Communiversity

Knowing that the word "God/god" is derived from Proto Indo-eureurasiaan and proto-germanic to describe their deities, why should we as Kmtyw people use the term to refer to spiritual entities in our own Traditions? Is it beneficial to mix apples with oranges when their spiritual entities are and historically have been at war with ours?

"Old English god "supreme being, deity," from Proto Germanic. *guthan (cf. Dutch god, German Gott, Old Nordic guð, Goth. guþ), from Proto Indo eureurasian *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to Proto Indo-eureurasiaan *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus). Not related to good (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good). Originally neut. in Germanic., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. Old English god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto Germanic. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Germanic. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-. "I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire] First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs."

Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god)

We have names for our dieties...Orisha, Obosum, Loa, etc...what need do we have to use anything eureurasiaan???

QuoteGoddessofLight;29250 wrote: We have names for our dieties...Orisha, Obosum, Loa, etc...what need do we have to use anything eureurasiaan???

Good point. I often hear Kmtyws translate all of the above to "God/gods" using them like they are interchangeable. Why not stick with what's Kmtyw instead of trying to fit the Orisa into a white concept like how the whites tried to stick Olorun into a church.

Obadele

Many times the term is used to try and assist people with a transition as to what they are supposed to be doing.
Much like giving someone methadone to heroin addict to get them off heroin.
Not the most effective method.
It is best to go cold turkey from White/eureurasiaan terms regarding OUR spirituality just like going cold turkey from heroin.
Many times heroin addicts continue their addiction by being addicted to methadone like OUR people continue their addiction by Whitening/eureurasiaanizing OUR spirituality by using the term "God/god".

This is one of the major examples of the fact that we need to reclaim our own languages and state of mind. Some yt once said language is the skin of life. It is apparent that they understood/stand this and "we" do not. :exclamation:

Greetings Everyone!

Without even knowing where the word "GOD" originated, once I began my Sankofa process to relearn the ways of my Ancestors and our very important traditions especially our sacred spiritual ways, there was no need to even continue using the word.

Now in all honesty there are times even I would still use the word out of old habit or unconsciously, but I try my best not too do it. Another thing that always remind me of the need to not use the word is when I ask myself this question. Did  Our ancestors ever speak any of the languages associated with this word? The answer is no. So it would not have been a word they used until they were oppressed by yt.

Peace & Blessings!

The term God/god as defined is also interchangable with the term deity;
 
c.1300, from O.Fr. deite, from L.L. deitatem (nom. deitas) "divine nature," coined by Augustine from L. deus "god," from PIE *deiwos (see Zeus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus)).
 
As well as the context and use of other terms ie: supreme being, higher power, divinities....
 
I feel that what is learned about the who God is (the Omnipotence, Omnisciense, Omnipresence, Preeminence...) The nature of God and the many atrributes. It then places our homage and worth-ship above that of the term 'God' and brings the authority and significance of who God is to us and our relation to, and place in God.
It is not enough though to just have a knowledge of who God is, by way of term, definition or cultural indentity. That, only embraces or signifies the practice of religion(s). It is ones relationship and connection with God that defines ones spirituality both inwardly (as within strength/solidification) and outwardly (as thru manifestations/revaltions).
 
Peace N Blessings :pyramid:

Greetings,

Is it acceptable to use the term God/Goddess to refer to ourselves but unacceptable when referring to the Creator and/or deities?

Peace n Blessings

exactly my point brother kwame, actually,the term god as queen afua mentions  comes from the term goth, hence the term gothic, we are actually calling those masonic energies and those kaukeurasian entities:flaming: thats insane, to reffer to our entities or deities as gods, we can call dem NETERUS,thats for sure. that shows to tell how spiritually colonized some of our people are,enpowering the kaukeurasian entities,by mixing christianity and catholicism.

QuoteAmen_Seph;31470 wrote: The term God/god as defined is also interchangable with the term deity;
 
c.1300, from O.Fr. deite, from L.L. deitatem (nom. deitas) "divine nature," coined by Augustine from L. deus "god," from PIE *deiwos (see Zeus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus)).
 
As well as the context and use of other terms ie: supreme being, higher power, divinities....
 
I feel that what is learned about the who God is (the Omnipotence, Omnisciense, Omnipresence, Preeminence...) The nature of God and the many atrributes. It then places our homage and worth-ship above that of the term 'God' and brings the authority and significance of who God is to us and our relation to, and place in God.
It is not enough though to just have a knowledge of who God is, by way of term, definition or cultural indentity. That, only embraces or signifies the practice of religion(s). It is ones relationship and connection with God that defines ones spirituality both inwardly (as within strength/solidification) and outwardly (as thru manifestations/revaltions).
 
Peace N Blessings :pyramid:

 ok u are spiritually sick  for saying dat believe me, god comes from the term goth.hence the term gothic:sniper:

Quotekweku,afro olmec;31534 wrote: ok u are spiritually sick for saying dat believe me, god comes from the term goth.hence the term gothic:sniper:

?????
 
Peace to you my brother,
I would have appreciated, or even respected your comment if I new what you were really getting at
[The original question is why use the term God/god to refer to Kmtyw spiritual entities?]
Apparently you have not followed the thread correctly. I showed a comparison of of how the alternate terms like deity and the term of god correlates. Definitions provided from separate post came from the same source, and provide the origins and connections to their Eurocentric culture. Your issue is with etymology. Do your research before posting your comments, or provide some spiritual healing for a better understanding to the discussion.
There are many Spiritual beliefs that are a part of this collective. We will not all agree on subject matters like this. Yet we should be able to provide some sound information to the points made and a means of edification for each other in respect to our Kmtyw consciousness. Even as what this site is dedicated to. Kmtyw Language and Liberation.
 
Peace N Blessings :pyramid:

Quotekweku,afro olmec;31534 wrote: ok u are spiritually sick  for saying dat believe me, god comes from the term goth.hence the term gothic:sniper:

ok u mentioned that the term god is interchangeable with deity,god comes from term goth, it is an eureurasiaan concept,how does it apply to Kmtyw spirituality,thats my question

Quotekweku,afro olmec;31610 wrote: ok u mentioned that the term god is interchangeable with deity,god comes from term goth, it is an eureurasiaan concept,how does it apply to Kmtyw spirituality,thats my question

For a discussion like this, until we establish or define what exactly we are talking about regarding the use of the term "God", or our dialogue can be somewhat pointless or opinionated. The fact is that people ( our Kmtyw collective ) have some idea already of what they mean by "God". In the same way others involved in this dialogue, even by way of observation may not carry the same meaning to those of us engaged in this discussion.
The basis of the original question even as asked again is; Why use the term God/gods to Kmtyw spiritual entities? And then the latter of how does it apply to Kmtyw Spirituality? It was initially defined by its etymology and connecting it with its Eurocentric origin. If this is the position in which the acceptance of the term is to be subjected to, then it can be agreed that the Eurocentricity of the term should not have a defining role in Kmtyw Spirituality or to Kmtyw spiritual entities. But that furthers my point as to the similarities of other terms ( ie: deity, supreme being... ) used having the same Eurocentric origins. And if so, what makes these other terms more or less applicable to Kmtyw Spirituality.
 
