In this episode of The Healing Law Podcast, I sit down with Dr. Stephen Pidgeon of the Cepher Publishing Group for a deep conversation about Hebrew language, biblical names, transliteration, and how translation can affect meaning.
We discuss the challenges of bringing ancient Hebrew into English, why certain names were changed over time, and how much scriptural depth can be lost when readers are separated from the original language structure. Dr. Pidgeon explains why transliteration matters, why Hebrew works differently than English, and how the את Cepher was created to preserve names, books, and concepts often overlooked in traditional English Bibles.
The conversation also explores the meaning behind biblical names such as Adam, Havel, Chanuk, and Yahusha, as well as the significance of the Aleph Tav and the history behind English Bible translation.
Episode Themes
- Hebrew transliteration and pronunciation
- Why biblical names carry layered meaning
- The challenges of translating ancient Hebrew into English
- The history of the King James Bible
- The role of the letter J in changing biblical names
- The Aleph Tav and restored scripture
- How translation choices can shape doctrine
- The purpose behind the את Cepher
Why Names Matter in Scripture
One of the central ideas in this episode is that biblical names are not random labels. In Hebrew, names often carry meaning that ties directly into the role, character, or purpose of the person being described. Dr. Pidgeon explains that names like Adam, Havel, and Chanuk reveal deeper layers of the text that are often hidden in standard English translations.
By restoring or preserving those names more carefully, readers can begin to see connections and meanings that are otherwise flattened or lost.
Translation vs. Transliteration
Dr. Pidgeon also discusses the difference between translation and transliteration. Translation attempts to convert meaning from one language into another, while transliteration attempts to preserve the original sound of the word using a different alphabet.
This distinction becomes extremely important when dealing with ancient Hebrew, where sounds, roots, prefixes, suffixes, and grammatical structures can all carry interpretive weight. In many cases, transliteration helps preserve information that a simple English substitution would erase.
The King James Tradition and What Changed
A major part of the conversation focuses on the history of the King James Bible and the English Bible tradition that came before and after it. Dr. Pidgeon explains that while the King James was a strong work within its tradition, it also inherited limitations, ambiguities, and political influences that affected how certain words and names were rendered.
We also discuss the later introduction of the letter J and how that influenced the way names like Yahusha came to be represented in English as Jesus. These linguistic shifts may seem small, but they can have major implications for how scripture is understood.
The Aleph Tav and Restored Scripture
Another major theme of the episode is the significance of the Aleph Tav in Hebrew scripture. According to Dr. Pidgeon, this is one of many examples of how Hebrew contains grammatical and symbolic features that do not translate cleanly into English. The את Cepher preserves these elements so readers can engage more directly with the underlying structure of the text.
This is part of the larger mission behind the Cepher: not to rewrite scripture, but to present it in a way that restores as much of the original texture and meaning as possible.
Find Dr. Stephen Pidgeon
You can learn more about Dr. Stephen Pidgeon and the Cepher here:
Listen to the Podcast
Explore all episodes of The Healing Law Podcast here:
Support the Podcast
If you enjoy conversations about health, law, nature, language, and scripture, you can support the show here:
Sponsor
This episode of The Healing Law Podcast is sponsored by American Grit Fulvic.
Learn more at:
Episode #7 Transcript:
Stephen Pidgeon (00:00)
That’s just great. Yeah, I think it’s just great. You know, he says, E-notch, E-notch, right? And of course, you know, the rules and the principles that go into, you know, the English language. For instance, you know, if you take the word ear and you put a B in front of it, it’s pronounced bear, right? You put a T in front of it, it’s pronounced tear, right? Which one is it?
Douglas Dedrick (00:01)
What do you think about that?
Stephen Pidgeon (00:22)
If you put an H in front of it, it’s here until you put a D at the end of it and then it’s heard. Right? So you have a lot of pronunciation issues in the English language, for sure. And in us transliterating the Hebrew, I mean, you know, you’ve got an ancient language there, right? And so with the ancient language, you’re trying to put it into English. So really, the CH is actually pronounced, Enoch See, not E-knock
which would be with a K, which would be nice if we could put the K in there, E-Knock that makes life simple, but it’s not. It’s Enoch you see? But not with the Enoch And so in a lot of foreign languages, you do get this, in fact, there’s a letter in the Hebrew called ח ח Chet is the name of the letter. And it’s pronounced with the ch.
So a friend of mine, was moving to Israel, he changed his name to an Israeli name and he spelled it seven, ח ts And they asked him how do you pronounce that? And he said, chhh. You see?
So, there’s always difficulty in languages, particularly languages from the Middle East, from West Asia. You’ve got a lot of that, on. And so, in trying to transliterate names, of course we ran into problems. How do you spell that? And this is really kind of a big issue. How do you spell that?
So for instance, sometimes you might want to start like if you had a word that began with ח right? You might want to spell it with, and some people do spell it with, an X instead of a CH. Because how do you tell somebody when they’re reading it? It’s not chet, it’s ח
Douglas Dedrick (01:47)
I think that’s a word letter. I was telling someone the other day there was a letter we imported from Mexico and I think it was the X so that we could make some of their sounds it was one of the letters that we input like I think it was Mexican Hispanic or Spanish like to make those sounds we had to add a letter and I think it was the X I Forget that I meant to look it up. I don’t know if you know that one
Stephen Pidgeon (02:05)
Yeah, there
had to be some letter like that. But I mean, these are the problems you run into, right? I mean, we’re going from different languages. Different languages have different characters, different ways of saying things. But I thought that was kind of cool. Inatch. Yeah, okay, I’m good with it, right? If that’s how you want to pronounce it. ⁓
Douglas Dedrick (02:23)
Oh man, I’m glad you got a
laugh. That’s great. I’ve been sitting up, that was five years, that was 2020. That was like way back then. I can’t believe I pulled that off. Am I? Yeah.
Stephen Pidgeon (02:25)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s great.
Yeah, well, it’s just part of the skill set, right? Part of the skill set. Yeah, there you go.
Douglas Dedrick (02:36)
Oh, yeah, you know, my computer the only reason I have my computer set up was so could share that video But I want it like no I knew no one appreciate as much as you I like there’s no one else who would appreciate that as much you I don’t think so Like I had to share it
Stephen Pidgeon (02:51)
Yeah, well you know I love the languages, you I’m a big student of language and it’s funny because the languages are kind of very interesting. Like for instance, if you study French, okay, if you study French you will be studying body parts, you know.
