[before I commence the substantive depth of this article, I would like to conspicuify (translated into English from H-5046 via Latin/Old French suffix conjugation) as plainly as can be that I personally was losing inclination to continue these weekly sabbath studies in light of consistently low traffic and attentive heed toward consideration, but for the sake of the few who will perhaps attentify and listen with pricked-open ears toward becoming wise, I will continue to write these expositions, that the will of Adonai Jehovah my God be fulfilled now and unto the end of the ages verily!]
Introduction
So as it turns out exists,1 the biblical definition of intensely learning by implication ultimately means to teach. Yes, actually! So first off, bear in mind that the Piel stem of a verb in the original unadulterated Biblical Hebrew ancient Near Eastern Semitic tongue is the intensifier relative to the “root” Qal stem. For instance, if the “standard” Qal stem of a verb means “to break,” then Piel by effected implication means something along the lines of “to shatter/smash to pieces.” In the case of H-3925 לָמַד (lāmaḏ), the Qal stem means essentially “to train [of oneself in something],” “to learn,” “to be accustomed to,” while the Piel-stemmed inflections of the word means “to teach.” At face glance, I assumed that the concept of teaching would be associated with the Hiphil stem that corresponds to the causative of Qal (a.k.a. the idea that causing one to learn would be tantamount to teaching), but as the record plainly stands, it’s actually the intensifier Piel stem relative to Qal in the case study of this specific word that in ostensibly corresponded and implicated effect means to teach.
Why am I mentioning this in particular for a sabbath study introduction, one might ask? Because it is of overarching pertinent relevance to conspicuifying toward you (at least if you actually are among the open-minded human beings—yes, I must clarify human beings because “sorry,” non-conscious2 Great Satan-sponsored clandestine AI slop-training programs, this isn’t for “you”—who will read this) to explain my own standing here lest any of you think to question how I “got my understanding” and distrust me over my exposited conclusions of atavistically revolutionary extents. The fact of the matter is that of whatever God-breathed truth I am bestowed the God-granted gracious privilege to “teach” in these sabbath studies, they are oracles which I must first learn in self-abased humility to internalize in my heart, and that none of it can I claim as knowledge that can belong to me. For my own ordained role is only that of a lowly messengerial servant and nothing more (God forbid that I blaspheme His name and even think to exalt my vain earthly imagination above His heavenly sanctification, and may He chastise me if I grievously transgress in violation of Isa. 55!), because I say and write this not to magnify myself, but that the name of Jehovah God be magnified now and unto everlasting and onpassage, wherein the few of us who seek after Him out of a pure heart learn what means to kenotically empty ourselves of our vain egotistic dross and live and breathe in the acknowledgement that our only vindication toward the face of Jehovah is through Him, through His fleshly-manifested Word and Image conspicuified unto the whole world.
בָּרָא (bārā’: H-1254): ‘create’(?) ❌; outcarve ✔️
The rendition of the very first sentence always goes something like this: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the land.” There are of course these glaring mistakes at the surface level itself:
there is no prefixed definite article (“the”) between “in” and “beginning,” nor does the context indicate a justified supplication of a definite article in brackets, because the definite article (as far as I am aware, as of typing) can only be justifiably supplied with a bracketed [of] as part of a “[the] X [of] Y” context where Y possesses X as evident in the local context, which obviously is not the case here in the original Semitic Biblical Hebrew reading3—literally the first term simply means “in beginning” in utter lack of an article
the mark of the accusative is entirely omitted (tough luck imagining oneself to live by every word of Jehovah4 if the mark of the accusative—appearing over 10,000 times in the Old Testament—is completely ignored from translation: yes, you particularly obnoxious and hypocritically unrepentant KJV-Only pompously special misers!)
Those are only the surface-level obvious errors, because as it turns out, the standard translation of בָּרָא (bārā’) as “create” is an utter misrepresentation of what the original word means. “Create” in its ambiguously malleable etymology is often taken to the point of implying that Genesis 1:1 literally must mean that God created physical matter out of nothingness on the start of the first day of Creation.
