 72Languages.com The Original Language The Original Language Introduction to the Original Language Early Alphabet Equivalencies Original Language Numbers Dictionary of the Original Language Gathering the Pieces of the Original Language Assyrian, Akkadian, and Sumerian Cuneiform Hebrew Linear B Etruscan Hindustani Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic Early Egyptian Language Egyptian Hieroglyphic Hieratic Hieratic Roots of Arabic Coptic The Pyramids The Four Sons of Horus The Hall of Judgment Joseph Smith's Contributions to Egyptology Ancient American Archaeology and Linguistics Los Lunas Decalogue Jaredites: The First Americans The Jaredites were Black The Kinderhook Plates North America’s Lost Archaeology Ancient Scripture Hebrew Ten Commandments Phoenician Ten Commandments Greek Beatitudes A New Translation of Isaiah Commentary Honesty in Translations The Origin of Nations Chronology of the Scriptures The Seventy Nephi's Psalm Units of Time Linguistic Hoaxes The Michigan Tablets Burrows Cave Wisconsin Cuneiform Voynich Manuscript |
The Original Language David Grant Stewart, Sr. (c) 2008 work in progress Chapter 1 A vast amount of information has been kept from us because
none of the very most ancient records has been translated correctly. The
object of this work is to correct this by providing correct translations and
explanations as to why they are correct. The original language was written in
three or four writing systems: Cuneiform, Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and
Phoenician type characters. The distinction between Hieratic and Phoenician
in their earliest forms is blurry, hence the “three or four.” Every character
had multiple sounds and multiple meanings. In order to recover these, our
logical path leads us from late Assyrian, back through Babylonian, Akkadian,
Ugaritic, Sumerian, then Egyptian Hieroglyphic, and finally Hieratic, in each
case proceeding from the later simple forms to the earlier complex forms. These
writing systems were used simultaneously, often in the same document. “Many early tablets show a mixture of signs
drawn and written in cuneiform.” [Cuneiform, C.B.F. The earliest forms of writing appear fully developed, as
implied by Holy Writ. No evidence whatsoever has been discovered even to
suggest, let alone confirm, the gradual development demanded by Darwinian
evolution. “Study of the early Uruk texts themselves has also suggested that
they are dependent upon an earlier tradition of pictography which has not yet
been found or identified.” [op. cit., p. 9]. Here are some geographical equivalents we will need
later: Aratta: Iranian mountains Dilmun: modern [op. cit., p. 11]. An ENMEGARAGESI is supposed to be a king of Girsu corresponds to modern day Tello [ibid.]. In tablets
we will translate, we will find the untranslated name NINGIRSU and we will
see that it should have been translated “lady [or queen] of Girsu.” We will find the name “Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk” [op.
cit., p. 14] but since LUGAL means “king” we may find grounds for equating
ZAGESI with URUK. The fact that “From Old Akkadian times on, ... the heads of
wedges appear only at the top or the left side of a sign” [ibid.] can be, and
has been by myself, used to prove that certain supposed “cuneiform” tablets
are in fact recent fakes. The Sumerian plural for sons is very close to modern
Chinese: Sumerian DUMU, son, DUMU-MESH, sons; the Chinese plural suffix for
persons is MEN. The original language
word for no or not is very similar to ours:) NU. Likewise, do
something, or make or build, is DU. MU
in Sumerian is English “my.” Another nice similarity. “At all periods the numerical system used by the
Sumerians, Babylonians, and those who borrowed from them, is a combination of
the decimal system (counting in tens) and a sexagesimal system (counting in
60s).” [op. cit., p. 20]. It is commonly known that our system of dividing hours,
minutes, and degrees into sixty parts goes back to Adam. Here are the numbers 1-9, 10, 60, 600, 602, 602
x 10: /, //, ///, z, F, G, H, I, J, K, U, V, X, /, u, /, u. You can see that the translation of these numbers is
highly context dependent. The language is the same way. K or u
are in many instances an alternate way of writing ~. In many instances the orientation does not change the
meaning: F is in some cases equivalent to i. Both characters may stand for the number 5.
