ONWUKA Sampson....
The ancient name
of Babylon is Byblos, which is Greek for a word that appear as Babilum,
Babulim, supposedly meaning 'gate of the deities' 'land of Babylon' as so on,
it is only with clear knowledge of the processes involved in the name can we
see Babylon/Babulim as two words, mainly in Igbo as Land of Glory or Simply
High Ground, where the later can be placed in context of the former as Elish,
which may reflect the very older years of the Babylon as a mountainous site
where the Rasin bearing Cedar trees for big Egyptian Ships were made, that is
to say a ship building industry, leading to the colonizing of the place by
Pharaohs and their Priesthood. In essence, Byblos is just the same Big, a term
that does fail to chime with another English word 'glory', a place that was
cornered by human beings and for human purpose, for its natural trees by
Egyptian priest were used in Ship building, where the likes of Fenkhus as they
called the wood cutters with their axes made their home. It is Babylon that holds
the better understanding of even nature of Sumer writing, itself rich in
mineral resources, relating to Babylonian writing.... nation of navigators
essentially arose some 3, 100 years before Christ.
It is this history about the people and their origin
can we find a form of explicating that favors the fact that Nebu may in fact
mean Destiny or Glory, where Nabu may refer to something relatively same,
relatively different with Nebu. In terms of the 'man who Nebu has chosen' or
'who Nabu has chosen', we may have little problems in bringing him to the 6th
century. Such a man was either the nearly born son of the Artaxyges family of
the Medes, who was later known as Cyrus, or the very Nebuchadnezzar who was
also King of Kushan. First, we have to consider the man by name Nebuchadnezzar
II, king of Babylonia from 605 - 562. Some has said that the Kushans like the
Chaldeans were part of the same Ancient Babylonian tribes, suggesting that the
names of the two places and their language are dialects of each other. There is
no enough to deny such position given especially the fact that Ancient Babylon
was supposed to have at least five separate tribes and five separate dialects.
As such Emersal being on the dialects may also feature as one the major tribes
of Babylon. Secondly, the Chaldeans as we have noted and we have seen are
supposedly located somewhere in Asia, or at least at the Southern part of the
Arabian Desert. The Kushans are located in about the same area, saving for the
fact that through ancient time and currently, the ancestral home of the Kush
are a few hundred miles away from what is now Ethiopia. That the Kushites
(Cushites) are themselves Ethiopians is not disputed, that their older language
was relative to Chaldean is not disputed, that Chaldeans however are related to
Chad in West Africa and to some Libyan Inscription in West Africa, makes a very
quick case that Chaldeans are not that far from either Ethiopia, Libya, Cyrene,
parts of Sudan, Chad, and whatever lie in the path of the travel from the
Southern end of the Red Sea through to the deeper end of the Central and West
Africa. The main point being that the King of Kushan as Nebuchadnezzar was called
was a King or a ruler of people or tribe that succeeded the hegemony over
Babylon in the 6th century. Of course the incident of the quotation of
Nebuchadnezzar as the King of Kushan has being disputed since it mainly
appeared in the writings of Flavious Josephus. But no doubt exist that
Nebuchadnezzar II was a Chaldean, no doubt exist that he was a kind of messiah
set aside from birth for redeeming Babylon from the hands of Assyrians. The
problem now comes to the fact that if Nebuchadnezzar II was called the King of
Kushan and from the tribe of Chaldeans, was he therefore a Chaldean and a
Kushan at the same time? Or is it a matter of confusion as has been the case
with much Biblical translation on matters concerning Ancient History where the
rest of the society is forced the errors of translation in such a way that now
interpret such errors as they see fit. For here of language or system of
speaking is of the highest importance.
Beginning with an easy by Donald J.
