Dear Mr. James
February 16, 2022
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Mr. Logan James,
Your recent correspondence has been brought to my attention.
In Plato’s Republic, it is stated that all knowledge of the Gods is derived from the writings of the poets. We understand this to mean that without those certain individuals with fantastic imaginations, the public would not be aware of either the existence of the Gods or have certain knowledge of their many wonderful adventures. Because of these authors, we know the Gods were on both sides of the Trojan War. Since the Gods were not all on one side, it is clear that that they held differing opinions on the woman wronged. Therefore, it should not be surprising when mere mortals are called upon to answer certain questions, they, too, are incapable of reaching agreement.
Your recent correspondence has been brought to my attention.
In Plato’s Republic, it is stated that all knowledge of the Gods is derived from the writings of the poets. We understand this to mean that without those certain individuals with fantastic imaginations, the public would not be aware of either the existence of the Gods or have certain knowledge of their many wonderful adventures. Because of these authors, we know the Gods were on both sides of the Trojan War. Since the Gods were not all on one side, it is clear that that they held differing opinions on the woman wronged. Therefore, it should not be surprising when mere mortals are called upon to answer certain questions, they, too, are incapable of reaching agreement.
2
Expanding upon the principle that only the reader can only know of the Greek Gods from extant writings, the same conclusion can be made for the Egyptian Gods. Of course, all stories about the adventures of the Gods, regardless of the culture, are dependent on writings that have come down to the present. If we lacked these sources, we could not determine, through unaided human reason alone, that Zeus changed into an eagle to visit Ganymede and subsequently brought him to Olympus to be the cupbearer of the Gods. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that these stories of the Roman and Greek Gods were miraculously preserved for many centuries, vacillating between certain destruction and complete indifference in monastic libraries, for our edification and benefit. Without the advent of printing, the adventures of the Gods may have been lost to posterity and one should not lament the wonderful stories that have been forgotten, but remain steadfastly focused on the histories that survive.
3
The Egyptian word that is commonly translated as God is “neter”, where the vowel “e” has been added for ease of pronunciation. Since the consonant skeleton -ntr- is similar to the Latin “Natura” and the English “Nature”, we speculate that the original meaning of “neter” were acts and manifestations of Nature. Throughout Egypt’s long literary history, our conclusion is confirmed by innumerable usages of “neter”. The only Egyptian God that could not be understood as a literal manifestation of Nature is Osiris, the dying and resurrecting God, who is present at all periods of Egyptian history. The Nile River overflows in the late summer and this flooding provides nutrients for the crops and it would be reasonable to expect that Osiris' festival would occur near the annual flooding of the Nile, yet it was celebrated in the spring, when the full moon is in Libra.
4
The Hebrew word that is translated as “God” is אֱלוֹהַּ [Strong’s Number H433 ĕlôha] and this word is also used when the Old Testament discusses the Gods of the Gentile nations. The plural of H433 is H430, אֱלֹהִים 'ĕlōhîm. The Old Testament acknowledges the Gods of the other nations, although Jehovah, as the tribal deity of Israel, is placed at the head of the company of Gods [Psalm 82:1]. While certain scholars seek to find to find the ultimate meaning of the individual letters of Jehovah, that is, the Tetragrammaton, we remain skeptical of this approach. It is clear that whatever additional attributes Jehovah posses, he is a fertility God, as Eve says she received a child from the Lord [Genesis 4:1], Sarah was 90 years old when Isaac was born, Rebekka, Jacob’s wife, was barren [Genesis 25:21], “Israel” had twelve sons by four women, and the firstborn of Abram, Ishmael, had twelve sons [Genesis 25:13-15]. The view that Jehovah is a fertility God is carried over into the New Testament, where the elder Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist. Finally, the birth by aged and barren women in the Old Testament is eclipsed in the New Testament: the virgin birth of Jesus.
Strong's H3068 יְהֹוָה Yᵊhōvâ proper noun with reference to deity
The KJV translates Strong's H3068 as: LORD (6,510), GOD (4), JEHOVAH (4), variant (1).
And I [the LORD, v. 2; H3069 Yᵊhōvâ] appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. Exodus 6:3
The other usages of “JEHOVAH” in the King James Bible are found in Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4.
The scholarly view is that יְהוָֽה is that “Jehovah”,"the existing One", or “(the) self-Existent or Eternal”.יְהֹוָה is derived Strong's H1961 הָיָה.
The KJV translates Strong's H1961 as: was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee.
Although it is clear that the English translation of the verb H1961 touches upon existence and being, the actions of the god Jehovah point to suggestions, or recollections, of a fertility God. Jehovah’s behavior suggests a god whose purpose is not existence, per se, but, the “the coming into being”.
The 613 Laws are conducive to having children and creating a society separate from the Gentiles. The law is clear: “Be fruitful and multiply” [Genesis 1:28].
The philological quotes are courtesy off https://www.blueletterbible.org/
Strong's H3068 יְהֹוָה Yᵊhōvâ proper noun with reference to deity
The KJV translates Strong's H3068 as: LORD (6,510), GOD (4), JEHOVAH (4), variant (1).