Douglas Dedrick (02:56)
Hmm.
Stephen Pidgeon (03:07)
I had a child with white and Right? And so you very much have this very much kind of romantic but it’s very physical fleshy kind of language. When you study Russian, it’s all about work. All right? To work, work, work, work, work.
When you study the Hebrew, the Hebrew is a whole different thing. The Hebrew is a language that has multiple layers, multiple tiers, it’s like a giant onion. And your outside understanding is true, you peel that layer off, that’s also true, you peel that off, that’s also true, you peel that off, that’s also true. And so the depth of the language is just resounding and incredibly impactful. And this is why, with the את Cepher, and this is part of the reason why we wanted to transliterate, was to open that world
to the English speaker. So they could look and go, okay, so why did you spell Adam with an apostrophe? How come it’s not Adam? Right? And when you study the Hebrew, you find Adam. Adam is actually the Hebrew word for blood. And the A or the A in Adam is the prefix Aleph, which means I will be. And so the name Adam itself means I will be blood.
And the name, we always say Cain and Abel, you know, the story of Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and that was that. But the name Abel isn’t the name at all. His name was Havel. And Havel, when you read this in the Hebrew, again, the he meaning the, Havel meaning lamentation. So the name Havel or Abel means the lamentation.
And so the narrative in Genesis begins with the lamentation. And so all of these names, these Hebrew names have meaning. Like for instance, Inach, Inach, Inach, right? This is the name that means ⁓ dedicated. So the true spelling of the name Inach is actually Chanuk, Chanuk, sometimes pronounced Chanuk.
So when you look at the feast day that happens in December called Chanukah, it is named after Chanuk or Enoch. And it means dedication, the feast of dedication. Chanukah, the feast of dedication. So, yeah, so, yeah, I mean, you could see, you could see that the instant we started doing this, you we got into this thing and I mean,
Douglas Dedrick (05:17)
Please at least continue.
Stephen Pidgeon (05:24)
You know, I gotta tell you, the inspiration to do this was kind of crazy because we were at a Bible study and this group said they announced this Bible, they were gonna make it totally politically corrected and neutralized and all this other stuff and we’re like, you can’t do that. And so a friend mine and I said, you know what we need to do is we need to create scriptures.
that are instead of being neutralized, they need to be completely incorrect, just say what the scriptures say no matter where it leads us, no matter how difficult it might be, and it needs to be so stinking difficult, nobody can ever read it. So let’s just transliterate the names, let’s just heap in the books, let’s just make it impossible. And when we first published the book, people were like,
How do you expect me to read this again? You know, this is why the lexicon got made. We didn’t have a lexicon when we first started. Everybody was like, I don’t have the slightest idea who you’re talking about. Who’s Yakiski Yahu? Who’s Yakiskel? Who are these people you’re talking about?
So we had to put together this lexicon that said, OK, all right, OK, here, look, here’s the names. You guys can figure it out here. Here you go. And so it was good for him to get a lexicon with his addition of the את Cepher there. It was really good because that’s going to help him a lot. And he can quickly browse in there under E and see that the pronunciation is Enoch.
Douglas Dedrick (06:31)
yeah, kinda need it.
He didn’t have time to do the research. I was on the fly. We got to him a break there. He’s also trying to read my chicken scratch handwriting. So, you know, I can’t imagine the difficulty that he was facing.
Stephen Pidgeon (06:42)
Yeah, yeah, no, no, didn’t love it.
You
Yeah, all of those
things were kind of problematic, ⁓
Douglas Dedrick (06:52)
Yeah,
yeah, it all just conglomerated into a Yeah, etymology was something I used to study a lot and I haven’t so much recently But like all that was news to me like I never got that deep. That’s for sure
Stephen Pidgeon (07:05)
Well, know, etymology is a fantastic study. you know, it’s very interesting because when you talk about etymology, right, it’s kind of like astrologie, right? So the logie part of that word, what we’re talking about etymology, the logie part of that word means basically the logic of it.
So etymology, etym, the word, the logic of the word. Now, when you look at the word astrology, the logic of the stars, compared to astronomy, the, astronomi is from the Greek word nomos, meaning law. So astronomy is the law of the stars. Astrology is the logic of the stars. So there you see these,
There you see these two ⁓ kind of ideas that go into the etymology of these words. And we see in the Hebrew, when we talk about the etymology, the idea that there is a Hebrew root.
And so when you’re looking at it, and I’ve taught classes on what we call rightly dividing the word, right? know, Paul talks about you need to rightly divide the word. And people think, well, that means I get to inflict my interpretation on the word. No, that’s not what it means. What it meant was, was back in the day, you had these scrolls in Hebrew that were just a continuous stream of letters. They’re like, hey, wait a minute.
Can you put a comma in there? Can you put a period in there? How about a semicolon? Hyphen? Number? No, just a continuous stream of letters. And so the Hebrew readers had to be able to rightly divide that continuous stream of letters. So you would use tools inside the Hebrew language to do that. The first tool you would use is what’s called the sofit letters. So you have five letters that are…
what you might call capitalized letters, but they’re letters which end words. So they’re different than the regular word, like the memsofite or nunsofite. These are letters that have a different appearance, and it’s very clear that where they appear, that’s the end of the word. So if you’re going and you got the C-Boo scrolling, and say, okay, let’s go through and mark this initially, you would find every sofite letter and you put your red line in there. Okay, we can divide it there, there, there, there, there.
Well then you have to look for suffixes. So you have kind of common suffixes, like you have the idea of Elohim, is this I-Y-M suffix, sometimes spelled just I-M. But this is the masculine plural, as compared to O-T-H, the feminine plural. So when you find those, ⁓ okay.
We got some stuff here. Except that, guess what? You can load suffix on suffix.
You can have three suffixes in a row and sometimes you can have a feminine and a masculine suffix on the same word. Get me out of here. Get me out here. And same thing with the prefixes. know, and the prefixes are very, you they’re common, but the prefixes are very, very good at in terms of delivering to you what’s going on in the passage.
Douglas Dedrick (09:46)
Thanks a lot.
Yeah, I did.
Stephen Pidgeon (09:59)
And so rightly dividing the word is part of the etymology in terms of understanding the Hebrew.