Wiseman on Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadnezzar), which appeared in the Oxford
University's Essential Guide to People and Places of the Bible, edited by Bruce
M. Metzer and Michael D. Coogan, Wiseman attempted to translate a 'Biblical
variant' form of the name Nebuchadnezzar. The names that he discovered to be
very close to Nebuchadnezzar were 'Nabu-Kudurri-usur', which was translated as
"the (god) Nabu has protected the succession". The author of the
article went ahead to illustrate that Nebuchadnezzar by meaning and translation
is probably closer to the above description. Wiseman confirmed that
Nebuchadnezzar was of Chaldean descent, and that he inherited the office from
his father by name Nabopolassar. We are not to certain what these names should
mean in the context of the King of Babylon, but it is only with Igbo langauge
can we see that both the name Nabu-Kudurri-Usur and the name Nabopolassar is
probably the same name and refer to the same person. By that first name,
Nabu-Kudurri-usur, we can also say that the interpretation in Igbo may be
gainfully misleading. It will be unwise to force the reader into a language
that he is not very sure of, but we can pretend that at least that the name
Nabu-Kudurri-Usur, may mean something of the path, perhaps Nabu is the Path of
Life, or Nabu is the path of Salvation, or Nabu is the path that leads (to
life). But this interpretation should not occupy the time rather the name
Nebuchadnezzar is where the puzzle to the very essence of the messiah and star
of redemption essentially apply. In terms of the real meaning of the name of
Nebuchadnezzar, we can say at least say with Igbo language that the accounts of
Flavius Josephus and Babylonian Chronicles were right in calling him King of
Kushan, for his name alone, Nebu-Chad-Nezzer, are three words that can
demonstrated in Igbo, where Nebu (Ebube) is Igbo for Glory or Great, where the
word Chad is no less Chaldean - no less Chad, and the word Nezzer (Eze) is Igbo
word for King or Chief. In essence, if we read the three words together, we
easily, very easily arrive at the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar, which is stem from
three words and not one, and which is easily, Glorious Chaldean King. In some
sense Nebuchadnezzar is a title and by his very title; the King of Chaldean, or
King of Kushan, or the Chosen, Divine, Great, or best of all, Glorious King of
Babylonians. It is also possible that the Nebuchadnezzar is not his real name,
quite possible that he has a name just like his father Nabopolassar, which is a
corruption of his actual name. In addition to this fact, we may it clearly that
Nabopolassar was also called the King of Kushan - Nebuchadnezzar I, and his
immortal son who raided Judah and what remains of it, was Nebuchadnezzar II. I
must also indicate that the name of his father is such that the 'sight' 'guide'
and 'path' may constitute part of the same meaning, which is cannot be that far
from the star or imitations of the stars. Above all, Nabopolassar, the father
of Nebuchadnezzar II was founding father of the Chaldean dynasty in Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar II may be a redeemer of some sort, and may be the force behind
the demise of Assyrians, but he was perhaps not the so called Chosen one who
Magi and eventually Isaiah may have preached about. We may indicate that the
subject of the Chosen One, the suffering servant, was a theme quite familiar
with Egyptians, as much it became from that the fall of Jerusalem to the hands
of Nebuchadnezzar on 16th March of 597 BC. Not all Judah at this point fell,
and after several wars with people mounting opposition to Assyrian yoke and then
Babylon, he came back a decade later to personally supervise the final days of
Judah in the years of Jeremiah. Of course the story of the captives in Babylon
is well noted through history, immortalized in encomiastic as the Psalms 137.
Jeremiah who was the last of the prophets was accused by the remnant of
Israelites to be the reason why the hand of God was against them. Jeremiah as
Jewish history indicates was led like a 'Sheep' outside the walls of Jerusalem
where he was essentially stoned to death. His portion which was inherited from
Nebuchadnezzar II as a prophet was taken away. But captives and priests sold
into slavery gradually began to see the images of Jeremiah as the suffering
servant, a theme that was personalized in another conqueror by name Cyrus. The
fact remain too clear that Nebuchadnezzar was a redeemer or the star of
redemption but he was not the anointed one, or as the case will be, the Messiah
that will restore Babylon to its greatness. This theme of restoration on
greatness was vigorously pursued by Nebuchadnezzar in his life time, including
the famous 'hanging tree' such that he undertook powerful architectural work in
his life that ended unfinished in his death. It was his son Evil Merodach who
was left to complete some of the works of art and massive building project.
Need does not exist to point out that they were
following the Behistun Inscription, where Darius described himself as Arian, a
term which we will later recognized as badly spelt and completely misleading.
