Ginn Regin and Ahu

Author: Andreas Firewolf

 

 

The meaning of the word 'God'

The word 'god' is not Christian but Germanic. See: wiktionary.org 'god'. In the old Germanic languages ​​the word 'god' occurs only as a word without gender. Almost all nouns in Germanic languages ​​are masculine or feminine, but god is neuter. The words "gods", "goddess", and "goddesses" did not come into existence until Christian times. They are inventions of Christians. From this linguistic analysis you can conclude:

• There is only one god.

• God does not have a gender.

• It is not clear if the old word 'god' was used as a singular or a plural noun, or for a singular entity or as a group of spirit beings. One must keep in mind that the Germanic peoples did not write. The writers were trained by Christians or were Christian. It seems quite certain, that the word 'god' was used for 'one entity', but it seems also that this 'entity' was seen as composed from multiple elements. Probably 'god' was used similar to 'ginn regin' which translates to 'mighty regents'. Personally I see the ginn regin as an assembly without form or shape. They are before manifestation. Óðinn (Woden) is one of the ginn regin and also a manifested entity. Not manifested in the physical world but manifested in higher layers of existence. (See Nine layers)

  In Hávamál 142 (Poetic Edda) it is stated clearly:

  ok gerðu ginnregin

  ok reist hroptr rögna

   

  and created (by the) mighty regents

  and (they) raised hroptr (as) king

   

  The Ginn Regin (Mighty Regents) appointed Hroptr as rögna. Hroptr is an alias for Óðinn. 'Rögna' is usually interpreted as 'king' or 'prince'. In these lines the proper interpretation would be: 'The Ginn Regin appointed Óðinn as supreme leader of the whole creation'. Note. "The whole creation" in previous sentence should be interpreted as "the whole creation" as the old Germanic peoples knew it. Around 2025 we should interpret it as the sun, the moon, earth and the known planets. Or in short: Our solar system.

 

Ginn Regin

There are only a few words in the old texts about the Germanic people that mention the Ginn Regin. The word regin can be literally translated to 'Regents'. The word ginn can be translated as 'mighty' or 'great'.

In the Völuspá (Poetic Edda) the ruling powers are called 'Regin' and not 'Ginnregin'. There is a recurring line throughout the Völuspá which reads like this:

þá gengu regin öll á rökstóla

ginnheilug goð ok um þat gættusk

 

then went regents all to ruling chairs

great holy god and in the course of that held counsel

 

Then the Regin went to their ruling chairs

These great and holy gods held counsel

 

In the Hávamál (Poetic Edda) the ruling powers are called 'Ginnregin' in verse 80 and 142. Verse 142 reads like this:

er fáði fimbulþulr

ok gerðu ginnregin

 

(that) are colored (by) the great thulr

and created (by the) mighty regents

 

(Runic Staves that) are colored by the great thulr

and created by the ruling powers.

'the great thulr' refers to Óðinn.

 

 

Ahu

According to the oldest Zoroastrianism there is a group of beings, that is not manifested and they steer the evolution of this solar system. This group is called 'Ahu' which translates to 'Not Being'. One member of this group manifested itself and is known as Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda is the regent of the solar system and its eye is the sun. (Ahu-Ra probably translates to: Emissary of the Ahu.)

The A-hu are the 'not-beings', 'the ones outside creation. 'A' is denial, not. hu refers to 'to be', 'to exist'. The Ahu is that what is not in creation, is not created and still it exists before, during and beyond creation. The Ahu as a council is singular, while it is composed of entities. So the Ahu also refers to a group of separate beings. But 'beings' is misleading, since they are not in creation. Perhaps it is better to write: The Ahu are a group of 'not-beings'. A-hu can be translated as 'not-being'.

 

Yatha Ahu Vairyo

Yatha Ahu Vairyo is one of the most sacred maxims of the Zoroastrian culture. It is similar (but not identical) to inshallah.

Yatha can be translated as 'in the manner...that'. The Ahu is the group of unmanifested rulers of the solar system. 'Yatha Ahu' can be translated as 'the directions of the Ahu', 'the will of the Ahu', 'the focus of the Ahu', 'that what the Ahu want to realize and manifest'.

