Dear Yada,
I've read through the Introduction to God.
I think it's quite well written. It does still feel a little too long ... you're essentially repeating the same message many times, looking at different verses. But then, you're just following what Yahowah does, and people don't listen anyway!
And I cannot obviously see anything you could cut out, so I suppose it's a moot point.
Yada wrote:As you've noted, I've accepted Yah's style which is to say the same thing many times and many ways. It helps reinforce and affirm the truth. And I find that I'm always learning something new. Besides, through repetition we remember.
I've been keeping track of things that seemed wrong or out of place, as well as obvious errors. I though you might appreciate an edit by someone else, given how long the book is. I won't bother you with the small errors though unless you tell me you want my list. They're mostly things like spelling that I recorded if they stood out enough to make me notice them :-)
Yada wrote:I'm interested in correcting errors big and small. I'm also interested in suggestions for improvement. So yes, please send me your edits and criticisms.
You haven't entirely clearly stated what you consider to be scripture. I understand you focus on the Towrah, Prophets and Psalms, as well as the words of Yahowsha (with caution) and Revelation.
Yada wrote:Yes, I concur with this criticism. I'm only forthright in sharing my conclusions up to a point. And you have correctly stated what I've concluded.
But what do you think of Esther and Eccelsiastes? And you are sure Revelation fits into all of it?
Yada wrote:I'm just not certain regarding Esther and Ecclesiastes. I've not found a reason to cite either in over 4000 pages of Scriptural review. And that speaks volumes. So I'm leaning against them. As for Revelation, I have come to see it as either a conversation between Yahowsha' and Yahowchanan, or via one of Yahowah's messengers, translated into Greek. Most of the things that Yahowsha' shares are supported in the Tanakh - especially the associations between Satan and Babylon. But we do not know how much it has been tampered with.
Now that I've finished reading your introduction, I plan to start going through the scriptures myself, so eventually I hope I would be able to answer this myself, but I'm still interested in your opinion.
Yada wrote:That is the perfect position. I'll be interested in your opinion as well. But, since there is so much to learn from that which we know we can trust, I'm not as concerned with investing the time trying to determine if E and E are reliable.
Another thing that I wanted to ask is about the book of Job - obviously the original Hebrew probably needs to be looked at, but the English translations give the impression that Job paints a different picture of ha Satan than the rest. That is, in Job, he appears to be simply acting as a "prosecutor" so to speak, trying to show Yahowah that Job is not righteous. It doesn't really seem to mesh with either Satan or the Towrah's view of righteousness as you describe them...
Yada wrote:I don't see a conflict here in that Satan has more than one agenda and thus strategy. One is to justify his rebellion, which has him demeaning man before God. doing so shows that his view of man is more accurate than God's. The other is to corrupt man into believing that he is God.
That said, Yowb is the hardest fit into the fabric of Scripture. It exists outside of the timeline and outside of the covenant. So we share some concerns.
_____________
Now I'm going to go through my list of questions that came up while reading in order.
Aaah yes, the first thing that occurs to me is that I think the ITG could do with an overview of how prophecy, or at least somewhere at the start a link or reference to where one can find an overview in Yada Yah. At the moment, I think it's structured well for a Christian to read, but for an agnostic or atheist, they don't really care if Paul is wrong or whatnot. They want to see if they have any reason to read about God at all, and if prophecy is the means by which Yahowah proves He is reliable, that is what they need to see.
Specifically, somewhere close to the start.
Yada wrote:This is another valid criticism. I'm in the midst of editing the fourth of seven volumes of Yada Yah. It focuses far more on prophecy and thus appeals more to an agnostic. So when the edit is complete, I'll intertwine the two books. The new YY and ITG sites are being designed to accomplish this specific goal.
Also, my plan is to condense the edited fourth volume of YY which is all prophetic so that it becomes the Way chapter of the ITG.
Still, I agree with your criticism. The ITG is too focused on being anti-religious as opposed to proving Yah's existence. Since I'd accomplished much of that already in YY, I skipped an essential element of the ITG. So, when I have some time, I'll put together a fifty page insert to the first chapter of the ITG which uses prophecy to prove that Yahowah authored the Tanakh.
I wrote down while reading it "If I had seen this first, and not Future History, I suspect I would have given it up quickly", because it was Future History's promise of PROOF that overcame the atheist in me, and so I kept reading. Given how long the ITG is to get through, it requires some motivation, so I think it's important. As you say yourself, it's great news for an agnostic that there is proof, but you don't really show it.
