Changes

And so does the Urantia Book freely use such biblically-familiar terms as "[[Lucifer]]", "[[Satan]]", "[[Melchizedek]]", "[[Michael]]", and so on as personal names; thus obvious Latinisms and Hebraisms are used as a matter of course to apply to beings at universe levels far beyond the purview of such lingual provincialities.

And so does the Urantia Book freely use such biblically-familiar terms as "[[Lucifer]]", "[[Satan]]", "[[Melchizedek]]", "[[Michael]]", and so on as personal names; thus obvious Latinisms and Hebraisms are used as a matter of course to apply to beings at universe levels far beyond the purview of such lingual provincialities.

"[[Lucifer]]" as a proper name was coined in the early centuries after Christ by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism Roman church] fathers in connection with the Jewish [[legend]] of the expulsion from [[heaven]] of evil angels and their leader. From a reference in [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Isaiah#Chapter_.14 Isaiah 14:12], "Lucifer" is so rendered in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate Vulgate] and is virtually all subsequent [[translations]] of the [[Bible]]. But the term is nowhere in the actual [[Hebrew]] text of the [[Old Testament]] at all, nor could it have been, being purely [[Latin]] in etymology.

"[[Lucifer]]" as a proper name was coined in the early centuries after Christ by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism Roman church] fathers in connection with the Jewish [[legend]] of the expulsion from [[heaven]] of evil angels and their leader. From a reference in [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Book_of_Isaiah#Chapter_.14 Isaiah 14:12], "Lucifer" is so rendered in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate Vulgate] and is virtually all subsequent [[translations]] of the [[Bible]]. But the term is nowhere in the actual [[Hebrew]] text of the [[Old Testament]] at all, nor could it have been, being purely [[Latin]] in etymology.

The actual Hebrew reading in question is "helel", approximately "to shine", or possibly "to [[lament]]". The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers church fathers] in Italy, taking the term as a proper name and reading into it their own [[tradition]]-perspective, rather than transliterate, inserted their own personified form for "Shine(r)", [[Lucifer]]. The doing might be tantamount to rendering "Adonai" as "Bossy", but the [[liberty]] taking has stuck through the centuries. And so no being of high constellatory station is actually named Lucifer, in the terminology of his peerage. But the archrebel that word designates has no less existed and done his indignities.

The actual Hebrew reading in question is "helel", approximately "to shine", or possibly "to [[lament]]". The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers church fathers] in Italy, taking the term as a proper name and reading into it their own [[tradition]]-perspective, rather than transliterate, inserted their own personified form for "Shine(r)", [[Lucifer]]. The doing might be tantamount to rendering "Adonai" as "Bossy", but the [[liberty]] taking has stuck through the centuries. And so no being of high constellatory station is actually named Lucifer, in the terminology of his peerage. But the archrebel that word designates has no less existed and done his indignities.

[[Names]] are no more than convenient [[metaphors]], and "Lucifer" being a ready and common metaphor among [[mortals]] for the iniquitor with which our world is concerned, the tern found easy and thoroughly proper use in the [[Urantia Book]]. Lucifer is his name, for our [[purposes]]. If I'm known by one moniker to a friend, by another completely different family nickname to my [[spouse]] and children, and by another tag entirely to my boss, all these nonetheless refer, and very adequately for [[communication]] purposes, to me. Names are not the thing names, but pointers to it, with varying degrees of malleability and situational applicability. There is no such thing in [[the universe]] as a reality being one and the same with its nominal metaphor, of a name being an immutable and absolute designator.

[[Names]] are no more than convenient [[metaphors]], and "Lucifer" being a ready and common metaphor among [[mortals]] for the iniquitor with which our world is concerned, the tern found easy and thoroughly proper use in the [[Urantia Book]]. Lucifer is his name, for our [[purposes]]. If I'm known by one moniker to a friend, by another completely different family nickname to my [[spouse]] and children, and by another tag entirely to my boss, all these nonetheless refer, and very adequately for [[communication]] purposes, to me. Names are not the thing names, but pointers to it, with varying degrees of malleability and situational applicability. There is no such thing in [[the universe]] as a reality being one and the same with its nominal metaphor, of a name being an immutable and absolute designator.

[[Mind]] itself operates very differently up and down the scale of [[cognition]], and this makes frequently for insurmountable barriers. The matter of [[names]] is one such [[barrier]], and one which the Urantia Book negotiates well by its technique of resorting to at-hand terms and names where possible.

[[Mind]] itself operates very differently up and down the scale of [[cognition]], and this makes frequently for insurmountable barriers. The matter of [[names]] is one such [[barrier]], and one which the Urantia Book negotiates well by its technique of resorting to at-hand terms and names where possible.

