Home (Netzarim Logo)

Yemenite Weekly Torah Reading (Netzarim Israel)

(bᵊ-Reish•it 1.1—6.8) ' ' '—'
bᵊ-Reish•it 6.5-8 :(Ma•phᵊtir)
TorâhHaphtârâhÂmar Ribi YᵊhoshuaMᵊnorat ha-Maor

Rainbow Rule
Setting: ca. B.C.E. 13.3 Gigayears
Location:              (nonexistent)
universe expanding bubble attraction strings (EurekAlert 20190101)
Click to enlargeUniverse – expanding bubble illustrates external attraction via strings (Uppsala University, Journal: Physical Review Letters; EurekAlert 2019.01.01)
Quadrupole electromagnetic field
Click to enlargeThe Nᵊtiy•âh ha-Gᵊdōl•âh (ex nihilonot a "Big Bang" of noth­ing that – Poof!self-​detonatedassuming the universe in an infinitely small (i.e. nonexistent) point.

The Nᵊtiy•âh ha-Gᵊdōl•âh effect can be illustrated by 4 external magnets to create a multi-monopole field reaction (anti-) forces within, il­lus­trat­ing the principle of a Prime External At­trac­tive Force that comprise the 4 elementary forces of all matter & energy in our universe – while resolving inflation, horizon and accelerating expansion flaws in the "Big Bang" theory!

5779 (2019.06, science research update)

Kavli IPMU & M.I.T. Physicists Converging With My Model
Holograph-Like Multi-Monopole Forces Envelope Universe
A diagram used to prove that quantum gravity cannot have any global symmetry. Symmetry, if existed, could act only on the shaded regions in the diagram and causes no change around the black spot in the middle. The shaded regions can be made as small as we like by dividing the boundary circle more and more. Thus, the alleged symmetry would not act anywhere inside of the circle. Contradiction. (Credit: Harlow and Ooguri)
Click to enlargeA diagram used to prove that quantum gravity cannot have any global symmetry. Shad­ed regions surrounding the uni­verse depict the effects of a symmetrical quan­tum gravity. Lim Rn→∞=0. Asymmetrical Dark m & E imply asymmetrical external Dark forces. (Dia­gram: Harlow and Ooguri, color en­hanced by Yirmᵊyahu Ben-David)

Its been clear to me for decades that the nothing surrounding the initial infinitely small point (i.e. non-existent nothing) of the Big Bang (scientists Poof) Theory, must, instead, be understood as an application of forces by an external Source that resulted in a reaction that created matter and energy, our universe.

Scientists acknowledge that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are nothing more than meaningless phrases to fill a void of scientific observations that implacably contradict the math of Einsteins Theory of Relativity.

Based on the multi-monopole model Ive been developing since well befoe 2006, its long been clear to me that these anomalous forces derive from a Source external to our universe. This implies that we need a different model from the Poof magic of an infinitely small point of nothing—Poof!—self-detonating into a universe where there is nothing external.

Matter and energy, as well as asymmetrical globs of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, especially together, suggest that Visible matter and energy emanate from their asymmetric Dark complements.

Hirosi Ooguri (Director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, Japan) & Daniel Harlow (Assistant Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) grappled (as I have) with the gravity anomaly. There are four kinds of fundamental forces in Nature: electromagnetism, strong [nuclear] force, weak [nuclear] force, and gravity. Of the four, the gravity is the only one still unexplainable at the quantum level. Researchers believe the holographic principle is an important hint to combine the gravity and quantum mechanics successfully.

A hologram makes three-dimensional images pop out from a two-dimensional screen. Similarly, the holographic principle allows physicists to study gravitational systems by projecting them on a boundary that surrounds the entire Universe.

Their result has several important consequences. In particular, it predicts that the protons are stable against decaying into other elementary particles, and that magnetic monopoles exist.

My Womb Model Of The Universe
human placental structure: uterus & fetus
Click to enlargeMy Womb Model of the universe likens the universe and whatever may be beyond to a human placental structure: a cosmic uterus, placenta & fetus)

Finally, scientists are grappling with a boundary; and a boundary acknowledges an implied external to the universe, which further implies my longstanding alternative view of the universe—not bound to internals as other scientists have allowed themselves to be constrained. My conception is the Womb Model of the universe; a fetus within an enveloping uterus boundary.

Superseding the faulty Big Bang Theory, my Womb Model encourages us to ask how our universe may be interconnected with this uterus-like boundary and what may be outside the uterus-like boundary? Dark matter and energy may be our view of the fetal-side of an asymmetrically partially enveloping cosmic placenta. Black Holes may be analogous to the interiors of cosmic villous trees. Instead of insisting that nothing is beyond our universe (ergo, dont ask questions), my model prods scientists to insist on asking, Whats beyond? What is the Prime Source?

5779 (2018.10, science research update)

Physicists Admit "No Answer" Impossibility To Continue Avoiding A Creator

Update 2018.10.18: "A longstanding theory, the Standard Model of particle physics describes most of the fundamental forces and particles in the universe. The model is a mathematical picture of reality, and no laboratory experiments yet performed have contradicted it.

"This lack of contradiction has been puzzling physicists for decades.

" 'The Standard Model as it stands cannot possibly be right because it cannot predict why the universe exists,' said Gabrielse, the Board of Trustees Professor of Physics at Northwestern. 'That's a pretty big loophole.' … Until researchers find evidence to the contrary, the electron's round shape -- and the universe's mysteries — will remain."

5777 (2017.10, science research updates)

Update 2017.05.22 — EurekAlert "The common lineage of great apes and humans split several hundred thousand [years] earlier than hitherto assumed, according to an international research team headed by Professor Madelaine Böhme from the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment at the University of Tübingen and Professor Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The researchers investigated two fossils of Graecopithecus freybergi with state-of-the-art methods and came to the conclusion that they belong to pre-humans. Their findings, published today in two papers in the journal PLOS ONE, further indicate that the split of the human lineage occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean and not – as customarily assumed – in Africa."

Rainbow Rule
CMB, cold spot
Click to enlargeCold Spot in the Cosmic Microwave Back­ground (CMB – Universe Radiation Afterglow; Wilkinson Microwave An­i­so­tropy Probe; WMAP)

Update 2017.04.27 – Research led by postgraduate student Ruari Mackenzie and Professor Tom Shanks in Durham University's Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy suggests that the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) may be related to the initial creation of the universe. "Mackenzie commented: 'The voids we have detected cannot explain the Cold Spot under standard cosmology.'  … Shanks added: "This means we can't entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard model. But if that isn't the answer, then there are more exotic explanations.' "

On the other hand, their unscientific and irresponsible "most exciting" sensationalist speculations of "exotic explanations" involving infinite bubble multiverses lack any scientifically credible compelling evidence and do nothing but infinitely kick the can down the road so that the question of a beginning ex nihilo never needs to be answered. (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society)

Rainbow Rule

Update 2017.04.08 – Still more new physics research, this time from Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary questioning the assertions of dark matter & energy in the accelerating expansion of the universe, continues, yet again, to confirm more aspects of my interpretations of the Biblical definition. Though it will likely be still some time before they understand how, their animation video proves my uFrames (uFr) construct. Pause the video at any point. You're looking at the uFrame for 1 quantum moment, a freeze-frame stoppage in time throughout the universe, an instant moment in which nothing, anywhere in the universe, changes, even at the quantum level.

From any given local point in this uFr (quantum moment), there remains an infinite number of non-local, (Einstein-) relative, potential "perceived times"; each with its own time lag relative to its distance from the local point. When Hubble returns an image from 3 billion light years away, it's true that we're seeing something that happened out there 3 billion light years ago. What's not true is that it's out there at all! It was out there 3 billion light years ago and we're just finding out about it. But it will be another 3 billion years before we can find out what's out there now, in this uFr! So what you see out there, was out there a long time ago, but isn't there now in our uFrs. Something else, or nothing, is out there now that we cannot know about for eons.

(Incidentally, these things are also true of short distances, just less discernible. If lightning strikes very near you, you might not notice any time lag between the lightning and the thunder. Similar to the time lag between seeing a lightning bolt and hearing its thunder, gravitational distortions are easier to discern at greater distances. But the same distortions also exist no matter how close, even though the distortions become indiscernibly small when speaking face-to-face or touching something physically. At the quantum level, physical "solid" matter is our perception of quantum forces that seem to us "solid particles"; ergo, touching is also a perception, of quantum forces encountering other quantum forces. Electromagnetically levitating [maglev] trains, and electromagnetically constrained particles, beams and accelerators all make the point that "solid matter," even including our physical bodies, are merely the set of forces whose behaviors are observable within the visible spectrum of light.)

My interpretation of the Biblical definition preserves the internal relativity suggested by Einstein while resolving many long-standing contradictions in the conventional "Big Bang" theory, suggesting possible solutions to many enigmas and outstanding contradictions in current – mutually contradictory – relativity and quantum theories. These are all logical and scientific benefits of reconciling and marrying the best scientific advancements in knowledge with the Biblical Nᵊtiy•âh ha-Gᵊdōl•âh ("Big Stretch-Apart"). For more details see previous years' commentaries below.

A short animation that shows the expansion of the universe in the standard 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter' cosmology, which includes dark energy (top left panel red), the new AvERA model, that considers the structure of the universe and eliminates the need for dark energy (top middle panel, blue), and the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology, the original model without dark energy (top right, green). The panel at the bottom shows the increase of the 'scale factor' (an indication of the size) as a function of time. The growth of structure can also be seen in the top panels. One dot roughly represents an entire galaxy cluster. Units of scale are in Megaparsecs (Mpc), where 1 Mpc is around 3 million million million [i.e., 3 quintillion] km. (Video: István Csabai et al.)
Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5766 (2005.10)

Updated 5776 (2015), 5775 (2014) & 5767 (2006)
Electromagnetic Multi-pole Field
Electromagnetic Multi-pole Field – illustrates how switching on an external Attractive Force (Extractive), aka the Prime Force, could attract or pull apart – a Big Stretch-Apart (BStrA) of… nothing, creating a reaction set of anti-forces where, previously, there had been nothing at all. No more starting with an assumed universe in a point. Physics requires that nothing cannot go bang, much less self-detonate!

Because much of this year's exegesis will be based on that of previous years, readers are advised to first study the exegeses of previous years, beginning with 5753.

One of the typical questions raised about the compatibility of with truth and science is that reports that vegetation, which cannot exist without sunlight, was created on the third "day," before the creation of the sun (on the fourth "day"); an apparent paradox.

This overlooks, however, 's report (2.5) that none of the vegetation had been "planted." In other words, the essential elements of vegetation were present, but they had not yet developed into vegetation until after rain and sun had developed.

Similarly, a body form came into existence for man on the sixth "day" (1.26) but sapience of homo sapien—man—didn't develop until an unspecified period later (2.7).

All of the creation account in has to be viewed in this way, remembering that was written by ancient humans and, wherever fallible humans are involved, so is the introduction of error.

magnetic fields, black hole and event horizon
Click to enlargeUpdate: 2015.12.04: Astrophysicists confirm I'm right! Event Horizon Telescope reveals magnetic fields at Milky Way's central black hole (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; image: M. Weiss/CfA)

On the other hand, modern humans completely ignore their own fallibility. In our lifetimes, things we "knew" were scientifically impossible have been proven fundamentally false by new discoveries. For thousands of years, light traveled instantly, until it didn't. For thousands of years, everything that went up came down, until it didn't. For thousands of years, life couldn't exist without light, now we find it does. One who supposes to be intellectual must not only dismiss magic (supernatural hocus-pocus) but be circumspect about the limitations and fallibility of modern science as well as ancient science. Not many years from now, today's lens, which non-scientists (and a number of incompetent scientists) "know" as scientifically absolute truths will be considered ridiculous exactly the same way we regard ancient science ridiculous. (Humbling, ain't it?) Oy, yoy, yoy!

Torus, simple type of mathematical E8 Lie Group
Torus, mathematical "Lie Group." Research physicist Garrett Lisi surmised that "each one of these circles can be associated with a different kind of elementary particle"; illustrating the symmetry essential to their interacting elliptical orbits.

Looking at a problem from different perspectives, using allegories, sometimes enables new insights. We can think of history, the procession of events in mankind's progress, as a log containing the ultimate truths of the universe. At the far, root, end is the earliest recorded history. Periodically, a man who was looking has found a hole in the log with a lens through which he could peer at what is inside the log. These lenses are man's perspectives, recorded at various points in the historical record. The lens through which the ancients peered is weak, dark and distorted compared to the lens through which we peer. On the other hand, we've become further away from the origin, the far end of the log. We must also bear in mind, however, that, similarly, the lenses that we cannot yet perceive, through which our posterity will one day peer, will be superior to our lens. Yet, we are all looking at, and trying to understand, the same, unchanging, truth: what is the truth inside the log? Only the lenses improve over time, what is truly inside the log doesn't change. (Though wood rots inside a physical log, perfect truth doesn't change. This is a metaphoric log.) is the first extant set of lenses, through which the earliest ancients peered inside this log.

