Sin and Hell *UNTO Salvation 

This is the expanded look at Job 14’s Proto-Sinaitic “Tsaror”. I believe this study will shed some light on the Scrolls of Final Judgment found in Revelation 5:1,3,4,7,9; 6:14; 10:9; . 

 Job 14:1, 14-ff. 

Job 14:1: “Man born of woman, Short-lived and sated with strife1” 

1 please refer to my video lecture: “Job and MacBeth – a comparative analysis” on my website: fomcom.com (in the video lecture section) “Man of Woman Born is a theme Shakespeare understood to mean “the fate of the flesh”. 2 

14 “If a man die, shall he live again2? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come3. 

15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee4: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands5. 

16 For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin6? 

17 My transgression is sealed up in a tsaror/bag7, and thou daubs/sewest8 up mine iniquity9. 

18 And surely the mountain falling cometh to nought, and the rock is removed out of his place. 

19 The waters wear the stones: thou washes away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.

2 i.e., “will a man live after he dies?”. 

3 i.e., after his death, he ‘waits’. He ‘waits’ in Sheol, as understood by the Jews and A.N.E. (ancient near east) thought among certain circles, later, the Jews. “Until my *redemption* comes”. To be changed from the ‘state’ of being in the ‘abode of the dead/ shadows’ is *redemption* to the A.N.E. God ‘believer’ an, later, the Jew. Cf. to Dr. Irving Finkel’s “Mesopotamian Ghosts”; Tur Sinai’s “The Book of Job”; Marvin Pope’s “Job “ (The Anchor Bible Commentary series. In verse 19, there is a grim maxim for the ‘state of man’. Job says in 14:19 “The waters wear the stones: thou washes away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man”. But, this is the ‘state’ and ‘plight’ of mortal man. Many commentators do not account for the shade or soul of man not being of the “adama” or “soil, earth”). I believe this is a spectacular passage to the contrast of many commentators. A hope in an eternal soul to continue. 

4 the hope that God calls to us, that HE *acts* upon us.

5 a continued thought to the first part of this verse: Thou *Acts* upon me and *Does* the works of His Hands. Again, God is acting and doing upon us, ←-i.e., “us” = those who are already in “the Shadows” of sin, death, remorse, iniquity, hell. 

6 As Tur Sinai says, ‘this is not affectionate watching’ – Satan was the ‘watcher’ – Hebrew: “m-SHT” – the “rover/ satan/purger/challenger/rogue/ etc.”. In Zechariah 4:10 we have the “eyes of the Lord” as “m-SHT”, or, the “satan” of the Lord, the roving watcher. Cf. to 2 Chronicles 16:9; Jeremiah 16:17; and Hebrews 4:13 as well. Job’s *sin* is not overlooked but as we shall see, Job is in the next verse alluding to not just Job’s gift of grace from God but mankind’s gift. 

7 Tsaror- “sealed up/ tied up document”. This mentioning, by Tur Sinai’s words, meant a document of the living (cf. 1 Sam. 25:29: “but the soul of my lord shall be tied up in the *tsaror* of the living”. That is, in this book, the Tsaror of Job, the Tsaror was tied up and contained the names of all living persons who were inscribed. Cf. Ps. 139:16: “his days are tied up (in the Tsaror) and none can be added”. 

8 “thou sewest = “daub; daubest; seal” over my iniquities”. 

9 (a)Here we see the contrast of judgment unto the ‘cutting off’ or “sheol” to the Salvation imbued us all through the Tsaror. “My transgression/ (and iniquity) (pishiy) is “sealed up (chatum)” in a “bag (tsaror)”/ You cover (wat-tit-pol) my iniquity (a’woniy). (b) This is, I believe, stated to contrast the fate of ‘mortal man’ with that of universally sanctified man as an eternal being, and not mortal. 

10 as I stated: the plight of mortal man, “fatalism”, ‘fate, fatality, the ‘end result of mortality’. Nature is determined to be destroyed as we know it. 

20 Thou prevailest for ever against him, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away (refer to footnote 9b) 

 If I may use Job as a perfect example of the two separate forms of belief :The “nature” of the Illusory Doctrines of ‘determinism’ as a replacement theology for Predeterminism 

In Job 3:3, we find the ‘nature religion’ of the Fates and their illusory doctrines of fate as called upon by Job through his newly ‘gifted’ worldview. Though the “Fates” did not exist in Job’s day, as they do in Norse mythology, it was a ‘natural default’ to become fatalistic when one’s belief in the Sovereignty of God is dismissed. 

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. In a sense, Job is a journalist placed into the world of nonsense (a place of ‘no-signage’; ‘no-significance’) which generates an infinite regress (one action leading to another without resolve or significance). This “Abad” (place of no ‘signaling’) takes its toll upon Job’s critical thinking and emotional well being. Nonetheless, Job remains consistently truthful to his ‘report’ within his shadow logic. 

I do share Job’s sentiments as I did with my parent’s failing health. 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, –or, the natural deterioration of one’s well being such as Alzheimers, etc.? A concluding question arises out of these afflictions, namely: 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. 

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. 

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 dark “moors” by which he must travail upon. 

