Years ago, Michael Aquino received a revelation from the devil. "The Book of Coming Forth by Night" is the title of that tiny, yet pompous, booklet. "Satan" is not the correct form, Aquino stated. "Set" is the name of the Prince of Darkness.
This is inaccurate. First of all, the Hebrew word [Sa:tha:n] is not a corruption of an older Egyptian word (Hebrew and Egyptian are distantly related languages, but this doesn't mean that Hebrew words derive from Egyptian).
And the word "Set" doesn't exist in Egyptian. Neither does "xeper".

Egyptian as a spoken language has a very long history: its words assumed many different shapes and pronunciations but no one ever said "Set". As is known, the Egyptians only wrote the consonants of their language. So the correct name of Aquino's god is [st'kkh]. where t' is an emphatical 't' as in Arabic, k is pronounced as in English and kh is similar to 'ch' in 'Johann Sebastian Bach'.
However, since the Egyptians didn't write their vowels, we must reconstruct them. We can do it (and with a good degree of precision): so, 'Set' was pronounced more or less like Sut'kkh (u= oo as in 'book', kkh = k+ch as in 'Loch Ness', t'= a slightly slurred t)
'Set' is an invention by Aquino.
And what about 'xeper'?
This word doesn't exist. It's the parody of a real Egyptian verb, 'to become', whose real pronunciation was "kkhap'e" (kkh= k as in English + ch as in Bach; p' more or less as p in English, stress on the first syllable.)
So remember: Aquino's Egytpian 'devil' has got problems with the Egyptian language. What do you think of it?

What do you think of it?

I don't think this has anything to do with either Satanism or the Church of Satan.

What was your purpose in posting this?

Add that to the long list of everything else he has his head up his ass about.

That was quite interesting about the pronunciation.

Thank you!

Unfortunately while it points to the source not being as claimed that might be due to other causes.

The problem is that IF some entity from the distant past or another world or some such were to use your human brain to communicate, would he/she/it be able to have you use or understand a language that you never learned?

In other words could the medium (pun intended!) be the message?

If I were able to talk on a cell phone to an illiterate native in the wilds of Borneo and I could speak his language but he could not speak mine, how would I communicate ideas to him?

I would speak to him in his language, using (hopefully) metaphors from his world to increase his chances of understanding what I was communicating.

And that is where I always go in looking at such things. I look to the message.

Does the message reflect high intelligence or is it word salad pabulum?

Does the message offer anything truly useful or does it just demand obedience and/or martyrdom?

Almost all modern UFO "channeled" communications result in having people sell all their worldly possessions and sit on top of a hill waiting to be picked up by the Space Brothers.

If the Space Brothers are real they must really get a bang out of seeing how incredibly stupid human beings are to do whatever they are told to do.

99.9999% of all so-called channeled material is a rehash of anti-human Judeo-Islamic-Christian ethics reflecting the same popular herd themes of the day.

Today this generally includes "Save the Planet" from ecological doom.

One hundred years ago it was "Save your soul" because Jesus is coming back on Tuesday (and he doesn't look happy!).

The usual “channeled” messages from the stars today is found clearly written on the back of breakfast cereal boxes.

So I usually do not concern myself with apparent incongruities of language and even metaphor when I notice such “messages”.

I look to what is being said.

If it is stupid then I need look no further!