When the Urantia Book deals with categories and nomenclatures with which we have no prior lingual familiarity whatever in which to phrase them, its [[authors]] resort handily to [[artificial]] constructions, to well-thought but [[spontaneous]] lingual mintage. Words like "[[Caligastia]]" and "[[Urantia]]", as their linguistic and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthography orthographic] elements show, are syllabic manufactures of English-Greco-Roman tincture -- in a word, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrthographyIndo_European Languages Indo-European] newspeak of especially [[hybrid]] excellence is here born. "[[Nebadon]]", "[[Orvonton]]", "[[morontia]]", and so on, show the same phonemic stamp, one and all. From considering a cardinal precept of translating from originals -- that all fixed proper names are transliterated as they are, without regard for lingual [[vicissitudes]] -- we may know that the Urantia Book's architects intend that these proper terminologies will remain intact within the book, henceforth. And it is this [[realization]] that then lets us know what precise form out planet's eventual language will have, once settled in [[light and life]]; this same Urantia Book syncretic hybrid, meant for duration.

When the Urantia Book deals with categories and nomenclatures with which we have no prior lingual familiarity whatever in which to phrase them, its [[authors]] resort handily to [[artificial]] constructions, to well-thought but [[spontaneous]] lingual mintage. Words like "[[Caligastia]]" and "[[Urantia]]", as their linguistic and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthography orthographic] elements show, are syllabic manufactures of English-Greco-Roman tincture -- in a word, an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrthographyIndo_European Languages Indo-European] newspeak of especially [[hybrid]] excellence is here born. "[[Nebadon]]", "[[Orvonton]]", "[[morontia]]", and so on, show the same phonemic stamp, one and all. From considering a cardinal precept of translating from originals -- that all fixed proper names are transliterated as they are, without regard for lingual [[vicissitudes]] -- we may know that the Urantia Book's architects intend that these proper terminologies will remain intact within the book, henceforth. And it is this [[realization]] that then lets us know what precise form out planet's eventual language will have, once settled in [[light and life]]; this same Urantia Book syncretic hybrid, meant for duration.

Although obviously systematic in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme phonemic] construction of its made-words, the book with which we deal readily resorts to [[creative]] improvising in making these constructs transmit meaning itself. The way this is carried off is refreshingly witty in its unceremony; when a specific denotation is wanted in connection with a systematically used root or phoneme, the requisite word or sufficient part thereof is simply stuck into the phoneme: "[[Divinington]]", "[[Ascendington]]", "[[abandonters]]", "[[supernaphim]]", "[[Chronoldeks]]", "[[agondonters]]" -- how pleasant to savor a subtle [[humor]], excellently inserted into the [[flow]] of sober consideration.

Although obviously systematic in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme phonemic] construction of its made-words, the book with which we deal readily resorts to [[creative]] improvising in making these constructs transmit meaning itself. The way this is carried off is refreshingly witty in its unceremony; when a specific denotation is wanted in connection with a systematically used root or phoneme, the requisite word or sufficient part thereof is simply stuck into the phoneme: "[[Divinington]]", "[[Ascendington]]", "[[abandonters]]", "[[supernaphim]]", "[[Chronoldeks]]", "[[agondonters]]" -- how pleasant to savor a subtle [[humor]], excellently inserted into the [[flow]] of sober consideration.

In the majority of its tailor-made place names, the book's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29 morphologic] comedy is all the more superb because it is lingually engineered so well. "[[Seraphington]]" exemplifies nicely: A Hebrew angelologic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme morpheme] combined with the, not merely English, but old Gadhelic-Teutonic place suffix, "-ington", meaning literally "people-town", etymonically. Thus Seraphington is very neatly translated, "town of [[seraphim]] people".

In the majority of its tailor-made place names, the book's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29 morphologic] comedy is all the more superb because it is lingually engineered so well. "[[Seraphington]]" exemplifies nicely: A Hebrew angelologic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme morpheme] combined with the, not merely English, but old Gadhelic-Teutonic place suffix, "-ington", meaning literally "people-town", etymonically. Thus Seraphington is very neatly translated, "town of [[seraphim]] people".

This light and untrammeled [[adaptation]] of language rules is again refreshingly reflected in the [[angel]] designations. Hebraisms like "seraphim" and "[[cherubim]]" rub lingual shoulders with Latin manufacts such as "[[omniaphim]]", "[[tertiaphim]]", et alia. [[Function]], not [[form]] - but in the implementing, a singular formal [[beauty]] emerges, too. Similarly, [[Salvington]] is "town of people who save". "[[Nebadon]]" precisely means "hill of [[fog]]", or more contextually exact, "hill of [[nebulae]]", from the obvious Latin word-base, a most appropriate piece of wordmaking excellence. "[[Splandon]]" means "hill of the viscera". "Caligastia" means immediately "the stockinged one" or "he of the show", or foot, a ''caliga'' being originally a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legionnaire Roman legionnaire]'s military sandal and later, a bishop's legging. But again these are in any translative case good and right names for our particular [[understanding]] and use.