Douglas Dedrick (10:04)
Of So did the original King James version do that? What did the King James version do that you would criticize it for the most?
Stephen Pidgeon (10:13)
Well,
here’s the one thing you’ve got to remember. If the King James Version was good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for you. Right? Of course, that’s a joke. The King James Version was published in 1611 AD and Paul, you know, died around 69 AD. Right?
maybe it was a little later than that. I think it was 69 AD. So the King James Version, now this is one of the big reasons that the את Cepher got launched. The King James Version is actually a very good version in the English tradition of Bibles.
And it’s not really, it really isn’t the cat’s meow because the Bible that really kind of launched it all, if you will, that kind of elbowed its way in as a dominant writing was the Miles Coverdale 1539 Great Bible. And the Great Bible was the Bible that was instituted by the English Parliament that said, okay, we’re going to finally agree that we should have a Bible in English.
We didn’t think so, know, only Latin only, Latin only, And then along comes John Wycliffe. Well, I’m going to put it in English. And he got away with it, right? Because he was in this obscure little town in England called Lutterworth. He got away with it and he got it done. Then after he got it done, he died. And then after he died, Roman came in and said, what did you do? yeah, he translated the Latin Vulgate into English. Into the English language? Dig him up. We’re going to burn his bones.
And they did, So it’s gonna be 150 years later that we come to Tyndale, and Tyndale is gonna say, we need to have a Bible in the English language. Because Henry VIII in 1532 said, no more pope. Tell the pope to hit it. Tell his bishops to get out of here. Tell his courts to hit the road. We’re not doing that stuff anymore. Get rid of them.
And so when he did, Tyndale says, hey, guess what? I got a Bible right here in English. Well, that’s fine for Tyndale to say that in Britain, but don’t say it in Europe, which he did. He said it in Europe. And they said, ⁓ you translated the Bible into English? Burn him at the stake. And they did.
But his cohort, Miles Coverdale, he made the intelligent move of never going into the continent of Europe. He stayed in the British Isles. And so in 1534, the head of St. Paul’s Church in London burned the Tyndale Bible. We can only have the Bible in Latin, the Anglican bishop. In 1538,
the English parliament said, by law, there shall be an English Bible in every church in Britain and the door shall remain open so anybody can read it. And the following year, Miles Coverdale went, I just happened to have the book. And so he presents it, right? Well, the Coverdale is the foundation for the King James. About 92 % of the 1611 King James is the Coverdale Bible.
They made some changes because King James wanted to keep things politically correct to ensure his power. But really that tradition of the Coverdale Bible, the John Calvin Bible, the Geneva, the Bishop’s Bible, the 1611 King James, those were all great Bibles because they were built upon the Byzantine text that had come out of Constantinople. And that was extremely important. They were not built on the Latin Vulgate like the Wycliffe Bible was.
They were built on the Byzantine text, so they were more accurate. But one of the things that happened was Coverdale did use the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament. Because that’s where you get the whole Hebrew source of the book. And so in doing so, he ran into some problems. Well, what do I do with this Yoad Hei-vav Hei bit? Well, he didn’t speak Hebrew, so he had to go to Hebrew advisors.
And the Hebrew advisors told him, you better not pronounce that name. Our religion doesn’t allow the name to be pronounced.
You better not use that word Elohim. You need to use something else. And so they recommended changes to Corvidale. And Corvidale was in the process at that time of using what they called vulgar terms for his Bible. So for instance, there’s no James in the underlying text. Let’s go to the book of James. There was no James. The guy’s name, if you wanted to give him an English name, it was Jacob.
If you gave him a Hebrew name, his real name was Yaakov, Yaakov Sadik. There was no James, but as long as you got a King James, we better have a James in that text. Right? Of course, the problem was when that was first done, his name wasn’t James. It was Yahmez.
right? So all of these things are kind of crazy when you put them together, but the key issue is…
Douglas Dedrick (14:26)
The J was like 500
years or something. It’s 500 years old, J. All these J sounds, think. 400.
Stephen Pidgeon (14:32)
400 yeah, they’ve the
yeah, no the jay in the bible does not get introduced until 1769
The Benjamin Blaney Oxford edition of the King James 1769. That’s when the J first comes into the Bible. So, and you can imagine, I mean, you would think, hey, that’s pretty revolutionary. What are you doing with a J in there? Miles Coverdale spelled it I-E-S-U-S, E-A-S-U-S. John Calvin spelled it I-E-S-U-S. King James spelled it I-E-S-U-S. The Bishop spelled it I-E-S-U-S. Deceptuagin spelled it I-E-S-O-U-S.
The Stephanist Texas Receptus spelled it I-E-S-O-U-S. The Bates of Texas Receptus. The Desiderius Arrasment spelled it I-E-S-O-U-S. Where’d you get the J? Nobody said anything because the pronunciation was the same. Ye-sus. Ye-sus. See? And then, of course, typical with the British fashion, right?
You gotta keep in mind, the Brits, we always expect them to speak the Queen’s English or the King’s English. Maybe one or two people in the country do. Everybody else speaks Cockney or they speak Birmingham or they speak Manchester, they speak this. And so, for instance, we had a French Prime Minister, his name was Jacques Chirac. Jacques Chirac. know, Frère Jacques, right? J-C-Q-U-E Jacques, Jacques Chirac.
And the Brits, how did they refer to him? Jack Scherac. Yeah, you know, we were talking with Prime Minister Jack Scherac. Right? Yeah, yeah. That’s how they do it in London, right? Jack Scherac. Well.
Douglas Dedrick (15:54)
They were just messing with them basically. man.
Stephen Pidgeon (16:02)
This is the same thing they did instead of Jesus, Jesus, which was a Germanic pronunciation, pretty soon it became a hard J. And particularly when it came to the United States, they were over the ocean. So just like our friend said, Inach, they’re not gonna pronounce it Jesus, because they’re over the, I’m sorry, we pronounce J like this, J like jar, that’s what it’s gonna be. See? And so.
You can kind of see it. You can kind of see how that mold all came in that direction. Either way, the Iesous in the Greek and the Iesous in the early text was a substitution for the underlying Hebrew name.
And this is easily provable because you can look up Iesous in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, and you’ll see that the name Iesous appears there 177 times. And what do we know about that? It named Joshua. And Joshua had a Hebrew name. And his Hebrew name is Yahusha. Yahusha.