Logic NOR gate

There cannot be a contradiction in an absolute (perfect) truth. Therefore, this is the only log that contains ultimate truth. Ergo, assertions that conflict with what is in the log are false. Too often, however, illogical men wrongly claim that assertions that conflict with what they interpret – what they think they see – through the lens are false. Interpretation isn't intrinsically a logical claim. Indeed, often what fundamentalists interpret through the lens intractably contradicts logic, science and truth—. However, by definition a contradiction between Truth and is impossible. ( is truth. Logic is truth. Therefore, logic and cannot be contradictory. If they appear contradictory, the contradiction is in the lens = perspective or interpretation.) Such illogical men cannot appreciate, and factor in, their own myopia.

= Truth
Logic = Truth, therefore
Torah = Logic (Ram•ba"m was right!)

The trick is to distinguish between the lenses and what is truly inside this log to grasp the truth. This can only be achieved by applying logic to discern its compatibility with science and the latest knowledge. Relating to eternal truths can never be achieved by the intractably contradictory opposite: insisting that all ancients, especially rabbis, were infallible and, therefore, that rabbis must "refine"—never question—the fabulized A•gâd•âh.

A near totality (≈95%) of the flock of Israel reject the A•gâd•âh – foolish, fabulized, magical tales that rabbis ignorantly and falsely advertise as . This flock is correct in their rejection of fabulized interpretations and allegories (fables). However, the flock strays when it ignores the truth that is within the log.

Update 2006: The primary lens at every point in this allegorical log is the "best scientific understanding" at that given time. The ancients hypothesized that creation occurred in stages (which, science still thinks is correct), which, for numerological reasons, they viewed in seven periods that, for lack of better description, they labeled "days." They hypothesized the emergence of (â•dâm) in stages over time (first hominid and, only later, sapience). Explaining a mate for â•dâm emerging at the same point in time, and the same locale on the earth, however, clearly boggled their minds, as it has all minds since.

Geneticists calculate – highly speculatively – that tens of thousands of years or more separate significant DNA (genetic) mutations. Thus, a mutation transforming a sub-human hominid (Neanderthal, etc.) to a homo sapien human occurring in two sub-human hominids, more specifically one female and one male, at the same point in time is so astronomically improbable as to be constructively impossible. Explaining this still seems to baffle scientists who note that the earliest human mother appears to predate the earliest human father by 84,000 years ('The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves,' New York Times, 2000.05.02 & 'Genetic Adam never met Eve,' BBC. 2000.10.30).

Update 2015: On the other hand, a team of archeologists and anthropologists from Hebrew University in Yᵊru•shâ•layim now find that the two coexisted in the Biblical Israeli Gâ•lil more than 50,000 years ago.

It's no wonder that, to fill the obvious void in the story, the ancients supplied their best educated guess of their time.

If there is an interpretation of the account in bᵊ-Reish•it, other than that already given, that corresponds with the most recent scientific understanding such interpretation is subtle. Interpreting this to correspond with the Biblical account yields:

"Studies of mitochondrial DNA, the segment of genetic material that is inherited exclusively from the mother, … our most recent common [maternal human] ancestor is thought to be a woman who lived in Africa some 143,000 years ago, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve" (BBC). Studies of the Y chromosome, which only men carry, suggests that our most recent paternal ancestor would have lived about 59,000 years ago, some 84,000 years younger than our maternal one (BBC). Given this 84,000 year separation between the two independent homo sapien-transforming genetic mutations, how could homo sapiens have reproduced? How do we explain our own existence?

Other observations of the evolution scientists offer an explanation. The great puzzle as to why Neanderthals and similar sub-human hominids became extinct is almost certainly related. In B.C.E. 142k (143,000 years ago), Mitochondrial Eve had no human male with which to mate. Clearly, for the mutated human gene to survive, Mitochondrial Eve and her offspring mated with the sub-humans around her. Her male offspring, for some reason not yet known, were incapable of survival. Perhaps like a mule, the offspring of a donkey and a horse, they could not reproduce. In the 84k years between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam, there would be an enormous number of human women, all of whom were mating with sub-humans—until Y-chromosome Adam. These two would be the pair described in Ta•na"kh as •dâm and (Khaw•âh).

Once two humans had mated and produced offspring (59,000 years ago when Y-chromosome Adam appeared, ca. B.C.E. 57k to meet and mate with a female offspring of Mitochondrial Eve), however, there would be a natural tendency for humans to begin mating exclusively among themselves—exactly as described in Ta•na"kh, and excluding sub-humans. again exactly as described in Ta•na"kh. (This may be another reason for the strong Biblical prohibitions against cross-breeding.) Subsequent history demonstrates that the mating between a distant offspring of Mitochondrial Eve, Khaw•âh, and Y-chromosome •dâm survived and the offspring of exclusively chimps and other lower primates survived while the many offspring of all cross-breeding in between (over the 84k+ years) failed to survive.

It is well established in Ta•na"kh that various attributes were associated with body organs that we now know were misunderstood. The kidney was associated with spiritual introspection, the brain was understood to be the seat of abstract intellectuality and awareness, the heart to be the seat of one's spirit (desire or will) and the liver to be the seat of logic and pragmatism. Later, with the development of Qa•bâl•âh in medieval times, the brain, heart and liver were illogically associated, respectively, with Adam, Eve and the "primordial snake" (the earthly embodiment of Sâ•tân). Thus, the Qabbalists' view of the liver (rational, logical) changed to view logic and the rational world as Satanic in favor of the "divine irrational"—mysticism. Roll eyes

From ancient times, the (tzeilâ; rib, side [geom.]) was understood as the structural agent that determined—designed—an animal's torso (the horizontal or vertical orientation, i.e., quadrupedal versus bipedal), size and shape. In the same tradition as the heart and liver were mistakenly related to desire, will, logic and pragmatism, when used in the context of a creative or design element of an animal today we should understand tzeilâ to equate to the design element revealed by modern science: a gene:

HemistichHebrewTransliteration & EnglishInterpretation Compatible With Latest Science
2.21a -- - wa-ya•peil ‑‑ Ël•oh•im, tardeim•âh al-hâ-âdâm wa-yiyshân, And caused to fall, ‑‑ Ël•oh•im, a deep-slumber over hâ-âdâm, and he slept;And ‑‑ Ël•oh•im caused a suspension of reproduction, that would make mankind (all male lines) dormant
2.21b , wa-yiqakh, akhat mi-tzalotâyv, wa-yisjor bâ•sâr takhtënâh, and He took one of his ribs, and He closed the flesh under itand He took one of the hominid (Neanderthal or similar) genes, and He closed the reproduction of the resulting males (or whatever caused the eventual extinction of all resulting male lines, while allowing the perpetuation of female lines, for 84k years) subsequent to it
2.22a -- -wa-yi•vën ‑‑ Ël•oh•im ët-ha-tzeilâ, and built / constructed ‑‑ Ël•oh•im the ribthen ‑‑ Ël•oh•im built / constructed (i.e., evolved) the gene
2.22b- - a•shër-lâqakh min-hâ-âdâm lᵊ-ish•âh, which he took from hâ-âdâm to the womanwhich he took from a hominid (Neanderthal or similar) to the woman (Mitochondrial Eve)
2.22c -wa-yᵊvi•ëhâ ël-hâ-âdâm, and He brought her to hâ-âdâmand He continued her matriarchal lineage until the appearance of hâ-âdâm (Y-chromosome •dâm); who mated with Khaw•âh, a maternal descendent of Mitochondrial Eve; the first mated pair of humans and, therefore, the first human couple able to reproduce.

There is a chain of authority in the Beit-Din system ordained at Har Sin•ai; but the tradition of infallibility of any given Beit-Din—even the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dol—is a contradiction of . (Even Mosh•ëh was fallible – and, consequent to his disobedience, ‑‑ barred him from entering Yi•sᵊrâ•eil! Furthermore, there was a sacrifice exclusively and specifically for the errors of the Beit-Din ha-Ja•dol!) One who would serve ‑‑ must follow His rules: a Beit-Din, which is the product and legacy of earlier Bat•ei-Din with an unbroken chain back to Har Sin•ai, determining mi•shᵊpât based on logic, science and truth directly; not based on men—be they rabbis, priests, preachers, imams or swamis.

Following men instead of is a fundamental and fatal flaw that is intractably incompatible with . Following rabbis, priests or preachers is the antithesis of serving ‑‑. Neither logic, science nor truth—the essence within —is so wondrous and distant that one cannot grasp it—nor does it permit any cleric to insert himself as an intermediary to bring it to you (Dᵊvâr•im 30.11-20).

To practice like Mosh•ëh and Israel at Har Sin•ai, today's Yᵊr•ei ‑‑ must apply logic and modern scientific principles directly to in order to arrive at valid Ha•lâkh•âh rather than continue to unquestioningly promulgate many errors; changes introduced as innovations (reforms) by Medieval rabbis due to their Medieval lack of knowledge, injecting their accompanying Medieval myriad superstitions and ritual incantation (prohibited magic), as well as European misconceptions about a Middle Eastern (not European!) people, culture and religion.

In most cases, the historical (rabbinic) Ha•lâkh•âh is confirmed. The Principles (viz., ë•mët, tzëdëq, khësëd, ra•kham•im, etc. – summarized by Ribi Hi•leil), which are what comprise and define Tor•âh, are perfect and unchanging. When medieval and European misconceptions clash with logic and a modern scientific understanding of , however, the Ha•lâkh•âh, and resultant Practice, must be corrected. Restored Tor•âh remains unchanged.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5760 (1999.10)

Updated (and copyrights extended): 1999, 2013, 2014 (1999.10.24, 2013.11.09, 2014.08.17)
Creation: "Big Stretch-Apart" (BStrA)
The Role of Science vis-à-vis Religion
photon orbital angular momentum entanglement (visualization)
(See CalTech article.) Photon orbital angular momentum entanglement. SETI is a fool's approach to detecting distant intelligence that requires billions of years for today's distant signals to reach us. Intelligent life, if it exists, will recognize that instant communication via photon entanglement is the only practical method to communicate over vast distances.

Before dismissing creation as science, bear in mind that I approach the Bible as a computer scientist in artificial intelligence and a Mensan, not as an imagineering Arts (or, lower down the intellectual scale, "Divinity") major preacher, rabbi or pot-smoking meta-philosopher. While wormholes in space are increasingly, and properly, being relegated to the realm of science-fiction, the Discovery Science TV series by that unfortunate name, lucidly narrated by Morgan Freeman, is an excellent introduction into a liberal sampling of research physicists and their latest scientific thinking about the universe geared toward explaining what is reality and creation for the ordinary person: Through the Wormhole. I strongly recommend watching the entire (4 seasons, so far) collection of episodes to familiarize yourself with the many theories that are popular today.

Religious doctrines and teachers out of synch with the reality of the latest science are out of synch with the reality of the Omniscient Creator – ‑‑.

As Einstein once remarked, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Clerics, including rabbis, who contradict science are purveyors of Dark Ages superstitions and idolatries that contradict and deny the logical – real and authentic – exegeses of the of ‑‑!

Rainbow Rule Intractable Flaws In The "Big Bang" Theory

[2014] Physicists acknowledge a couple of intractable conundrums in their "Big Bang" Theory, which are readily documented in any reasonable internet search: primarily (1) the "Horizon" Conundrum (Problem) and (2) the "Flatness" Conundrum (Problem).

5th Grade, Rio Grande Elem, 1953
Click to enlargeSame class, same kids, same school, (different room, 5th grade 2 years later – 1st class photo), Rio Grande Elementary, 1953. Clint Van Nest is the boy sitting behind the girl with the sign.

My earliest memory of contemplating these anomalies dates back to my second-grade class, under "Miss Theo" (Caldwell), in Rio Grande Elementary School, N.J. That would have been somewhere around the year 1950. Miss Theo had asked the class how many stars we think are in the night sky. The class responded with the usual answers and Miss Theo countered with the standard answer: millions. But, I had a question (and we had to stand up to ask questions). "Miss Theo, you said that the stars are thousands of light years away, right? So, that means that we're seeing stars that were there thousands of years ago. So, we can't know if any of those stars that we see in the night sky are still there now?" When the class laughed at me like I was a buffoon that's when I first realized that, as perhaps some neuroscientists may grasp, I'm one of those who spend my days in the future, mentally living in that future, only occasionally making a begrudging return to explain it to other peoples' now.

The Horizon Conundrum: Physicists apparently didn't notice this problem from the long obvious simple observation, which I noticed as a child around 1950. Rather, this seems to only have become apparent as an isotropic anomaly of the microwave background radiation remnant of the "Big Bang". Since an isotropic anomaly of the microwave background radiation is more complicated to explain (the reader can simply Google it), I'll offer the more obvious conundrum as explanation. If you look out in one direction at the night sky to the farthermost galaxy we can detect, we can find a galaxy around 10 billion light-years away. We can also do the same thing looking in the opposite direction. That means the two galaxies we are looking at were 10 + 10 = 20 billion light years from each other.

Since each of these two galaxies are 10 billion light years from us, that means we're seeing the light that left these galaxies 10 billion years ago. In other words, we're now seeing (our "now") these two galaxies where and how they were 10 billion years ago — when they were 20 billion light years from each other.