The latter character also means “hand.” Here are two examples of context dependency: / u F can
mean 60+10+5=75, 602 +10+5=3615, or 1+15/60=1.25 // 4 F can
mean 2x60+40+5=165, 2x+602+40x60+5=9605,
or 5/60=2.75 [op. cit., p,. 21] Here are some
fractions: t ½ Z 1/3 The same character as above with a short vertical stroke /inside is 2/3 The same character as above with a two vertical strokes z inside is 5/6. The names of some gods, Gods, or great ones were
associated with numbers. We see this in the New Testament with the Holy Ghost
associated with the Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover. We see this in
ancient We have u, the number 10, as
representing the god ADAD. But AD means “father.” Did ADAD mean “Father of
fathers,” which in later Hebrew is a way of expressing the superlative [holy
of holies, etc.], meaning the supreme Father in Heaven? Cognates abound; we
have Swedish TIO, ten; Italian DIO, God as one of countless pairs of
examples. Note that this goes back to the language of Adam where the number 5
is associated with a man or father, the augmented 10 is God, just as LU is
“man” and LU-GAL is “great man, king.” uu,
20, represents Babylonian SHAMASH, Hebrew SHEMESH, but also the
representation of the name SHEM, the great high priest. Sun worship, at the
earliest stage of the language, is identical to Shem worship. We find all
over the world the founding fathers of every nation being elevated to deified
status when their descendants lapse into apostasy. Numerous instances are
recorded in Holy Writ of heathens disposed to offer sacrifice to holy men.
[Unhappily, even more accounts exist of holy men being the sacrifice.] “... in the Ur III period the practice of using a top
line as a guide from which to hang the signs seems to be quite regular; it is
still common in the old Babylonian., especially for letters and literary
texts. Occasionally examples can be
found in the Kassite period.” [op.
cit., p. 24]. It seems not unlikely to me that this practice may explain the
origin of Sanskrit characters, which seem to be from a rotated Egyptian Hieratic
script suspended from an upper line. Forgeries of cuneiform texts are very easy to detect
because very precise rules were always followed by every civilization that
ever used cuneiform. “In general, if a multi-column tablet does not obey
these rules, or if the tablet turns right to left (as the page of a book)
then it suggests a forgery.” [ibid.]
Any person not knowing all these rules, or applying one set of rules to
another civilization, immediately shows himself to be a counterfeiter. The ancient Babylonians wrote dates the same way we do in
Although widespread illiteracy is claimed for the
ancients, archaeological findings do not bear this out: “... if one digs in a town of the Old Babylonian
period, it seems that one can find a few tablets in almost every house. Small private libraries existed at all
periods...” [op. cit., p. 38]. A great many cuneiform tablets found have still not been
published to date. Perhaps this begs the question of why any more expeditions
should be funded until the records already in hand have been made available
to scholars. The seeming next question
implied - why should we publish unpublished texts when the ones we have
already published are not translated correctly - is less rational. It is
precisely the increased availability of these records that will assist in
correcting errors in the previously available ones. Moreover, cuneiform texts
are translated with a very high degree of accuracy; most errors are in the
way proper nouns are handled, such as Gilgamesh. But as you can see for
yourself, there is a world of difference and enlightenment in translating a
record of a world-wide Flood where the hero is some legendary Gilgamesh as
opposed to the correct translation, “the father of Shem.” By the way, in the
Gilgamesh epic, the first line is translated as “He who saw everything.” Does
this sound familiar? To an Anglo-Saxon scholar, it should. It is the correct
translation of the name Alfred, “all-perceiving.” Variants of the cuneiform writing system were used by
about fifteen different languages. Some of these were Sumerian [ancestor of
Finnish], Akkadian [ancestor of Hebrew], Assyrian [ancestor of Russian],
Babylonian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Luvian, Urartian, Ugaritic,
Persian, Median [ancestor of Chinese], and of course the original language of
Adam. Some of these language affinities are difficult to trace
for the very reason the civilization stopped using this writing system: in
every case they were conquered by a foreign power. Russian, for example, has
much in common with the Semitic syntax of Assyrian, but many common words
come from Mongolian, which would be a surprise unless you knew something
about the history of Italian finds near Elamite is the least of the three languages of the Fragments of the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh have been
found in Hurrian. Urartian is the
descendant language from Hurrian, 1300-700 B.C., around Ugaritic is related to Hebrew. Like Hebrew, It is instructive to compare Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Old
Persian cuneiform which (according to tradition) was invented by the king of Assyrian Sound Ugaritic Sound Persian Sound a A a A A A U A b BA b B B BA ` BI + BU B AB ” IB / g G g GA G GA 1 GI ! GU g GU G AG d DA d D D DA 5 DI c D b DI @ DU d DU T AD |