Being somewhat of a cult classic Horror film fan, I’m always fascinated by my favorite ‘monster’, the Wolfman. In many of the traditional ‘takes’ on the original idea of the Wolfman we have gypsies who carry ancient knowledge of such an occult being as the Wolfman. In one of my favorite cult classics, “An American Werewolf in London”, though no gypsies, the bar keep and patrons of the bar called “The Slaughtered Lamb” tell Jack and David (two American college students who are travelling through England by foot) to stay off the Moors, travel on the path away from the Moors. The “Slaughtered Lamb” has somewhat of an allusion to the ‘safe house’ for the patrons felt safe there from the Wolfman. Grendel in Beowulf was known for being a “moor walker”. Though, we know that the relationship of Satan to God and to others is not a necessary constant in memorialized Heathen Literature – or movies, comic books, etc.. Though, the “Monster”, etymologically speaking, comes from the Latin “monstrum” which means a “Divine Omen”. Yet deeper than the Latin, monstrum, we are given in the Proto Indo European the word “ *moneie – “ which means, “to be mindful of, admonish, advise, warn, instruct, teach, to think about —[zero grade: p.i.e. : *men – “to think”. Interestingly, the Anglo Saxon gives us the ‘’monster” – as “aeg-laec” – “ugly”. Grendel was a moor walker (Anglo-Saxon: “mearc-stapa”—> “moor wanderer” —’’going to and fro on uncultivated ground/ heath [ Beowulf: line 103] ). Grendel traversed the moors, especially the rim of the moors, the ‘bounds that enclose’ the moors. I say, away-laec’s playground/ lair”. 

Job 3:3-5 (vs. 3) “Damn the Day I was born 

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 that leads to nihilism. 

Again, Fate cannot hold the title of non-agency of causality and then acclaim “causality”. Fates are meaningless by their definition—a bios, a current, an effect. Nature and Fate might be equitive terms. 

Recalling the interview with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers. Joseph, one of the world’s highest acclaimed mythologist, was asked by Bill Moyers: “Joseph, knowing all that you know, travelling to hundreds of remote villages, countries, islands, etc..and studying their languages, religions, beliefs taboos, etc….What have you personally concluded to be meaning of Life?” … Joseph answered: “There is no meaning to life”. Bill Moyers, being a good natured and very liberal ordained Baptist minister said, “this is ludicrous!” “You mean to tell me that in all the knowledge you have acquired you have concluded this?” 

Lol. If I may take over here… Knowing all of Joseph’s works, Joseph was saying with my paraphrase included: ‘meaning is derived from what is meaningful…the chess board is Life –that is, the board of laws, rules, –how nature works. We, the people on the board, are the pieces by which our degrees are respectively played out on the board of rules. This is still not meaning as of yet. Meaning comes from the INTENT by the INTENDER who plays both sides and signifies ITS authority by the intangible act upon the tangible board as Magistrate. 

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

Job, the Mythologer 

“Damn the Day I was born 

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 

The convolution of commanding particular elements of creation to ACT or FATE– which in Job’s abandoned worldview were all under God’s Sovereign rule– even deny the doctrines of old world Heathenism which give the Fates power over the gods by: 

a) using nonce intermediary compliant forces to “damn” the Day at first 

b) Tells God to “ignore” it (the only time Job refers to God in his delusion) 

c) assuming that he, Job, is in command to speak into existence ‘a reality’ that Reality might be subsumed

Job hides himself from God in the illusory doctrines of fatalism via a ‘doctrine of Shadows’ and not a Reality 

Job’s damns the Day that ‘a boy ( Job ) is begot’ and subscribes to this *Fate* as *Day*/ Day as Fate. 

* I might add here to the “HORROR” of this statement by my hypothesis: I believe that Satan was (seen, heard, felt) as 

a) an ‘objective (seen, heard, experienced in the physical world) literary mechanism’ which talked to YHVH in the first two chapters 

b) the words of Job’s wife’s mouth: “Curse God and Die (for your loss)”. 

c) a Prophet of Shadows for “The Satan’s own demise – does Job not have the very words of Portent or Prophecy from the Devil’s perspective?!? —-Such a Miltonian theme here!! — “Damn the NIGHT that a Boy (JESUS CHRIST) was begotten”. Moreover!–A pre-Mosaic-Mesopotamian which held a SATANIC prophecy of the Christ to come!!! 

have only seen Christ typologies in Job. Job was righteous in all of his ways. The Lex Talionis/ Codex Hammurabi was a law code that would have been stated here during Job’s lifetime had there been an infraction of the law by Job. Yet, no infraction. Job was clean, pure, above the law of retribution … .and still, God caused the calamity upon Job (as accepted in Job 1 and 2 as coming from GOD’s causal act. Job was not indebted to the law but a keeper of the law. Job was stated as righteous in this way which answers to the later false claims of his ‘friends’ who ‘comfort-indicted’ him as having done something to incur a punishment from God. We will find that “THE SATAN” is the one, in his jurisdiction, to act in speech through these “friends”. In the flesh, Job, we will find, was in hell for a few days, ‘cut off from God’ via the beliefs of fatalism, infinite regress, dualism, doctrines of rogue agency-free will, and retributive ideas that have NOTHING to do with Grace. 

Job has not sinned here in his Sheol, or Hell. He is speaking from Sheol with the words of “THE SATAN” —-as did Peter, the Cornerstone of the True Christian Church. 

Even Peter was called, “Satan”, when Peter told Jesus that Jesus wouldn’t “suffer unto death (*THE CUP*). 

Did EVEN JESUS as His Father in the Garden of Gethsemane to “let this CUP pass—none the less, Your WILL will be done!” 

In all of that, Jesus did not sin, regardless of the words of dismissing the CUP unto death. Both Peter and Jesus said words that would have alleviated pain, suffering, death, CALAMITY to ‘have passed’. Peter held to the uncommitted and unfounded Prophecy that substantiates The MESSIAH as Jesus. To deny THIS Death is to deny Jesus for Who He was and IS. 

Job 3:4 – “That *Day*–let it be darkness, God above ignore it (Sheol – out of sight) No light break upon it (–also, “it” is ‘the Fated *Day*- fates supervening fates implied under the speech of “the Shadows” of dark allotments/ doom/ —as Tolkien might say, “in the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie”) 

Job 3:5 -Darkness (as *Fate*) and *Gloom* (as *Fate*) claim it, Cloud (as *Fate*) settle over it Job uses a ½ antemetabole {antemetabole – example: “foul is fair and fair is foul” MacBeth’s Witches usage of “reversio” and “antemetabole” (cf. bottom for glossary). 

The brilliance I see via usage of the literary mechanism employed in Job is what we call, “Antemetabole” (cf “reversio” as a usual by-product of “antemetabole” in writings such as MacBeth meaning “all things being reversed”, is that there is no “reversed” mechanism found as in MacBeth’s “Fates”— 

There is a dark-brilliance (that we are both controlled by and are not controlled by, 

as is the spirit of “the whore of Babylon” and her ‘train’ or spirit which corrupted the peoples of the world–that she was, is not and will be. A geist of ‘effect’–as the hand of God rather than a substantial objective reality. I remember reading one of my all time favorite pagan poets, Robert Graves, in college (as I should have been studying my chemistry) — who, in my periphrastic attempt to quote him in his work, “White Goddess”, (referring to Revelation 17: – ff) “ ‘She’, the ‘whore’ as the Christians call her, is to be venerated by me. Her life force drives my passions, my life force, my life… it is SHE that corrupted the Christians from their beginnings, naturally, as is mentioned in Revelation. Is SHE, therefore, to be dismissed as illusion?! –if she is, then, the Christians are delusional and exist upon a counterfeit war with “HER” in a counterfeit belief! Such a religion the Jews and Christians have shared from her days of antiquity into the Common era. These religions have made up yet another sacrifice to hate and kill”. 

I confess that I added here the spirit of Robert Graves that I know through my eyes when I was a Heathen-Christian. You must understand the ‘other side’ of things. You must have the ‘full plate’ without fear before coming to a fuller thought. 

I believe that this “life force-goddess” was the goddess worshipped as a Sovereign life giver. This theme, found in the words of Job’s wife, resonates with me. She told Job to basically condemn the god that wouldn’t give life. BUT, you see—this very ‘belief’, not sound in doctrine, is not sound for this very reason: The goddess cannot be Sovereign if “Death” is out of Her hands. If she ONLY ‘gives life’, ‘abundance’, ‘wealth’, allotments, etc… she cannot be ‘known’ as the giver and taker away of these things. THIS is the very statement of Job concerning “THE GOD” who takes away and gives. Simply put, which “Deity” would be more Sovereign – as “Sovereign” SHOULD BE defined? 

found in Job chapter 3Job’s new statement of shadow belief never ‘looks’ at the GOD for whom Job cannot employ in 

—hence, ‘the circle’. Job is IN the circle of Ouroboros (‘snake eating its own tail–rebirthing after its own cannibalization, repeating the ‘cycle’) 

Job “blames” the “nothingness” for his “Plight” – Job attributes “power” to ‘nothing that is’ —the exact opposite of what God teaches Job later: God created the evil and sent the evil to Job to purify and bless him – cf. Job 42:11-17. 

I found 7 points within the Field of Job’s ‘fatalism’ which led to infinite regression/ nihilism: 

1) Job’s attribution to “the plight” as a ‘replacement Theology’ for Job’s past beliefs and doctrine within God’s Sovereign Intent. This ‘replacement Theology’ is laden with inconsistent and antithetical motifs to an Intentful Sovereign God. These inconsistent and antithetical motifs verify their own laws of ‘infinite regress’ 

2) “Plight” is a nonsense word- or “nonce” word as a ‘false signal’ 

3) The “Bru-ha-ha” of war/ devastation/ riot/ eats its own tail only to return again 

4) There is no ‘direction’ other than reaction and muddled self referencing (equivocation). 

5) The ‘field of fatalism’ is the board of no rule containment; the field of fatalism is without loving Intent; the field of fatalism is the field of ‘blankets’ of allotments to debts which are deaths. The field of Fatalism is the field by which the only signals there are are the signs leading to your death. The field of Fatalism’s ‘belief’ is limited and finite: ‘hold on to your goods, riches, stuff and things UNTIL *that DAY* by which “fate” came upon you and signals all things to–i.e., your Death; your debt. 

6) A failed “theodicy” is an invention to believe that God is placed within the field of Bru-ha ha/ –a land of no signals, a land of “evil” – where God has NO part to take from this ‘field of evil’, ‘field of calamity’. As an example: many ‘nicer’ christianties try to implement various theodicies to argue out God’s responsibility of any evil in this world —moral or physical. Such thinking leads inevitably to ‘dualism’ 

7) God’s INTENT is taken out of the illusory belief in Job’s archaic Theodicy, because Job only address ‘calamity’ as ‘evil’ and ‘evil’ as ‘plight’ and ‘the Day’ as the bringer of the ‘plight’ and the Day to be darkened out and ‘not have ever been’. This is Nihilism. Nihilism, in fact, is the result of infinite regressive thinking—-though, an infinite regressive wouldn’t tell you that, initially :). 

I propose that the lessons learned from the book of Job are as follows: 

The Fall of our Nation is based upon the syncretic notion of pagan autonomous “Free Will” within the Church. 

This syncretic practice both extols both the Church and the flesh –defaming both 

The “Story” of Job was not a Heathen one but the explanation of the condition of the natural man as a believer in YHVH who MUST BE PURGED by a satan. 

