Appendix A


1) To Moses there was said that the name "Yahuh" was not known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There we can conclude that the patriarchs had a different pronunciation (Exodus 6:2,3).

2) The language of the whole earth before the confusion of the language in Babel was only one language of Adam. This language was not confused, but it seems that it changed nevertheless a little bit under the influence of the new languages.

3) Hebrew writes no vowels. Was this so from Adam onward, or was this a development of the time after the confusion of the language? We should expect that Adam's language did contain vowels, because his language was a gift of God, whose gifts always are perfect. A writing without vowels is imperfect, unreasonable and incomplete.

4) A, E, I, O, U are strange and odd consonants.

5) I and U have already a vowel function beside the consonant function, thus the Hebrew alphabet gives the hint of hidden vowels.

6) Alphabets of other languages, which are related to the Hebrew alphabet, do contain vowels: From Alpha (Greek) we can derive a Aleph-vowel A, from Latin V (Vau in German) we come to a Waw-vowel U.

7) The O once was understood as an A-sound.

8) O often appears in Hebrew with 7 and 9 and 8 vowel points beside or below, also with v beside. (Quamets is a spoken o [= @:] thus an O-sound) This points to O = O originally. The article f is very close to O: ho [h@:], pointing to a O = O originally.

9) E often appears with 3 6 2 5 dottings beside or below pointing to E = E [e:] originally.

10) A often appears with 1 7 4 9  pointing to A = A [a:] originally (Quamets = A to O ).

11) U is a U already now (= w ), beside W and O (= v ). The idea of a God-given perfect language points to the principle: one character = one single meaning. Compared with the Latin V (= Vau in German) the U should be an original U. Sometimes for U two readings of a word are possible: TwIE and TvIE; BvF and BwF; that shows that U was one single meaning originally, namely a vowel. Sometimes v and w both appear within one single word: Twhbdvq ; that, too, shows that they originally were one single vowel.

12) A, E, O often appear at the end of a word without much or any meaning! A vowel would make more sense.

13) Sometimes A and E don't have much meaning also within a word. A vowel would make more sense.

14) The comparison of words of other languages point to A = A [a:], E = E [e:], U = U [u:], I = I [i:]: Abraham, Adam, Eden, Eber, Aura, Israel.

15) The word Jupiter in Latin points to a father-God of the whole world. This is a biblical thought. Jupiter = IV-Pater = IV-father = IU-father

16) The IV-father is declined IOVIS, IOVI, IOVEM, IOVE pointing to a IOVO in the Nominative.

17) IOVO corresponds with OUOI = IOUO and proves our theory: I = I [i:], O = O [o:], U = U [u:], (A = A [a:], E = E [e:]) in the original Adamic language.

18) The transliteration of AUOI = Jehu in the Greek Septuagint to ou (u = U after vowels) is a further proof.

19) The transliteration of ODUHI = Judah in the Greek NT to oda is a further proof. Compare oudaou = Jews with DUOI = Judah (the people).

20) The word lw , which is cried by Jesus at the torture stake, is a parallel of ALOIM = mIOLA proving that O = O (Mark 15:34, Kingdom Interlinear) and of  Eloah = IOLA

21) The word Yahu, part of Hebrew names, points to IOU because the a of Yahu is a Quamets sounding like O.

22) The same with "Jah" = "Yah"; it sounds like IO, the a is a Quamets: fg.

23) The inspired hints of the tabernacle parts point to IOUO (compare chapter 12) and are like a fire from heaven to testify the name IOUO as at Elijah's time (compare chapter 12).

24) Encoded pictures with the code IOYO in the New Testament pages prove that IOYO = IOUO = OUOI, a second fiery testimony of God (compare chapter 17). Also AOYO = AOUO and TOYO = TOUO lead together with OUO = IOUO to definite pictures, a further proof for OUOI = IOUO.

25) The first four books of the NT point to IOUO (compare chapter 16).

26) The title above Jesus' head at the torture stake points to IOUO in several respects (compare chapter 15).



Was there no H [h] in the Adamic language? No! There were no W, V, F, J, , , , either. A J [j] could come about when weakening the I = I to a J by speaking quickly or indistinctly. A W [w] could come about when weakening the U = U to a W by speaking quickly or indistinctly. An H [h] could come about when weakening  the H = Kh = Greek X [x] to H [h] by speaking quickly or indistinctly. (Compare Turkish ruh = spirit, spoken rukh, but ruhu = his spirit, spoken ruh u, or ruhlu = alive, spoken rukhlu [ruxlu:], this comes from Hebrew HUR = spirit). An F [f] could come about when weakening the P = P to F when speaking quickly or indistinctly.


[Home] [Introduction] [Study] [Download] [Feedback]

(c) Kurt M. Niedenfuehr 2001 - All Rights Reserved