Brandon Heinzelmann

by

What is the Garden of Eden?

Is *Eden* a physical location, state of mind, Heaven, …all the above?

PHYSICAL LOCATION

In the physical sense we do have a ‘fix’ on its name and location as the Hebrew gives us by name:*Gan-Ba-Eden*.

The redacted Hebrew name, “Gan (garden) ba (in) Eden”, or simply, ‘Eden’, is in Northwest Iran central to Tabriz. Eden is a place right of Lake Van and Mt. Sahand and it’s furthest right boundary is the Mountain range of Kusheh Dagh.  Circa 40 miles east of the furthest point of Kusheh Dagh mt. Range is a region called, “Noqdi” or our Biblical, “NOD”. All to say that, Nod, or Noqdi, is the Bible’s Eastern geographical reference to geographical Eden.  “Ardabil” is about 15 miles south of Noqdi.  As further contemporary geographical reference, Eden is also called the *Adji Chay valley* and is known by an older name: Meidan valley.

STATE OF MIND

Let me paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: “We follow signs until we arrive at the point that was signaled to. Here, we find ourselves at the place of ‘non-sense’ because there are no more signs to indicate where we need to travel to. Hence, we no longer need signs, signals, indicators or senses once we have arrived”.

I not only believe but know that the Garden of Eden was a physical location.  In the genius of the Biblical narrative sense, “Eden” was the point of reference for cultural and societal “beginnings” in the Hebrew Bible. I *believe* that this fusion of events was for all of humankind to understand.

I *believe* that the genius of the region of Meidan or “Eden” offered us the first encounters with a Sumerian  culture that didn’t necessarily speak what we call, “Sumerian”.

Comparisons of beginnings

The understanding of ‘beginnings” found in Genesis are simply a different type of ‘beginning’ than the search for “beginnings” found in the research for the first hominids. The distinction might go as follows: The Biblical Genesis expresses a sentient mind exuding intention and Sovereignty personified as juxtaposed to the archeological observations and reconstructions of hundreds of thousands of years of “evolving” by meandering.

I often think of watching a movie that lasts for 300,000 years that gets to no real point other than the killing of some kind of field deer and watching the procreation process without romance. All of which makes a Woody Allen film more depressing, for he reminds me that  we have evolved very little with meaning, yet, a lot with style.

WHY, WHAT, HOW

‘How’ do we obtain ‘what’ versus ‘why’ do we obtain and for ‘what’ purpose?

The “how” and the “what” versus the “why”.  It is the heinous omission that I am leading to by secularists who truly have an objective religion and intention.

Let me make this clear. As Joseph Campbell said, “There is no meaning in life itself. It’s pure biology”. Bios or Life does what it does, it is what it is—-but, it does not explain WHY it is here or WHY we should care about anything other than the scientific and/or Hedonistic sense to ‘life’.  After all, if there was no ‘why’ to life, we would only have “life” to worship which would default, in time, to hedonism, or, “life worship”.

It is in the study of HEDONISM that we find Eve and Adam’s return to the crude practice of self preservation and objectivity—the “WHATness” of their worldview. The “WHYness” was in the Garden prior to this fall—-and, in this contrast of,  ‘why’ vs ‘what’,  we should go forward with a stepping stone from C.S. Lewis’ remark on the ‘elan vitale’, or, ‘life force’. Without proper worship of the force of life, which is our Maker, we would all turn to, by nature, the force within natural causes. We should be halted at every icon of ‘life force’ in an endless pursuit of objects without meaning, only iconic observance via the connotative minds which shift with every wind of ‘new ideas’.  It is of further interest to me that the “HOW” in obtaining the “WHATness” of evolutionary ‘man’ was by killing and overtaking. The “HOW” aspect  in obtaining the *understanding* of the “WHY” aspect of Grace is shown through either a (a) fictional ‘god’ or (b) a Real Sovereign God.  It is interesting, even if God weren’t real, and HIS words weren’t substantiated by a REAL character, the WORDS would still hold in our stage actors semiotic commitments for either living to kill or love. The ultimate man would be found in the ultimate idea of GOD, even if HE were fictive——which would NEVER mean that this ‘finding’ excluding the REAL God who transcended past our metaphors for grace, love, joy, etc.

The “REALNESS” wraps us in HIS “MEANING” now….not later, over there, in the future… HIS “SENSE” abides with us in the here and now, the past and the future. 

*all geographical locations are backed the leading archaeological scholar, David Rohl in his book, “Legend”, and video documentary, “In Search of Eden”.

by

Kyle Jones interviews the world’s leading Egyptologist and Biblical scholar, David Rohl, who takes the listening audience on a journey to reestablish Biblical chronology to a true history. David and Kyle discuss David’s travels back into the literal Eden, the Nilotic/ Hamitic-Egyptian Genesis, Winkler’s Site 26 -‘the boat people in the desert, Moses’ real travels with Israel, Joshua, —-all the way to the reality of the Epistles seen from Jewish and Roman eyes, and an infinite more amount of information—-all to be the first of many other interviews with David as we continue our friendship with him.

0:00
0:00
skip_previous
play_arrow
pause
skip_next
replay_10
volume_up
volume_down
volume_off
description
view_headline
Nothing found!
close
by

Preface

In this article, I try to extract and amplify what is already set in the Hebrew text of Job. Job’s story might very well reach back beyond 4 millenia to make it the oldest book in the Bible. Therefore, the time tested story of Job exceeds in antiquity that of the Mosaic Torah. Though the genius of the Hebrew language’s usage was employed to exemplify Job’s timeless lessons (Doctrine of Sovereignty over sheer fate, retribution and rogue agency free will, etc.), Job’s kernel of genius was found all throughout Mesopotamia in several different languages. Such stories of “the man of affliction”/ “the despised one”/ etc. did indeed time capsule other ‘notes’ to the Story of the Biblical Job. These “notes” all do compliment Job’s narration and fill us to the brim with meaning, reference, sense, significance, etc.

The “nature” of the Illusory Doctrines of Fatalism

In Job 3:3, we find the Fates and their illusory doctrines of fate called upon by Job through his newly ‘gifted’ worldview.

If I may turn my explanation to an interpretation of the storyline of Job for a moment: *God places Job in “Abad (Hebrew: Abaddon: “place of perishing”)” without dying. For the “story’s sake”, Job is the journalist placed into the world of non-sense which generates infinite regress (one action leading to another without resolve or significance). This “Abad” takes its toll upon Job’s critical thinking and emotional well being. Nonetheless, Job remains consistently truthful in his Shadow logic throughout his delusions much like an Alzheimer’s patient who speaks truthfully through their afflictions. Poignantly, how would you like to be judged as ‘evil’ by actions out of your control such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, manic-depression, borderline personality disorder, etc.? -If these are not meaningless afflictions then they must be meaningful. Then, the question arises: what is meaningful?

To me, maybe to you, a dog cannot ‘choose’ to purr like a kitten, gibber like an ape, chut like a guinea pig or whinny like a zebra by its nature. A dog, by the limitations of its nature, does ‘act’ to bark. In this ‘act’  to bark there is honesty/ integrity to the ‘integral’ function of what “dog”, as verb and noun “means” and “does”. Therefore, there is no sin accrued to the account of the dog. Therefore!!! –wait for it—ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN!! 🙂 –sigh, I had to.

From my take on Job’s case, I do not see that Job has sinned in his newly found limitations. He ‘acts’ from the limitations of his nature”. Job acts within the integrity of his beset delusion.

The Hand of Darkness

I believe that the DARK honesty spoken through Job’s mouth was from the “moors” or heathen field of Satan’s limited voice. Consistently, I witness throughout the dialogues of Satan in the Bible the laws of limitation, hence, the “moors” by which he must travail upon, always governed to being on the outskirts of the sheep gate of God unless let in by God for ‘a time’. In contrast, the relationship of Satan to God and to others is not a necessary constant in memorialized Heathen Literature – or movies, comic books, etc..

Job 3:3-5 (vs. 3) 

“Damn the Day I was bor

The night that said, ‘a boy 

was begot’

(vs. 4)  That Day -let it be darkness.

God above ignore it.

No light break upon it

(vs. 5)  Darkness and gloom claim *it*,

Cloud settle over it

Eclipse terrify it

In Job 3:3, Job says, “damn *The Day*”. In the Hebrew text of Job 3:3 – we read: “ya-abad-yom” {Qal imperfect – “let perish the Day”}

In this statement, Job assigns no Deity to Damn the Day in the Hebrew.