Here's the conundrum: The universe came into existence about 13.77 billion years ago. Ergo, 10 billion years ago, when we are (!) looking at these two galaxies, the universe was only 13.77 - 10 = 3.77 billion years old. So, how did entire galaxies of matter get 20 billion light years apart from each other in only 3.77 billion years if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light??? (Each is beyond the light-range horizon of the other.)

The Flatness Conundrum: If physicists were less obscurantists they would have labeled this "The Density Conundrum." If the universe had been even a scant bit more dense, this would have become so magnified over the last 13.77 billion years since creation that gravity would have caused the universe to collapse back on itself.

On the other hand, If the universe had been even a scant bit less dense, this would have become so magnified over the last 13.77 billion years since creation that gravity would have caused the universe to expand to infinity.

Here's the conundrum: physics has no explanation why the universe just happened, contrary to mind-boggling odds, to be within the one part in 1014 at one second after creation — relatively flat expansion considering 13.77 billion years of magnification — necessary for the universe to exist as it does today.

Physicists have proposed a solution, called the "inflationary model" that is, itself, an impossible conundrum with no basis in physics (other than explaining the other two impossibilities, the horizon and flatness conundrums). Hypothesizing an impossible explanation to explain two impossible conundrums contradicts scientific method! The inflationary model is impossible according to the laws of physics.

But there is a logical possibility: The mathematical model scientists use to roll back the progression of the universe from today to the end of the inflationary point must then branch to multiple, near-simultaneous origin-points, all resulting from the same, multi-polar Origin-Force (Creator), rather than one point. Thus, the need to exceed the speed of light, essential to current models, is eliminated. The elementary error of assumption, that events had to exceed the speed of light during early expansion of the universe in order for the math to work hilites a fundamental failure of physics' sophomoric over-dependence on math. This blind spot—that a single point beginning was fixed (it wasn't), therefore the speed of light had to be exceeded in order to bring theory back into conformance with the math—is rather like a farmer who counts 3,124 eggs laid by his hens one morning, sells 1,000 and knows that there are 2,124 eggs left. However, if he miscounted in the first place and the number of eggs laid that morning was some other number, then his reliance on math will be mistaken. Logicians call this logical fallacy of relying on a false premise ex falso quodlibet. The math / logic is right but the scientist & farmer are wrong, nevertheless, because they failed to notice the flaw(s) in their premise(s). Worse, the flawed notion that the laws of physics were breakable in the inflationary period gives rise to an endless exercise in imagineering by theoretical physicists that contradicts science and belongs in the fiction–or cartoons–department!

The Dark Matter-Energy Conundrum: Physicists simply cannot find dark energy or dark matter, which are no more than terms meaning undefined and unexplained effects needed to make the current physics models work. The predominance of the universe comprises forces that are known to exist but are yet not found within the universe; undetectable so far and a complete mystery to physicists. Physicists have discovered that the "known" complement of the universe (visible matter and detectable forces) is far less than the dark complement of the universe. They know the "stretch-apart" force happens or the universe would blink out of existence in a moment, but, so far, physicists cannot detect any dark energy or dark matter to explain the absence of these forces that are necessary to hold the universe intact.

Horizon Problem Solved

While the "Big Bang" suffers from a number of impossibilities (conundrums), another problem is its dependence on defining a single point as origin — whereas, more precisely, the origin is a single, Stretch-Apart, Force Event, applied on a nothing. (Although it's definitionally oxymoronic, the reader might prefer to think of it as a vast region of nothingness; though nothing can have no region.)

electromagnetic multi-monopole fields
Click to enlargemulti-monopole Fields – Applying a set of multi-monopole attractive forces to a "region" of nothingness would create a pulling-apart; causing (creating) reactive forces in the region in-between the stretching-apart forces that did not exist until the external attractive forces were applied.

There is no reason to assume that the Prime Cause of the universe was a single point. There is no reason that such a Prime Cause, having been applied to [a potential region of] nothing(ness), couldn't, every bit as likely, have created an entire set of "Stretch-Apart" points at the same instant. All origin points being products of the same set of multipolar Attractive Forces, they would be expected to be nearly identical. Points on the fringe of the forces might vary a little.

Being that such origin points emerged from nothing — a "no-region", there is no limit to how "far" apart origin points could have been from one another. There was, at the time of Creation, no distance; no "far". Hence, various regions of our universe may have originated at different origin points, at any distance from one another, as a product of the same, Stretch-Apart, Creation Event. Horizon Conundrum and Flatness Conundrum (since all origin points are virtually identical products of the same event forces) both dissolved; and without introducing yet another impossibility (Inflationary) into the Model.

Thus, one might, alternately, view our universe as a set of co-existing universes; not mysterious strange universes, but the collection of sub-universes, similar to our own and deriving from the same Creation Event, that we can see in the night sky.

Where Einstein went wrong (and other physicists followed)

Einstein and today's physicists constantly and routinely confuse perception with absolute.

Think of the difference between a door slam. (Huh?) When you were a child, when you saw and heard a door slam, that was your "now." It all happened "now."

But we know that there was a difference between the sound and the light experience, even though it was too short a difference to discern solely with one's eyes and ears. So you assumed it was one experience "now."

Later, you learned that what you hear is after the fact of what you see.

When are physicists ever going to learn — and apply consistently — what Einstein missed and failed to apply consistently: that what you see also lags behind the absolute event? It takes time for the light to reach your eye after the absolute event has happened. So, your "now" always lags behind the absolute event. The farther away the event, the greater the lag to your "now." But the galaxies 10 billion light-years away that you see in your "now" do not exist in the absolute now of the universe! What you perceive now is not the same thing as what is in the absolute now! Future and past are absolute, not relative. Only your perception of the absolute is relative. Whereas, time is no more than a human memory device to catalog events in an organized sequence according to the march of the progress of the universe past us (see my comments on uFrames (uFr), et al. in other parts of this pâ•râsh•âh) — but is that the absolute march of the universe? (I.e., is that 10 billion year old galaxy really there now?) Or the perceived march of the universe? (Yes, I see it so it is there now!) Clearly, the latter is foolishness based on confusing the perceived with the absolute, the sound of the slammed door with the event of the door slam; precisely: confusing the light of the slammed door with the event of the door slam. So is most physicists' conjecture based on the latter!

To carry this to one extreme, your "now" is always in the universe's past. The only question is how far in the universe's past? The galaxy you see, and perceive as, your "now" that is 10 billion years ago? The person on TV that you perceive as your "now" who may be a few seconds ago? The person you're talking to in your "now" who is a few nanoseconds ago? You cannot see "now" because it is only "now" occurring in absolute terms and now information hasn't reached you yet — and you surely cannot see future where the absolute hasn't yet occurred. That's why the human convention of "time" is unidirectional: it is not a dimension but merely a sentient cataloging of the absolute progression of the universe (routinely confused with the false, perceived, progression of the universe), which is unidirectional. You can remember the past because it has occurred in the absolute sense and has been (or will be) perceived, but not see the future because it has not occurred in the absolute. (In fact, you can't even see the now.) You can only calculate and infer the future.

But now let's get really interesting

Think about "now" information reaching you and being processed by your brain to the point that you realize something. Neuroscientists have shown that your brain finds out about incoming data packet some 6-7 seconds before "you" do (before you become aware of the information). In fact, neuroscientists are able to detect your decision before you realize that you've made the decision. Wrap your brain around that! Where is the decision signal coming from that someone else can detect it's arrival in the brain before your own brain can process it and transmit it to "you" so that, at last, "you" become aware of the decision? Where is the decision made?

If the decision is merely a random activity of a network of neural cells acting on an incoming signal, where is sentience or reasoning in that? On the other hand, if the incoming signal is the "real you," than "you" exist somewhere beyond the physical "timespace" domain of your physical body; and your brain is like a radio transceiver between "you" and the physical avatar in which the Creator has constrained "you" for your lifetime on earth. This would explain how the incoming signal could be detected as it arrives from your neural activity before your brain is able to process that signal and interpret it for your avatar. This is also an indication of how tunnel-visioned our focus has become on our human avatar in contrast to our sentient being.

Your physical body would then be the one avatar that you receive, and to which you are constrained, for your lifetime on earth; an avatar that you operate much like you operate a car or an avatar in a virtual world. An avatar upon which you've become so focused and dependent that the "real you" has become almost impossible for you to connect with; feelings, hunches, sentiments, loves, all those non-physical concepts. What would this imply about the "real you"? Where is your real "now"? What is your real past and your real future? And how does that relate to why some Creative Force caused the universe for our avatars to inhabit? Why? What is your purpose here? What does the Creator expect of you? Wouldn't a Creator have somehow provided an Instruction (Hebrew: Tor•âh) Manual of Life?

Rainbow Rule Biblical "Days" 1-3

Sometimes, just looking at a problem from a different perspective can expose facets not formerly seen and yield new insights. Same math, just a different way of looking at it, or interpreting it, can sometimes resolve what seemed to be intractable conundrums simply because we couldn't "see" it from the old perspective. Physicists know that the universally-popular "Big Bang" Theory (BBang) has two intractable logical fallacies: [1] physicists hope you won't notice that BBang assumes self-detonation – it's axiomatic in physics that every effect has a cause: nothing never self-detonates into any bang, and [2] while physicists try to slip this past you, BBang assumes the entire universe (in an "infinitely small and dense point"). These were once well-publicized caveats that philosopher-physicists have evolved into ridiculous assumptions. No proponent of BBang has any justification for disparaging rival theories that threaten their careers and reputations by exposing and resolving these foolish assumptions.

Since the sun determines a day, how were the first three days measured before the sun? How long were the first three days?

The Bible gives the order of creation as beginning with positron auras interacting with electron auras, which mutually annihilate upon contact into electromagnetic radiation – i.e., creation of photons, packets of light (Pâ•suq 3). Next occurred the distinction between light and darkness as day and night (Pâ•suq 4-5), the earth (presumably, in an early stage of matter clumping together (Pâ•suq 9-13; on the third day), and only after that (on the fourth day) the sun and the moon (Pâ•suq 14-19). Interestingly, if we interpret "eon" instead of "day", this agrees with most theories of physics.

The mention of earth before the sun is easily understood. The Big Stretch Apart (BStrA), popularly the "Big Bang" (BBang), though recent scientific research has shown it to be inaccurate) created both at the same moment, but the earth hadn't yet been captured into solar orbit and, hence, wasn't affected by the sun until the fourth "day." It is natural that man was more interested in the origin of the earth, home, than the origin of the sun; hence, earth received first mention because it was of greater interest to the ancients.

The first three "days," then, might describe the earth before its capture in the solar orbit.

E=mc2, Time(space)? Or uFrames (uFr)
"Day" 4
Science & Physics Theories vs "Poof" the Magic Creation
uFr1, … uFri, … uFrn

Physicists struggle, and fail, to cope with timespace no less than they did trying to cope with time as a separate dimension from space; particularly its unidirectionality in contrast to their mathematical equations, which imply going back in time is as normal as going forward in time.

Update 2015: Tagging time, by definition, to a local event (a fixed number of vibrations of the cesium-133 atom in an atomic clock), rather than the total picture of the procession of the universe, introduces error. It's accurate enough to run our GPS and other systems. But, in the bigger picture of the procession of the universe, the distortion of light over vast distances (things are no longer where we see the light or other waves that emanated from them in our past — whether it's a distant star or what your eyes now perceive that was there only a fraction of a Planck-time away / ago), and our resulting local misperceptions, generate a distorted perception of time. Further committing this inaccuracy, imprecisely, to a mathematical model introduces further distortion — and false premises upon which theoretical physicists find themselves down a rabbit hole without realizing it and with full mis-confidence that the correctness of their math perfectly reflects the real universe. Yet, math frees one from the physical constraints of the universe. It's a simple matter to mathematically "rewind" events back to the Big Stretch Apart while reversing the procession of the universe — reversing actual time — is patently impossible. It's understandable that most people need to deal with "local perception of time." But when considering time as a "dimension" (it's not; time is merely the tagging of some event according to a uFri), then time must be grasped on a universe-wide scale — in which any given instant (uFri) is necessarily perceived in infinitely different ways ("local perceptions") in an infinite number of localities as it becomes perceived (dispersing) throughout the universe.

I want to stress here that I'm not, in any way, suggesting that anyone must believe my Big Stretch Apart (BStrA) Theory as opposed to some other physics theory. What I am saying is that the Omniscient Creator created our universe within His own perfect laws of physics and science; that answers are found in physics and science, not in "poof" magic of simple-minded, under-educated, quack clerics. My Big Stretch Apart (BStrA) Theory merely offers one plausible way that remains in the real world of logic, physics and science without wandering into "poof" magic supernaturalism.

