FORBIDDEN
KNOWLEDGE
By
Chris Masterson
SMASHWORDS EDITION
* * * * *
PUBLISHED BY:
Chris Masterson on Smashwords
Forbidden Knowledge
Copyright © 2012 Chris Masterson
DEDICATION
Rosa Mae Bond
The wind beneath many wings!
The purpose of this book is not to challenge the perspectives any particular religion! I honestly do not have any qualms with religion. Well, maybe with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses! [joke] I do attend church regularly with my family [I’ll leave out the specifics] and I enjoy just about everything about the fellowship. But much of the material in this book is not what my church/denomination teaches! In addition to my religious preference, I am a Student of Biblical Research of about 25-years and the material in this book is based on various discoveries. My attitude towards religion is pretty much the same as my attitude towards Christmas. I do not believe Santa, Rudolph or Frosty are anything other than imaginary but to me that is no reason to not celebrate Christmas or try to rob children of such a joyful experience!
However, I do not believe the purpose of any religion is to create a bunch of mindless drones but rather a catalyst to self-discovery! Although I do not personally challenge religion, I do challenge prejudice and ignorance masquerading as religion! That said, the battle between atheism and religion has been going on for centuries. It is nothing new to the world. Religion believes there is an all-powerful deity sitting high upon a throne in a place called heaven; looking down and guiding all our lives like a puppet master pulling strings. Hence, our actions are not really our own. In contrast, the atheistic perspective is quite simply, those religious people are all crazy. The atheist mentality is not really all that sophisticated. All the atheist asks is that the religious-minded people provide proof.
Is there really an all-powerful deity controlling all our lives or is each one of us responsible for our own actions? One might even say, there are two basic kinds of people; the gullible and the not so gullible. Let me be clear, I don't mean "gullible" as an insult but rather a description of a certain type of mentality. Hence, the gullible person simply believes what they are told without requiring any proof. In contrast, the not so gullible person is not so willing to donate his faith but rather demands answers to a series of questions before he commits. Is one any better than the other? The answer to this question is a matter of perspective. That is, until these two types of people encounter each other and lock horns in a debate. In doing so, you will see how one person defends their faith and the other, challenges.
At this point we might ask, what makes one person gullible and the next person, shrewd? This might be a philosophical question that requires its own book. But off the top of my head, I can only speak of my own personal experiences and hope you can relate. I consider myself, astute but I will be the first to admit, I was not born that way. I was born like everyone else, innocent. However, I do believe we pick up personality traits from those around us, growing up. It's sort of like when a person raises a puppy or kitten; and said pets eventually display some of the same behavior traits as their owners. As a matter of fact, one of my closest female friends has a mild and timid personality. She was raising three cats; two male and one female. Whenever I visited, I pointed out how much I noticed the female cat acts just like her; while the two boys ... well ... boys will be boys.
Moving right along, early in my life I got involved with religion. I was taught the same basic Christian concepts; all of which I had to accept by faith. Why is that? Because the main source of information is the Bible; which was written thousands of years ago. You have no choice but to either accept it as truth (or by faith), if you want to be a good Christian. So, one of the most important words in religion is, "believe." Having a lot of faith is the only thing that makes religion real. But to be crude, the process is not all that different than when we teach children about Santa Claus. Howbeit, I must admit, at the time, I was proud to claim I had faith and believed.
As a matter of fact, "faith" is the most basic teaching in any religion. Why? Because most of what you believe in is invisible and intangible. In addition, the Bible, at least the New Testament, teaches its readers to have faith. This is the tricky part. What exactly does the Bible mean by "faith" versus our modern definition? Are they one in the same? In a nutshell, the modern definition of "faith" means: believe without questioning. And that's exactly what millions upon millions of religious practitioners do. But will it surprise you to learn, faith only exists in the New Testament? What did people do for thousands of years before the New Testament? Well, if you pay close attention to the stories involving Adam, Abram, Noah, Moses, etc.; you will find they spoke to the ones they called deities, face to face.
The word "faith" is abstract. And abstractedness is something the ancient Hebrew people did do. Although, you might find a few abstract words in the Old Testament (e.g. wisdom), these are only the English translation. On the other hand, the New Testament is full of abstractedness. And as you will come to learn, this is one of the main differences between the ancient Hebrew people of the Old Testament and the Greeks of the New Testament. Be that as it may, the New Testament was written thousands of years ago which makes it completely different than today. So do not assume all the words carry the same definitions as Webster. Faith, in the New Testament is a little more than blind belief. The Greek word, pistis (PEES-tees), is more accurately translated: sure or assurance. And even if the word carries over into "trust," it is not so much, "blind trust."
One of the most popular lessons about "blind trust" is John 20:29:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
Typically after hearing this text, religious practitioners dismiss any sign of common sense and just believe. But what is the reward? You are blessed. What does that mean, exactly? Who really knows? But the original Greek word, makarios (mah-KAH-ree-ahs), simply means: happy. So, the payoff for exhibiting blind trust is simply to be or become happy. To the more skeptic mind, that does not seem like an even exchange. But like I said before, I was proud (happy) to claim I had faith and believed.
That said, one of the most common approaches of the non-religious perspective is skepticism, or quite simply, to ask questions. Challenge what does not make complete sense; observe the contradictions. As opposed to one who has blind faith and accepts doctrine as presented, the skeptic challenges everything. This is not to say, he does not have faith. However, it is to say, he is not so willing to offer it so freely. The veteran skeptic will instantly challenge what does not make complete sense. For instance, the religious might say, "God is a mystery." The skeptic might challenge, "If God is such a mystery, how do you so easily dissect him into three distinct parts? And if God is spirit, why use masculine pronouns (i.e. he, him, his)?"
Religion dictates, "God is the Father; he made us in his image." The skeptic might challenge, "If this is true, why are we not spirit like our Father? Why would a spirit Father make physical children?" Of course there is a whole other line of doctrine to explain away why this is so. But the skeptic will only find holes in the story, flaws, contradictions and/or complete nonsense. For instance, if God is such a great mystery, how did the prophets represent this mystery; unless they understood the mystery; which ceases to make God a mystery; and so on and so forth. And especially, when the subject is homosexuality, the mystery God all of a sudden becomes a predictable bigot. And in the skeptic's mind, if God is such a great mystery; how can you (or anyone) profess to know him or have a personal relationship with him?
I spent a good half of my life as a practitioner of western religion. And I must admit, I wanted to be the best that I could be. I studied the Bible in English. I researched the origins of certain words (in Hebrew and Greek). Then, I eventually studied how to read the ancient texts on my own. Ironically, all of this is what changed me. The more I learned about the ancient texts, the more I was inclined to agree with the skeptics, better known as atheists. Why? Because the vast majority of what religious people learn based on the English version of the Bible, does not exist in the original ancient text. Nine-point-nine times out of ten, they are complete opposites! Why, oh why might that be? The most basic reason; the Old Testament was written by one group of people and the New, by someone else.
Religion purports, God created the planet earth and the entire universe in six-days. Hence, the science of evolution is a farce. It has to be! Especially, if one wants to BELIEVE what they read in the Bible is true. I believed this same doctrine for decades, without question. But the more I familiarized myself with the ancient texts, I learned differently. To my shocking surprise, I discovered the original Genesis, written in Hebrew, did not endorse the concept of "God" nor did it suggest the entire universe was created in six-days. As far as the ancient Hebrews could tell, there was no such thing as "God." Why? They didn't write about, God: an all-powerful spirit entity that created planets, moons, stars, constellations and every other astronomical element in one week's time. They wrote about something else.
So, once I discovered the ancient Hebrews jotted down something other than what I read in the English version, I could not help but to be gradually transformed into a skeptic. This was years ago. Now, I am a skeptic with a black-belt. And the surprising thing about it; you don't even need to go as far as to study the ancient Hebrew Bible. Just simply question the most basic religious beliefs? For instance, I was told that if I got Saved, repented, obeyed the Bible, etc. my soul would spend eternity in heaven. But where in the Bible does it say that? Where exactly in the Bible does it say; some people go to heaven after they die and others go to hell? I'm still looking. And if this basic belief is not even biblical, why do so many believe it?
God is a mystery?
Another challenge is the Antichrist; that satanic person who will one day rule the world. But I looked and looked and could not find this guy anywhere in the Bible. Instead, I found 1John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3 and 2John 1:7. Howbeit, these verses do not speak of "The Antichrist" but rather they describe a certain type of person. Those who DO NOT BELIEVE Jesus ever appeared in the flesh (i.e. he is fictitious, invented, made-up) or Jesus is not "The Christ" they have the "spirit of antichrist." These days, we call them "atheists."
But don't take my word for anything. Instead, let me take on you the same biblical journey of discovery that I experienced long ago. Then, you can judge for yourself! And I encourage you to pay close attention and even take notes. And if you find any discrepancies or challenges, email me:
esoteric.media@att.net
But wait until you've read the book in its entirety. Although, I tried my best to be thorough and concise, you might find answers in chapters you haven't yet read. So be patient and don't rush.
In conclusion, I also found that atheists know the Bible a lot better than those who profess to live by the Bible. So, to say the least, this book can be a tool to help you learn the Bible better than you ever knew it before.
Good journey!
During our studies, I will be using the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible since it is basically the template for every western Bible produced in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the English Pentateuch (first five books) of the Old Testament is not a direct translation of the original Hebrew Torah. The first European translation of the Bible is called the Greek Septuagint; a Latin word meaning: the Seventy [Interpreters]. The Greek Septuagint was translated in segments over the 3rd and 1st centuries BC. It reached completion by 132 BC.
During the reign of the Greek empire, the Septuagint was considered divine inspiration by the Greek church. However, by 382 AD, after the Roman empire had taken control, Saint Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damascus I to revise a bunch of old Latin translations of the scriptures. The result was the Latin Vulgate Bible; a translation of the Old and New Testaments in Latin. For the next 1000 years, the Vulgate would be the main source of inspiration in the Christian church of Europe. But at the time, Latin was a privileged language. Only the priesthood (and a few people of royalty) could learn it. In other words, the common folk could not read the Bible for themselves; provided they knew how to read at all.
The first English version of the Bible was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate by a rogue monk named John Wycliffe. It was completed in 1382 AD. This 1000-year time span (between 382 AD and 1382 AD) is known as the Dark Ages! The masses were literally (and on purpose) kept in the dark (ignorant) by the religious authorities of the time. However, the debate among scholars continues regarding the origins. The original Torah (written in the ancient pictographic Hebrew text) used to produce the Greek Septuagint no longer exists. However, the Jewish Bible, written in Aramaic-Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic alphabet/Hebrew words) does.
To this day, the debate among biblical scholars rages on. Is the Greek Septuagint a direct translation of the most ancient pictographic [cuneiform] Hebrew? Or is it merely a rendition that contains Greek ideals added that are non-existent in the Hebrew original from which it came? And in contrast, does the Jewish Bible (howbeit written in Aramaic-Hebrew) represent the ancient pictographic Hebrew texts or are its contents just as questionable? Pro-Greek Septuagint-ites maintain, the Jewish Bible is not an exact duplication of the original Hebrew Torah but rather the Greek Septuagint is!
In their own defense, the supporters of the Jewish Bible maintain, during their Babylonian captivity (in 597 BC), a group of scribes called Sofariym began the process of transforming the original texts written in the pictographic Hebrew script into a version using the Babylonian Aramaic script. Ergo, the writings would survive under Babylonian captivity. This took place more than 450-years before the Greek Septuagint was produced. As it stands, the Sofariym translated the Torah from their old Hebrew pictographic script to the new Hebrew script based on the Babylonian alphabet to preserve their writings. Did the Greek interpreters have this same goal in mind?
The last twelve chapters of Genesis (39-50) tell of the adventures of Joseph in Egypt. By the end of the saga, Joseph became the second in command in this great nation. For economic reasons, famine being the main one, all of his family; parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, the original offspring of Jacob/Israel (70 souls), joined him in Egypt and began to prosper alongside the Egyptians as equals; all the way up to Exodus 1:7. About 375-years pass between Exodus 1:7 and 1:8. An Egyptian ruler arose who did not recognize or respect Joseph. He became intimidated by the children of Israel who outnumbered the children of Mizraim (Egypt).
The result of this new ruler's insecurity was to control the more numerous children of Israel through bondage. This way of life lasted 430 years until the Hebrews exodused Egypt under the leadership of Moses. By the way, this is the period that produced the pictographic Hebrew script. The first of which appeared on the tablets called, The Ten Commandments. The Hebrews roamed the Sinai desert as nomads for 40-years; along the way, exterminating the Canaanite tribes who lived on the land they wanted to possess. After the land was cleared, the next generation of Hebrews entered and occupied the land as promised.
For the first 400-years, the people were ruled by Judges. According to Acts 13:21, the people asked for a king and God gave them Saul, who reigned for 40-years (1050-1010 BC). King David followed with another 40-year reign (1010-970 BC). And king Solomon ruled 40-years (970-930 BC). After king Solomon, the united monarchy collapsed and the kingdom of Israel, divided. Jeroboam led a revolt of the northern tribes and became the ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel. The ten tribes that joined him were Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad and some the priestly tribe of Levi. The southern kingdom of Judah was led by king Rehoboam. Its inhabitants were the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon and the remainder of the tribe of Levi.
The northern kingdom of Israel flourished for 207 years then fell to the Assyrian empire in 723 BC. The ten tribes of Israel were taken into captivity and never seen or heard from again. The southern kingdom of Judah fell 126 years later in 597 BC to the Babylonian empire. They had conquered the Assyrians 15-years earlier in 612 BC. The Book of Daniel tells of Daniel's life in Babylon. This twelve chapter book was partly written in Babylonian Aramaic beginning at chapter 2 (v4) and ending at chapter 7 (v28). This is the period when the Jewish scribes (Sofariym) substituted the pictographic Hebrew characters of their writings with Aramaic ones to survive in Babylonian society. When in Babylon do as the Babylonians!
Babylon fell to the Persian empire in 536 BC. Under Persian rule, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Some did, some did not. The Persian empire ruled the world for 228-years until it was conquered by Greece in 331 BC. Greece was the first European new world order, I mean, empire. At some point down the line, the Greek church felt compelled to transcribe the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. Hence, the Greek Septuagint was produced about 450-years after the Sofariym's Aramaic-Hebrew version in Babylon. Also during this period, the Masoretes (a Jewish sect who succeeded the Sofariym) compiled a system of pronunciation and vowel points to the Hebrew Alephbet so everyone can read the Jewish Bible.
Some biblical scholars claim the Greek Septuagint is basically the Hebrew Torah, Greekamatized! Simply because Greek culture and Hebrew culture are like north and south. A lot of what was originally written in Hebrew did not make a lot of sense in Greek. So, the translators had to get creative during the translation process to try to make sense out of what they perceived as nonsense – and that’s giving them the benefit of doubt.
How different are they? For example, in Greek culture (which we in the USA adopted), the future is in front of you and the past is behind you. The logic being, the past already happened and you are now moving forward into the future (howbeit unforeseeable). But in the ancient Hebrew culture, the future is behind you and the past is in front of you. Why? Because the past already happened; you can see it. And the future has not happened yet; therefore it cannot be seen. So, many of the concepts in Hebrew and Greek are 180 degrees out of sync. Where the cliché “Back to the Future” might be a figure-of-speech to us, it makes perfect literal sense in ancient Hebrew.
IN THE BEGINNING
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now, we can begin learning the mysteries of Genesis 1:1. The same text in the Masoretic Hebrew script is as follows (read from right to left):
The first line of text is in Masoretic Hebrew (i.e. the Hebrew language written using the Aramaic alphabet) and is read from right to left. The second line of text is the English transliteration (i.e. how to pronounce the Hebrew text). The third line of text is the raw English translation. Does this at all resemble the official English translation of Genesis 1:1?
The English Old Testament is full of Greek names such as, Genesis, Exodus, Eve, Noah and Moses. As a matter of fact, the few Hebrew names left in the entire Old Testament are: Elohiym, YHWH and Adam. Every other name is from the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate. This is one of the biggest indications the English translation of the Old Testament is based on the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versus the Hebrew Torah.
The first word in the Masoretic Hebrew text, BeReshiyt, is also the title of the first book of the Hebrew Torah. This word has two possible interpretations with the first being: In beginning. Unlike its Greek, Latin and English counterparts, it does not mean: In THE beginning. Ergo, it does not suggest the definite beginning of something. As previously stated, the ancient Hebrews perceived time in a circular fashion. In other words, they believed in multiple beginnings or cycles of time!
If the Hebrew text intended to say: In THE beginning, it would have done one of two things: 1) use, be’ha’Reshiyt (or baReshiyt for short), which literally means: In the beginning; 2) use the noun, Techillah (instead of Reshiyt), which means (without question): the definite beginning of something. As it stands, the Hebrew beReshiyt means: In (a) beginning; In (this particular) beginning. But it most definitely does not mean: In (the one and only) beginning - of the universe as we know it.
The second interpretation of beReshiyt is: the choicest part; the chiefest; the summit; the best. In other words, BeReshiyt 1:1 is the apex of the story. I personally like to use, In summary (the choicest part of the story). The more I study this text, the more it sounds like a standalone verse, making its own statement. Hence, a summary of the accounts that will soon unfold in the succeeding verses.
CREATION
The next two words in Genesis 1:1 are: God created; which are the second and third words in BeReshiyt 1:1: [he] filled Elohiym. In other words, the Hebrew verb, bara, is in the past tense; third person masculine singular form; meaning: to fill; to fatten. But biblically, this verb pertains to (or is only used regarding) Elohiym. I should also note; in English, the subject of the verb, God, is placed BEFORE the verb, created. But in Hebrew the subject of the verb, Elohiym, is placed AFTER the verb, bara.
Here we have a conflict. In English, the subject, God, is a singular noun which coincides with the third-person, singular verb: [he] created. But in the Hebrew text, Elohiym is a plural noun; the subject of the third person singular verb: bara ([he] fattened/filled). Does Elohiym represent a single deity or many? Apparently some Scholars go with the verb tense: although Elohiym is a plural noun, it is sometimes considered singular because of the verb tense used in conjunction: [he] filled; and therefore translated: God.
But if it were that simple, why not just use the singular form of Elohiym (i.e. Eloi)? Is it possible for a plural noun to be used in conjunction with a singular verb and still be a plural noun? Suppose Elohiym is more of a collective noun, like: people, government, army, company, society, jury, audience or team. The rule states; when the collective is acting in unison/agreement use singular verb forms and pronouns but when the collective is acting independently, use plural verb forms and pronouns.
For example: The jury (it) agreed to take its recess. [acting in unison] In contrast: The jury took their breaks at different times. [acting as individuals] In like manner, Elohiym [collective plural noun] [he] filled. [acting in unison] It is possible the ancient Hebrews thought it would be disrespectful to refer to Elohiym as an inanimate object (i.e. it). The suffix “iym” identifies the masculine plural (which can also include females). So it is settled! Elohiym should be translated: gods, deities, powers or masters!
One might wonder why Genesis says, created (suggesting nothing previously existed) while BeReshiyt says, filled (suggesting something did)? One of the main differences in the Greek and Hebrew mindsets is the usage of abstract ideas (Greek) versus concrete ideas (Hebrew). The Greek version of scriptures embraces the abstract with words like: created, blessed, grace, believe, angry, love, hate and evil. These are ideas one has to either imagine or feel emotionally. On the contrary, the Hebrew mindset embraces concrete ideas: anything you can physically see, touch, hear, taste or smell.
In the Greek mindset, God created. Ergo, a (heterosexual male) Spirit you cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell did something magical - he created! This is a scenario one has to imagine. In the Hebrew mindset, Elohiym (physical deities) filled (i.e. did something physical) ha’shamayim (the Skies) and ha’aretz (the dry land). The article et precedes ha’shamayim to identify ha’shamayim as the direct object of the verb: bara. Hence, Elohiym filled ha’shamayim. The same holds true with “va et ha’aretz.”
Once again, the Greek idea of “the heavens” is an abstract idea one has to imagine. But the Hebrew “the skies” is a concrete idea one can look up and see but there is a little more to this. If we dissect ha’shamayim we make some interesting discoveries. Of course, the prefix ha is the direct article, “the.” The root of the word, mayim, means: waters; mentioned for the first time in verse 2. The prefix, sha, means “as.” So, ha’shamayim can more specifically mean: as the waters. We will soon re-enforce this discovery.
The Greek idea of the earth versus the Hebrew idea of the land are two extremes. The Greek idea suggests the entire planet while the Hebrew idea is not so specific. Every Scholar will agree the proper translation of ha’aretz is: the land. But the more religion oriented Scholars suggest the land means: all the land on the planet. But further analysis will reveal this is not the case. As you take a quick look at the text of verse 2, we see the land is covered with the waters of the surface and the waters of the Deep. In other words, there is land but it is submerged beneath metric-tons of water!
Further analysis of the Hebrew ha’aretz is most interesting. The Hebrew noun aretz (land) comes from the root, ratz, meaning: fragment. Does this imply the land is a fragment of a whole or that the whole itself is the fragment? Perhaps, a little bit of both! According to the Sumerian texts (the most ancient texts of them all), once upon a time there was a planet in our solar system called, Tiamet. According to the ancient writings, the surface of Tiamet was covered with Water; there was no dry land. Sound familiar?
As the story goes, Tiamet was the forth planet from the Sun: Mercury, Venus, Mars, TIAMET, Jupiter, etc. The earth was not yet a part of the cosmic equation! There is no telling how many eons passed before an Asteroid came ripping through space and collided with Tiamet; ripping her in two! One part exploded and now exists as an Asteroid Belt around the Sun still marking Tiamet’s old orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Even today (counting the earth), Science tells us there should be a fifth Planet where there is now an Asteroid Belt. But little do they realize earth was part of the fourth planet that once existed in that orbit. They count the earth as though it was always present - it was not!
The other part of Tiamet remained intact but was knocked into a new orbit. It is now the third planet from the Sun between Venus and Mars: Mercury, Venus, EARTH, Mars, ASTEROID BELT, Jupiter, etc.! As far as the ancient Hebrews were concerned, that event ended one cycle of time (era) and a new one began as indicated in BeReshiyt 1:1-2. Like Tiamet, the Earth was still covered with water; there was no dry land! So, according to the Sumerian text, the earth (aretz) is actually, the fragment (ratz) of another (larger) planet, Tiamet.
Finally, Elohiym (physical beings) visited the new planet and found the conditions chaotic! But what could one expect after such a celestial disaster? So, I will assume they were not at all surprised! Did they arrive just to look around shortly after Tiamet was destroyed? Or, did eons pass before they decided they had some unfinished business that began on Tiamet but resumed on Tiamet II - Earth? Further investigation will reveal …
The first thing we should all be clear on is where the English Language originated. England? Wrong! The English language originates from the Indo-European family of languages. Yes, Indo, refers to India! Indo-European languages consists of about 99 other tongues and they all descended from the ancient Aryans of Central Asia (4500 BCE). For an example, compare the word, Mother [English], and, Matr [India Sanskrit].” Yes, they are cousins! And many other words share the same similarities.
In Genesis 1:1, the word, God, is the English translation of the Hebrew, Elohiym. While tracing the origin of the word (God), many scholars stop at its Anglo-Saxon and Germanic (European) roots. But as previously stated, its most distant point-of-origin is India! The irony is that Christianity considers India’s religions, pagan. In essence, so is the word, God. Please keep reading before you decide to rebel! As previously mentioned, the Hebrew, Elohiym, is a collective (plural) noun. In other words, the word itself is singular but its implication is plural.
There is also the argument the word, God ,evolved from Godama (also spelled: Gotama, Gautama), the title of the Buddha of India. Godama basically means: Keeper of Goats. Perhaps, in the same sense Jesus was the Keeper of Sheep. The ancient Aryans of Central Asia eventually migrated in different directions; the main migration being what is now the country of Iran. But many migrated to various parts of Europe by way of India and religion came with them. In India, they worshipped the Godama and in Europe, her distant cousin, God.
Perhaps, this is where we get that age old expression: God dam it!
The concreteness of the Hebrew Masoretic mindset does not convey the idea of a single invisible all-powerful and all-knowing God of the universe. Greco-Roman Christianity coined that idea! The Hebrew Masoretic text conveys the idea of a species called, Elohiym. English translators manipulated the text to force the scriptures to conform to their own belief system. In essence, the original text does not mention the Indo-European word, God. The ancient Hebrews never even heard the word! As a matter of fact, the English language, Christianity and the Holy Trinity concept it (Christianity) endorses did not exist when the ancient Hebrew scriptures were written.
Genesis 1:2a:
And the earth was without form, and void and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.
Traditional school-of-thought suggests the above text is a repeat of the text we just covered in verse 1 but in more detail. However, that is based on the limited information provided by the Greek influenced English translation. The raw Hebrew text provides more information than its English counterpart.
Once again, the Greek and Latin influenced English translation exaggerates just a tad. Instead of referring to the entire planet, the Hebrew text refers only to a segment of land. I suppose one could compile all the continents of today and derive the entire earth. But as we will come to learn; the point of time in question there was no dry land! In ancient Hebrew, when the subject (e.g. the land) precedes the verb (e.g. to be), we get the past perfect tense of the verb (i.e. the land had become). In addition, the verb is in the third person feminine singular tense.
In the most ancient Sumerian texts, the sky, the wind and the land were either male or female deities. Either that or they talk about the deities who represent said elements as though the deities themselves were the elements. Perhaps, the distant ancient Hebrew cousin shares similar ideas. Now, because the verb, to be, is written in the past perfect tense, many Scholars conclude there is an unspecified elapse of time that exists between the first and second verses … perhaps, millions of years! Then again, they also rely on much of the Greek influenced English translation of verses 1 and 2; and properly translate only one Hebrew verb, hayetah.
But I personally think (based on the raw translation of the Hebrew text) verse 1 is a standalone statement - a Summary of the accounts that will soon unfold in succeeding verses. And verse 2 is the actual beginning of those verses unfolding. However, I do believe there are elapses of time throughout the entire text of chapter one. I will say briefly (for now), it is only the Greek influenced English translation that makes everything appear magical and instantaneous. When we get more familiar with the raw Hebrew text, the passing of large segments of time is a lot more noticeable.
As the text continues, the land is in complete confusion and chaos! Is it remotely possible this is the aftermath of Tiamet? The Sumerian text did not make blind assumptions. After all, there is an asteroid field up there - right smack in-between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter! Who is to say it was not once part of a planet? Isn’t that what asteroids are? And how on earth (figure-of-speech) did people who lived 1000s of years ago, know anything about asteroid fields? And better yet, this particular asteroid field?
Genesis 1:2b:
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Once again, the Greek influenced English translation encourages one to use their imagination - try real hard to visualize a ghostly deity moving across the surface of the waters that engulfed the land.
On the contrary, the raw Hebrew text states: va’ruach Elohiym merahkefet - And wind Elohiym hovered (fluttered). What exactly does that mean? Rule #1: consider the source! The ancient Hebrews did not believe in spirits of any kind. They always dealt with concrete facts, perceptions and ideas! For instance, the wind was something concrete they could feel. They did not imagine spirits! That would be a Greek thing!
As previously mentioned, in the Sumerian text, the wind (and every other element of nature) was a deity. Did their ancient Hebrew cousins feel the same way? Further study reveals ruach is a feminine noun with several other definitions but let’s try to figure out the biblical one! The very next verse in which ruach is found is Genesis 3:8:
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden IN THE COOL of the day …
Among Scholars, this text is a controversy because it can be translated a variety of ways - depending on who’s doing the translating. Let’s give it a shot of our own! The raw Hebrew text says:
One debate wonders who or what was doing the walking? I suppose one can speculate (from the English version), the LORD God was talking to himself (as presumed in Genesis 1:3) as he strolled along on a breezy day. Once again, the ancient Hebrews only dealt with the concrete! Even the English version agrees this is not a spirit. Is the LORD walking and talking to Himself; or with someone else? According to the text, the LORD could very well have been walking with and talking to the female deity, Ruach.
For reasons unknown (but can be speculated), Ruach (a feminine noun- singular) was translated: in the cool (not a feminine noun-singular). In my mind, an English feminine noun should replace a Hebrew feminine noun. In Genesis 1:2, Ruach is translated: Spirit - which is a feminine noun-singular. But is this Spirit a male heterosexual ghostly creature? For starters, the ancient Hebrews did not believe or write about ghostly creatures; they always wrote about physical beings! And if said beings were male, they would not have used feminine nouns and pronouns to describe them.
Now suppose we were consistent and replaced the text “in the cool” with the word “Spirit.” Could the text then indicate; they heard the voice of the LORD as he was walking to(wards/with) Ruach? Is it reasonable to conclude Ruach is a female deity? In Genesis 1:2, Ruach [of the] Elohiym hovered above the waters. This is not to suggest Ruach was a ghostly creature that was lighter than air. But suppose Ruach (and company) arrived in something more like the Prophet Ezekiel described, in Ezekiel, chapter 1:
(16)The appearance of the wheels and their work [was] like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work [was] as it were a WHEEL IN THE MIDDLE OF A WHEEL.
(20)Whithersoever THE SPIRIT was to go, they went, thither [was their] spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature [was] in the wheels.
Without going into a dynamic translation process, I just wanted to point out the obvious description of a physical vehicle with possible hovering capability associated with Ruach (i.e. the Spirit). And at the end of the chapter (verse 28), Ezekiel says these words:
This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw [it], I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.
Even the Prophet Ezekiel held true to the ancient Hebrew mindset of concrete ideas! The Wheel in the middle of a Wheel was his description of something physical! And Ruach (the Spirit) was a physical being aboard said vehicle. Things were no different a few thousand years prior in Genesis 1:2.
Genesis 1:3:
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light …
Here’s a real Brain Teaser: Up to this point, who is the only deity that we have encountered? In verse 2, Ruach of the Elohiym is the only one that I am aware of! So, who is giving that ever so famous first command? RUACH! The ancient Hebrews did not have issues regarding the gender of their deities. However, Greek-Latin-English translators did! Unless there is an unspecified elapse of time between verses 2 and 3, that voice is a female voice and it belongs to the female deity, Ruach! But alas, she was reduced to the abstractedness of mere Spirit without identity. And for the umpteenth time, abstractedness is a Greek thing!
For the sake of argument, does the female deity, Ruach, make any other biblical appearances? Well, in Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19 and 25, we find that Yahweh is not the only deity the children of Israel worshipped; his main competition; the Queen of Heaven! Further research revealed that other cultures called her Molech, Astarte, Venus, Isis, Goddess of Virginity, Goddess of Fertility and Sophia, Goddess of Wisdom.
Speaking of the goddess of wisdom, Proverbs 1:20 states: WISDOM crieth out; SHE uttereth her voice in the streets.” Many have asked, why does the abstract word wisdom use a feminine pronoun? Because the ancient Hebrew text does not refer to an abstract idea but a concrete one; e.g. the goddess of wisdom crieth out; SHE uttereth ... [also see Proverbs 8:1-3]
In the New Testament, Ruach takes on a slightly different role for goddess of virginity. She is none other than ... THE HOLY SPIRIT! If you ever need a woman to give birth without having had sexual intercourse with a man ... the virgin goddess is the go to gal!
Genesis 1:6:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Scholars continue to debated and speculate over what exactly was meant by: the firmament!? But only if you go directly to the source will you get a concrete answer. Once again, the ancient Hebrews only dealt with concrete ideas. Their description of the firmament was no different! The Hebrew word translated firmament is Raqiya; and it basically means: sheet. Further exploration revealed the firmament was a solid, yet transparent dome-like structure with a hollow middle-layer that stretched across the sky over the dry land like a sheet spread (blanketed) across a bed. Contrary to popular belief, the firmament was a physical structure!
The name of this solid expanse is derived from the verb, Raqa (to spread out by stretching). In the oldest book of the Bible, Job 37:18, Elihu asked Job, “Hast thou with him (God) spread out the sky (the firmament), [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?” Elihu provided a visual description! The firmament blanketed the sky for thousands of years and people could just look up and see it. Wow! Genesis 1:6 also tells us the purpose of the firmament; to divide (separate) the waters! Ergo, the very waters that covered the land in verse 2.
This brings us back to the original idea specified in BeReshiyt 1:1:
Typically, Bible Scholars conclude the Elohiym either filled or fattened the heavens; but what about the land? Ergo, I think the text is saying: The Elohiym filled the firmament (with water) as described in further detail Genesis 1:6 and subsequent verses; and fattened the land; after enough of the waters were divided! We will cover more of the fattening of the land in subsequent chapters! But for now … more on the firmament.
Genesis 1:7:
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] ABOVE the firmament.
The word “above” in the text replaced the Hebrew “al” which is translated a variety of ways; two of which are: through and throughout. If you want to make complete sense out of this text it is hard to agree the word “above” was the best choice. This forces us to imagine (more Greek abstractedness) water in the upper atmosphere or even rain to try and make sense out of this text. But once you realize the firmament was a physical structure that stored mega-tons of the water below; the text makes perfect sense!
Psalms 19:1:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
In English, the conjunction “and” typically connects two different statements. But in ancient Hebrew, many times the conjunction “and” connects one statement; said two different ways! In the above text, “The heavens declare the glory of God” AND “the firmament sheweth his handywork” are the exact same statement said two different ways! I said this to say; the terms “the heavens” and “the firmament” are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament! And in this context neither one of them refer to the open sky we see when we look up!
This is normally the moment when well-versed English text scholars allude to Genesis 1:14-15 that suggests the stars were affixed to the firmament. Instead of going into great detail about translation, I’ll say this: The author of this text was not an astronaut! His only perspective was standing on the ground and looking up! How could he tell if an object was physically affixed to the firmament or simply on the other side of the firmament? Even looking up today, the sun and moon appear to move across the sky! But we know it is nothing more than an optical illusion!
By now you’re probably asking, “How did the firmament remain elevated if it was a physical structure?” If a technologically advanced Species had the technology and know-how to build such a contraption and make it work (because if it’s true, the proof is under our feet), then they probably would not have a problem getting it to hover in mid-air. After all, that’s the first thing Ruach/Elohiym did in verse 2 ... hover above the waters!
But have you ever heard the expression, "pillars of heaven?" Well, once upon a time they were literal! Job, 26:11 says: The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. The average person has no idea what this text means so they dismiss it as a figure-of-speech. But suppose the text is telling us; the firmament was supported by pillars, columns or foundations that held it up in the sky! I compare this to the elevated EL-train system in the city I live in … to the 25th power! The ancient Hebrews were always literal when they described something. To them, Job 26:11 referred to a literal “pillars of heaven.” Could imaginary pillars tremble?
In 2Samuel 22:8, “… the foundations of heaven (the firmament) moved and shook, because he was wroth.” I remember hearing this verse as a child sitting in Sunday school and imagining heaven with lots of columns/pillars. What they were holding up was beyond me but when the information you have is limited, the rest is left up to the imagination. Later on in life, I dismissed these types of statements as figures-of-speech. Now that I have more information, I can see the ancient Hebrew were saying exactly what they meant to say with no figures-of-speech! They actually believed this firmament literally existed and was held up by pillars/columns/foundations. And two different sources said: when Elohiym was angry ... they shook!
Genesis 7:11:
... and the WINDOWS OF HEAVEN were opened ...
In addition to pillars, the firmament also had windows (or portals). From its description, the waters below had to somehow be siphoned (elevated upwards) inside the firmament’s mid-section storage compartment. In some reference materials you might even find descriptions like: vault of heaven or visible vault in the sky; since in analogy it was used for storage! According to Genesis 1:7, the firmament locked away (stored) the waters below; which became the waters above the dry land.
Some Bible translations go as far as to translate Job 22:14 to read: Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; as he walketh atop the vault of heaven. Every biblical reference indicates the firmament was a physical structure! We now know it was common knowledge that Elohiym walked on top of said structure. Now that must have been fascinating! This is also the origin of the idea of “God dwelling in heaven” ... Elohiym dwelled atop the firmament. Once again, the two words are interchangeable!
Isaiah 40:22:
[It is] he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that STRETCHETH OUT THE HEAVENS AS A CURTAIN, and spreadeth them out as A TENT to dwell in:
In the above text the word “circle” replaced the same Hebrew word, chuwg, that was translated “vault” in the previous verse (Job 22:14). Whether He “sits upon the circle” or “walks upon the vault,” the suggestion here is that the firmament was solid enough to support people sitting and walking on top of it! And Isaiah continues to describe the solid circle above the earth as a “stretched out curtain” and “tent” which coincides with the basic definition of Raqiya; a Sheet.
Revelations 4:6:
And before the throne [there was] a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, [were] four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
We can now see that Isaiah suggested God’s throne was atop the circle of the earth; the vault in the sky; the firmament. And hundreds of years later, John was somehow transported up there and he described the firmament (from on top, looking down) as a “sea of glass” that looked like crystal.
Genesis 1:8a:
And God called the firmament, heaven (Shamayim).
Genesis 1:10a:
And God called the dry [land] earth.
s/bAnd Elohiym called the dry ground, land (Aretz).
I have already stated a few times “the heavens” and “the firmament” are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament. Genesis 1:8a confirms this! And he also called the dry ground that manifested as a result, land. In short, Genesis 1:1 could read:
… Elohiym constructed the firmament and manifested the dry land.
But by now, you’re probably asking yourself, “If any of this is true, where the hell is the firmament?” In a word ... Noah! Long story, short ... the entire structure was collapsed when someone (not mentioning any names) decided to end all life that depended on the dry land for survival. In Genesis 7:11, the windows of heaven (or the Portals of the firmament) were opened and all the Water that had been siphoned-in so many years before was flushed-out ... back to where it came from! There just happened to be people roaming atop the dry land this time around!
What happened to the now empty firmament? I’m speculating but it’s probably at the bottom of the Atlantic! Many Scholars have a tendency to assume the world back then was exactly as it is today. When they investigate the Great Flood, some dismiss the possibility it ever happened because there is no evidence in the dry land, today. When the dry land was first manifested (in Genesis 1:9), we have no idea how much mass it comprised. Even if the circumference was that of an Island or that of a Continent, to those people, that was the whole world!
Is it so hard to believe; after the Flood the world was covered with water if originally (in Genesis 1:2) the world was covered with water? Without this detailed history, we are forced to think the other way around: the dry land always existed; then along came a flood that covered all the dry land; the waters assuaged and the dry land re-appeared (for the second time) in the exact same format as before the flood.
On that note, when the waters assuaged (i.e. went down the drain into the depths of the earth [plan-b, after that firmament idea]); is it possible the land mass was completely different the second time around? I came across two National Geographic articles. One by Richard A. Lovett, dated February 27, 2007 and the other, Ben Harder, dated March 7, 2002. Both Articles state; there is at least five times more water buried deep in the earth's interior (underground) than there is on the surface. Whoa! Is this PROOF that the Waters did at least once upon a time, assuage?