And I [the LORD, v. 2; H3069 Yᵊhōvâ] appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. Exodus 6:3
The other usages of “JEHOVAH” in the King James Bible are found in Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4.
The scholarly view is that יְהוָֽה is that “Jehovah”,"the existing One", or “(the) self-Existent or Eternal”.יְהֹוָה is derived Strong's H1961 הָיָה.
The KJV translates Strong's H1961 as: was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee.
Although it is clear that the English translation of the verb H1961 touches upon existence and being, the actions of the god Jehovah point to suggestions, or recollections, of a fertility God. Jehovah’s behavior suggests a god whose purpose is not existence, per se, but, the “the coming into being”.
The 613 Laws are conducive to having children and creating a society separate from the Gentiles. The law is clear: “Be fruitful and multiply” [Genesis 1:28].
The philological quotes are courtesy off https://www.blueletterbible.org/
5
The strange story of how the Tribe of Benjamin almost became extinct can be found in Judges 19:1-21:25. The abbreviated version is that several hundred Benajmites abducted their future wives from a neighboring festival. This story is similar to the Abduction of the Sabine women shortly after the founding of Rome during the festival of Neptunus equestris.
The story of Hilkiah, the high priest, finding "the book of the law in the house of the Lord " [2 Kings 22:8] is similar to the finding of the Vaticanus codex in the Vatican library in 1481.
“Simon [de Montfort] was killed on 25 June 1218 while combating a sally by the besieged. His head was smashed by a stone from a mangonel, operated, according to one source, by the “donas e tozas e mulhers” ("ladies and girls and women") of Toulouse.” -Wikipedia, Simon de Montfort
And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head and all to brake his skull. Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer and said unto him, “Draw thy sword and slay me, that men say not of me, ‘A women slew him.’” And his young man thrust him through and he died.
Judges 9:53-54
The modern understanding of the rules of Hebrew grammar are guesswork. Of course, the same legitimate statement could be said of our working knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, Egyptian hieroglyphs possess, unlike Hebrew, past and future tenses. Therefore, any attempt to understand the Hebrew text is confronted with the difficulty of determining the appropriate verbal tense. In the minor and major prophets, the editors of the KJV create many predictions concerning the suffering Messiah. The editors may be excused for their translations, as they “know” the Old Testament was written before the New Testament and, so, the texts look forward to the Messiah and the restoration of Israel. The Old Testament does not record of the acts of the Messiah and the re-establishment of Israel. Our knowledge of history is based entirely upon Scaliger’s chronological opinion of the 16th century.
The story of Hilkiah, the high priest, finding "the book of the law in the house of the Lord " [2 Kings 22:8] is similar to the finding of the Vaticanus codex in the Vatican library in 1481.
“Simon [de Montfort] was killed on 25 June 1218 while combating a sally by the besieged. His head was smashed by a stone from a mangonel, operated, according to one source, by the “donas e tozas e mulhers” ("ladies and girls and women") of Toulouse.” -Wikipedia, Simon de Montfort
And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head and all to brake his skull. Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer and said unto him, “Draw thy sword and slay me, that men say not of me, ‘A women slew him.’” And his young man thrust him through and he died.
Judges 9:53-54
The modern understanding of the rules of Hebrew grammar are guesswork. Of course, the same legitimate statement could be said of our working knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, Egyptian hieroglyphs possess, unlike Hebrew, past and future tenses. Therefore, any attempt to understand the Hebrew text is confronted with the difficulty of determining the appropriate verbal tense. In the minor and major prophets, the editors of the KJV create many predictions concerning the suffering Messiah. The editors may be excused for their translations, as they “know” the Old Testament was written before the New Testament and, so, the texts look forward to the Messiah and the restoration of Israel. The Old Testament does not record of the acts of the Messiah and the re-establishment of Israel. Our knowledge of history is based entirely upon Scaliger’s chronological opinion of the 16th century.
6
Although the word “God” is used for the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian characters, the Gentle Reader should be cautious about attaching too many assumptions to the word, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. All of the Gods of the pagan world had moral failures, which allows them to be relatable to the reader, and the Egyptian Gods, in particular, could grow old and die. Therefore, it can be stated that the fewer assumptions of what are thought to be the definitive attributes of the Gods, the less likely one will hold a mistaken opinion.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20
Saint Paul states that no can be excused for realizing that God exists, as the strongest evidence for God is his creation. Yet, Saint Paul must surely realize that outside of “eternal power”, few additional attributes of God can be known from his creation, from reality, alone. One can conclude, as many natural philosophers have reasoned throughout history, that the Creator is a mathematician, as judged by his reliance upon the Golden Ratio [1.6180339…] or Phi:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20
Saint Paul states that no can be excused for realizing that God exists, as the strongest evidence for God is his creation. Yet, Saint Paul must surely realize that outside of “eternal power”, few additional attributes of God can be known from his creation, from reality, alone. One can conclude, as many natural philosophers have reasoned throughout history, that the Creator is a mathematician, as judged by his reliance upon the Golden Ratio [1.6180339…] or Phi:
√5 ×.5+.5=Φ
However, one cannot reach conclusions about either the Creators’ concern for man or his omniscience. Since no square mile on earth is ideally suited to man, the reasonable conclusion is that the Creator is indifferent to our physical needs, although the human mind can overcome the challenges of a lack of natural coverings for inclement weather.