Vairyo is often translated as 'holy law', 'the law of righteousness'.

Yatha Ahu Vairyo is often translated as 'The Will of the Ahu is Holy Law'. But personally I would translate it like this:

• 'The directions of the Ahu are divine guidance'

• 'The directions of the Ahu should be adhered'

• 'The directions of the Ahu should be followed'

• 'The directions of the Ahu will be done'

• 'The directions of the Ahu shall come to pass'

 

The meaning of the words 'Yahu', 'Elohim' and 'Satan'

In Jewish religion 'god' is often described as 'YHVH'. This is often interpreted as 'Jehovah' of 'Yahweh'. 'Yahu' seems better to me.

According to mythology Moses was the adopted son of the Egyptian Pharaoh. He murdered an Egyptian foreman and hid the body. When it came out he had to flee to the dessert. (Exodus 2.) This story can not be true. If Moses was the son of the Pharaoh there was no reason to hide the body or to flee. So we should assume, that Moses was a foreign laborer.

According to the story that Moses told, the Jews were slaves in Egypt and were treated badly. But in Exodus 16:3 it is stated: The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.” The Jews ate well in Egypt. So they were not slaves but foreign laborers.

Moses was taken in by Jethro, a priest of Midian and married a daughter of Jethro. (Exodus 3.) According to vague mythology, Jethro was a high priest of the Order of Melchizedek and the Order of Melchizedek was of Zoroastrian origin. Jethro initiated Moses in the old Zoroastrian magic and religion. After a while Moses returned to Egypt. His brother Aaron came to him to help him. (Exodus 4.) (This contradicts the story that Moses told in the bible. According to the story that Moses told, the Egyptians killed all male sons of the Jews. (Exodus 1:22.) So were did Aaron come from? How did Aaron survive? Was he also 'adopted' by the Pharaoh?)

Moses introduced 'Yahu' as 'the god' of the Jews. I assume that Yahu is short for Yatha Ahu: 'The Will of the Ahu', 'The directions of the Ahu'. He also introduced the Elohim. I assume, that Elohim was originally the same as the Ahu. In the bible-book 'Job' Satan is introduced as 'Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm' or 'bnei elohim': a member of the Elohim. (Sons of God.) Satan is basically the same as Ahriman.

'Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm' is sometimes translated as 'Son of God'. If you follow this translation and you believe that Jesus is also 'the Son of God', then Satan is the elder brother of Jesus. For Christians this is a bit problematic.

Did the Jews exist before Moses? Imagine foreign laborers in ancient Egypt. An upstart named Moses tells them to follow him into the desert, away from the good life in Egypt. Who did follow him? All members of one tribe? Or some gullible people that wanted to be part of this new cult? If we have to believe the bible, it seems likely that Moses created the Jews. And most likely, most foreign laborers in ancient Egypt ignored or resisted Moses. Moses and co could not accept this behavior as 'common sense'. So they labeled it 'evil'. They could not label the people 'evil', because it would be senseless to waste time on 'evil people'. So they claimed that the people were 'under influence of the evil spirit'. Because of this, the idea of absolute evil was introduced in Jewish religion from the very beginning.

In the old Zoroastrian mythology there is 'the wind of goodness' or Spenta Mainyu and 'the wind of grief' or Angro Mainyu. (In Icelandic mythology Angro Mainyu appears as the female spider Angrboða. This suggests that this mythology predates the separation between the Germanic peoples and the Zoroastrians.) Spenta Mainyu and Angro Mainyu are a twin and they complement each other. (In the Prose Edda they appear as Svásuðr and Vásaðar.) The concept of 'absolute good' and 'absolute evil' is excluded by this twin.

I make these statements as just that: statements. There is nothing that can be used as solid evidence. The first books of the Old Testament of the Bible are just statements of Moses and company, nothing more. There is evidence, that these statements are written down. But no evidence that any statement is true. And there is evidence, that some of these statements contradict each other. And it seems quite clear from the literal text of the old writings, that Moses and company 'were very liberal with the truth'. So I simply make these statements, because I currently believe, that they are close to what really happened. But solid evidence can not be found in any description of ancient history.