Finally, I took the liberty of investigating the scientific perspective! If the firmament did exist, it would have caused a Global Greenhouse Effect! Hence, warm climates everywhere! Protection from the Sun’s rays (e.g. Gamma-Rays, X-Rays and Ultra-Violet Light and every other form of harmful space radiation)! Humans would have lived for hundreds of years - longevity of life! The quality of oxygen would’ve been rich enough to make plant life seem conscious! Reptiles, not having a built-in growth-inhibitor like mammals, would have grown to enormous sizes! And it never would have rained, snowed or tornado-ed! Does any of this sound familiar?
Genesis 1:4-5:
And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
It is common place to read the word “day” and run with it thinking, “God created evening and morning in one single 24-hour day.” Now, let’s think about this! The evening and the morning are the results of the earth spinning on its Axis, while simultaneously orbiting the Sun, as it (the Sun) travels around a celestial loop comprised of 12 constellations called, the Ecliptic. Whew! God did all of this in one 24-hour day? This is that Greek (use your imagination big time) way of interpreting the scriptures, again!
According to this Greek way of thinking: Once upon a time, an invisible all powerful (male) God existed all alone in nothingness. And by the way, by nothingness I mean: complete darkness! He then decided to create the heaven and the earth ... while still in complete darkness. This is not to suggest, God required light to see but rather to realize God’s natural habitat (based on these conclusions), is complete darkness.
In defense of that Greek thinking, they got one thing right, even though it was unintentional. The natural environment for Elohiym is darkness! Check out the following Bible verses:
Exodus 20:21
And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the THICK DARKNESS where God [was].
Deuteronomy 5:22
These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the THICK DARKNESS ...
1Kings 8:12
Then spake Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the THICK DARKNESS.
Psalms 18:11
He made DARKNESS his SECRET PLACE; his pavilion round about him [were] dark waters [and] thick clouds of the skies.
Isaiah 45:3
And I will give thee the TREASURES OF DARKNESS, and HIDDEN RICHES OF SECRET PLACES, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel.
This is not to suggest that complete darkness is not a bad thing for people. It is, in the sense that we cannot see in complete darkness! Then again, we cannot see in complete light, either. It is the Greek mindset that demonizes darkness and glorifies light. The Hebrew mindset considers, light and darkness, two equal parts of a whole. One cannot exist without the other. And for humans, the perfect balance between light and darkness is what produces the best conditions to see - i.e. enlightenment!
In the above text, light and darkness were not divided because one was evil and the other was good. But rather to benefit the future inhabitants of this new planet God just dreamt into existence. And according to Greek thinking, without the benefit of the Sun, the Moon or any other celestial bodies, we somehow got the evening and morning. But we often leave out one vital detail - the evening and the morning only consist of 12-hours! How exactly could they be considered one day?
The word “day” used throughout chapter 1, replaced the Hebrew, yowm. This word is pretty tricky! Based on the context used, it could mean, one 24-hour day, or it could mean: period of time, chronicles, age, era, lifetime. In verse 5, it is found twice: once capitalized and once, small-case. But both words are from the same Hebrew word: yowm. In the text, “God called the light day” ... day is another name for light. But in the text “the first day” it is obviously an elapse of time - but for how long?
Did I mention the Greek perception of time is in a linear fashion (i.e. six consecutive days) and the Hebrew; circular (i.e. cycles of time)? When you apply Greek thinking to Hebrew , you’re gonna screw it all up! Let’s take a look at the first day (verses 4-5) where in Summary: God divided the light from the darkness which resulted in day and night. And if you jump over to the fourth day (verses 14-19), you will find the details of the first day: the day and night are divided; and the purpose of the sun; the moon; and all the stars. Thereby, satisfying the argument I just made. In the Hebrew mindset, day 1 and day 4 are the same day (or cycle of time)!
Now, let’s take a look at the second day (verses 6-8) where: the firmament was made and the waters divided. Guess what you will find when you jump over to day 5 (verses 20-23)? The firmament (or the sky beneath it) is filled with flying creatures and the waters (that remained below) were filled with sea creatures. Once again, in the Hebrew mindset day 2 and day 5 are the same day (cycle of time)!
Finally, take a look at the third day (verses 9-13) where: the dry land appears; vegetation is grown; and the Seas are defined. What do you think you will find on day 6 (verses 24-31)? The creation of mankind, mammals and reptiles to dwell on the dry land and eat the vegetation. Yet once more, in the Hebrew mindset day 3 and day 6 are the same day (cycle of time)!
In the ancient Hebrew mindset six consecutive 24-hour days of creation do not exist. However, something more like six blocks of time (or cycles) do. Now the duration of these blocks of time (i.e. time cycles) are not clearly defined and they do not run in the sequence of six consecutive 24-hour days! But whatever the case, the ancient Hebrew mindset did not suggest the entire universe was created in one week! Do the ancient Hebrew contain any Greek concepts?
To my knowledge, the ancient Hebrews were influenced by great civilizations that preceded their own: i.e. Egypt, Babylon, Sumer. When the text of Genesis was written, the Greek culture did not exist! Then again, neither did the Hebrew culture. So where did all this information come from? Did it all just pop into existence after Moses went on a mountain top? The information precedes the ancient Hebrew race. The most ancient Sumerian text contains: seven tablets of creation. The First Tablet describes how Tiamet (covered with water and no field/land was formed) and Apsu (the asteroid) met in confusion and chaos and begot the earth. And how a race of gods called, the Anunnaki (equivalent to the Hebrew, Elohiym) arrived and temporarily occupied the dry land. Similar?
Genesis 1:26a
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: