is said by Amorites to be a Canaanite word and they add that is translated as . Since the Aku (heirs of Oduduwa) are the ones called Canaanites in the Amorite-forged bible it should be possible to compare the translation with that of similar Aku words. In the Aku language there is a title known as ẹ held by men which is thought to mean as it is derived from baba ilẹ – baba is Aku for father while ilẹ is land/ground/earth. As baalẹ appears linguistically equivalent to baal it is reasonable to assume that lord is the Indo-European equivalent of ẹ.
The ẹ is the head of a Aku community where there is no Oba (king) but is not the king as he has no crown and is thus of a lower rank. Similarly, within the British monarchy from which is the English language, lords serve in the House of Lords as. These are not of the same rank as a British king or queen. Is it therefore not an error for the Amorites to teach others to refer to the Almighty as Lord of Lords, as if we deny his throne? Consider also that his throne has no earthly comparison as ọrun (the spiritual realm above) is his throne. Also, has any earthly throne ever been associated with the titles and ẹ? What if the Amorites have always been aware that their god who is Satan has no throne and that this Lord of Lords is actually Satan?
Furthermore, since Melchizedek who is allegedly described in the bible as “priest of Ọlọrun (or is it actually Ọbatala?)” refers to Ọlọrun as and are titles restricted to the earth alone and do not indicate ownership of the earth, would it not be a grave error to associate a lower title with him?, and
With all these in mind it should be safe to reject the word and the Bible and all Amorite religious texts. It is worth noting that its widespread use is a legacy of the British monarchy, the Church of England, and the publishers of the King James Version of the Bible – including the Old and New Testaments. This particular Amorite legacy is terrible for luring people to forget the name of Ọlọrun, and instead use in stark contrast to the lexicon of the original texts. Consider also the way has been used all over the New Testament.
Curiously, is not used in Aku translations of the Bible. Rather, other words like which can mean are used. I want to believe that Biblical texts of other languages do not feature words equivalent to or and that more apt titles are used. If this was just a case of paranoia over semantics, why is it then written that the Ancient of Days, i.e. Ọbatala, will give us pure language at the appointed time?