Yada wrote:Your criticism is valid. I'll come up with a fifty-page "proof" section for the Word chapter to deliver on the promise. But, there is plenty of proof in the ITG, albeit of a different kind. The quality of the message and plan exceed human authorship.
Yada Yah began life as a comprehensive edit of FH. I hope to have my corrections of what I originally wrote completed within a couple of months, so I'd like to know if you think that its prophetic emphasis delivers.
There is, however,. proof of Yah's authorship in the ITG.
The next thing was, a demonstration of each of the stems when you introduce them would be very helpful. At some point later on you write "David flew the plane" as an example of the piel stem, and I think you have one more example later. But when you introduce the stems at the beginning, your description of them kind of lost me ... a clear illustration like that would be very nice.
Yada wrote:I'll work on this some more, providing as clear a presentation of them as possible. I've learned a great deal focusing on something that most every translator ignores. And I'm particularly fascinated by the lack of tenses, the moods and conjugations. But I didn't know any of this prior to writing the ITG. I ignored most of it, focusing only on definitions, when writing YY. It was early on in the process of doing the translations for the ITG that I came to focus on the unique nature of Hebrew grammar. And the more I observed the lack of time-based tenses, the stems, conjugations, forms, and moods, the more I learned. I've come to see Hebrew as the only language which accurately reflects Yahowah's nature and purpose.
So, I'm glad that you have asked me to develop this aspect of the book further. I agree with you.
__________
There are some parts where it feels like you say "this may well be the most enlightening passage ..." almost several times a page. I understand, of course, that all of the scriptures are extremely enlightening, but your exaltation still feels almost comically overused ...
Yada wrote:Yep. While it is sincere, I do it too often.
__________
I was wondering whether by now you are almost fluent in reading Hebrew?
You state that you still check the lexicons every time, but i was wondering whether you can basically read a passage in Hebrew script outright now? After 10 years of study?
Yada wrote:I mostly search the lexicons now for the unfamiliar words - those used very infrequently. But you really have to be careful in becoming self reliant. For example, my understanding of qara' has grown over time. The same could be said of many other words like 'anah. So using the lexicons to search roots and additional meanings is a useful strategy.
I've actually become more comfortable with the Ancient Hebrew script. But it's hard to find documents written in it.
__________
Yet another question (sorry, I actually did keep a list) which occurs, this one more general - if Yahowsha' appeared before, 5 times, why was He born? And what did it mean?
Yada wrote:Yahowsha' was not born. If I said so, then I erred. A child was born unto us and a Son was given. The child who body the Spirit occupied was born, but not Yahowsha'.
That said, Yahowsha' was begotten in that He has not always existed set apart from Yahowah. There would have been no reason for Yahowah to diminish any aspect of Himself to human form prior to conceiving the physical universe.
__________
I completely agree that you should look at Yahowsha's words and how they fit in. In fact one of the things that bothers me is that, while it is mostly Paul who is in conflict with the Torah and with your interpretation in general, I feel there are some things Yahowsha' said that don't make sense.
Yada wrote:That will be my next project. I want to translate Yahowsha's words from Greek to English and then compare what He said to the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms.
Which also leads to: you say you treat anything in the "New Testament" with extreme caution, even Yahowsha's recorded words, because there are so many manuscripts and they diverge. But has it occurred to you that perhaps if we had more manuscripts of the Towrah, they would diverge as well? After all, we only have 2 - Masoretic and Qumran, and they diverge quite a bit! How do we know that the Qumran scrolls are any more reliable than any particular one of the many manuscripts of the "New Testament"? Perhaps all the other ones (which would lead us to exercise the same caution as you do with Yahowsha's words) just didn't survive?
Yada wrote:We actually have many MSS that are part of the DSS collection - averaging as many as 20 different copies from different MSS of most of the Towrah's books and of many of the prophets. They differ slightly among themselves - and usually in vocalization choices or in the noun or verb form of the same word. So the differences between the MT and the DSS are minor compared to the earliest MSS of the Greek. There the differences exceed the commonality.
One of the reasons that I'm glad that Yah is prone to repetition is because it gives us so many ways to verify His instructions. So while i'd love to have access to the original, there is plenty to learn using what we have.