This light and untrammeled [[adaptation]] of language rules is again refreshingly reflected in the [[angel]] designations. Hebraisms like "seraphim" and "[[cherubim]]" rub lingual shoulders with Latin manufacts such as "[[omniaphim]]", "[[tertiaphim]]", et alia. [[Function]], not [[form]] - but in the implementing, a singular formal [[beauty]] emerges, too. Similarly, [[Salvington]] is "town of people who save". "[[Nebadon]]" precisely means "hill of [[fog]]", or more contextually exact, "hill of [[nebulae]]", from the obvious Latin word-base, a most appropriate piece of wordmaking excellence. "[[Splandon]]" means "hill of the viscera". "Caligastia" means immediately "the stockinged one" or "he of the show", or foot, a ''caliga'' being originally a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legionnaire Roman legionnaire]'s military sandal and later, a bishop's legging. But again these are in any translative case good and right names for our particular [[understanding]] and use.

Always accentuating the [[practical]], the [[Urantia Book]] shows forth its well-integrated advices on functionality in its lingual treatments as well as in its spiritual philosophical approaches. The finesse of its practical word ''smithing'' can serve doubly as an anticilatory disarming of those first- impression [[disillusionments]] that can come when the book's linguistic [[improvisation]] is discovered. Names and language itself, it can't be oversaid, are concept frames, not the [[reality]] conceived therewith, and are then necessarily relative. Names get their legitimacy from merest use at the lowest nominating level, and always do depict the reality they describe with greater or lesser fineness of [[description]]. Names are but names, and when artfully attuned to function, vehicles of a blissful [[aesthetic]], too.

Always accentuating the [[practical]], the [[Urantia Book]] shows forth its well-integrated advices on functionality in its lingual treatments as well as in its spiritual philosophical approaches. The finesse of its practical word ''smithing'' can serve doubly as an anticilatory disarming of those first- impression [[disillusionments]] that can come when the book's linguistic [[improvisation]] is discovered. Names and language itself, it can't be oversaid, are concept frames, not the [[reality]] conceived therewith, and are then necessarily relative. Names get their legitimacy from merest use at the lowest nominating level, and always do depict the reality they describe with greater or lesser fineness of [[description]]. Names are but names, and when artfully attuned to function, vehicles of a blissful [[aesthetic]], too.

[[Names]] and descriptions are [[subjective]] usages, not objective. When an [[emissary]]ship makes overture to a native population, it is their subjective terms which are honored, insofar as communication and [[enlightenment]]'s purposes allow. If the local usage for the primal Cause is "tohu-bohu", this is the term the emissaries too use, to the extent that the concepts it embodies are adequate for conveying those [[comprehensions]] they seek to pass on. "[[Yahweh]]" and its conceptual [[evolution]] illustrate this well. We may conclude that just as Saul/Paul's temporal name is set down just so in the universe accountings of his mortal career, this planet's local-reference name is verily cataloged as "[[Urantia]]" (and certainly as well, "[[Earth]]"), however else it may be known on the several levels of [[universe reality]]. Caligastia's local-reference name is likewise "[[Caligastia]]" to universe [[scribes]], no matter what else.

[[Names]] and descriptions are [[subjective]] usages, not objective. When an [[emissary]]ship makes overture to a native population, it is their subjective terms which are honored, insofar as communication and [[enlightenment]]'s purposes allow. If the local usage for the primal Cause is "tohu-bohu", this is the term the emissaries too use, to the extent that the concepts it embodies are adequate for conveying those [[comprehensions]] they seek to pass on. "[[Yahweh]]" and its conceptual [[evolution]] illustrate this well. We may conclude that just as Saul/Paul's temporal name is set down just so in the universe accountings of his mortal career, this planet's local-reference name is verily cataloged as "[[Urantia]]" (and certainly as well, "[[Earth]]"), however else it may be known on the several levels of [[universe reality]]. Caligastia's local-reference name is likewise "[[Caligastia]]" to universe [[scribes]], no matter what else.

The rule is that of the higher embracing the lower, but not the reverse. [[Nebadon]]'s language adequately [[encompasses]] the verbalization "Urantia", but Urantia's is inherently incapable of wholly expressing the full [[metaphoric]] force of "Nebadon's" name for itself. "Urantia" is a local word couched in local language elements. We must not have that linguistic tunnel vision that would assure that the respective local names of entities all across a huge creation were bestowed in accord with our own special lingual [[perspective]]. But in those instances wherein provincial designations are recorded realities on high, could, for instance, an invented term of plainly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages Indo-European] homogenesis have had a recognized formality on universe levels from long before this planet came about, and certainly prior to any such limited reality as Indo-European verbalization? By [[anticipation]], surely. The [[time-space]] [[transcendent]] precognitions of [[the Gods]] acknowledge such lingual denotations long before their use by [[incarnate]] will creatures. A classic example is the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesotron mesotron]", a sub-atomic nuclear entity designated and described in the [[Urantia Papers]] in 1934 as a part of a larger exposition on the nature of [[matter]]. When later discovered by physicists in 1937, this tiny nuclear proton-neutron mediator was duly dubbed by the same descriptive [[terminology]] -- a mesotron. The term has since become universally abbreviated in particle-physics circles to "meson", and not all of its outlined properties have yet been [[discovered]]. But its case is illustrative.