As such we can speak of Sampson a Nazareth and not necessarily a messiah, but
his name which Jews believe an umbrella for salvation may be incomplete, since
the root of Samson or Sampson is Shemshu, which is modern Hebrew is Shimshi,
whereas Shemshu Ho-rah is Egyptian, literally meaning 'of the party of Ra' or
'of party of Ho-Ra' or 'follower of Ra' 'son of Ra', which also means son of
God. This meaning of Shemshu Ra may better be noted in a name that is quite
familiar, the name of an Egyptian pharaoh, Ramses. The name Ramses is English
form of the more Egyptian form, Ramesu, which is much the same as Sam-son or
Shemshu, much the same as the very name of Jesus. In essence, the man we call
Samson can only be compared to a messiah or Asih (Azir), on the account of his
devotion from birth as a Nazerith or Nazirith nothing more, as opposed to his
name which is closer to Egyptian if not Philistine, and since he was born in
the border between Dan and Ashdol, he was not influenced by elements of Egypt.
There was hardly anyone in Israel history that answered Samson before Samson,
and after Samson, there were few people who answered the very name. The same
may in fact be said of other names in the Bible that sound very Egyptian, names
such as Moses is for instance for Egypt, and may in fact be close to the period
of the Ka-Moses, Ahmose I, and a time when viziers to the Pharaohs answered
Moses. Other names such as Isaiah, that is prophet Isaiah, was not even
mentioned any other place in the Bible, saving the book of Isaiah and for some
brief mention of the name in the now popular 2 Kings 19-20; 2 Chron. 29-32. We
can also presume that the name is part human for this interplay on the man or
the prophet, but we may also regard the name probably a theme on a savior who
Christians faithfully testify as Jesus Christ. As shall also discover, the book
of Isaiah covering over 66, are in fact several books with particular themes of
Messiah or the Isaiah, whose will be chosen (Isa) or the Christ, for remission
of the sins of Israel. Even the initial 14 chapters of Isaiah where 'Immanuel'
as a theme manifest, may in fact be a testimonial to the promise of savior in
the time of Hezekiah. The theme however of a 'son' that will born, will
discussed as a promise to the dwindling light of the house of David, a promise
that Baruch Spinoza, may have referred to Josiah. We may however compare the
statement about the promise of Savior, wwanu-el, with the name of Christ who is
also noted as Isa. Jesus or Jesu or Yesu (Yah-eshua), noted as Jesus of
Nazareth is a name that means son of God, but it this lamb of God, that will be
a fulfilling of a certain portion of the Isaiah, namely Isaiah 53. We will
indicate the very presence of the place we called Nazareth in the Bible, but in
terms of who Christ was, he was called 'Son of God', only one account that his
name Y-esu. Further demonstration of this fact that our concern on this level
is that the name Nazi or Nazareth, literally refers to those set aside for a
certain period, to suffer the body in order to atone the sins of a certain
people. But in matters affecting the much chosen one, he or she has no purpose
but one, his destiny is already determined and he may or may not be aware of
it. The issue of being the chosen one does not always lead to death of a tree and
pouring of blood by a lamb in month of temple dedication. It is sometimes a
theme that appears in form of an 'anointed one', who will be chosen to lead his
people or their people. In a every bit of sense therefore, the theme of messiah
in Isaiah 40-55, that deals with the Babylonians and not Assyrians, and deals
with a certain anointed one, is a theme on the name Saris, or in Akkadian
Sa-eris, which was taken eventually to mean Cyrus as if he is King of Babylon.
The one who Nabu has 'chosen' was a man of affliction and suffering, a king who
do the will of Nabu or God, and the fitting of the king and he will be an a
Azir or Nazi, a man separated from others at least for a while. This man was
the delivery and his reign will bring the restoration of all things. So was
Christ in the Bible, so James the brother of Jesus, so was a certain John the
Baptist, so was Elijah. In all probability the prophet we call Isaiah was at
once a prophet dedicated to God.
The theme of the suffering servant and the servant of
God is best illustrated by these terms. For one thing we may invoke the
position of Igbo language to make the problem quite easy. In Igbo at least,
while it is up not to us to seek a better knowledge as to why the remaining
years of Babylon was spent relating the country and the culture to the people
concerned, we are very clear about the fact that the man in question
Nebuchadnezzar was the man the Magi was looking for. I shall need to indicate
that Cyrus also fit into the picture of the Messiah that will redeem Babylon,
the messiah was portion was also taken. The story concerning the persons of
Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus is of great importance, for both of them are quite
attested in Ancient History and both of them feature permanently in very vivid
matters of world history from around the sixth century.