The Sumerian contemporary and possible Eblaite story of the man Job built us a foundation from which we have hope to rise from. 

The distinction is vast between modern Christian belief and the story of Job’s relationship with the pre-Mosaic understanding of YHVH’s expression as found in the Narrative of Job. 

The blame is not upon the satan in Job. This is not so in much of modern thinking, especially that of modern Christians. 

Job’s story is about the purging of Job, let’s say, “Job in hell” —if only for a moment to observe the best of us in hell 

THEREFORE 

Job’s recap via formula might go as follows: 

Job chapters 1 and 2 Antagonist ( “the Satan”) > Antagonist is subsumed as the ‘Will of God’ – that is: God creates Good and Calamity > Job’s wife’s words denote her following a Satanic alliance- i.e., “the doctrine of Dao-mne” as what we find in the Early European and Greek meaning “to distribute fortunes”. Therefore, loss of gain is the negation of good > Job acts as a prophet of God’s Divine Will by what Job does not/ cannot say–being that Job is “fixed” to fatalism, nihilism, infinite regress” of ‘negation’ of Divine Will >Job, as the voice of Satan, still prophesied the “boy begotten” as a cursed Day within the context of Nihilism’s rule-THIS, is possibly the Satanic Prophecy of the coming of the Messiah and the Despair of Nihilism’s rule> ‘half antemetabole’ used: “THE DAY – LET IT BE DARKNESS —” is not completed to say, “ The Day – let it be darkness and Darkness, let it be Day” – Job doesn’t say, “tables turned” in this..what Job is saying is: “let the Light be Black” and nothing else. Let the Darkness rule and no light be used. This tells me that Job is not sinning, that he is only seeing Creation without God and the justification that there can’t be an employed “SENSE, PRIMA CAUSE, INTENT, RESOLVE, etc. 

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
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
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

In this lecture you will see how Jesus was juxtaposed against the rabble of Rabbis that had occupied Jerusalem being filled with countless opinions and entanglements of the law, all of which became a contradicting theological mess. In this way, Jesus’ teachings were seen as the only logical ‘way’ amidst these chaotic ego-centric based Rabbins of Babylonian and Persian persuasion. Jesus was the True Rabbi and His word was his deed. He died to it and Resurrected us all unto life and freed us from the quagmire of man’s opinions.

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

Sheol is the Hebrew word for Hell. This word was disseminated throughout the early Oriental World. We find that the origin and usage of this word (prior to 1,000 B.C.) had been a much earlier word than the word used by the Hebrews. The root meaning of SHL (Sheol) did not mean ‘to damn to hell without hope’, rather, it meant “a place to make a legal plea before a jury or oratorium concerning what your grief has been with the hope of a fair ending”. That is to say, the place by which ‘hope’ is given through a legal recourse by stating your sufferance. The final idea: until we are ‘in hell’ we will not call out to God. We need hell to understand our alignment with the eternally Holy. The arguments posited in this audio lecture refer back as far as ca. 5,500 years ago leaving every area on the globe affected. As to what has become of this meaning in contemporary understanding is for another lecture.

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

*To know what something is – is to know what it is not*

-k.j.-

PREFACE

The Greek word for “time segment”, or, Aionios was contrasted with Adios – meaning “infinity”. These two terms were used throughout Homeric times down to the 1st century A.D. Christian Church. As we introduce the term “Adion” for infinity in this lecture piece we will see what Aeon is not.

I will be clear: Aeon, meaning “a segment of time”, “an era”, “an eon”, “an age” and “a limited/unknown ‘finite time”, was employed by the Biblical writer, John, in his Revelation – or, “Apocalypse”, for the usage of Hell within its “aeon of purpose”. Moreover, the “ontology” or “coming to be” of ‘an age’ of ‘being a sinful human’ requires AN aeon or “era” of hell to refine them to God; this intimates ‘direction’, therefore, INTENT of a GOD to create a passageway by which we will be refined, ready, and reserved for the final destination, i.e., UNION with GOD.

We, therefore look at our part 4 focusing on the ‘’vocabulary bank’’ by which the New Testament used its terms for Eternity, Perpetuity, Eons, Ages, and infinitude.

Parts 1-3 covered Aeon in all of its forms. We conclude that “Aeon” was used as an *finite undefined time segment*.

Our next focus is Adios (Adion). Since we have seen by its usage that Aeon is not an ‘unending’ term we therefore look to Adios.

We continue to go to the archaic authors of the Greek and Hellenized world to see that ‘Aidios’ was socially normalized in its usage. Again, words are used in their participation of the figuration of a culture. I reiterate from my past 3 lectures that the beginning New Testament community (ca 30 A.D.) had its rich linguistic heritage spanning at least 800 years, if not more, from the Classical Greek authors.

Examples of TIME: ETERNITY Adios and Chronos working together

Time (1)
One of the earliest cultural usages and accounts of Adios is found in Homer’s “Hymn to Hestia” (ca. 800 B.C.). Here, the ‘goddess resides on a throne’ with mortals. This, by context alone, should give us ample information to see that there is a kind of “time” that can ‘participate’ in this “throne realm” but is separate from….for …if mortality exists there, then ‘mortality’ requires sequential time or “chronos”—which is separate and distinguished from Aidion as we shall see.

Chronos is neither subsumed or supervened by Adios at this aforementioned juncture, rather, they (Chronos and Adios) share their ‘attributes’ at certain juncture points for a fuller gestalt of meaning. That is, time and eternity (chronos and Aidios) are ‘conjunctive’ as ‘time’ meets the eternal…or, relating to mortals → **the epiphanal**.