Douglas Dedrick (16:57)
It’s important. mean, like the sounds are just like totally shifted. It’s important. Like, but how else would you even know unless you really dove in that deep and most people just overlook it and sweep it under? It’s like, well, the context certainly matters about what we’re talking about. And to look at it that deep would take, I don’t think I could ever look that deep on my own.
Stephen Pidgeon (17:17)
Well, I can tell you that, you know, we had, didn’t know we going to look that deep when we got into this thing. It was like, well, what are we going to do here? I don’t know. You know, I mean, really what happened was we were in, we were in Israel, actually. Brad and I were in Israel and we were in Israel in, in 2011. And, you know, I didn’t listen to the instructions of the guy that had, we were renting rooms.
and I figured we would kind of rough it in to find the place. Jerusalem is like a giant bowl of spaghetti. If you looked at it on a map, the only thing missing is the meatball, okay?
If you look at Jerusalem on a map, I mean, it’s just ridiculous. And then everywhere in the city looks the same. There are some places where you got, look, there’s a hill. look, there’s a, you know, there’s a road sign. look, there’s something we can remember. But when you’re in downtown Jerusalem, forget it. It all looks the same. Every block is the same. So here we are thinking we knew where we were going. We didn’t. We’re just wandering around Jerusalem and we were literally lost for almost 10 hours.
So we’re cruising around, hey, do know where this street is? Do know where that street is? And what we discovered was that in Jerusalem, they had the street names up and they had them up in English and in Hebrew and in Arabic. Now the street signs were all about this big, okay? And they’re stuck on the corner of a building over there. So if you think you could read them when you’re driving down the road, you are wrong. You can’t. But nonetheless, we started looking at it and like we came up on the street, we came up on
⁓ isaiah street that they became jeremiah street that they became ezekiel street the same street just changed names as you got further down it but it didn’t say isaiah jeremiah or ezekiel it had the hebr name and then it said ye sheyaw and then when it changed the hebr name changed and there it was Yermiyahu and then when it got to the name ezekiel it changed again Yekezkel
So we’re looking at these names and it was very, very obvious because they have all the prophets names on all the streets in downtown Jerusalem that this, you know, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh or the Yod-Heh-Vav is Yahu. Yahu, it’s very, very, it’s obvious it’s all over Jerusalem in their transliteration of the Hebrew name. So we got to look at it and we thought, hmm, look at this.
Here’s the Hebrew name and here’s the transliteration. Not the translation, but the transliteration. And so this is when we decided, you know what we should do is, we should translate, transliterate all 3100 proper nouns in the Old Testament.
Douglas Dedrick (19:38)
Right. Well, it was like handed to you too. That’s amazing. Like the translation
was right there. That’s pretty cool. It just came to you basically as you were traveling. It’s amazing.
Stephen Pidgeon (19:46)
Well,
we’ve got a lot of software tools we can use now these days. There’s lots of software out there that’s capable of doing this stuff, giving you the Hebrew and the pronunciation guide and the transliteration. And so we embarked on this path to transliterate all these names. And that’s what the lexicon’s all about.
So, know, when people criticize the את Cepher, the את Cepher is this, that, and the other thing. Then I always say, well, while you’re criticizing our books, could you criticize the lexicon? You know, I mean, I just, I want to hear what your criticism is on the lexicon for a few minutes,
Douglas Dedrick (20:14)
Right, where all the breakdowns are and why you did
it, Yeah, it’s an incredible amount of research to even figure out what we meant were. Yeah.
Stephen Pidgeon (20:18)
Yeah,
Yeah, it was years. It was years of research. And we poured over stuff. And then of course we had some real revelation take place again when we were in Jerusalem, right? So we’d been in Jerusalem, I don’t know, I guess we’d been there a week. And we’d been going to this side and we went to that side and we went to the other side. And finally we had like two days left in Jerusalem. And David looked at me and he says, you know, what we should do is let’s go someplace where we want to go.
Is there any place that you just want to go that isn’t a tourist trap? And I said, yeah, there’s a place that I want to go to. He said, well, where is it? I said, well, it’s this place called Ein Karim. And I said, I went there by accident. know, Brad and I went there by accident last year and it’s a beautiful place. And I mean, I don’t understand why it’s a beautiful place, but I love Ein Karim. It’s just you get down there and it’s green and it’s like refreshing and it’s kind of added the desert heat, you know? And ⁓ so we went down there.
And in this little, I mean this is just a little tiny village, I mean tiny. Little tiny village, I think there’s like three or four restaurants there and maybe a dozen houses total. And everything else is church.
Okay, so at any rate, so we’re at Ein Karem when we’re looking around, look, here’s a Russian church, here’s a Russian monastery, and here’s a Greek church, and here’s a Greek monastery, and here’s a French church and a French convent, and here’s another church. What’s with all these churches in this place? What’s going on here that there’s church on church on church in this little tiny village? Well, we find out that this is the birthplace of John the Baptist.
So we spent some time in the Notre Dame de Zion convent, the French convent, which is absolutely spectacularly beautiful place. Completely walled, it’s got 20 foot walls around it. Got a promenade and orchard in the middle. They’ve got a huge garden that they take care of, a very simple chapel. Anyway, it’s beautiful. And then we went into the courtyard of the Church of John the Baptist. And in that courtyard,
They have these four by eight marble, four feet by eight foot marble plaques, boom, boom, boom, in 55 languages in the outer courtyard, talking about the section in Luke that refers to the birth of John the Baptist. That’s New Testament writing. And so of course we read our favorite languages, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, and then we came on the Hebrew.
Douglas Dedrick (22:22)
Mm.
Stephen Pidgeon (22:30)
What did we discover in the Hebrew New Testament? Well, the Aleph Tav. The Aleph Tav was in the New Testament. And, Brad is just like, you know, jumping with joy. Look at that!
Douglas Dedrick (22:36)
was just completely was that that’s like lying
right? Like in the King James version, at some point it was, some version.
Stephen Pidgeon (22:45)
No, no, no, no.