A simple snapshot of time is deceptively insightful by starting with Einstein's famous equation and solving for t (time) to see what time actually is:

  1. E=mc2

  2. E (energy in Joules) =m (mass in kilograms) * c (speed of light in kilometers per second)2

  3. E=m * 299,792kms2

  4. E/m = 299,792kms2

  5. 299,792kms2 = E/m

  6. 299,792kms = (E/m)½

  7. 299,792km / 1 sec. = (E/m)½

  8. Let t (time) be 1 second

  9. 299,792km / t = (E/m)½

  10. 299,792km = t * (E/m)½

  11. 299,792km/(E/m)½ = t = 1 second

  12. Calculate per (1) Joule of energy per (1) kilogram of mass

  13. 299,792km/(1 Joule/1 kilogram)½ = t = 1 second

  14. t = 1 second = 299,792km / 1½

  15. t = 1 second = 299,792km / 1 (square root of 1 = 1)

  16. t = 1 second = 299,792 kilometers (distance) of 1 Joule (energy) applied to 1 kilogram (mass); i.e., 1 second of time is nothing more than 1 Joule (energy) applied to 1 kilogram (mass) over a distance of 299,792 kilometers.

    The speed of light can also be expressed as 186,282.4 miles, or 983,571,056.43045 feet, per second. Therefore, in American units, 1 second of time is 1 foot-pound of force (energy) applied to 1 pound of weight (mass) over a distance of 186,282.4 miles (983,571,056.43045 ft.).

Thus, Einstein's equation demonstrates that time is exactly a distance through space per unit of energy exerted per unit of mass. The greatest difficulty is likely the insight of how simple this concept is. The latest theory from physicists postulates that our 3-dimensional universe is a holographic illusion projected from a 2-dimensional inner surface of some sort of virtual globe. That 2-dimensional holograph changes every time there is a change in any quantum state, anywhere in the universe. It's impossible to even calculate how many of these holographic freeze-frames might be in just one Planck-moment. To say we're dealing with instants is an understatement.

The upshot is that time is not a dimension. Time is simply a procession of freeze-frames of the state of the universe, some of which man has decided to tag for reference. Time is an invention of man enabling him to refer to particular freeze-frames in the procession of the state of the universe.

If we freeze-frame the entirety of the quanta state of the universe at each change in a quantum state, then we have a picture, which is quite proper to visualize, of quantum, Planck-like, time-slices of the universe. We could then express time as the procession of freeze-frames of statei (uFri) for i = momenti, where the procession of uFrs can be expressed as: uFri+1, uFri+2, … uFrn.

When we incorporate the latest physics theory of a uFr being like the holographic inner surface of a black hole-like globe that surrounds the universe, then, instead of virtual slices, we should picture uFrs as a series of globular holographs of the state of the universe.

So, Reality Is…?

One implication of all of this is that, since we only perceive physical reality through our 5 physical senses, we cannot know whether the elemental forces that make up quantum auras, the uFrames (uFrs) of our universe and physical reality, are merely projected directly into the 5 sensory connections of the physical brain of our physical avatar (body); implying that the universe could be entirely a virtual experience. Not only is time an illusion, the blur of the procession, at the quantum level, of uFrs, the universe itself may not exist at all outside of our 5 sensory connections.

Unidirectionality of Time

Time, then, is the procession of freeze-frames of the universe identical to old-time flip books and today's movie projections and computer games – except that neither the speed nor direction of the universe's freeze-frames, uFr1, … n, can be varied.

It is essential to note that while the movie frames exist, as stills, the movie exists only as our perception of the procession of still frames. The movie, per se, is a non-existent perception. Time is the same, non-existent perception. One can reference and talk about any set of uFrs in any order – forward, in reverse or individually – but one cannot alter the speed or direction that the actual uFrs are being created we, humans, freeze them in our memory and historical record – tagged as a time. The procession of uFrs creates the perception of the flow of time. Without the uFrs, there is no procession, no flow, nothing to tag, no time. No flip cards, no movie.

It is then simple to understand that, while one can freely reference, at will, back and forth through the uFrs, time, it is not possible to go back in, or speed up, the procession of the states of the universe (uFrs).

But The Math…

Using the previous example, it's a simple matter to generate the math of movies or pixels on your computer screen that you perceive as videos. The number of frames per second, resolution and size of frames, etc. Now, you can run that math backward as simply as forward; freeze-frame anywhere you please, etc. But that doesn't give you control to run the projector at the cinema. Too often, the asserted math model – the theory (that's why they call it a theory and not an axiom, BTW) – doesn't map to reality completely. And that's the problem with mathematical models: the mathematicians don't realize when their math models are a distortion of reality. Instead, with faith in their math, they attempt to impose the implications of their math on reality. Now, sometimes that generates amazing insights – when the theory is confirmed experimentally. But other times, when their math model is imprecise, logicians call that the fallacy of ex falso quodlibet (a false premise invalidates its conclusions). Math doesn't rule. Reality rules – even if it's harder for mathematicians to understand and deal with.

Gravitational Radiation Waves & Lensing ("Distortion of Time")
EurekAlert article originally; video: csironewsblog.com/2013/10/22; accessed 2013.10.23)

Simple: each uFr is a snapshot, or freeze-frame, of the entire universe, from the quantum level up. Gravitational radiation (distortion waves) are elements written within individual uFrs. Nothing is between uFrs. Gravitational radiation exist in the universe and, consistently, are recorded in its uFrs. However, since time has been shown to be a non-existing perception, distortion of time is, accordingly, mere perception that doesn't exist in reality. One cannot distort time, travel backward in time, etc. – unless, perhaps, one's perceptions are distorted. Nevertheless, perception imposes nothing on reality ( which are the uFrs, the universe).

Illusion of Time vs Implacable Conundrum of Sequence

Since I have already shown that time is merely a useful human reference, which doesn't exist in any physical sense, does that mean that there is only the present? That all existence, therefore, occurs only in the present? That there is, and always has been, only "now"?

This poses the implacable, and unavoidable, conundrum of sequence: If there is only the present, the only "now", then how did your parents precede you? And their parents precede them? If there is only the present, then there cannot be a now in which they exist but you did not, yet they know of that "now". How is there a now in which your grand-parents are not? In which your parents are not? If you're a parent, did you not precede the existence of your children? Grand-children? Similarly, there cannot be a now in which you are but your future children, grand-children and descendants are not. Sequence cannot be avoided.

There is a logical approach: although time is no more than a human-invented convention of reference, sequence is unavoidable fact. Even this, however, poses difficulties as our part in choosing a partner and reproduction implies that either we, humans, are partners in creating and helping to direct and fashion new beings or, if the Creator fully controls the creation of new beings then we have no free will in choosing our partner or parenting and everything is predetermined by fate – a question that perplexes many people.

However, the implication of this combination of theories is that the Creator (and Programmer), being Omniscient, is, as Einstein also noted, not capricious. He acts with purpose; and that includes sequence. Instantiations of things that happen only in sequence and never in reverse are demonstrated constantly, everywhere. Combined with the fact that there is no supportive evidence whatsoever, and no normal human being has any substantiatable memory of existence before physical birth, then it is clear that the Creator creates some human beings before others – despite the non-existence of time, there is a sequential (popularly chronological) history. Further, these creations are in response to human reproductive coupling, which is a function of human free will.

The implications of sequence, combine with the implications of separation of the from its avatar to imply that while human beings (not their avatars) are created at different points in a series (sequence), nevertheless, being separate from the avatar, the does not automatically cease to exist when the communications channel to the avatar's transceiver is cut and the avatar ceases to operate and deteriorates. The , once created, continues unless, once cut from its avatar and unable to develop the direction of its basic character further, in the event that the is incompatible with the Creator, that is terminated.

Once again, the purposefulness, as opposed to capriciousness, of the Creator rises to the fore. Such an Omniscient would not leave His creations in the sea of life teeming with evil and evil-doers without a life preserver and compass.

In my investigation, which spanned several decades, I've found nothing that remotely satisfies this need of life preserver and compass, providing rescue from the sea teeming with evil onto dry land, except and its story of Yi•sᵊrâ•eil, beginning with its definition of mankind in its raw, idolatrous, lost (in need of a compass) and drowning (needing a life preserver), state, through Av•râ•hâm's, consequent, quest for, and success in coming out of the idolatrous masses to identify the Essentials of the Creator while others still worshiped multiple spirits they fancied living in the rock of rumbling or smoking mountains and living in stars.

Most vitally, continues this development of thinking to embrace basic values and standards of justice in dealings with both man and Creator, the need – and provision for – tᵊshuv•âh, composing the original link-up – the contract (bᵊrit) – between the individual and the Creator. It is only this original bᵊrit that provides for continued (eternal) communing beyond the physical universe; i.e., in the non-dimensional (i.e., spiritual) realm that implies coexistence of the self and the Creator-Being in the same realm.

Discrete (uFrs) Solution to "Time Distortion of Space"

Sending atomic clocks into space and the very operation of the GPS satellite system, has proven Einstein's suggestion that movement (speed) affects what he called timespace. Since the uFrames Theory challenges the existence of time as a physical property or dimension, this proven phenomenon of distortion must also be explainable in terms of uFrs.

There has been a consistent oversight in the popular explanation of an astronaut who travels to a far galaxy at near light-speed and returns to earth to find his generation dead and his greatn-grandchildren inhabiting earth. What's typically left out of this explanation is the unimaginable advances in science and civilization that would greet this astronaut back. In terms of uFrs, the astronaut experienced the same number of uFrs as his generation; no more, no less. Let's call that number x, and the number of uFrs experienced on earth as y. But, while his generation was experiencing x uFrs, the astronaut was only experiencing y uFrs. That means that the astronaut was not, during that same period, experiencing (y-x) uFrs and, alternately, while the astronaut experienced only one uFr out of every (y-x) during that period, the inhabitants on earth experienced the full y uFrs. This suggests that, at the quantum level, movement (speed) is, as we would intuitively expect, a function of quantum change (captured in the change between two successive uFrs). The faster one moves, the more uFrs we "skip over"; rather like a stone skipping over water. The exclamation point is that the existence of these uFrs are necessitated, demonstrated, by the continuation of generations and advances in technology and civilization that continued on earth via these uFrs in the proverbial astronaut's absence.

Our State of "Rest": ≅1/1000th of the Speed of Light!

This view suggests that we should be looking for some function between the behavior of quantum mechanics at our relative "rest" and relative movement. A function that is typically overlooked in analysis is that we are not, and have never been, at rest. Indeed, we cannot even conceive what "rest" is. A uFr is a freeze-frame, or snapshot, with respect to the entirety of the universe. Movement, then, must be considered and calculated in absolute terms, with respect to the entirety of the universe. When you sit on the couch, you, and the earth under you, are spinning at just over 1,000 mph. Additionally, you are orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph. Our entire solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 517,000 miles per second! On top of all that, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate of 46+ miles per second per magaparsec. Let's call this "our (earth's) reality 'rest' velocity". So when our satellites or rockets crawl out at the comparatively glacial pace of a few thousand mph, that's infinitesimal to the speed we're already going! That infinitesimal difference in speed is why the effect on uFrs is, proportionately, so infinitesimal and difficult to perceive and measure. Our infinitesimal velocity variance from our norm only permits us to "skip" (the experience, effect and being affected by) a relatively negligible number of uFrs.

What we have always regarded as "rest" is, it turns out, instead, relative to the entirety of the universe, an astonishingly high speed momentum. And what we have anthropocentrically, always thought of as jaw-dropping "fast" is merely an infinitesimal change in that momentum.

Time Travel: Going "Back" in "Time"

This also affects the popular sci-fi notion of going back in (non-existent) "time". We speak of "going back" home at night, to work in the morning, to a hometown, to another city or country or place, etc. Some assume this idea transfers to time travel, going "back" to an earlier time. Yet, one should become aware that that "back" is many times our "reality 'rest' velocity" removed from where it was when we – or Mosh•ëh, etc. – were "there" last. If you could calculate where the earth was located in the universe at a specified earlier time, and you were able to go there, earth would no longer be there. One can never truly go back. The universe does not go backward. Neither can we forward through it. ("Skipping" our experience of uFrs does not alter the procession of uFrs in any way), under any circumstances. Skipping uFrs does not "speed us through time." Although it might seem that way to us, the realitiy is that speed can only skip us (our experience and awareness of it) over uFrs while the procession of the universe continues inexorably unchanged. We don't "speed through time"; no matter what we do, our "reality 'rest' velocity" dictates that we "miss" parts of the procession of the universe. The only question is how many uFrs we miss during our lifetime.

Uh, and space is neither empty nor space
Space, non-empty Higgs Field Universal Field (uField) (Hollywood: "The Matrix")

What was long called (empty) "space" is now known to be non-empty. In a similar way that electromagnetism selectively attracts some particles and not others, the whole universe, everywhere, consists of this uField, within which the 4 elemental forces of physics interact selectively. As various auras move through this uField, the uField articulates unique resistance to the movement of each quantum aura type. (And, since each aura type, is no more than a combination of the elemental forces, there exists nothing but the projection we perceive resulting from this interaction of all of these forces.) As a result, the uField and aura each impart equal and opposite reaction to the other: the aura exhibits mass proportionate to the resistance encountered in the uField and the uField is, thereby, distorted from its rest state proportionate to the aura's mass.

Big Stretch-Apart (BStrA) Theory
Solves Origin From Nothing, Accelerating Expansion and Eliminates "Dark" Stuff

The Extractive Prime Force exerted to initiate the BStrA behaves as we would expect of any attractive force. Since the Extractive Force is, by definition, external to the universe, every aura in the universe since the BStrA has always moved outward toward the external Extractive Force. While the math equation for Extractive is likely different from electromagnetism, one might begin looking for some relationship of the square of the decreasing distance between the auras (particles) of the universe as they accelerate toward the Extractive.

