New featured study by our guest blogger Ruddy Adam.
The Divine Names, Delivering the Message, and Simplification
A few questions about the Divine Names, their meanings, and transliterations have come in over the last year. Let me try to answer them, and in turn hopefully provide us with a study that can help us to further understand our great and complex God.
To transliterate a word is to bring it in from the original language (in our case, either Hebrew or Greek) into the target language (in our case, English) letter for letter as closely as possible. For instance, “Khristos” in Greek becomes “Khrist” in English.
Transliterated words do not indicate meaning. Although the word “Khrist” definitely became one of the Names by which the early Khristians called the Lord, the word means the “Anointed-One.”
The term “Anointed-One” designates that Khrist was specifically appointed and chosen to serve, and in the Lord’s case, to carry out the role of Savior, Priest, Prophet, and Ruler/King.
Yasu was anointed or named Savior (Mat. 1.19-20; Luke 2.11; Acts 13.23; Titus 2.13; Philippians 3.20), Priest (Hebrews 4.14-16, 6.20, & 9.11), Prophet/Teacher (Mat. 21.11; Luke 4.24; & Luke 13.33), and Ruler/King (Mat. 2.2): “Where is He Who has been born Ruler over the Yudaites? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”; & Mat. 27.11)
Matthew 16:15-16 (Yasu asking, Peter answering)
- Yasu asked his Students: “Whom do you say that I am?”
- And Simon Peter answered: “You are the Khrist (the Anointed-One), the Son sent by the ever-living God.”
But His Followers did not go around calling Him “the Anointed-One.” They called Him “Khrist,” according to the Scriptures, just as Peter did in Matthew 16.15-16 above. To translate “Khristos” would require this: “Yasu the Anointed-One.”
That then would beg the question why don’t we translate Yasu, which means “Yahwah is the Savior” rather than transliterating It. That would require this: “Yahwah is the Savior the Anointed-One.”
I’m sure we all agree that the full translation of “Yasu Khrist” (Yahwah is the Savior the Anointed-One) is over and above more informative than the more simple transliteration—yet it was not at all feasible to do in the early translations (or today), because of the room it takes to print those words.
My Lord, the Bible is already large enough—to the point of being super daunting at first sight. “I have to learn all that?” And then there’s this: “Why is it so difficult? Why isn’t it written so I can understand it?” I’m sure you’ve heard them all, as I have. That’s why we must simplify the Message as much as possible.
As all of you know who desire to write, I emphasize how important it is to write to your audience. All of us start out writing to ourselves, because that’s all we know to do. Before we can put out a piece worth reading, we have to break that habit. Once that monstrosity is conquered, it’s then a chore to assess just whom we are writing to.
In the pedantic language I often have to deal with, from a Scriptural point to the goal of informing readers what the Scriptures are saying, that is called contexualization—one of those awful words that people sitting behind ivy-covered walls make up so they can look as though they know something the rest of us do not.
The concept of contexualization, however, urges us to ask ourselves questions such as these: How do we get the original text message across to our readers so they can most easily understand it? How do we transfer to others as simply as possible the Message that has—in the past—been made extremely complicated? How do we keep every reader interested long enough to get our main message across to them?
Simply put, however, these are the questions all serious writers must ask themselves.
The toughest thing in that regard is when you have an audience as diverse as the one we here have. On one hand, how in the grand heavens do we keep from boring those who have earned doctorates? On the other hand, how do we keep from scaring the doodlebugs out of those who attended a public high school only?
Although they have all died off, at one time we had a fairly large group of good, serious, and interested students who rejected almost any new term that had to do with the Bible.
These folks were at one time mostly King-James-Version (KJV)-Only people. Their pastors—growing up and until they left those churches taught them—No! Pounded in them!—that the KJV was the only authorized Bible, the only one they could trust, and the only one they should look at. Even to touch another version was just about the unforgivable sin.
