At Cross Purposes with Academia

Chuck Missler, whom you may have heard of, considers Hebrew has a somewhat "magic" or supernatural property. Aleph (by virtue of being an ox-head, but also of letter heading the alphabet) means head. Beth means house. Aleph Beth spells Ab, which means father, and the father is the head of the house. Add H into a word, and you get the spirit of it. So, for exemple, insert an H into Ab, you should get sth which is the spirit of fatherhood. And Ahab, meaning love, has that quality.

I am not at all certain the rabbis from whom Chuck Missler have this could keep this principle going through a longer wordlist. Even as long as a Swadesh list. If they could, it would at least be very helpful for Hebrew students, as memory help for words. I am surprised that I can even make some headway with two words I happen to know. Dabar means word, apparently. Daleth-Beth-Resh. The pauper of the house that is a head? Well, words do tend to get thrown out of the heads like paupers out of houses! Tell means hill. Tau-Lamed-Lamed or Tau-Lamed plus gemination sign. Sign of ... and let Lamed stand for Lamek, mourning or despair, not sure which, we get ... sign of mourning. Some hills are that. They are grave hills. In some pagan cults these grave hills were really signs of despair. When a chieftain gets a grave hill where he is buried with favourite wife (whose throat is cut so she can be sacrificed in a grave offering), his favourite servants (dito) and favourite horse (dito), that kind of grave hill is a sign of despair. Some less evil ones are at least signs of mourning, like the tumulus after Hector or Beowulf.

I am surprised I could even make headway with "dabar" and "tell". But I am essentially not a Hebraist. However, I would merely on general linguistic probabilities not bet this goes through the language, if it does it is a marvellous thing, I am too little versed in Hebrew to judge this. Even if it went all through the nouns without touching the verbs, or even if for each verb only one of the forms (sometimes a passive or a causative) would fit, it would be a very marvellous thing, but I am not in a position to know that.

However, there is an application of this to Christian prophecy in Old Testament. This is where I came to debate with one Academic friend, and, asking Heiser, got a little lesson in linguistics, how languages work, which me being a linguist, I found a bit on cross purposes with what I had actually asked. These applications are that crucifixion is thus prefigured in the letter hieroglyphics of the Tetragrammaton and of the word Bereshit (excepting that Beth Resh are not taken hieroglyphically, they are taking as the word Bar, Aramaic for Son).

Me to Michael Heiser

07/06/15 à 14h52

this is not about Zitchins*

It is about the Tetragrammaton and Bereshit.

Can the tetragrammaton be read as "hand - praise - nail - praise"? If you like to see it as "hand praises so much the nail praises too" (which is good Catholic Theology about instruments of the Passion, by the way)?

Can bereshit be read as ber - eshit, ber = bar (aramaic for son) and the rest "[of] first - destroyed/consumed - by hand - on cross"?

Reason I ask you is I asked a fb friend of mine, and a colleague of you, he considered it moonshine.

He considered I could just as well have taken a phrase [not recalling it but hwere each initial of each word was a letter in bereshit]. "in Rome I shall keep the law".

I retorted to him we ware talking of two different procedures : in the one case of pictogrammatic treatment of the Hebrew letters, in the other case of treating Bible text as an acrostic to get words filled in according to fancy of interpreter.

Plus that in his chosen case, this phrase would acknowledge the fact (he's also a Roman Catholic) that Christ HAS kept the Law in Rome, through the papacy (not meaning He's doing so through Bergoglio, that's another story).

In other words, these interpretations which are profusely given by Chuck Missler and Trey Smith, is there some kind of kabbalistic procedure which is often acknowledged going on, or is it their own very personal fancy?

Note that by "kabbalistic procedure" I mean a procedure in use among kabbalists, like gematria (a very obvious one, and which NT specifically endorses for one purpose in 13:18 of Apocalypse), and do not mean "based on the doctrine of [e. g.] Lurian kabbalah" (I consider the latter a very false metaphysic).

Hans Georg Lundahl

M. Heiser to me

08/06/15 à 19h59

Re: this is not about Zitchins

It is about the Tetragrammaton and Bereshit.

Can the tetragrammaton be read as "hand - praise - nail - praise"?

** absolutely not; this is utter nonsense. It comes from trying to take the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, asking what original *Egyptian* sign they derive from was, and then taking that *object* (or something like it in function or appearance), and then using that object for the "meaning" of the letter. No language in the history of human speech works that way (spoken or written). The Hebrew Bible (not to mention thousands of lines of epigraphic Hebrew) utterly incomprehensible. It's another failed (and stupid) attempt at a Bible code (encrypted knowledge). It's garbage.

** Hope that's clear enough, And yes, you can quote me.

If you like to see it as "hand praises so much the nail praises too" (which is good Catholic Theology about instruments of the Passion, by the way)?

Can bereshit be read as ber - eshit, ber = bar (aramaic for son) and the rest "[of] first - destroyed/consumed - by hand - on cross"?

** ditto the above - more nonsense.

Reason I ask you is I asked a fb friend of mine, and a colleague of you, he considered it moonshine.

** it is.

Mike

Me to Michael Heiser

08/06/15 à 20h21

Re: this is not about Zitchins

The question was not whether the language** worked that way, but thanks anyway, and thanks for the clarification.

Language also does not work by gematria, as far as we know***, and yet it is for one specific purpose clearly enjoined./HGL

Note that I was not at all asking whether this reading of bereshit or of the name of God was a normal grammatical procedure, as a normal way of grasping the meaning of the text. I was totally aware it was a question of encrypted knowledge or Bible code. His considering these in general failed is nothing to my point. And yet an academic seems to think it is his duty to really take distance from that. Which was not so back in the days of Athanasius Kircher, obviously. Not that I mean his readings of Egyptian texts are better than Champollions - as basic grammatical readings, as extraction of immediate linguistic content.

* I meant Z. Sitchin, Zecharia Sitchin ... of course. I somehow trip up on his name.

** See part of my original letter: In other words, these interpretations which are profusely given by Chuck Missler and Trey Smith, is there some kind of kabbalistic procedure which is often acknowledged going on, or is it their own very personal fancy?

OK, profusely is an unnecessary word. I should have said they were very sparing about the theme, giving basically only what

*** It is for instance certain that a subject and a predicate make sense as language because of the concepts they are, not because of having a same or product of number value. And yet a gematrist will test the truth value of subject and predicate by seeing if they have same number value, or, if not, number values one of which is double the other and things. Still, for one thing (Apocalypse 13:18) we are asked to use gematria.