The rule is that of the higher embracing the lower, but not the reverse. [[Nebadon]]'s language adequately [[encompasses]] the verbalization "Urantia", but Urantia's is inherently incapable of wholly expressing the full [[metaphoric]] force of "Nebadon's" name for itself. "Urantia" is a local word couched in local language elements. We must not have that linguistic tunnel vision that would assure that the respective local names of entities all across a huge creation were bestowed in accord with our own special lingual [[perspective]]. But in those instances wherein provincial designations are recorded realities on high, could, for instance, an invented term of plainly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages Indo-European] homogenesis have had a recognized formality on universe levels from long before this planet came about, and certainly prior to any such limited reality as Indo-European verbalization? By [[anticipation]], surely. The [[time-space]] [[transcendent]] precognitions of [[the Gods]] acknowledge such lingual denotations long before their use by [[incarnate]] will creatures. A classic example is the "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesotron mesotron]", a sub-atomic nuclear entity designated and described in the [[Urantia Papers]] in 1934 as a part of a larger exposition on the nature of [[matter]]. When later discovered by physicists in 1937, this tiny nuclear proton-neutron mediator was duly dubbed by the same descriptive [[terminology]] -- a mesotron. The term has since become universally abbreviated in particle-physics circles to "meson", and not all of its outlined properties have yet been [[discovered]]. But its case is illustrative.

The matter of universe nomenclature would differ, however, in cases such as those of prior and purely local-tradition status. "[[Melchizedek]]", as example, being unmodifiedly [[Hebrew]] in every linguistic respect, composed of distinct [[meaning]] elements ("king" and "righteous") in that tongue explicitly; it is unthinkable that an entire order of universe sons would come under that old [[Semitic]] nomenclature as their formal verbalized name on their native universe and [[reality]] level. We know that the [[Salem]] teacher did assume for himself that purely local nomen for the purpose of incarnative consistency with that particular era and [[culture]] in which he appeared. And in order to explicate about the higher order from which he originated, the [[Urantia Book]] would in all convenience naturally refer to that order by the same classification, Melchizedek.

The matter of universe nomenclature would differ, however, in cases such as those of prior and purely local-tradition status. "[[Melchizedek]]", as example, being unmodifiedly [[Hebrew]] in every linguistic respect, composed of distinct [[meaning]] elements ("king" and "righteous") in that tongue explicitly; it is unthinkable that an entire order of universe sons would come under that old [[Semitic]] nomenclature as their formal verbalized name on their native universe and [[reality]] level. We know that the [[Salem]] teacher did assume for himself that purely local nomen for the purpose of incarnative consistency with that particular era and [[culture]] in which he appeared. And in order to explicate about the higher order from which he originated, the [[Urantia Book]] would in all convenience naturally refer to that order by the same classification, Melchizedek.

But it would be a highly inverted arrangement for an entire order of interuniverse principalities to be vested from their beginnings thousands of millennia ago with a Hebrew name classification so that when one of their number appeared among men in the far [[future]], he could with consistency have a Hebrew name. No, the [[Melchizedeks]] are so called as a pure function that we may understand the [[identity]] of their order with the Salem missionary who wore that name. "Melchizedek" is a purely local name. Here touches again the Urantia Book's wise use of available roots and morphemes where possible to get across [[meaning]] in synthesis with its linguistic whole-cloth creations.

But it would be a highly inverted arrangement for an entire order of interuniverse principalities to be vested from their beginnings thousands of millennia ago with a Hebrew name classification so that when one of their number appeared among men in the far [[future]], he could with consistency have a Hebrew name. No, the [[Melchizedeks]] are so called as a pure function that we may understand the [[identity]] of their order with the Salem missionary who wore that name. "Melchizedek" is a purely local name. Here touches again the Urantia Book's wise use of available roots and morphemes where possible to get across [[meaning]] in synthesis with its linguistic whole-cloth creations.

The "[[Vorondadek]]" and "[[Lanonandek]]" sonship orders in point: here are synthetic prefixing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme phonemes] combined with an available morpheme, "dek". The [[intention]] here is to imply that this order is akin to the Melchizedek order, and the "dek" stem acts as the signatory device. There is no such independent root, or stem, as "dek" in the Hebrew from which this morpheme is drawn, however. "Zedek" is an intact nondivisible root itself (again, [[meaning]] justness or rectitude). But no matter. The very "dek" itself nevertheless acts very well as a metaphoric tool to [[transmit]] the desired associative connotation, so it is used, and very aptly. A word need not be a word to convey meaning. Just as a mere piece of a [[hologram]] can convey the whole picture with sufficiency, so a piece or makeshift of a phoneme or word can get its message through when embedded in the proper mnemonic setting.

