006* Gloss of: Creation Story – PaRDeS – Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 - Ricardo for US House 21

Manage episode 196374776 series 1936505
By Discovered by Player FM and our community — copyright is owned by the publisher, not Player FM, and audio streamed directly from their servers.

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com, www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

006* Gloss of: Creation Story – PaRDeSBere’shith Genesis 1:1

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

The problem with getting the one first thing wrong, is that everything built upon that will be skewed, hence the perennial crisis of civilization. Árbol que crece torcido, jamás su rama endereza”, as the saying goes down south.

This is telling us to go back to square one, to absolute time equal to zero, namely, the Ma‘aseh Bere’shith Work of Creation 1:1 (מעשה בראשית).

A civilization, whose being is founded on it, will grow up clueless. Showing up at the top floors with cracks, decomposition, and bewilderment. The reason is simply because the whole won’t be constituted out of its triad of parts, down the line the connection of the whole with its triad won’t be made. The whole, won’t coalesce as a triad. Instead, it will remain disconnected, on the one hand, as whole being, and on the other hand, its constituent parts, won’t be able to align beliefs, values, with actions.

But, let us take it by parts, putting the bits and pieces together of the puzzle. Figuratively speaking, we could express it as the spear, the spearhead, the tip of the spear, the subtle point of the tip, which is the endpoint of a line extending from infinity to the tip of the spear, you get the idea. Same applies here with the Bible Creation Story Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-2:3 (בראשית).

At the end of day, the penetrating power of a spear will ultimately depend on the point at the tip of the spearhead. The above analogy applies squarely regarding our question at issue of getting to the root of the problem ailing humanity. Taking it from the top and mentioning the whole sequence.

There’s the TaNaKh Bible (תנ׳׳ך), there’s the Torah Teaching (תורה) of Moses’ Chumash Pentateuch (חמש), there’s the Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-50:26 (בראשית), there’s the Bere’shith Genesis 1:1-6:8 (בראשית), there’s the Ma’aseh Bere’shith Work of InBeginningOf 1:1-2:3 (מעשה בראשית),the Creation Story, there’s also the Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית), the one-first word, there’s also the Beth B 1:1a (ב) the one-first letter, and, finally, there’s the Álef a 1:0 (א) the behind the curtains silent secret letter, one-first of Hebrew alefbeth.

There are a few sticking points that need addressing on their own in order to make significant progress. There are three items, two substantives, mayor and minor, and one procedural. The mayor item being the matter of the very first word, same that we interpret as Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית); the minor item is the matter of the so-called direct object marker that we interpret as ’eth dialogue-with-you (את); the procedural item, is regarding how to read the text, given the previous two concerns, the matter that we resolve by way of the accordion figure of speech. Once this is set in place, the rest follows smoothly.

Now, as regards the interpretations of Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית) as such, there are three versions out there, one on the Jewish flank, one on the Christian side, a hybrid one, and now a fourth, our own contribution. On a previous podcast, I was of the opinion that either they are right, or else, they’re wrong, and only one can be right. That left mine as the only one standing. Now, I have taken a sip of my own medicine, and applied the PaRDeS criterion. The possibility now unfolds that, perhaps, these four interpretations, actually, comprise a PaRDeS. This important matter will be discussed at last.

Let us start with the minor concern. The usual interpretation of ’eth (את) as direct object marker is questionable. Direct object marker means singling out something, as in Yossi rotzeh ’eth hasefer Yossi wants the book (יוסי רוצה את הספר), as distinct to Tal rotzah sefer Tal wants a book (טל רוצה ספר). In this case its usage is clearly called for, there being many books out there, and we need to know if he wants a specific one, or else, she wants anyone, not caring which one book in particular.

However, in the Creation Story 1:1, regarding its double occurrence, this situation doesn’t present itself. After all, it’s not like there are many shamáyim heavens (שמים) and áretz earth (ארץ) out there, preceding Creation, requiring singling out so as to avoid confusion in the greater universe of things. This being discarded, a different interpretation is required to make sense of its inclusion in said verse.

Then, what is it? Well, this is pretty straight forward. The ’eth (את) has various meanings. It depends on the vowel underneath the álef a (א), granted, but even then, there are still various candidates to fill the position. Comes to my mind first ’eth with (את), followed by ’eth you (את). I’m sure there are more, but these immediately come to mind.