Typically, was typically ignored in the English text. It was usually ignored. sometimes they would replace it with yet. Sometimes you’d see the word yet come in. But the problem with the al-taab is that it doesn’t translate into English because it’s actually a functional tool in the Hebrew. It’s like a comma, semicolon.
something like this but it’s grammatically more significant than that because the aleph tav points to the direct object of the sentence which oftentimes in Hebrew you need because the Hebrew is not clear enough to distinguish between the subject and the direct object of the sentence and unless you have that pointer you can get lost in what’s being said in the concept. However, it’s got more content than that.
It’s much more contextual. It has much more power and authority than that, particularly in Genesis 1. So when we came to understand the power of the Aleph Tab, and then we discovered it in the New Testament on the writing of the wall at the Church of John the Baptist at Ein Kerem in Jerusalem, that’s when we elected to include the Aleph Tab throughout the text. And ⁓ we got a little gun happy with it, I think, at one point.
The alipop still remains as a viable part of the text of the את Cepher
Douglas Dedrick (24:01)
Yeah Yeah, I mean it’s amazing like the because words have meaning obviously but like we don’t even In english, they have like a specific like paper meaning but like like you’re talking about like Deeper meaning about words and how they meant deeper things and not just a simple English is very homogenized in a way to me to me. It’s like the homogenized language and to overlook
Like the context is often lost if we don’t research the meaning at the very least. But we’re not taught the meaning by any means about what words even mean. And so like you’re talking about a word as a tool, it’s just a different concept entirely than what we would even consider in English.
Stephen Pidgeon (24:40)
Yeah, and you’re right about that. I there are words, for instance, words do matter. words mean what they mean, and they cannot be construed to mean something they don’t mean. And this becomes extremely important, particularly if you’re going to have a discussion with another human being.
In order to convey a concept, you have to be able to speak a language, like you and I being able to talk here in English. know, when I speak Italian, you don’t speak together. Once I start speaking in Italian, we can’t talk anymore. And… Yes, of I True. Okay. So, at any rate, you can see that it’s important for us to be able to normally speak…
Douglas Dedrick (25:08)
No comprehendos.
That’s all I know.
Stephen Pidgeon (25:22)
What’s that? Yeah, so…
Douglas Dedrick (25:23)
I just said Capiche, that’s about all I know. Capiche,
think, probably, I don’t know.
Stephen Pidgeon (25:28)
Yeah, yeah, capisci, capisci, capisco, yeah, capito, yeah, capito, certo. yeah, and so, so when we, when we, when we look at this, ability for us to talk together means we speak the same language and we agree upon what the words mean. And so this is one of the things we found in the King James too, is that…
There are many places where the King James, partly because some of the language is archaic, partly because the language is common or vulgar, that we end up with ambiguities in words, where a word can have two meanings. So for instance, when you take the passage, and Mashiach is the end of the law. Now some people read that saying that when Mashiach came along, that ended the Torah. But that’s not what’s said there in the Greek.
Even though the English is accurate, but what it’s talking about, Mashiach is the goal of the law. You see? So what was the point of the law? The point of the law was to lead to Mashiach. He’s the end result of the law. Not the termination of the law. He’s the end result of the law. So the word is technically accurate. Mashiach is the end of the law.
using the term end as to what end are you trying to reach in your conversation here, right? You see that context. And so in the את Cepher we specify the language that Mashiach is the goal of the law, not the end of the law, but the goal of the law. Now the end of the law was accurate, but it was ambiguous. And this is why the word had to be changed to be a more accurate word to
better clarify the concept that was given in Greek.
Douglas Dedrick (27:02)
Yeah, well, that’s amazing. So like it’s so much insight to consider like what you’re laying out and you know, I’m just listening because I’m learning so much. I’m trying to keep up. Like it’s such like I’ve always liked etymology and like I said, I haven’t been studying it as much and like you’re just filling me in on so many things like makes so much sense.
Stephen Pidgeon (27:03)
So at any rate, there.
Yeah, well, know, I mean, I could tell you, I you for me, I’m buried in the scripture all the time. I’m always working with the text, always looking at the Hebrew, always looking at the Greek, always making the determination. Is this the best way to say that? Is this clarified language? Is this language that is going to be understood in terms of its impact not to change the meaning of the passage?
But I mean, there’s a passage, for instance, in the book of James chapter two, verse two, that was so complex when I first read it, I just went, come on, who can understand what’s being said there? Now, let me see if I can just read that. Let me pull up something here and I’ll just read it to you, okay? Just one second. And I’ll read to you what was actually there that I’m looking at and I’m going, okay, now how are we supposed to make sense of this, right?
So here’s how, this is how it originally read, right? This is James 2 and 3. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring and goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, okay, now here’s the verse. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place, and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool,
And are ye not then partial in yourselves and are become judges of evil thoughts? Okay. So when you talk about that phrase, I’m thinking, okay, how is a person supposed to understand what’s being said there? Because the concept is, that
Douglas Dedrick (28:49)
They were wearing gay clothes in the Bible
they had gay clothes back then
Stephen Pidgeon (28:53)
Yeah, that one guy did. Yeah, one wonders what it was, but apparently he was coming into the synagogue wearing it. So, you you never know, But at any rate, the point being is that you’re not to be, you’re not to give bias, right? You’re not to be biased.
for the rich man and you’re not to be biased to the poor man. You know, I only give the favors to the rich people because the poor, we only get rid of them. They’re never going to be a problem, but that rich guy may make problems for me. And then there’s the other guy that says, oh, I feel so bad for the poor guy. I always have to find in his favor. James is saying you neither give favor to the rich guy nor do you give favor to the poor guy. Right. But the phrase is so convoluted. How do you dig that marrow out of that phrase?
And so there’s been several scriptures, some of the Book of Sirach, there’s been other scriptures that have just been so impalatable in the English, trying to make sense of them, particularly when you see a lot of times in the Old English, they had mixed tenses. Half the phrase would be in the present tense, half the phrase would be in the past tense.
And you know, half the phrase would be in the third person, half the phrase is in the first person, in the same sentence. And you’re trying to figure out, how is the reader supposed to read that? How are you supposed to your head around that concept, right? Because guess what? We speak English.
Douglas Dedrick (30:12)
Well, it sounds like the people who are translating it might not have understood what it actually said and just had to make it make say something. And they’re like, this is the closest we can get. They didn’t actually understand the meaning. So they just made it say something. And as we look back, we’ll get a deeper meaning if we continue to look at look for that.