SO, I ask the question: by what “agency” is Job referring to? That is, who would “Damn the Day”?

The Integrity of error

Job declines from his sound doctrinal stance with God yet does not sin–because he is still saying the truth from the perspective of his worldview. That is, Job is consistently honest with his new participation inside Shadow Logic.

The MISS

Job spoke for AGONY as though it was Reason. Still, in Job’s Shadow Logic, Job never attributed power or causality to another Deity other than YHVH. Even in the words of Job’s Shadow Logic, Job reasoned the “impossibility” of another Deity other than YHVH. Though, constantly not mentioning YHVH, the spoken words from Shadow Logic seemed to ‘give way’ to YHVH. That is, Job’s words were shown to be governed by a specified ‘blindness’ of THE CAUSAL AGENCY —( God blinds, gives sight, gives reason, takes reason away, etc.) first seen in Job 3:3 as Job’s failure to assign in “Damning the Day”. To me, this failure to assign causality was a painfully obvious “aporia (irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a theory)” – if applied to the illusory doctrines of “fatalism” to “nihilism”. Fate cannot hold non-agency for causality, Fates are meaningless by their definition—a bios, a current, an effect. Nature and Fate might be equitive terms. 

Job’s actions thus so far have led me to conclude that Job was arrested with what I will call, Shadow Logic.

by

The first 2 Declinations of Job

 

Job as a Righteous Man

Job 1:1-22 -”

1  There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

“ISH” (NOM.MS.SING.) =A MAN/ “HAYAH” (QAL PERFECT 3RD MASC. SING.)=THERE WAS ( back then, some time ago ) This was a formulaic way in Hebrew to say, “Once upon a time, a long time ago”. This did not give the book of Job over to a fantastic or fictive category, rather, a ‘distancing’ for the sake of its actual antiquity and its tested truths through time. 

2.  And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

This is a Mesopotamian ratio of Divine blessing as seen in verse 3 where Job has the same ratio of sheep to camels as he does sons to daughters. In a Ugaritic myth, the god Baal had the same divine ratio of children that Job did. 

3.  His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

4. And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 

At this time, there was a lengthy festival taking place where wandering family members would reside in the houses of each other.  This almost gives the air of an astrological statement. That is, each planet to their own housing for a specified meaning and then, a continuance of wandering for other “significant” meanings.

5.  And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.  

It is only my opinion but here I think that the possibility of incest was present. The nature of the stay over and the wisdom of Job forced him to urgently perform burnt offering “EARLY” the next morning. 

6.  Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

“Beney Ha-Elohiym” – literally: “the sons of the gods”/ “Lahiythyatsav” -literally: “to take one’s stand”/ “al-YHVH” – literally: “against GOD-YHVH” / “Ha-Shatan”. The celestial beings were indeed the sons of the fallen angels. Amongst these Nephilim in their union against Yahweh, stood, “The Satan” – the sifter, the interrogator, the agitant, — cf. “the SHUT” of the Persian Kings. The “Shut” or “Sheitan” were the C.I.A. officers for the Persian Kings. The “Shut” would go out to the markets surrounding the Palace of the King and ask seemingly innocuous questions to anyone in order to find any scandalous thinking against the King and his Kingdom. The Satraps would then take these people into the inner court to be interrogated further, possibly unto death. 

7.  And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 

This question is a literary device used to find out the ‘agency’ of “The Satan”. Mi-Shut in Hebrew literally means, “going to and fro” without direction, as an agitant to ‘stir’. Mi-Shut is the verbal “name” of “Satan”. Hence, the literary mechanism used to verify the “shem” or “authority” by which “the Satan” operates. 

8.  And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9.  Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10.  Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

Very important is the boundary line to the Hebrew mind. The hedge represents the sheep within the shepherd’s gate. Inside the gate is where the legal food can be eaten for the sheep. Outside of the gate represents the heath or the heathen lands. In pagan myths we might find a typology that might be considered here-the monster. The monster always walks around the borderline. The monster is relegated to a specified region. The monster always walked amongst the moors. Without invitation, the monster could never enter into the gate of the victim. Here, we find the request from the monster and the acceptance of the request to come in to Job’s life. nonetheless, Satan is bound to only do that which he does best-sift Job within the bounds of meaning and not unto death.

11.  But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

This pagan doctrinal approach of “retributive action” will show up later in the pagan doctrines of Job’s ‘friends’. Is this not Partisan politics? Is  this not the syncretism of “christianity” and a particular political party? How can we link our beliefs in a Sovereign God who brings all things together with a “partitive” or “partisan” group? I speak against Democrats and Republicans here. 

12.  And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

I must interject that vs. 12 here (the King James Version) is a Horrible translation. God did NOT put Job into the power of God (Romans 13:1 – “All powers  that be are ordained of God”). Rather, the Hebrew says, “Bi-Yadeka” – in your HAND (that is: your scope of sifting/ manipulation/ realm/ jurisprudence/ authority) 

13.  And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house:

14.  And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:

15.  And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

16.  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

17.  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

18.  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house:

19.  And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

20.  Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,

21.  And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

This would establish by denotation of the text a belief in God’s Sovereignty. 

22.  In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

The acts, words, doctrine and profession of Job are given approval by God

Job gave the Calamity to God as God’s act. This was not accounted as sin or foolishness. How many christians would accuse you of error if you said that God causes destruction? 

We see the doctrine of Sovereignty professed (word) with worship (deed) under Job’s initial affliction by the ‘hand’ of “The Satan” (Job 1:20). In all of Job’s actions, word and deed, Job did not sin within his circumstance. Furthermore, “circumstance”,  was not attributable to Job’s affliction, God was. This would make it personal. 

After Job’s initial “Satanic Affliction” (Job 1:13-19), the narration of Job denotes Job’s Theological worldview by word and deed (Job 1:20). Job professed (word) that “Good and Calamity” come from God.  Following this profession of doctrine, Job worshipped (deed) God. 

 

The First Declination

What I perceive as the first declination  is the lack of ‘deed’ while ‘word’ was kept. We see Job’s Theological worldview denoted in Job 2:10 where Job reiterates his same doctrine found in Job 1:20 (Good and Calamity” come from God – but without the deed (worship or oblation). , word without deed was found in Job 2:10– as Job states: “Shall we accept good (Hebrew: “tov”: “that which is beneficial”) from God and not accept calamity (Hebrew: “ra’ah”: destruction {distinct from ‘evil’ as shown in my previous articles on ‘evil’}) ”? The doctrine of Sovereignty is correct, yet, Job fails to ‘worship’ or prepare ‘oblation’. 

This question from Job was a rebuttal to his wife’s statement: ”curse God and die’. Job’s wife’s statement would have had to come from her Theological worldview. This worldview would have been very contemporary with the “allotment” gods/ goddesses of Job’s day. 

This common pagan belief would logically reside in her words to Job as to the failure of Job’s God to ‘allot’ Job health, wealth, financial security, a general sense of well being, continuance of his bloodline lost as his children were killed, etc.  Her words were exemplary of her deep rooted pagan beliefs: “curse God and die”. This, again, is a ‘denotative’ key to Job’s wife’s worldview. I believe that we see here the belief in “allotment” gods/ goddesses from Job’s wife that were so prevalent in Job’s day (as hidden in our own day through ‘gods’ known by many names).

 

The second declination found in Job chapter 3

In Job 3:3, we see Job’s wife no more. We see no more of “The Satan”.

Why is this?!? Because they were literary mechanisms to distill the greater Truth through the genius of the Narration of Job. Does this mean that they didn’t exist in history and/or events? – no. What it does mean is that “the STORY” no longer needed them as antagonists to agitate any further meaning out for “the Story’s” sake. 

 

Meaning/ Non-meaning/ sense/ non-sense

The doctrine of Fatalism or Naturalism is found in the first words of Job: ‘damn’ *the Day*  (as though ‘the Day’ brought Job’s birth). The worldview of Job’s wife must have been a resonating factor here. Still contrasting natures abide: Job does not curse God unlike his wife who says, “curse God and die”. 

“Where” was Job Ideologically here?

I summarize these 10 points as: “LINEAR( Messianic/anabolic)” vs. “CIRCULAR (cosmogonic/ pagan/ nihilistic/cannibalic)”. 