There are no errors about the connecting tissue between
Chaldeans and their Dynasty in Babylon and the Babylonians themselves who were
also called Kushans. The Kushans are in fact Chaldeans, and it is the name Nebuchadnezzar
that confirms for it. The impact of the brief revolt of the Magi revolt after
the death of Smerdi by Cambyses may be exaggerated, but in reality the reasons
are quite revealing. For we are to understand the rest.. As we have noted
earlier, the Magi were experts in Astrology and in map making. These Magi were
also called the Arai, which is not related to the Aram, which has little to
offer in terms of the language. These traveling Magi were indeed Syrian
merchants, may be related to the Arai of older dynastic of India, and may have
composed the Sanskrit around this turbulent period. However, we must quickly
note that the error in correlating much of the disfranchised group of people in
West Asia bearing the name Arai, which is today's Iran, with those of them
found elsewhere in the world may be confusing to the point of accepting that
anything such as Indo-European actually existed. I shall hint here that the
place and time of Chaldeans, who in the 6th - 8th century transition years of
Babylonian dynastic, who were attacked and oppressed by the Assyrians, are by
their name and their persons, essentially related to Africans. So many a times,
we read of Ramnes, which for instance a certain George Dumezil in his earlier
work regarded as strata of Roman society for priest, are no different from the
Ras around the temples of Karnak and Amoq in North Africa and in much of Iran.
According to Dumezil, there were people also regarded as Tities in Rome, which
he incorrectly identified as producers. In as much Rome is unheard off beyond
the 3rd century, we have reason to believe that the people may have somewhat
existed in the century or so preceding their final overthrown of Etruscans.
Much denials about the origins of Rome has been in the context of Indo -Europeanism,
whereas Rome in terms of its history, is not that from Phoenicians, not that
from Mycenaean, not that far from Etruscans, but ultimately Egyptians or slave
thereabout. In some sense or another, the view of Rome as a people from Romulus
has not fully challenged, for enough exist to cite the coalition of wealthy
land owners, a kind of social strata unlike what we find in many parts of the
Phoenicia, societies arranged by common welfare as with Spartans. This effort
of involving the Spartan society in comparative relationship with Rome may
muddle the water, for we know that at least, a frieze from of the Egyptian
Pharaoh Bocchoris, standing in between Egyptian deities Neith and Horus, as
conducted by Thot, was discovered in 1979 at Tarquinii in the grave of female
from 7th century, demonstrate the caste society of Lucere, under the guild and
ownership of the Pharaoh of Egypt. The mistake has been that the priestly classes
were all one nation so to speak, were part of the Indo-European continent so to
speak, out of whom much of mysterious outcomes of Europe and their tribes
essentially if not misleadingly relate. The incidents of Ahura Mazda and the
religion called the Zoroastrians, may have also added to this view. We can make
the argument that we can throw more light of the Chaldeans and their Magi, we
can perhaps see that Babylonians and their Nebuchadnezzar, were not far from
the people who managed in the 6th and 7th century, to establish the Napata of
Egypt. These people were not different from their kind in major areas of
Africa, for instance among the Libyans of the further South was a dynasty
coming to an end, and that dynasty deserves a lengthier treatment, and that
Dynasty was those of Shoshenq of Omoeshaw tribe of Libu, a tribe that will
survive in several incarnation in India and in Iran as Meshaw, Preshaw, and
Omo, and that tribe will extend from Africa into Indus valley. It is this group
that will noted as Kushan relative, for only in terms of Kushans as same
Chaldeans, who are simply Chad in history and language, can anything be said of
the later years of Egyptian Ramesside Dynasty which ended with the appointment
of Shoshenq as pharaoh, approved by the state God of the Thebes by title Amun
Ra. For if we understand the relationship between the Upper and Lower Egypt,
between Tanis and Thebes in the years after Pharaoh Psussenen II of Egypt, may
we see that the incident of Kashta of Napata in the lower Egypt as a recovery
of lower Egypt, as opposed outright conquest by Nubian forces. We may also note
that in the reign of Painky or Py as Pharaoh of lower and Upper Egypt may have
also added to the luster of the evolution of the new years of Egypt. Above all
there is the evident understanding that this age of Napata may start all kinds
of disaster where the images of Bophoris, Pharaoh of Egypt, came to signify a
departure if not an end of 25th dynasty. This popular Pharaoh The main point of
the 7th century before Christ is that Py (Pianky) of Napata, who was Pharaoh of
Egypt of the lower and Upper Egypt, was the son of the Magnanimous Kashta, who
began the Twenty fifth (25th) dynasty of Egypt.
