Pages 11-26


Suddenly about 200 years ago the theory of evolution of language was readily accepted almost to the point of being “self evident” therefore it was treated as fact. Linguists even managed to get all of us to believe in the existence of a mother language called Indo-European, though this language has never been found. Actually, Darwin’s theory of evolution was accepted partially because the theory of evolution of language was already accepted.  It seems the only question left for linguists was how many groups of languages exist.  Most devastating to linguist’s research is the simple fact that linguists did not understand what language is, consequently they defined it incorrectly as “a system of communication of pictures and symbols from one person to another”, a definition that is universally accepted but entirely misses the uniqueness of language because it managed to lump 2 separate processes into one. Linguists simply do not seem to understand that the single most important function produced by language is the ability to create in our minds by simply moving around pictures and symbols. Before communicating anything, we first need to imagine, this process was defined erroneously to be the same as communication. Imagination and thought is a creation process, rather than a communication process.  Imagination is a process of creating different worlds, through moving around Semantics. Then we judge those creations either as good or bad. Finally we decide to communicate or even manufacture some while discarding most of them… in other words there are two symbiotic but separate processes that linguists lumped into one.

Because linguists assumed language evolved gradually from monkey cries, they never tested the possibility of Proto-language; they never looked for one language underlying all others. In other words, linguist only tested what they believed to be true using a system they believe reversed the evolutionary process. Linguist’s methodology consists in studying the written word, this goes back only 6000 years, clearly a method of research that is never going to bring anyone to discover the origin of language. Based on all skeletal evidence, we know language existed in human for at least 40,000 years and maybe as long as 100,000 years. This simply means that linguists are studying what ought to be termed modern languages. This clearly means that all linguists can manage to find out is which writing was invented first. It’s obviously not necessarily true that the first language ever written was the first one spoken.   Though, as it happens I am about to demonstrate that Hebrew was the first language ever written and the first ever spoken.

The physical location of the organs used by the language faculty does not support the Evolutionary theory. Language is the only asymmetrical function in the brain. This is but only the first evolutionary oddity that signals the possibility that the language faculty was inserted whole into our D.N.A. If, as linguists claim, language developed from monkey communication, one would expect the language centre of human speech to develop out of and be connected to the limbic system in the back of the head where monkey communication centres reside.  The location of language in humans resides in an unrelated and unconnected area located in the front of the brain.  I believe that evolutionarily wise we would expect that the location of monkey communication would be the bases for human communication, the fact that the two centres are far from each other with no visible connections is impossible to explain using the evolutionary theory. It indicates the possibility that the two organs represent two unrelated systems; one for communication, and the other, a unique Creation system was placed (asymmetrically by necessity of space constraints) in the front of the brain.

The human vocal box is too large for our neck, humans are the only animal that cannot breath and eat at the same time.  This genetic change was required because, in order to speak, humans needed a large vocal box to enunciate clearly (other primates, including Neanderthals, had a smaller vocal box).  Admittedly it is a superior sound communication delivery tool and is important in order to efficiently communicate ideas. It is at the same time an evolutionary regression because many people actually die from choking on food (Heimlich).  Is it likely that our existing vocal box was genetically modified to improve our already existing communication ability?

Aphasiacs are people who lose the ability to speak or understand speech; might give us additional clues as to the possibility that two separate organs exist one for communication and the other for creation.  Aphasiacs still attempt to communicate, like monkeys, making sounds and cursing out of the limbic system.  It appears aphasics lose their language-creation skills, and therefore revert to their previous monkey-communication ability which is not impaired.  Like all organisms, we were programmed to communicate from the beginning of life (by whom?).  What makes human unique is not our ability to communicate, after all every organism communicate, even cells in the body communicate. What makes us unique is our possession of a “creation tool”, our ability to create by simply rearranging pictures-just like the Gods…. How could this have developed naturally? As hard as I try I cannot imagined how evolution could be responsible for programming a set of pictures and a program to move them around. I am very hard put to believe this is an accident of nature that resulted in creating a program to alter nature; it is easier for me to believe that this is just an example of very advanced Genetic Engineering.

A recent study shows that people who were blind at birth think in the same part of the brain where sighted people think.  The brain appears to be programmed to look for the meaning of pictures and symbols in a specific place whether we are sighted, or blind from birth.  This suggests that those meanings are not learned; otherwise sighted people surely would not experience nor record the word in the same place as those who cannot see.  The likely reason for the two groups imagining words-pictures in the same place in the brain is that language is "pre-recorded;" automatic and innate, but alas confounded.