  1. Job gave ‘force’ to “The Day” rather than to his Sovereign God. Job could not possibly factor in the reason of God’s Sovereignty while factoring “plight” as “a force” or “condition”  by which no other higher order assigned such a plight. 

  2. Job’s worldview of fatalism found in chapter 3 was in stark contrast to his Theocentric Worldview in the first two chapters. One cannot hold to both worldviews. 

  3. Sheol, or “Hell” is found in Job’s ‘plightful’ or ‘circumstantial’ words of “darkness”, “blindness”, “inability to see (cf. the Greek: “phulake”–’spirits in a dark prison’/ night prison watch)”, “separation”, etc. These “placements” of ‘damnation’ limited judgement but stark positioning of the protagonist, Job.  

  4. The CONSISTENCY of denying God’s Sovereignty within the Doctrine of Fatalism, Plight, Circumstance, Naturalism, and Sheol do validate what Sovereignty is NOT. 

  5. Job is forced ( in the genius of Job’s Narration) by *Theological Grammar* to abide either in (a) The FREE sense of being BOUND to GOD’s WILL or (b) the LIMITATIONS of being bound to “Plight”, “blindness”, “agony without meaning or sense”. 

  6. Job was blinded from the consistency of Theological doctrine found within Sovereignty to use a “LINEAR” direction..that is, Job was found incapable of using a Reason TO Something (namely, a PLAN, an INTENT, a group of “SENSES” to lead on a line of direction/ Job consistently ‘hit the miss’

  7. Job was found using the Consistency of repetition found in the ‘circular’ ideologies of the East and A.N.E. pertaining to that of Naturalism, Fatalism, and Nihilism. One might look to the mythological symbol of the Ouroborus (cycle of cannibalism upon oneself in time only to rebirth and repeat–seen as serpent eating one’s own tail) for a meme concerning this ‘repetition’. This is what I call, “Circular” religion or a “cannibalic” worldview. 

  8. It is on the line of LINEAR Theology that one must travel to a final point, namely, the Messiah. 

  9. It is one the CIRCULAR Ideology that one must return to unless “nirvana” is achieved. In the name itself, “Nir/ Vana” –’beyond the turmoil of the web of this life’-’to be extinguished from the fire {of this life} -one sees themselves ‘as God’–”THOU ARE THAT” or, in the Sanskrit: “Tat Tvam Asi”. What a scary moment it must be to ‘arrive’ and ‘realize’ that you ‘are it’. That there are no more ‘signals’ or ‘signs’ to follow. That YOU are THAT or, YOU are the ‘end of the road’. You are the “Reference Point”. No more Signs, no more signals, no more senses – the place of “NON-SENSE” is where you abide to make relativistic meaning.  What a hell defined!

Job had found a loophole of ‘fatalism’ that was blinded to an attributive ‘non-sense’ . This, “non-sense” means that Job had ‘no signal, no reference, no generator, no generatrix, no deity, no one, no direction, no line, no intention in his ‘world view’ within the context of ‘agony’ for ‘agony’s sake’. One might refer to C.S. Lewis’, “Problem of Pain” for some insight to this topic. 

Job was in hell (that is- ‘hidden, away, unseen, “Sheol”) even from the fictional deities or pagan gods of allotments. He cursed no false god, no real God. Job only cursed the plight from which the plight generated (a.k.a. pre-nihilism). Job had taken on a circular form of religion from which no signal began or ended. 

Fatalism becomes Job’s myopic worldview. Job attributes “Fatalism” gets the credit of fate of allotments- health and wealth. Job continues to speak of his life in chapter 3 as a type of “plight”. That is, the ‘abandonment’ done by an ‘impersonal force’. This IS the logic led to by ”fatalism” without God as the INTENDER. A repeat of his wife’s denotative ideology, that is: the doctrine of ‘receiving’ — especially: health, wealth, abundance, etc. is considered  “good” while calamity is to be cursed, to be thrown into hell < Job’s wife’s words, not mine. 

It should be noted that fate is to be distinguished from our marital relationship with God in His Sovereign Intent. “Fate” is more or less a ‘blanket order of naturalistic themes and outcomes. “Fate” is impersonal and finds its closest definition by the Egyptian “netjer” – the allotments by the goddess from the Nile’s life giving/ allotment giving force. The “elan vitale”–the ‘life force’ is yet another close definition. Finally, “nature”, or “naturalism”, — as in Mother Nature and our dependent needs to be allotted from her to us. We find “her” again in the Mesopotamian stories of Tiamat, Inanna, Asherah, Isis, the Ashtoreth, etc.. Interesting, how Job relegates his emotions as ‘doctrine’. Within this “doctrine” he assigns himself under the rules of the “elan-vitale” –or impersonal force. Again, from the original doctrine that Job held, the “elan-vitale”, “nature”, “Fate”, etc,. would be a mere by-product of creation at most/ or a fictitious or fictive force at least.   

 longer the Deity that Job had all along been giving credit to for everything) that he was born (as though Job had the power to “Damn the Day”). Fatalism, as a doctrine, has taken hold of Job// You can see what Fatalism does to the Theological mind right here)

My question: 

Did Job feign to ‘protect God’ by eliminating God in Job’s worldview through the doctrines or professions of ‘fate’ as an impersonal force. Job’s Agony becomes an ‘emotive doctrine’ without intentful causation. Finally,  life is shrunk down for Job to the ‘here and now’ and the overview/ the purview of Sovereignty is no longer to be recognized. 

I associate myself with this question as I’m sure many Christian believers do when we blame: the church-but do not blame God, the hypocrites in the churches-but do not blame God, the people who act like christians-but do not blame God–all for the sake of “justifying the flesh”—a.k.a.–’getting into sin’ using ‘naturalism, fatalism, doctrine of allotments, etc. as a worldview to sin. How close am I getting?

Finally, 

Not to validate this writing with this show: I am reminded of one of my guilty pleasure shows (my wife included) called, “Ghost Adventures”. In this show, the consistent theme throughout every episode is that the ghosts tend to “repeat” throughout the haunt that they abide in. A repetition without end. The hauntings usually include either a gruesome murder, torture, terror, abuse that took place in that particular house or land plot holding these repetition of energies. Simply put, energies that are trapped in replay. No meaning, only suffering. No release, no letting loose—just a cycle of return to the same story. This must be a “hell” if real and for sure, this is what we call hell in this life when we can’t break a destructive cycle. Remember: “CIRCLES vs. LINES” ideology/ Theology. 

by

Before I address Job chapter 3, I need to recap the seemingly quirky nature of Job 1 and 2 as a ‘necessary evil’. Both chapters were ‘set up’  to distill key elemental players into their proper places within the story or narration of Job. 

These players or idolum (a term so brilliantly used in C.S. Lewis’ works when referring to a ‘higher mind; higher player” using the idolum {example: the objective chess pieces holding their potential degrees of usage for the Prime Mover’s expression upon the chessboard}  to express IT’s *intention*) played their degrees by which ‘signs’ could be made. All such idules or Idolum lead to what I believe is the prime doctrine of meaning: Intentful-Loving Predeterminism.

 I use  the word, “evil”, in jest, for there is no independent agency of evil found in the book of Job under a Predeterministic God, Who Himself, set the parameters for which “The Satan” could only work his or destruction’s own representation of function, degree, machination, ethos, principle, boundary, jurisprudence, authority, ‘shem’. 

As an American, I am so easily attracted to ‘the monster’, especially in the older horror films (i never needed the gore to ‘get the point’ ), that seemed to ‘rectify’ or ‘right-ify’ that which was unrighteous. Such was also the case for the Spaghetti Westerns when Clint Eastwood came in as the ‘a-moral’ player/ idolum (eidolum) as ‘the rectifier’ setting the corrupt town ablaze, leaving only the few “innocent” alive. 

Interestingly, the idolum to which Clint Eastwood played, had no greater moral code than that which is understood by base animals. It was when the actions of the people fell below these basic civil principles (i.e., don’t murder, steal, covet, commit adultery, rape, lie, etc…) did lines get drawn by the tenor or unwavering actions of the ‘rectifier’. 

 In short, I used to love (guilty pleasure:I still do) seeing the “bad guys” get it  by means of the avenging ‘angel/ monster/demon/–or whatever brought about ‘justice’. In this sophomoric view, I was about half-way there concerning the meaning of ‘rectification’ from it’s true sense. 