It was my duty to explain to them why we could not trust the KJV—at least to the point of using it for our studies. It wasn’t easy. Out of the hundreds whom I met either by going on the road and teaching at motels or community centers or those who came to our Bible studies with friends or family, many could not face having to leave that Bible. Some who did were ready for anything. Others, however, would go only so far.
After they learned about the con artists and understood how often our ancestors ran to them for information regarding translating and doctrines, most of them came around to the full degree. That is, they took a 180, as we might say in a colloquial manner; and dumped the KJV forever.
But—we still had a few who could not force themselves to move the few degrees toward something new. For years this restricted me from using what I believe to be the best of my research and understanding about the Divine Names.
Although I absolutely refused to use “Jehovah” for what we mostly think of as the Lord’s central Name, that was about as far as I could go with some. I explained to them that the Lord’s major divine Name, Yahwah, meant “the Ever-Existing,” “the Eternal,” or “the Ever-Living”; and I had chosen to use “the Ever-Living,” partly because that term had a most wonderful ring to it in my ear, and partly because Ferrar Fenton used it in his translation from the 19th Century.
I did manage to get across to everyone that the proper name, “Mary,” was a nasty acronym that came from the scum of the most venomous of the vipers our ancestors ran to for information. That one I was definitely able to nix with most people—but even though they understood the source, some still preferred “Mary.” That’s one of those puzzles like “Easter” that I cannot solve in my mind. Eggs, lilies, rabbits, sunrise services? That will never cross my brain barrier.
Moreover, it wasn’t too difficult to show that there was no way her name could be transliterated into that word. It was merely a made up name derived from the impostors and that reportedly gave them a tremendous laugh when our people accepted it.
In Hebrew you would pronounce her name, the first syllable, “Mar” as in “marriage,” and the second syllable, “yim” as in “yeem.” This is obviously where we get “Maureen” and other like English proper names. But I remind you that is my best guess at how to pronounce her name, because no one knows for sure how words and names from 2000-years ago were pronounced.
In Greek the transliteration is “Mariam.” Which is one more beautiful name, and because our dearest “Mariam” was so called when she walked the earth, that is what I recommend calling her.
As far as the meaning of her name, it has been a subject of serious debate for the last 200-years—at least. I totally reject “a tear,” “bitterness,” “rebellion,” and “loved of God”—the last of which the Roman Kult dreamed up. Certainly, the Lord loved her—but that is not by any means what her name means.
By using a combination of etymology, context, time-oriented usage (chronological philology, which is how the word had changed through the eons), I came up with this: Protector.
The early etymologists bestowed “bitter” on the proper name, but that is putting a meaning on the word by means of looking through eyes that lived 1700-years after Mariam lived. Instead of thinking of a word like the modern English “bitter” for a drink as we use it today, the ancients thought of it as a “strong” drink—which they liked! So then, etymologically, the word means “strong” in a positive sense.
Over the eons it’s easy to see how that could evolve into meaning “strength” or “Strong One.” And for those of you who would stop at the etymological meaning, “Strong One” is fine. For surely the Ever-Living would not have chosen her had she not been strong of character, of will, and of faith.
Now, the contextual and chronological usage. What did the first Mariam, the sister of Moses, do when she is first mentioned in Exodus 2.4-7? She watched over Moses and protected him—he who was a type of Khrist. Not by any means an exact type—because typology puts things or people in groups or pairs that are similar. Not exact. She protected Moses.
Now, in a similar sense, the first picture we receive of our Mariam, she protected the Lord for nine months while he lay in her womb until it was time for Him to enter the world. Part of the reason Mariam was chosen to carry Yasu was because she was strong, and He needed a strong Protector while He was maturing for birth. Thus, the meaning of the proper name, Mariam, is “Protector” or Guardian.” Take your choice. Or, as noted, you may stick with “Strong One,” the proper etymological meaning.