The "[[Vorondadek]]" and "[[Lanonandek]]" sonship orders in point: here are synthetic prefixing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme phonemes] combined with an available morpheme, "dek". The [[intention]] here is to imply that this order is akin to the Melchizedek order, and the "dek" stem acts as the signatory device. There is no such independent root, or stem, as "dek" in the Hebrew from which this morpheme is drawn, however. "Zedek" is an intact nondivisible root itself (again, [[meaning]] justness or rectitude). But no matter. The very "dek" itself nevertheless acts very well as a metaphoric tool to [[transmit]] the desired associative connotation, so it is used, and very aptly. A word need not be a word to convey meaning. Just as a mere piece of a [[hologram]] can convey the whole picture with sufficiency, so a piece or makeshift of a phoneme or word can get its message through when embedded in the proper mnemonic setting.

And so without further information we can intuit that the terms "[[Melchizedek]]", "[[Lanonandek]]", "[[Vorondadek]]", "and "[[Norlatiadek]]" are interrelated in some fundamental way. Without knowing anything about what these terms denote, we instantly know much of what their structures connote. What about "[[chronoldek]]"?

And so without further information we can intuit that the terms "[[Melchizedek]]", "[[Lanonandek]]", "[[Vorondadek]]", "and "[[Norlatiadek]]" are interrelated in some fundamental way. Without knowing anything about what these terms denote, we instantly know much of what their structures connote. What about "[[chronoldek]]"?

But in language as in all else, its rules are handy tools, not meant to be situationally bound. Rules of [[language]] arise to govern situations, not vice-versa. It is the misunderstanding of this nature and [[purpose]] of all rules, period, that leads to much [[grief]] and misapplication of rules in life. Transgression is not the [[violation]] of the rules of a situation; transgression is the violation of the situation. Rules are not themselves ruled by anything. They are expediencies, which situations suggest. Rules are not bound. They too, like language, are [[relative]].

But in language as in all else, its rules are handy tools, not meant to be situationally bound. Rules of [[language]] arise to govern situations, not vice-versa. It is the misunderstanding of this nature and [[purpose]] of all rules, period, that leads to much [[grief]] and misapplication of rules in life. Transgression is not the [[violation]] of the rules of a situation; transgression is the violation of the situation. Rules are not themselves ruled by anything. They are expediencies, which situations suggest. Rules are not bound. They too, like language, are [[relative]].

In the main, but with major exceptions in human namesaking after the gods (i.e., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar], "Nabu protect my boundary stone"), the etymonics of proper names move from the generic to the particular, from the more literal to the more [[symbolic]]. When an old [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Saxon Anglo-Saxon] warrior names his son, within his cultural context, "the strength of the army", he phrased it in the dithemic made-word "here-weald", literally, "army's [[power]]". Over the transmuting centuries, however, "Harold" came exclusively to be used as a personal name. No more would one think of using the term "Harold", long [[extinct]] as anything other than a proper name, to apply actually to an army's might.

In the main, but with major exceptions in human namesaking after the gods (i.e., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar], "Nabu protect my boundary stone"), the etymonics of proper names move from the generic to the particular, from the more literal to the more [[symbolic]]. When an old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Saxon Anglo-Saxon] warrior names his son, within his cultural context, "the strength of the army", he phrased it in the dithemic made-word "here-weald", literally, "army's [[power]]". Over the transmuting centuries, however, "Harold" came exclusively to be used as a personal name. No more would one think of using the term "Harold", long [[extinct]] as anything other than a proper name, to apply actually to an army's might.

So generally, people are named after [[things]] and not the other way around. The movement is from [[generic]] to specific (though we see another exemption as trade names pass into [[vernacular]]). The Hebrew generic for "man", and of course the specific for their [[legendary]] first man and racial father, is "[[adam]]", meaning literally "red" or "earthy". Was the Hebrew "Adam" a patronymic drawn from ancestral [[memory]] of Urantia's [[Material Son]] from long before there was anything like a Hebrew language or its protoform [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_language Phoenician]? Was Hebraic mankind named after Adam, or was Adam named after that mankind, the Hebraic "adam"? The latter, surely. Though the old Hebrew traditionists may not have known it as a clear [[truth]], mankind preceded our Material Son on the planet, and consequently already had a name. And though that name may not have found its way directly into the lingual tree which finally bore Phoenician and Hebrew, we can be sure that the far [[ancestors]] of the Hebrews had man named prior to the Material Sons's arrival, and that the Hebrew generic "adam" developed out of it.

So generally, people are named after [[things]] and not the other way around. The movement is from [[generic]] to specific (though we see another exemption as trade names pass into [[vernacular]]). The Hebrew generic for "man", and of course the specific for their [[legendary]] first man and racial father, is "[[adam]]", meaning literally "red" or "earthy". Was the Hebrew "Adam" a patronymic drawn from ancestral [[memory]] of Urantia's [[Material Son]] from long before there was anything like a Hebrew language or its protoform [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_language Phoenician]? Was Hebraic mankind named after Adam, or was Adam named after that mankind, the Hebraic "adam"? The latter, surely. Though the old Hebrew traditionists may not have known it as a clear [[truth]], mankind preceded our Material Son on the planet, and consequently already had a name. And though that name may not have found its way directly into the lingual tree which finally bore Phoenician and Hebrew, we can be sure that the far [[ancestors]] of the Hebrews had man named prior to the Material Sons's arrival, and that the Hebrew generic "adam" developed out of it.

In accordance, then with its [[practice]] of using [[native]] terms already in place, where possible, in revealing universe truth, the [[Urantia Papers]]' writers named [[Adam]] after the existing Hebrew rendering, just as the codifiers of the [[book of Genesis]] had readily named their first man after that same generic when they set down the record long after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses Moses]. ([[74:7|In this reference, UB, pp. 836-38]].)

In accordance, then with its [[practice]] of using [[native]] terms already in place, where possible, in revealing universe truth, the [[Urantia Papers]]' writers named [[Adam]] after the existing Hebrew rendering, just as the codifiers of the [[book of Genesis]] had readily named their first man after that same generic when they set down the record long after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses Moses]. ([[74:7|In this reference, UB, pp. 836-38]].)

Once a city's planner dub a certain throughway Peach Street it is thereafter just that until that name-reality [[relationship]] no longer applies. Whether any peaches are to be found there, although a possible additional identifier, alters in no way the propriety or functionalism of the name once established. "Peach Street" is Peach Street, and if my son knows it instead as "the street where Jerry lives", it's that too. Names are relative [[metaphors]], not [[absolute]] realities! They may be revealed, but not necessarily [[inspired]], and the deliverers of the Urantia Book used this verity with their typical rare [[grace]].

Once a city's planner dub a certain throughway Peach Street it is thereafter just that until that name-reality [[relationship]] no longer applies. Whether any peaches are to be found there, although a possible additional identifier, alters in no way the propriety or functionalism of the name once established. "Peach Street" is Peach Street, and if my son knows it instead as "the street where Jerry lives", it's that too. Names are relative [[metaphors]], not [[absolute]] realities! They may be revealed, but not necessarily [[inspired]], and the deliverers of the Urantia Book used this verity with their typical rare [[grace]].

We know that the post-Abrahamic Hebrew of the [[scriptures]] was in fact a later [[Andon]]ic idiom itself, and that Adam himself spoke a dialect of Andonite as used by [[Amadon]] ([[80:8|Urantia Book page 896, eighth paragraph]], and page 829, fifth paragraph]]). The question then is to what extent the generic "Adam" of Hebrew verbalization was a phonetically intact form of the original [[Andonite]] term for mankind; this in view of the inevitable processes of phonetic decay and [[transmutation]] of syllabic constructions over prolonged periods.

We know that the post-Abrahamic Hebrew of the [[scriptures]] was in fact a later [[Andon]]ic idiom itself, and that Adam himself spoke a dialect of Andonite as used by [[Amadon]] ([[80:8|Urantia Book page 896, eighth paragraph]], and page 829, fifth paragraph]]). The question then is to what extent the generic "Adam" of Hebrew verbalization was a phonetically intact form of the original [[Andonite]] term for mankind; this in view of the inevitable processes of phonetic decay and [[transmutation]] of syllabic constructions over prolonged periods.

Perhaps one clue lies in the fact that late [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer Sumerian] legend's telling of the one mortal created "the model of men" to rule among them gives his name as "Adapa", clearly similar phonically to "Adam", but also a term itself previously subject to phonetic decay if in fact a remnant of the [[Material Son]] tradition from at least 30,000 years before the name was fixed in Andite-Sumerian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform cuneiform] records.

Perhaps one clue lies in the fact that late [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer Sumerian] legend's telling of the one mortal created "the model of men" to rule among them gives his name as "Adapa", clearly similar phonically to "Adam", but also a term itself previously subject to phonetic decay if in fact a remnant of the [[Material Son]] tradition from at least 30,000 years before the name was fixed in Andite-Sumerian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform cuneiform] records.

Most significant as an indicator of the primordial [[meaning]] of "adam" itself as well as of the relatively pure phonetic [[antiquity]] of the term at least back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000BC three millennia or so before Christ], and regardless of any alternate phonic forms, is the fact that the Sumerian [[Andites]]' word for blood or gore was "adama". (The later appearance of "red" and "earthy" as consequent meanings among the Hebrews and related Semites is plainly enfolded here). The later [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_language Chaldaic Babylonian] language which supplanted the Sumerian tongue retained the same word base in its "adamatu" for gore or blood. At any rate, Adam's name, whatever its vocalization, was Andonic, and he, imported as an emissary, would have deferentially adopted for himself the local genericism for the people he came to attend.

Most significant as an indicator of the primordial [[meaning]] of "adam" itself as well as of the relatively pure phonetic [[antiquity]] of the term at least back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000BC three millennia or so before Christ], and regardless of any alternate phonic forms, is the fact that the Sumerian [[Andites]]' word for blood or gore was "adama". (The later appearance of "red" and "earthy" as consequent meanings among the Hebrews and related Semites is plainly enfolded here). The later [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_language Chaldaic Babylonian] language which supplanted the Sumerian tongue retained the same word base in its "adamatu" for gore or blood. At any rate, Adam's name, whatever its vocalization, was Andonic, and he, imported as an emissary, would have deferentially adopted for himself the local genericism for the people he came to attend.

