Biblionics.

[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.​

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.​

The quotation from Augustine is itself misleading in that it seems to imply that he had to give up his appreciation of dignified prose and accept the meaning of the Bible through humble submission to some kind of biblical system of belief that forgoes logic or reason in the name of blind faith. Augustine meant nothing of the sort.

The confusion related to the deciphering of the true meaning of the Bible is partly based on the fact that most modern Westerners read Biblionics in a translation based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as those ancient languages are interpreted to make sense in modern English.

It's tantamount to someone who doesn't really know Ebonics translating Ebonics into another language altogether. It's impossible to translate, and thus transfer, the subtleties of a statement made in Ebonics, into another language if the translator doesn't have the foggiest clue concerning the true meaning of the phrase delivered in Ebonics. Ditto for the English translation of the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The true brilliance, the true complexity, of the phrases found throughout the Bible, are transferred with the same fidelity concerning the true and the intended meaning as would be the case if King James' Bible translators were translated to the modern day and asked to translate the Ebonics found in popular ghetto rap into the King James English of their day.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The quotation from Augustine is itself misleading in that it seems to imply that he had to give up his appreciation of dignified prose and accept the meaning of the Bible through humble submission to some kind of biblical system of belief that forgoes logic or reason in the name of blind faith. Augustine meant nothing of the sort.

The confusion related to the deciphering of the true meaning of the Bible is partly based on the fact that most modern Westerners read Biblionics in a translation based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as those ancient languages are interpreted to make sense in modern English.

It's tantamount to someone who doesn't really know Ebonics translating Ebonics into another language altogether. It's impossible to translate, and thus transfer, the subtleties of a statement made in Ebonics, into another language if the translator doesn't have the foggiest clue concerning the true meaning of the phrase delivered in Ebonics. Ditto for the English translation of the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The true brilliance, the true complexity, of the phrases found throughout the Bible, are transferred with the same fidelity concerning the true and the intended meaning as would be the case if King James' Bible translators were translated to the modern day and asked to translate the Ebonics found in popular ghetto rap into the King James English of their day.

Nowhere in the Bible is a knowledge of Biblionics more necessary than in the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation. Reading Revelation without a knowledge of Biblionics is likely more confusing, and more distorting, than readers in Victorian England trying to decipher the lyrics of Snoop Dogg interpreted and translated into King James' English.

I'll dip you if you want me to
You see I really want to get a little funk wit' you
Biggity bunk wit' you
A nigga want to hump you and then just comfort you
And then I'll pop the top and lay you on a cot
And get you nice and hot
Yeah, yeah, it's all to the real
We can do it like Guy, come on girl, let's chill.

Translated:

Do you want to be baptised?
Because I'd like to share the hearing of witty Gregorian chant with you.
You're not large on dishonesty.
Mounds of ebony soil are comforting.
I'll remove the codpiece and lay you gently on the cushion.
You will experience sexual desire.
Yes, Yes. It's all authentic.
We can do it like the homosexuals and that will cool things down considerably.

Not only are modern translations of the Bible based on completely different scripts and vocalizations, but the distance between the signature text of the Bible and modern translations is far greater than Victorian English and today's Ebonics such that contemporary readings of the book of Revelation translated from koine Greek into English, and read within the sensibilities of the modern English reader are exponentially more absurd than trying to read Snoop Dogg's Ebonics from a translation into Victorian English by King James' translators.

Reading Revelation without a knowledge of Biblionics is disturbing to the extreme. It's confusing to the point of the book appearing to have been written by a sociopathic psychopath, even as it seems to distort and turn inside out everything written in John's gospel, epistles, and the New Testamment in general. On the other hand, read within the construct of Biblionics, Revelation is the most comforting, confirming, and calming book in the Bible.



John

 

[Tinkerpeach]

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.​

John

God didn’t write a book for people not to understand His message lol.

 

[Ebionite]

God didn’t write a book for people not to understand His message lol.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matthew 13:10-11

 

[John D. Brey]

God didn’t write a book for people not to understand His message lol.

. . . Then would you be so kind as to read it and tell us all what it means?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Reading Revelation without a knowledge of Biblionics is disturbing to the extreme. It's confusing to the point of the book appearing to have been written by a sociopathic psychopath, even as it seems to distort and turn inside out everything written in John's gospel, epistles, and the New Testamment in general. On the other hand, read within the construct of Biblionics, Revelation is the most comforting, confirming, and calming book in the Bible.

Comparing biblical interpretation to understanding Ebonics is fundamental to correct isagogical exegesis of the scripture. Which is to say that proper exegesis of the original languages of scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), doesn't deliver up the spiritual message of the text through a merely rational, historical, or logical understanding (no matter how correct) of what the text is saying letter-by-letter, word-by-word, since the spiritual message is, as noted earlier, piggybacking the written text. The spirit is, as it were, calling to us through the letters as though they're the prison where, for a time, the spirit is imprisoned and limited in what, and to whom, He can speak.