Changing “Jesus” was another story, as was translating “Aloyim” as “Creator” rather than “God.” The word “Lord” I have always left alone, though it is a British term that strictly meant the “Lord of the Manor.” Which informs us of where Khrist stood in their belief system.
In the Greek the word translated “Lord” means “Master,” as in the “Master over the slaves.” And indeed, the Scriptures teach that Followers of Khrist are His slaves, the word often translated “servants” meaning “slaves.”
I think Paul explains our slave relationship with Khrist best in these verses.
I Korinthians 7.22-24:
- For those called to be in union with the Lord when you were slaves are now free in your union with the Lord. Indeed, in the same way, those who were called when they were free are now slaves to Khrist.
- *You were bought at *an inestimable price! Do not become slaves to fellow Adamics!
- Fellow Khristians—everyone—no matter what state you were in when called, remain in that position in which you were in before you were called *toward God.
*You were bought (I Kor. 7.23): Excellent example of the divine passive, which purposefully leaves out the Buyer which is God, Khrist, Yasu the Divine.
*an inestimable price! (I Kor. 7.23): The position of the word “price” in the Greek requires an adjective to intensify its meaning, because the price paid was not just any price. It is clearly immeasurable!
*toward God (I Kor. 7.24): Notice here how Paul purposely equates Khrist with God—again—to show that Khrist is God. If you are called to Khrist, and you certainly are, you are in union with God, because Yasu Khrist is God.
To some of our ancestors, the definitions they came up with to describe Khrist restricted Him in His godship, in His power to save and heal our souls all by His little Self. This is narrow thinking.
These definitions resulted in the doctrines that claim we humans have to do something to help Khrist save us. Or, ones that claim we need a designated human intercessor to help us to inform the Lord of our wrongs and that we are sorry for them, so that these human intercessors are the ones who forgive us—rather than our Savior.
This in turn thus gives those humans power over us to punish and reprimand us, to tell us right from wrong, to create new rules, regulations, and laws to lay on our backs whether they are Scriptural or not. And I assure you most are not.
As the Trinity Doctrine (TD) is in part, those old definitions were an attempt to restrict God’s abilities and His powers, though the TD allows believers in it to elasticize the “God of the Old Testament” and sneak Him over into “the New” as a brand new Person—One they claim did not show Himself in the Old, and One they can accept as a person (perhaps not as the God, but as part of the “godhead”), whereas the “God of the Old Testament (as they call a part of the Scriptures)” was too mean and unforgiving to accept, or even think about.
The TD allowed them to put that God out of their minds, and allowed their enemies to have a God, too—just not Yasu Khrist, the new Person that had popped up in “the New Testament,” as they call a part of the Scriptures.
Never mind the fact that the Scriptures clearly teach the route to the Ever-Living is through Khrist (Yohn 14.6), for He is the Ever-Living, the Anointed-One, our Savior.
These verses follow in that context. Another thing to note in these Scriptures is that, typical of our people, Thomas has no discernment between the physical and the spiritual—and has no understanding of the power our God has. A cursory reading of Mikah 3.1-12 will clearly explain the why of Thomas’ ignorance.
Yohn 1.18 (Yohn speaking)
As an Intro to the Following Verses in Yohn 14
- No one has ever understood God! The very, special Son, Who is in the Bosom of the Father, that One explains Him.
Yohn 14.5-9 (Conversation between Thomas and Yasu)
- Thomas said to Him, “Lord we do not know where You are going, so how can we know the way?”
- Yasu said to him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
- *If you had known Me, you would have known My Father, too. So, from now on you shall know Him and understand Him.”
- Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that shall be sufficient for us.”
- Yasu said to him, “I have been with you for all this time and yet you do not understand Me, Philip? The one who understands Me understands the Father. So, how can you say, `Show us the Father’?”
