Lords and Thrones


Baal is said by Amorites to be a Canaanite word and they add that is translated as Lord. 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 Baalẹ held by men which is thought to mean father of the land which would imply that as it is derived from baba ilẹbaba 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 Baalẹ.

 

The Baalẹ 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 members of parliament. These lords 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 run (the spiritual realm above) is his throne. Also, has any earthly throne ever been associated with the titles lord and baalẹ? 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 lrun (or is it actually batala?)” refers to lrun as Possessor of Heaven and Earth, and Lord and Baalẹ 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?

 

With all these in mind it should be safe to reject the word Lord 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 lrun, and instead use Lord in stark contrast to the lexicon of the original texts. Consider also the way Lord has been used all over the New Testament.

 

Jeremiah 23:26-27. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, even the prophets of the deceit of their own heart? who think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers forgot my name for Baal.

 

Curiously, baalẹ is not used in Aku translations of the Bible. Rather, other words like Oluwa which can mean Our Benefactor are used. I want to believe that Biblical texts of other languages do not feature words equivalent to Lord or Baalẹ/Baal 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. batala, will give us pure language at the appointed time?

Zephaniah 3:9. For then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that they may all call on the name of Olodumare, to serve him shoulder to shoulder.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s