Again under linguistic realities, because the original "Adam" means generic "man" as well as variantly and specifically "blood", or "earthy", we know it was already in full-blown use in whatever phonetic form before the [[Material Son]]'s arrival. It is this denotation "of the Earth" that also reveals the [[primitive]] common [[knowledge]] that mankind had in physical [[essence]] literally sprung from the ground through upward [[evolution]] ([[74:8|see UB, page 837, paragraph five]]): thus the earliest [[Andonites]], with or without any semblance of religious [[tradition]], did intuit their evolutionary origins at least as to material makeup.

Again under linguistic realities, because the original "Adam" means generic "man" as well as variantly and specifically "blood", or "earthy", we know it was already in full-blown use in whatever phonetic form before the [[Material Son]]'s arrival. It is this denotation "of the Earth" that also reveals the [[primitive]] common [[knowledge]] that mankind had in physical [[essence]] literally sprung from the ground through upward [[evolution]] ([[74:8|see UB, page 837, paragraph five]]): thus the earliest [[Andonites]], with or without any semblance of religious [[tradition]], did intuit their evolutionary origins at least as to material makeup.

Illustratively, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_valley Jordan valley] town of Adam near the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqa_river Jabbok River] fork means literally "ground", while that not uncommon place-name element of "Adam" throughout the [[Levant]] signified the reddish clay often found in the region. Although Adam was racially nor evolutionarily neither red nor earthy (red is opposite the color scale to violet), it may have indeed been that he had red hair as common with the [[Adamites]], and that his local-reference name tied to this designatory sense. Also very pertinent may be the fact that the Hebraic "Adam" variant "Admoni", for "ruddy", is often used of that hair or skin shade in the [[Old Testament]]. In any case, as with that of the [[Melchizedeks]], Adam's name however verbalized was solely a local-reference piece of language, not extending to the entire universe order of [[Material Sons]]. The Adams and Eves of [[Jerusem]] do not have Andonic names, but those fitting their universe language level.

Illustratively, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_valley Jordan valley] town of Adam near the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqa_river Jabbok River] fork means literally "ground", while that not uncommon place-name element of "Adam" throughout the [[Levant]] signified the reddish clay often found in the region. Although Adam was racially nor evolutionarily neither red nor earthy (red is opposite the color scale to violet), it may have indeed been that he had red hair as common with the [[Adamites]], and that his local-reference name tied to this designatory sense. Also very pertinent may be the fact that the Hebraic "Adam" variant "Admoni", for "ruddy", is often used of that hair or skin shade in the [[Old Testament]]. In any case, as with that of the [[Melchizedeks]], Adam's name however verbalized was solely a local-reference piece of language, not extending to the entire universe order of [[Material Sons]]. The Adams and Eves of [[Jerusem]] do not have Andonic names, but those fitting their universe language level.

Next question -- did the original [[Andonites]] of pre-Material Son days use "adam" to denote [[generic]] man generally, or apply it generically only to Andonites? It must be remembered that the Andonites certainly did not call themselves that, and that the first Andonite's Andonic name wasn't even [[Andon]], but Sonta-an, "loved by mother". That his wife was named Sonta-en, "loved by father", and their first child was called [[Sontad]], "loved by us", is already the start of the later universal [[tradition]] of family names (and family names move from generic to specific to familial generic: i.e., a metalsmith properly takes the name "Smith", which is then passed on to his children generally).

Next question -- did the original [[Andonites]] of pre-Material Son days use "adam" to denote [[generic]] man generally, or apply it generically only to Andonites? It must be remembered that the Andonites certainly did not call themselves that, and that the first Andonite's Andonic name wasn't even [[Andon]], but Sonta-an, "loved by mother". That his wife was named Sonta-en, "loved by father", and their first child was called [[Sontad]], "loved by us", is already the start of the later universal [[tradition]] of family names (and family names move from generic to specific to familial generic: i.e., a metalsmith properly takes the name "Smith", which is then passed on to his children generally).

The Andonic "en" denoting father has an apparent idiomatic survival even down to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer Sumerian] times, when used in a larger transmuted [[patriarchal]] definition. The Sumerian "en" specifically had the patriarchal meaning of prelate or [[priest]], though to what extent the term was Andonically derived is beyond available knowing.

The Andonic "en" denoting father has an apparent idiomatic survival even down to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer Sumerian] times, when used in a larger transmuted [[patriarchal]] definition. The Sumerian "en" specifically had the patriarchal meaning of prelate or [[priest]], though to what extent the term was Andonically derived is beyond available knowing.