Thus, this model turns inside-out the quaint anthropocentric orientation that everything must be contained within our universe (particularly quaint considering that these same physicists assume an inflation, an infinite number of branes and universes (e.g., String Theory), sometimes even assuming an infinite number of life and intelligences, beyond our universe – all while, of course, oxymoronically denying there could be one Creator-Singularity, ‑‑.

The Ultimate Simulation

Within each uFr, each quantum particle is a combination of some set of the 4-5 elementary force(s) – better visualized as an aura possessing several attributes instead of a particle: electromagnetism (the photon), the strong atomic nuclear force (the gluon), the weak atomic nuclear force (the w & z bosons) and gravity (not yet identified; uField bosons other than Higgs?). These auras can be likened to the pixels in your computer screen, playing out uFr by uFr.

Quantum auras seem, to your 5 senses, solid when the combination of elementary forces, quantum auras, combine with degrees of concentrated repellent force to give the appearance of degrees of solidness – from the ground you walk on to the atoms in your body; everything. The same is true of the images relayed to your retinas by the elementary electromagnetic force – photons of light; the chemicals producing smell and taste, compression of air molecules producing hearing.

Everything you perceive as physical reality is transmitted by, and only by, the 4-5 elementary forces that make up the quantum auras of our universe. And your brain perceives these only by electronic signals fed to it by your 5 senses. So, reality reduces to the play of various combinations and concentrations of the 4-5 elementary forces on your 5 senses, perceived as the playing of the procession of uFrs – stunningly similar to frames of movies and the bits and pixels producing a computer simulation.

The Programmer, The Program & You
You: Or Avatar?

So, what is the you at the receiving end of the 5 sensory inputs? We can think of the Creator as the Programmer, having created the procession of uFrames (uFrs) composed of quantum force bits and pixels – the Ultimate Virtual Reality Program (our universe).

out-of-body experience
Click to enlargeClick for source details Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne scientists produce out-of-body experience

When you identify yourself in a computer simulation game with an avatar, you do not become the bits and pixels, changing frame by frame, that you perceive in the screen – even though it soon seems so as you immerse your focus into the simulation. In life, it seems impossible to "step away" from the quantum forces that we perceive (solely through our 5 senses) as our bodies, in the same way that you can walk away from the avatar of a computer simulation.

That makes you the computer user in this virtual simulation we know as reality and our universe – and your body, which you likely confuse with "you", is merely an avatar; the only expression of ourselves detectable to our 5 senses that we've ever known, and from which we cannot disconnect in the "reality" of our universe. Yet, neuroscientists now routinely demonstrate that, while you cannot disconnect from your 5 physical inputs, "you" can relocate temporarily to a different avatar; an "out of body" experience easily simulated with a video-camera and computer screen eye glasses.

Beyond The Physical Reality Simulation

If "you" is not identical to the 4-5 elementary forces that make up the physical "bits and pixels" of your avatar-body, pushing the buttons of the sole 5 input senses to the physical brain of your physical avatar-body, then who – and where, for that matter – are "you"?

Physics Knows Of No Convergence of Physical & Non-physical

Physics has never found any bridge between any particle in the universe and any connection to the non-physical realm of pure thought. Physics doesn't even address the very existence of anything non-physical!

Neuroscience (nSc)

Many neuroscientists (nScts) slip and fall on the elementary logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") – i.e., the preceding event must have caused the event that followed. The nSct puts contacts on the scalp of a subject, slides the subject into an MRI, flashes an image or audible word to the subject and asks the subject to make a decision and press one of two or more buttons. The result, nScts claim, is that the MRI show the neurons that the brain used to recognize the input and produce the output.

Not so fast! Did the indicated neuron(s) switch on as the subject's physical response to the physical image (e.g., physical eye to physical brain) or physically audible word (physical ear to physical brain)? Simply because the subject's physical brain was responding to a physical input? Or because the subject's physical brain was initiating a physical output?

None of these are identical to the subject thinking. None can be logically linked to the non-physical realm of thought. None imply any connection between anything physical with anything non-physical. We can only derive that there is some, undetermined, communication between the physical and non-physical realms; a communication bridge that has never been determined, isolated or even defined; even though the existence of this bridge is witnessed and used by all of us all the time – even when we're asleep and dream.

Connecting the Physical & Non-physical Realms
My "Transceiver Theory"

Ok, so far, we've shown that communication between the physical world and our non-physical, thought-realm awareness, our consciousness and "self", exists because we constantly use that connection, constantly communicating between our "self" and our avatar-body, all the time. We don't know how it works, but we know it exists and that it does work. Perhaps, in future, someone will figure out exactly how. But, for now, let's accept that and deal with it. We'll define "unknown communication channel" from our "self" to our avatar-body as (unknown) down-link (uDlink) and our "unknown communication channel" from our avatar-body to our "self" as unknown up-link (uPlink).

What we now can logically adduce is that a uDlink in "our" physical brain performs some role in receiving thoughts from the non-physical consciousness of "us", alternating with an uPlink in "our" physical brain transmitting data generated by "our" avatar-body to the non-physical consciousness of "us" – our non-physical "self".

There is no suggestion in Transceiver Theory that "we", our non-physical consciousness or "self", are inside our physical brain. Transceiver Theory holds the opposite: our non-physical consciousness is not in our physical brain. The brain is merely a transceiver (the uDlink combined with the uPlink) that, somehow, communicates between the two, otherwise mutually exclusive, realms.

"You": Discovering Your , No Mere Avatar

If you can now, finally, distinguish between your conscious self in the non-physical thought realm, and your avatar, with which you interface in the physical world, then you have discovered your .

Neuroscience (nSc): Plasticity of the Brain – Free Will vs. Fate

Neuroscientists (nScts) have demonstrated, using the MRI, that the physical brain changes and builds new neuron networks according to its will through repetition (habit, routine of environment and friends we keep, and such things as study, learning and deliberate mental exercises). They call this plasticity of the brain, and it intractably contradicts the idea that all of mental "us"; our conscious self, is composed of physical neurons in the brain. Plasticity of the brain, and its ability to grow new pathways, even in old age, also contradicts the notions of fate, predestination, astrology and predetermination.

Death – of your avatar

So, "you", your conscious self, your , exists in a non-physical, spiritual realm. Death, then, may only mean disconnecting your uDlink and the deterioration of your avatar. There is no other necessary implication, in the death of the avatar, of any consequent change in the – provided you have satisfied the criteria set by the Creator for continuing your existence in the spiritual realm. That depends upon what you have made of your . And plasticity of the brain proves that what you make of your is entirely up to you, and for which you will be held responsible and accountable.

The Third "Day" (Eon)
cosmology ancient
Click to enlargeHow the ancients perceived the universe.

We began this discussion with the events depicted in the Bible's first 3 "days" of the universe. Yet, how then would the plant life described on the third "day" (Pâ•suq 9-13) survive before the sun shone on the earth?

Unless one clings to a primitive pagan magic—supernatural—view of "god," it's clear that this is a description of aspects, not a chronological sequence, of the creation of the Omni-Scient. If ‑‑ created perfect natural laws governing the universe, and He did, then it's self-contradicting that a Perfect Creator would have to break His own Perfect Laws to create the universe super-naturally rather than Perfectly naturally; within His own Perfect Laws.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5755 (1994.10)

This Pâ•râsh•âh begins: . Every rav, evangelist and classical artist has known with absolute certainty how Ël•oh•im created man—Zap and poof.

Yet, informs us (2.7) only that somehow ‑‑ formed the chemical or atomic elements (dust) of the earth into â•dâm, and somehow caused man to breath: "And ‑‑ Ël•oh•im formed the â•dâm of dust of the earth/land, (wa-yi•pakh; and He Puffed) in his nose Lives Before The Brain Exists, Ergo Separate


Interestingly, the literal reading is: "Then1 had6 the7 â•dâm8 the2  3 [that] is4 living." Thus, it is the " that is living" (i.e., already) that "then had" the â•dâm made from clayfirst the "lives," then it receives the â•dâm of clay, not the reverse! Ergo, one's "lives" shortly before our human body. This implies that our has lived apart from, and before, our human body and, therefore, can live – non-physically or non-dimensionally (i.e., spiritually) – again apart from, after, our human body.

(You can leave breathing to trained responders.)

All things in the universe are formed from the basic components found in the earth. Puffing a breath of life into a man, at least to return a man to life, is no longer considered a supernatural idea. does not preclude the possibility of evolution, though many theologians, baselessly and foolishly, do. (In contrast with the tabloidal media spin and public impressions, scientists make no claim that evolution explains the origin of life or the universe, evolution attempts to explain only the development of living things from existing primitive life forms.)

The process not described in culminated in the first living and breathing man of recorded history (5.1), presumably the first man to orient himself toward obtaining the favor of ‑‑, establishing the tradition later followed by Noakh, Av•râ•hâm and Ya•a•qov.

Men who presume to tell us with all authority how He created everything through supernatural magic are charlatans who understand neither the Creator, His creation and physical laws, nor the prohibition against magic. Ta•na"kh doesn't even tell us that there weren't any homo sapiens before •dâm. We can be reasonably sure only that such predecessors were, apparently, spiritually, even if not genetically, distinct and preceded recorded history.

•dâm was so special in seeking the pleasure of ‑‑ that He regarded •dâm worthy of being considered genetically distinct and, by a process sounding remarkably like cloning—but probably an ancient idiom describing the formation of identical twins in the womb—formed a genetically distinct species; the first, relative to ‑‑, to revolutionize mankind by beginning to record their history.

Monotheism vs Polytheism
Mystic Rabbis' "Three Heavenly Angels" Paradigm
Opened Pandora's Box of Christian Trinity
Producing 3 corresponding "heavenly hosts of angels" & Sâ•tân

It is particularly noteworthy that ‑‑ Ël•oh•im (2.4, et al.) is understood in English as "‑‑ is the ël•oh•im", not polytheistically of a pantheon, as "‑‑ of the ël•oh•im."

3 angels, Tom duBois thekingsgallery.com

There are several Pᵊsuq•im in bᵊ-Reish•it, and many elsewhere in the Nᵊviy•im, that seem to suggest that, as well as there being human , there are also non-human that preceded our human world. In LXX, is paralleled by the Greek αγγελος. However, these are interpretations read into the text rather than read from the text.

Oblivious to the obvious, rabbinic Jewish mystics felt compelled to fabulize an explanation for the self-reference, by the Singularity Ël•oh•im, as the, apparently contradictory, plural "us":

In their desperation to explain this apparent paradox, the mystic rabbis attempted to differentiate a "heavenly angelic" tritheon (and pantheon) of "lesser deities" from the polytheism of the goy•im, spinning the legend in A•gâd•âh that there were originally three "supervising ": namely, , ‭ ‬ and ( (- – thus opening up the Pandora's box for the trinity (tri-unity) of Hellenist Christianity! The correlation can easily be discerned between the Almighty,

They further fabulized that each of these three – Hellenized and Europeanized to "angels" in Medieval times – commanded ⅓ of the fabulized "heavenly host" of .

Dangled from this whole set of fabulized premises, the mystic rabbis spun an ex falso quodlibet that ( (- rebelled against ‑‑, taking his ⅓ of the with him. These (⅓ of the "angelic heavenly host") were then ascribed to be the "other Ël•oh•im" of the other races of humans, the goy•im.

The other ⅔ of the (fabulized to be "heavenly angels," not divine Ël•oh•im), under the combined supervision of and , are the A•gâd•âh entities that, according to the rabbinic mystics corroborating Christian doctrines, supposedly "fight a spiritual battle for Israel and against Sâ•tân in the heavens."

Difference between original •dâm and a

While we tend to focus on physical differences, apparently the primary difference between original •dâm and a was in our now-shared sapience—as in homo sapien, as contrasted with the Neanderthals (or lower species), in the conjectured formerly exclusive domain of ‑‑: the knowledge to distinguish between and , with the ensuing free will to choose between them.

Subsequent to •dâm and Khaw•âh breaking the bᵊrit-•dâm (2.17), the term has been used to describe messengers not only of ‑‑ from the heavens, but also from, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdil, (Sâ•tân, i.e., (( -) and human messengers on a mission for either. Hence, when we encounter a messenger, heavenly or human, on a mission for "god," we must be certain who that messenger serves—whose he or she is. The Beit-Din must judge in the Way defined in (Dᵊvâr•im 13.2-6 & 18.21-22).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5753 (1992.10)

electromagnetic multi-monopole fields
Electromagnetic multi-monopole fields – Unlike electromagnetic fields, configuring an attractive external force (or set of forces) would, when switched on, create a gravity-like anti-force (or set of anti-forces) within. Perhaps, we are the anti-matter and anti-energy?
electromagnetic multi-monopole fields
Click to enlargemulti-monopole Fields – Applying a set of multi-monopole attractive forces to a "region" of nothingness would create a pulling-apart; causing (creating) reactive forces in the region in-between the stretching-apart forces that did not exist until the external attractive forces were applied.