7
There is no evidence, aside from “Ancient Alien” broadcasts, that man is a new comer to this world, however, we question the premise that our ancestors have developed on earth for the previous three million years. During that duration, man would be excepted to adapt physically to at least one climate, if not several, to insure the survival of the species. The single fact of our collective inability to adapt to natural environments is the strongest evidence that our evolution as Homo Sapiens Sapiens cannot be adequately explained with the theory of evolution. Evolution explains many aspects of what has been observed in man and his living relations, yet the theory does not explain our inability to physically adapt to inhospitable environments.
8
Belief is an aspect of man that can not be disingenuous. For example, adults no longer believe that Santa Clause brings presents, no matter how much they would like to have faith that he does so. The same can be said for other facets of belief and faith. If one no longer believes in the spirit world, then any discussion of “the other world” sounds, in the famous words of Boris Balkan, like “Mumbo Jumbo”. In conclusion to this part, faith and belief are aspects of humanity’s immaturity, wherein the reasoning faculty is not fully developed. When faith and opinions are replaced by facts and knowledge, then the individual has embarked upon the path of realizing his full potential of man as man.
9
While many naysayers deny that man is capable of solving problems, this view can only be valid for the majority of people, for surely a minority, a remnant, can resolve issues, whether political problems or scientific questions. The challenge is that most people do not seek to have problems eliminated, with the result of man’s improvement in the world, but, for reasons that we cannot fathom, prefer to have man remain in ignorance, mediocrity, and misery. We suggest that these certain individuals, the loudest proclaimers that problems are insoluble, are not yet fully human, remaining fixed in a childlike awe that reality is not as it appears to the unbiased observer. Otherwise said, the majority willfully attempts, with varying degrees of success, to check human advancement, as though ignorance and ineptitude are the highest, although unstated, goals of humanity.
The Merovingian, one of the more interesting characters of the Matrix universe, is wholly committed to cause and effect. He is not a believer in “choice” and we suggest, by extension, free will, for he declares that choice “is an illusion created between those with power and those without.” The Merovingian is a trafficker of information, so it would be reasonable to conclude that he is an adherent to the adage that “Knowledge is power.”
The realization that “cause and effect” exists is one of the more profound discoveries of humanity. One of the conclusions of “cause and effect” is that reality is not magical, objects do not randomly appear from nothing and disappear into nothingness. The realization that magic, or magical powers, does not have any influence over reality and this understanding allows for the creation of the arts and sciences and, ultimately, civilization.
The Lord God asks Adam if he ate of the tree [Genesis 3:11]. In the next verse, Adam responds: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.” By his response, Adam demonstrates that he understands cause and effect. If the woman was not given to Adam by the Lord God, then she could not give Adam of the tree. Furthermore, if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not created, then Adam and Eve could not eat from it. The subtle and unstated teaching of the encounter in the Garden is that the cause of Adam’s disobedience falls clearly upon the Lord God, either because he created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or because he created the woman. Regardless of the reason, either the creation of the tree or the forming of the woman, the effect is Adam eating from the tree.
The Lord God asks the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?”, and she responds that the “serpent beguiled me and I did eat.” Eve also demonstrates that she understands cause and effect, as her eating of the fruit [Genesis 3:6], the cause, leads to her eyes being opened [Genesis 3:7] and knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:22], the effect.
The Merovingian, one of the more interesting characters of the Matrix universe, is wholly committed to cause and effect. He is not a believer in “choice” and we suggest, by extension, free will, for he declares that choice “is an illusion created between those with power and those without.” The Merovingian is a trafficker of information, so it would be reasonable to conclude that he is an adherent to the adage that “Knowledge is power.”
The realization that “cause and effect” exists is one of the more profound discoveries of humanity. One of the conclusions of “cause and effect” is that reality is not magical, objects do not randomly appear from nothing and disappear into nothingness. The realization that magic, or magical powers, does not have any influence over reality and this understanding allows for the creation of the arts and sciences and, ultimately, civilization.
The Lord God asks Adam if he ate of the tree [Genesis 3:11]. In the next verse, Adam responds: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.” By his response, Adam demonstrates that he understands cause and effect. If the woman was not given to Adam by the Lord God, then she could not give Adam of the tree. Furthermore, if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not created, then Adam and Eve could not eat from it. The subtle and unstated teaching of the encounter in the Garden is that the cause of Adam’s disobedience falls clearly upon the Lord God, either because he created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or because he created the woman. Regardless of the reason, either the creation of the tree or the forming of the woman, the effect is Adam eating from the tree.
The Lord God asks the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?”, and she responds that the “serpent beguiled me and I did eat.” Eve also demonstrates that she understands cause and effect, as her eating of the fruit [Genesis 3:6], the cause, leads to her eyes being opened [Genesis 3:7] and knowing good and evil [Genesis 3:22], the effect.