So we can know that there was a distinct Sonta family-name tradition among the early [[Andonites]]. But again, because of the ultimacy of surname exhaustion and of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_decay phonetic decay], how long the name stayed intact or how widely it spread within the larger race grouping are unknowables. But the Andonites as a whole hadn't become entirely lost as a separately identifiable people wither idiomatically or racially as late as the advent of Adam ([[78:1|see UB, page 869, first paragraph]]). And although his name's verbal form was late Andonic, the [[Material Son]] surely would have taken a name deferentially applying to humankind in whole. Thus "adam" in its original phonetic form must have been an Andonite term for everyman generally, not just Andonites or a particular surname subgrouping of the [[race]]. This has a special relevance to the matter that "adam" in its red-earthy context could carry the connotation "swarthy", which is surely descriptive of the Andonites.

So we can know that there was a distinct Sonta family-name tradition among the early [[Andonites]]. But again, because of the ultimacy of surname exhaustion and of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonetic_decay phonetic decay], how long the name stayed intact or how widely it spread within the larger race grouping are unknowables. But the Andonites as a whole hadn't become entirely lost as a separately identifiable people wither idiomatically or racially as late as the advent of Adam ([[78:1|see UB, page 869, first paragraph]]). And although his name's verbal form was late Andonic, the [[Material Son]] surely would have taken a name deferentially applying to humankind in whole. Thus "adam" in its original phonetic form must have been an Andonite term for everyman generally, not just Andonites or a particular surname subgrouping of the [[race]]. This has a special relevance to the matter that "adam" in its red-earthy context could carry the connotation "swarthy", which is surely descriptive of the Andonites.

An interesting illustration of the differential contexts of names is with Adam's first sons, as compared with the later children's names. "[[Adamson]]" and Eveson" clearly were not the actual verbalization for these firstborns, "son" being Old Anglish immediately, and by way of the [[Sanskrit]] "sunu". The [[Urantia Book]] implicitly points to this in variantly listing Adamson as Adam ben Adam (and "ben" itself is a Semitic sonship designator, certainly not Jerusemic). But [[Cain]], Abel, [[Seth]], etc., are the actual local-reference names for the later children, except insofar as phonetic decay had injected itself into the [[Eden]]ic traditions before the Hebrew scribes of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600BC 600 B.C.] and later had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic masoretically] frozen the names along with their traditions in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentateuch Pentateuch].

An interesting illustration of the differential contexts of names is with Adam's first sons, as compared with the later children's names. "[[Adamson]]" and Eveson" clearly were not the actual verbalization for these firstborns, "son" being Old Anglish immediately, and by way of the [[Sanskrit]] "sunu". The [[Urantia Book]] implicitly points to this in variantly listing Adamson as Adam ben Adam (and "ben" itself is a Semitic sonship designator, certainly not Jerusemic). But [[Cain]], Abel, [[Seth]], etc., are the actual local-reference names for the later children, except insofar as phonetic decay had injected itself into the [[Eden]]ic traditions before the Hebrew scribes of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600BC 600 B.C.] and later had [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic masoretically] frozen the names along with their traditions in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentateuch Pentateuch].

The [[etymology]] of [[Eve]]'s name is intriguingly complicated for yet another reason beyond that of [[Adam]]'s. This is because "Eve" is a mistransliteration in the first place. The actual [[Hebrew]] name for the female adam is "Chavvah", alternately "Hawwah", meaning literally "[[life]]" or "living", although virtually all [[scripture]] renderings have followed roughshod the translative abuse of the Latinized "Eve".

The [[etymology]] of [[Eve]]'s name is intriguingly complicated for yet another reason beyond that of [[Adam]]'s. This is because "Eve" is a mistransliteration in the first place. The actual [[Hebrew]] name for the female adam is "Chavvah", alternately "Hawwah", meaning literally "[[life]]" or "living", although virtually all [[scripture]] renderings have followed roughshod the translative abuse of the Latinized "Eve".

==Recommended Reference Works==

==Recommended Reference Works==

*[http://www.amazon.de/Gesenius-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament-Scriptures/dp/0801037360 Gesenius, Friedrich H.W.,Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures], Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1950

*[https://www.amazon.de/Gesenius-Chaldee-Lexicon-Testament-Scriptures/dp/0801037360 Gesenius, Friedrich H.W.,Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures], Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1950

*M'Clintock, John, and Strong, James, [http://archive.org/details/cyclopaediabibl07whitgoog Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature], Arno Press, NY 1969

*M'Clintock, John, and Strong, James, [https://archive.org/details/cyclopaediabibl07whitgoog Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature], Arno Press, NY 1969

*Pritchard, James B., ed [http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Eastern-Relating-Testament-Supplement/dp/0691035032 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament], "Adapa", pp. 101-03, Princeton University Press, 1969, third edition.

*Pritchard, James B., ed [https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Eastern-Relating-Testament-Supplement/dp/0691035032 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament], "Adapa", pp. 101-03, Princeton University Press, 1969, third edition.

==Glossary==

==Glossary==

''Dithemic''- Having or characterized by two themes.

''Dithemic''- Having or characterized by two themes.