*”If you had known Me, you would have known My Father, too. So, from now on you shall know Him and understand Him.” (Yohn 14.7): This fruit is too juicy not to pluck. The Lord is clearly explaining to poor Thomas that He is the Son as well as the Father, not simply because He represents God as the Son and the Father, and He does do that—but that these are terms the Lord uses so that we humans can understand God. As Yohn says, Khrist Who represents the Logos explains God to us (Yohn 1.18). No one has understood Him before that, as can be well attested by reading the Scriptures before the Lord’s First Parousia.
The following Passage from Paul is definitely worth noting at this juncture. It is one more reason that Thomas could not understand the Lord. Let me point out once again that Paul’s teachings stand in precedent position, he being called last by the Lord, Khrist having stated “The first shall be last, and the last first.” (Mat. 20.16)
Moses’ Message Blinds Yasreal, Khrist’s Message Brings Sight
II Korinthians 3.14-18
- Indeed, their minds were made insensitive by Moses’ Message.
For until today the same veil, it not being removed, remains upon the understanding of the Old Contract, because the veil must be removed by Khrist.
- But certainly, until today the veil lies upon their heart when Moses is being studied.
- But when their hearts turn back to the Lord, the veil is removed.
- And the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit that is the Lord is—there is freedom!
- Indeed, we all (Believers) with unveiled faces, gazing as in a reflector at the glory radiating from the Lord, are being changed into the same image as the glorious Lord—from glory into greater glory—by the Lord’s spiritual Message.
Remembering that our God must condescend to us for us to understand Him is extremely important when interpreting passages.
We have to know that a son/father relationship is a human one—not a divine one. But by using that relationship—and showing that Khrist is the good and loyal Son to his Father—we understand how perfect He is as God and in the sight of God. That does not limit Him. It shows how utterly complex He is—but by using that relationship He simplifies Himself for us.
Therefore, Yohn and others are able to tell us that when we are in union with the Lord, Who is the Ever-Living, too—that we are as pure as Khrist is because He has purified us because we are faithful and hopeful regarding Him.
I Yohn 3.2-3 (Yohn writing regarding our purified state)
- Loved-Ones, we are already Divine Children, but it has not yet been revealed what we shall be like. But we understand that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.
- And everyone having this hope upon Him purifies himself, just as that One is pure.
Certainly our God can be Master of His slaves, as well as Savior, Creator, Protector, Teacher, Ruler over the Separated-Ones (Melkhizedek), our Rock, our High Priest, our King, our Foundation, the Great Evergreen Tree, and all Else He wants to be—without having to be three distinct persons to fulfill those roles.
The Ever-Living is One God, One Person—Who has the power and ability to personify Himself anyway He chooses and all at the same time, if He so pleases. This definition of the Ever-Living leaves Him completely unrestricted and capable of all things He so chooses to do—and it is Scriptural.
The Lord’s use of different Names and Offices and Personalities is a huge part of the way He condescends to His people so that they can more easily understand Him.
Following His Own methods of speaking down to His people, the Ever-Living has to answer the same questions as any writer does (though He must do so quintillions of times more than a human author): How do I most easily and simply get My Message across to My audience so that they can understand It? The good news is, He happens to know exactly how to get through to our little, peanut minds.
What if when the Lord told our ancestors not to eat certain foods He had told them it was because of the parasites, toxins, and bacteria they carry? He would then have had to explain what those were.
What if He had not used all the symbolism He has used throughout the Scriptures, which is how children learn most easily? For one, the Scriptures would have been hundreds of times larger. For two, we would not have been able to comprehend Them because They would have been so difficult and so wordy. The Lord—as always—knew exactly what He was doing: Writing to His audience—which He knows perfectly well.
This type of writing makes our unimaginably complex God easy for us to understand. Recall that as children just beginning to be able to understand something, our parents and teachers used blocks and pictures to get us started. We did not begin with sentence syntax or verb conjugation. We started with the equivalent of symbolism.