You open the prophets and your eyes are able to see nothing but the letters. But what can the letters say? They are the black bars of the prison where the spirit strangles itself with screaming. Between the letter and the lines, and all around the blank margins, the spirit circulates freely; and I circulate with it and bring you this great message.​

​

Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ, 101-102.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Comparing biblical interpretation to understanding Ebonics is fundamental to correct isagogical exegesis of the scripture. Which is to say that proper exegesis of the original languages of scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), doesn't deliver up the spiritual message of the text through a merely rational, historical, or logical understanding (no matter how correct) of what the text is saying letter-by-letter, word-by-word, since the spiritual message is, as noted earlier, piggybacking the written text. The spirit is, as it were, calling to us through the letters as though they're the prison where, for a time, the spirit is imprisoned and limited in what, and to whom, He can speak.

You open the prophets and your eyes are able to see nothing but the letters. But what can the letters say? They are the black bars of the prison where the spirit strangles itself with screaming. Between the letter and the lines, and all around the blank margins, the spirit circulates freely; and I circulate with it and bring you this great message.​

​

Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ, 101-102.​

Ebonics is a fitting example in the sense that when the English language is changed to Ebonics the transformation isn't strictly rational or logical but evocative. To understand Ebonics in a quasi-rational manner requires understanding the pathos that's the spirit of the transformation. For instance, when an Ebonics speaker says he's, ". . . taking the ride to the crib . . ." the word "ride" means "car" while the "crib" is "home." So why not just say you're taking the car home? What's the spirit or pathos of replacing "car" with "ride" and "home" with "crib"?

Answering that question lends itself to the pathos of Biblionics in the sense that the primary sense of Ebonics versus a more traditional understanding of English word usage is based on the feeling of alienation and exile, a feeling of being trapped, which the Ebonics speaker feels, to some extent, in the cultural zeitgeist he or she finds him or herself. Similarly, the spirit of the Bible is exiled in the fallen languages of mankind; it's alienated, exiled, unable to speak freely, within the bars and chains that are the black letters or the phonic sounds of fallen mankind's means of communication.

When the Ebonics speaker uses "crib" for "home," he's evoking the warm safe place a child might experience watching his mother spin the colorful mobile hanging above his crib. Labeling "home" as "crib" is the speaker's way of longing, in spirit, for a home that is, post-infancy, as warm and safe as the infant's crib. It's a way to pretend, for the sake of overcoming the pathos of a harsher reality, that the post-infancy home is indeed as warm and safe as a baby's crib. Ditto for replacing "car" with "ride." A "ride" is what a youth experiences when he's first introduced to the car as a mode of transportation. It's like an amusement park ride. It's fun, exciting, exhilarating, rather than a place where one might get shot at and or killed.

The point isn't to criticize Ebonics as merely an infantile longing erupting into adolescent and adult speech. It's more a matter of realizing that all fallen language that understands the zeitgeist of the fallen world longs for the innocent, infantile, realm of the garden of Eden, where the harsh realities, tears, pain, and death, didn't yet register. It's this longing, a psychic memory of this place, Eden, in the collective consciousness of all men and women, that creates the pathos through which the Bible can, and should, be understood and exegeted in a manner that parallels a thoughtful understanding of Ebonics.

All Freud's work demonstrates that the allegiance of the human psyche to the pleasure-principle is indestructible and that the path of instinctual renunciation is the path of sickness and self-destruction. When, therefore, in his later writings he counsels instinctual renunciation, it is a counsel of despair; and a careful reading of his later writings shows Freud still trying to find a way out of the prison.​

​

Professor Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death, p. 57-58.​

John

 

[Ebionite]

All Freud's work demonstrates that the allegiance of the human psyche to the pleasure-principle is indestructible and that the path of instinctual renunciation is the path of sickness and self-destruction. When, therefore, in his later writings he counsels instinctual renunciation, it is a counsel of despair; and a careful reading of his later writings shows Freud still trying to find a way out of the prison.

The prison begins with the human abandonment of the divine in favour of the perceived protection of the state.

 

[John D. Brey]

The prison begins with the human abandonment of the divine in favour of the perceived protection of the state.

The prison is the perceive world. The protection of the state is acquiescence to the carnal renunciation of the inner desire to be personally and naturally free from pain, tears, death, and want, rather than serving the state for a morsel of that bread. At birth we're all, to quote Professor Brown again, "polymorphously perverse." We expect to be what we were in the garden up until the harsh realities of this fallen and perverse world baptized us in the Sea of Lethe, again, and again . . . until we renunciate and relinquish our divine heritage for the mess of pottage this world tricks out as safety and prosperity.

To return to the Rabbi Hirsch quotation that begins this thread, death is the completion of our death-sentence; it's our freedom and the means for us to return to Eden, to our polymorphous pleasure-seeking without being taxed or tased by the authorities, principalities, and powers, of this dark and demonic world-order.

2. There are many foolish and unstable men who say, “See what a prosperous life that man hath, how rich and how great he is, how powerful, how exalted.” But lift up thine eyes to the good things of heaven, and thou shalt see that all these worldly things are nothing, they are utterly uncertain, yea, they are wearisome, because they are never possessed without care and fear. The happiness of man lieth not in the abundance of temporal things but a moderate portion sufficeth him. Our life upon the earth is verily wretchedness. The more a man desireth to be spiritual, the more bitter doth the present life become to him; because he the better understandeth and seeth the side effects of human corruption. For to eat, to drink, to watch, to sleep, to rest, to labour, and to be subject to the other necessities of nature, is truly a great wretchedness and affliction to a devout man who would feign be released and free from all sin.​

​

Thomas A Kempis, The Imitation of Christ, p. 20.​

John

 

[Ebionite]

To return to the Rabbi Hirsch quotation that begins this thread, death is the completion of our death-sentence; it's our freedom and the means for us to return to Eden, to our polymorphous pleasure-seeking without being taxed or tased by the authorities, principalities, and powers, of this dark and demonic world-order.

Death is a ceremonial part of the human condition because of the Roman communion:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Biblionics

 

[John D. Brey]

Death is a ceremonial part of the human condition because of the Roman communion:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26

John 6:53 implies that we're eating and drinking the Lord's death:

One of the most pervasive metaphors for sex in talmudic literature associates it with food. . . Thus the Mishna at Ketubbot 5:9 reads that a wife has the right to eat with her husband every Friday night, and in both Talmuds, this is understood to mean to have sexual intercourse with him.​

​

Professor Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel, p. 72; 116-117.​

When we eat (. . . clearing throat . . .) have sex with, the Lord, another than our self isn't conceived; there's no proliferation of flesh taking place. Our new person is conceived through our intercourse with (eating) the Lord.

Freud comes into this with his comparing of Eros and Thanatos. Sharing in Christ's death is the preeminent passion resulting in new life being conceived. Emblematically, or symbolically, this truest of passions is roughly represented in profane terms when a stiff (or in vulgar terms a stiffy) is interned in the soil that's open to receive the stiff, corpse, i.e., the flesh that's ithyphallic or subject to rigor mortis.

In profane intercourse new flesh is conceived. In the circumspection of a circumcised pregnancy no new flesh is conceived; just a new spiritization of the existing soul making it compatible with a spiritual body to be received when we pass through the hymen of the morgue at the actualization of our new conception. What on this side of the morgue appears to be death, from the other side is realized as the passageway into everlasting life. Death is the portal, the vagina if you will, through which we pass from this transitory existence into life everlasting.



John

 

[Ebionite]

John 6:53 implies that we're eating and drinking the Lord's death:

No, that verse implies that you're dead unless you eat and drink.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John 6:53

The idea of baptism (rebirth) into death comes from Paul:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:3-5

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

One of the most pervasive metaphors for sex in talmudic literature associates it with food.

In the book of Revelation sex is associated with the whore in a bad sense and with the bride and the bridegroom in a good sense.
The whore is associated with drinking the cup of filth. This is alluded to in Isaiah 28:

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Revelation 17:4

But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment.
For all tables are full of vomit [and] filthiness, [so that there is] no place [clean].
Isaiah 28:7-8

The eating of the righteous servant in a bad sense is described in Psalm 35:

With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.
Psalms 35:16

Hypocrisy is associated with the Pharisees, which connects back to Paul.

 

[Tamino]

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

Fascinating and noteworthy!
But not "peculiar" as such. The Ancient Egyptian language uses a very similar word, tm, as a negation and as a word for completeness.
The name of the creator god Atum is derived from this word - as He is the source of entire creation, and its end. (Absolute oneness, in our theology, can only exist outside of the created world. No idea how a monotheist would frame that issue)

 

[John D. Brey]

Fascinating and noteworthy!
But not "peculiar" as such. The Ancient Egyptian language uses a very similar word, tm, as a negation and as a word for completeness.
The name of the creator god Atum is derived from this word - as He is the source of entire creation, and its end. (Absolute oneness, in our theology, can only exist outside of the created world. No idea how a monotheist would frame that issue)

As the source of creation, and its end, Atum would be the Alpha and Omega. Ironically, תמ (tm), i.e., wholeness and perfection, is, if you merely reverse the letters מת (mt), the word for death.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As the source of creation, and its end, Atum would be the Alpha and Omega. Ironically, תמ (tm), i.e., wholeness and perfection, is, if you merely reverse the letters מת (mt), the word for death.

. . . More peculiar still, is the fact that the word for death מת (mt), is also used in the Bible to speak of a man, particularly a husband. The peculiarity arises when we realize that the word for the dish used to mix the leaven from the last batch of dough into the new dough is called the משארת (miseret).

Why this is interesting is that the first and last letter of the dish where leaven and fermentation is added to the new dough (miseret) spells "death" and "man" or "husband," while the remaining three letter, literally in the middle of the word for "man" or "death," spell "leaven" שאר (seor),
insinuating that the man is the source of the leaven that gives rise to sinful offspring. When the man tills the soil of his wife to produce offspring he mixes in the leaven that's in his testemony, that is, leaven, sin, from the last batch, causing the newborn to be contaminated at conception.

מת = man, or death.
שאר= leaven, fermentation.
מ–שאר–ת= the source where leaven is added to the dough.

One reason this is interesting is that the doctrine of original sin teaches that the man, the husband, is the source for the transference of programmed-death into the biology of the man's offspring. The seed of the woman (after meiosis and polar body) is the only cell in the human body not contaminated with sin until the seed of the biological serpent enters it.

In the same sense that if you reverse the letters מת (mt), that is death, you get תמ (tm) perfection, so too, if you invert the letters for leaven, or fermentation שאר (seor), you get ראש (rosh), which is "firstborn," or "head," Which is to say that if you eliminate the man, the leaven (hint, virgin conception), if you eliminate death in conception, you get the firstborn of creation, the rosh, the true head, the source and offspring of David.



John

 

[Tamino]

As the source of creation, and its end, Atum would be the Alpha and Omega. Ironically, תמ (tm), i.e., wholeness and perfection, is, if you merely reverse the letters מת (mt), the word for death.



John

The comparison to the "alpha and omega" concept in Hebrew thought is quite fitting.
The reversal of consonants works as well (Egyptian is a related language), m-t are the consonants in "death"... but m-t are also the consonants in the Egyptian word for "Mother".

However, we need to be a bit careful about such word play, since Egyptian has the added layer of meaning with the graphic representation of words and larger number of signs. tm (negation, name of Atum) uses different hieroglyphs than "death", so the relation is not as clear as it is with a alphabet script

 

[Tamino]

. . . More peculiar still, is the fact that the word for death מת (mt), is also used in the Bible to speak of a man, particularly a husband. The peculiarity arises when we realize that the word for the dish used to mix the leaven from the last batch of dough into the new dough is called the משארת (miseret).

Why this is interesting is that the first and last letter of the dish where leaven and fermentation is added to the new dough (miseret) spells "death" and "man" or "husband," while the remaining three letter, literally in the middle of the word for "man" or "death," spell "leaven" שאר (seor),
insinuating that the man is the source of the leaven that gives rise to sinful offspring. When the man tills the soil of his wife to produce offspring he mixes in the leaven that's in his testemony, that is, leaven, sin, from the last batch, causing the newborn to be contaminated at conception.

מת = man, or death.
שאר= leaven, fermentation.
מ–שאר–ת= the source where leaven is added to the dough.

Interesting observation.
However, have you considered that the prefix "m" is a common element in Hebrew noun morphology?
I'm familiar with it from Arabic, and a bit of research seems to indicate that Hebrew, too, uses an initial m on participles, agent nouns, tool nouns and to denote place .
And the final -t is a feminine ending.

So I would analyze משארת in a more common way, as a derivation of "fermentation" with an initial m denoting place or instrument or said fermentation and final -t denoting grammatical gender.
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.

 

[John D. Brey]

Interesting observation.
However, have you considered that the prefix "m" is a common element in Hebrew noun morphology?
I'm familiar with it from Arabic, and a bit of research seems to indicate that Hebrew, too, uses an initial m on participles, agent nouns, tool nouns and to denote place .
And the final -t is a feminine ending.

There's a lot to chew on there since an "m" prefix is an open "m" מ (see the opening at the bottom), while an ending "m" (mem-sofi), i.e., "m" as a suffix, is closed ם (a sealed-garden if you will). Phonetically the "m" (mem) is like "mom," so that a sealed-mom/mem would be an extremely rare mom who hasn't been opened prior to the conception that makes her a mom. To date there's only been one such mom; a mom who's pregnant with a closed mem/"m."

Lending itself to the idea that the cross (the ancient tav was a cross) must come before both the crown and the mother (who emanates from the true firstborn ---such that's he's her root and offspring) is the peculiarity that "mt" (mem-tav) means both "man" and "death," (in Hebrew the "m" is open since it begins the word מ), while the word for "perfection" rather than "death," is "tm" such that the "m" is at the end of the word, making it an ending "m" (mem-sofi) such that it's closed ם like the mem-brane of Jesus' mother Mary even while he was in her sealed-garden.

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.

לםרבה should be למרבה and every Jewish sage under the sun knows this.



John