 

Beyond good and evil

Moses brought a distorted form of Zoroastrianism to the Jews. The Jews developed a concept of 'absolute good' and 'absolute evil'. Then Paul distorted the teachings of Jesus and created Christianity, a distorted form of the Jewish believes. Then Muhammad started another religion based on the Jewish believes. These three believe-systems influenced most of the world. It influenced the descendants of the ancient Zoroastrians and introduced the concept of 'absolute good' and 'absolute' evil in later Zoroastrianism and made them change Ahriman (a member of the Ahu) in an evil spirit. Through Christian education and conditioning it influenced the Icelandic people and made them change Loki in an evil deity. We should keep in mind, that the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda, the Heimskringla saga and all other old Icelandic writings are written by Christians. The pagans did not write.

The ideas of absolute good and absolute evil and an ongoing battle of absolute good and absolute evil all descended from the distorted believes of Moses. The believe in the Ahu and the believe in the Regin are not compatible with absolute good and absolute evil. There is no evidence that the Germanic pagans did believe in absolute evil. And they did not see Loki as an evil deity. And the old Zoroastrians did not see Ahriman as an evil deity.

 

Resistance is essential, not evil

Have you ever tried to mold air in a shape? Unless you are completely insane, you never did. You can not shape air. Can you shape water? You can get water to take the shape of a container of solid matter, but without a container a fluid does not have a shape. We can build a house from solid matter because solid matter has a lot of resistance. We can hammer a plate of silver in the shape of a cup because it has resistance. Resistance is absolute essential to create any form or shape.

In the old philosophy this resistance was recognized as 'the one who resists change'. One of the 'Ahu' (or 'Ginn Regin') was 'the one who induced change' and another one was 'the one that resists change'. At some time people with power no longer followed the 'Ahu' but started to do their own thing. And they demanded, that all people would obey. But the people did not. They were used to do things in a certain way. Their lives were controlled by habits. And the people with power started to see this as 'evil'. Moses and his followers declared that this was the work of 'the evil spirit'. And so the 'spirit of resistance' was labelled as 'the evil spirit'.

When you want to change something, you have to overcome resistance. That takes a lot of energy and time. Then you can be tempted to call resistance 'evil'. But without this resistance, nothing would hold its form. Once you truly understand this, you no longer see resistance as 'evil' but as absolutely necessary.

 

Origin of these extremely high cultures

When you start to understand the real nature of the ideas of the old Zoroastrians and the prehistoric Germanic peoples, you realize, that they were not primitives, but extremely high developed. How is that possible?

 

These ideas about creation and the creators were already developed before Zoroastrians and the Germanic tribes separated. So these ideas probably predate 3300 BC. (See: Where did Germanic peoples come from.) Is it possible, that 5300 years ago 'the primitives' developed such evolved ideas?

• These 'primitives' did not go to school. So they were not the victim of the conditioning of western education. Perhaps they were more open to new ideas than educated people.

• Once in a while an extremely intelligent and imaginative person is born. For example Isaac Newton. Most people that read this, are not really aware of physics and have no idea about the exceptionality of Newton. Most people believe, that Einstein was exceptional. His peers did not think so. Isaac Newton completely restructured physics and came with a brilliant set of ideas, supported by sound math. A genius like Newton is extremely rare. But was he the only one? Or perhaps 6000 years ago (give or take a thousand years) there was another genius. And perhaps he or she came up with the ideas that are at the foundation of Zoroastrian and old Germanic Cosmology.

• During the 1980's I met with several Native American spiritual people. And I read books that claimed to be the words of Native American spiritual people. Some of the ideas of these people are not very much different from the ideas above.

I do not know exactly how these exceptional ideas came into existence. Apparently they were developed and nurtured. And the people who developed and nurtured them should not be regarded as 'primitives' or lesser than modern people.

Further reading: Bias against pagans.