Additionally, it happens to be the case that this unique little two-letter word just happens to be made up out of the very first and last letter of the Hebrew alefbeth, álef a (א) and tav t (ת), respectively. Recall that we’re herein talking about the very beginning of things, about absolute time equal to zero, wherein Holy Land HaÁretz HaKodesh (הארץ הקודש), Holy Book HaSefer HaKodesh (הספר הקודש) goes hand in hand with Sacred Language Lashon HaKodesh (לשון הקדש). Holy or sacred, in this context refers to the same thing.

By Holy I mean that the letters of the language have meaning. These are not arbitrary symbols signifying nothing. Rather, that each letter encapsulates a secret to be revealed to those who take the trouble of inquiring.

So, then, we interpret ’eth language (את). Language, or, dialogue, in this context would refer to the same thing. From this we construct ’eth language-with-you/dialogue-with-you (את). This settles the minor concern; now, let’s move on to the mayor one.

But before that, there are various miscellaneous items that appear, as if by added measure. Though these appear later on, we will, nonetheless deal with them here, before addressing them head-on the main concern. This refers to the usage of bara’ created (ברא) perfect aspect, creates or creating bore’ (בורא) participle, and livro’ to create (לברוא). Too much detailing would distract us from the main objective, however, these small matters do need to be mentioned, at the outset, at the very least.

Now to the main concern, addressing the very first word, Bere’shith Genesis 1:1a (בראשית) This is a make or break issue of interpretation. It is composed as follows, same that we carry over to the grounds of transliteration and translation, Be-re’sh-ith In-Beginning-Of (ב-ראש-ית). There’s also the small matter of whether it says In-theBeginning-Of, or simply, In-Beginning-Of, but we’ll not pause on it just yet. The crux of the matter is the ending, same that we’ve underlined, Be-re’sh-ith In-Beginning-Of (ב-ראש-ית).

The Septuagint, or King James Bible version, simply avoids the matter entirely, simply omitting it, the “Of”, as in “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth:” Instead of saying “In the beginning of Elohim created the heavens and the earth”. In what follows we’ll keep things tidy by solely including the translation, leaving out the transliteration, since, in any case it doesn’t affect the argument.

Rashi, a biblical commentator was the one who pointed out that this ithOf (ית-), is the genitive case. He supported his claim by comparing it to similar passages in the Bible, in particular this one in Bere’shith Genesis 10:10a-c (בראשית) Vathi reshith mamlachto And it was the beginning of his kingdom (ויהי ראשית ממלכתו). This settles the textual matter, “InBeginningOf”. The question now, is, how to circumvent this hurdle, since a pause ends the word, and nothing follows it?

We now know from experience to avoid the infinite regression argument, for this will lead us to an Eternal Universe, and hence no need for a Creator, Creation, and creatures. That is, nothing could possibly fill the possessive, like InBeginningOf “X”, for then we would immediately justifiably make the observation, and where did this “X” come from? If you say, from “Y”, this triggers the infinite regression, and, eventual opens the door to the nonsense conclusion of negating Creation altogether, as unnecessary.

Rashi further scaffolds his interpretation by the previously mentioned verbal maneuvering, plus switching verb-subject sequence to subject-verb, not testified in Hebrew. That is, the original says, “created Elohim”, and his says, “Elohim began to create”. Also, he switches the “In” to “When”. In all, it should say “InBeginningOf, created Elohim”, whereas his version says, “When Elohim began to create”. All these are minor matters, add-ons to side-stepping the genitive case constraint condition.

What he does is make the whole second verse 1:2 follow 1:1, as pause, as parenthesis, then finishing the thought with 1:3. This we quote in its entirety: 1:1 “When Elohim began to create the heavens and the earth: 1:2 the earth was unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep, and a wind from Elohim sweeping over the water: 1:3 Elohim said, “Let there be light”, and there was light:”

So much for Rashi. Now to the third one, the hybrid Jewish and Christian version. This one follows Rashi in recognizing the genitive -ithOf (ית-). However, it takes a shortcut, simply switches the subject-verb to verb-subject, and changes the perfect bara’ created (ברא), to the participle, creating.

The problem with this one is that it doesn’t make any sense either. Sure, you can make something in time, say you can make something in time, say from 3 to 4 o’clock. But Time is not made in time, it is not a process. It is the singularity, the source, not out there in the field. In any case, this we quote outright, “In the beginning of Elohim’s creating the heavens and the earth”. This would seem to be halfway between Rashi’s and the King James’ version.