There is only one perfect autograph of the Towrah, and it is sitting beside the Ark of the Covenant. I've asked Yah for the opportunity to photograph it, but so far it appears that my time is best spent learning and sharing based upon the available text. Also, in 2033 Yah is going to give us our own personal copy, integrating his Towrah into the fabric of our lives.
___________
It also occurred to me that while you make a good case that Yahowsha' ben Nuwn is a strong parallel to Yahowsha' ben Yahowah, but I don't think you justify anywhere including the book of "Joshua" in your 6 books of the Towrah! You say it like a discovery you made, and you piqued my interest, but then I don't remember that you ever explained why.
Yada wrote:Actually, I do make the point while translating Yahowsha'. In Yahowsha' it actually says that he was writing Towrah. However, the point isn't particularly insightful once you come to realize that Yah's towrah - teaching is reflected in every book. Everything Yahowah inspired is part of His towrah.
Additionally, did I just miss it or forget it? How do you determine that Joshua"s father Nun is "Nuwn" and that it means "Almighty"? A quick look at Wikipedia tells me this is not common knowledge. Now a lot of the things you have found are not common knowledge, of course, but I don't remember if you explain where you get this snippet from, given that scholars are thinking it's probably an Egyptian name or something and generally don't know what it means
Yada wrote:You either missed it, or were reading an old draft. Nuwn does not mean "almighty," it means "perpetual - as in eternal and always existing." The reference to Nuwn occurs at the beginning of the section devoted to Yahowsha'.
Indeed, much of what is revealed in the ITG is not common knowledge. Even though it is based upon knowledge revealed 3500 years ago, it would make a good dissertation.
I was once troubled by the idea that so many profound insights from Yah's Word were revealed in YY and the ITG and nowhere else. But then once I came to grips with the idea that only one in a million would avail themselves of Yah's mercy by observing His instructions, I came to understand why such revelations were so unfamiliar.
_______________
Another note - while you eventually justify your rendering of asher' by explaining all the connotations it carries (and it's one of your favourite words if I understand you correctly), it still feels wrong and nonsensical, at least to me, to add "relationally" everywhere, where it basically just means "which/that/who" etc. It is, after all, very directly conveying a relationship between words. In many examples it just seems like it shouldn't be part of the bold text, it seems very artificial, like you're trying to add in a meaning that isn't there. This is especially noticeable when some passages have 'asher rendered without "relationally" where it obviously doesn't work, and others you put it in. It doesn't read like an honest rendering of scripture. Perhaps you could leave it in the brackets?
Yada wrote:I understand your point, but do not completely agree - only partially so. Asher is used so often in association with the work of Yahowsha' and aspects of the Covenant that I rather like the relational aspects of the term. Also, 'asher means "beneficial and fortuitous." But I suppose that I could remove some of this amplification without losing too much even though relationships are the essence of this message. And as you know, the relational associative aspects of 'asher is what led me to Yahowah. It was my trigger, my reason to question my religion and then translations. So I'm rather appreciative of this minor word. Considering all that it means to me and my relationship with God, I'm going to agree with you but cut myself a generous allowance for over emphasizing it.
As for the exceptions, there are a lot of Hebrew words with comprehensive meanings where only a simplified translation works in some places. So 'asher is not unique in this way.
Likewise, when you render "Honour ... the symbolism of your Mother" that reads extremely contrived. It's a bit reminiscent of the adding of words to force a particular meaning that you deride other translations for. It reads just fine as simply "your Mother" (after all, the set-apart Spirit IS our spiritual mother, it's not just symbolism). It's the kind of thing that it seems to me should remain in the brackets, not in the bold text.
Yada wrote:Okay. So long as the reader knows what Mother and Father Yah is addressing, I'll remove the "Heavenly" and "Spiritual" before them in my commentary. but I'm going to keep them capitalized to be consistent in English. Or, I'll use your bracket suggestion.
________________
Is there a difference between writing "Mattanyah" and "Matityahu"? I am not sure if I remember you using the second one anywhere, but I've certainly seen it before ...
