In Defense of Forlong's Research

Shalom to all:

Since Major-General J.G.R. Forlong's reputation as a scholar has been called into question, I thought it might be of interest to those in the Sacred Name Movement that he supported the pronunciation Yhuê as representative of the Creator's name. I'm not saying he used it, but just the fact that he recognized this as the basic pronunciation should tell us that his scholarship isn't as sloppy as some attempt to portray it.

The following can be found in the Preface of his book Rivers of Life, Vol. 1, pp. xxxix - xl:

quote:

---

Parkhurst and learned Jews have wisely excluded the Hebrew pointings and given us general rules for guidance, which, however, no Eastern scholars require, knowing that where vowels or symbols exist in a language, as for a, e, i, o, u, &c., he has no right to interpose such sounds, but only a breathing "a" or "e." Especially must this be the rule where the object is to find the earliest pronunciations at or before the great writing era of the sixth and seventh centuries B.C. Any other rule leads to all confusion and diverse spellings we notice in so many words, as in Elohim for Alêim, Jehovah for Yhuê, Mecca for Maka, Muhommed, &c., for Mhmd, until Arabik has become one of the most distracting of languages. The evil is far-reaching, for it veils or protects, as indeed was often intended, various old deities from invidious comparisons.

---

By just reading this one paragraph we can observe that Forlong was concerned about learning the precise pronunciations of names. He certainly knew that Jehovah was a mistake, something that probably was not common knowledge in the late 19th century. Based upon the spelling for the Tetragrammaton supplied by Forlong, it appears that he would pronounce the Creator's name as Yahuweh, a pronunciation that many today recognize as very close to the original.

Certainly, if Forlong came up with a close approximation, if not the exact pronunciation, of the Tetragrammaton, I believe we can trust that he was indeed a trustworthy scholar in other areas as well, including the name he came across in his research of ancient Irish deities. That name is "Gad-El-glas," whose name means "Green snake deity." Later, as Forlong explains, Gad-El-glas was reduced to Gadelus or Gathelus. Another spelling that developed was Gaythelus, which in turn was reduced to Gaedil. Gaedil, then, was the basis for Gaelic. Thus, instead of Forlong not properly understanding the spelling and/or pronunciation of these terms, it appears that he had the resources to go back further than others have in their own research. As is the case in most languages, there are changes, whether it be in dialect, word meanings, or word spellings. It is simply the natural progression of languages, much like the evolution of the English word "villain." A villain, for example, originally referred to any individual who lived on a farm.¹ In the same way, Gad-El-glas came to have both a different meaning and pronunciation as it made its way through the evolutionary flow of the Irish language. But where did it come from? Is there any possibility that this word, which certainly was used to denote a snake, could have any connection to a Russian word pronounced God that means "reptile"? How about the Russian word for fortune-teller (gadalka) ? Could it possibly be connected to the Hebrew idol of fortune (God), or is my imagination just running wild?? And how does the Germanic Gott tie in?

Could these connections all be a part of the tangled web woven by an adversary who would like nothing better than for you to call upon him with a name he likes? But even if you know the Creator's name is YHWH, you could at least call Him "YHWH your GOD"! That's better than nothing, right?? ... or so the adversary may think!

These are all questions that the opposing camp simply has to satisfactorily answer before I can be persuaded that referring to YHWH as "God" honors Him in any way. If I could even be shown evidence that God was ever a noble term, that would at least give me something to go on.

I believe I need to establish that I am not here to either evaluate or express support for any or all of Major-General J.G.R. Forlong's religious beliefs. This is about the research he did, which is on all accounts recognized as very scholarly and authoritative. In one of the links that MJ provided above, yet another "sublink" is offered, leading us to a short biographical sketch of Mr. Forlong. I am copying and pasting it below. It appears that his works are very widely acclaimed by all. If any of the following is inaccurate, I would like to see the evidence:

quote:

---

Forlong dux, Major-General J.G.R. (James George Roche) Forlong. He was a Scottish military engineer in the Anglo-Indian Army, who received acclaim from the governments of England and India for his brilliant feats of road-building in the jungles of the Indian subcontinent during the Mahratta and Burmese wars.

Forlong's lifelong hobby was the comparative study of the religions of Man, a study which was facilitated by his knowledge of seven languages. He avidly pursued this avocation during his 33 extensive travels in India, as well as after retiring from the military in 1876. He is the author of two monumental works on the subject: Faiths of Man, a Cyclopaedia of Religions (1906) and Rivers of Life (1883). The latter is included in Section 1 of the A:. A:. reading list. Faiths of Man compares the various religions of mankind, demonstrating that many elements of the Christian mythos were borrowed from older religions. Rivers of Life traces the development of the great world religions back to their primitive origins in the worship of the sun and/or the phallus.

Dux (rhymes with "hooks") is Latin for "leader." In the late Roman Empire, a dux was a military chief commanding the troops in a frontier province, and is the origin of the title "Duke." The term "dux" is used in Scotland to denote a student who is academically first in his or her class.

---

It appears, based upon the above information about the Scottish term "dux," that Forlong was academically "first in his class." The above is taken from the following URL: http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Forlong_dux

As an additional note, old copies of Forlong's originally published books are so valuable that they sell for over a thousand dollars each. I have seen offers for $3,000. Shown below is a write-up about his books, as found at Amazon's web site:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156459291X/104-4736200-7223968?vi=dave taylor

quote:

---

Book Description
This is the first reprint ever of this foundational work on spiritual evolution. This book is so scarce that copies sell fast at over one thousand dollars if you can find one. Contained herein is the catalyst of all human mystical, religious, and spiritual thought that eventually evolved into the mystery schools, such as Freemasonry, Theosophy and Rosicrucianism. Contents: Tree Worship; Serpent and Phallic Worship; Fire Worship; Sun Worship; Ancestor Worship; Early Faiths of Western Asia; Faiths of Western Aborigines in Europe and Adjacent Countries; Faiths of Eastern Aborigines, Non-Aryan, Aryan and Shemitik. No other source work describes in this magnificent detail our great spiritual heritage. Out-of-print for over 100 years, now you have the opportunity of embellishing your own library with this very rare and illuminating book.

---

I hope this serves to illustrate that, regardless of J.G.R. Forlong's religious persuasion, he was a well-studied, highly acclaimed, well-respected scholar. I would be very hesitant to dismiss the writings of those with whom I have differences of opinions on religious matters. As it is, I believe that those who really take the time to examine Forlong's research will conclude that he is an author we can turn to for reliable research information.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

¹C.f., Dictionary of Word Origins by Joseph T. Shipley, Philosophical Library, New York, 1945.

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

There are a few major problems with the letter to Tim Thieson.

1) The letter is contaminated with the biased expectations of the interviewer and leading questions that suggest the desired answer.

Whether done consciously or not, this is a form of influence that the interviewee may not be aware of. After being exposed to such manipulation, questions must be raised concerning which responses are spontaneous and which ones are coached.