Stephen Pidgeon (30:28)
Yeah, yeah, I think that’s exactly right. And particularly in light of the fact, like, when you read Hebrew, okay, there is no is in Hebrew. Is, am, were, was. That word doesn’t exist, nor does the concept exist. And there is no of in Hebrew. So the is is inferred as is the of.
But in terms of where that is goes and where that of goes in the inference, all depends on the context of the verse. You see? And so you can imagine where some of these guys are trying to do a literal transliteration, they’re running into problems.
Douglas Dedrick (31:07)
Of course. Yeah. I mean, couldn’t imagine the challenge. It’s like there’s, there’s, you’re always going to go back and look, if you actually are honest, you’ll, you’ll always find a better way to, if you read it again, you’re going to see it a different way, a little deeper, and maybe that there was a better way to say it.
Stephen Pidgeon (31:20)
That’s exactly right. Now that is an issue that we’ve had going on with the את Cepher for a long time. And that’s why we’re constantly re-reading the text. Re-read it, re-read it, re-read it, re-read it. Can we see, can we pull more bone marrow out of the text? And this is why, mean, in the את Cepher you you’ll find explosive verses that you won’t find in any other scripture at all. And,
you know, but they’re in the את Cepher they’re there for reason because we have looked closer at the underlying Hebrew or closer at the underlying Greek and put it in context in its historical place to make sure that we gave the best possible translation using tools of transliteration to make the text both readable and understandable.
Douglas Dedrick (32:05)
Yeah, and it doesn’t take much to pick up on it and you learn so much more about the meaning by just like reading it in that way and then you have your King James version sitting next to Sephirin you read them both and you know kind of get what it means just from that and That’s kind of how I started then I got the lexicon down the road, but it wasn’t it’s not too hard But it’s like yeah, the J just knowing the J wasn’t there and it’s the yaw sound like the yeah like that’s a lot of
what’s going on there. That’s a totally different, you know, it was totally different back then. 500 years ago, they were saying it a different way. And now all of a sudden we say it completely differently. And the only way we could know that is by looking back at this research, like researching the words like that.
There’s no recordings of their voices from back then.
Stephen Pidgeon (32:44)
Yeah, yeah,
and looking towards the end. Yeah, and this is the key thing. mean, look, we didn’t write it. We didn’t. There’s no book in the את Cepher that we wrote. We didn’t like, hey, let’s write the Book of Jasher ourselves. Let’s sit down and pen it, right? We didn’t do that. We had sources that we went to and then and then we didn’t take the liberty to rewrite phrases the way we thought they should be. We went in and said, what does that passage actually say? What does it actually say?
And in doing so, found out a number of things. I’ll give you an example. This is in the book of Galatians. I believe it’s in chapter five. And in Galatians chapter five in the King James, it says, tell you the truth, if ye be circumcised, Christ profits you nothing. think it’s five, three. Now, the difficulty with that passage is, Paul was circumcised.
and he circumcised Timothy. And he had a bunch of people that were out of the synagogues that were following him that were also circumcised. And for him to say, you be circumcised, Christ prophets you nothing, is he just writing himself out of the book of life? Did he just write Timothy out of the book of life?
You know, I mean there’s some problems there, right? So I went back and looked at it and said, what is actually being said here? And the Koyene Greek is a very interesting Greek because you have these modifiers that are in different places in respect of the noun.
depending on the case, if you’re dealing with the genitive case, the descriptive case, the accusative case, whatever it may be, the modifiers are in different places. So it’s not uncommon, for instance, in the Greek to see two thes in a row. Right? And they’re not talking about the group the the, but there’s two thes in a row, and they have different modifications to the different nouns, right? And so when you see that,
you put together the semantic in terms of the justification of the cases, that passage in the את Cepher reads, except that Mashiach was circumcised, this profits you nothing.
That’s different, it? That’s different. Except that Mashiach was circumcised, this profits you nothing. And that, by the way, that concept is reiterated in Ephesians 4, the same concept, that the circumcision of Mashiach, which is definitely documented in the Book of Luke, that the circumcision of Mashiach brought in, represented a blood sacrifice that brought in the entirety of the uncircumcision.
into the pathway to the throne. ⁓
That shedding of one drop of blood opened the door to all of the uncircumcised.
Douglas Dedrick (35:11)
Yeah, this totally different meaning.
Right. Yeah.
Stephen Pidgeon (35:15)
Totally different meaning, right? And the contradiction that was present in the bad translation goes away.
Now here’s another one. There’s a passage in the King James where Paul says, I magnify myself. Well, that’s pretty ego, trip, tripical of you, Paul. What are you standing around looking in the mirror magnifying yourself? I magnify myself. Hey, I am glorious. I am Paulos the apostle. This I am the, you know, the cats, you know, that’s not what he said there. You know what he really said there? I honor my office.
Douglas Dedrick (35:33)
Yeah.
Stephen Pidgeon (35:46)
That’s a bit different, isn’t it?
Douglas Dedrick (35:47)
yeah, entirely.
Stephen Pidgeon (35:48)
I honor my office. You see, so it’s it’s these kinds of things that, you know, and I think we’re the only text in the world that refers to Paul as PA apostrophe AL. Because here you go again, you have a guy who says, I am the Pharisee of Pharisees. I’m the ultimate Hebrew. I am the guy. I am the ultimate rabbi. Shaul.
Why would he change his name over to Paulos? Because I want to be, you know, I want to be considered August like Apollo. So I want to be considered there with those Nephilim gods that the Greeks worship. That’s why I went by the name Paulos. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. He told them I am a worker. I am a tent maker, a tent worker. ⁓
And so the name Pa’al comes from the Hebrew Pa’al O’Hel, tent worker, tent maker, Pa’al O’Hel. And so what he was telling him, I, the worker, the sent one, have come to you in the name of Yahusha Hama Sheik. Right? And so when you see this now, all of a sudden, ⁓ he’s not calling him, he’s not aggrandizing himself as the great Paul Lose.
He’s saying, hey, I’m the worker. Just refer to me as the worker. And the Greek translators, apollos, you see, when he was just calling himself the worker.
Douglas Dedrick (37:08)
huh. They they interpret they put their ego into it. Basically, they’re like, yeah, he probably was saying it like this, you know, they were projecting a little bit on to Paul there. But they’re, know.
Stephen Pidgeon (37:17)
Exactly. That’s exactly what was going on. Projecting. Yeah.