1.6 — Let there be between the waters of the seas and the waters of the cloud cover. The would (cognate of Havdâl•âh) between the waters beneath the and the waters above the .

2.6— According to the understanding of that ancient era, there had been no rain prior to the rains of the flood in the days of Noakh. Until then there was such a heavy mist and thick cloud cover above the that humans never saw the sun nor blue sky in the time of Noakh and his family. This would explain why the account excludes rainbows until after the Ma•bul.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(Haphtâr•âh; resolution, wrap-up, dismissal) Tei•mân•it Bal•ad•it:

" '-"

The Haph•târ•at Tei•mân•it is Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.1-16,
not the Sᵊphâ•râd•it Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.5-21
or Ashkᵊnazit Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.5 – 43.11.

5765 (2005.10)

Inquiring into Pᵊsuq•im 42.1-4 is like peering into the vortex of a black hole—no one seems to have seen into it yet. The Targum (earliest extant Aramaic translation) and all Jewish commentators do agree that refers to the Mâ•shiakh. This is clearly correct, providing a good base upon which to begin an investigation. There's no further explanation of this messianic prophecy in Tal•mud; and later commentators tend to project their medieval European mindset into their interpretations — with a distinct agenda to eliminate claims of their European Christian neighbors. (Note, for a blatant example, that the European Jews excluded the messianic verses from today's Ha•phᵊtâr•âh selection while Middle Eastern Tei•mân•i Jews, unaffected by Christian challenges, retain the messianic verses.)

In the pᵊsuq•im under investigation, Yᵊsha•yâhu ha-Nâ•vi, ca. B.C.E. 720, employs a dual parallelism not evident in English.

Speaking of (Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.3-4)
(For more information, see my book, Pishᵊtâh Kheihâh Live-Link)
Pâ•suqRoot Verb: Root Verb: Context
3 he will not break
he won't snuff out
4 nor
nor until he puts mi•shᵊpât bâ-ârëtz and the islands await his

Employing the phrase , Yᵊsha•yâhu refers to his earlier usage (36.6) of . In the earlier passage, he was quoting from Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 18.21, ca. B.C.E. 540: "You have relied upon the support of ."

Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 18.21 illuminates the meaning. The king of Assyria was challenging Khi•zᵊqi•yâh ha-Mëlëkh, ca. B.C.E. 710: the was specified to refer to a declining (bent reed) Egypt (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 18.13-20.9). Later, this phrase similarly symbolized Ba•vël, then Rome; i.e. oppressors of Israel. Still later, this was applied to the prophecy of the future oppressor of Israel leading into the Messianic Era.

Ca. B.C.E. 583, Yᵊkhëz•qeil ha-Nâ•vi likely refers to the people of the oppressor of Israel in the beginning of the Messianic Era when he uses one of these verb roots (21.12): every ruakh, …

Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Bë•rëkh•yâh Bën-Id•o ha-Nâ•vi confirms this using the same verb root (11.17) ca. B.C.E. 519, "Hoy, , abandoner of the flock' his right eye . This doublet (of different forms of the same verb; lit. "flickering-out it shall flicker-out") is an emphatic form meaning in English: "it shall absolutely flicker-out, go dim! The literal phrase, "My shepherd of the feckless-idol" or "My-the feckless-idol shepherd," is most clearly understood in English as "My particular feckless-idol shepherd…"

Recognizing that the verbs in 42.3 & 4 are Pa•al, active rather than passive, diametrically changes the meaning. The traditional English rendering of 42.4 wrongly renders the passive, implying that, referring to ‭ ‬ (42.1): "he will neither flicker-out nor be crushed" (Artscroll: neither slacken nor tire) until'" However, the Pa•al verbs in 42.4 dictate rendering, instead, that "he will neither dim [something] nor crush [something] until'"!!!

Yᵊkhezqeil and Zᵊkharyah both confirm that this "[something]," which the Mâ•shiakh will dim and crush is the , abandoner of the flock; the oppressor of Israel, and the goy•im with him, in the Messianic Era.

Thus, not only does this passage not support the premise of the Mâ•shiakh accomplishing all of these prophecies before "flickering" or "being crushed," it flat-out contradicts the premise. According to this passage, the Mâ•shiakh won't fulfill these prophecies until he has set mi•shᵊpât in Israel—which is what he's working on right now through the Shᵊkhin•âh in his teachings—and the distant islands have learned to hunger for (await) the of ‑‑.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

5760 (1999.10)

The first thing to notice about this week's Haphtâr•âh is that, unlike the Ash•kᵊnazi reading, the Tei•mân•i portion includes the Messianic section of Pᵊsuq•im 1-4. Virtually all major Jewish commentators agree that the term refers to the Mâ•shiakh.)

(Beit Din Case Law Judgments = Oral Law)

Christians should notice that the Hebrew states (Pâ•suq 1) that the Mâ•shiakh, !!!

Also, (Pâ•suq 3) !!!

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

5755 (1994.10)

The basis for the sect claiming to be J-h-v-h's Witnesses is found in this week's Haphtâr•âh (43.10). Of course, J Witnesses never explain how they wrested this position from Yi•sᵊr•â•eil. The context frames the passage, specifying before and after the Pâ•suq that it is Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, not goy•im, who are His witnesses (q.v. 43.1,3, 14, 15). Clearly, J Witnesses are at their very core dependent upon "Displacement Theology" (goy•im "spiritual Jews" displacing "physical Yi•sᵊr•â•eil").

Door-to-door missionaries

Since J Witnesses are usually regarded as distinct from Christianity , this is a good place to point out the peculiarities of how to help them out of their myopia. Because of their zeal and tenacity , J Witnesses have an undeserved reputation for being strong apologists of their denomination (they detest denominationalism). My paternal grandmother was a J Witness. I was always struck by 1) her zeal and tenacity , 2) the shallowness and myopia of the content of J Witness arguments and 3) their total dependance upon, and addiction to, J Witness literature. J Witnesses cannot defend their doctrines directly from the source language of Ta•na"kh (with or without Ma•tit•yâhu) alone. Getting them to see this is a critical first step. Their argumentation is indeed zealous and tenacious. But the content of their arguments are feeble. They depend completely upon wresting passages out of their context, virtually complete ignorance of Hebrew, total ignorance of cantillation, and complete myopia focused on their newsletter, The Watchtower, as their sole source of knowledge.

Every argument presented by a J Witness falls apart exactly like every other Displacement Theology challenge (Christian or Islam) – by one or more of the following analyses:

  1. restrict them to the source Hebrew: Ta•na"kh (and Christians may include The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) – completely excluding The Watchtower, English versions of the "Old Testament," the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), etc.,

  2. be prepared to deal with Displacement Theology by focusing on apostasy between 135 C.E. and Constantine (namely, contrasting the 2nd-4th century CE idolatrous Roman fabrication and perversion, Jesus, from the 1st century Pharisee Ribi).

J Witnesses are aware only of apostasy subsequent to Constantine, and feel that "The facts of history , particularly from the time of Constantine on and up to modern times, leave no doubt that such an apostasy took place. Recovery from apostasy waited until the latter part of the nineteenth century. It was at that time that a group of sincere and dedicated Christians (Russellites) gathered themselves for the study of god's Word, at the same time divesting themselves of the creedal and sectarian chains of Christendom." (Awake!, J Witness magazine, 1960.02.08, p. 4, quoted by Ted Dencher, The Watchtower Heresy versus The Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1961), p. 103). It is clear from this quote that J Witnesses accept the traditional claims of Christianity for the period up to Constantine inclusive. This is a fatal flaw.

The first step requires more resoluteness than you might realize. J Witnesses refer to The Watchtower for a Scriptural passage and then continue in The Watchtower with argumentation based on that passage. You can easily get ensnared in The Watchtower arguments—in denominational literature where you don't belong—when you should be in the source documents: Ta•na"kh Hebrew, cantillation, NHM, and the like.

There is, however, a lesson we can learn from both J Witnesses and Mormons: their zeal as translated into active outreach. We, who see, should be ashamed if we do less to bring Light to the world than they, who confuse darkness with light, are doing. Mormons expect every teenager to spend several years as a full-time missionary. J Witnesses, as we well know, devote much of their time to door-to-door personal outreach. How can we, who have Light, justify doing less? To the contrary, we should do these things plus utilizing technology: media advertising, computer information highways, videotape teachings, multi-media presentation, etc. With these modern technologies, we still must not neglect one-on-one, personal dialogue and local study groups.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

blue glitter bar

(•mar Ribi Yᵊho•shua)

Ma•tit•yâhu bᵊ-Ivᵊr•it; Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu

(Redacted, Christianized & corrupted to 4th-century "Matthew")

5765 (2005.10)

The Haphtâr•âh section this year illuminates a particularly difficult passage, exposing a traditional interpretation as a deliberate distortion to support a point of view. Countless Jews have rejected Ribi Yᵊho•shua based on two erroneous premises:

  1. that the Christian idol is identical with Ribi Yᵊho•shua, and

  2. that Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.1-4 implies that the Mâ•shiakh must fulfill all of the Messianic prophecies before "flickering" or "being crushed."

Both of these premises have proven to be in error (see Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link (WAN) and this year's Ha•phᵊtâr•âh section, respectively).

Yam Kinneret approaching dusk
Yâm Ki•nërët approaching dusk (looking N from Tᵊvᵊëryâh [Hebrew for Tiberius]). Kᵊphar Na•khum is located on the far shore near the center right. Photograph 1983, Yirmeyahu Bën-David.

Ca. 3789 (29 C.E.), Ribi Yᵊho•shua became aware (NHM 12.14-15) that the Hellenist-Reform, Roman-sympathizing, Boethusian or Herodian factions of Pᵊrush•im were conspiring to have him killed. Accordingly, he limited his teaching to the area of the Gâ•lil surrounding Yâm Ki•nërët, where he cared for the sick there; instructing them not to talk about him. The author of NHM—noted that this fulfilled the prophecy of Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.1-4. that the Mâ•shiakh would


The Hebrew original of Yᵊsha•yâhu makes it plain that diminishing and crushing " and abandoner of the flock," along with the goy•im, would begin with setting mi•shᵊpât bâ-ârëtz and the islands awaiting His —at a future time, in the Messianic Era.

That's what's going on—right now.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

5771 (2010.10)

Translation Mid•râsh Ribi Yᵊho•shua: NHM NHM
bᵊ-Reish•it 4.23-24

Then Lamakh said to his wives, Äd•âh and Tzil•âh, Hearken to my voice wives of Lamakh, Lend your ears to [what I'm] saying; for am I the man who killed [Qâyin]? [Would this be] for my wounding [of Qâyin]? Or [would yours be] a child of my bruising [of Qâyin]? 24 For vengeance against Qâyin [was deferred] sevenfold, then [vengeance against] Lamakh [shall be deferred] seventy-seven [fold].

bᵊ-Reish•it 5.1-2

This is the seiPhër of the generations of â•dâm; in the Yom [that] Ël•oh•im created â•dâm, of Ël•oh•im He made him. 2 Male and female He created them; them and called their name â•dâm, in the day they were created.

bᵊ-Reish•it 1.27
bᵊ-Reish•it 2.24 (LXX)

Therefore a man shall abandon his father and his mother; and adhere to his wife, and they shall become one bâ•sâr.

LXX: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

bᵊ-Reish•it 3.14-15

Then ‑‑ Ël•oh•im said to the snake, "Because you have done this, you are damned more than any of or any animal of the field; on your reptile-belly shall you go and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. 15 and I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He [on the] rosh and you [on the] heel.

Then Shim•on "Keiphâ"4.18.2 Bar-Yonâh,16.17.0 having come near to Ribi Yᵊho•shua, said, "A•don•i,22.43.2 how often shall my brother misstep1.21.4 toward me that I must bear18.21.0 him?" Ribi Yᵊho•shua said to him, "I don't tell you only until seven times, but rather until seventy times seven."18.22.1


Then the Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im min of Judaism23.25.1 who advocate that Ha•lâkh•âh7.1.1 must be exclusively oral3.7.1 drew near him to test him. They asked him saying,19.3.1 "Is one permitted19.3.2 to abandon his woman for any reason and give her a geit?" Replying, he said,19.4.1 "Have you not read that He Who made them from the primacy19.4.2 made them male and female? 19.4.3


He said (bᵊ-Reish•it 2:24): 'Therefore a man8.20.3 shall leave his mother and his father and shall join to his woman and they shall be for one19.5.1 flesh.'19.5.2


Having seen many from the [probably 'Herodian'22.16.1] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im min of Judaism23.25.1 who advocate that Ha•lâkh•âh7.1.1 must be exclusively oral3.7.1 and from the aristocratic, Hellenist-Roman Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im min of Judaism3.7.2 coming to his tᵊvil•âh,3.7.3 he told them to escape from the future qeitz28.20.1 coming from Eil? 3.7.4 8  Then produce fruit worthy of tᵊshuv•âh." 3.2.1 9 Don't suppose to say within yourselves "We are of our father Av•râ•hâm," 3.9.1 for I say to you that Ël•oh•im is able to raise up physical children to Av•râ•hâm from these stones.3.9.2 10 Now3.10.1 the axe3.10.2 is being laid to the root of the trees.3.10.3 Therefore, every tree which is not producing good3.10.4 fruit3.10.5 is being cut out and thrown into the fire.3.10.6

Note that the infamous misojudaic clause is not found in the earliest extant source mss. It was redacted later by Hellenist Christians.

bᵊ-Reish•it 4.8,10

Then Qâyin said [something] to Hëvël his brother; and it was when they were in the field, then Qâyin rose up to Hëvël his brother and killed him10 Then [‑‑] said, "What have you done? The voice of the of your brother cries out to Me from the adâm•âh. 10 Therefore, you are damned from the adâm•âh

Yo•eil 4.19

Mitz•rayim shall be and Εd•om will be for a mid•bâr; of BƏn•ei-Yᵊhud•âh, for they spilled clean blood in their ârëtz. 20 Yᵊhud•âh shall settle lƏ-o•lâm; and Yᵊrushâ•layim from generation to generation.