Yada wrote:There are a number of names like this that I'm not consistent in the transliteration, but many are because it is written different ways. There are many names like Yasha'yah and Yasha'yahuw which appear both ways. As for Mattanyah and Matityahu, Strongs offers both but personally, I think that the most correct transliteration of both names would be Matanyah, Matanyahuw, Mathathyah, and Mathathyahuw. Both matan and mathath mean "gift." This is a strange one in that I don't know if the Disciple was given the matan derivative or the mathath, which is why I've followed the convention of using two tt's and one n. I'm using a compromised blend as a result of not knowing for sure.
While Matanyah is the most common form in Scripture, I've seen more people use Matityahu when referencing the Disciple, but never with an explanation.
Mattanyah – Yah’s Gift (16x / S4983 / matan / Mattaniah / Matthew)
Mathithyahuw – Yah’s Gift (8x / S4993 / mathath / Mattithiah (RC’s Matthew))
_________________
After reading through it, I still don't understand why you say "Yahowsha' didn't die for our sins"? I mean, he sort of did, didn't he? He was executed so he could endure separation to pay the penalty for our sin, corresponding to Unleavened Bread?
Yada wrote:Yahowsha', as the diminished manifestation of Yahowah, could not and did not die. Death isn't the penalty for sin. Yahowsha's body, and only His physical body, not His nepesh - soul - consciousness - life died as the Passover Lamb. Yahowsha's nepesh - soul - consciousness - life went on to fulfill Matsah, paying the penalty for sin. And His nepesh - soul - consciousness - life was reunited with Yahowah's Spirit on FirstFruits. So His nepesh - soul - consciousness - life was separated and then reunited, but never dead.
__________________
Oh, and in one place you say "There are hundreds of thousands of websites, articles, blogs, and opinion pieces devoted to ridiculing me for being myopic and focusing on a literal rendering of Yahowah’s Word while having the audacity to expose and criticize the religions God’s testimony impugns."
Yada wrote:There are hundreds of thousands of "websites, articles, blogs, and opinion pieces devoted to ridiculing me" regarding the totality of my life in business and then in writing Prophet of Doom. There are some, but relatively few, who are "ridiculing me for being myopic and focusing on a literal rendering of Yahowah’s Word." But if you were to include ridiculing Islam along with exposing Christianity and Judaism, then the number of sites and articles criticizing me are bountiful - perhaps in the hundreds of thousands. I have a hundred million dollar bounty on my head so I've offended a lot of religious people - especially Muslims. So perhaps this should be rewritten to be more clear.
I was wondering ... well, I think to really judge the reliability of someone you have to read/listen to criticism of them. And I think it likely that if I follow your method of analysing the scriptures I'll probably not find much wrong with your conclusions. But it still bugs me that no-one else has made them. I mean, surely there are SOME other people who study the Towrah with an open mind, not taking any religious assumptions? And I cannot be sure this is the right way to do it unless I can see and evaluate someone arguing against it. But I haven't found anyone, except Muslims who complain about Prophet of Doom. Your only critics that I have been able to find are those who have read through Yada Yahweh and agree in general, but might disagree on a specific detail. For example I think there are some who think you're being too harsh to Paul and that only Galatians is out of place. So far, I kind of see your point - the other epistles also demean the Towrah, so even if they are of a higher quality, they're still wrong.
Yada wrote:If you find such a person or place let me know. I haven't found one either. But that does not bother me. Even if one existed, I would not be affirmed by it nor discredited. We aren't called to trust people, but to trust Yah. My focus is on correctly translating His Word and then seeking to understand the message He is conveying so that I can share how it all fits into Yah's Covenant.
And yes, most of the criticisms are against PoD, albeit not one by anyone who actually read the book.
I've not seen any site which criticizes YY or the ITG based upon the content of either. Those who are opposed to them on religious grounds cite Paul to the Church to label me a heretic. Many condemn me for not accepting what others accept, like "Jesus, Christ, cross, trinity, sunday, lord, christianity, etc.
As for the argument against Questioning Paul, the person who made it, and those who he has influenced, take the position that Paul did not write his first letter - the letter that serves as the basis of Pauline Doctrine. The person who made the argument came to know Yah through Yada Yah, and he helped refine some of the QP translations. But ego got in his way and he went off in a strange tangent. When i wouldn't acknowledge what I considered an irrelevant and baseless argument, he chose to become a foe. So I continue to ignore him and those whom he has influenced.
That said, I've not yet seen anything from anyone who has read QP from beginning to end who does not concur with its findings. Also, the sites, blogs, and articles which are critical are almost exclusively ad hominem or straw man.