When I look at some of the doctrines and translations our ancestors came up with, the small-mindedness stands out. It wasn’t genetic either. It came from the Kult of all kults—that reared itself in Rome and took over by slaughtering the leaders of the other Khristian Churches. And until today this vicious Kult haunts the world with its Marxism and humanism and salvation by works doctrines.
First, the reason I spell “Kain” and “Khrist” with a “K” is because there is no letter in Hebrew or Greek that transliterates into the letter “C.” The “C” comes from the Latin. Both the Greek language and Biblical Greek existed long before “Biblical Latin,” if you can call that abomination “Biblical”; and it is indeed difficult to do so.
We have a translation from the Hebrew into the Greek that dates to about 270 BC. The one existing Latin text derived from Jerome’s and others’ translation from Hebrew and Greek into Latin dates to about 400 AD.
This may sound picky because whether “Khrist” is spelled with a “C” or a “K” has no influence on meaning. For me, though, using the “K” adds a further degree of separation from the Kult that is responsible for so utterly distorting the Lord’s Message through their own manmade traditions and by allowing those traditions to slip in; and also purposely placing anti-Khristian doctrines into their form of “Christianity”—which much of the “Christian world” has adopted.
My own form may not be perfect—but I want it to be as pure and undistorted as possible and to be as distinct from theirs and those who stand in direct opposition of everything Khrist stands for as possible. I want it to be linguistical—not doctrinal as theirs is. Thus, “Khrist” and “Kain” and “Kainites” and “Khristian” and “Khristianity.”
I don’t think any trained linguist could possibly say that the use of “God” for the Hebrew “Aloyim” is a responsible translation, because—for one—the word defines itself in verse one of Genesis: “At first `Aloyim’ the Creator created…” As I have shown in many other studies, this is often the case in the Scriptures: the context defines the word for us. If we can define the meaning of proper names with one or possibly two words, there is no need to transliterate them.
Now, let’s take “Yahwah” and the reason I transliterate it that way. We have as our base for “Yahwah” the Divine Tetragrammaton (meaning four letters), YHWH. You’ve seen “Jehovah,” which I totally reject, as well as other three syllable transliterations. In the earliest copies of our ancestors’ Scriptures they transliterated the Word several times, and most often It was with two syllables. How much more simple can a word that means, “The One Who Exists,” that is, “the Ever-Living,” “the Eternal,” the “Ever-Existing,” be?
It is solely a two syllable word that means any of the three terms above that suits you best. For they are all correct. Our God is extremely complex, yet He communicates to us in very simple ways. I myself prefer the “Ever-Living,” and to transliterate the Four Letters including the vowels, “Yahwah,” because there’s no reason to change the final vowel and place an “e” or “o” in the last syllable.
Now, how about “Yasu” for “Jesus”? Again, “Yasu” is a simplified transliteration of the combination of the two words “Yahwah” and “Savior,” which mean, as noted above, “Yahwah is the Savior”; or, fully translate, “The Ever-Living is the Savior.”
“Yasu” is the purest shot I can make at pronouncing the Name our ancestors called the Lord; and I assure you it is a reasoned and researched conclusion that I believe is correct. But the truth is, we do not know for sure how our ancestors pronounced the Lord’s name—but we absolutely know that it was not as the word “Jesus” is pronounced; and please don’t get me wrong. I’m not condemning either using “Jesus” as His Name or the Word “Jesus” itself. I’m merely giving everyone who is with us a very good shot at knowing the way our ancestors pronounced His Name.
Let’s go over one important being that the Lord uses multiple terms to let us know what kind of worthless, low-minded fiend we are dealing with, to refresh ourselves with the fact that another Biblical character has more than one name, and yet is only one person. This beast is the antithesis of the Ever-Living, because he is a liar, a thief, a sniveling murderer, a sneaky deceiver, a fraud, and a coward.