Douglas Dedrick (37:21)
So they wanted man. Yeah, that’s a lot there man Shoot. I I appreciate your time. I have a so this I have like this thing I make myself go through every time because I got to do this. I have a sponsor for the podcast. It’s my own company. But do know about fulvic acid at all?
or shillig it. Yeah, you do. What do you know about it? What do you think about it?
Stephen Pidgeon (37:37)
Yeah.
Yeah.
folic acid. I mean, it’s vital to the Krebs cycle.
Douglas Dedrick (37:45)
fulvic. What is are you talking about? f f u l v i c. What fulvic acid, not folic. Fulvic. F u. So do you know about Shilajit? You might you might have heard of Shilajit, Himalayan Shilajit.
Stephen Pidgeon (37:48)
I’ll just leave it there.
⁓ no no. okay. No I do not know this full forecast.
Douglas Dedrick (38:00)
It oozes out of the tops of mountains. an ancient plant material. It’s basically plant tar, but it’s bioavailable. So it’s like, it still assimilates with our bodies. It’s not like, it hasn’t been carbonized. It’s like ancient plant material. So fulvic acid is primarily it’s from ancient plants decaying over time, like ancient compost. And it’s, it’s got to like the polyphenols like resveratrol that plants produce that are broken down into like microscopic amounts over thousands of years.
Stephen Pidgeon (38:01)
No, I have not heard of that either.
Douglas Dedrick (38:29)
⁓ They say million some of them but my company it’s Operation American Grit .com is a it’s the number one fulvic acid that I know of in the world and it comes from America because they were sending this fake Shilajit from overseas What I at least are making false claims so I was like and I knew of a source from America and no one really knows what fulvic is but it’s it’s very similar to oil colantar and all these chemicals that we make from it like
Stephen Pidgeon (38:48)
you ⁓
Douglas Dedrick (38:52)
There’s towns and studies, they’ve done studies where they pour into the water fulvic acid and it’ll assimilate the synthetic chemicals. It’ll just renaturalize them and take them away somehow. Like there’s studies and research on, I don’t understand the science and how you would say it, but.
Stephen Pidgeon (39:07)
Oh, okay, so it’s a purifier.
Douglas Dedrick (39:09)
Yeah, in some ways. Well, it’s so broken down. It’s it’s broken. It’s difficult to say what it is because it’s broken down so small that it can it can carry nutrients into your cell directly like it can go into your cells and carry nutrients and carry nutrients out like or can carry heavy metals out even like chelates heavy metals like because it’s full of polyphenols. A lot of polyphenols do this polyphenols chelate heavy metals in general like reservoir like there’s a lot of them.
Stephen Pidgeon (39:11)
It’s a purifier.
Douglas Dedrick (39:35)
But this is like a bunch of polyphenols broken down over thousands of years from ginkgo biloba trees in America. There’s like trace of ginkgo biloba and it’s crazy. It’s really interesting stuff. It’s like that’s what I’ve nerded out on is like my fulvic acid because it’s like this compound sitting in the earth and it does so much and it’s just extracted with water. Like it’s in the clay. It’s crazy.
Stephen Pidgeon (39:54)
But you know, that kind of thing is extremely important right now because a lot of people do not appreciate the toxicity that is in their own body. They have no idea. And particularly in your generation, there’s toxicity that is just replete. And it comes from many, many sources. Yeah.
Douglas Dedrick (40:11)
yeah, it’s insane
Stephen Pidgeon (40:14)
And so the ability to detox in any respect, particularly the detox at the microcellular level, strikes me as being extremely important.
Douglas Dedrick (40:22)
Yeah, there’s a lot of research on. I don’t want to say what it does too much because I want there’s mechanisms and there’s a way to say it specifically, but I understand what it it. Yeah. At the cellular level, it to me, it purifies things like there’s no proof like study that it removes microplastics from the body that I’ve seen, but I highly suspect that it does it in the water to not plastics per se, but certain chemicals there. It certainly breaks down certain synthetic chemicals.
Because we derive those things from oil. All this technology comes from oil. All synthetic drugs come from oil. derive them. The oil is full of phenols, which comes from BPA is bisphenol A, which comes from the phenol, like polyphenol. So it’s no longer polyphenols, it’s phenols. They’ve broken in half and they’ve been carbonized a little bit. So it’s like a different form. And then we extract it and make all these chemicals.
Stephen Pidgeon (40:57)
Yeah, right. Sure.
Douglas Dedrick (41:14)
And so this fulvic acid is kind of related and it naturally pulls out certain to certain extents. It pulls out these synthetics because it recognizes them and it just re-assimilates them and re-naturalizes them. Certain ones, not all of them. I want to claim all of them, certain ones for sure. I don’t know which ones, but to some extent I I’ll tell you, I didn’t I’m 36. I took it last year. I took it two years ago. I started taking was like 34.
I didn’t have any chest hair at all. I started taking it for like six months, I started growing chest hair. It’s like, so testosterone definitely went up. I think it took out like those phytoestrogens. I was, you know.
Stephen Pidgeon (41:50)
⁓ yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s fascinating. Well, know, personal testimony, of course, goes a long way, but of course, it’s a bit subjective, right? And but nonetheless, like I say, you know, I tend to be very favorable towards naturopathic remedies. Because I believe that Yah has given us all the tools we need to be healthy in this world without synthesis and without carving and being cut up and without being radiated.
and that YAP has got many things for us. And we do a great deal of study like this. We have an ARC health site on Telegram that’s quite extensive in terms of naturopathic remedies. But on this, I’m not familiar with this particular product. And so I’m going to reserve my opinion.
But I’m glad to hear what you’ve had to say about it. And you know, when you talk about this idea of estrogen or testosterone blockers in the system, that is really kind of a common issue in the guys in your age group. Now, I don’t know exactly what the circumstances are that are causing this kind of blockage, but there is a radical plunge in testosterone among men and a radical plunge in semen production. And in fact, American men are becoming
Incapable, they’re becoming infertile. And if this trend continues, we get into the next lap, we’re going to have a lap of people that are incapable of impregnating a woman. And so this is something that, if there are blockers in the system, and I don’t know what would cause the blockage, I don’t know. I mean, haven’t done any research on it. Not my cup of tea. But if there are blockers in the system,
that are forms of toxins inside the cell, just wouldn’t surprise me.