The simple truth is that the chance that four or more simultaneous accidental mutations occurred in four different organs (ear, throat, brain and tongue) is extremely slim. It is hard to theorize which organ mutated first. It is clear that those are 4 symbiotic mutations which means any one mutation would need to “wait” for other mutations to occur for it to be useful. This kind of thinking doesn’t sit well with the evolutionary theory because it assigns anticipatory behavior to what we believe is a series of accident of nature. Language is a social skill, so even if we can accept the theory that four mutations occurred at the same time, we still have a problem explaining who the first mutant spoke to.  In order to accept the linguistic evolutionary theory, we need to accept that four simultaneous mutations occurred to a group of related people at approximately the same time.  Nor does the theory of evolution begin to explain how we somehow acquired a sophisticated program of creation which caused what we call today consciousness.  This makes it unavoidable and even necessary to examine the theory of divine creation or intelligent design.

In order to be able to judge if the 2600 words I deciphered are sufficient to “prove” my theses “beyond reasonable doubt”, we need to note that the average English speaking university graduate knows 10,000 words, while the average person who speaks English as a second language possesses a 3,000-word vocabulary.  The 2600 words are sufficient to understand 80% of the Bible, or Shakespeare. It is 5 times the number of words required by linguists to show relationship between languages.  My research proves beyond any doubt at the very least that all the work done by linguists who separated languages into Indo-European and Semitic languages is flat out wrong.


Few representative examples:

The English word CABLE is a perfect cognate to the Hebrew word KEBEL, When I looked up the origin of the word Cable I learnt that the dictionary credits the word CABLE to Latin word CAPERE meaning to take hold, I couldn’t quite understand how taking a hold was responsible to the word CABLE, (it’s a rope..So holding became the name? I doubt it), but I automatically assumed the Hebrew word KEBEL that has identical meaning and sound to the English word, like hundreds of other words was borrowed from English. I later noticed KEBEL is used in the Bible, I immediately understood that it could not have been borrowed from English CABLE. Why, I then wondered, no one ever suggested the identical ancient Hebrew word KABEL meaning Cable as the origin of the English word CABLE? Because Hebrew is categorized as a Semitic language while English is said to be Indo-European no one looked.  Language is the art of comparative study, one must first assume connection between languages and then look for it. Admittedly one or even dozens of such words are dismissible, as anomalies. This book will point out thousands of such words.

In the final analysis the question the reader needs to answer is: Are the thousands of examples in this book due to series of accidents and a very devious and clever mind or are they there by design? And if by design, who is the designer?



Hebrew is the origin of Greek and English



Joe:  Hebrew - TIOOR  = DESCRIPTION                                     תיאור יה


A theory is a description of might have happened.

This word appears in the Torah often, it’s clearly preceded Greek and English words. Why wasn’t it sited? Again the simple explanation is that no one looked!




             Lain: POMUM = FRUIT

Joe:     Hebrew: PEROT = FRUIT.                     פרות


The identical Hebrew word (cognate) for FRUIT is PEROT פרות the letter F and P are one and the same in the Hebrew language; linguists also consider the two as interchangeable. This word appears in the first chapter of Genesis.

Linguists guessed the English word FRUIT descended from the Latin word FRUCTUS meaning in Latin ENJOYMENT, PRODUCE, PROFIT rather than from the Hebrew cognate PEROT.  The reason I use the word “guess” to characterize their decision is that no continuous record is available. About 200 years ago, when linguists began their science, they simply guessed the origins of words by looking for similar sounds and meanings in various older “related” languages.

If we apply evolutionary logic it would seem that linguists have it backward, The Latin word FRUCTUS should have been derived from the English word FRUIT rather than the other way around.  I say this because the meaning of FRUCTUS is equivalent to be FRUITFUL or to BEAR FRUIT.  Therefore, it is not possible that the concept of gain (to be fruitful) was created before the reality of the actual fruit. But of course it is illogical evolutionarily speaking, to conclude that Latin descended from English.  Just the same, it was obvious to me that the linguists’ conclusion (guess) was based on faulty logic, not even compatible with their evolutionary theory of languages.  Furthermore the Latin word for fruit is POMUM, indicating that the Latin word FRUCTUS was borrowed from an earlier language.

Obviously, Webster's Unabridged Dictionary did not look for Hebrew origins; they simply assumed that since historically speaking we can’t really make a case for Hebrews influencing European languages therefore no relationship between the two could exist. Linguist’s assumption about Hebrew was accidently correct. Jews were not allowed to use Hebrew in the Diaspora thus no words could infiltrate other languages or religions. So if it’s not the Jews who “sneaked” Hebrew into other languages then who? If we assume for a moment that Hebrew is the missing proto-language then we can logically conclude that both the Latin word FRUCTUS and the English word FRUIT originated from the Hebrew word cognate for fruit – PEROT.




Webster: Anglo Saxon: CLUD, = A MASS OF ROCKS.

Joe         Hebrew: COULO ED = ALL VAPOR


Linguists chose the old Anglo Saxon word CLUD, meaning A MASS OF ROCKS.   It is ludicrous to believe that even 5,000 years ago people did not associated floating, moving, constantly changing  soft,  CLOUDS with  Rocks and called it “a mass of rocks”. Is that really the origin of the word CLOUD? All we know is that the Anglo Saxon word for MASS OF ROCKS sounds like the Modern English word CLOUD, linguists then “reasoned” that the ancient Anglo-Saxon word CLUD was somehow responsible for the modern English Cloud.  In other words, that was the best they could do when looking for similar words in older languages.

On the other hand the Hebrew meaning of the words CLOU-D כולו אד happens to mean ALL VAPOUR, it is a very good and rather accurate way of describing a CLOUD.  The Hebrew words sound like a good definition.  My suggested origin of the word CLOUD indicates that language was not created by accident of nature nor evolved by series of accidents but confounded by design.

Is finding the origin of words an art or a science? Well according to the dictionary the word Artillery originated from the word Art or Skill, I guess killing is an art and a skill but what does it have to do with the word ARTILLERY? Why use such a general description for such a specific machine. The Hebrew words OR TILL YERY happened to mean LIGHT MISSILE SHOOT.



Hebrew - OR TIL YERY = LIGHT CASTS A SHOT    אור הטיל ירי

Late Latin – ARTILLARIA, from Latin ARS, from ARTIS = ART or SKILL.



Most linguists contend that language is no more invention than is walking upright.  The crux of the argument that language is universal is that children actually reinvent language generation after generation, not because they want to, but because they can’t help it.  Ironically it was Darwin who suggested the concept of language being an innate ability rather than a learned one in 1871.

In his book BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE[i], Eric Lennenberg provides much evidence that language is innate in humans, and that the language template becomes inactive after childhood.  Lennenberg notes regarding humans:

                   1) Humans possess many anatomical specializations related to language use from the shape and placement of the larynx to specialization of the left hemisphere of the brain.  This means that language could not have been a recently learned skill rather it required many genetic changes that must have taken tens of thousands of years.

                   2) Communication cannot be suppressed.  Studies of completely untutored, deaf children found that they spontaneously invent sign language to use with each other. Suggesting that the need to communicate pictures is innate.

                   3) It has recently been shown that people who were blind at birth think in the same part of the brain where sighted people think.  It has recently been shown that sighted people think and store language in pictures.  We must wonder if the picture- words are somehow pre-recorded, already there, which is what enable blind people to learn language.

                   4) The time of onset and early steps of language are universal.  Again these points to the likelihood that language is genetically encoded rather than simply a learnt skill as with other reasoning skills.

                   5) Language cannot be taught to any other species.

                   6) Linguistic universals do exist. That is that there are some language rules that are the same in all languages.

                   7) Certain forms of aphasia (language disorder) are inherited.  This is a strong indication that at least some skills are genetically encoded.

                   8) Children learn primary language without effort, while adults struggle to master second languages.  The average 6-year old can learn 22 words a day, the average adult only a few words.

                   9) Newborns show “interactional synchrony” with spoken language but do not react the same way to other sounds, moving their body in regular rhythmic sound when they hear any language. This clearly indicates that speech is a special sound to even the youngest humans.



Before birth all neurons or nerve cells are being formed in the brain.  Brain size, especially the cerebral cortex and the grey matter continue to grow rapidly.  Long distance connections, the white matter are completed after nine months and continue to increase throughout childhood.  All this means those children’s metabolic activity reaches that of adults by the time they are nine months old.  By the age of two children have 50% more synapses than adults.  They continue to increase, peaking at the age of four, when they double that of adults.

Noam Chomsky, who is in total agreement with E. Lennenberg says, “When we study human language, we are approaching what some might call the human essence, the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to man.”  He assigns a special role to language claiming that only human beings have language, ideas and think.  Chomsky theorizes that the faculty of language is innate, like an organ, as opposed to being part of the learning or thinking process.  He describes language as an evolved, species-specific organ. 

Chomsky’s major contribution to linguistics is his analysis of syntax, or structure of sentences.  He claims that the hidden syntactic structure of language is the key to defining the language acquisition skill.  Since we understand syntax as adults, Chomsky concludes that we must have acquired this knowledge as children.  In many cultures grammar is not taught, and even in the American culture children begin speaking before they go to school.  The structure of the sentence is an invisible organiser, and children must figure out their language syntax without guided exposure to it.  This is basically what led Chomsky to conclude that syntax is innate or, possessed at birth.  Chomsky believes that a universal language faculty is at work.  This is not to say that a Chinese child comes prepared to learn Chinese and a French child to learn French, rather than a human child comes prepared to learn a human language.

Additional evidence offered by Chomsky in support of his theory is that the acquisition of language is based on limited exposure to primary linguistics.  Most of the input a child receives is flawed by deficiencies in adult performance.  We speak in short sentences, stop and restart a sentence, etc.  A child between two and five years of age must correctly abstract surface and deep structure rules without much direct teaching.  This suggests that children are born with a language faculty, which has been identified and labelled as the Language Acquisition Device.  The LAD (at birth in Hebrew)is active during early childhood.

By neurological design, children have better learning abilities than do adults.  We know that this early age primarily from 0 to 6 years, and secondarily from 7 to 12, is the best time for children to learn language, leading to the conclusion that language is an innate and a biological function.

“Language is the greatest human invention if it is an invention at all,” said Chomsky. “Very few people are concerned with the origin of language because most consider it a hopeless question.”  He goes on to claim that from a Martian’s point of view all humans speak the same language.  Chomsky defines it by saying, “The same symbolic manipulating machinery underlies all world languages, that the same basic design of languages are found everywhere.”  Those and other universal rules about language suggest that, “Universal grammar underlies the human language.” of course this conclusion was made by Chomsky because it was “apparent” to him and everyone else that Semantics was different in all language, letting him conclude that Syntax is somehow universal. Chomsky clearly drew the wrong conclusion; the sequencing of noun, pronoun and verb cannot be program let alone exist without some Semantics present. In other words syntax cannot be innate, only Semantics can be innate.

Chomsky and many of his opponents agree that a uniquely human language seems to be incompatible with the Darwinian theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution asserts that complex biological systems arise by the gradual accumulation over a long period of time of genetic mutations that enhance reproductive success.  Linguists face a dilemma because they have concluded that the common language machinery or world language, the “universal grammar,” must be pre-encoded in our genes, otherwise learning language would be impossible. Unless, Semantics are innate.

Steven Pinker in his book, THE LANGUAGE INSTINCT[ii], put forth a convincing argument that language is a genetic trait.  Pinker predicted that in the near future scientists will find the language gene. He also believes that evolution is insufficient to explain the presence of language in humans.  He states that language appears to have been designed too well to have been an accident of nature.  But as Pinker points out, “The theory of evolution is our only alternative to divine creation.”

Derek Bickerton of the University of Chicago offers a tentative argument that concludes, “A single genetic event might indeed have been enough to turn proto-language into syntactic zed language.” Syntax depends on the existence of words.  It is simply a system of putting words into a meaningful order.  Syntax depends on the existence of semantic.  It is impossible to imagine any set of syntactic rules that is totally void of semantics.  It is clear that understanding of syntax depends on first very good understanding of some semantics such as vowel, noun etc.



Speech perception is another one of the seemingly numerous biological miracles in the making of the language machine.  When speech is converted into sound waves we see that one word runs into the next, there are no spaces as in writing.  When we hear a stretch of recognizable sounds that match entries in our mental dictionary we simply imagine word boundaries.

A phoneme is one of the smallest units of speech that distinguish one utterance or word from another.  Real speech is perceived at the rate of 15 phonemes per second and as high as 50.  Unlike the written word there are not white spaces that separate phonemes.  Our mind needs to first ‘unpack’ the stacked phonemes and imagine the spaces and thus create words.  Only the brain’s ability to unscramble packed phonemes very quickly makes language the fastest mode of communication.  This makes speech perception a biological miracle.

Modulation in human vocal cords is remarkably rich due to the very unusual shape of the vocal tract.  This makes humans the only animal that cannot breathe and drink at the same time, which is why there are so many deaths due to choking on food.  Surely this represents a real, actual act of regression in the evolutionary process.  Nature made decision to sacrifice a safeguard against choking on food for a larger vocal box and the privilege of clear speech.  This would seem to indicate that nature anticipated the value of speech and judged the number of future deaths to be worthy of such a risk.

The way we speak is another indication that speech is biologically programmed.  When we talk we take quick breaths of air.  Syntax overrides carbon dioxide.  We time our exhalation to the length of the phrase rather than regulating oxygen intake.

Even language acquisition is confusing.  We tend to think of innate functions such as walking, as functions we do not need to learn.  Language must be learned, yet in many ways it is obviously innate.

It is surprising how little is known about language.  We humans who supposedly invented language cannot figure out how we did it.  It appears as if someone played a trick on us or somehow confused us.  Language is not the transmission sound.  It is the transmission of pictures that are enumerated, so to speak, or named with symbolic sounds.  Yet, our writing system is phonological, meaning that it is based on sound rather than pictures.  This misleads many linguists to think that speech is mere sound and not a picture-based system. 

Possibly the most compelling scientific evidence that language is special and unique rather than a general mental function is offered by a study of an odd disorder called Williams Disorder.  I have condensed an extensive article about it appeared in the New York Times in 1994.



By Sandra Blakeslee, New York Times, August 2, 1994.

Williams syndrome is an enigmatic birth disorder caused by a small genetic loss but far-reaching.  As a result there are severe malformations throughout the brain and heart, yet the capacity for language is remarkably unaffected.

Dr. Albert Galaburda, a neurologist at Harvard University Medical School explains that, “Williams children suggest language is unique because there is a genetic defect that spares it.”

“It’s amazing when you look at kids who can’t tie shoes or figure out many simple tasks, yet they talk like angels,” Dr. Bellugi said.  “They can explain all sorts of things but can’t do them.  They know a lot about words but have very little world knowledge.”

Human language acquisition is a biologically based, genetically constrained and directed form of learning that takes place during a fixed critical period ending at adolescence.

There are several problems Darwin’s theory of evolution rendering it inadequate to explain the presence of language in humans.



There is an intriguing report that the biblical theory was “proven” a long time ago.  James the Fourth of Scotland (1473-1513), reached similar conclusions concerning the existence of a “language organ” containing Hebrew semantics.  The findings were the result of an extremely unethical experiment.  In order to identify the most primitive language, James IV had two infants placed with an attendant who did not speak to them at all from the time they were born until after they began to speak.  At that time, the attendant reported that the Scottish children matured and, “Spak very guid Ebrew.”  (An Introduction To Language, Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman. 1978.)  Hundreds of years later when linguists came across these findings they discounted them because they did not fit their idea of how language originated.




All these words have to do with intelligence, Skull is where it resides, School is where it is acquire, Skill is the end result of it, and aprpopietly, Scale and Cycle defines it. It seems all the above words find their origin from the Hebrew word SEKEL שכל which means INTELLIGENCE.  Both Hebrew words for WEIGH and CYCLE define the entire thought process. This is a very good example of the intelligence it took to construct language.  This is not intended to be a philosophical dissertation so I will not expand here.  Weighing it, looking for the “numbers of it” and then looking for the pattern of those numbers. To my simple mind this is a great 2 word definition of the thinking process. When the mind hears a word it then compares it to the dictionary that is programmed (learned) in it.  At which point the mind would ever so briefly associate SCALE and SEKEL.  In effect, language leads and teaches us to think the way we think.  Though the five words above possess the same consonantal sounds they are spelled differently.

          CYCLE is another word that has the S.K.L. consonantal root.  The other component of intelligence is the ability to observe patterns.  When language is constructed correctly it can teach thought even if one is unaware of it consciously, the fact that SCALE שקל, SCHOOL שכל, CYCLE, SKULL and SKILL הישכיל have similar sounds and represent a complete formula for thought is pretty amazing.  This complicated task of teaching thought was achieved subconsciously using 5 words but alas, confounded.  The creators of language used few words that pictorially describe the whole process.







Hebrew – SEKEL = INTELLIGENCE                                           שכל

Middle English – SCOLLE, of Scandinavian origin.



Hebrew - SEKEL       = INTELLIGENCE                                     שכל




Old Norse skal meant “a drinking bowl.”  This is also the source of our word skol that you might say when drinking a toast. 




Hebrew : SHAKAL

fr. Gr. ring or circle, cycle; akin to Skr. cakra wheel, circle.  




“I be-Lieve in Love and de-Lve into re-Leva-nt matters of the Heart”. This sentence is in reality composed from 4 Hebrew words that find their origin in the Hebrew word HEART-LV

L.V לב spells out the word Heart LEV In Hebrew


The Hebrew word LEV, spelled with the same two consonants L-B, means HEART.  The 9 words with LOVE, which incorporate the picture of A HEART within them are listed below. 


If you check the dictionary you might be surprised as to diverse and unrelated sources cited by Webster. Without the meaning of the LB sound as Heart, the connection between those words is impossible to find. What seems like a language rich with words is built on relatively few words.

LIVE-             לב          HEART The Old English heorte 

LOVE            לב            HEART Anglo Saxon LUFE meaning LOVE.

BE-LIEVE   בלב           IN HEART, Anglo Saxon GELAFAN meaning to believe.

LOBBY         לובי           HEART,  Latin LOBIA meaning gallery. (Heart of the building)

IN-VOLVE    עיין בלב      IN HEART,  Latin INVOLVERE meaning to wrap up.

DE-LVE       דע לב          KNOW HEART,    Anglo Saxon DELFAN meaning to dig.

RE-LEV ANT     ראה לב SEE HEART, RELEVERE meaning to lift.


EAR-LOBE -           לב      EAR HEART

DictionaryLOBOS in Latin meaning lower part



The word LOBE as in EARLOBE obviously has the sound LV, I naturally looked for a connection between EARLOBE and HEART.  The word LOBE is from the word LOBOS in Latin meaning lower part.  This is consistent with the general method of naming a thing based on the way it looks. The science books gives no better clues than the dictionary, I simply could not connect the earlobe to the heart.  I then put aside the term as one I was unable to decipher. After all there are far more words I am unable to decipher than those I am able to decipher. This is primarily due to the fact that Hebrew is very poor, my mind isn’t too nimble and a lot of facts have yet to be discovered thus we are currently unable to understand them.

In August 1991, Time Magazine ran an article about a ten-year long study conducted by a heart surgeon (sorry I lost his name).  It reported that he noticed while operating on his heart patients that many had creases in their EARLOBES.  He then conducted a 10-year study trying to ascertain if there is a connection between the presence of earlobe creases and the likelihood of future heart problems.  He concluded that people with creases in their earlobes are more prone to have a heart attack.  He claimed that the correlation between heart attacks and creases in the earlobe has a 90% accuracy rate.  The study did not draw any other conclusions. Of course it is also worth noting the Greeks could have named it many other names that would be deemed appropriate but “luckily” chose LOBOS

This was very significant.  Here was a word that I deciphered as HEART and the appropriate expert had conducted research confirming the connection between my deciphered meaning and the function of the earlobe.  It was in my mind as if I had commissioned someone to look for connection between Earlobe and the Heart in order to prove my theory and they actually came back with the right results. Even today no one can explain the relationship between creases and heart attacks; we have managed merely to observe it.  Still, the creators of language included this information within language from the outset.  In other words had we had confidence in this system we could have figured the connection simply based on the word…? How many more such secrets are we going to find hidden within the word?



Scientists have not yet been able to explain how the COCHLEA, spiral-shaped part of the inner ear, converts sound into electrical impulses.  The cochlea is filled with a watery liquid, which moves in response to the vibrations coming from the middle ear via the oval window. As the fluid moves, thousands of "hair cells" are set in motion, and convert that motion to electrical signals that are communicated via neurotransmitters to many thousands of nerve cells. These primary auditory neurons transform the signals into electrical impulses known as action potentials, which travel along the auditory nerve to structures in the brainstem for further processing.

The word CO-CHLE-A is made up of three Hebrew words כה כלי א  which mean THIS TOOL GOD.  The cochlea is there as the TOOL OF GOD.  The Hebrew word CLI = TOOL sheds additional light on the word itself.  It is made up of similar consonants as the Hebrew word CALL קול = VOICE, thus implying that VOICE is a tool for transmitting language.  A decoder was installed in the ear so the brain can understand this new form of communication.  This, of course, is a supposition on my part but it is one that ought to be looked into.