Yet, in the original Biblical Hebrew etymological reckoning in parallel comparisons with corresponding words in other Semitic languages, the most plain meaning of בָּרָא (bārā’) actually means “to carve out.” (cf. Gesenius) Its definitive connotation is not one of indicating the creation of matter ex nihilo, but rather that of artisanal craftsmanship and beauty in carving out of matter that already exists, to shape and form it into meaningfully structured complexes and entities. Accordingly, the ancient Semitic covenantally-ingrained understanding of “Creation” Week5 was always that Jehovah God had formed, reshaped, and designed into entities from material substance that already existed with Him from ancient everlasting “past,” and that it always existed and never sprang/popped all of a sudden into existence ex nihilo. When the Christian church became poisoned by the Hellenistic perversions of Constantinian-Nicene antitypical Balaam’s corruptifying perversities, the concept of creation ex nihilo became institutionally propagated as a mainstream given doctrine revolving around the diversionary false binary of apparently debating whether Jehovah has the raw capability to create matter out of nothingness, completely sidelining the larger point that the first chapter of Genesis emphasizes fundamentally and emphatically the nuanced depth of providential purposing wherein God’s carved-out creation reveals the glory of the divine mind that purposed it, not about presumptuously questioning whether God possesses the raw capacity to enact this or that.
The notion that God just “created material out of nothingness” is patently dubious by reason that Genesis 1 knows nothing of the “creation” of the waters, as the third sentence simply mentions the waters without any preceding usage of the term בָּרָא (bārā’) to state that the waters were created with the heavens and land.6 Moreover, when the heavens and land were initially “created,” the land was a waste desolation and a void, defined by a darkness upon the face of an abyss. The creation ex nihilo theory therefore must explain why God would order the magical pop-up of the creation of a desolate land that is only subsequently further developed into a vibrant abode of other “created” entities, and why God didn’t just instantly create the land in a completed form outright for efficiency sake.
Hence, only the “outcarvationist” position is of objectively plausible sense: God carved out from an eternally-existing material (that eternally existed near Him) in order to mold, shape, and design His purposed and assembled order, in step-by-step increments for manifested and plain reasons identifiable via Biblical Hebraic parallel cross-referencing secondary and tertiary witnesses.7
So in a nutshell, the proper restored grasp of biblical truth would not be “creationism,” but rather something summarizable as i.e. “outcarvationism.”
אָדָם (’āḏām: H-120): ‘man’(?) ❌; red-creature ✔️
Yes, you literally just read that right: one of the most baseline assumed givens—that “adam” from the Biblical Hebrew is simply translated as “man”—is fundamentally premised on a reductionist error.
Of course, by ultimate implication, אָדָם (’āḏām) refers to humankind in both individual and implied collective/“plural” connotations, but a properly straightforward translation of the text as it stands in its original meaning must emphatically preserve the fact that the root etymology of the word is inextricably associated first and foremost with redness/ruddiness as a color. The concordance listing plainly hints that this noun is a nominalization of the verb אָדַם (’āḏam: H-119) which means “to be red/ruddy,” and it’s the exact same skeletal three-letter comprisal wherein the diacritic marking makes the pivotal difference defining the pronouncation, and accordingly whether it’s inflected in the form of a verb or noun.
In a nutshell, red is the color of mankind: humanity was materially formed from the dust of the ground, the latter term a translation from אֲדָמָה (’ăḏāmâ: H-127), which likewise is derived from the “root” verb אָדַם (’āḏam: H-119). H-127, which by implication means the “ground,” literally would mean more or less something along the lines of “red-substance,” and because man was created from red-substance, he is known as “red-creature.” Because it is fundamentally the color associated with the material comprisal of the land—which in turn is beneath the heavens8—red is by implication the color of that which is beneath and subordinate to heavenly order, and which cannot sustain itself in existence, because without the assured continuation of preservation from its heavenly head, it corruptifies, rots, and is perverted, namely in the sense of blood and its widespread grievous shedding thereof. Red in of itself is not per se simplistically a “bad” color universally, rather that it becomes inherently associated with evil if stripped of its covenantal connection with the other colors symbolically representing heavenly-ordained authority and dualistically separated.
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה (zäkhär ûn’qëväh): ‘male and female’(?) ❌; remembrage and outhollowage ✔️
Again, you read that right: likewise the common translation of “male and female” is an inadequate, reductionist, and improperly flattened of the original Biblical Hebrew text. There is of course the obvious fact that by implication, this phrase ostensibly means—yes—“male and female,” but that is the ostensible end-drawn conclusion, not what the words themselves mean in their plainly emphatic etymology.
The male sex is not defined in the Biblical Hebrew as solely an abstract biological construct, but rather as the noun form of the verb which means “to remember.” זָכָר (zāḵār: H-2145), as plainly listed in the concordance resources, is a nominalized derivation from זָכַר (zāḵar: H-2142), which means “to remember, recall, call to mind.”