In these three cases the translators’ license has been taken beyond justification. But all this wouldn’t have matter much, had it not been that their solution, by manipulating the medium, oversighted the message, altogether. And that’s what tragic to humanity moving forward. Instead of having a PaRaDiSe Earth, we’re stuck in neutral in Crisis City.

Let’s face it, the whole point of the Bible Creation Story is about how to introduce Time, Space and Mass, in such a way that it’s ultimately convincing, rewarding, and meaningful. The problem is at absolute time equals zero, not any positive time afterwards. It’s the introduction of time, temporality, that is at issue, more so than actual temporal duration. Capital T, not small t, so to speak. This delicate issue we’ll now try our hardest to address.

The only consistent interpretation to ultimately make any sense out of all this is having something behind the curtain, so to speak, having, on the one hand, álef a (א), the understood presence of something, making it all possible, and, on the other hand, ’eth language (את), coming in afterwards. This second appearance of the first letter, the álef a (א), is now linked all the way through to the end with the last letter tav t (ת) of the Hebrew alefbeth.

As for Bere’shith InHeadOf 1:1a (בראשית), it is necessarily a standalone word, just as beth b 1:1a/a (ב), is also standalone letter, as interphase. Any other solution would just be circular, faulting as circular argument, using what you’re defining in the definition itself.

The Bible is self-contained. There is nothing outside, nor above, to explain it. Rather its purpose is to explain everything. No stopwatch could possibly clarify what time is. Time is a given, an undefinable, an axiom, what you start with, not, what you arrive at.

But, not so fast. This Bere’shith InHeadOf 1:1a (בראשית) is the goalkeeper, need I say more? Civilization stands, or falls, on it. The Creation Story isn’t just so that we know how it all happened, came to be, but, additionally, to teach us how we, in turn, are to know. Thus, PaRDeS, is our thesis, if there’s one.

In what follows, to narrow the vocabulary population, we’ll drop the “Head” and in its place use instead the more customary one of “Beginning”, as in “InBeginningOf”, rather than “InHeadOf”. In the book, I don’t follow this recommendation, perhaps, not only because it’s also shorter, but in order to distinguish its primary from its derivative meaning by extension.

In any case, now, Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) is a standalone, a noun, and a phrase: we now have, starting with “In”, an interphase noun, due to its connection with what lies behind the curtain, the álef a (א)), then we follow up with “Beginning” verb, and, finally, the “Of”, the object, and or the adjective.

Though the opening word Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) is this side of Creation, needless to say, it is still a secret. It is this side of Creation since it’s about the beginning. However, the “Of”, with comma, immediately with nothing following, makes it secret, or referring to, if to nothing specific, then, it must be referring to everything in general, or Creation proper. But, though secret, it still does have a name, Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית).

The opening word Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית) serves various functions. For starts, it serves connecting with the previous virtual letter álef a (א), that’s behind the curtain, so to speak, as stand alone, signifying the theme of Creation, and additionally it serves as subject, as noun regarding what comes next. This last point is referring to Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InBeginnngOf created Elohim 1:1a-c (בראשית ברא אלהים) Its other functions we’ll cover later on.

Now to another point, that, by the way, Rashi doesn’t comment. The question is regarding the beth b (ב), since it has a shewa, a vocal one at that, a couple of vertical dots underneath, as in (בְ). The question is whether it should read, InTheBeginningOf, or else InBeginningOf. Let’s take it by parts, one at a time.

Generally, the following grammatical rule applies: Be- In- (בְּ-), with shewa underneath, and ha- the- (הַ-), with vowel patach underneath, thus gives us, BeHa- InThe- (בַּ-), with patach vowel underneath. That is, the patach of ha- the- (הַ-) underneath substitutes the original shewa Be- In- (בְּ-). However, we actually have only (בְּ-), with shewa underneath. This leaves no doubt that there shouldn’t be “The”. That is, it is not the case “InTheBeginningOf”. Instead, the correct interpretation is “InBeginningOf”.

However, this causes a concern, since it isn’t clear which should be. We know it’s not BeHa InThe- (בַּ-), with patach underneath, because that’s not what appears in the text. But this still leaves two options, Be– InA- (בְּ-), with shewa underneath, or something else, still to be determined. The problem is that there’s no indefinite article in Hebrew, equivalent to our “A”, like in “a book”. The question isn’t whether it’s either “the” or “a”, but, rather, whether it’s neither, or either.