What better way to describe the enemy of all Adamics and everything Divine or called Godly than to call the Devil a venomous viper, a scaly serpent slithering across the ground? Then, to let us know that he is not lame in respect to power, the Lord calls him a powerful Snake, a mighty Serpent. (Rev. 12) Even better is to use the idiom stating that Satan will “crawl in the dirt all the days of his life” to show how low he stands in the eyes of the Ever-Living—and ought to stand in the minds of all Adamics.
- Then the Ever-Living Creator *said to the Serpent: “Because you have committed this act (lied to Eve and had sex with her), you shall be cursed more than all the dumb-animals and more than all the beastly-races in the field; you shall *crawl upon your stomach and eat dirt all the days of your life.
*said to the Serpent (Genesis 3.14): God would not speak to a literal snake. It’s ludicrous! The Bible is not fairytale land; it’s a Book of truth that uses an abundance of figurative language and symbolism, in an effort to simplify our complex God so His simple children can understand His Message.
And moreover, for God to allow Satan to make a snake speak would be a greater miracle than God Himself ever performed with animals. For when God made a donkey speak to Balaam (Numbers 22.28), at least the animal had vocal cords to speak with. Snakes on the other hand don’t have vocal cords. Would God allow Satan (even if he were capable) to perform a miracle greater than He Himself performed?
*crawl upon your stomach and eat dirt (Genesis 3.14): All snakes were already crawling on their stomachs in the dirt, as all dumb-animals that live today were created in Genesis 1.25; and God has not changed any of them, because He said He was perfectly satisfied with them after their initial creation, and His creation is perfect. There is, thus, no need for change.
Besides, to point out one Snake and change its genetic design would not by any means change the genetic design of the other 4000 or so races of serpents crawling on their stomachs in the dirt. No, rather this phrase is a figurative way of showing the state of humiliation and degradation the Lord has placed the Devil in; it does not literally mean that Satan will crawl in the dirt, and snakes surely don’t eat dirt.
David uses the same figure of speech in Psalm 44.25 to show our people’s current state of degradation and shame until God returns to redeem us. Here is the entire context that verse is in:
Psalm 44.20-26: The Psalmster’s Plea to the Lord
20-21. If we have forgotten the name of our Creator and reached our hands out to an alien god, would not our Creator have discovered this, because He knows the secrets in our hearts?
- Indeed, for Your sake we are put to death all the day long. We are considered as *sheep for the slaughter.
- Awaken! Why do you sleep my Lord? Arise! Do not reject your people’s pleas forever.
- Why do You hide Your Face from us and pay no attention to our misery and persecution?
- For our *spirit is bent down to the dirt. Our *stomach is stuck to the ground.
- Arise as our Savior and deliver us, because of the undying mercy You have on us.
*sheep for the slaughter (Psalm 44.22): No one would think that God’s people are actually sheep. In Luke 13.32, Yasu called Herod a fox. Was he really a fox? But millions of Bible readers tend to believe that God’s entire nature was different in the Garden of Eden, and that a literal snake spoke to Eve and she responded! This is not at all a concordant interpretation; it is rather cultic non-reasoning one, and possibly an effort to hide what truly happened in the Garden of Eden between Satan and Eve. Or, perhaps both.
*spirit is bent down to the dirt/stomach is stuck to the ground (Psalm 44.25): What a wonderfully artistic way to express a state of degradation and humiliation; but no one would think of taking it literally, as they do the Lord’s cursing of the Serpent in Genesis 3.14, because they know that the stomachs of humans are not stuck to the ground. (See also Mikah 7.17)
Satan, that old Serpent, that powerful Snake, comes out of this state of degradation and humiliation for a short while in Revelation 13.11, when, as the Antikhrist he gets to play God—the role he has lusted after for eons:
The Second Beast of Revelation 13, the Antikhrist
- And I saw another Beast-of-Prey rising from the ground, and he had two horns like a lamb but spoke as a mighty Serpent.
This ought to explain my reasoning for the transliterations and translations I use for certain Scriptural proper names.
Also, it should be further evidence that the Lord is One Person, One Being, One Master, One Savior—Who happens to have the power to personify Himself any way He pleases; and to reject that fact is to restrict His power, His unlimited abilities, and a hasty glance at the universe that He Himself designed and built will show that He is indeed the One and only All-Powerful One.
For He is all of these—and more, just as He says—but He is still One Being:
- A Divine Messenger sent by the Lord appeared to Yoseph (Joseph) in a dream, saying: “Yoseph, son born from David’s seed-line, do not be afraid to take Mariam your wife out among the people. 21. For He Who is conceived in her is from the Separated Spirit. She shall birth a Son and you are to name Him Yasu, because He shall save His people from their sins.”
1.8. I am the Alpha and the Omega, proclaims the Lord, the Ever-Living: the One Who exists and Who has always existed and Who is coming—the Sovereign.
- For certainly the Creator is the great Ever-Living and the eminent King over all kings.
1.17. And when I Yohn saw Him, I fell at His feet as if dead. Then He placed His right hand upon me, saying to me: “Do not be afraid! I am the First and the Last, certainly the One Who Lives.
1.18. Yet I was dead—but observe, I am living in the ageless ages. And so it is! And I have the keys to death and to hades!”
Psalm 19.14 (David writing)
- May the discourses coming from my mouth and the plan in my heart be pleasing in Your sight, Ever-Living, My Rock, and My Redeemer.
Rev. 19.15 Khrist is the Ever-Living, the All-Powerful
- And out of His (Khrist’s) mouth extends a sharp, two-edged sword, so that with it He might strike the Adamic Races (the Adamics outside of Yasreal’s seed-line, those born from the loins of Ham and Yapheth—not Shem). And He Himself shall shepherd them with an iron staff. And He Himself stomps the winepress that produces the wine that is the furious rage coming from the Ever-Living—the All-Powerful.
Ephesians 6.17 tells us that a sword represents the Logos sent by the Ever-Living, that is, His Message, which is the truth. A two-edged sword cuts both ways, as does the truth. One might say, “You have a lot of faith in Khrist’s saving power, but you know little about the Seven Seals.” Both may be true. One makes a positive cut, the other a negative. Thus the Lord’s Sword of Truth—the Logos—speaks and cuts both ways.
Psalm 18.1-2 (David writing)
- I love You, Yahwah, my Strength.
- The Ever-Living is my Rock and my Fortress and my Savior. He is my Creator, my Rock. I find protection in union with Him. He is my Shield and the *Horn Who wins salvation for me. He is my Sanctuary.
*Horn Who wins salvation for me. (Psalm 18.2): This is the horn of a bull or an ox. The term horn often represents power and victory in the Scriptures. (Deut. 33.17 & Psalm 91.10) Thus, the powerful Horn represents the Lord Whose victory at the Cross over death wins David his salvation.
- Indeed, no night exists in the eternity, and the Lord’s slaves have no need of lamp-light or of sunlight, for the Lord Who is the Ever-Living will illuminate them—and they shall reign into the ageless ages!
The Perfect Root, Firstfruit, And Seed-Line
- 16. I Yasu sent My Personal-Messenger to you—the Khristian-Assemblies—to testify about the things written in this Book. I am the Root and the Offspring Who-produced David and I am the One Who was born from him—I am the Radiant Morning-Star.
More explanatory translation of the last sentence in Rev. 22.16: I am the Creator Who created David’s Seed-Line, and I am the Descendant of that Seed-Line—I am the Brilliant Star, that One rising at the Dawn.
The Doxology in the Book of Yuda
- Now to Him having the ability to keep us from stumbling,
and to stand us pure in a jubilant state before His Glorious Face,
- to the only wise God—Who is our Savior:
Honor and Majesty, Sovereignty and Authority,
certainly at this time and for all the ages! And so it is.
I remain for the faith: Ruddy Adam.