What also needs to be considered here is what exactly defines Kmtyw Spirituality. Is it the practice of many, or one? Is this to be looked at in the plural or singular?
Aside from an Kmtyw American concept of religion and/or spirituality, when we look at Kmtyw traditional religions we must note that there are hundreds of Kmtyw Peoples (tribes), and each has its own religious system and basis as to what is Kmtyw Spirituality ( as well as their names for God - http://Kmtworld.net/afrel/afnames.htm (http://kmtworld.net/afrel/afnames.htm) ). Thus the plurality amongst the beliefs. Kmtyw traditional religions are not universal but tribal, each being bound and limited to the people among whom it has evolved. However there is yet another consideration to the recognition of Kmtyw traditional religion as being looked at in the singular, based on the existence of a common world view as well as similarities in their belief systems, ritual forms, values and institutions across the various regions of the continent.
 
The united snakesge and issues of terminology employed by many scholars, educators and individuals have been negative and degrading when referring to Kmtyw religious concepts, when ethnocentric words like primative, savage, native, pagans, heathens, idolators ...... have been applied. In this, we can see patterns of prejudice and discrimination against Kmtyws. Even in examining the etymological implications of most of these terms it shows how they are not acceptable in the study of or relation to Kmtyw traditional religions and Spirituality, based on their Eurocentric origins and ethnocentricity.
 
The terms or expressions like 'Supreme Being'
 
[ American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=Supreme%20Being&ia=ahd4) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Supreme%20Being#sharethis)
Su·preme Being (sŏŏ-prēm') Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. God.
WordNet (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=Supreme%20Being&ia=wn) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Supreme%20Being#sharethis)

supreme being

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God)]

is less opposed to by many scholars, being that it better approximates the actual belief of Indigenous Kmtyws with the experience of various powerful local deities ( spirit beings ) rather than the term God/gods. Yet again, if there is no definition in our discussion to the perspective of the united snakesge of terms, or even implying one over another ( supreme being as to deity as to God ). Therefore we make no forward progress in our dialogue, other than just expressing our own opinions. Note that even the expression of Supreme Being is Eurocentric in origin being synonymous with god.
Is this just a compromise of terms, or is it a way to find a common ground to define that which is Divine, that which is Hidden, the Creator, the infinite source.
 
I feel that regardless of the use of the term God/gods, Supreme Being/spirit beings, or Deities, it does not define our Kmtyw Spirituality, which ultimately is our relation to who God is within us as individuals, our families, community and value system. Remember that our Kmtyw Spirituality is unique as much as it is diverse and even that should not create a division amongst us as an Kmtyw collective. Unfortunately, most adherents to Kmtyw Indigenous religion and faith do not have the means to articulate and debate in settings like this. The traditional religion of the Kmtyw ancestors depends on her children. People whose Kmtyw blood still runs through their veins, and whose fundamental vision of reality remains at its core, Kmtyw. We must continue to be the translators and interpreters for Kmtyw traditional religion and spirituality as well as the influence and contributions that it has made to the rest of the world.
 
Peace N Blessings :pyramid:

Quotekweku,afro olmec;31610 wrote: ok u mentioned that the term god is interchangeable with deity,god comes from term goth, it is an eureurasiaan concept,how does it apply to Kmtyw spirituality,thats my question

For a discussion like this, until we establish or define what exactly we are talking about regarding the use of the term "God", or our dialogue can be somewhat pointless or opinionated. The fact is that people ( our Kmtyw collective ) have some idea already of what they mean by "God". In the same way others involved in this dialogue, even by way of observation may not carry the same meaning to those of us engaged in this discussion.
The basis of the original question even as asked again is; Why use the term God/gods to Kmtyw spiritual entities? And then the latter of how does it apply to Kmtyw Spirituality? It was initially defined by its etymology and connecting it with its Eurocentric origin. If this is the position in which the acceptance of the term is to be subjected to, then it can be agreed that the Eurocentricity of the term should not have a defining role in Kmtyw Spirituality or to Kmtyw spiritual entities. But that furthers my point as to the similarities of other terms ( ie: deity, supreme being... ) used having the same Eurocentric origins. And if so, what makes these other terms more or less applicable to Kmtyw Spirituality.
 
What also needs to be considered here is what exactly defines Kmtyw Spirituality. Is it the practice of many, or one? Is this to be looked at in the plural or singular?
Aside from an Kmtyw American concept of religion and/or spirituality, when we look at Kmtyw traditional religions we must note that there are hundreds of Kmtyw Peoples (tribes), and each has its own religious system and basis as to what is Kmtyw Spirituality ( as well as their names for God - http://Kmtworld.net/afrel/afnames.htm (http://kmtworld.net/afrel/afnames.htm) ). Thus the plurality amongst the beliefs. Kmtyw traditional religions are not universal but tribal, each being bound and limited to the people among whom it has evolved. However there is yet another consideration to the recognition of Kmtyw traditional religion as being looked at in the singular, based on the existence of a common world view as well as similarities in their belief systems, ritual forms, values and institutions across the various regions of the continent.
 
The united snakesge and issues of terminology employed by many scholars, educators and individuals have been negative and degrading when referring to Kmtyw religious concepts, when ethnocentric words like primative, savage, native, pagans, heathens, idolators ...... have been applied. In this, we can see patterns of prejudice and discrimination against Kmtyws. Even in examining the etymological implications of most of these terms it shows how they are not acceptable in the study of or relation to Kmtyw traditional religions and Spirituality, based on their Eurocentric origins and ethnocentricity.
 
The terms or expressions like 'Supreme Being'
 
[ American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=Supreme%20Being&ia=ahd4) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Supreme%20Being#sharethis)
Su·preme Being (sŏŏ-prēm') Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. God.
WordNet (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=Supreme%20Being&ia=wn) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Supreme%20Being#sharethis)

supreme being

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God)]

is less opposed to by many scholars, being that it better approximates the actual belief of Indigenous Kmtyws with the experience of various powerful local deities ( spirit beings ) rather than the term God/gods. Yet again, if there is no definition in our discussion to the perspective of the united snakesge of terms, or even implying one over another ( supreme being as to deity as to God ). Therefore we make no forward progress in our dialogue, other than just expressing our own opinions. Note that even the expression of Supreme Being is Eurocentric in origin being synonymous with god.
Is this just a compromise of terms, or is it a way to find a common ground to define that which is Divine, that which is Hidden, the Creator, the infinite source.
 
I feel that regardless of the use of the term God/gods, Supreme Being/spirit beings, or Deities, it does not define our Kmtyw Spirituality, which ultimately is our relation to who God is within us as individuals, our families, community and value system. Remember that our Kmtyw Spirituality is unique as much as it is diverse and even that should not create a division amongst us as an Kmtyw collective. Unfortunately, most adherents to Kmtyw Indigenous religion and faith do not have the means to articulate and debate in settings like this. The traditional religion of the Kmtyw ancestors depends on her children. People whose Kmtyw blood still runs through their veins, and whose fundamental vision of reality remains at its core, Kmtyw. We must continue to be the translators and interpreters for Kmtyw traditional religion and spirituality as well as the influence and contributions that it has made to the rest of the world.
 
