Biblionics.

[John D. Brey]

If you insist on seeing "man" or "death" surrounding the central word, I suspect there's an awful lot of other Hebrew words that follow the same template. So your interpretation of original sin might be interesting, but also pretty far-fetched.

Let's try the first word in the Bible (בראשית).

We have beit בית which means "house." And hidden in the very middle of the "house" (which Yoma 2a says is a "mom") is the word for "firstborn" (rosh ראש). The firstborn of creation is hidden, already, inside a virgin ---ha-adam---when the first human/house is created. The first human was slated to be the mother of the first born male, the rosh, the head (ראש), of humanity, from the get go. . . You know, like how Mary was born already pregnant with Jesus though his pregnancy was hidden inside her.

ב–ראש–ית


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Let's try the first word in the Bible (בראשית).

We have beit בית which means "house." And hidden in the very middle of the "house" (which Yoma 2a says is a "mom") is the word for "firstborn" (rosh ראש). The firstborn of creation is hidden, already, inside a virgin ---ha-adam---when the first human/house is created. The first human was slated to be the mother of the first born male, the rosh, the head (ראש), of humanity, from the get go. . . You know, like how Mary was born already pregnant with Jesus.

ב–ראש–ית

No one knew Jesus was hidden inside Mary from the start such that when he came out unexpectedly, and unnaturally, he caused a stir. If, based on Jesus' hiddeness, we look at the first creation of God, the first house of God, the first word in the Bible, sure enough, it too had a firstborn hidden inside that no one could have looked to find until Jesus came out of his hidding place referring to himself as the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:16) and as the root and offspring of his mother and David (Rev. 22:16).

Nevertheless, when we look, retrospectively, at the first house in the Bible, the first word in the Bible, there's a firstborn ראש hidden in the belly of the word; hidden there until the birth of Jesus, when, retroactively, we can, as he nudged us to do, look for him, the head ראש, even before the word Abraham is found in the text. We find him, the firstborn of humanity, the head of humanity, long before Abraham, in, as it were, and is, the first word in the Bible.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Therefore the Lord will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son . . Because of the [unique] pregnancy [לםרבה] that gives rise to his dominion and peace there will be no end [death]. He will sit on the seat of David [ruling in the midst of his enemy, death, forever (Psalms 110:2)].​

​

Isaiah 7:14-9:7.​

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 9:7 that speaks of the pregnancy of the root and offspring of David (i.e., לםרבה) has the "sign" spoken of in Isaiah 7:14. A virgin with a closed-mem, a mem-sofi (a closed "m") will give birth to the messianic root and offspring of David. The word for this pregnancy (לםרבה) has the only mem-sofi (closed "m") in the entire Bible that's not an ending mem; a mem-sofi thereby paralleling the ironic fact that the mother of the messianic root and offspring of David is the only woman with an intact mem-brane even while a male child is in the sealed-garden or her pregnancy, which garden, in the case of every other pregnancy, would no longer be sealed if a child is inside.

This segues nicely into the topic of Biblionics since the Hebrew word לםרבה that's read as "increase" in most texts, speaks directly and unequivocally here of a "pregnancy" so long as the reader of the Hebrew word is familiar with the true spirit of the Biblionics being employed in the context of this passage of scripture. Just as in Ebonics "ride" labels both what׳s done in a car, as well as the car itself, and just as a "crib" is inside a house, and is used to label the house, so too, in the Biblionics found in Isaiah 9:7, לםרבה "increase" or "multiply" speaks of both the pregnancy itself, and what's accomplished through the pregnancy.

In Genesis 1:22 (which is the first place the word is employed) it's used for getting pregnant in order to multiply the species. Throughout the first dozen or so chapters of Genesis the word is frequently used to speak of pregnancy and multiplication through pregnancy, such that finding a closed-mem (sofi) in the middle of a word speaking of the pregnancy associated with the birth of the prince of peace, the messianic son of David, justifies the fact that the word (לםרבה) is being used, within the sanctified slang of Biblionics, in order to speak of the most unique pregnancy in the world, whereby the son of David, the prince of peace, comes out of a closed-membrane that's opened by his hand, rather than his father's organ. He opens the veil of the bedchamber of the temple at birth, rather than his father opening it at conception, so that we can easily conceive of his virgin pregnancy taking place such that the sanctity of the temple is intact when the father's right of jus primae noctis clearly is not.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

This segues nicely into the topic of Biblionics since the Hebrew word לםרבה that's read as "increase" in most texts, speaks directly and unequivocally here of a "pregnancy" so long as the reader of the Hebrew word is familiar with the true spirit of the Biblionics being employed in the context of this passage of scripture. Just as in Ebonics "ride" labels both what׳s done in a car, as well as the car itself, and just as a "crib" is inside a house, and is used to label the house, so too, in the Biblionics found in Isaiah 9:7, לםרבה "increase" or "multiply" speaks of both the pregnancy itself, and what's accomplished through the pregnancy.

In Genesis 1:22 (which is the first place the word is employed) it's used for getting pregnant in order to multiply the species. Throughout the first dozen or so chapters of Genesis the word is frequently used to speak of pregnancy and multiplication through pregnancy, such that finding a closed-mem (sofi) in the middle of a word speaking of the pregnancy associated with the birth of the prince of peace, the messianic son of David, justifies the fact that the word (לםרבה) is being used, within the sanctified slang of Biblionics, in order to speak of the most unique pregnancy in the world, whereby the son of David, the prince of peace, comes out of a closed-membrane that's opened by his hand, rather than his father's organ. He opens the veil of the bedchamber of the temple at birth, rather than his father opening it at conception, so that we can easily conceive of his virgin pregnancy taking place such that the sanctity of the temple is intact when the father's right of jus primae noctis clearly is not.

6. לםרבה Some remark, after the manner of the Midrash, that the use of the final Mem in this word hints at the miracle of the sun's shadow going down backward (xxxviii. 8). מרבה is either a noun, "increase," like מעשה "work," or a regular participle Hiphil, "causing to increase."​

​

Ibn Ezra.​

Ibn Ezra knows the miracle of the singular case of a closed-mem in the biblical text implies a miracle or a sign (Isaiah 7:14). He gets the miracle wrong, since he'll have nothing to do with the true miracle, but he knows it implies a miracle in conjunction with what the word is labeling. He then lends his expertise to this examination by revealing that the word the miracle must be attached to means to "increase" (multiply) or, perhaps, what causes the multiplication/increase: pregnancy. In effect, he's tip-toeing through the tulips beneath which is a unique pregnancy able to do great damage to his beloved tradition: a miraculous pregnancy where a messiah-bearing mom's mem-brane is still closed, intact, when it should not be.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

6. לםרבה Some remark, after the manner of the Midrash, that the use of the final Mem in this word hints at the miracle of the sun's shadow going down backward (xxxviii. 8). מרבה is either a noun, "increase," like מעשה "work," or a regular participle Hiphil, "causing to increase."​

​

Ibn Ezra.​

Ibn Ezra knows the miracle of the singular case of a closed-mem in the biblical text implies a miracle or a sign (Isaiah 7:14). He gets the miracle wrong, since he'll have nothing to do with the true miracle, but he knows it implies a miracle in conjunction with what the word is labeling. He then lends his expertise to this examination by revealing that the word the miracle must be attached to means to "increase" (multiply) or what causes the multiplication/increase: pregnancy. In effect, he's tip-toeing through the tulips beneath which are explosives able to do great damage to his beloved tradition: a miraculous pregnancy where the mom's mem-brane is still closed, intact, when it should not be, but in this singular miraculous case of the pregnancy associated with David's messianic heir the prince of peace.

The scholar of Hebrew letter symbolism, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, said a number of things about the Hebrew letter "mem" which, on the surface, appear to lend great weight to the current examination. He claims that the letter mem resembles a "womb", and that in most languages there's a phonetic relationship between "mem" and "mom." ---- But his most important revelation is that a "closed mem" marks the arrival of Messiah: "The closed mem ---- the arrival of Mashiach" (The Alef-Beit, p. 195). In the Gospel account Jesus is born of a virgin such that it doesn't take an astronaut's brain to ascertain that his "mom" had to have a closed "mem-brane."

The general Jewish interpretation of the two forms of the letter mem (and this is Rashi's viewpoint) is that a "closed mem" represents a "closed saying" (where the deeper meaning is hidden), while an open mem represents an "open saying," such that the meaning is not hidden. In the context of the current examination the meaning of Jesus' miraculous virgin birth is a "closed saying" for Israel, but a revelation opened up for the Church. In this sense, Jesus, who comes from a closed mem (an intact and sealed mom/mem), is a closed-saying for Israel, while for his followers in the Church he "opens" all the meaning that had previously been "closed" from the first word of the Torah, berei****, to the last, Israel. On this last point we have the statements of a well-known Professor of Jewish thought at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Yehuda Liebes:

An additional association forces itself upon us when we examine the aforementioned quote from the Sifra di-Tsni'uta. On studying this sentence, which connects the "son" with the words or statements God used to create the world and the word bere**** (in the beginning), the reader cannot ignore the echoes in this passage of the opening words of the Gospel of John. "In the beginning there was the word and the word was of God and God was the word." Later in the same chapter (i, 14) the word is even identified as the "son." The opening phrase of John's Gospel bears an obvious parallel to the first words of the Torah--- "In the beginning God created" -- and it would have been astonishing if Christians had not tried to draw some correspondence in content between the verses. This connection could easily have been made by interpreting the word bara in Genesis i,1 according to its Aramaic rendering ---son-- especially if they utilized the statement of the rabbis discussed previously: "`In the beginning' (i.e., the word bere****) is also a statement (by which God created the world).'" This interpretation would have carried even more weight had Christians added to it the talmudic passage that designated the closed final mem as a "closed statement" along with their own understanding of this letter as representing the womb of the virgin, as mentioned above.​

In the next paragraph, Professor Liebes notes that not long after these associations came to him, he obtained a Christian text written hundreds of years before the Zohar (which Zohar toys with these ideas), where all of these ideas are combined in a clear and concise manner. The Torah begins with a beit because it's the "closed house" (the house with an intact veil, i.e., the "temple" that's closed until the revelation of the "head" hidden in the middle of the "house," which "house" is really a "temple" since it's indwelt despite an intact veil). God, who is both the speaker of the word, and the word, is hidden away from his own (John 1:10-12), until such a time as the "closed-mem," or "mom," is opened, such that the "closed statement," i.e., the Torah beginning with a beit, is revealed to all the world when the veil in the temple is torn after a long-term lithopedic pregnancy that delivers the shetiya stone still-born but through a miraculous pregnancy by means of which he's still born alive nevertheless.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It seems to us a noteworthy peculiarity of the Hebrew language that it uses the same word in one and the same form to express the idea of `ceasing to exist’ and that of `completion’ (`wholeness’ or `perfection’) . . . [Such is] the term תמים (tamim). In most of the verbal forms, it designates a complete cessation of existence. . . At the same time, it denotes the consummate perfection of existence.​

​

Rabbi Samson Hirsch, Collected Writing, vol. III, p. 68.​

Because of the extreme poverty of knowledge concerning human language in general, there are a myriad of opinions concerning the meaning of the languages found throughout the Bible. Emerging from this immense poverty is the general belief that because the Bible is extremely problematic when read according to the nearly universal dearth of insight concerning language in general, therefore the Bible, which happens to be the foundation and source of human existence itself, let alone human language, is often read as unimportant and indecipherable according the the dictates of the intellectual elites of the world.

Biblionics, like Ebonics, is a form of thought and thinking that piggybacks a general script and or vocalized language in order to convey subtle and not so subtle thoughts that aren't necessarily evoked by means of the borrowed script or vocalized language being used. Where Ebonics uses English, Biblionics uses mostly Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

In the same sense someone who doesn't know Ebonics is going to be incapable of interpreting the subtle and not so subtle meaning of phrases delivered in Ebonics, so too, those who don't know the nature of Biblionics, are not only going to misunderstand the meaning of the ideas conveyed through Biblionics, but they're likely to believe that what are in truth the most complex communications found throughout the history of mankind are instead the simplistic ramblings come from a great assembly of desert nomads and other well-meaning out-house sages.

Accordingly I turned my attention to the holy scriptures to find out what they were like. What I see in them today is something not accessible to the scrutiny of the proud nor exposed to the gaze of the immature, something veiled in mystery. At that time, though, I was in no state to enter, nor prepared to bow my head and accommodate myself to its ways. My approach then was quite different from the one I am suggesting now: when I studied the Bible and compared it with Cicero's dignified prose, it seemed to me unworthy. My swollen pride recoiled from its style and my intelligence failed to penetrate to its inner meaning.​

​

Saint Augustine, Confessions.​

Stating that Biblionics is a form of communication that piggybacks the language or script it uses to reveal itself, begs the question concerning the true nature of Biblionics? What is Biblionics if it has to borrow or piggyback some script external to it? Why doesn't it possess its own script or language? What's the nature of its poverty that it must beg, borrow, or steal, some other script or language in order to reveal itself?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Stating that Biblionics is a form of communication that piggybacks the language or script it uses to reveal itself, begs the question concerning the true nature of Biblionics? What is Biblionics if it has to borrow or piggyback some script external to it? Why doesn't it possess its own script or language? What's the nature of its poverty that it must beg, borrow, or steal, some other script or language in order to reveal itself?

The answer to that question is inherent to the broader context of the current examination. Biblionics is the spirit which, though hidden inside a language and script that doesn't appear to be indigenous to Biblionics, has, if possible (the foreign language or script has), emanated from the spirit of Biblionics such that the spirit revealed in Biblionics, when it's eventually born out of the language or script, has some claim to being the root as well as the offspring of the language and script from whence its latter-day birth arises.



John