It was after him that the several problems and civil
war between the Theban priest of Upper Egypt and the successors of the lower
Pharaohs of Tanis was essentially start cots of the calligraphy of the Medieval
ages, Calligraphy, that evolved into several forms by way of the uncials, and
shortened use of the drawing of what was only very clearly ABCEDE-rian. In
essence, we can entertain the possibility of one language stem of the world,
only on the count of the departures of given forms of writing rather than
speaking, where speaking (writings main function) would in the end decide the
forms of a given language; its future, its life. However, we may say that a possibility
exist that the world in the way we understand it today, may be carefully
documented in terms of language and evolution of language, by merely the use of
the intonations and dialects which the point of say the world map may indicate
to use. In many ways than one, enough exist for the claim to have some life
that old Alphabets were mere intonation of larger map of the world evolutionary
languages, which Egypt and their Africans, were ultimately the source and
fulcrum.
My speculations include the very fact that the so
called Alphabets Cities which the Phoenicians founded, where perhaps part and
parcel of the Cities and their priestly functions and chief minerals, which
either the old Egyptians discovered and knew, or the Phoenicians themselves
marked as languages or intonations based on other tables of symbols from the
2000 pieces. If the Phoenicians, who hardly went to war with Egypt, are more or
less considered Egyptians, and the Babylonians too, then there is enough to
indicate that the table of nations, are summarized by the Alphabets of the
Ugaritic and Canaan. Canaan or what the Africans called Kanunu or Kaninu, is so
forced out of their own Keme and Africa, that the error with world languages
has become that significant. It is not without tribute to this departure of
Canaan from Africa that the false and engrossing claims about Semitic language
or dialectal, may earned the ranks of world confusion. Based on this 'new
facility' of African language, we can suggest that it is up to the world to
look at the Palermo stone and Rosetta, as last copy of what would have been an
African practice preceding Rome and Greek, or that Pilate's attempt to write in
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, 'I am the King of the Jews', in respect to Christ was
a very late imitation of a writing career of an the empire and Pseudo empire
was already in decay from very Old age. It is however not impossible to
indicate that the even the careers of Pontus Pilate as appointed regnal over
Judah may even receive more attention than any Africa. Why any language such as
English will sound different from its origin is not without reason or
explication, for we know that writing and its use exceed the titular of three
lines inscriptions of the ascension of Ptolemy V in 196 BC, and the writings in
Hieroglyphics, Demotic, Greek, and on the Rosetta, granted to him and his
ancestors by the votive Theban (Thebian) priests, indicate that a hint of
independence of the part of Thebes, may explain the evolution of Hieratic
career of the priest of Thebes, whose form of writing may have yielded the
calligraphy in later times. It is only in context of the Calligraphy and the
Hieratic forms of writings that reasons arise as to why the cultures of the
world gradually broke free from a concise understanding on its roots and
origins to other derivative of the same structure and the same writing whose
time was already.
No one who will look at the Sanskrit and Arabic will
not fail to see the comparative responsiveness to the two forms of language and
writing forms for they are supposedly Calligraphic, which is a form of writing
that descended from a form that is neither Hieroglyphics, nor Demotic but
something in between. A form of writing more like a version of the Egyptian
Hieratic whose language is everything Aramaic. In essence therefore, we can say
that the initial confusion over the relationship between Sanskrit any other
European language, was due to the writing form, where one was retention from
standard version of the Latin and Greek, which may developed out of the need to
be precise, whereas languages in Sinai in Syria, and in some measure, parts of
South Arabic and disfranchised North African dialectal - around the Coast and
the Central Africa - used the writing forms that was closer to the Hieratic
than the Hieroglyphics, than the broken up version of the Hieratic; the Latin,
the Greek, the Phoenician Alphabets. Where were versions of the old in terms of
the New? All things considered, the new realized comparison between European
languages and Sanskrit was only possible in terms of the IPA format, through
which much of the Sanskrit isolated in the 'calligraphic' version of writing,
was made accessible and readable in Latin, and when in English form, the
meanings of the words of Sanskrit gradually appear.