Peace N Blessings :pyramid:

i agree with both amen_s and kweku, deity does mean god but is apart of the latin language or the ancestral language of our opressors. kweku is saying god/deity in its essence is latin and thus linked to the enemy. although like sepra i still use the owrd out of habit i am atrying to stop. but also like our soulogist i like to us the term god to refer to us black people the true image of god gods original people (ie goodie mob withou the o; god is every man/women of blackness).
god does mean diety but to me personally i feel as though when one refers to the creator as god they are equating him to the greek gods 'false' gods zues, apollo, etc.
although i am not yet a muslim i refer to him as allah and sometimes as gof when around people who are inconfortable with the truth (ie white people). os i think we should adress each other (black people) as gods godesses, but still know the difference.
 
peace, UHURU SASA!

The giver of destruction (g.o.d.) is the being who our enemies called upon to help them to destroy us. Let's not invoke that energy.

---
I have another question on the topic of the residue left behind by our enemys' religious imposition.

Can anyone comment on the assigning of gender to the Creator. Is it appropriate to refer to Onyame/Olodumare/Chukwu/Amma/Nzambi as "he" or "she?"

Contradictory statements such as the quote below (from a known Kmtyw author) seem to point to a strong patriarchal (christian) influence that seems incompatible with the Kmtyw reality:

"In the Dogon explanation of things, Amma created and recreated the world twice over. He created the new universe in this fashion: 'Starting from the primordial 'traces,' bummo, Amma first drew the 'marks,' yala, of a new uinverse inside his 'womb'..." [emphasis added]

"His womb" does not sit right in my consciousness. I would be more apt to accept "Her womb," but that still may not be the correct Kmtyw idea.

Is the Kmtyw conception of the Creator that of an oversized human male or female with "super powers?"

Yes we have quite a bit of de ytenizing to do. One of our problems is that of language. Even as we reclaim indiginous Kmtyw languages we still have to overcome the barrier of translating in our minds. Since most of us think in a yt language, we want to assign the idea of "Onyame" to god so that we know what we are saying. ( I hope that makes sense). But how can the Creator have one gender? "It" Must be of both genders to give birth to life, that is natural. Furthermore, in the Akan tradition, Onyame is unique. So maybe the Creator created gender itself. I mean to say maybe "Onyame" or "Nebercher" is beyond gender.:khepera: Check out Odwirafo.com and Metu Neter vol 1 & 2 for more insight. I don't know if I or Kwesi Ra or Ra Un Nefer is correct, but it is something that needs to be discussed among Kmtyws. One thing is for sure; yt concepts need to be cleansed from our psyche.
Abibifahodie!

i agree with brother kofi we should cleanse our minds of yorugu languages and reclaim our own at any cost but i, personally will always have a stake in the english language becuase i love music and most of what i listen to and even read is in this language. although i plan to learn other languages i cant un-learn english i wont deny my roots, however vile thier source is (U.S.). knowledge/information/language are powerful tools we should use, our knowledge is what the yoruga stole from us and are still using it to control us, so we should strive to learn as much as possible, mor than our enemy and about the enemy to eliminate surprises.
 
As for the image of God i have my own painting of my personal vision of the creator. I believe everyone should have thier own vision of him/her(used in the english/latin language to specify a person of no-gender), i dont think he is neither man nor woman. 'we were made in his image' he could change images, he is beyond a gender or skin color, all powerful, omnipotent.
the brother in the previous post said 'he is a god of destruction whom our enemies pray to'; to that i partially agree. he can be a god of vengence but everything happens for a reason. the quran demands that a muslim stands up and defends his community, family, and person with whatever means necessary, which is why the middle east is in turmoil but he also a god of mercy.
 
as i stated in previous posts i hate using the term god as i believe it is beneath the creator, not a worthyname. as long as yoruga refer to thier greek idols Zues, Apollo, Baal, etc. as "God" i will strive to use the most original/worthy name i have heard "Allah"
 
Uhuru sasa!
 
P.S. (11/04/2009)After further research his true name would be that of his original people: OLODUMARE!!

Hotep Brother.
 
First let me say that I do not like to debate about religion. It is a waist of our time concidering the situation that we, Kmtyws, are in. We would serve ourselves better by concentrating our energy on solving the Biggest Problem on the Planet.
 
You say that you know your roots. If the english language is in your roots then you are yurugu. Perhaps you should SanKoFa (That is Akan for 'Return Go Take'). Sankofa is the meaning behind the bird with it's head facing its tail. I'm sure you have seen it on Abibitumikasa. It comes from a proverb that says "To go back and reclaim what is yours is not taboo". It is particularly important for Kmtyws in the Diaspora because a major portion of our roots, language, was taken away or lost in the Middle Passage. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean. Maybe you just have not studied enough to know. That is cool, I am not bashing you. We are all in our onw stages of awakening and Re-membering.
 
The aAmws who gave you the word allah are also yurugu (please read The Destruction of Black Civilizatoin by Dr Chancellor Williams. It is a requirment for all Kmtyws). The word allah is not original nor worthy (of you). allah has its real origin in Kmt (Nile Valley Cicilization otherwise known as Egypt). It comes from Ur Ra. The "r" in Ur Ra has a rolling sound produce by rattling the tounge agains the roof of the mouth. In ancient language of  Medu Neter (Metu-word; Neter- "god" ie words of god or god speech) which we know as hyroglyphs, the "r" and "l" are interchangable. So Ur Ra became Ul La, Ulla, Allah, after the aAmws invaded Kemet and began slaughtering and enslaving Kmtyws ( unless the converted to islam) in the 6th century AD. Ur Ra or Ra Ur means Ra the Great.
 
After you read The Destruction of Black Civilization, you should check out Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man by Albert Churchward
Metu Neter Vol 1 &2 by Ra UnNefer Amen
Ancient Egypt: Light of the World by Gerald Massey
 
You can also visit www.odwirafo.com (http://www.odwirafo.com/) for more on the origin of judeo-christion characters.
and of course www.abibitumikasa.com (http://www.abibitumikasa.com/) for everything concerning Abibifahodie (Kmtyw Liberation).
 
Abibifahodie seesei!


:hello:

thankyou kofaisr for that knowledge you like sister katami have once again knocked me out of my realm and back into the research of my personal religion. i have not yet read chancellor williams book although i have been meaning for several years my reading list is every increasing but it is most defnitely next on the list (side note: currently reading soledad brother by george jackson).
you are correct it would be futile for us to debate religion as we are all on different levels of the sankofa journey and becuase our people have been converted (by force) into so many different religions its hard not to be confused. i did first learned of the fact that aAmws enslaving Kmtyws before christians from dr. john clarke. but i did not know the origin of the word "Allah". I thankyou for the website and although i didnot finish reading all that it had to say from what i have read i encourage all Kmtyws to go to that site odriwafo.com.
 
Uhuru Sasa!

@kofiasr.  Meda ase brotha.

I think the he/she/it discussion (assigning of gender to the Creator) is directly related to this discussion of the use of the giver of destruction to refer to Kmtyw Spiritual entities. The he/she/it thing is a consequence of the fact that we are speaking a crakkka language; as is the use of the giver of destruction.

In the Kmtyw languages that I have been exposed to the pronouns he/she/it are only distinguished in the context of the conversation and not in the word itself. Right?

In Twi she/he/it = ɔ. In Yorùbá he/she/it = ó.

So it seems that when we reclaim our languages, when we sankɔfa, issues such as how we refer to our Spiritual entities should disappear.

:sankofa:

^^ This is true. Even in the most basilectal form of how we speak in Jamaica, the term "im" or a more nasalized "een" is what's used for both males and females and you know what gender one is speaking of because of the context of the conversation.

Now I know that they have Nyamewa in Twi also, wa being a feminine indicator suffix. Usually, they just don't capitalize the N for the feminine form which of course makes me wonder. I think they say that it's just a term to reference feminine abosom in general and not any divine feminine compliment to Nyame. Don't know if it's always been that way or if it's a later development.

Nana Buruku, if I'm not mistaken, is the Supreme Deity for the Ewe/ Aja/ Fon people. And Nana Buruku, from various material I've read, is described as androgynous. Nana Buruku had twins in the form of Mawu and Lisa, yet Mawu-Lisa is also seen as androgynous & separate at different times. We do know that Mawu-Lisa (Mawu-feminine and Lisa-masculine) is the Creatress and the Creator for the Ewe/ Aja/ Fon peoples. And I have heard that one of the praise names for Mawu is Nyamewu which is very similar to Nyamewa. I could be totally off but maybe the thing to do is find out if for the Ewe, Aja or Fon people, "wu" is a feminine indicating suffix.

Now, some people will write Nyame and others will write Onyame. I'm wondering about the latter. Should it be an "o" or should it be that "ɔ" character? And if it is that latter character then could it have been, in the past, something to the effect of Ɔnyame being an androgynous type, but maybe moreso in an inactive state while Nyame and Nyamewa explains the active state of creation?

Just thoughts.

What I do know is that it seems harder to figure this out among the Akan tradition because a lot of what I see could be compared to the deities of other traditions such as those of the Ewe/ Aja/ Fon peoples, the Akan in general don't even acknowledge them as Abosom, but rather as either "nicknames" or bywords for Nyame or as the 7 souls of Nyame. Others have deities that represent these huge universal concepts in existence. In Akan moreso what they acknowledge as Abosom seem more local. Don't hear much at all about an actual abosom of thunder and/ or an abosom of fire. Don't hear much about an abosom of wisdom or divination. Ananse is, what we would say in Jamaica, "ded stamp ah" Eshu meaning he's virtually indisinguishable from Eshu  but they say he ayne an abosom. Odumankoma seems sorta like an Olorun type but they say he ayne an abosom. Oboadee seems sorta like an Obatala type but they say he ayne an abosom. Awoɔ seems like a Shango type but they say he ayne an abosom. Afi seems like an Osun type, but they say she ayne an abosom. Awusi, again, seems like an Obatala type but they say he ayne an abosom. Bena seems like an Ogun type, but they say he ayne an abosom.

Makes me wonder if it's true or if they ARE but they ayne acknowledged anymore predominantly.

Anyway, the point is that while oneness for them means one gender and always male, it seems that a lot of our traditions do acknowledge a state of oneness as undifferentiated energy/ matter (male and female properties united into one) as well as the state of "dependent separation" or "cooperative change" if you will. No complete and utter dominance of one gender over the other or alienation of any gender.

***shrugs***

"...

• ne of the most 'unsacred and pathological acts' that we Culturally Misoriented Kmtyws engage in is our ignoring and rejecting the cumulative-collective wisdom of our Ancestors by calling the Creator by 'foreign/alien' names; names from the cultures of Kmt's staunchest enemies (in effect, calling the Creator 'out of her/his name'). We must return to and reaffirm our own Kmtyw-centered spiritual traditions."
  
  ~Kobi K. K. Kambon
  The Kmtyw Personality in America: An Kmtyw-Centered Framework

QuoteAkhu;35746 wrote: "...

• ne of the most 'unsacred and pathological acts' that we Culturally Misoriented Kmtyws engage in is our ignoring and rejecting the cumulative-collective wisdom of our Ancestors by calling the Creator by 'foreign/alien' names; names from the cultures of Kmt's staunchest enemies (in effect, calling the Creator 'out of her/his name'). We must return to and reaffirm our own Kmtyw-centered spiritual traditions."
  
  ~Kobi K. K. Kambon
  The Kmtyw Personality in America: An Kmtyw-Centered Framework

BlackTastic quote, Akhu!

I find the notion of God being an Indo-eureurasiaan word to be folk etymology. The word is not Indo-eureurasiaan, but Kmtyw. It comes from an old Niger-Congo/Kongo-Saharan root that means "sky, heaven." In proto-Bantu this is *godo/*gudu "sky, heaven." You know this term as Kulu "sky, heaven" in Bantu. The k/g is a prefix.The real root is lu/du/ru which denotes "height, distance, top, exhalation, elevation, etc." This same root gave us Olu in Yoruba, El in Canaanite, Ilu in Babylonian, Allah in aAmwic. All are terms denoting sky and elevation. The Indo-eureurasiaan languages have many old Kmtyw terms because they derive ultimately from Kmtyw languages. There are such things as global-etymologies.

The concept of "that which is invoked" is guess work. God is a "title" used for the Creator, ancestors or elders in Kmtyw languages. It denotes age and why Unkulunkulu among the Zulu means "the oldest of the old." A matter of fact, the word Zulu is a palatalized form of *godo/*gudu. In Proto-Bantu the /l/ sound derived often from /d/. So among the Chagga-Bantu the term for the creator is Gulu.

I discuss this at length in my latest eBook Passion of the Christ or Passion of Osiris: the Kongo Origins of the Jesus Myth. More information can be seen here: Passion of the Christ, or Passion of Osiris (http://www.asarimhotep.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&category_id=1&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=5&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1)

At what point did all the /l/ sounds in the history of english become /d/ sounds?
Also what motivated the shift? Was it a push chain or a pull chain?

QuoteOkyeame Kwame;42185 wrote: At what point did all the /l/ sounds in the history of english become /d/ sounds?
Also what motivated the shift? Was it a push chain or a pull chain?

Who said all the l's in the history of English became d's? And why would that be relevant given that I stated, as an example in Bantu, that the /d/ became /l/ in terms of the Proto-Bantu reconstruction of *godo/*gudu?

Quoteimhotep1906;42188 wrote: Who said all the l's in the history of English became d's? And why would that be relevant given that I stated, as an example in Bantu, that the /d/ became /l/ in terms of the Proto-Bantu reconstruction of *godo/*gudu?

I ask because you seem to be unaware of grimm's law and verner's law. Do you know what those are?
Are you aware that sound change is
1) regular
2) phonologically motivated/conditioned?

Are you saying that contemporary english "god" is derived from the proto-form *godo/*gudu? If you are then you are saying a lot in terms of sound changes that must have/or must have not occurred throughout the language so I'd like to pin down exactly what you are saying.

Well we shouldn't assume. I am very familiar with both "laws" and others; especially the Neogrammarian Hypothesis which states that every word has its own history. This challenges the regularity of sound change and "lexical diffusion" which assumes sound change affects all words at the same rate. The point is that researchers "assume", as attested in their works, that God derives from Sanskrit hu which means "that which is invoked." They do this without explaining the final /d/ (t in Germanic). Several  definitions I've seen states "the gods which are invoked" which means it can't mean "gods" if the "gods" are invoked. They don't know what the word means and usually this means that they haven't examined Kmtyw languages so they resort to folk etymology.

All names for "God" in eureurasiaan languages, no matter what the pronunciation, is equivalent to "sky, heavens, high." It is the same in Kmtyw languages. Again, I deal with this partially in the already mentioned publication and I will expand on another dedicated to the titled God.

Quoteimhotep1906;42201 wrote: Well we shouldn't assume. I am very familiar  with both "laws" and others; especially the Neogrammarian Hypothesis  which states that every word has its own history. This challenges the  regularity of sound change and "lexical diffusion" which assumes sound  change affects all words at the same rate. The point is that researchers  "assume", as attested in their works, that God derives from Sanskrit hu  which means "that which is invoked." They do this without explaining  the final /d/ (t in Germanic). Several  definitions I've seen states  "the gods which are invoked" which means it can't mean "gods" if the  "gods" are invoked. They don't know what the word means and usually this  means that they haven't examined Kmtyw languages so they resort to  folk etymology.

All names for "God" in eureurasiaan languages, no matter what the  pronunciation, is equivalent to "sky, heavens, high." It is the same in  Kmtyw languages. Again, I deal with this partially in the already  mentioned publication and I will expand on another dedicated to the  titled God.

Let's get to the bottom of this so we can resolve this issue quickly (and also so innocent people are not confused about what historical linguistics is and what it isn't)

Are you saying that contemporary english "god" is derived from the  proto-form *godo/*gudu?  

Please give the proto-form that you are positing english god is derived from.

1) If the proto-form you are positing english god is derived from is from guthrie's reconstruction of proto-Bantu, what methodology did guthrie use to arrive at the proto-form? Was it the comparative method assuming regular sound change?  
2) If you've arrived at your own proto-form, what methodology are you yourself using other than looking at surface forms and similar glosses into contemporary english and assuming that they are related?
3) What, if any, relationship is there between dutch god, german gott, old nordic guð, gothic guþ and english god?
4) What is the english gloss of sanskrit huta?Please number your responses to the questions.

Also, if you plan on using wikipedia's page on the comparative method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method) to understand historical linguistics on the fly, you may want to read clearly. The Neogrammarian Hypothesis says the EXACT OPPOSITE!!! It says that there are NO EXCEPTIONS to sound laws. :hello:

I did not forget about this post. It is apparent that going back and forth on a message is not the best way to deal with this issue as it is more complex that what is being presented on this forum. So I decided to write an article with my argument on this case. You can download the pdf at the following link: [media]http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/KmtywOriginsoftheWordGod.pdf[/media]

To answer your questions, yes God derives from an ancient form present in Proto-Bantu *godo/*gudu. The actual Germanic form is Gudo. One might try to invoke Grimm's law, which is irrelevant for this case. "Laws" in linguistics are not LAWS. They only describe sound changes that have already occurred. They have no predictive value like a real scientific law. The Indo-eureurasiaan /d/ is before the Germanic /t/. Even after the shift from d>t, it went right back to /d/: it's earliest form as we will see in the paper.

And again, before you assume start assuming what some knows and their approach to the subject, remember the proverb in regards to assuming....

QuoteOkyeame Kwame;42202 wrote: Let's get to the bottom of this so we can resolve this issue quickly (and also so innocent people are not confused about what historical linguistics is and what it isn't)

Are you saying that contemporary english "god" is derived from the  proto-form *godo/*gudu?  

Please give the proto-form that you are positing english god is derived from.

1) If the proto-form you are positing english god is derived from is from guthrie's reconstruction of proto-Bantu, what methodology did guthrie use to arrive at the proto-form? Was it the comparative method assuming regular sound change?  
2) If you've arrived at your own proto-form, what methodology are you yourself using other than looking at surface forms and similar glosses into contemporary english and assuming that they are related?
3) What, if any, relationship is there between dutch god, german gott, old nordic guð, gothic guþ and english god?
4) What is the english gloss of sanskrit huta?Please number your responses to the questions.

Also, if you plan on using wikipedia's page on the comparative method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method) to understand historical linguistics on the fly, you may want to read clearly. The Neogrammarian Hypothesis says the EXACT OPPOSITE!!! It says that there are NO EXCEPTIONS to sound laws. :hello:

Quote"If you meet an opponent in his moment  who is a poor man, and not your equal, do not vent your heart on him by his wretchedness. Put him on land for him to oppose himself. Do not pour out your heart at the man facing you. The demolition of a wretched heart is a difficult matter. What you wish will be done; beat him with the hostility of the officials." - Ptahhotep

First I would like to commend you on a week of solid internet research, if you will recall barely two weeks ago you didn't know the difference between a neogrammarian, a cognate and a reconstruction. However I don't think you fully comprehend the contradictory corner that you have painted yourself into. But let me paint a picture for you of what it looks like to watch you argue against your own argument because you don't understand how your argument argues against itself. This is a dramatization of the argument that you're making:

Quoteimhotep1906: "There is no such thing as addition and the plus sign doesn't exist. So as I was saying 2+2=5..."

Okyeame Kwame: "Hold on you just said that there is no such thing as addition."

imhotep1906: "Yes, and I also happen to know that Huey P. Newton worked tirelessly on behalf of the Oakland Police Department."

Okyeame Kwame: "Hold on, you got your wikipedia lines mixed up. He was working against the Oakland police department."

imhotep1906: (Oh shoot, dag! I knew I should have read that whole paragraph. Darn you wikipedia!!!) "Okay, well, give me a week and I'll do some internet research and get my smoke and mirrors together and show you, a mathematics student who specializes in addition that there's no such thing as addition, the plus sign doesn't exist and that 2+2=5. Or maybe 2+2=4 or something. But in either event there's no such thing as addition and no plus sign either."

Okyeame Kwame: (thinks to himself: I wonder if this brother knows that he's arguing against addition and the plus sign but then is basing his argument on the plus sign and addition assuming that a mathematical formula that uses both the plus sign and addition is valid. Either he doesn't know what he is talking about which would make him ignorant or he is contradicting himself on purpose which would make him an absolute fool.)

^Editor's note: This is only a dramatization. Had this been an actual conversation, you would have heard imhotep1906 using linguistic terms he doesn't understand and hoping no one notices.

Let me explain the dramatization to others who may not understand comparative linguistics any more than yourself. You did not know who the Neogrammarians were. You went to the wikipedia page for the comparative method and you read the bottom line but failed to realize that the top line was connected. Why? Because the bottom line started with a capital letter as follows in this screenshot:

  (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fabibitumikasa.com%2Fimages%2Fimhowho.png&hash=535133298fa4ac064b9f916378e42519ff3217fc)

  You started reading at "Neogrammarians proposed an alternate position..." not realizing that that was not the beginning of the sentence (which you would have known intuitively anyway if you actually were familiar with the subject at hand). You then came to Abibitumi Kasa with your new wikipedia-based understanding and you said:

Quote"Well we shouldn't assume. I am very familiar with both "laws" and others; especially the Neogrammarian Hypothesis which states that every word has its own history."

^Editor's note: the Neogrammarian Hypothesis isn't a law, with or without quotation marks, but let's let that slide...

One could almost hear the scoff marks on your keyboard. The issue for you, then, was made into me supposedly "assuming" as opposed to the REAL issue of you pretending you knew what a neogrammarian was.

I said, wow, this guy has NO idea what he's talking about. That's like mistaking Huey P Newton for gay edgar hoover. Or mistaking Marcus Garvey for the ku klux klan because they're both mentioned in the same paragraph. He must've gotten it from a wikipedia page. Lo and behold, YES. Honest mistake for someone in a rush trying to understand something quickly via the internet...hmmm...or maybe dishonest mistake...whichever...

But let's get past you pretending to know about something that you don't know about (and hoping no one will notice) and get to the real subject of you pretending to know about something that you don't know about (and hoping no one will notice)

You are using this asterisk, a starred form * for Proto-Bantu

You said, and I quote:

QuoteThe word is not Indo-eureurasiaan, but Kmtyw. It comes from an old  Niger-Congo/Kongo-Saharan root that means "sky, heaven." In proto-Bantu  this is *godo/*gudu "sky, heaven."

^Editor's note: this is not a dramatization as you can tell by imhotep1906's use of "linguistics"

I won't ask you if you know what that * means, because, well, simply I can go to wikipedia myself.

Anyhow, you use starred forms *godo/*gudu and then you're arguing against the comparative method and sound change. This is more ridiculous than arguing against the plus sign and then using it to make your point. In fact the paper you wrote is literally littered with starred forms!

Let me explain for you how REAL linguists arrived at the proto-forms that you are quoting and "assuming" are true and relevant to an understanding of contemporary words in english.

REAL linguists would look at dutch god, german gott, old nordic guð, gothic guþ and english god and KNOWING sound change is regular, start looking for regular patterns for C2 (that's the second consonant in the word). They would then see a pattern across the board in a phonologically conditioned environment or context. For example, every time they would see a /d/ in dutch, they would see a /tt/ in german in that same phonological environment (such observations are actually what led to the development of the comparative method) for demonstrably related languages. They would say, wow, this looks like a pattern and look at other words that are cognates (not just look-alikes) and see if the pattern holds or whether the putative sound correspondence is just a fluke. Only after seeing this PATTERN that shows how the SAME original sound in the original mother language changed REGULARLY to become the phonological forms that they see today across virtually all words and sounds in the language (many of which don't even look related on the surface) would they come to posit a starred proto-form after! They would then put a star to let you know that they arrived at it using implicational LAWS OF REGULAR SOUND CHANGE and the comparative method to arrive at it. This would let anyone with so much as a high-school level understanding of historical linguistics know that the REAL linguist used the comparative method to arrive at their putative proto-form, just as the neogrammarians did in positing proto-forms for indo-eureurasiaan. For you to use starred forms and "assume" that they hold true for proto-Bantu and then argue against sound change is like using a plus sign to argue against addition.

Did you think the star was just for decoration? As a matter of fact, I'll retract that question because, well, I can go to wikipedia myself.

  At any rate, you can feel free to answer the methodological questions at your convenience. Again:

  1) What methodology did guthrie use to arrive at the proto-form? Was it the comparative method assuming regular sound change?  (if you had answered this the first time around, you would have avoided standing on ground to oppose yourself)
2) If you've arrived at your own proto-form Gudo, what methodology are you yourself using OTHER THAN looking at surface forms and similar glosses into contemporary english and assuming that they are related? What is the difference between your methodology and that of folk etymology of developing a story to explain linguistic phenomena? (i.e. how are you yourself able to determine that the words you are looking at are cognates. How are you able to discern words that are NOT cognates which is actually the more important question)
Happy surfing! :hello:

(P.S. Next time when you come back, remember the proverb about those who pretend to know what they don't know and hope that no one notices...and feel free to leave the smoke and mirrors at home...)

For those who are interested in understanding historical/comparative linguistics I'd recommend my MA thesis which goes into systematic sound correspondences between Akan and Yorùbá. I also go into the comparative method and implicational laws so you can understand how linguists arrive at starred forms mentioned above.

 144-oye4.pdf (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/144-oye4.pdf)

Reply

[media]http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/god_response_one.pdf[/media]

Also, in this quotation, from Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com), he presents this as fact with no documentation as to analysis which means he took this at face value without questioning it. No original research on his part. With that said, I'd love to see your ORIGINAL analysis that makes this correct.

QuoteOkyeame Kwame;28847 wrote: Knowing that the word "God/god" is derived from Proto Indo-eureurasiaan and proto-germanic to describe their deities, why should we as Kmtyw people use the term to refer to spiritual entities in our own Traditions? Is it beneficial to mix apples with oranges when their spiritual entities are and historically have been at war with ours?

"Old English god "supreme being, deity," from Proto Germanic. *guthan (cf. Dutch god, German Gott, Old Nordic guð, Goth. guþ), from Proto Indo eureurasian *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to Proto Indo-eureurasiaan *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus). Not related to good (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good). Originally neut. in Germanic., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. Old English god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto Germanic. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Germanic. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-."I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire] First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs."

Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god)

Reply

 146-Never-bring-a-knife-to-a-gunfight-or-Imho-what-Imho-who.pdf (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/146-Never-bring-a-knife-to-a-gunfight-or-Imho-what-Imho-who.pdf)

Rkhty Amen on nTr (also NTR, Neter, and Netcher), which is "the totality of existence".
"In all the above concepts, what western religions mean by god and what is meant by NTR is fundamentally different. Western religions make a very definite distinction between creator, man and nature. In Kemet there was no difference between these. They were the same, same essence, same nature, same energy/spirit. The basis of Kemetic spirituality we can say was "a life-centered life" versus "a god-centered life". In Kemet all existence becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment that Western religions give to their god. Here indeed lies the very essence of Maatian spiritual practice. There is a very essential difference between what is meant by god and what is meant by NTR. For if human worships a god who is himself an entity, a being, that god becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment. One's focus is not on Nature/All Existence but is instead focused on a god concept. That is to say, the Christian god is the object of Christian life and worship. Allah is the object of Islamic life and worship. In some Eastern religions, individual enlightenment-Nirvana often becomes the object of one's life. The center of Western religion is god and next to god, man becomes the supreme life form, and the only intelligent one, and it is for man that god exists, for his salvation. Kemetic practice was centered not on any particular entity or god but rather on the health, growth and development of all life."
-Rkhty Amen, A Life Centered Life-Living Maat

QuoteHeru Djet;113290 wrote: Rkhty Amen on nTr (also NTR, Neter, and Netcher), which is "the totality of existence".
"In all the above concepts, what western religions mean by god and what is meant by NTR is fundamentally different. Western religions make a very definite distinction between creator, man and nature. In Kemet there was no difference between these. They were the same, same essence, same nature, same energy/spirit. The basis of Kemetic spirituality we can say was "a life-centered life" versus "a god-centered life". In Kemet all existence becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment that Western religions give to their god. Here indeed lies the very essence of Maatian spiritual practice. There is a very essential difference between what is meant by god and what is meant by NTR. For if human worships a god who is himself an entity, a being, that god becomes the object of one's love, concern and commitment. One's focus is not on Nature/All Existence but is instead focused on a god concept. That is to say, the Christian god is the object of Christian life and worship. Allah is the object of Islamic life and worship. In some Eastern religions, individual enlightenment-Nirvana often becomes the object of one's life. The center of Western religion is god and next to god, man becomes the supreme life form, and the only intelligent one, and it is for man that god exists, for his salvation. Kemetic practice was centered not on any particular entity or god but rather on the health, growth and development of all life."
-Rkhty Amen, A Life Centered Life-Living Maat

Great contribution @Heru Djet!

QuoteObadele Kambon;113292 wrote: Great contribution @Heru Djet (http://www.abibitumikasa.com/forums/member.php?u=2949)!

Asante @Obadele Kambon.

Si kitu @Heru Djet

Sent from my Ghana-made RLG FusionIgnite2 using Tapatalk Pro

Great conversation. I viewed a great lecture on linguistics by Dr. Theophile Obenga that gave me a good understanding of the connectedness of languages.  This forum added to that understanding.  I am no scholar so I will keep it simple. My understanding on it is if in fact the word god is a derived word used by eureurasiaans for our understanding of the supreme being and we still know the names of our Kmtyw spiritual creators...why use god?  When I look at other "derived" concepts used by eureurasiaans and see no value for us in terms of their interpretation, why would we think god would be different? Why even consider it?  My conclusion let the eureurasiaans use god..I will take the zero!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One significant compliment to the linguistic arguments are the ontological arguments, which are essentially "philosophical" arguments. Simply stated, eureurasiaan concepts are grounded in a eureurasiaan worldview. Conversely, indigenous Kmtyw concepts are grounded in an Kmtyw worldview. These are not compaAmwle or equivalent. The conceptual complexity of Kmtyw concepts of "God", "god", "divinity", or "deity" problematize the use of any of these terms to capture or convey them accurately. Take nTr (net-cher) for instance. This is the term that the Egyptologists typically translate as "god". But the texts of Kmt (Ancient Egypt) use this term to refer to a multiplicity of things, so much so that an expert of the language, Rkhty Amen, argues that nTr means "the all". This means that the individual nTrw (netcheru, pronounced net-cher-oo) that we often speak of such as ra (Ra) hr (Heru), Dhwty (Djehewti), mAat (Maat), and so forth are simply expressions or manifestations of the all, just as humans (rmT or remetch) are, and all of nature. Do any of the following articulate this: god, God, divinity, deity, etc.? No, which is why, as Jacob H. Carruthers has insisted, we must break the chains that link Kmtyw ideas to eureurasiaan ones and listen to our ancestors without eureurasiaan interpreters.

Quotekevlew;119439 wrote: Great conversation. I viewed a great lecture on linguistics by Dr. Theophile Obenga that gave me a good understanding of the connectedness of languages.  This forum added to that understanding.  I am no scholar so I will keep it simple. My understanding on it is if in fact the word god is a derived word used by eureurasiaans for our understanding of the supreme being and we still know the names of our Kmtyw spiritual creators...why use god?  When I look at other "derived" concepts used by eureurasiaans and see no value for us in terms of their interpretation, why would we think god would be different? Why even consider it?  My conclusion let the eureurasiaans use god..I will take the zero!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Heru Djet
Well spoken. The equal sign will kill our people.

Quote "Old English god "supreme being, deity," from Proto Germanic. *guthan (cf. Dutch god, German Gott, Old Nordic guð, Goth. guþ), from Proto Indo eureurasian *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to Proto Indo-eureurasiaan *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound [Watkins wrote: . Cf. also Zeus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus). Not related to good (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good). Originally neut. in Germanic., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. Old English god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto Germanic. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Germanic. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-."I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." [Voltaire]
First record of Godawful "terrible" is from 1878; God speed as a parting is from c.1470. God-fearing is attested from 1835. God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs."

Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god)

What do you think of the following work?
I found all info here on pages 17-20.
http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf  (http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf)

"Notice that the whites and their offspring trace the origin of the word 'god' to two possible proto-indo-eureurasiaan roots:Gheu (geu) meaning: to pour, pour a libation
Gheue (geue) meaning: to call, invoke
The whites and their offspring are unsure of why the roots gheue and gheu would have
anything to do with pouring and at the same time something to do with invoking (calling).
This is because they stole the term from ancient Afuraka/Afuraitkait (Kmt) and claimed it as their own ('proto-indo-eureurasiaan'). "

"What we have in Akan libation is a ritual replication of the Creation of the Universe.
The invocation (goo) is followed by the pouring (gu). This is Amen and Amenet as Gaga Ur and Gagait Urit engaging in the invocation (ga – cackling, crying out) and the pouring out of their Divine Energy (gai – to pour). The cackling of Amenet and Amen is a call to Order the Universe.This is also why the Akan response to the goo (invocation) and gu (pouring) is AMEN. This is also why the whites and their offspring recognized that the root of the term 'god' means 'pouring' and 'invocation' (gheu and gheue), yet had no understanding of how and why these two terms are related. Our actual, authentic cosmology demonstrates how inextricably related these two terms are – phonetically, conceptually and ritually."
 
"It is important to note that in the Twi language of the Akan of Ghana and Ivory Coast we
have two important terms:
gu to pour, to sprinkle [hwie gu, to pour a libation; nsagu liquor (nsa)
pouring (gu) pouring libation with liquor as opposed to water]
go (agoo) an invocation, an announcement before one enters a house; a call for attention

"In Akan culture when one is about to enter a dwelling, one can knock, but they also cry out, 'Agoo' – 'May I have your attention, I am here'. The response by those within the dwelling to acknowledge the individual is 'Amen' (also spelled Amee with the nasal 'ee' pronounciation).
This same formula is used when one attempts to get the attention of a large or noisy crowd. It is a call to Order. An individual will thus cry out, 'Agoo' in the midst of of a large noisy crowd. The crowd is thereby alerted to quiet down and pay attention because something important is about to be said. The crowd then responds by saying 'Amen' – 'We are listening, we submit, you have our attention.'
Yet, this formula is first and foremost used ritually. Before any important task, meeting,
function, etc. Akan people engage in the ritual of pouring libation. This is true of many
Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Kmtyws). In Akan culture, before pouring the liquid the officiant
cries out 'Agoo', 'Agoo', 'Agoo'. This is an invocation to the Mother and Father Supreme
Being Nyamewaa-Nyame (Nyamewaa is Ny-Ament-waa while Nyame is Ny-Amen), the
Abosom (Deities), an evocation to the Nananom Nsamanfo (Spiritually Cultivated,
Honorable Ancestresses and Ancestors) and the community. The community then responds by saying, 'Amen', 'Amen', 'Amen'. The call and response pattern is: Agoo-Amen, AgooAmen, Agoo-Amen. The officiant then begins to pour."

http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf  (http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf)

@Ohemaa Yaa, I think that historical linguistics is different from "whoever makes up the best story wins"

@Obadele Kambon, Lol. that is true. I used to read his writings a while back, and when I saw this post I thought about it, and wanted to hear some other opinions of it.

Meda ase:hello:

There will always be limitations in understanding Kmtyw paradigms using Eureurasian languages.

"To hold a people in oppression you have to convince them first that they are supposed to be oppressed." John Henrik Clarke

Quotekevlew;211634 wrote: There will always be limitations in understanding Kmtyw paradigms using Eureurasian languages.

"To hold a people in oppression you have to convince them first that they are supposed to be oppressed." John Henrik Clarke

Better believe it!

Sent from my Uhuru Accu using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)

Ain't the true story the best story and the best story the true story regardless of the method employed to recognize the truth?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)

QuoteAsafoKwame;233242 wrote: Ain't the true story the best story and the best story the true story regardless of the method employed to recognize the truth?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)

Not sure I follow.  Are you saying as long as the story is true then if we use God it doesn't matter?

------------------------------------------
Power is the ability to define reality and to have other people respond to your definition as if it were their own. - Dr. Wade Nobles

The word "God" is NOT an Kmtyw word!

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

QuoteObibini;233273 wrote: The word "God" is NOT an Kmtyw word!

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

Indeed it's not.  They can keep it and cultural baggage that comes with it

------------------------------------------
Power is the ability to define reality and to have other people respond to your definition as if it were their own. - Dr. Wade Nobles

Quotekevlew;233285 wrote: Indeed it's not.  They can keep it and cultural baggage that comes with it

------------------------------------------
Power is the ability to define reality and to have other people respond to your definition as if it were their own. - Dr. Wade Nobles

%✔️

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

Quotekevlew;233267 wrote: Not sure I follow.  Are you saying as long as the story is true then if we use God it doesn't matter?

------------------------------------------
Power is the ability to define reality and to have other people respond to your definition as if it were their own. - Dr. Wade Nobles

No, my question was about the true story about the origin and meaning of the term "God/god". Whatever that story is, ain't it the best story?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)

QuoteOhemaa Yaa;138392 wrote: What do you think of the following work?
I found all info here on pages 17-20.
http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf  (http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf)

"Notice that the whites and their offspring trace the origin of the word 'god' to two possible proto-indo-eureurasiaan roots:Gheu (geu) meaning: to pour, pour a libation
Gheue (geue) meaning: to call, invoke
The whites and their offspring are unsure of why the roots gheue and gheu would have
anything to do with pouring and at the same time something to do with invoking (calling).
This is because they stole the term from ancient Afuraka/Afuraitkait (Kmt) and claimed it as their own ('proto-indo-eureurasiaan'). "

"What we have in Akan libation is a ritual replication of the Creation of the Universe.
The invocation (goo) is followed by the pouring (gu). This is Amen and Amenet as Gaga Ur and Gagait Urit engaging in the invocation (ga – cackling, crying out) and the pouring out of their Divine Energy (gai – to pour). The cackling of Amenet and Amen is a call to Order the Universe.This is also why the Akan response to the goo (invocation) and gu (pouring) is AMEN. This is also why the whites and their offspring recognized that the root of the term 'god' means 'pouring' and 'invocation' (gheu and gheue), yet had no understanding of how and why these two terms are related. Our actual, authentic cosmology demonstrates how inextricably related these two terms are – phonetically, conceptually and ritually."
 
"It is important to note that in the Twi language of the Akan of Ghana and Ivory Coast we
have two important terms:
gu to pour, to sprinkle [hwie gu, to pour a libation; nsagu liquor (nsa)
pouring (gu) pouring libation with liquor as opposed to water]
go (agoo) an invocation, an announcement before one enters a house; a call for attention

"In Akan culture when one is about to enter a dwelling, one can knock, but they also cry out, 'Agoo' – 'May I have your attention, I am here'. The response by those within the dwelling to acknowledge the individual is 'Amen' (also spelled Amee with the nasal 'ee' pronounciation).
This same formula is used when one attempts to get the attention of a large or noisy crowd. It is a call to Order. An individual will thus cry out, 'Agoo' in the midst of of a large noisy crowd. The crowd is thereby alerted to quiet down and pay attention because something important is about to be said. The crowd then responds by saying 'Amen' – 'We are listening, we submit, you have our attention.'
Yet, this formula is first and foremost used ritually. Before any important task, meeting,
function, etc. Akan people engage in the ritual of pouring libation. This is true of many
Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Kmtyws). In Akan culture, before pouring the liquid the officiant
cries out 'Agoo', 'Agoo', 'Agoo'. This is an invocation to the Mother and Father Supreme
Being Nyamewaa-Nyame (Nyamewaa is Ny-Ament-waa while Nyame is Ny-Amen), the
Abosom (Deities), an evocation to the Nananom Nsamanfo (Spiritually Cultivated,
Honorable Ancestresses and Ancestors) and the community. The community then responds by saying, 'Amen', 'Amen', 'Amen'. The call and response pattern is: Agoo-Amen, AgooAmen, Agoo-Amen. The officiant then begins to pour."

http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf  (http://www.odwirafo.com/Anidaho-Awareness.pdf)

You've stated some things I've been pondering for sometime now. Factual or coincidental, I sometimes notice similarities between some words in Akan of Ghana and Medu Neter of Kemet.
These may just be coincidences or total errors (COMEDY) but here are some of my perceived similarities:
First of all I AM NOT A LINGUISTS.
So THIS is JUST Comedy!! Just read and LAUGH!!!
I'm sure his Excellency Dr. Obadele Kambon will LAUGH. Cause he's the real deal LINGUIST!!
(KEMET)        (GHANA)
ASAuR.          ASARe or oSei
Tutankhamen  Tutu Ankomah
Amen                 Amee
AMEn                 onyAME
ANKh                 NKwA
MEDu Neter       METUmi Twerɔ (Lol)
KhUFU               aKUFU


KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

QuoteObadele Kambon;113292 wrote: Great contribution @Heru Djet!

I agree with you!

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

QuoteObibini;233422 wrote: You've stated some things I've been pondering for sometime now. Factual or coincidental, I sometimes notice similarities between some words in Akan of Ghana and Medu Neter of Kemet.
These may just be coincidences or total errors (COMEDY) but here are some of my perceived similarities:
First of all I AM NOT A LINGUISTS.
So THIS is JUST Comedy!! Just read and LAUGH!!!
I'm sure his Excellency Dr. Obadele Kambon will LAUGH. Cause he's the real deal LINGUIST!!
(KEMET)        (GHANA)
ASAuR.          ASARe or oSei
Tutankhamen  Tutu Ankomah
Amen                 Amee
AMEn                 onyAME
ANKh                 NKwAh
MEDu Neter       METumi Twerɔ (Lol)
KhUFU               aKUFU


KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

The question is what method do you use to differentiate between look-alikes and genuine cognates? Compiling a list of putative cognates is the first step of historical/comparative research, not the last.

Sent from my Uhuru Note using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)

QuoteObadele Kambon;233453 wrote: The question is what method do you use to differentiate between look-alikes and genuine cognates? Compiling a list of putative cognates is the first step of historical/comparative research, not the last.

Sent from my Uhuru Note using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)

I humbly admit that I don't have any particular method, as I'm not a linguist. I just look at look-alikes and words that sound similar. For example:
KhUFU and aKUFU are both Kmtyw names, possibly names of ancient rulers of Kemet and Ghana, and they both sound ALMOST the same.
I'm not trying to make a legitimate claim here. Just playing with words.

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

QuoteObibini;233273 wrote: The word "God" is NOT an Kmtyw word!

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

" words referring to abstract concepts of one culture cannot be faithfully translated in the language of another.  Quine points out that a different language does in itself encapsulate a different worldview and even ontology. " - Kamalu pg 14 Person, Divinity, & Nature.

______________________________________________

We must act as if we answer to, and only answer to, our Ancestors, our children, and the unborn.

Amilcar Cabral

Quotekevlew;242140 wrote: " words referring to abstract concepts of one culture cannot be faithfully translated in the language of another.  Quine points out that a different language does in itself encapsulate a different worldview and even ontology. " - Kamalu pg 14 Person, Divinity, & Nature.

______________________________________________

We must act as if we answer to, and only answer to, our Ancestors, our children, and the unborn.

Amilcar Cabral

I totally agree with you.

KNOWing is better than beLIEving.

As I revisit this thread it's about those who are serious about reKmtywization and dewhitenization vs. those who want to take a bucket of Black paint and paint any white things they like the color Black. 

Recent topic.  Your thoughts?