We see Hestia, the Goddess of the *Hearth/ Throne* sitting at her ‘permanent seat’….”edren aidion elaxes”. Such as ‘seat/ throne’ is the hearth at the fireplace. It is where the family convened to talk, eat, share, cook, stay warm, associate with HOME. Hestia, was considered LOVE, THE BELOVED…and, in this Maiden Housekeeper sense, she was Divinely Eternal Without End. Hestia was called, “She of the Public Hearth”. So, there is a sharing of the “time” of mortality and this AIDION throne. This is no more contradictory than when the Eternal God of the Bible talks with the Patriarchs, Matriarchs and Prophets. How About the answerable Platonic idea of “coming to be” to the FULLNESS of the UNIVERSAL found in the very NATURE of JESUS CHRIST ‘coming to HIS FULLNESS?!? I.e., When the UNIVERSAL meets the Particulars. The “participation” by which the gods, Gods act involves such a confluence of different “times”.

Time (2)
We find Aidios inscribed in Hesiod’s “Shield of Hercules” saying, “‘aidion eixon ponon”. This means that no one side can win in this athletic competition. It states the ‘stasis’ by which movability cannot be achieved, therefore, ‘without end’ —–in the duration of the game. But here’s the catch: it is in the ‘picture’ of stasis without resolution. This depiction fires on the mind a never ending battle for glory without resolve….a state of being…a longsuffering of worldly effort…the battle of the EPOS (‘epic ones’) or “eroes” (“heros”).

Time (3)
Anaximander’s ( A.NAX’.uh.MAN.der) Greek says, “Tayn Aidion Kinaysin” —i.e., “The Aidion is perpetual movement”, —-therefore, Aidion shows no retirement of motion, hence, no *aging*.

Time (4)
Anaximenes (A.NAXIMENEEZ) says,”Kinaysin de kai hootos aidion poiei” as to agree with Anaximander.

Time (5)
Anaximander went on to say, “There is a certain NATURE of the infinite” – “phusin tina tou apeirou” – “and that this NATURE is ETERNAL and UNAGING” – “Aidion ein kai a.gayro {“a” = “not” + gayro’ – aging/ i.e., ‘geriatric’}”.

Time (6)
Xenophanes (XSE.NAH’.fa.neez) attests Adios as “indestructable”, immortal, and ungenerated (i.e., uncreated). Xenophanes uses Adios in contrast to anything that is “coming to be” —or “generated”. To conclude Xenophanes: anything that segways to the next event is not Adios.

Time (7)
Diogenes (DIE-AH.jeh.neez) Laertius (Lay.er.ti.uhs) simply agreed with Xenophanes here.

Time (8)
Anaxagoras agreed with Aristotle that “Adios” is ‘without end’

Time (9)
Heraclitus says, “Adios is perpetual motion of things without end”. These “Things” therfore do not share in the attributes of Aeones.

Time (10)
Empedocles says, “There is a “THING OF NECESSITY”, an ancient DECREE of *gods ETERNAL*—- i.e., “Anankayce Krayma Theon Psaypheesma Palaion Aidion”. Conclusively brilliant, Empedocles continues to his conclusion that Aidion is “spherical, eternal, and immobile” – i.e., “Sphairo-eides Kai Aidion Kai Akin-ay-ton To Hen”.

Time (11)
Parmenides used the term Aidion to mean “ALL” in the sense of “ALL that will always be…ALL that is ungenerated and imperishable”.

Time (12)
Simplicius says, “nothing that has a beginning and end is Aidion”

*Time (13)
For me, maybe the most important statement was from Metrodorus of Chios who stated, “The ALL (TO’ PAN) is Eternal (AIDION), Because, If It Came Into Being At A Certain Moment, It Would Come To Be From Non-Being; And It Is Unlimited (Apeiron) Inasmuch As It Is Eternal: For It Does Not Have A Principle (Archay) From Which It Began, Nor A Limit (PERAS) Or An End (TELEUTAY)”.

For today I will end our section on the usage of Aidion in Greek Antiquity.

Thank you, Kyle Jones

 

Post Statement and Recap

Our job at fomcm.com is to search for historically overlooked material that substantiates the Bible to the regard that it should be given.

Often, the Westerm “orthodox approach” ‘limits’ the purview of the authentic linguistic content, a.k.a., “Message” of God’s Word by *Westernisms* or recognizable ideas that fit into ‘our sense’ of our Orthodox god. Sadly, the robbery is by and to the ‘church’ by which its failures are founded upon limitations of Eastern Understanding of the Biblical Text. One limitation after the next, always trying to ‘keep up’ with the ever reducing idea of the ‘so called biblical text’ which is currently founded upon man-made notions of God.

Fear is the engine by which ‘an orthodoxy’ fights not repent. Scientists have to secularly ‘repent’ when they find something that counters and finally disproves an older thesis–which becomes no-more-scientific…but simply, WRONG….. . Likewise, Theology SHOULD contain the same humility within their “orthodoxies” —as I speak ‘tongue and cheek’. And again, once there has been grounds for challenging the English Text of King James…one should be allowed to find answers to countertheses via an orthodox ‘council’ without agenda. It is here that I make mention of “rhetors” from the Paideia of the class Trivium.

I speak of “rhetors” in the classical sense by which the first grade of learning Greek and Latin language began the Trivium’s rite of passage to academic bliss. Then, from Language to logic. Finally, argumention (or rhetors) was taught by the very wise secular Greek and Hellenized Christian mothers of the first and second centuries.