Zᵊkhar•yâh 1.1-2

… there was a speaking of ‑‑ to Zᵊkhar•yâh2  ‑‑ upon your forefathers of .

Oy23.13.1 for you, So•phƏr•im5.20.0 and those of the [probably 'Herodian'22.16.1] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im min of Judaism23.25.1 who advocate that Ha•lâkh•âh7.1.1 must be exclusively oral3.7.1—hypocrites…23.13.2 because you build23.29.1 the tombs27.61.1 of the Nᵊviy•im11.9.1 and put the sepulchers27.60.0 of the Tzadiq•im1.19.1 in order 30 and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers we wouldn't have shared in the blood of the Nᵊviy•im.' 23.30.1

31 In the following you witness23.31.0 against yourselves that you are the sons23.31.1 of those who murdered the Nᵊviy•im:23.30.1 32 You measure up fully5.17.3 to your fathers. 33 Serpents, offspring of vipers… how shall you escape the adjudication-of-Ha•lâkh•âh7.1.1 – of Gei-Hi•nom10.28.2 – if you don't return in tᵊshuv•âh?23.33.1

34 Look, I send forth nᵊviy•im23.34.1 to you, and intellectuals,11.19.4 and So•phƏr•im.5.20.0 You23.34.2 will kill some of them, even put some of them to the stake10.38.1, and flog some of them in your Bât•ei- ha-kᵊnësët9.35.0 and pursue them from ir2.23.0 to ir, 35 so that all of the blood of the Tzadiq•im1.19.1 spilled out on hâ-ârëtz23.35.1 should come upon you, from the blood of Hëvël23.35.2 the Tza•diq1.19.1 to the blood of Zᵊkhar•yâh23.35.3 whom you murdered between the Beit ha-Miq•dâsh and the Miz•beiakh.23.35.5 36 Â•mein!

I tell you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

37  Yᵊrushâ•layimYᵊrushâ•layim, who kills the nᵊviy•im23.30.1 and stones those who have been sent forth to her. How often I wished to gather24.31.2 your children like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings… but you would not.23.37.1 38 Look, your Bayit23.38.1 is left23.38.2 desolate23.38.3 to you, 39 for I tell you: you shall in no case see me anymore until you say (Tᵊhil•im 118:26):

‑‑1.22.1 & 23.39.1

bᵊ-Reish•it 5.1

This is the seiPhër of the generations of Ä•dâm, in the day that Ël•oh•im created â•dâm; Ël•oh•im âs•âh him.

bᵊ-Reish•it 3.1

And the snake was shrewd, more than any creature of the field, which ‑‑ Ël•oh•im had made; and [the serpent] said to the woman, "Perhaps Ël•oh•im said, ' You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?' "

bᵊ-Reish•it 3.2-7

The woman said to the snake, "From the fruit of [any apparently overhanging] tree of the garden we may eat. 3 But from the fruit of the tree that is inside the garden, Ël•oh•im said, 'You shall neither eat from it nor touch it; lest you die.' " 4 Then the snake said to the woman, "You will not surely die." 5 Because Ël•oh•im knows that in the day that you eat from it, your eyes will be opened; and you will be like Ël•oh•im, knowing good and wrong." 6 Then the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and that it was to the eyes, and that the tree was for ; and she took from its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with, and he ate some with her. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaf, fashioning for themselves .

The seiPhër1.1.0 of the generations1.1.1 of Yᵊho•shua Bën-Dâ•wid1.1.2 Bën-Av•râ•hâm, the Mâ•shiakh:1.1.3


Look, I send you forth as sheep among wolves. Therefore, you become as shrewd10.16.1 as10.16.2 snakes,10.16.3 and as wholesome10.16.4 as doves.


Ribi Yᵊho•shua was fleeing4.1.0 from the sâ•tân4.1.1 and hit•pa•leil.5.44.2 2 He fasted6.16.1 forty days4.2.1 on the har.4.2.2 3 Then, look, the sâ•tân4.1.1 came and said to him, "If you are a son3.17.2 of Ël•oh•im, say to this stone that it should become bread, and eat it"4.3.1 4 Ribi Yᵊho•shua said, "The writing (Dᵊvâr•im 8:3) is: 'for not on the bread alone shall the man8.20.1 live, for upon everything going forth of the Mouth of ‑‑ 1.22.1 shall the man8.20.1 live.' "4.4.1

5 Then the sâ•tân4.1.1 took him and brought him up into the high place4.5.1 of the Hei•khâl4.5.2 in the Ir ha-Qodësh4.5.3&1.18.7 6 and he said to him, "If you are a son3.17.2 of Ël•oh•a, send yourself from the top down and no harm at all will find you. For it has already been written of him (Tᵊhil•im 91:11-12): 'For He shall tzi•wâh15.4.1 to His malâkh•im1.20.1 concerning you, to keep you in all your ways. They shall bear you up in their hands, lest you dash your foot against a stone.' " 7 Ribi Yᵊho•shua said to the sâ•tân, "Isn't the writing (Dᵊvâr•im 6:16): 'You shall not test ‑‑ 1.22.1 your Ël•oh•im'?"4.7.1

8 Another time the sâ•tân4.1.1 took Ribi Yᵊho•shua into a very high, steep Har and said to him, "See all of the legions,4.8.1 and their kingships,4.17.1 and governments, and all of the good things in them."4.8.2 9 Then he said to him, "It is mine, and if you will kneel down and bow to me one bow4.9.1 I will give it to you." 10 Ribi Yᵊho•shua replied, "Don't you know that it is written in (Dᵊvâr•im 6:13): 'It is ‑‑ 1.22.1 your Ël•oh•im that you shall revere, and it is Him you shall serve'?" 11 Then the sâ•tân4.1.1 let him be.4.11.1

Fig leaves

Unlike depicted in any paintings, I was amazed to see how some of these fig leaves are large enough that, two of them "sewn" together with small vines, produce a full-sized, diaper-like, Bikini-style fig leaf brief that will fit a normal-sized adult.

A guide demonstrated (over slacks, of course) how this is done during one of my daughter's class trips, a few years ago, to NƏot KƏdum•im:

In the photos above, think of yourself facing left. Overlap the tongue of each leaf at the yellow button and, piercing the leaves with a vine, "sew" the two leaves together at the yellow button. This produces the crotch section, creating a front section having green and blue buttons (left photo) and another set of green and blue buttons in back (right photo). The front and back are then brought up to the waist and, using another vine to pierce the leaves at your left waist, "sew" the green button sections together. Finally, using a third vine, pierce the leaves at your right waist, "sewing" the blue button sections together.

Ha•phƏtâr•âh Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.1-4,9

Behold, , whom I shall uphold, , wanted by ; I have given upon him, he shall issue mish•pât to the goy•im. 2 He will neither shout nor ; nor shall his voice be heard . ‭ ‬ 3 Not [even] a damaged reed shall he tip over, nor shall he extinguish [by disturbing the air in passing even] a ; ‭ ‬ he shall issue mish•pât. Neither nor , until he shall have placed mish•pât in hâ-ârëtz; and the islands yearn for his

The first-ones, behold, they came; but I proclaim new-ones; before they sprout, I shall cause you to hear [about it].

Khaj•ai 2.23

"On this day," declares ‑‑ Tzᵊvâ•ot, I will take you, ZƏru•Bâ•veil Bën-ShƏal•ti•yeil My servant, declares ‑‑, and I will set you ; because you, declares ‑‑ Tzᵊvâ•ot.

Then the [probably 'Herodian'22.16.1] Rabbinic-Pᵊrush•im min of Judaism23.25.1 who advocate that Ha•lâkh•âh7.1.1 must be exclusively oral3.7.1 conferred12.14.1 and conspired to bring about his death.12.14.2

15 Ribi Yᵊho•shua, having known this, extended12.13.1 himself beyond there and many12.15.1 sick12.15.2 followed him, and he cared for10.8.1 all of them.12.15.2 16 Then he rebuked8.26.1 them that they wouldn't reveal him, in order to fill out12.17.0 that which was spoken by Yᵊsha•yâhu12.17.1 ha-Nâ•vi11.9.1 (42:1-4) saying, 17 

Behold, , whom I shall uphold, , wanted by ; I have given upon him, he shall issue mish•pât to the goy•im. 2 He will neither shout nor ; nor shall his voice be heard . ‭ ‬ 3 Not [even] a damaged reed shall he tip over, nor shall he extinguish [by disturbing the air in passing even] a ; ‭ ‬ he shall issue mish•pât. Neither nor , until he shall have placed mish•pât in hâ-ârëtz; and the islands yearn for his .


Having consummated tᵊvil•âh,3.6.1 straightway Ribi Yᵊho•shua walked up onto the bank out of the water and look… the heavens3.2.2 were opened to him3.16.1 and he was struck with awe3.16.2 – a Ruakh Bat Kol,3.16.3 cooing like a dove out of the heavens,3.17.1 17 saying,

 3.17.2 " 3.17.3

Yᵊsha•yâhu 42.6-8,16,18-19

I am ‑‑, I have called you in tzëdëq and I will strengthen your hand; , and I shall give you


7 to open blind eyes, to extricate him who is locked up from captivity, [and extricate] from prison the settlers in darkness. 8 I am ‑‑, which is My Name; and My Kâ•vod I shall not give to any other, nor My Tᵊhil•âh to idols… 16 I will lead the blind in a Way they didn't know; on paths they didn't know I will lead them; I will transform the darkness before them , and [transform] the crooked things to straight. These are the things I shall do and I shall not abandon them… 18 Deaf ones, hearken! And blind ones, peer to see!

Tar•gum Yo•nâ•tân:

Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

The wicked are like the deaf. Aren't ears for hearing? And the guilty are like the blind. Aren't eyes for looking and envisioning? (Translation © 2010 by Yirmeyahu Ben-David)

19 Who is blind except My servant? Or deaf like My mal•âkh [whom] I shall send? Who is as blind as the recompensed? Or as deaf as the servant of ‑‑?

Tar•gum Yo•nâ•tân:

Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

If the wicked make tᵊshuv•âh, aren't they called My servants? Even those who are guilty of [the blood of] My Nᵊviy•im, whom I sent against them? Else [lacking tᵊshuv•âh], the future of the wicked is complete retribution for their guilt. However, if some shall make tᵊshuv•âh, they shall be called servants of ‑‑. (Translation © 2010 by Yirmeyahu Ben-David)

Yᵊsha•yâhu 35.5

Then the eyes of the blind shall be wide-opened, and the ears of the deaf opened.

Yᵊsha•yâhu 43.8

To bring-forth the am who are blind though they have eyes; and deaf though they have ears.

Yᵊsha•yâhu 29.18 (introduces 29.22-23)

And on that day the deaf shall hear the Dᵊvâr•im of a seiPhër; and from gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see.

Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 having heard in prison of the Ma•as•ëh7.20.1 of the Mâ•shiakh, having sent via11.2.1 his tal•mid•im.5.1.1 3 they said to him, "Are you the one who is coming11.3.1 or should we look for yet another?"11.3.2 4 Replying, Ribi Yᵊho•shua said to them, "Go and relate11.4.1 to Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 what you have heard and seen: 5 (Yᵊsha•yâhu 42:6-9) 'opening blind eyes,' 11.5.1 (Yᵊsha•yâhu 35:6) 'the lame curvet like a deer,' 11.5.2 (Yᵊkhëz•qeil 36:25) 'waters of tâhâr•âh5.8.1 are sprinkled upon the mᵊtzor•âyim15.31.1 and they are made tâ•hor5.8.1 from all their tum•ot,' 10.1.1 (Yᵊsha•yâhu 35:5) 'the ears of the deaf are opened,' 11.5.3 (Yᵊsha•yâhu 26:19) 'your dead are enlivened,'11.5.4 and (Yᵊsha•yâhu 61:1) 'announcing the good news' 4.23.3 (Yᵊsha•yâhu 29:19) 'adding joy11.5.5 to the humble.' 26.9.2 6 Happy5.3.1 is the one who won't stumble over me, nor fall, nor be broken, nor be ensnared, nor be trapped."11.6.1


As the tal•mid•im5.1.1 of Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 were going, Ribi Yᵊho•shua began to tell the qᵊhil•ot4.25.1 about Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 "What did you come out in the mid•bâr3.3.2 to see? A reed blowing in the ruakh?8.16.1 8 Well, what did you come out to see? A man8.20.1 outfitted in a soft4.23.4 ta•lit? 11.8.1 Look, those who wear a soft4.23.4 ta•lit are found in the houses of mƏlâkh•im.14.9.1 9 So what have you come forth to see? A nâ•vi? 11.9.1 Truly, I tell you, this one is greater than a nâ•vi.11.9.1 10 This11.10.1 is he about whom it has been written11.10.2 (Malâkh•i 3:23): 'Behold, I will send you Eil•i•yâhu ha-nâ•vi11.10.3 before the coming of the great and terrible day of ‑‑ 11 Truly, I tell you, among the children of women there has not risen one greater than Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 Yet, he that is least in the Realm4.17.1 of the heavens3.2.2 is greater than Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,11.11.1 here in the earthly realm. 12 From the days of Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 until now, the [earthly institutions of the] Realm4.17.1 of the heavens3.2.2 is being broken; and [pseudo-religious predators] who are breaking it have been preying upon it.11.12.1 13 All of the Nᵊviy•im11.9.1 and 5.17.1 spoke of11.13.1 Yokhâ•nân 'ha-Mat•bil'3.0.1 Bën-Zᵊkhar•yâh Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein,3.0.2 14 If you wish to accept it, he is Eil•i•yâhu ha-nâ•vi who was impending to come.11.14.1 15 He who has ears to hear, hear.13.9.2

Yᵊsha•yâhu 43.5

Don't be awestruck because I am with you; from the East I will bring your offspring and from the West I will gather you.