 

The truer sense of the Idolum and Meaning of ‘the Story’ of Job

Hopefully, after reading this, I will have dispelled for you the Western Hemisphere’s notion of “Satan” or “The Satan” as a ‘being’ that holds a counter-force to God, man, nature, etc. 

I would like to take you to the Medieval world which was a time that offered us a literary ‘catcher’s mitt’ of archaisms. This era, which cared for ‘the story’ of meaning,  knitted stories such as King Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Fairy Queen, Shakespeare’s MacBeth, Hamlet, etc., had compiled ancient stories with timeless and most precious archaisms that still give us cultural identity. This era of Medievalism gave us insight into philological treasures that cannot be dethatched in meaning and do safeguard our English language from the aeons of idiocy. 

The Medieval view of “Evil” was distilled by it’s etymology and contextual meaning found in all of the classics as something that ‘did not fit’.  “Evil” meant that which was ‘hated’, that which was a ‘societal discomfiture’, ’ugly’, ’disfigured’, ‘failed as beautiful by the standards of a Medieval “Cosmos” ( cf. Marsilio Ficino’s revival of the Platonic classical schools of thought for the ‘standard’, canon or rule of “that which was beautiful” and that which was not beautiful or cosmos-sound -i.e., ‘not-cosmetically sound’), ‘incapable of societal functions’, ‘mentally deficient’, ‘handicapped’, ‘hunch-backed’ ‘babbler’, idiot {Greek: eido (to see) -tace (to place): to see only what one wants to see or can see}, ‘isolated’, ‘stutterer (usually due to the ‘stuttering sound’ of an uncouth heathen-foreigner to the ears of the more civilized culture, etc. 

Evidenced, or objectified within Beowulf,  Anglo Saxon literature, we have the “Demon”, who was of ‘the bloodline of Cain’ for whom was identified as a Moor dweller. That both, the Grendel and his witch mother, were definitively, “monsters”,  and “ogres” that stayed, usually, to their heathen-outcast regions until provoked. They were ‘misfit’  beings. 

I address at this point the difference between Christian/ Jewish literature and Heathen literature. It is within the Heathen or Pagan literature that a ‘will to choose’ to cross the boundary line gets a little hazy. 

Is it ‘self agency’ which makes ‘the story’ meaningful to the ancients and moderns? Or, was it the Predeterminative God that motivated the entire story – only to be found in the end of “the story” of the ancients? That is, the idolum which were made to be ‘whittled away’…as ‘literary mechanisms’…to get to the Final Meaning/ the Ultimate Truth?… I’ll take the second one. 

Let’s take one last Medieval look at it’s literary mechanisms before going back to look at the synchronic and diachronic view of Job. 

The idolum assumed as “the Satan” or  “monster” from its philological sense goes as follows: Latin: Monere: “to remind, bring to one’s recollection, tell of, / admonish, advise, warn, INSTRUCT, TEACH; (from the earliest source >): Proto Indo European: moneie; “to make think of, remind” – {causative form of *men – {as in mensae} ) “to think”. 

Looking at the “monster”, Grendel, he was considered in the Anglo Saxon as “AGLAEC” which meant, “CALAMITY”!!! –also meaning: “terror, distress, oppression” – which were ALL the key components in Job 1 and 2, both from the “MONSTER” (as truly defined here and the “Calamity” by which the MONSTER is known to bring. 

The Sutra for “the MONSTER, the SATAN, Job, the CALAMITY” is found in Job’s words, “God brings good (Hebrew: “TOV”- ‘that which is beneficial’ ) and “CALAMITY (Hebrew: “Ra’ah”: ‘terror, distress, oppression, destruction’). 

It is in the genius of the Narration of Job that we find his Theology vs. his wife’s. 

His wife says, “curse God and die” while Job rebuts and says, “Will not God bring both TOV and RA’AH?!” 

The “evidence (e -out/ vide-to see)” of the Idolum or objective character by which the morphing of meaning upon the objects of “the Story” is seen through Job’s story. Job’s narration or Story does offer us an aqueous solution by which we can witness transformation due to the prime mover and irregardless to the individuals in the story, including “the Satan”.  Some idolum dissolved to infinite regress such as “The Satan” –for the “Story’s” sake of meaning, some idolum conform to the ‘identity’ more akin to the prime mover –such as Job being a “Christ typology”— a Perfect man, Pure, without blemish/ not deserving a retributive action upon him. 

It is within this genius of non-retributive action upon Job that I see the error of his friends distilled out. Their error was from their world views tethered to pagan views concerning God’s relationship to mankind and the Devil. Namely, these pagan notions were/ are: dualism (God vs. Satan), Free Will (‘if only you hadn’t done this”), and retributive action (‘because you did this, Job, God is punishing you’).  

All 3 errors are sadly found in most western Churches. All 3 errors are held as Theological constituents to a belief rather than a doctrine taught in the Narration Job. 

It is here that I come to the conclusion that the ‘theology’ of Job was one of Sovereignty and he both acted and spoke to it in the first chapter. Job’s wife, on the other hand, spoke of a “god of allotments” in her denotative ideology–’curse God and die” — due to your “plight” or “allotments” of *loss* or *calamity*. 

God does bring GOOD and CALAMITY for HIS good pleasure and for OUR BENEFIT. Isaiah 45:7 {“I the Lord Create both GOOD and DESTRUCTION for my Good Pleasure).

by

The story of Job was initially a pre-Biblical-Mesopotamian story. The account of Job, or “Ayub”/ “Iyob”/ stood the test of time before landing into the canon of the Old Testament. The same message we find in the book of Job is found all throughout Mesopotamia. As for my opinion, I believe this single story gives us archetypes of the “Suffering Servant” -i.e., the Christ figure. Though we see that Job and the Mesopotamian suffering servant/ man of affliction was mortal, we see in all of these early case-stories a consistent Theology.  These constant/ consistent factors hold that the Satan, adversary, destroyer of riches (and bringer of riches) was the Deity of goodness. That calamity is ‘good’ if calamity is Sovereignly directed. 

The ‘calamitous’ gears in the doctrine of Sovereignty get turned when the Narration unfolds. and solidifies “a” Sovereignty not defined in many Churches today. That is, many claim that “God is Sovereign” but are unwilling (i.e., the fleshly mind cannot acquiesce) to believe that God would create, make, allow “calamity”. Sadly, I’ve heard the word “allow” as ‘another force’ that God ‘lets happen’. This is just another aspect of “dualism” found within the western church. Sadly, even those that would claim “Sovereignty”/ “Pre-Knowledge” and finally, a “Predeterminate” counsel STILL hold to ‘another force’ wielding its way against ‘goodness’, ‘allotments’, ‘health’, etc. that we need to invoke the Deity or God of the Bible to “fight against”.  This is why comic books are so popular, I guess—just pick two main deities and have them battle it out for “power’s sake”.  

The entire conundrum of dualism can be resolved in believing that God has Preordained ALL things both “good” and “calamitous” —(both working together as ‘signs’ to God).  There is no better book that I can find in the Bible ( or any other A.N.E. book {i.e., “ancient near east”}) that works out the Theological-anatomies of non-dualism/ Absolute Predeterminate counsel/ Non-retributive/ Gracious Marriage by the Themed Deity of *The Story*. 

Let’s begin:

“Job” means “hated” in the Hebrew. Though, in the Arabic language, “Job”  means, 

“he who turns to God”. Both meanings are dubious to their origins but the context of Job’s story gives us his ‘name’. That is, the Hebrew word, “shem”, which means  “authority” or “name” in how we associate who Job is, or for that matter, we know each other by our ‘shem’. Who else can we be reminded of as a hated man who was without blame and sought to save others to his own demise?–cf. Isaiah 53 – Is this not a prophecy of Christ? Is Job not an archetypical sketch and pattern of the hated one, the Suffering Servant, Jesus? 

Job’s “shem” was a man who was righteous, beset with unwarranted affliction, held together by a strong Theological worldview as presented in the statements made of Job ( especially in book 1 and 2). 

 We find that Job chapter 1 gives us a great detail to Job’s life. He was an upright man in all of his ways. God-fearing, Sovereignty believing, that is—Job believed in the ‘kind’ of Sovereign God that would be both good and calamitous. 

We then see the ‘sifter’ or ‘the satan’ which came to do his function. All limitation was beset ‘the Satan’ within the myriad of destruction he wreaked upon Job…just as the damage/ the eucatastrophe beset Jesus Christ. 

Cohesive and parallel texts, etymons, memes, and figurations within the book of Job, Rig-Veda, Sumerian tablets/ texts of Enki Inanna and the Babylonian/ Mesopotamian “Enuma-Elish”. 

We get a very interesting look into the council of the ‘coven’ of these watchers (Sumerian: Igigi: ‘the ones with intensive eyes/ roving/ watching) with their leading Watcher, “the Satan” “(Hebrew) Shut” = “The Rover” – “Raven”  or “Mishut”. I also find it interesting that the ‘descent’ or ‘descension’ from event, to redaction (God to Moses/ Moses to Israel/ Israel to us) to early myths brings us the *Raven* as ‘the EYES’ of the god, God, gods, Witch, Warlock; that is, “the EYES of the LORDS”. 

The Watchers, fallen sons of the “ Fallen-Council/ Fallen elohiym (which are the Fallen angels)”. The nature is ‘to go forward’ as YHVH in HIS root name: “YA” = “to go”, “to cause”, “to do”—we find this name in the Sanskrit as well (which tells me how early/ old this story-account is). The ‘Sons of Heaven’ are called in the Rig-Veda (Pre-Upanishad/ Pre-Mahabharata/ Pre-Ramayana/ (earliest of Hindu referenced literature) in Sanskrit Angirases or “Angira”–from which our word, ‘Angel’, finds it’s Greek cognate, ‘angelos’.

These Rig-Veda ‘angels’ were seen at the SOMA Tree or  Ambrosia Tree where the gods drink this SOMA nectar and ‘see’ with the god’s eyes. These gods by the SOMA tree are known to recline and be the gods at the Tree of knowing in paradise.  Interesting, that this same story can be seen in the pictographic Hebrew word for “TREE” in the Garden of Eden. It is a pictograph of an all seeing eye and a reclining person. 

 These “messengers” of the gods are also referred to as the ‘fire-priests’/ ‘the ones who keep the fires going’  They are also known as the Virupas or in the Sanskrit: “vir” – ‘man’ + “upa” – {literally ‘evil’} = ‘ugly’ —especially in the eyes. 

The accounts of the Annanaki (Annanaki: some scholars believe could relate to the gods/ fallen gods, angels, angira, etc.) had ‘snake-like’ eyes; mis-shapen faces as those of a cobra, serpent, snake—cf. to the “Seraphiym” of Isaiah 6: 1-ff to the Biblical Angels of GOD/ YHVH were actual Serpents with 6 wings; two wings to cover their eyes, two wings to fly and two wings to cover their feet in the presence of YHVH. I also find it interesting that Satan, in the Garden of Eden, had not been finalized in his judgement but referred to as the Serpent. Plus, his curse was to crawl on his belly as the serpent of the field. 

 

The coven’s limitations of action

We see the fallen ones, or, *the ‘sons of the gods’ with Satan in the midst of them being confrontational in the face of God-Yahweh* as we see in the first chapter of Job (Job 1:6 -)

When reading the Hebrew it is very import to understand the intensity of the verbal form. “Presenting themselves was in the Hitpael infinitive. The “Hitpael” is primarily what we call a Piel verb form but reflexive. Such as, “Gird oneself, Defend oneself, sanctify oneself, to show oneself revengeful, to make oneself great, to show oneself wise, to pretend oneself, etc.”  In brief, the Hitpael is a verb form which ‘roots oneself willfully against anything to its opposition. 

 

No dualism between ‘evil’ and ‘good’

Here is the “contract of action” within the *dialogue* from the Story of Job. It is God’s ‘handing’ Job into the ‘hand’ of ‘the Satan’ to do all that is in the ‘hands’ of Satan to do with the limitation of: ‘do not lay a *hand* on him’.  

*YOD* or “hand” is the key word here. It is used as an interplay-word to show  the ‘limitations’ of responsibility, scope of function, expression of one’s ‘shem’ or ‘name’ or ‘authority’.  Remember, the actions of the character give the character their “Shem”,  their ‘authority’ or ‘title’ of responsibility. 

Below is the contract of “shems” coded with the Strong’s concordance number for your benefit to look up the word meaning:

559 [e]   

way·yō·mer   

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר      12

And said   12

Conj‑w | V‑Qal‑ConsecImperf‑3ms   12

3068 [e]

Yah·weh

יְהוָ֜ה

Yahweh

N‑proper‑ms

413 [e]

’el-

אֶל־

to

Prep

        7854 [e]

haś·śā·ṭān,

הַשָּׂטָ֗ן

Satan

Art | N‑ms

 2009 hin·nêh

הִנֵּ֤ה

behold

Interjection

3605 [e]

ḵāl

כָל־

all

N‑msc

834 [e]

’ă·šer-

אֲשֶׁר־

that

Pro‑r

lōw

לוֹ֙

he has [is]

Prep | 3ms

–

         3027 [e]

bə·yā·ḏe·ḵā,

בְּיָדֶ֔ךָ

in your hands 

Prep‑b | N‑fsc | 2ms

7535 [e]

raq

רַ֣ק

only

Adv

413 [e]

’ê·lāw,

אֵלָ֔יו

on his [person]

Prep | 3ms

408 [e]

’al-

אַל־

not

Adv

7971 [e]

tiš·laḥ

תִּשְׁלַ֖ח

do lay

V‑Qal‑Imperf‑2ms

          3027 [e]

yā·ḏe·ḵā;

יָדֶ֑ךָ

a hand

 

For the STORY’s Sake: There can be no retributive action upon Job due to Job being upright and blameless 

Remembering Job 1:1: “A man there was in the land of UZ, Job was his name. That man was BLAMELESS and UPRIGHT, one who feared God and shunned evil”, therefore, the purging of Job was not due to ANYTHING that Job had done. Rather, it was a metaphysical, meta-Deistic decision made outside the hands of mortal reason, action to retributive action and/ or ability of Job to incite God’s anger due to his mortal will.  

There is no ‘rogue-agency’ or ‘rogue-free-will’ if we are being unfolded for HIS STORY’s sake 

Using the mechanisms of fiction: How can the characters on the pages of a book written by an intentful AUTHOR jump off the pages and demand ‘their rights’, ‘their opinions’, independent behaviors, etc. without (1) destroying “the Story” (2) becoming disenfranchised from ‘the Story’, i.e., —‘cast off from their book of meaning/ cast off from their own book of life/ cast off from the integral nature of their lives with the lives of others within ‘the STORY’?  

Such a question can be employed especially in this time tested book of Job. The Grammar of God is within the Story of Job. The Grammar is the Theology that I hold. I believe this Grammar is the ONLY way to make sense of this world. Sadly, most of the Western Christian Church has denied this Theology titrated from the book of Job because most modern Christians do not believe that God Sovereignly brings destruction upon His people, let alone a righteous Christian…which would be a fictive character–and still, Job, the righteous/ blameless man,  received just that! 

Final footnote:

We find when studying Scripture, one MUST understand that the Identity of the Christ Figure is being unfolded, pulled out, defined, coming to light out of ancient Middle Eastern pagan beliefs and into gentle dispensations for the reader to understand the Grace of Christ–and not a retributive-legalistic god. 

If one is to begin at Genesis with “THE STORY” and finalize in Revelation, one will need to understand the “Social-Baal” or cultural god versus the ISHI (Jesus by title/ name/ “Shem”)  of Hosea 2:16 (ca. 780 B.C. !!! {Jesus talking} – “And it shall be at THAT DAY says YHVH that you shall call me *ISHI*;  and shall no longer call me Ba’al-iy (or “Baal” –i.e., general cultural sense for “God-owner”, “God-Husband-owner of wife (chattel)”, “Dominate of the House”, “Dominate and untouchable”, “High”, “Lord over”, “Master” {as opposed to, “ISHI”, which means, “endearing Husband, protectorate, Lover, bound to, close to, guardian, provider”—- ).

 This is all-together different from being a “Dispensational-ist”. This argument will be for another time. 

My point here: Jesus Christ is the GOD of Salvation through Grace, not works, retribution, ‘free-will (if you are saved ‘by Grace’ before the Foundation of the world {Ephesian 1:4/ Romans 8:28-31/ etc. what did ‘your free will’ do to save you?)

by

The Narration/ The Author

The narration of Job was either (a) a Mesopotamian unparalleled human endeavor which ordered key characters to express a consistent/non-contradicting Theology (probably devised by Sumerian or Babylonian Scribes using a historical reference ) (b) a historical character with both divine and mortal participants (c ) ‘divinely inspired’-i.e., A God which governed all the actions of the above mentioned (d ) all the above guided by a singular acting metaphysical Author which extended Itself into *the Story* (both Proto-Biblical for ALL of humankind to learn true Sovereignty and a facet of a coming Messiah/ the TRUE relationship between God and ‘the Satan’/ Devil)

 

Countering Culturally Trending Jewish and Christian beliefs

If we assume option ‘d’ under our previous heading we can continue through the *reason* of ‘the story’— (Greek: ‘istorein- ‘the inquiry (of finding the answer)’/ ‘history’/ “story (following the path to the ‘truth’ – {proto indo european zero grade etymology: ‘dr’ – ‘tree’ – ‘truth’ – ‘root, stem, and branches’}). 

In this most early of stories, Job’s Theology exemplifies the non-dualistic nature of God-which carries through the Pauline, Augustinian, Calvinist, Protestant doctrines that deny ‘rogue agency’ or ‘free will (as ill-defined in the western sense in the cocktail, “free” and “will” {see my “Anatomy of the Will” lectures on this site})’. It is in the discourses of Job’s 3 friends who ‘encourage’ – yet, condemn Job through their own hidden fallible beliefs (‘cultural theology’)  within dualism, free will, and retributive action. 

Amazingly, the very beliefs of ‘rogue-agency-free-will’; retributive actions, dualism (God vs. the Devil/ You vs God/ You vs the Devil’)  ARE the by-products of the pagan gods of allotments, fortune, fertility goddesses, Djinns, Jeanies, Demons, etc. that were worshipped in Mesopotamia. We especially find these ‘fortunata’, ‘fates’, Parcae, Morai, i.e., > ‘allotment’ gods/ goddesses in Job’s wife’s belief system.  She denotes her ‘theology’ in her query to Job, “Do you maintain your integrity? Curse God and die”. Job, in kind, responds to his wife by denoting his Theology: “You talk like a foolish woman, Shall we accept good from God and not accept *CALAMITY (not ‘evil’)*? I will take license here to say, Job calls the doctrine of fortunes, “foolish”. 

How many Preachers, Ministers, Rabbis, Buddhists, etc tell us that God would never bring ‘calamity’ into your life? 

 

Dispelling of Dualism, Free Will, Retributive Nature

The Theological Narration of Job exhibits Satan as a mere ‘mechanism’ used in buffeting Job. This ‘mechanism’ is the ‘machination’ or the Greek: ‘ethos’–’the hand; handle; Latin: manus-manipulation by which *a nature* works and finally, the “yod” or “hand” – the realm of one’s talent. 

The hand of ‘calamity’ is the Hand of God, but not “God”. I believe that the appellate to ‘the Hand of God’ is named, “The Satan”. It’s the only justifiable approach to the book of Job when we no longer see “The Satan” as being the agent of destruction, rather, it was God, and righteously said that God was the “destroying agent” – Job 1:21, 22. 

We see in Job 1:6 either the ‘sons of the elohim’ -Hebrew: “bene -ha-Elohim” as being God’s following Sons, or, i belief do to the Hebrew’s verbal Hitpael usage, “the sons of the gods (fallen angels) with Satan in their Midst” –or camp. 

Still, dispelling ‘dualism’ or ‘two forces fighting to win over the other, *The Story* or *The Narration* of the book Job is setting us up for a metaphysical effect using humanistic literary devices. 

We see this same ‘calamity’ brought by the agreement of the ‘elohiym’ under YHVH-God in Genesis 11:7. We see YHVH  having an intercommunal conversation within His *elohiym* or “council” as ONE “God”, i.e., this time, for literary, historical and Theological implications, a *unification* with His council (for this second, seemingly adversus to Job’s “bene-ha-elohiym”). The “unified-elohiym with YHVH said as ONE,  “Let US go come down and *confuse (Hephaits)* the wholesome language ( this ‘language’ in Shinar would most definitely have been: Eme-gir/ Sumer- “wholeness speech/ perfect speech/ good speech/ speech from its natural surrounding in natural flow {cf. my work on “The Anatomy of the Will” concerning Plato’s “Cratylus”  in reference to ‘perfect speech’ or ‘natural etymologies’})”. But, what happened here? A destructive nature of God’s “elohiym” did take place. A destruction of a language’s cohesion and  a beginning of new border lines/ boundary lines-i.e., countries, which mean, “lip, law, language, boundary, isolation, etc”.  Is this not the work of the ‘council of the elohiym with YHVH as the ultimate Elohiym? 

  1. Going back to the story of Job, we see a “unification” of the gaggle of “shaitans” or “satans” against God-YHVH.  Their obvious spokes-being was, “The Satan” (Job 1:7). We see such ‘sons of the elohiym’ or ‘fallen angels {Hebrew: “NPHL”} -’ and Leader as the ones who carry out the *plan*, Council, or Will of the Highest command.There is indeed an Interesting time and placement play here: if these were only the ‘sons of the angels {elohiym}’  who, seemingly themselves, plotted against YHVH–then, the ‘elohiym’-or ‘council’ against God (beney-ha-elohim -le-hith-yatsav-al YHVH) was only a mere response to the HIGHEST ‘council’ that originally ‘stood against ((LE HITH YATSAV))  YHVH. The consistency of this Theology remains, once again, in the STORY of Job. 

  1. Let’s return to a simple maxim found in Isaiah 45:7: It is God who brings “GOOD”  AND ‘CALAMITY” (not ‘evil’ {see my article on “evil” on this site/                                                                    fomcm.com }). Therefore, the excitement, tension, meaning, reprise, Authorship, Genius within the STORY OF JOB resides entirely from, with, by, in, …YHVH…or, “EYEH” = “the Verb that IS and Causes ALL things to happen at HIS WILL.  It is in the placements of ‘time’ that the  ‘drama or reeling out’ give us meaning. God plays both sides of the Chess game. God created the Board for law, the pieces for understanding the ‘degrees’ of movement within the law, BUT, the movements upon the pieces within the law by the MEANINGFUL MASTER OF INTENTION. 

  1. With the above paragraph labelled,  “number 1”, we see the ‘events’ of time and placement “figuration” and “participation” for the STORY’s sake–that is, for us living in time or temporality. With paragraph number 2, we see the ‘compression’ of time and placement into infinite reduction, i.e., “IT IS FINISHED”, ALREADY DONE, OVER, –prior to time. This “Infinitely reduced” or “infinitely compressed” expression of time, matter and meaning was preordained for us to see ‘Beauty’ in Time….if you will, as the gods could have never seen it in infinity. Furthering this notion: this means that all feeling, love, joy, meaning of relation, sadness, happiness would indeed be ‘energies’ or ‘energies that be’ that were all Preordained. What if I said, “we are infinitely bound to infinite possibilities on the strings of an Eternal God and adversus, —To be in Hell would be to infinitely be bound to an infinite reduction of limitation, …”Limitation” not as a “Force” or “Deity”, but, an infinitely becoming nothingness. 

This “will” or “council” sets forth to destroy all of the ALLOTMENTS of this world that Job was given, just sparing his life. When did you ever call an ‘incident’ evil, yet, later on said that it was ‘God’s will’ that I came to ‘this place’ in my life because of all of the ‘calamity’ that ‘befell’ me. Hmmmmmm… 

It is in the authority of the story of Job that we can define the term, “elohiym”. For, “elohiym” is the exact equivalent to the Greek gods’ council called the “BOULE”–which means, “WILL, volition, agreement, *shot to the target with full intention: hence, “bullet, ballistics, …and finally, “boulesthai” = ‘the BULL’s eye’ in the Greek’s Archery terminology.

For your references: here are a few of the ‘calamitous’ gods, their weapons and their titles from other religions that I believe carry ‘history’ to some of the Biblical Patriarchs who played the role of ‘destroyer’, ‘confounder’, ‘agitator’, etc. : The “Club of Cush, Hermes, Mercury, Janus, Nebo (the interpreters between Heaven and Hell/ all seen with some type of rod, caducee/ Caduceus, Nechustan, etc )”, Thor and “Hammer of Thor”, Bel the Confounder seen with His “Club of Confounding”–possibly referring to the time of Peleg (“to Break” in Genesis 11) with God-Elohiym and YHVH ‘confounding’ (Hebrew:”hephaitz (cf. to “Hephaistos”)” the “Sepah”, “Shem”, “Dabar” and “Lashon”, etc.. — these are all Deities in the mythological sense that carried “Clubs” which destroyed, scattered, broke, annihilated, etc. cultures, peoples, tongues, nations in the natural world and/or the pantheons containing anthropomorphic deities at the Will of that particular ‘confounding’ Deity. 

For an interesting look into a Sumerian composite sketch of the ‘confounding Satan/ Deity/ elohiym/Serpent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningishzida.

Going one step further from the draw of these pagan gods back to the Biblical YHVH: Satan is nothing more than God’s Nechustan (or Caduceus, Ningishzida {c.f. Now, let’s return to a more simple way of saying it in my American interpretation for Genesis 50:20: “For what people thought was meant for *evil* – even against God – God meant it for good – and not only that but brought Goodness to pass–out of the intentions of *evil. 

Now, let’s look at our very contrasted term, “evil”, which has nothing to do with the term,  ‘calamity’. That is, “calamity” holds a ‘fixity’ in the context of “meaning” under a theological/ doctrinal ‘destruction’–that is,  under God’s Sovereignty. 

“EVIL”, as defined from it’s Germanic and, interestingly enough, it’s Greek origins,  means ‘to not fit in the cosmos of a community or ordered thing; to be ugly in the senses of those things which are beautiful; unskilled; inability; without practical application; inapplicable, etc. 

 So, in brief, the Shakespearian, King James or Jacobian English uses this term from quite a removed sense than that of the American “rogue agency”usage–from whence we have an abberhent sense of God and the Devil in our churches, synagogues, etc. —i.e. a relativistic/ cultural/ memetic nonc- word to attribute “EVIL” as a rogue and random force outside of GOD’s Sovereignty….or worse yet, a GOD who couldn’t handle that kind of “Evil”..therefore, a “LESSER” God.  

The proper sense of “evil” that you see in the King James Version has its *English* translation, of Isaiah 45:7- “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things—does, so interestingly fit it’s Germanic and Greek origin, though, not directly fit the Hebrew as ‘translation’ or ‘interpretation’–again, directly. God does indeed disfigure to fit, to figure into the participation of our Universal Salvation. We ALL participate in God’s Sovereignty whether your mind is fully convinced or not…much like if you believe you are breathing or not. 

Let’s make our final approach with a little more gravity:

Let’s make “sense” to our cursed position away from Eden, go into a  natural-dualistic mindset and then back again only to destroy such dualistic thinking.  

The anatomy of Job’s Theology disallows“free-will” as ‘rogue agency’. The Theological narration of Job abolishes the notion that retributive-action is attributed to God’s nature – that is: *how could God be shocked, amazed, surprised, caught off guard, etc. if HE is the Predeterminate Author -hence, the very definition of “author” in the relationship of his/ her writing of Time, events, physical and metaphysical space?!? 

 As we will continue to delve into Job’s story, we will find “The Satan” talking initially by himself to God, THEN, through Job’s wife, THEN, “The Satan” finally ‘sifts’ or ‘tests’ the upright heart of Job. This is a mode near that of Jesus and the Satan all throughout Jesus’ ministry. It wasn’t that Jesus needed repenting, rather, His soul was continually tested because conflict is found in creation. Conflict is to be found in nature against spirit in the presence of time, motion, entropy, etc., –not God against another force. This kind of ‘dualism’ IS God’s ‘creation’ with God outside of these turbulences

by

The key meaning of evil is that ‘something that doesn’t *fit* into an expected boundary line and/ or a specific arena’.  That is, evil can be defined as a violation within a specific field where rules apply and violations warrant penalties. Penalty boxes, prisons, slums, vagrancies, outcasts, wanderings, ….whatever is ‘outside’ the ‘legal box’ of comfiture is ‘evil’ by definition–especially, in the sense of derogation from which they are called ‘places of penalty’. 

Evil is the mental, social, spiritual discomfiture created by the person or entity supposed to not make a disturbance. A “misfit”.  “Unskillful” is another etymological match for ‘evil’. “Awful” has left its first meaning of “full of awe/ wonderment” for the ‘horrid’ sense (which we will address later in the meaning of “monster”). Moreover, the ‘inability’ to *fit* into some kind of “normalcy” that is expected is what the Middle Ages called, “ugly” or “non-cosmetic”.  “Cosmos” was understood as the ‘arrangement’ within the creation. Later Medieval society became influenced by Neo-Platonism and a revival classicism. This revival influenced many medievals to look at society as the mirror of the cosmos. Therefore, ‘orderly arrangement’ of society had a sense of ‘beauty’ as did the ‘symmetry’ or ‘organized sense’ of a woman’s face did. A non-symmetrical face or a face that didn’t meet the criteria for ‘that which was befitting the cosmos of the day’ was considered ‘ugly’. Such as a bent nose, crooked face, arms, legs, back, etc. were all looked at as possible ‘evils’ or ‘non-compliant’ bodies that their very souls were shaped to. Such as the idea of a witch being ‘ugly’, or one of a non-compliant nature. The Medieval conceived a moral harmony within their cosmogony that matched their metaphysics and participation or figuration of what was physically beautiful within their societal schema. 

We find this meaning of ‘ugly’ to fit very cleanly into the concept of ‘evil’, relative to the societal standard and how both, the ‘evil/ ugly’ one is in relation to the society that has established it’s ‘cosmetics, cosmology, cosmos’ to judge by. These ‘high one’ are the gods, the stars, the heavenlies by which they ‘cast’ their doom, dominion, bane upon the ‘lowest’.  

Ugly, means ‘frightful in appearance, dreadful, fearful’ in the Old Norse word, “uggligr”. It’s deeper Germanic root, “uggr” – “fear, apprehension, dread, etc,” leads me to the related European and Greek, “ang”- for ‘angst, anguish, etc.. I find “ogre” as an ugly outcast in this Germanic word. Furthering its root, “strife, hate” are a part of this morphological sequence. In the 1400s, ‘morally offensive’ and by the 1600s- ‘ill-tempered’ became part of the coterie of meaning for this *ugly* word. Going back now into the classical sense of beauty to the Greeks and Romans, the Greek holds, “Dyseides”, while the Latin, “deformis”.  Earlier, the Sanskrit, “ku-rupa’’. 

In fictive, legendary, fantastic or fantasy writings, we find the ‘dark one’ or evil forces’ that dwell amongst the heath, the moors, the outskirts, the ‘pegged-off’ areas (hence, the word for ‘pagan’.. ‘the one who lives where the *pegs* demark the outlanders, outliers, outsiders’). As an example found in Beowulf, we see the deformed and monstrous and deformed, *Grendel*,  and his witch mother dwelling amongst the moors or the outskirts of society (outside the boundary line). The same typology of ‘evil’ and/ or ‘ugly’, is found with the dwarves in sleeping beauty, Princess and the Goblin, the movies and stories in Sherlock Holmes’, “the Hounds of Baskerville” or the cult movie classic, “The Wolfman”,  from which both stories tell us to not walk amongst the moors at night. That is, the ugly ones dwell away from the society where another type of cosmos can be employed. A netherworld, “Sheol (Hebrew: “unseen”)”, “Hell (“hole”–hole in the ground/ unseen place)”, Phulake (Greek) – a prisoner’s watch at night that later became known as the prison itself at night or a ‘dark prison’. 

It is in the truest meaning of “evil” that we find it in it’s parent stock: “hupo”. We get our word, ‘hyper’, from this. Halfway joking, we can see ‘evil’ through our children–as, ‘little devils’, when our children get ‘too hyper’—that is, ‘unruly within the understood status quo’ of how to manner or conduct oneself within the economy or household law. 

Yet another sense of evil is our Greek word, “Huperephano”, “to shine above others”.  This Greek word is considered to be akin to what the term, Lucifer meant in it’s derogatory sense. “Lux” – “light”/ “ferus” – ‘to bring’.  Nothing wrong with that word in its original constitution. It literally means, “to bring light’’. This is very much the title of action for the God of Light, or, in Christian terms, Christ, the light bearer. But, in the pseudo light bearer, we have the active sense, “demon”, or, “bringer/ dispenser of the shining (silver/ gold/ riches/ jewels/ fortunes)”. The ‘allotments’ desired for by the fleshly want versus the ‘need’ for what the whole, organic, pure soul needs. 

 

This ‘conduct’ might be the framework from which we can gauge just what is evil. 

It is in the primal root, “hupo”, that we see the meaning, “overreaching”, “excessive”, “above”, “beyond”, “outside”, the boundary lines of what is acceptable, legal, normal, understood conduct. 

This ‘overreaching’ does indeed touch on the Hebrew concept of ‘boundary line’.  The boundary line for where sheep graze and eat the grass permitted for them is considered the legal grazing area. Anything passed the ‘boundary’ of legal grazing is considered ‘animos’ in the Greek—or, ‘anti-law’.  To go deeper, the Proto-Indo-Europeans gave us the root, “*ane-”, which means, “to breathe”/ as “life, breath”….as an “animal”…hence, the Latin, animositatem – “boldness, vehemence, spirited”–animosity, as our modern usage is concerned, could fall in line with this older root. As, “ane-”, in the European sense means ‘to breathe’ (with its declination of morality following in later years), so does the Hebrew sense for, “Breath, Breathe, passion, heat, sexuality, war, fight, eros, etc.” hold its own very akin and similar meaning to the Indo European, “ane-”.  The Hebrew word, “Aph”, means, “nostrils”….but, the declination can follow and does give itself to the primal function verses the Heavenly senses found alongside the Greek *Ouranos* and Hebrew *Shemayim*.

Culturally speaking, we find one of the terms for ‘evil’ in the Hebrew word, “A-ghl”, which means, “evil”; “black-wild goat” or “wild-goat”.  A wild goat eats everything. A wild goat cannot be contained and holds a type of ‘animosity’ to anything that would hold it to a ‘boundary’ area. It roams, it bucks, it kicks, it is ornery. Shepherds, such as Phillip Keller (who wrote a book on this very topic of shepherding) know that it is very important to keep all sheep inside the legal boundaries.  If a sheep has a nature to break that boundary line it can lead other sheep astray with it.  We know that the sheep’s wool can collect enough trash, bramble, sticks, etc. that given enough time, the sheep will simply become top heavy, fall over/ become ‘cast’, and its natural gases will be trapped in its rumen or paunch where it will die to the dysfunction of eructation (expelling of carbon dioxide, methane and some hydrogen). This fate will happen to all the sheep if proactive measures are not taken to keep them in the boundary or legal feeding zone. 

It is in the Hebrew culture, and the language for which the culture is expressed most actively/verbally that we have the concept of the ‘boundary line’. Heaven is measured by the ‘boundary line’ from which the earth meets the sky. At the end of the line. The boundary of the “EYES” of God, or the “APPLE” of God’s eye is the “sheep gate”, the “beloved”, “the watched”.  

I find it interesting that the “raven’s eye” is called the “witches eye” in some pagan literature. I find it most interesting to see that ODIN is written to have two Ravens on his shoulders. That “one-eyed’’ God whose name is very close to, “Adonai”,  whose Ravens saw for him, roved for him…Much as the Satan ‘roved-to and fro’ looking for those to sift for God in the Book of Job. 

It was in the Barnes and Nobles edition of Norse Mythology that I read, to my shock, that authorities/ scholars on Norse Myths do believe that its origins came from the Iranian Plateau which is exactly where many leading archeological scholars believe Adin or Eden was physically located, by name! … Even east of this region was recovered the area of “Nochti”–southern/ northern (a.k.a., “Nod”), a local tribal city within this very region called, “badh-tibira”, or the ‘place of the smithy/ black smith’ — i.e., “artificer of metals” —Cain/ Genesis 4:22. 

by
I didn’t realize what entitled meant until i took a look into my prior actions as a kid. Let me try to explain: I vandalized. I stole. I hated indirectly. I hated ‘at’ something that I couldn’t quantify. / I lived in a wealthy white neighborhood being white.
I stuttered. I had acne—bad acne. I had a bent-crooked-large nose. I had crooked teeth… a large head… small body. I was different. I was set apart. I was selected out. —-I didn’t know what happened when everyone “all of a sudden’’ stopped hanging around me around 13. I was abandoned. My parents loved me but they couldnt relate internally to my suffering. I was Fatherless and Motherless in this suffering. They didn’t feel *why* I wanted to kill myself. They could ‘see’ outwardly, I’m sure, some/ all of my afflictions… but, … in all of that…I was ‘Fatherless’/‘Motherless’—-and hated myself for even uttering that internal feeling—-because, after all, I was “loved”; why would I be so spoiled as to dismiss being ‘loved’. / I didn’t have A REFERENCE POINT. No lead-star. I HAD NO VOICE (literally and spiritually). I lashed out in every way. I needed to “defend” myself against all of these dragons/demons. So, I did Martial Arts (just like the young man (name alludes me rt. now) who was on CNN who witnessed his spiritual Brother be killed while he held his iPhone and recorded the entire event of George Floyd’s death). Nonetheless, watching him speak on CNN last night, broke down the Anchor, Cuomo, to stop speaking. You could watch Cuomo interrupt at first ‘to get answers’…then, Cuomo (smart guy) stopped talking and let that poor young man cry, yell, genuflect, talk about martial arts, wrestling, fighting, defending, etc…WHY?!?!?!!—-because, he, in his position as a black man in an impoverished area/ arena has NO VOICE, NO ONE TO DEFEND HIM/ THEM, NO ONE TO SEE THE INTERNAL PAIN that is impersonal—-i related! I began to cry with him. Then, Cuomo said, ‘I apologize—I needed to be quiet and listen/learn’ to the young man. Cuomo settled in with patience. That was brilliant. The young man’s interview seemed irrational until you realize the conditions he lives in. That community that is burning down their own town is doing so because its all they know….they reference where they live by being ‘fatherless’, defenseless, homeless, afraid, judged, scandalized, downtrodden, dismissed (the true sense of being ‘hated’), —- knowing they’ll never be outside the realm of their own reference. They hate themselves for this too——they burn down their Father and Mother’s shops and homes because they hate themselves. They are their own looking glass with all the above negations—-while we judge, they have no hope with their reference= themselves. / I am still White…I Still am entitled as a White person in the sense that I’ll never be judged for being black. I have and am dismissed for my developed disdeveloped manner of speaking…using tricks to not stutter, using quirky actions-loony actions, loosy-goosy language—-to ‘flow’ better in my speech where my speech/where I am allowed to be accepted amongst the eclectic…. I am at least given this world… Many of these poor people do not have an open eye hope.. My interpretation of: James 1:27 “If you dare to be *religious* then go visit and help, aid, lift up, be with, guide, engender the hope in the homeless, the FATHERLESS, the MOTHERLESS, the oppressed”. ——I don’t need to parse this in the Greek. If there are any LEADERS, RULERS, GUIDES for this situation —let them be the least of these and let them serve the most.
This WORLD doesn’t need another HERO, or “LEADER”—- it needs people to get under the sunken heads of the downtrodden.
by

My sympathies are eternally extending in grace to everyone. Our federal institutions must act on their accord –and I would say swiftly. Nonetheless, I extend my eternal graces ( God granted to me and all ) to all because I see my eternal failures in this flesh. In my youth – and lesser today— though still I fight my lesser nature— I have extended ((and sadly-as all of us do at times)) my retributive nature to the world and found both grace for me and martial law against me. These two ‘acts’ did indeed ‘act’ upon me when I was younger and presently—ie, speeding and speeding tickets, for example. Grace taught me that I must forgive those who have done ‘injustice’ to me. This IS the Golden Mean. Jesus was without retributive action— but, He had active Grace and said, “Father, forgive them (( as they were killing and hating Him)) for they know not what they do” . Regardless of your opinions of ‘modern **christianity**’, the words recorded from Him were about Love and anti- retribution—- I. E., Grace. Continual ‘retributive’ action destroys all because it demands ‘just reward’ for the impunitive damage done to the flesh. Those who do not seek the eternal answer ( Grace ) will never fill the eternal void for injustices done to us all since the dawn of time. This conundrum of *justice* via – ‘eye for eye’ or reciprocating for an unquantified injustice is never resolved within a limited-mortal answer. Just look at our unending wars in the streets. Just look to the thousands of years of wars and destruction in the Middle East for the wisdom in that— i.e, lex talionis —eye for an eye’— . This, “eye for an eye” is already skewed. It’s self contained and does not see past its own myopia. This does not work on a societal level. / Our Government is granted the power to order a society to rest or, ‘civility’-if you will. It is the greatest rule on earth: The Kantian model of hierarchy to and for and by the people. When this doesn’t happen— society takes on what its individuals can never hold fairly — I.e.—martial law