These 3 phases (language, logic and rhetors) of the Trivium ( by which the educated Greek class lived) led facets of Greek culture to be strung together with respect and congruity of thought……and not as brute beast ‘authoritarians’ who ‘brawl’ over ideas for dominance and not truth. I need not discuss the brutal nature of this approach in today’s world.

In contrast to this last mentioned civil unrest…. the Paidea of the Greek’s Trivium created learned scholiasts of the Biblical Text to find their ‘senses’ in historical comparitive hermeneutics, Biblical Greek analysis and parsing of the stems of Greek Grammar, socially-contextualizing and examining the socio-linguistic understanding by which the geographical ‘neighbors’ of the Palestinian Jews and Christians understood their God. THIS IS of the Hebrews and New Testament Christ, and, finally, exegete the Biblical Textus Receptus or “Received Authoritative Greek and Hebrew Bible”—as well as the LXX or Septuagent, i.e., the Greek Old Testament by which we have transferable Greek terms with Hebrew.

Finally, fomcm.com gathers writers of Greek pagan antiquity to show that the ‘vocabulary bank’ of the New Testament was not out of a ‘vaccum’. Rather, the Greek New Testament used the Greek language that the ENTIRE Greek world had been baptized in, saturated, steeped in since the inception of Greek culture. This is nothing to overlook, and yet, the Western American Orthodox Church has somehow or another concluded to not deem it important to know what the New Testament REALLY WAS SAYING IN THEIR DAY, THEIR CULTURAL CONTEXT, THEIR SEMIOTIC AGREEMENT, THEIR SLANG, THEIR WAY OF SAYING THINGS, IDIOMS,

DIALECTS, etc…. I hear from western ‘authorities’ of the ‘orthodox churches’ saying that “devotion is over theology”. You can’t ‘devote’ to something ill-defined. Why fear exegeting while ‘working on your *devotion*?’. *What IF, ….the “MATHETIKON” (in the Greek) meant “TOTAL DEVOTEE” to the LOGOS or Christ as He spoke on Earth?!!—Well, it does! Lastly, I say….”if you *know* the God you serve then you will serve HIM correctly; otherwise, there will be a false sense by which you relate to the WORDS that HE has spoken and YOU have so neglectfully handled in your isoglossed cultural *SENSE* of “”devotion””.

RECAP

Remember, “Indefinite time” does not have to mean “infinity”, though it could. The WAY in which Aeon and Aidion were used as ‘indefinite times’ were poetically and philosophically expressed a complimentary union of ideas.

Such poetical employment of words could be used to create the seemingly “irrational” mental state of either the poet or the characters by which participate. Therefore, subsuming the ‘rational’ for a beautiful alien ‘irrationality’, if conveyed by the poet correctly, could arrest one’s senses and lure one’s self out of the lust, greed, covet, anger world.

This “irrationality” created words fit for philosophical treatise for the words has concretized into ‘meaning’ and a correlative ‘semiotic commitment’. Hence, the mathematician-philosophers had a ground to work from.

It is not so strange to look at a word complex if we understand ‘pictographic societies’ as our ancestral origins. Herein lies the genius of the Greeks that was not so different, if not related, to the pictographic societies of the Egyptians, Sumerians and the Original Ancient Hebrew pictographic texts of the Pre-Sinaitic Israelites. Such ‘radicals’ as “fire, serpent, toxic, 6 wings, etc.” did indeed mean the “Seraph” or angels that flew with the temple of God in HIS ETERNAL “Train” or Verb of Perpetual – unending Motion through and into this “temporal state”. This is the “Parousia”, per se, of the Old Testament God who condescends to us.

Nonetheless, the force of each archaic Greek word was known by a millennia of usage for the exact purpose to specify categories of thought, therefore, distinguishing one term FROM the other.

The richness of Greek vocabulary is found in how one word can dance around the other, never stepping on the other’s semiotic ‘toes’ —- only reinforcing the other’s role, creating a union of ideas and images due to the strength and value the Greeks held to word care.

To paraphrase Edward Gibbon, the author of the Decline of the Roman empire, “Empires Fall when the study, usage, retention, and guarding of their language is no longer preserved. Double entendres, business-speak, cultural popular slang, etc. are the beginnings of this sorrow”.

Part One:

One could safely say that until the past century, especially at the point of understanding Einstein’s equation E=mc2 , “time” was relatively not understood. Moreover, the Universe was not understood as to how it worked. To the ancient Israelites, “spatiality” was expressed in “rwb” or cubes, more or less, those simple concepts that “measured” objects *relatable* to the purview of the ancient participant.

 “Limitationsto particular analysis of distance and time can also create a ‘genius’ or ‘collective sense’ by which the participant of observation makes sense out of. The earth might have been seen as ‘round’ but as a globe probably not. Therefore, to the ‘primitive’ genius, the ‘water-course’ of the seas circled’ the flat-circular earth. It is within these waterways that our primitive-genius ancestors find the lore, of sorts, that “Leviathan” swims his course round the earth. What a great story to tell your children when not wanting them to get too close to the water!

Though their skill set is ‘limited’, the ‘tribal collective’ sense was non analytically consistent.

Spatiality” was time and time was the space or distance travelled. Examples might be: “to the top of the mountain from here”, “where the land meets the ocean”, “the darkness created by the depth of an abyss”, “the unseen in the darkness of the waters”, etc. With this in mind, “relatable” objects such as the horizon (i.e. sky touching earth) would have been used to express *where* heaven meets the earth (Hebrew: “Olam”), hence, “eternitywas a ‘spatial understanding’ in that the earth stopped accounting for spatiality, or more simply put, the ancient Jewish Semites did not have enough ‘mental *rwb* by which to implement measurement. The *when* would have been *where* the distance met its end. Though these are simple concepts to us the ancient Israelites only had a few tools of conception by which they operated. Might I add here that “sky” was not a concept yet, only “heaven” or the “abode” of that which is above earth. Though simplistic, literal, and naturalistic, these particulars added to the collective consciousness of the early Israelite tribe to make ‘sense’ of Heaven, God, cutting off point, Holy, etc. These are human’s tools masterfully created by YHVH to set the groundwork for HIS evolving “meta-language” and unfurling relationship with not just Israel but the world. 

Permanence”

These were “permanentideas that the ancient Israelites held to. That is, ‘permanence’ being the groundwork that all other parts of the structure of the ‘house’ are built to their ‘abstraction’, or “off-from-structure. Furthermore, any ‘structure’ built from the foundation is technically/ linguistically an ‘abstraction’ ‘from the foundation we build off of’. These permanent ideas established our pagan heritage by which we exist today in abstraction. I shouldn’t have shocked you to say “pagan” ideas since it is the Jew that held to them. But I said what I said. The ancient Israelites were “coming out  (‘coming off/ from’ – ‘abstracting’)” of very naturalistic pastoralist and agricultural views. If there were ‘revelations’ from God they were His Revelations and not our ancestor’s nor His Holy Writ…rather, cultural participation and ‘reaching’ for the eternal through limitations, did our ancestors use as tools to ‘divine’ and see the Divine.

 The ancient Jews were being ‘pulled out’ of necessary primitive participations. The entire Bible is an account of ‘being pulled out of’ the primacy by which they were launched necessarily. This cannot be fully understood, in my opinion, unless “Intent” of a Sovereign and Omniscient God did not Predestinate a collective Gestalt for all of humanity to come to the fullness of Reason in due time. Answerably, “Divine Intent” would reasonably implement two elements that necessitate one another: Permanence and Eternity (I Declare the End from the Beginning – Isaiah 46:10). Permanence and Eternity are therefore two distinguished terms. One is necessary to carry the other one. If these placements of permanence and trajectories of eternity are rogue-random events there is no sense for the natural human to ‘evolve’ to higher means.  A trajectory needs a point of fixity, reason, obedience to the ‘will’ or ‘boule’ of the mathematical laws set to find the arrow’s “fixity” at its INTENDED point of landing, i.e. the “Bulls-eye” or “boulesthai”. The ontology, or being, of something can be observed in the motions it has taken from a permanent fixture, a starting point. 

 These primitive views were literal views, concrete views, natural views, and they set the precedent. This means the ‘first’ or ‘prime’ views established the permanent foundation. They were base or first. They were foundational but they were not stupid.

Another example of culturally participative – yet, ‘primitive’ (I say “primitive-genius {prime -joining}”) understanding: the sun was the roving eye of God searching the hearts of humankind and scanning the actions of humankind as it appeared in the sky or heavens where God abided. Hence the Proto Indo European, Sanskrit, Avestan, Armenian held roughly the same root name: “dyaus”— from where we later received dei, dea, deity, theos, zeus, etc. So, “day” and “deity” and “eye” were all from such a source. It is from earlier pictographic societies such as the Proto-Syunik (Proto-Ararat/ Proto Armenian/) that give us pictographs/ logograms that predate and absolutely determined the Sumerian pictographs as their *source*. The Proto Syunik/ Syunik pictographs ‘collectively’ had the ‘circle’ drawn as the Sun = Son = God. Such a glyph found on the hills of Ararat was found to have various drawings inside this circle. Such circles were referred to a white tablet or tablet by which ‘events’ inside of ‘god/ God’/ the Sun-Son God roved across the sky. The ‘tales’ or ‘signifiers’ within this roving God were held inside the context of God. A simple dot, for instance, was the ‘porthole’ by which God’s eye designated as the entrance and exit to eternity or the beyond. Names such as igi in Sumerian, Ayin in Hebrew, Oyo, Eye, Oculus, etc. were all related due to such antiquity as the parent and progenitor of semiosis or signifiers of means. 

Truths of God were not the same as the Biblical Patriarch’s understanding of their surroundings. Nonetheless, there was a symbiosis between YHVH and Israel through YHVH’s ‘metalogue’.

God might say “forever” concerning HIS statutes …yet, there was no example of specific ***relatable***Time-mapping’, only conceptualizing of ‘referred continuance’ by the tools given to the primitive sense, not a lesser ‘sense’. Furthered, humankind has a ‘lifetime’, a ‘durative’ notion to the Cosmos by which humankind is cosmologically – agriculturally ‘related’ by not fully conceptualized or mentally ‘relatable’ as ‘comprehensible’. Therefore, “forever” is a toss at the unseen as the unseen is conceptualized. (“Forever”: Hebrew: Olam: Genesis 9:12; Ecclesiastes 12:5; Isaiah 26:4; Psalm 145:13; etc. { all such usages allude to a ‘duration’ of non-accounting-rather, an era or aeon}). This “non-accounting” does not mean that the concept of ‘accountable’ is dismissed, it is not that at all.

So, “forever” is an idea that is beyond the scope of one person’s lifetime. “Forever” was ‘participated’ in hierarchical festivities, agricultural observances, and various religious observances in order to ‘partake’ of the mask of eternity. “Representation” becomes the practical approach. 

Forever”, looked at as an exact time frame, is a very interesting philosophical topic, yet, it is a cosmological, astrological and agricultural ‘event’ as ‘representation’.

As I stated, eternal time was mythically *signified* through the temporal practices of village participants. Such ‘eternal’ participation involved dancing, usage of the ‘masks of eternity’, celebrations of God’s eternal Order such as was found in the Jewish “Hag”. The Hag was a “procession” around the Dabar (Hebrew: “Thing of Order; “Stone of Order; prophecy, judge, bee {animal of the ordered dances}). Likened dances are the Debka of the Arabs and Ancient European agricultural/ cosmological dances called this ‘dance of eternity’ the “Horo” (by which I play in a Bulgarian band who does this very thing). The “horo” is linguistically tied to the Greek “horos” or “horizon” which is where “eternity” meets earth. It is the ‘boundary line’ between the two. None of these dances were considered ‘in the abstract’ by the participants because it is was *how* they participated and celebrated “time-eternal”. Though, we might call such elaborate dances and festivities, in ‘modern’ terms, primeval acts of participation. These dances of eternity set the ‘permanence’ by which our later parents could embellish and traject back to an earlier root and claim to the earth as it was understood. As to ‘when’ the *originations (‘horos’) of such observational dances of eternity began, well, we can’t place a ‘timestamp’ on it, only an indefinite time, —-an ‘aeon’ ago. I remember reading an academic paper written on the ‘ecstatic dances’ of Dionysis and Bacchus. Within the ‘collective’ efforts of the drunken dance and the cheap particulars (“plastikos) used to express the greater ‘sense’ of the dance such as the feathers, the tassels, the shakers, the drums, shawms, anklets, painted bodies moving in processional order, actively leading the participation of the observer and initiate to witness’ the condescension and yoking with the Deity of the dance–i.e., the “Lord of the Dance”. The Verb of the Dance represented the Noun aspect of God’s appearance (‘parousia’ – ‘physical appearance’). Shared dimensions of Time occured at the event’ within the ‘HORO” -the *point where earth ( that which is spatial and tangible)  meets sky (Heaven), “eternity”. 

To conclude:

The Biblical Patriarch/ Matriarch was a recipient of God’s Word and had a limited skill set for a specific purpose. Nonetheless, the conveyed Words were relayed by God while the recipient of God’s Words participated in obedience. Obedience is the key word. Obedience is necessary to have completion of God’s telegraphed ending to HIS Narrative = our Marriage to Him. 

For the Primitive-Genius to ‘analyze’ or ‘parse’ the etymologies of God’s Rema or divine expressions would be not only ludicrous but, in Old Testament Times, idolatrous. This is the evolution of consciousness and levels over time of “how” a tribe is to participate with the God of Ancient Israel. “Analysis” would begin the VERY YEAR that Judah was taken captive (last of the 3 deportations) by Babylon. Thales would introduce deductive thinking and jumpstart a new ‘era’ of ‘anatomizing’ versus ‘collectively participating’. Genius would leave and Wit (Greek: eido’ = “to see”/ “observe”) would begin.

As we delve into the concept of “permanence” vs. “eternal” we will see ‘relational differences such as ‘being with God in a “RELATIONSHIP” that never ends versus a ‘PERMANENT’ ordinance that “NEVER ENDS” only superseded by it’s fulfilments as the original ordinances becomes the stronger “archetype” for its “exponential ‘primacy’ “. All to say, the ‘stacking’ of meaning needs the other to build. The foundation of this “house” requires permanence first, then, eternal trajectory. 

Finally to reiterate:

 “Primitive” is the strongest-purest foundation-generator by which all other mental structures are established. So, as I stated- primitive-genius”– I meant it. “Genius” means to ‘be joined’, ‘to be connected’ to everything and ‘act’ or ‘participate’ within this *connectivity* or *genius*.  For each level of evolution of participation of the figurations of WORD signaling, we have deeper fulfillment to the higher complexity of the original generative WORD. The “Genius” is Pregnant with higher fulfillments yet to come both  semiotically and spiritually. Therefore, I witness that each Biblical epoch/ era/ aeon/ etc. was needed to fulfill a greater archetype (as do we need the grace to ‘evolve’) as a ‘new time segment’ became necessitated.

 We shall see in our future studies that the terms“permanence” and “eternitywill use the terms ‘epoch’, ‘era’, and ‘aeon’ to substantiate coherency of the Biblical Text and shed light on Western Orthodoxy’s ostensible vagaries of contextual confusion. Establishing terms with substantiate linguistic agreement between the Biblical text and pagan authors by which the Bible borrowed.

As Abraham was willing to pimp for profit ( and saving his hide) his wife out in Genesis 12: 12 – ff, he was still influenced by the Ancient Near East way of doing things. It would take time to be called out of acting upon Israel’s seeming immoral irregularities—especially Abraham’s erratic actions as the Grand Patriarch of Judeo-Christianity. But, had it not been the Patristic dominating society that the Jews flourished in, looking at their wives as chattel, then Hosea 2:16 (ca. 785 B.C.) would have never completed the Face of Jesus: “AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS, saith the Lord, THAT THOU SHALL CALL ME *ISHI*, AND SHALT CALL ME NO MORE BA’ALI”. The Jews participated with the God of them as a “Chattel Owner”…ONE who could dismiss, pimp out, sell off, HIS Wife. “ISHI” was the Hebrew Name of an Endearing-Loving-Protecting Husband. What a contrast spoken by the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ!!! Was this ‘necessary pagan horror’ needed in the Grand Scheme to evaluate the worth and contrast the Christ of Grace to the permanence of hard pagan practices. It was just the Laws of God but the creation of paganism by God that established the Eternal Christ.