Douglas Dedrick (43:28)
Yeah, it’s phytoestrogen.
They mimic estrogens. It’s a bunch of plastics that mimic estrogens. They block the receptors. It’s the cause of lot of forms of cancer and stuff, too. It does a lot of, I don’t even, like, to what extent it does, it blocks the receptors so it can’t even, like, it mimics estrogen that you can’t get rid of. It just sits there.
Stephen Pidgeon (43:41)
What?
Yeah,
isn’t that interesting? So, do you know what’s the situation on side effects with this stuff?
Douglas Dedrick (43:53)
The fulvic acid?
the side effects of fulvic acid.
Stephen Pidgeon (43:55)
Yeah.
Douglas Dedrick (43:56)
It’s considered to be just a dietary supplement. it’s not, it’s, it’s just dirt. It’s literally just dirt extracted with water.
Stephen Pidgeon (44:01)
you
Douglas Dedrick (44:02)
So like.
Stephen Pidgeon (44:03)
Okay, yeah, it’s a particular kind of dirt that has got particular properties in terms of its ancientness.
Douglas Dedrick (44:09)
And it was, but it’s not just, it’s not rocks. It’s not rocks and sand. It’s not those things. It’s organic matter from plants.
Stephen Pidgeon (44:11)
Is that correct?
Douglas Dedrick (44:17)
It’s a concentrated source of organic matter from plants. Like hyperconcentrated.
Stephen Pidgeon (44:18)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that’s it.
Okay. Well, now how could a person get their hands on this? How does a person get their hands on this?
Douglas Dedrick (44:24)
over thousands of years.
Well, I’m happy to send you one.
can send you some, but OperationAmericanGrit.com is my website. I’m happy to send you some though for taking the time to come on here,
Stephen Pidgeon (44:37)
Operation Operation American Grid?
Douglas Dedrick (44:39)
Yeah, because I called the product Ameri- Yeah, grit , G-R-I-T.
Stephen Pidgeon (44:41)
Is that it? Operation American Grid?
American grit . Operation Amwerican Grit Okay, okay.
Douglas Dedrick (44:46)
Yeah. Yes, because it’s it’s it’s Shilajit
comes from the Himalayas. This is fulvic acid from America. And I was like, what do I call it? It’s not called anything really. I had to brand name it. So American grit . Like because it’s gritty, it’s like a gritty powder.
Stephen Pidgeon (45:03)
American grit OK, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sounds like it make it. Yeah, that’s OK. That’s pretty cool.
Douglas Dedrick (45:09)
I’m glad you think so. Yeah, I’ve been working. That’s been like what because I found out about when I was like researching Plants and stuff cuz I’ve been a landscaper most of my life But when roundup was coming around I was like, I know that’s toxic so I don’t want to mess with it So I started researching all these organic things and this company like they how I found out I was like seven years ago They hired me to do this research video and organic study like tomatoes with and without it And so because of that I found out what it was a long time ago and then Shilajit it became like a
Big thing a couple of years ago on TikTok. And then it’s everybody started taking it. But when they were said 75 % fulvic acid, I knew they were lying because it’s a, it, this stuff is rare for one. And they’re sending in hundreds of thousands of bottles and they’re saying 75%. The fulvic that I offer is 35%. And that’s the most concentrated form based on the Lamar study, like as far as I know. And, um, so we tested this 75 % fulvic.
Stephen Pidgeon (46:01)
Do you have this
study based? Have you got this study up on your website?
Douglas Dedrick (46:05)
yeah, well the COA, the certificate of authority. Yes. It’s called a certificate of authenticity. Yeah. Or whatever it’s, I always makes it up. Yeah, but that’s on the website. Yes.
Stephen Pidgeon (46:10)
the certificate of authority, okay.
Yeah, okay, yeah.
Alright, well that sounds good, Doug. Well, look.
I want to thank you, want thank you Doug for having me on your podcast today. I don’t know how new your podcast is, but I’m glad you invited me to be a guest on it. And then next time, next time we’ll talk about some of the more difficult transliterations, ⁓
Douglas Dedrick (46:22)
Thank you, man.
Dude, I’m thankful you came. Thank you so much, bro.
The more difficult ones, yay! Oh my god.
Stephen Pidgeon (46:39)
Ha
ha ha!
Douglas Dedrick (46:39)
No, but you broke it down pretty simply. definitely laid it out. Like, I didn’t get it all, but you laid out lot of key concepts that really made a lot of sense. Thank you, man. Is there any news you want to share about the Cepher Publishing Group or anything?
Stephen Pidgeon (46:40)
Yeah. Okay, brother.
Yeah, you you were talking about the lexicon. We do have a third edition lexicon coming out and it’s going to be here by, I think, the end of March. And it’s in a new reformed package and a new way of reading it. And it also reflects what’s going on with the Millennium Edition, which is our latest edition of the את Cepher. So it’s a lexicon that complements the Millennium Edition. And, you know, right now is a great time to get a Millennium Edition. And I do want to remind people, look, given the condition of the world,
You are well advised to get yourself a physical copy of scripture just like you’re well advised to get your physical gold and silver in your hands, not a certificate. Not a certificate. So, you know, the time has come. Start to put your house in order and one way to get it in order is to get a comprehensive restoration of scripture in the English language that left nothing out.
So when the day comes when you’re sitting there talking around with, you know, did you ever read the book of Enotch? And somebody could say, yeah, I have read the book of Enotch. And in fact, I’ve got it right here in this את Cepher, right here. Say it. I got it right here, right under the same lid, right? So I’m going to encourage you. Yeah, OK. I’m going leave it at that, Doug. So thank you, brother. Thanks for having me on.
Douglas Dedrick (47:54)
I got the fucking e-notch right here, brother. ⁓
He said, so I did an interview. I did an interview an
hour ago. Last person I interviewed said two of the same things you said that he said that God made a remedy for everything on this earth. And he said, get your house in order. Those are both things he said. But last guy, like crazy, like.
Stephen Pidgeon (48:16)
It is time.
Douglas Dedrick (48:17)
Yeah, I agree.
Stephen Pidgeon (48:18)
Yeah, it’s time. Okay, alright Doug.
Douglas Dedrick (48:19)
Well, thank you so much, Dr. Stephen Pidrim. This
has been the Healing Law Podcast. Y’all take care now.
All right. Thank you so much.
