” developed in two different directions, the one European nation called good “god” and called god “gud,” while another nation called them vice versa. This confusion or interchangeability between the words, as well as the evidence from the above-named sources, brings us to the conclusion that these words had a common origin, namely the concept of “good,” which in turn originated from the concept “union” or “mating,” namely the word ghodh, as revealed to us in Julius Pokorny’s dictionary.

Remember: the Hebrew word “Elohim” has been translated as “God.” But “Elohim” means Mighty One(s), while ghodh (or ghadh) means: union, even sexual union (to mate). The original meaning and concept of “Elohim” and “God” differ totally, especially because of the latter’s carnal or sensual meaning.

Such then was the spirit of paganism which started creeping in at Alexandria in the 2^nd century and which finally took over at Rome in the 4^th century. From there syncretistic mixed religion spread to Europe where it took a few more centuries for it to become further mixed with the pagan elements of our Germanic (Teutonic) ancestors.

If the Teutonic pagans called all their idols by the generic name “gott” or “god,” shall we continue to call the One that we love by the same generic name-title, or name? Why do we not translate the title Elohim (or El or Eloah) with its proper meaning: Mighty One? Also, in those places where “God” has become a substitute name for “YHWH,” shall we continue to invite the wrath of Elohim by doing this?

He has commanded us that we should not destroy His Name (Deut12:3 and 4). He is sorely displeased with those who have forgotten His Name for Baal (Jeremiah 23:27), remembering that Baal rally was the Sun-deity. “Therefore My people shall know My Name” (Isaiah 52:6). “YHWH’s voice cries to the city – wisdom shall see Your Name” (Micah 6:9).

“For Elohim will save Zion… and those who love His Name shall dwell in it” (Psalm 69:35-36). Also read Isaiah 56:6-7. If we love Him, we will love His Name. If we love His Name, we will not destroy it (Deut 12:3-4), we will not forget it (Jeremiah 23:27), we will not substitute it with anything else, let alone substitute it with a title, a generic name, or a name, which had been used for a pagan deity (Exodus 23:13).

Also, and even more applicable to this present study, we will stop substituting His Name with Baal (Jeremiah 23:27 and Hos 2:16) – that great Sun-deity, also known as Bel, who was the primary deity of Babylon – whether “Baal” applies to the name of the Sun-deity, or whether “Baal” is merely used as a title. We are to stop substituting His Name with anything that pertains to a Sun-deity, or even only a title with an idolatrous origin, notwithstanding attempts to justify the “changed meaning of the word.”

There is not a single text in all Scripture which prohibits us from calling Him by His Name. They called upon His Name right back in Gen 4:26. Abram called upon His Name in Gen 12:8 and 13:4, and as “Abraham” again in Gen 21:33. Abraham called the place in Moria “YHWH Yireh” (Gen 22:14). Isaac called upon the Name YHWH (Gen 26:25). Jacob used the Name (Gen 28:16). Leah used it (Gen 29:33 and 35). Moses proclaimed the Name of YHWH (Deut 32:3). David declared YHWH’s Name (Psalm 22:22), and so did our Messiah (Heb 2:12, John 17:6 &26). Finally, Yehoshua promised to do it again (John 17:26) – which you and I are now experiencing!

(Article from a book called: "Come Out of Her My People" by Chris Koster)

Paul not fluent in Greek

“And as Sha’ul was about to be led into the barracks, he said to the commander, “Am I allowed to say somewhat to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek?” (Act 21:37)

Mainstream Christianity twist this verse to make Shaul (Paul) appear as a great Greek orator. The Chief Captain, they say, was very surprised that Shaul could speak Greek with such precision. There are many problems with this, one being that Paul had already become a well-known personality. The reality was that in Paul’s day, a common saying among the Pharisees (Orthodox) was that it is better to feed swine to your children than allow them to learn the Greek language!

Observant Jews were and still are vigilant against becoming Hellenized. Paul was speaking in Hebrew, but being asked to speak Greek, there is no evidence to suggest that he was fluent in Greek. It is not likely that Paul was as proficient in Greek as Yoseph ben Mattityahu (Yosephus) who wrote, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language (Hebrew), that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations”

A prohibition in Exodus 23:13 “Make no mention of the name of other mighty ones, neither let it be heard out of your mouth” is also a deterrent for Observant Jews to embrace Greek polytheistic language or culture. The Greek language esteems Pagan deities for days and months, etc. Romans as Greek speaking “occupiers” enslaved Israel, opposed monotheistic Torah principles and made war against Jews. Paul’s background as a zealous Pharisee demanded that he not invest his time learning the Greek culture and language.

So as we can see, although Paul had Greek citizenship, he was not Greek. He was Jewish by blood and a learned Pharisee until his conversion. Paul was not a scholar of Greek and could not have written his letters in Greek either. This is contrary to what the Christian Church teaches. Evidence clearly is pointing to a Hebrew Renewed Covenant.