The question is which of the three is it: InABeginningOf, InTheBeginningOf, or else, simply InBeginningOf? If it’s not InTheBeginningOf, then neither is it InABeginningOf, for obvious reasons, since Creation itself a unique happening. We just saw that it isn’t InTheBeginningOf, that leaves InBeginningOf. There is a strong, “a”, a stronger, “the”, and a strongest, “”, with nothing at all.

The, “the”, sounds like a chronological narrative, of sorts. On the other hand, lacking the definite and the indefinite article, the absence of the “The” and the “A”, alongside the cliffhanger “Of”, dovetails well to highlight the character of Creation proper.

Let’s put it all together now. The three parts that constitutes the first word Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית). Firstly, the beth b (ב) connecting with the behind the curtain álef a (א), with álef a (א) playing the part of PaRDeS, of the whole, somehow. Then, now this side of Creation follows the other aspect of the letter beth b (ב), the issue of the missing article, neither definite nor indefinite, that we discovered and settled in favor of “InBeginningOf”. The second part of the word, “Resh”, “Head”, we have already convened miles behind, to follow convention and interpret “InHeadOf” as “InBeginningOf”.

Lastly, will come the cliffhanger “Of”, not especially signaling anything specific, but universal, such that as that by elimination, thus necessarily pointing at the infinite absolute whole. Overall, it’s Creation. But, still it does have a name, Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית). This word is a substantive, a noun, the first name to appear, so it must be Sod Secret (סוד), as whole, standalone.

But, how does it all continue to unfold, at the end of the day? This is where comes into scene the notion of the Triad within PaRDeS. Recall that we just included, after a long excursion, and not without mental reservations, that Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1a (בראשית), can be represented within the scheme of PaRDeS as Sod Secret (סוד), as whole, as standalone.

Therefore, in consonance with the core insight of PaRDeS, it would seem to follow that Bere’shith bara’ ’Elohim InBeginningOf created Elohim 1:1a-c (בראשית ברא אלהים), would next be represented by Derash Discover (דרש). That is, that we discovered there is ’Elohim Elohim (אלהים) in Creation. It is rightly named Rémez Remite (רמז), because it does precisely that, it remits us to inquire, thanks to language, to search out for the connection between the world of things and the world of ideas, somehow.

Then, insofar as there is discovery, there must be a Discoverer. That is, one, who in turn, creates language. In following with the triad sequence within the PaRDeS scheme, this next one would then correspond to Rémez Remite (רמז). That is to say, we would then have bara’ ’Elohim ’eth created Elohim language-with-you 1:1b-d (ברא אלהים את) corresponding to Rémez Remite (רמז).

Finally, the physical world, and what piles on top of it, the heavens, for the earth cannot be understood but as a body, at the bottom of mind and spirit. It is Peshat Plain (פשט), with ’Elohim ’eth hashshamáyim ve’eth ha’áretz Elohim is language-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth 1:1c-g (אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ).

A cue before moving on, and it’s that beth b (ב) and Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית), are like education, like teaching science. The educator teaches and the student learns, but the teacher can’t learn for the student, that’s the half that the student contributes. After all, isn’t that the designation of The Holy Book HaSefer HaKodesh (הספר הקודש), namely, Torah Teaching (תורה)?

Now to the four interpretations of Bere’shith Genesis 1:1 (בראשית). There are four, does that mean that three are wrong, and one is right? Could it also be the case that they’re all right, in their own partial ways, with only one, entirely right?

If I were to choose how to distribute them, it would be as follows. Of the triad, I would identify the King James’ version with Peshat Plain (פשט), the hybrid Christian-Jewish one as Rémez Remite (רמז), and Rashi’s as Derash Discover (דרש). Of the whole, I would identify the interpretation we’re endorsing with Sod Secret (סוד). Overall, they would then comprise the PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס).

We are body, mind, and spirit. But, are we all there is? That is, living and inert are ultimately body, mind, and spirit. So, the question again is, is that all there is, body, mind, and spirit? No, of course not. There’s also the Divine.

So, then, is it safe to conclude that there is the Divine, by itself, and then, there’s the mixture of living and inert, better known as body, mind, and spirit? If so, we would then be in agreement that PaRDeS is verily the case.

Herein we would then have, of PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), Sod Secret (סוד) the whole is the Divine, with the triad of the mixture, of PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), as Derash Discover (דרש), Rémez Remite (רמז), and Peshat Plain (פשט).

The structure we’re suggesting is as follows: X; X, is; X made Y; Y is language; Y is dialogue-with these and d-w that. InBeginningOf is stand alone, as existential. Later on, it unfolds as subject and other roles.

For pedagogical reasons, we have limited our discussion to verse 1:1. Less is more: al buen entendedor, pocas palabras. Our version is: “InBeginningOf, created Elohim; dialogue-with the heavens, and dialogue-with the earth.” This, in turn, unfolds fourfold as: “InBeginningOf”; “InBeginningOf created Elohim”; “created Elohim language-with-you”; “Elohim is language-with the heavens and dialogue-with the earth”.

Before parting, one more thing. Just like it’s an accepted maxim that the Bible is self-contained; based on that, I would say that the Creation Story is self-contained, even more so. Everything after it is derivative, hardly can it be used as scaffolding to what preceded time itself.

Why does the Torah Teaching (תורה) begin with the Creation Story Bere’shith InBeginningOf 1:1-2:3 (בראשית)? Given that according to Rashi its purpose is to teach the Beney Yisrael Children of Israel (בני ישראל) the Mitzvoth Commandments (מצות). Coming from a rabbi, his view is as RM 2222. Ours, by contrast, is less winding; simply put, it was given to humanity, first and foremost, and, only historically, to a particular people worthy of it.

Anything beyond this, carrying the discussion further, is above me, in any case, so I drop the ball to mind my own business. It isn’t even addressed to anyone, or anybody, but to ’Adám Adam (אדם), a sort of hermaphrodite; humanity, as such, wasn’t even around, appearing but until the second Creation story 2:4-24.

The Torah Teaching (תורה), and its core message PaRDeS PaRaDiSe (פרדס), is nobody’s and everybody’s. It was put out there first, then given to Ha’Adám The Adam (האדם), and only much later to an ancestry.

However, once this is settled, we need to move on to verses 1:1-3, and from there onwards up to 1:5, to complete one day, and yonder. Of course, covering all this would definitely be outside the scope of a campaign site.

The takeaway of all this is simply that the one step is the most important, for the second step follows the first, and so on. The one step is the cornerstone, square one, determining what is built on top of it thereafter. The final outcome of civilization depends on getting it right from the very beginning of, that is, from absolute time equal to zero.

Much has been said above, so far, rests only to put all this in a neat manner for ease of consulting. This we now proceed to display in synoptic slide format.

We can communicate, it helps that we are speaking in the same language. But, why does it work? Well, in grade school our teacher taught us to express our thoughts in sentences, that these are made up of subject, verb, and object/adjective. But, where do we know this from? I endorse Revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai, that it must be from the first document, the Torah Teaching (תורה). The Creation Story is about teaching us how to emulate Creation in turn. Lesson one is alef a (א), second lesson is alefbethgimel abg (אבג), third lesson is Bere’shith InBeginningOf (בראשית), and so on. And, how do we know it?

Let’s see, in bara’ti I created (בראתי). This is perfect aspect, meaning completion, not past tense, in time, as no longer valid moving forward. By gematria we know the following to be accurate, as far as we can tell, (ב2-ר200-א1-ת400-י10 = בראתי613). From this the sages conclude that this would require fulfilling the 613 Mitzvoth Commandments (מצות). Since no one is obliged to do the impossible, given the present-day ground conditions, there must be another interpretation. If we keep doing the math, and simply add across we get (6+1+3=10). This is one removed from one; that must be referring to us, since we know to whom the One refers to.

But, how do we know it? Because we’re supposed to finish the job, which means as above interpreted to mean PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for World Repair.

This PaRDeS business is nothing new. It has been around for at least fifteen hundred years. The sages knew it all along, but were under the prohibition of divulging it. That was then, now is now. It’s out there now.

Yours truly, Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla

The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit www.Ric4USH21.com, www.PaRDeSism.com, and get my book “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101” in English and Spanish translation, in paperback and digital.

Thank you, so very much. God, bless.

9 episodes available. A new episode about every 7 days averaging 20 mins duration .