Lastly, I'd encourage you to view everything I've shared with great skepticism. I'm prone to make mistakes. I'd love to be corrected if I've erred. And there is only one way to accomplish this: translate the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms yourself and then contemplate what Yahowah is teaching us. If you find something different, share it with me.
I know it may be too much to ask, but are you aware of any rebuttal of your work that is reasonable that I could have a look at?
Yada wrote:No, not of the ITG, YY, QP, or PoD. If such a thing exists, I've not seen it or heard of it. The closest is the rebuttal of Questioning Paul, but even if the argument were accepted that Paul didn't write Galatians, since Paul makes the same arguments in other letters that position has no merit. And if my translations are flawed of the Greek, I include three others throughout and they are all equally condemning.
So if you are looking to validate or invalidate the ITG, QP, or YY, the only way to do so would be to acquire the tools and commence the study. And if you choose to do so, I'll promise that your efforts will be rewarded.
And continuing this theme, I have attached a short book by a "New Testament" scholar about mistakes people make when analysing the scriptures. I can just feel that if he were shown your work he would say you're committing the word study fallacies - of looking too deeply into the meaning of words, of inferring meaning that isn't actually there from root words or from similar words, etc. I ... my opinion on it is that it's possible that you've made a mistake, but the picture you reveal is so much more logical than anything else, I tend to lean towards seeing your methods as reasonable. After all, this scholar would necessarily claim that Yahowah made a plan for Yisra'el and then threw it away and replaced it with "salvation through grace by faith" ... nevertheless, is there some way you would respond to this? Are you really certain you have the right idea, and your methods are sound? That you are not missing the message that the words actually make, that you are not forcing your own ideas upon them by looking for connotations where none are actually implied?
Yada wrote:The verification that my source is sound (Yahowah and His Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms) and that my observational methods are sound (consistent with Yahowah's instructions) is found in the result. It is logical, reasonable, rational because I've done what Yahowah asked us to do with regard to His testimony. It is His Word comprised of His words. I am focused upon them and committed to knowing and understanding them. There is nothing more you or I can do.
Yahowah revealed Himself through these words and only these words. Out we not focus upon them and consider their meaning if we want to know and understand God?
The religious argument isn't actually against me - it is against God. The religious scholar doesn't like what Yahowah and Yahowsha' said, preferring Paul instead.
And speaking of which, are there things you and Ken Power disagree on?
Yada wrote:Paul and Yah's terms vs. Christian terms.
_____________________
Moving on, (sorry, this wall of text is even larger than my last one!), you say that you have long recognised that those who hold high office (incl. religious) recognise that they are lying. Is that really true? I really get the impression that many of them actually think they are right!!
Yada wrote:I've met thousands of such people and I've found that they know. So there may be some true "believers,' but from my experience they are few and far between. They come across as believer because if they didn't no one would believe them. But that is not to say that the average fool isn't actually fooled.
You give one example of an anonymous preacher that you say agreed with you but said he couldn't say it or he would lose his followers. Which elements of what you say here was this? As in was this recent or before you discarded Paul? Because if it was before, I have a suspicion he wouldn't agree with you anymore, and then you'd be being dishonest ...
Yada wrote:Jerry Falwell. I presented him with the initial findings of YY - a written portrait of the differences between Yah's Word and Christianity. It was very comprehensive covering the proper names, titles, miqra'ey, covenant, trinity, towrah, etc. It was long before I wrote QP, but other than listing Paul as a false prophet, the presentation would not have been any different. Jerry knew, as do most all Christian leaders, that Paul condemns the Towrah. They know that Paul contradicts Yahowah and Yahowsha'. But that does not change the truth about what Yahowah said. And it is what Yahowah said that condemns Christianity.
When I was writing QP and came to Paul's presentation of two covenants, with the Torah's covenant enslaving, I searched for weeks trying to find a rational explanation of this. And all I found is religious scholars justifying Paul's hatred of the Torah.
______________________
Aah, this occurs to me. You mentioned several mixups with letters, something to do with the "Teth" I think and also the missing letter "Gah" But if the Hebrew alphabet was created by God to convey his message, and this letter was there, then why isn't it in the inspired acrostic (Psalm 119)? That is, if Yahowah basically authored an ACROSTIC, surely He would use the letters he wants us to know?