Likewise, the female sex is not defined in the ancient Semitic God-breathed covenantal context as purely an abstract biological construct, but exists as the nominalization of the verb that means “to hollow out”: the noun נְקֵבָה (nᵊqēḇâ: H-5347) is accordingly listed as a derivation from the verb נָקַב (nāqaḇ: H-5344), which means “to pierce, perforate, bore, appoint,” and as noted by Gesenius, “prop. to hollow out, to excavate.” Yes, literally in the implicated meaning of thrusting a hole through! (sound familiar about a certain person who was pierced on a cross?)
It is consistently made crisp-clear in both testaments that the male sex as the role of husband represents the head, and the female sex as the role of wife represents the body. This was never designed to mean crude hierarchical subjugation of unequal dignity, but rather a composite bifurcated fullness of the unity of the two sexes as the image of the completed glory of Jehovah God:
the male sex covenantally reflects (yes, as an image) the role of Jehovah’s Word—the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—in its ordained responsibility and functional role as the head who remembers and faithfully carries on remembrance from one generation to another, that the memorial of God’s holy truth shall never be ignored into forgotten dissipation but preached and manifested unto everlasting and onpassage (a.k.a. forever and ever)
the female sex covenantally reflects (likewise yes, as an image) the role of Jehovah’s Word Jesus Christ as the fleshly manifested Messiah who was pierced of holes into His hands and feet, who travailed in atonifying physical suffering out of love for the people of His (עַמִּי: aMiy), that the body of Jehovah would faithfully reflect the will of the head in the perfected endurance of grievous pain to vindicate the head’s will out of piety in its ultimate manifestation of sacrificing oneself that their children may be brought to the hope of life, for Christ as the body of God died so that His people—whom He loves beyond mortal human comprehension—may be granted access to eternal life by reason of His passion unto death on the cross to pay the price for the sin once and for all, as the necessitated travail to suffer through so that the faithful adherent of Jehovah is granted through imputed vindication the paid price to atone for their sins so that they don’t have to die eternal death: accordingly in the fleshly human image, a faithful mother piously out of love endures through the undeniably painful and sore travail of childbirth so that the child knitted by the hand of God in their womb may be brought forth unto life, and even moreover so, the body of God a.k.a. the assembly (a.k.a. “church”) reflects the travail of the fleshly body of God—Christ Jesus—in its travail in bringing forth seed toward the completion of the ingathering of those Jehovah calls to sanctification
Conclusion
‘Backturn, sons [of] apostates! I shall heal [the] backslidings [of] yourselves!’
Lo! we—in-marked we toward you; accordingly you Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ [are] [the] God [of] ours. Establishly toward fraudulence [are] from [the] hills, [the] murmurage [of] mountains; establishly in Jᴇʜᴏᴠᴀʜ [the] God [of] ours [is] [the] salvation [of] Israel!
‘The salvation [is] [of] the God [of] ours, the is-sitting upon the throne and the Lamb!’
Though for robust emphasis, I would prefer to use the word suffix-conjugated rendition “existifies” in accordance with the versatile H-1961 verb “hayah.” :)
Cf. Deut. 4:28, Dan. 5:22-23, Rev. 9:20-21.
Interlinear of Gen. 1:1:
בְּ (B’: 9004): in [prefixed preposition]
רֵאשִׁית (rëshiyt: 7225): beginning [noun: feminine singular]
בָּרָא (Bärä: 1254, z8804): outcarved He [verb: Qal, perfect, 3rd-person masculine singular]
אֱלֹהִים (élohiym: 430): God [deity: masculine, singular implication]
אֵת (ët: 853): selfsame [mark of the accusative]
הַ (ha: 9005): the [prefixed definite article]
שָּׁמַיִם (SHämayim: 8064): heavens [noun: masculine plural]
וְ (w’: 9007): and [prefixed conjunction]
אֵת (ët: 853): selfsame [mark of the accusative]
הָ (hä: 9005): the [prefixed definite article]
אָרֶץ (äretz: 776): land [noun: feminine singular]
Deut. 8:3, Matt. 4:4, Lk. 4:4.
Better term would be “Outcarvation Week.”
Gen. 1:2.
Deut. 19:15, II Cor. 13:1b, Jn. 8:17.
Isa. 55:9.