The interviewer felt that Mr. Thieson needed to be informed that Gad-el-glas was a diety, worshiped by Celts, and that he should believe the so called expert James Forlong in stating the word ‘gad’ must somehow mean serpent. None of this is necessary to illicit the required response unless there is a desire to tip the scales in his favour. After all who is going to disagree with a published author? Most people want to be people pleasers whether they realise it or not.

Despite the terminological seasoning and peer pressure the interviewer still did not get everything on his wish list.

2) The “name” or words in question are not addressed in the inquiry or the response.

The actual word in question was not “gad” but Gaedhal, variably Gaedheal, Gaidheal, etc. The imagined word “el” is not addressed either (because there is no such word). Mr. Thieson disqualifies “el” as meaning “god” (as expected) and in contradiction explains that “dia” is Gaelic for “god”.

3) Limited focus

Although his definition concerning “gad” is correct, he omits the fact that it most commonly refers to a withe or switch. This is no doubt due to the interviewers direction to focus on any “serpentine” inflections of “gad”. This is why the common meaning received no balanced attention.

4) Mr. Thieson actually disagrees with the “god” pronunciation.

He offers two better pronunciations for gad, the best being “gahd” and next best “gaud”. Although “god” is somewhat close, it is incorrect none-the-less (according to Mr. Thieson). This is where Mr. Thieson’s expertise lies and it is being ignored and overidden. Perhaps we need to explore the cause of this denial.

5) Mr. Thieson’s limited field of knowledge

It appears that Mr. Thieson did not spontaneously recognize the term “Gad-el-glas” and here is why.

1) He does not relate the legend of Gaedhal
2) He does not offer the common spelling
3) He does not attempt to define Gaedhal
4) He looks up and quotes James Bonwick

Mr. Thieson is knowledgeable, but not certified as a Gaelic instructor by any college that we know of, but that will not matter here. I accept his expertise in the area of language for now. However he is not an expert on Gaedhlig anthropology or mythology. It appears that Mr. Thieson read this letter and said to himself, “Who the heck is Gad-el-glas?” And upon typing exactly “gad-el-glas” into his search engine up comes the first result, James Bonwick’s “Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions” whom he quotes word-for-word that Gad-el-glas is a serpentine god. Now it is incredible that if Mr. Thieson were being totally spontaneous he would use the entirely obscure and exclusive spelling and hyphenation of James Bonwick, which in reality is Forlong’s. Outside of Forlong’s work (and typos) there is no known spelling “Gadelglas” or “Gadel Glas” or “Gad-el-glas” but there are thousands of Gaedal, Gaedhal, Gaedheal, Gaidheal and never are any of those explained as being a mere “rope” – although I agree the term is distantly related, it certainly is pronounced differently and even Mr. Thieson limits it use to an adjective “serpentine” (wavy). So all he gives are two adjectives – a snakey shaped green coloured what?? Thingy? Person? He can only rely upon Forlong’s mysterious translation without any consideration to authentic Irish annals that Gaedhal Glas was a person, not a “green-rope-like-thing” for heaven’s sake, who would name their child such a thing? How dignified is that for the name of a god?

I am not criticizing Mr. Thieson in anyway whatsoever, I would do the same thing if I were in his shoes. In fact I did, because when I first saw Gad-el-glas I was also a bit bewildered by the spelling and hyphenation and had to search to see where it came from. If I didn’t know any better, I’d probably be going along with Forlong. Mr. Thieson simply answered how to pronounce “gad” and what it means – which isn’t the right question. That forced him to try and make sense of the term in the way it was presented – and it was presented wrongly. So what you get is a wrong conclusion made up of right answers! So realise, he never at all confirmed the translation “Green-snake-god” nor the pronunciation of “gad” as “god.” There are really no points scored to be gloating over.

So what is trying to be proved anyways? That the Gaelic word for a with or rope happens to sounds somewhat like the English word for God therefore those who say God are worshiping a rope??? What happens when a Gaelic person says rope? Are they worshiping ropes as God??? To say the least, this is bizzarre.

There is nothing wrong with soliciting experts for testimony, it is how the questions are asked that matters.

There are three ways a reporter could ask a question to the budget chief.

1. How early will the budget report be ready? (pro-biased)
2. When will the budget report be ready? (non-biased)
3. How late will the budget report be? (anti-biased)

The clever budget chief: “It will be ready when it’s ready.”

Likewise, a reporter can relay the repsonse in a biased way.

1. There you heard it, the chief is not predicting any delays.
2. There you heard it, the chief is taking the time necessary.
3. There you heard it, there is no telling how late it will be.

Manipulation isn’t outright lying. It is the art of persuasion using >techniques< over or in place of the ‘quality of content’. It is amazing how naturally skilled we tend to be at unconsciously applying such techniques. So when one wants to illicit information from an expert witness the questions have to be formed in a way that does not include the bias or opinons of the interviewer or any form of peer pressure. For example the letter to Tim Thieson should have gone something like this.

[Dear Sir/Madame,

Being a teacher of the Irish language, could you explain to me to meaning and pronunciation of the terms “Gaedhal Glas”? Could you also tell if this is an acceptable form of spelling or if there are other spellings commonly or preferably used? Thank you. ]

[Dear Sir/Madame,

Being an expert in the study of Celtic Mythology or Anthropology can you briefly tell me about Gaedhal Glas and how the ancient Irish people viewed or related to him? Thank you.]

Now I don’t suggest that we harass Mr. Thieson with further questions because any damage has already been done and to get to the truth of the matter would require a procedure known as a psychological S.R.A. (Statement Reality Analysis). I have continued referencing library and store books on Irish mythology and language and so far there is not one source to substantiate Forlong on spelling, translation, or mythology, but they all more or less substantiate what I have already conveyed. Forlong may be an expert, but he is not infallible. The fact that he says Moshe is a liar is proof of that.

So what can be done is to continue contacting Gaelic speakers, mythologists, teachers, linguists, etymologists, etc. with non-biased letters like the ones above and see what kind of spontaneous replies are received. We already have the testimony of thousands of persons including myself who relate the well understood meaning and pronunciation and spellings, and possibly two people who don’t, James Forlong, and he who merely referenced him, James Bonwick. If Forlong was correct, why can we not find one independent source to confirm his statement?

So far all we have is are two sources.

When I accommodated your request to produce my original letter to Tim Thiesen, I realized that I did so at the risk of your attempting to "pick it apart" and over-analyze it, which is precisely what you did.

I maintain that my question was completely legitimate, and I certainly would not ask “leading questions that suggest the desired answer” to an expert in the Irish language, now would I??? That is so absurd and unfair of you to suggest that someone like me, who doesn’t know Irish, could “manipulate” the expert into giving a “desired answer.” For the record, I simply presented to him information that I had run across and asked him to confirm its veracity. What more should I expect from the experts? You obviously don’t like his answer, either, so now you have chosen to categorize him as another poorly deceived guy who trusts in the research of J.G.R. Forlong, and now you've introduced another author whom you've linked with Forlong, a man named James Bonwick.

Never having heard of James Bonwick, I did a little investigating into the latest author you have chosen to discredit. It seems he authored a book entitled Irish Druids & Old Irish Religions. Please understand that if Bonwick agreed with Forlong, I would call that “corroborating testimony," unless you can demonstrate that Bonwick obtained his information from Forlong. You made no effort to demonstrate such a connection in your latest posting, so I will presume that you tried without success to link the two authors as having shared information.

By the way, I found a review of Bonwick's book, and it certainly got rave reviews, much in contrast to the negative light you attempted to shed on his writings: Here is the review of that book, found online at: http://www.rambles.net/bonwick_druids86.html

quote:

---

Irish Druids & Old Irish Religions was originally published in 1894; the foreword is dated 1 January 1894. The author was 77 at that time and was producing this book from the studies he had made and the people he had encountered over a period of many years.

Be warned that the printing in this new Barnes & Noble edition is in an aggravating font that is hard on the eyes. But if you have an interest in Ireland, be sure to get this book and read it thoroughly. You will be glad you bought it.

Bonwick explains that he does not intend to offer concrete analysis of the topic. Instead, he provides information from a wide variety of sources on ancient Irish religions, explains any controversies related to the topics, and includes diverse opinions or points of view from a range of other people, laymen to experts. He hoped that his "examinations of old myths and folklore" would help people to understand the "current notions of nationalities."

The book is divided into two primary parts: Irish Druids and Early Religions of the Irish. The first section contains 13 chapters ranging in scope from "Who Were the Druids?" to "German Druidism" and "Neo-Druidism." (It is enlightening to note that in 1894 there was a "neo" movement, just as there has been a neo movement in the late 1990s.) Early Religions of the Irish has 21 chapters that include "Irish Superstitions," "Irish Magic and the Tuatha De Danaans," "Idol Worship," "Serpent Faith," "Holy Bells" and "Ossian the Bard."

Bonwick has included many passages from Irish literature that will keep the reader fascinated. These excerpts will make you want to read the complete work and stimulate your curiosity to the maximum level. No matter what genre you prefer, there is something for everyone in this book: suspense, mystery, fairy tales, romance, fighting, horror and so forth.

This is a thick book packed with solidly referenced information. It can be used as a reference or simply enjoyed during an afternoon of pleasure reading. Bonwick's lively writing style keeps you fully engaged and moving forward to the next page. It is very difficult to put this book down.

---

I read the portion of the chapter where Bonwick mentions Gad-el-Glas. The way you made it sound, Bonwick obtained his information on Gad-el-Glas from J.G.R. Forlong. I see no mention of J.G.R. Forlong in that chapter, nor do I see any indication that he borrowed his information from Forlong. As I see it, both Forlong and Bonwick arrived at the same conclusion based upon their own separate, independent research. If anything, I should be thanking you for providing another witness testifying that there was indeed an Irish serpent idol named Gad-El-Glas.

I notice that you haven’t given up on your efforts to utterly discredit J.G.R. Forlong, and of course, you have now added James Bonwick to the list. I mean, after all, anyone who dares think there may have been an Irish idol named Gad-el-Glas must be “off their rocker,” right?? Any credible scholarship they may have otherwise had is now ruined!! This appears to be the your reasoning. I observe that you have not solicited the corroborative testimony of any credible scholars who agree with your assessment that Forlong is not a credible scholar.

Back on Dec. 8th, you issued several less-than-complimentary remarks regarding J.G.R. Forlong's scholarsip. In fact, here is one of the negative comments you made:

quote:

---

For these reasons Forlong has a dubious credibility except to those in the occult and secular humanists. No linguistic authority has been shown to support his translation of Gaedal Glas – not even he really supported it. Normally I don’t care to delve into the lives and personal beliefs of sources, but there is an overwhelming preponderance of occult aura surrounding every mention of Forlong, something had to be said.

---

Since you are a “nameless scholar,” I am certainly reluctant to accept your slanted testimony. I might be inclined to accept the testimony of actual scholars, though, so perhaps in your drive to dig up as much dirt as you can on Forlong, you might consider finding credible scholars who agree with your assessment of him?

Again, as I mentioned yesterday, I am not interested in Forlong’s religious persuasion. That is irrelevant. He certainly wasn’t a Yahwist, yet he knew what the Tetragrammaton is, and he even wrote it out as Yhuê. It sounds to me like he knew more about the pronunciation of names than you are willing to give him credit for.

Of course, you believe you have a much better suggestion for how I should have phrased my e-mail to Mr. Thiesen. Again, I believe I shouldn’t have to carefully frame my words to elicit an answer, especially from an expert! Here is what you wrote:

quote:

---

For example the letter to Tim Thieson should have gone something like this.
[Dear Sir/Madame,
Being a teacher of the Irish language, could you explain to me to meaning and pronunciation of the terms “Gaedhal Glas”? Could you also tell if this is an acceptable form of spelling or if there are other spellings commonly or preferably used? Thank you.]

[Dear Sir/Madame,
Being an expert in the study of Celtic Mythology or Anthropology can you briefly tell me about Gaedhal Glas and how the ancient Irish people viewed or related to him? Thank you.]

---

I reply: I maintain that my letter was just fine, thank you very much!! And even if it were written as manipulatively as you claim, don't you think the expert would have seen through such "craftiness"?? You must really believe he is a fool, don't you??

However, I’m sure you have written some perfectly-worded letters to more knowledgeable Irish experts, so please let me know what they have told you!!

OR, if you haven’t written any letters, please, by all means, give me the names and addresses of the experts and I’ll write the letter myself!! I’ll even use your sample, although I will also ask the expert if he believes Forlong was as messed up as you obviously believe he was! I hope you wouldn’t consider that “manipulating the expert”!

I notice that you continue avoiding some specific questions that I have previously asked you ... one of which I have now asked on two separate occasions. Also ... please seriously consider Revelation 2:9.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

On the contrary I do respect Bonwick's writings moreso than Forlong's. I am only addressing one or two sentences from the entire volume of their works so to suggest I reject them wholesale is nonsense. If "Gad-el-glas" was the "important Irish deity" Forlong claims him to be, why is there not more than one sentence dedicated to him in all the literature in the world? There are many independent published volumes on the deities of the Irish Celts and not one of them even mentions Gad-el-glas and they dedicate paragraphs and pages to each deity, even the most insignificant ones. I will start compiling a list of these next week.

I did not say you fooled the expert. On the contrary, I said that despite your attempt to influence him consciously or unconsciously, the expert provided information that did not support everything you hoped for. He is not an expert in Celtic mythology but you may have influenced him into believing Forlong - as is evident. So you "fooled" an average person that does not consider himself an expert in religion or mythology. If you respected him as an expert in the required field, you wouldn't be making presentations to him as if he needed the education. But if it turns out he is an expert on Celtic religion and mythology, I most certainly apologize and will give you that one viable source. On the contrary I like his answer just fine, it supports what I have been saying all along.

All you have to do is demonstrate from Gaelic literature the use of the word "gad" as a substitute noun for "naithar". Maybe you can, maybe you can't. It'll be interesting to see what you come up with.

It is interesting that you admit you don't really know what "gad" means (in your letter), yet you keep giving presentations as if you do. Just think, if it weren't for me, you still might not be inclined to learn what it means, lol. Afterall, you might be sincerely asking, "Is this just my imagination? Are these all coincidences?" maybe it isn't rhetorical afterall. If there is a connection between the Gaelic "gad" and the Russian "gad" fantastic, if it is relevant. Let's hear about it when we are finished discussing "Gad-el-glas" and someone has conceded.

Regarding Gad-el-glas or Gaedhal. It is not "my" testimony, it is the testimony of authorities on the subject that I am relaying.

Now if you are not interested in Forlong's race, religion, motivations or other personal details, why are you so interested in mine? What possible bearing could my race have on this subject? Are you some kind of racist that my race should matter so greatly to you? Why do you want to dig up dirt on me? I don't want to dig up dirt on you. Why are you implying that I am a Satanist constantly? Is it not good enough to play by the rules? Why do you stoop so low? I already said I will tell you all my theology, but so far you have never asked. I have been decent with you, I only ask that you do the same. And that you actually deal with the academics of the topic and the points I have made.

The unprofessional habits we want to overcome to be better researchers are 1. Excusing ourselves by allowing the burdern of proof to fall upon our opponents and not ourselves 2. That we don't need to be aware of and avoid using potentially manipulative techniques. 3. Thinking that our efforts and sacrifices add to the truthfulness of our conclusions. 4 Seeking sympathy by interpreting innocent remarks as insults 5. Countering technical errors by attacking those who revealed them.

I will be sure to share with you the responses from the experts when I receive them, perhaps I will have some time to pursue their opinions next week, you'll just have to be patient. I am willing to hire a personal Gaelic instructors if necessary and record the sessions and publish them on the internet for all to hear. Why? To free all those under the condemnation of the sacred name movement. And I will also contact those with a knowledge of Celtic religion and mythology. Typically responses take weeks. If you are going to write anyone, don't even mention Forlong, because as I said earlier that is still a form of peer pressure. Besides, you already know Forlong was seriously messed up.

Part I: Response to Mountain Jew's Claims

Mountain Jew has attempted to build a case supporting his premise that there never really was an Irish idol named Gad-El-glas, that in reality this is a matter of someone, namely J.G.R. Forlong, confusing the name of an Irish "hero" with a serpentine idol. On December 8th, MJ issued several comments in his attempt to discredit Forlong's testimony. What follows are my responses to those comments.

quote:

---

There was a historical person (not a god) named Gáedal Glas. He was an Irish hero, not a god, and not worshipped as a god. So right there everything falls apart. There is no god named Gadelglas, just a person. Even if there was, for the sake of argument, you’ll see why his legacy has nothing to do with our issue. I honestly hope to inspire you to be a better researcher.

---

I reply: As J.G.R. Forlong points out in volume 2 of his book Rivers of Life, the above is a mistaken premise. I will provide Forlong's full quotation on this matter in Part II. An obvious question is, "Where does MJ come up with his information about an "Irish hero" named Gáedal Glas?" Since he offers his readers nothing in the way of resources, I am left to search on my own. It appears MJ may be referencing the 16th century book History of Scotland, which is apparently a misnomer, as the accounts it contains are more akin to myths. The "Irish hero" described above is apparently the Gathelus mentioned in the book by Latin author Hector Boece. This "work" consists of very little truth, if any, as testified by the experts. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth ed. 2001, Boece's book is "generously sprinkled with myths and miracles." Here is this reference's listing for Hector Boece:

quote:

---

Boece, Hector, 1465?–1536?, Scottish historian. He studied at the Univ. of Paris, where he knew Erasmus, and in 1498 he went to Aberdeen as the first principal of the new university. The most important of his works is a Latin history of Scotland (1527); it is a vast collection of historical fables from medieval chronicles, generously sprinkled with myths and miracles. Despite its shortcomings it was held in high repute until the 18th cent. It supplied Holinshed with the Duncan-Macbeth tale from which Shakespeare took his plot. In the 16th cent. it was translated into a metrical Scottish version by William Stewart and a better-known prose Scottish version by John Bellenden.

---

The above information can be read online at http://www.bartleby.com/65/bo/BoeceH.html

Another more lengthy article on Hector Boece can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia's website: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02609c.htm

Here's an excerpt from the article:

quote:

---

As a historian, Boece has been praised for elegance, patriotism, and love of freedom; and most severely arraigned, even by contemporaries, for his credulity in the matter of historic origins. His literary honesty attacked in his own day, has more recently been defended. The impetus which he gave to historical studies at Aberdeen has been of lasting effect.

---

Please understand that, in spite of the poor historical value of Boece's work, I am not out to undermine his intelligence in any way. He was a well-known professor and one of the founders of the Univeristy of Aberdeen. I'm sure he was a very intelligent man. Notice, though, that in the area of "historic origins" above, even his contemporaries questioned the authenticity of his work. Although it appears that some scholars have recently begun to defend Boece's historical prowess, we are not told why. Certainly, J.G.R. Forlong had little regard for Boece's accuracy. And why did he dismiss Boece's book? Because this "Irish hero" who allegedly left Egypt with the Israelites was, according to Boece, a Greek. Here is how Forlong reacted to this piece of information:Here is what Forlong wrote on page 425 of his book Rivers of Life:

quote:

---

The learned Boece, who wrote a Latin History of Scotland about 1520, gravely informs us that "Gathelus was a Greek, and son of the Athenian Kekrops of the time of the Exodus," which shows how much he knew about Greeks, and how much we can rely on ancient Latin historians.

---

Maybe the legend of Gathelus, the Greek who left Egypt with the Israelites at the time of the Exodus, is a true one. However, it is apparently too incredulous for Forlong to accept. Indeed, based upon the scanty details that Mountain Jew offered us, the events really do not seem likely. We are expected to believe that Gathelus left Egypt with the Israelites, was bitten by a snake in the Wilderness, but was healed with the touch of Mosheh's staff. Somehow this incredible story didn't make it into the Bible, and apparently didn't surface until Boece wrote his book. This is a bit far-fetched in and of itself, but it gets even more bizarre. Moshe pronounces a blessing upon the man, stating that whatever land his descendants settled in would be repelled of snakes. One can only wonder if that included the Promised Land, for certainly his descendants inhabited the Promised Land, yet I know there are snakes in the land of Israel to this day. Why wait until one of his descendants reached Ireland for the blessing to "kick in"??

Mountain Jew continues with his discourse:

quote:

---

The second error is the translation of Gáedal Glas which means “Gáedal the Green” not “The Green God Snake”. GLAS does mean “green” but Gáedal does not mean “snake”, nor “fortune”. The Irish word for SNAKE is not GAD, but NATHAIR. And the Irish word for GOD is not EL, but DIA. There is not the slightest connection between the Irish GAD (“stick”) and the English GOD. So the translation is plainly wrong.

---

As we will see shortly, it turns out that, chronologically-speaking, "Gáedal the Green" follows Gad-el-Glas, not the reverse. As for the meaning of "Gad," there is no denying that the word nathair is the Irish word for snake. However, as I have shown, words and meanings tend to evolve in any language. Even Irish language instructor Tim Theisen, in his commentary, described the evolutionary nature of terms, explaining that "Gad" means "string" or "twine," but that in its infancy it could very well have meant "the snake slithers up the tree" or something to that effect. That is simply how words evolve in langugages.

As for MJ's comment, "And the Irish word for GOD is not EL, but DIA," I need only ask what the Hebrew word for "GOD" is?? Get the connection?

Mountain Jew wrote:

quote:

---

Gáedal was variably known as Gathelus and Gallo the father of the Gaels or Gauls. Now I am in familiar etymological territory since I previously wrote a paper on the origin of the this name. To make a long story short, his name is derived from the Hebrew words GIYL and GOOL which are also the source for a host of Greek, Latin, and English words such as angel, evangelist, Anglican, Galatia, England, and gale.

---

Again, as we will see shortly, Forlong demonstrated that the designation Gad-El-Glas preceded the names that MJ promotes as having been original. For one thing, let's consider the word "El," which Forlong translates as "god." Any guesses as to where "el" may have come from?? Of course, it cannot possibly be connected to "elohim" ... or can it? Let's be real folks! These languages have connections, whether we want to admit it or not!

As we are about to also see, the Irish also worshipped an idol named ... of all things ... Baal! But, again ... the Irish Baal couldn't possibly be connected to the Hebrew Baal ... or could it??

By the way, I would very much like to obtain a copy of MJ's paper on this topic. May I please have a copy?

Mountain Jew wrote:

quote:

---

The actual legend of this person may be worth noting. He and his father left Egypt with the Israelites. In the wilderness he was bitten by a snake in the neck. His wound turned green from the venom. Moshe was called and when he touched his staff to the boy’s neck he was instantly healed. However the wound remained green the rest of his life. Then Moshe pronounced a blessing upon him that in whatever land his descendants should populate that venomous snakes would be repelled.

---

I reply: The first obvious "red flag" in reading the above should probably be the fact that Mountain Jew did not choose to reveal the source of his information. I am left to presume that it was Hector Boece in his History of Scotland, but maybe I'm mistaken. If this is indeed the work that MJ is referencing, J.G.R. Forlong was well aware of it, and he had little regard for its historical value.

The very nature of the story seems mythical, reminiscent of the "Tol'doth Yeshu" document, where we read such fanciful accounts as the one in which Yeshua and Judas Iscariot fly off toward heaven battling each other. Yet we are supposed to believe this story about "Gáedelus is true, while simultaneously disbelieving the results of J.G.R. Forlong's research.

In Part II I will provide a full quote containing J.G.R. Forlong's testimony for all to read.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

Myth or not it was clearly explained that that it doesn’t really matter, although increasingly many consider the contents of Lebor Gabala Erren to be in general historically true, unlike Boece’s ‘History of Scotland’ upon which I have never relied for the slightest molecule of information. The value of Lebor Gabala Erren is that it is the most original source concerning Gaedhal (at least 1000 years before Boece) and Forlong’s is the most recent (only 100 years old). Where DID Forlong get his information? Do tell! At least my case is based upon authentic ancient textual evidence, Forlong’s “gad-el-glas” is based upon absolutely nothing, neither textual or archeological. Realise that Forlong discounts the torah for being too fantasical and full of miracles, so let’s discount that work as well. If Forlong is right, and Gaedhal was really a snake, then perhaps we ought to also consider Forlong’s reliable research that has determined that YHWH was really a rock.

You see, the first problem with “Gad-el-glas” are the hyphens. The original name (Gaedhal or Gaedheal) is never represented with hyphens. Forlong inserted the hyphens to break the word into pieces which he could then redefine. “Gaedh-ael-Glas” didn’t quite suit his purpose so he then changed the spelling to “Gad-el-glas”. Now Gaedheal becomes Gad+el. One problem is that there is no word “el” in Gaelic, not borrowed from Hebrew or any language because it just doesn’t exist. Oh well, maybe no one will notice.

You wrote:

quote:

---

The only “red flag” here is that either someone needs new eyeglasses or that they are in serious denial. On December 5th the original source of the legend of Gaedhal WAS provided. So the post about Boece was a total waste of a red herring.

---

I reply: Although I noticed Lebor Gabala Erren in your postings, I really didn't know what you were referring to. First of all, it looks like someone's name instead of a book. Secondly, you didn't italicize the name, which might have helped. Who is the author? Upon examining a portion of it online, I did notice the name "Gaedel Glas." Of course, Forlong recognized that spelling as well (or a close approximation, Gaedil). It's just that he broke that word down into two words (with hyphens) to better transliterate the Celtic word for his English readers. It would be like assisting a Spanish reader in pronouncing the word "cough." If you wanted to better help with the pronunciation of that word, you might spell it "KAWF." In the same way, he showed his readers that "Gaedel" is pronounced "Gad-El." I hope this helps you to see my perspective, even though I know you will likely not agree.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Myth or not it was clearly explained that that it doesn’t really matter, although increasingly many consider the contents of Lebor Gabala Erren to be in general historically true, unlike Boece’s ‘History of Scotland’ upon which I have never relied for the slightest molecule of information. The value of Lebor Gabala Erren is that it is the most original source concerning Gaedhal (at least 1000 years before Boece) and Forlong’s is the most recent (only 100 years old). Where DID Forlong get his information? Do tell!

---

I reply: Sure, I'll tell you where Forlong obtained his information. It is from a book published in Dublin in 1867 entitled The Towers and Temples of Ancient Ireland by Marcus Keane. So now, instead of dogging J.G.R. Forlong, you can go after Marcus Keane. But either way, I still maintain that Forlong was merely transliterating the name Gaedil for his reading audience.

You wrote:

quote:

---

At least my case is based upon authentic ancient textual evidence, Forlong’s “gad-el-glas” is based upon absolutely nothing, neither textual or archeological. Realise that Forlong discounts the torah for being too fantasical and full of miracles, so let’s discount that work as well. If Forlong is right, and Gaedhal was really a snake, then perhaps we ought to also consider Forlong’s reliable research that has determined that YHWH was really a rock.

---

I reply: Sorry, but the experts do not agree with your poor assessment of Forlong's scholarship. I believe he knew lots more than you would like to give him credit for. And your decision to knock Forlong because he didn't accept the Torah is simply unreasonable. As I told you, I'm not interested in Forlong's religious beliefs, I'm interested in his research, which is widely acclaimed. I've already posted two mini-biographies listing his accomplishments and world recognition as a scholar. I haven't heard any news about your research abilities. I challenge you to put your record on the line against his, but I don't believe you're willing to come out of hiding for me to do that, are you? By the way, I'm curious if the author of the work you promote (Lebor Gabala Erren) was Torah-obedient, since this appears to be the criteria for scholarship.

Also, regardless of whether or not Forlong thought YHWH was a rock, at least he got His name right!! Something tells me he was much more skilled in picking up the pronunciations of these names than you are willing to see. I wonder what name the author of Lebor Gabala Erren used for the Creator. I'm curious, MJ ... if you were only allowed to quote authors whose views matched yours (as you seem to require), which authors would you use in your research? And finally along this line, I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to produce the quote where Forlong wrote that "YHWH is a rock."

You wrote:

quote:

---

You see, the first problem with “Gad-el-glas” are the hyphens. The original name (Gaedhal or Gaedheal) is never represented with hyphens. Forlong inserted the hyphens to break the word into pieces which he could then redefine. “Gaedh-ael-Glas” didn’t quite suit his purpose so he then changed the spelling to “Gad-el-glas”. Now Gaedheal becomes Gad+el. One problem is that there is no word “el” in Gaelic, not borrowed from Hebrew or any language because it just doesn’t exist. Oh well, maybe no one will notice.

---

I reply: Sorry, MJ, the hyphens are not a problem at all. Hyphens are often used in assisting people with pronunciations of words. It is quite likely that, indeed, Gaedel was normally written as a single word at the time when Forlong wrote his book. However, Forlong, in writing the word in such a way that would facilitate its original pronunciation, broke it down into two words to assist his English readers in enunciating the word correctly. It was his way of transliterating that name for them. He was in essence saying, "Gaedel Glas" is pronounced "Gad-El-Glas." By separating the words as he did, he assisted his readers in pronouncing each syllable correctly. In the process, he revealed the first syllable's meaning (snake). This was simply how the people originally understood this word, which apparently later became "rope" or "string."

I believe Forlong, whether he intended to or not, revealed the Irish language's Hebrew connection with that one expression. "Gad" (pronounced "gadh" or "god," you say tomayto, I say tomahto) is connected to the idol of fortune or to the tribe of Gad, and "el" is tied in with "elohim" (alêim).

By the way, I wouldn't really care all that much if the pronunciation experts told me that "Gad" is pronounced like "sad." This would certainly not negate a linguistic connection, and you know it!

Speaking of the pronunciation experts, I find it somewhat humorous that you make out as though the Irish instructor didn't get me "everything on my wish list," for that is precisely what he did! I didn't need to have a precise pronunciation match, but it sure was a far cry from what you told me it is, so I was pleased. On top of that, he acknowledged that, in the beginning, Gad was likely a serpent, but as languages evolve, so did that word.

On the other hand, you are left to do a trace of the word "God" (i.e., the Germanic Gott). The best etymological sleuths admit that it's anyone's guess as to where that word even comes from, and they come up with origins such as ghut and gheu. So you seem to make a big deal out of there having to be an exact pronunciation match with "Gad" and "God," yet the best etymologists scratch their heads and say it looks like "God" comes from "Gheu." You call that a pronunciation match?? C'mon!!

You wrote:

quote:

---

It is like taking the name WASHINGTON, inserting hyphens “Wash-ing-ton” then changing the spelling slightly to “Wish-ing-tens” and explaining that the name means to make your “wishes” to “Ing” in lists of “tens”. Because you see “Ing” is the Norse god also known as Freya, and both English and the old Norse languages are Germanic in origin so the two must be related. Although there is no such word as “ing” in English, it really doesn’t matter, just use your imagination. Do you see how pseudo-academic and silly this really is?

---

I reply: Sorry, once again, I regard the hyphens as being Forlong's way of transliterating the word(s) for his readers, showing them how they are pronounced in the Irish language. He was very big on getting pronunciations correct. If you don't believe me, you should read the preface to his book. I don't believe Forlong is the bumbling idiot you're trying to make him out to be. I believe he knew how to pronounce an ancient Gaelic word, transliterating it into English for the benefit of his readers. Even if it didn't quite come out to "God," the similarity is uncanny, to say the least.

On top of that, he says the word just happens to mean "snake," just like the Russian word. And as I've shown, these languages share Indo-European roots. Rather than admitting that there is even a chance that they could be connected, you elect to deny it. I say, "Be careful." The adversary wants you to worship him. He has ways of concealing himself so no one will recognize who he is, and yet ... he is there. Sound familiar?

May Yahweh bless,

Larry

After my previous posting this morning, I realize there are some additional comments you made that I should probably also respond to, just so you'll know I'm not intentionally avoiding any of your questions.

Yes, as Yeremyah pointed out, this discussion has gotten off on a tangent ... it has become a "discredit the author/dismiss his research" discussion for now ... but I hope that will end right away. I still maintain that J.G.R. Forlong's reputation as a credible scholar speaks for itself, but if that isn't good enough, there are lots of biographies out there to confirm the matter. Labeling such a scholar as "seriously messed up" in an attempt to discredit his research is not exactly the side trail I was hoping this discussion would take, but here we are.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Mountain Jew, you claim to have a study that proves your position. If that is the case, then why don't you present it?

---

YermeYah יִרְמְיָה

Larry, I think you want to admit that Forlong could have gotten some of the facts turned around, especially since he wasn't even an eyewitness? Certainly, Forlong got some facts turned around in the book ‘Faiths of Man’ (which he authored), so I don’t believe it is far-fetched to recognize the possibility that he may have also gotten some other facts turned around in his Gad-el-glas account.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Larry, I think you want to admit that Forlong could have gotten some of the facts turned around, especially since he wasn't even an eyewitness? Certainly, Forlong got some facts turned around in the book ‘Faiths of Man’ (which he authored), so I don’t believe it is far-fetched to recognize the possibility that he may have also gotten some other facts turned around in his Gad-el-glas account.

---

I reply: First of all, there you go again! Just as you wrongly accused me of doing, so you blatantly do! You accused me of "manipulating" the response of the Irish instructor, even though I did no such thing.

Yet you continue imputing my emotional responses in an apparent attempt to manipulate me into "admitting" that Forlong "could have gotten soem of the facts turned around." At least you've somewhat watered down the wording ... earlier you used the term "messed up."

For the record, it would be ludicrous for me to issue a remark that Forlong's research was infallible! I wouldn't make that claim in defense of any author! Do you make such a claim about yourself, MJ? Let me ask you the same question about YOU that you asked regarding J.G.R. Forlong, okay? Here goes:

Mountain Jew, I think you want to admit that you could have some of the facts turned around, especially since you weren't even an eyewitness?

Secondly, you are once again making obscure generalizations without documentation. You claim that Forlong got some facts turned around in his work entitled Faiths of Man, yet you didn't see fit to offer documentation of the error.

Even so, your motivation here is clearly one-sided: Dig up dirt on J.G.R. Forlong, find any mistakes he may have made, air them for all to see so we can dismiss any semblance of credibility for the man. If you are honest, you will admit that this is what you are out to do.

We all know that no scholar is above making mistakes, although I have yet to see where you have admitted to making any. It appears, Mountain Jew, that you regard yourself as "one of the big boys," immune from error. Would this be a fair presumption on my part? I wonder ... if I were to dig into all of your writings, would I find any mistakes? If so, would you mind if I make a nice list and post them here for all to read?

I believe if we could stay on topic about Forlong's phonetic representation of the name Gad-El-glas, the proper course of action is not to dig up as much dirt on the man as you can muster, but to evaluate his qualifications as a philologist, his motivation for presenting the world the results of his research, and the overall quality of what he came up with. Then, let's examine Gad-El-glas and see if there is any possibility that he actually went back further into the historical archives (phonetically-speaking, at least) than you are presently willing to give him credit for.

I continue to defend Forlong's overall credibility as a top-notch scholar, world renowned for his research. I don't have to declare him perfect to make this defense. However, since his scholarship has been wrongly impugned, I believe it is only proper to allow Forlong to defend himself, which I intend to do in my next few postings.

May Yahweh bless,

Larry

Part II: J.G.R. Forlong Defends His Quest for Truth

Mountain Jew has attempted to build a case supporting his premise that there never really was an Irish idol named Gad-El-glas, that in reality this is a matter of someone, namely the late J.G.R. Forlong, confusing the name of an Irish "hero" with a serpentine idol. On December 8th, MJ issued several negative comments in an obvious attempt to discredit Forlong's testimony. I responded to those comments in Part One, but here in Part Two I want to allow Forlong to defend his motives in offering the results of his vast research. It is my hope that by sharing this, you will see that Forlong was not "messed up," as emphatically claimed by the anonymous man identifying himself only as "Mountain Jew."

J.G.R. Forlong had a definite goal of seeking out the roots of faith, including the true pronunciation of names. It had been my goal previously to provide in Part two an excerpt from volume two of Forlong's book Rivers of Life in which he presents Gaedil and Gathelus as deteriorated forms of Gad-El-glas. However, in view of the repeated attacks upon Forlong's credibility, I have decided to instead offer Forlong's explanation of his own purpose and motivation as offered in the preface of volume one of his work. In part three I will treat Forlong's sparing no expense in delving into the original pronunciations of names. I intend to treat Forlong's references to Gaedil and Gathelus in part four. I had hoped that Forlong's credibility would not come under fire as it has, especially in view of his world renown as a well-respected scholar. However, since it has, I will allow Forlong to express his own purpose in the excerpts that follow. I can only offer excerpts, as the preface to his work is in itself lengthy, consisting of 28 pages. The actual length of his preface, including table of contents, is 41 pages.

Forlong Knew the Transliteration of the Tetragrammaton

Since Forlong's research skills have come under attack, failing the microscopic surveillance of Mountain Jew, I think it only fair that I point out to the reader that he very well knew how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton. I have already offered one excerpt documenting this fact, but I have located yet another that is even more revealing than the first one I found. The following commentary is found on page xxvi - xxvii:

quote:

---

In this work where the search is after ancient ideas—the Roots of Faiths—we are not so hampered. Philology is only one of many aids towards the unravelling of a much tangled mass. The arguments and conclusions which these researches point to have usually a sufficient base, when the same attributes are seen in the most primitive deities and their radical terms or signs, and though appearing amidst widely separate peoples, as in the Aryan Dionysos, the Hebrew Yahuê Nisi, and the Asyrian Dian Nisi; in the Akadian Zi or "Spirit," the Sky God Zi-Anu, and the Ti and Thi-an of the far east, and Zeus of the far west. These similar potentialities are facts sufficient for our present purposes, whatever may be the ability of the philologist, building on modern writing ages, to reconcile the lettered changes; not these alone nor yet sound, but attributes, is what the searcher after faiths has largely, but by no means altogether, to do with. Spellings and present articulations are too modern for those remote and all but dead "First Causes." Etymology is not likely to help us in recognizing Heraklês in Bala-Râma, or Samson; Apollo or Ab-Elo in Krishna, or a Bâal in Elohê or Yahuê, although these last interchanged during early Hebrew thought and even in our Bible translations. We therefore proceed on other and diverse lines. [Emphasis mine]

---

Please observe, first of all, that J.G.R. Forlong was a philologist. A philologist is someone who is engaged in the scientific study of written records in order to set up accurate texts and determine their meanings. Philology can be properly defined as the study of linguistics, especially comparative and historical. Since J.G.R. Forlong spoke seven languages fluently, I seriously doubt that any reputable scholar will stamp his name on a document discrediting Forlong's qualifications as a scholar. It is not surprising, then, that the lone dissenter is an anonymous one who is clearly unwilling to put his record up against Forlong's. Such a person obviously does not desire to have his own scholarship attacked in the same manner by which he attacks others.

Secondly, please observe that Forlong, unlike many of his contemporaries, correctly listed the phonetic spelling of the Creator's name. He didn't employ the use of Jehovah, he used the real thing: Yahuê. This doesn't sound like the characteristics of a writer who is either "messed up" or who "messes around."

I might point out that elsewhere in the preface, Forlong refers to the Jews as "Yahus" and "the Yahudean race."

Forlong's Mission

J.G.R. Forlong studied and wrote what he did as a result of his zeal for truth. This is attested by his own words. The following is found on pages xiv of his preface:

quote:

---

It is now nearly forty years since the author began to study the religions and languages of India, and was led to do so in the days when the latter was not compulsory, from a fervent belief in his own faith, and a sincere desire to save "the lost." He approached the vast subject–how vast will be seen in page 290 of Vol. II.—with all the usual zeal and no doubt dogmatism, which generally distinguishes those who are not only entirely ignorant of the old religions they so valiantly attempt to overthrow, but who know very little even about the foundations of the one they seek to propagate. Long years of careful study and many well fought encounters with the able adversaries of current creeds, had however, the usual effect when one determines to know and accept all truth, come from whatever book, shrine or priest it may. He found it impossible to walk like so many of his good comrades, with neither eyes nor ears for the ancient faiths around hm, and truly there is nothing gained by shutting out facts, truths or comparisons however uncomfortable. Better far to know the real foundations of every story, doctrine and rite—the root from whence sprang every emblem, God or divine idea, than to believe implicitly the ancient writings of more or less interested persons.

---

By Forlong's own admission, he was willing to shed the preconceived notions so tenuously embraced by the vast majority of this world's people. His ultimate goal was the quest for truth. This, to me, doesn't sound like a man who considered YHWH to be "a rock," as claimed by Mountain Jew. I would say this sounds like a man who considered YHWH to be THE ROCK.

Here are a few additional statements from Forlong attesting to his motivation to unearth the truth. The following is found on page xxix of his preface:

quote:

---

This author has never had any other object in view than the advancement of truth, and has studiously gathered facts bearing on his subjects from all the books, rites or faiths he has ever come across. Of course we all strive to stand by the traditions of our fathers, any other course being disturbing in many ways, and oftentimes stormy. The searcher after truth cannot however determine his own lines; he may not trifle with her, but must follow where she leads, regardless of consequences. The writer has walked on through the usual phases of faiths, but is equally ready to retrace his steps whenever his positions are shown to be untenable, and it has ever been his practice to seek out opponents and invite discussion.

---

The following statement of purpose is found on page xxxi:

quote:

---

The Religious historian is even more heavily weighted than the philologist, for he can write a tolerable analysis of our English tongue if he knows four or five Aryan languages. The writer upon faiths, however, or even one Aryan religion, should not only have an accurate and detailed knowledge of all the faiths of Aryans, Turans, Drâvidians, and Shemites, but must unlearn much of that one-sided teaching of his youth, though it clings to the heart with many fond memories of the past. He must search everywhere for the good and true, no less than for evil things, in the written and unwritten, in the theories as well as the practices of every faith, and mete out deserved praise or blame with impartial hand. Much that many sects hold sacred but would gladly hide from the keen cold eye of Reason and from all critical unbelievers, must be dragged into the light of day and fearlessly exposed, and every doctrine and truth be argued out to its legitimate conclusions—a task often difficult, painful or disturbing.

If this however be an author's position, it is not less the proper attitude of every honest truth-seeking reader; he too must put aside for the time national and religious bias, and school himself to view all calmly and dispassionately, bearing as he best can the rude thrusts of such an educating process.

---

For those who are willing to read and evaluate Forlong's own expressed purpose and motivation for offering his research to the world, there should be no question: It was his love for truth. Of course, we can expect our opponents to be quick in claiming that he "missed the mark." I would not be so certain of myself if I were them!

In Part Three I will provide Forlong's expressed desire in obtaining the original phonetic pronunciations of names.

May YHWH bless,

Larry

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-01-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I didn’t impute your emotions Larry, in fact, you did. Are you familiar with the saying “Watch what you say or else your words will come back to haunt you?” It is too bad you don’t give the author of the Gospel of Luke nearly the same credibility you give to the Gnostic James Forlong.

"And finally, could Luke have gotten some of the facts turned around, especially since he wasn't even an eyewitness? Certainly, Luke got some facts turned around in the book of Acts (which he authored), so I don’t believe it is far-fetched to recognize the possibility that he may have also gotten some other facts turned around in his Messianic Account (Luke 23:55-56)." – Larry Acheson posted 03-28-2004 12:13 PM

Hmm, so let me get this straight, Luke can mess up the details because he wasn’t an eyewiteness to something that happened a few years earlier, but Forlong Dux can not be questioned about the accuracy of events that occurred 3000 years before his time and he doesn’t even have three other gospels to support him. Shame on you.

I didn’t put words into your mouth, they are YOUR words. So you see Larry, since these are actually your words, and your methods, and your feelings it is YOU who you so pointedly blame. I would have never said anything like what you did. All those nasty accusations you just threw at me just blew back in your face. Shooting yourself in the foot, eating crow, foot in the mouth, peeing into the wind, get the picture? Were you a witness to the resurrection Larry? Then how can you criticize Luke? Apparently if I were Luke that wouldn’t be good enough credentials for you. You want to know what a “big boy” is? It is someone who doesn’t whine and cry and resolve to use petty tactics at every turn – someone who doesn’t say one thing and do another. But in the end since you at least admit Forlong is not infallible, I guess you REALLY DID want to admit that he possibly might have got some facts turned around. Let’s just remember it is you who has been calling Forlong’s accolades “dirt” not me. Are you saying that if I were the poster child for the pagan roots movement and Satanists that you wouldn’t bother mentioning it? You wouldn’t be concerned? Just be honest and consistent.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I didn’t impute your emotions Larry, in fact, you did. Are you familiar with the saying “Watch what you say or else your words will come back to haunt you?” It is too bad you don’t give the author of the Gospel of Luke nearly the same credibility you give to the Gnostic James Forlong.

"And finally, could Luke have gotten some of the facts turned around, especially since he wasn't even an eyewitness? Certainly, Luke got some facts turned around in the book of Acts (which he authored), so I don’t believe it is far-fetched to recognize the possibility that he may have also gotten some other facts turned around in his Messianic Account (Luke 23:55-56)." – Larry Acheson posted 03-28-2004 12:13 PM

---

I reply: So indeed you are trying to dig up dirt on me!! Nice try! I don't mind admitting that Luke may have gotten a few things turned around ... and it was common knowledge that Mark didn't write his account in chronological order, as some people would like to think he did, which is why some people, in attempting to reconcile Matthew's account with Mark's account conclude that there must have been two separate occasions where Yeshua drove out the moneychangers ... two days in a row, no less.

Just because I believe the accounts are inspired doesn't mean there cannot be any discrepancies, and such is indeed the case in Luke's account, whether you are willing to admit it or not. I notice that you conveniently left out my reason for making my remark. By taking my remark out of context, you attempt to portray me as questioning the inspiration of the Bible, or so it appears. Is this the new tactic you have resorted to?

If so, that's fine ... I'll just explain myself as we go along, which will drag this discussion out longer and longer .... Anyway, here goes:

There are two accounts where we read about the vision the Apostle Shaul saw on his way to Damascus:

In Acts 9:7, according to Luke, during the time of Shaul's vision, the men with him heard a voice but saw no man.

In Acts 22:9, according to Luke, the Apostle Shaul, in describing the very same account, said that those who were with him "heard not the voice of Him that spake."

So which is it, Mountain Jew? Did the men hear the voice or not?? I have heard various attempts to reconcile the apparent discrepancy, but so far they have not succeeded, at least so far as I have seen. I realize this is a "rabbit trail," but if you have an explanation, I would love to read it.

So Luke got some facts turned around ... or maybe it was the Apostle Shaul who, in describing the experience to the mob, forgot that the men with him actually did hear a voice. So maybe it wasn't Luke, but Shaul, who got things turned around. Either way, there was a mixup.

And you know what? Just like I mentioned earlier, I am in no way assailing J.G.R. Forlong as infallible. Sure, I'm certain he made some mistakes. The question at hand is, "Did he make a mistake with is rendering of Gad-El-glas?" I'm about to post a lengthy exposé from Forlong's preface in which he outlines the great care he went to in order to unearth the most ancient pronunciations of names. I'll put his reputation in that field up against you any day!

You also wrote:

quote:

---

p.s. Is Forlong's truth your truth?

---

I reply: Forlong conducted research into the roots of many different faiths, and since he actually visited the countries where he conducted his research in addition to consulting the writings of experts, I'd say his information is pretty reliable. As a philologist who spoke seven languages, I'd say he knew what he was writing about. Is his truth my truth? What kind of a question is that?? I believe we should question all sources, so I think it is good that you are at least questioning the veracity of his information. Regrettably, however, you have chosen to go straight to the "discredit the author/void his testimony" approach, which I call "dirty pool." I fully intend to ask your Irish experts to check out what Forlong wrote to see if they are as distrusting of him as you are.

Call me a "whiner," whatever ... at least we both know who's in hiding here. I'm right here for all to see, critique, slam, whatever. After all I've been through, it doesn't bother me. Remember ... there is one little thing you can do ... and I will quit posting here. I believe you know what it is.

As for the other inappropriate remarks you made, I hope you don't mind if I simply ignore them.

Until you give me a good reason to discontinue posting here, I will continue to defend what I believe to be true. If you can disprove anything I have written, then please proceed. I love the truth, and I don't want to say I've come this far only to turn a deaf ear to truth. So please show me where I'm actually wrong. Prove to me that there cannot be a connection between the Irish Gad and the Hebrew Gad ... not to mention the Russian Gad ... all of which are pronounced "GOD." I'm out to honor YHWH. How about you?

Yours in Messiah,

Larry