Yada wrote:The Hebrew alphabet has gone though a score of changes over the past 4000 years. As a result, when you look closely, you will find issues regarding the Shin/Sin/Shemech, the potential for a second G, and for the three Ts originally being two. And my only point was that when looking for root meanings of words one has to consider letters which may have once been one. And the more you examine the idea that two of the three t's were once one, the more you find common ground in the vocabulary. Defining Towrah with words beginning with both Ts is a great example.
The letters I used to separate the groups of 8 verses in the 119th Psalm aren't actually in the text, which is why they were not in the bold. But since there was evidence for 22 stanzas, each with an emphasis on one of the 22 letters, in the alphabetic order, I chose to comment on what I thought was being conveyed thereby. It was too much of a coincidence to pass.
______________________
You make a big deal of how the Towrah is in no way a "law", but what about the parts that are actually basically civil laws? Like the laws about stoning to death for murder etc.? I mean those aren't *just* guidelines for us to "observe" and "study", those are laws on which a society could be built ...
Yada wrote:It is a statement of fact to say that Towrah does not mean "Law." And it is a statement of fact to say that there is no Hebrew word for "obey." Further, Yahowah consistently tells us what is important for us to observe and understand in his Towrah - and none of those things are even remotely law.
Since Yah has provided the proper perspective on how to benefit from His Towrah, I interpret His instructions accordingly. Ignoring or rejecting His Covenant offer in His Towrah is a death sentence.
You and I are not being called to establish a just society. We don't live in Yisra'el and we are not Lowy. There were and are valid explanations for every instruction. But understanding the reasons for stoning aren't useful with regard to your execution of the direction because neither you nor I are authorized to do so. We can only benefit from the instruction when we come to understand why it was offered.
_______________________
This caught my eye. I'm pretty sure the infinity symbol does not come from an "8". The glyph for the 8 may have some origin in Hebrew, but not the infinity symbol. You mention this on page 860 in the document that you sent me). It is just plain dishonest. Or do you know something I don't?
Yada wrote:The Hebrew 8 symbol is 4000 years old. It looks just like today's 8. Yahowah associates 8 with infinity via Sukah. And an 8 on its side is the symbol for infinity. If that is plain dishonest, we define the world differently.
Related: is the statue of Liberty actually Athena? A quick Google search (Wikipedia, of course) tells me it's a statue of Libertas, a Roman goddess (and NOT the counterpart of Athena, that one is Minerva).
Yada wrote:I'm not motivated to debate the long legacy and interrelationship with goddesses' names. But this I will say, last week in the LA Times there was an ad for Turkey showing a 2000 + year old depiction of the Greek goddess that looks so similar to the SofL the ad invited people to view the original.
I'm willing to invest the time to help you better understand what Yahowah is offering. And I'm willing to answer questions that will lead you in that direction.
__________________________
And a last one that occurs to me though it's not on my list is the word 'ebed. You say that it means coworker to justify why various prophets call themselves Yahowah's 'ebed, but in the Towrah, isn't 'ebed actually used to refer to servants such as those who had to be freed every sabbath year? Or am I getting something wrong again and should go and study it myself?
Yada wrote:'Ebed means servants, coworkers, and associates. It can even mean slave. With words with related meanings, choosing the most appropriate fit for the context is part of the art of translating.
__________________________
All right, I think those are the main questions that occurred to me while reading it.
I hope you can answer them.
I also have a list (not too long) of obvious spelling errors that I found. I ... am not the most tactful of people, so if my criticism annoys you don't worry, I'll keep it to myself. But if you are interested, I'll send it to you.
Yada wrote:I've had ten people proofread the document and each finds errors the others have missed. So I constantly encourage copy editors to help correct the document. Therefore I'd appreciate your input. I'll make every correction you have found.
Finally, I am now interested, I suppose, in the missing chapters of ITG (still in progress?) or the revised chapters of Yada Yah. If you would send them I'd love to read them now.
I hope I am not taking up too much of your time.
Thank you for your work though!
DB.
Yada wrote:The first three volumes of Yada Yah are posted on Scribd.com. If you search the Scribd site for Yada Yah you will find the PDFs. I'm currently editing volume four of YY. After I complete the YY edits and get the new ITG and YY sites online, I'll post everything there. Then I'll compose the two missing chapters of the ITG. This all takes a great deal of time. It is fun work, but not fast.
Yada