When Ribi Yᵊho•shua came into Kᵊphar Na•khum, ha-Gâ•lil a Captain in the Roman Army came near to him, requesting forbearance8.31.1 of him 6 and saying, "a•don•i, 22.43.2 my son is in the house thrown down by paralysis, grievously tried as by a touchstone."4.24.0 7 He8.3.1 said to him, "Having come, I will care for10.8.1 him." 8 Replying, the Captain reported, "a•don•i,22.43.2 I am not kâ•sheir to have you come in under my roof. Rather, only speak, and by a saying12.37.0 my boy shall be healed.8.8.1 9 For I am also a man8.9.0 having institutional-authority8.9.1 under my hand, extensions [of my hand]: both cavalry and armored corps,8.9.2 and I say to this one 'Proceed' and he proceeds; and to another, 'Come' and he comes; and to my slave,20.27.1 'Do this' and he does." 10 Having heard this Ribi Yᵊho•shua was surprised, and said to those who were following, "•mein! I say to you, I have not found such great ëm•un•âh8.10.1 in Israel." 8.10.2

11 "I tell you, many [of the Diaspora of Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil] will arrive from the culminating up2.1.4 of the sun and from the west; and sit down with Av•râ•hâm, Yitz•khâq,8.11.2 and Ya•a•qov8.11.3 in the Realm4.17.1 of the heavens.8.11.4 12 Yet, some sons8.12.0 of the Realm4.17.1 shall go forth8.12.1 into the dark places of Gei-Hi•nom.8.12.2 Wailing and gnashing of teeth will be there." 8.12.3

13 Ribi Yᵊho•shua said to the Captain, "Go innocuously.8.13.1 As you have trusted8.10.1 so let it become to you." The boy was healed8.8.1 at that time.8.13.2


Go to Top
Return to Previous Page

Rainbow Rule


Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

Translated by Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu & Yâ•eil Bën-Dâvid.

("The [Seven-Branched] Candelabra of Light"), The Teimân•im Yᵊhud•im' Ancient Halakhic debate, Corrupted into the Zo•har & medieval Qa•bâl•âh

At Beit-ha-Kᵊnësët Morëshët Âvot—Yad Nâ•âmi here in Ra•a•nanâ(h), Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, liturgy for a regular concludes with one of the members reciting the following portion of Mᵊnor•at ha-Mâ•or by Yi•tzᵊkhâq Abuhav

© Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu Bën-Dâ•wid. All rights reserved. Copies, reproductions and/or retransmissions strictly prohibited.

Part 1 (of 5)

Some people receive their retribution measure for measure directly from the Hand of Heaven. The Tal•mud tells us (Ma•sëkët Sunedrion 108a): Our rabbis have taught: The generation of the Ma•bul became arrogant only because of the good that the Holy Blessed One bestowed upon them.

It is written about them, Their homes are at peace, safe from terror , nor is the rod of ‑‑ laid upon them. His ox impregnates and his seed is not expelled, his cow gives birth and does not miscarry. Their children roam, safe as sheep, and their young cavort. They raise their voices in song to the accompaniment of drums and mini-harps, and they rejoice to the sound of flutes. They live out their entire lives in happiness, and their death is but a painless moment. And they say to the Lord, Leave us be! We do not wish to know Your Ways. Who is the Almighty that we must worship Him? For what benefit need we beseech Him? (I•yov 21:9-15).

They thought: "What do we need besides the benefit of rain? Even for that, we have streams and springs from which to draw water for irrigation."

The Holy Blessed One said: " Because of the good that I have bestowed upon them, they are angering Me; through it I will supervise them, as it is written, And behold, I will bring the waters of the Ma•bul' (bᵊ-Reish•it 6.17)."

Amar Rabi Yo•khân•ân: "The generation of the Ma•bul were in great corruption and in great liability. In great corruption, as it is said, "And ‑‑ saw that great was the wrongdoing of man bâ-ârëtz" (bᵊ-Reish•it 6.5). And in great liability, as it is written, "All the wellsprings of the great abyss were split open" (bᵊ-Reish•it 7.11).

•mar Rav Yosi Ben Durmaskis: "The generation of the Ma•bul became arrogant only because of their eyes, which are similar to water, as it is written, And they took themselves women from wherever they chose (bᵊ-Reish•it 6:2). Therefore, the Holy Blessed One visited their judgment upon them through water which is similar to the eyeball, as it is written, All the wellsprings of the great abyss were split open (bᵊ-Reish•it 7.11 )."

•mar Rav Khisda: "The generation of the Ma•bul corrupted themselves through inflammation, and their judgment was supervised by boiling water. This is indicated by it being written in reference to the Ma•bul, And the waters subsided (bᵊ-Reish•it 8: 1 ), it also being written, And the hot anger of the king subsided (Ës•teir 7.10)."

Part 2 (of 5)

The Tal•mud gives other examples of retribution measure for mea- sure administered by the Hand of Heaven ( 31b, 33a, 62b, Ma•sëkët Sunedrion 90a, Khalah).

Because of three sins do women die during childbirth. Because they are not careful in observing the laws of the nid•âh, the laws of the holy khalah portion of dough designated for Kohan•im, and the lighting of the candles.

What is the connection between the laws of the nid•âh and death during childbirth? •mar Rav Yitzkhaq: "She sinned with the chambers of her belly; therefore, she is stricken in the chambers of her belly." That explains the connection to the laws of nid•âh.

What can be said for the connection to khalah and the lighting of candles? It can be explained by that which a certain Galilean expounded before Rav Khisda: "The Holy Blessed One said: 'I have injected a quarter measure of blood into you, and I have cautioned you about matters concerning blood. I have designated you 'first', and I have cautioned you to heed the laws of the tithe, which is also called 'first'. I have imbued you with a nephesh that is called 'candle', and I have cautioned you concerning the lighting of candles. If you heed my warning, all is well. If you don't I shall take your nephesh from you.'"

And why at the particular time of childbirth? •mar Rava: "The time to quickly sharpen the slaughtering knife is when the ox has fallen down and is vulnerable."

Our rabbis have taught: There are four marks. The mark of sin is dropsy. The mark of gratuitous hatred is jaundice. The mark of arrogance is poverty. The mark of gossip is diphtheria.

Our rabbis have taught: Diphtheria comes because of violation of laws of tithing. Rav Elazar Ben Rav Yosi says: " Because of gossip." •mar Rava, or according to another version, •mar Rav Yᵊho•shua Ben Lei•wi: "What is the Scriptural source for this? For it is written, And the king shall rejoice in ‑‑, all who swear by Him shall be praised, for the mouths of liars shall be gagged (Tehil•im 63.12)."

Part 3 (of 5)

Rav Ula the son of Rav Ilai expounded: "That which is written, And •mar Eloh•im, Because the daughters of Tziy•on became arrogant. (Yᵊsha•yâhu 3.16) refers to their walking with proud bearing. And they walked with outstretched throat (ibid.) refers to their emphasizing their stately height by walking beside others shorter than they. And painted their eyes (ibid.) refers to their covering their eyes with blue shadow and winking alluringly. Walking and mincing as they go (ibid.) refers to their promenading with mincing, heel-to-toe footsteps."

It is written, And clattering with their feet (ibid.). •mar Rav Yitzkhaq in the school of Rav Ami: "This comes to teach that they would put myrrh and persimmon on their shoes and walk in the marketplaces of Yᵊrushâlayim. When they came upon young men of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, they would stamp their feet and sprinkle them, causing the evil inclination to awaken in them, as venom in a snake."

What was their punishment? This can be known from that which Raba the son of Ula expounded: "That which is written, And it shall be that instead of perfume there shall be decay (Yᵊsha•yâhu 3:24) is saying that those places they perfumed will be covered with patches of gangrene."

And instead of a sash a bruise (Yᵊsha•yâhu 3.24) is saying that those places they adorned with belts will become covered with bruises."

That which is written, And instead of tresses baldness (ibid,) is saying that those places with which they preened themselves were covered with bald spots."

That which is written, And instead of festive robes a girdle of sackcloth (ibid.) is saying that their gates of promiscuous delight shall be shrouded in sackcloth."

The verse concludes, For this instead of beauty (ibid.), •mar Rava: "This coincides with the popular saying that beauty brings ulcers."

It is written, And Ël•oh•im will bring sores upon the heads of the daughters of Zion (Yᵊsha•yâhu 3.17). •mar Rabbi Yose the son of Chanina: "This teaches that they broke out in leprosy. This is deduced from the similarity between the Hebrew word used here for 'bring sores' and the Hebrew words used elsewhere to indicate the off-white form of leprosy (wa-Yi•qᵊr•â 14.56)."

It is written, And Ël•oh•im will lay bare their secret parts (Yᵊsha•yâhu 3.17 ). Both Rav and Shmueil proposed interpretations. One said: "This means that they gushed forth like pitchers. " The other said: "This means that their gates became densely overgrown like a forest."

Part 4 (of 5)

Our rabbis have taught: Among those that have no share in the world to come is one who denies that the Scripture indicates future resurrection of the dead. Why is this so? He denied the concept of resurrection of the dead; therefore, he himself shall not participate in the resurrection of the dead. For all of the measures used by the Holy Blessed One are measure-for-measure of the measures used by the person himself.

This was said by Rav Shmueil Ben Nakhmeini in the name of Rav Yonatan: "How do we know that all of the measures used by the Holy Blessed One are measure-for-measure of the measures used by the person himself? "For it is written, And •mar Elisha, Listen to the Word of Ël•oh•im, so has •mar Eloh•im, At this time tomorrow a seah of flour shall sell for a shëqël, and two seot of barley for a shëqël, at the gate of Sho•mᵊr•on (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 7.1)." And the verse goes on, And the king's captain, upon whose arm the king would lean, answered the man of ‑‑, and he said, Behold, Ël•oh•im will make windows in the sky, can there be such a thing? and he said, Behold, you shall witness it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat from it (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 7.2)." And it is written, And so it happened to him, and the people trampled him at the gate, and he died (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 7.20 )."

How do we know he was being repaid measure for measure, maybe the fate was merely the result of Elisha's curse? For, indeed, •mar Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: "The curse of a sage has effect even if it is undeserved." Maybe this was the case here, too. This cannot be, for if so, it would have been sufficient to write, And they trampled him, and he died. To what purpose was it written, At the gate? It is meant to imply that he died because of his skepticism of the promise of abundant supply of grain at the gate of Sho•mᵊr•on.

Rav Nehorai says: "Whoever disgraces another is, in the end, himself disgraced. Furthermore, the malakh•im of service jostle him and reveal his shame to the entire world."

Part 5 (of 5)

Some things that a person may do are so abominable that the Holy Blessed One administers the punishment by His own Hand. The Tal•mud tells us (Ma•sëkët Sunedrion 94a): It was taught: Rav Yᵊho•shua Bën Karkhâh says: "Par•oh was himself insulting, as it is written, And he said, Who is Ël•oh•im that I should heed His Voice? (Shᵊm•ot 5.2). Therefore, the Holy Blessed One punished him by His own Hand, as it is written, And Ël•oh•im tossed the Mitzriy•im into the midst of the sea (Shᵊm•ot 14.27).

"And it is written, You trampled multitudes with Your Steed (Khavaquq 3.15). Sankheiriv was insulting through an emissary, as it is written, Through your emissaries you have insulted ‑‑, and you said, With my many chariots I have stormed the mountaintop (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 19:23). And it is written, I dug down and drank newly found waters, and with the tread of my footsteps I will dry up the rivers of the besieged city (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 19.24). Therefore, the Holy Blessed One punished him through an emissary, as it is written, And a Ma·lâkh·i of Ël•oh•im went out and slew in the camp of A•shur (Mᵊlâkh•im Beit 19.35)."

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author-publisher
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic