The Queen of Heavens

The NT word for kingdom is basileia. This is a feminine noun. In ancient Greek this word is used for both

1) a queen

2) a kingdom

The words are exactly the same. So how do we know if Jesus was speaking about a “queen” rather than a “kingdom”?

Scholars have always pointed to context (at least amongst themselves) as the general public was never given a chance to see such things. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon merely states, “βασιλεία, βασιλείας, (from βασιλεύω; to be distinguished from βασιλεία a queen.” But why? Contexts are not always clear.

If contexts dictate translation, it would seem the semantic context of Matt 13:38 would be a give away:

The Field is the World and the good seed [singular] these ones are the sons of the queen

Matt. 13:38 literal

“Sons of the Kingdom” makes no sense semantically. Poetically, sure. We could construe any weird writ as “poetical”. But as far as the word “sons” go a “kingdom” does a kingdom give birth to sons?

“The queen of the heavens is resembling a treasure-chest that was concealed in a field that a man found…” Matt. 13:44 literal

“Knowing now the thoughts of them, he said to them ‘The whole of the queen apportioned according to herself is laid-waste, and the whole of the city or house apportioned according to herself does not stand. ” Matt. 12:25 literal

“The queen of the heavens has become like a man, a king whoever has made wedding-feasts for the son of him.” Matt. 13:44 literal

“From, then, the days of John the Submerger until now, the queen of the heavens is violently-forced and violent men seize her.” Matt. 11:12 literal

“Another parable he set before them saying, ‘The queen of the heavens has become like a man who sowed a good seed in the field of him.” Matt. 13:24 literal

“Not the whole, the one saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will come-in into the queen of the heavens, except the one who makes the will of the father of me, the one in the heavens.” Matt. 7:21 literal

Wise-ones in the Outside are shouting-for-joy in the Broadway; she is giving her voice. In the head of those-who-roar she is calling-out in the openings of the gates in the City, she is speaking her sayings. Until when open-ones you are loving the open-one? And those-who-scorn a scorned-one they have delighted to-themselves. And foolish-ones are hating a known-one.” Prov. 1:20-22 literal

Wise-ones she has built her house, she has hewn out her standing-ones, seven. She has slaughtered her slaughtered-one, she has arrayed her table, she has sent her scattered-ones, she is calling-out upon the bodies of the high-places of the town. Who is an open-one? He is turning aside here. A wanting heart, she is saying to-himself.” Prov. 9:2-4 literal

The genitive 3rd person singular feminine relative pronoun herself is always translated as “itself” in Matt. 11:12, 12:25 and similar passages.

If you’re in the business of encrypting, encoding, making riddles, creating enigma…your words are going to appear very strange to people, obviously. This is why the Bible has never been translated literally in any true sense of the word.

“Olam” as “the Future”

In my many years of Hebrew study, I have often come across the sneaky practice of scholars which takes a simple objective word and interprets (more like morphs) it into a more subjective concept for the purpose of avoiding readings that seem too crazy for common sense to endure.

In studying the “progress” of translations over history, one can easily notice the increasingly subjective translation methods employed in the more modern ones. Why? The modern sentiment has far less tolerance for fantastical ideas. Thomas Jefferson stripped the Gospels of the miracles, for example, and that was quite a long time ago.

The Hebrew word “olam” עוֹלָם is noted by the master Gesenius as being far more often used in the context of the future than anything else (cf. Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon), but is never translated as such. Why? Because it would create contexts and readings that might be a little too radical for the modern sentiment. But guess what? The Hebrew Scriptures are mostly about revealing “the future”. In my mind there is little or no difference between such an idea and time travel. Visions from the future are exactly that–time travel. The future through a prophetic channel somehow “travels” into the past and then gets written down by the prophet. This is hands-down fantastic and radical, is it not? Otherwise they are not real visions but subjective promises given by a higher power, or as some doctrines might put it, immutable decisions of what will happen because the Higher Power will make it happen. This is the endless hodge-podging practice of Bible interpretation that changes with every wind of every era in order to make it “relevant”.

Taking a look at the word Olam we find that it can easily be defined objectively to some extent by its root alam (#5956) which means to conceal or hide. The literal meaning is vanishing point/horizon. It must refer therefore to that which is hidden, or out of sight.

What does the typical translation “everlasting” or “eternity” have to do with “out of sight”? Nothing really, because the point of those words is to be abstract. Eternity or “long duration of time” are about as obscure and subjective as it gets ladies and gentlemen. “A long duration of time” can mean anything. Which is why it doesn’t mean anything.

There is another element to consider. Olam is a Hebrew word that appears around 15 or 16 times with a definite article, i.e. the Olam. It also often appears with the preposition “to” לְעֹלָֽם “to Olam”. There is no definiteness to “eternity” or “everlasting” and hence no such thing as “the eternity” or the “everlasting”. But there is such thing as “the Past”, “the Present”, and “the Future”. And since Olam refers to that which is hidden and out of sight, it can’t logically refer to “the past” or “the present”…

But here’s what we end up with in an objective translation:

He-who-is-kneeled is Yahweh Elohe of El-Strives [Israel], from-out the Future and until the Future…

1 Chron. 16:36 literal

…and he has taken also of the Tree of the Living ones, and he has eaten, and he has lived to the future…

Gen. 3:22 literal

“the Woman however, is glory of a man.”

This passage has always been one of the most controversial because of its appearance as a “black and white” precept. But what if it was an enigma? A dark saying? What if we paid a little closer attention to the finer details of the text rather than ignoring them? The definite articles in Paul’s writing are taken to mean he is talking about a specific man or woman. Traditional interpretation pays little attention to definite articles, if any at all. To emphasize the contrast the words with a definite article are capitalized (i.e. Man, Woman, Head). The presence of definite articles as opposed to possessives or indefinites (i.e. a woman, a man, her head, his head) should not be overlooked. Getting the enigmatic symbols right is difficult. It’s not me who’s playing around with words, it’s Paul:

For a man truly owes not to conceal the Head, him being a mirror-like-image and glory of Theos, however the Woman is the glory of a man.

It’s in Colossians where Paul speaks of the “son of his love” as “a mirror-like-image of the unseen Theos, firstborn of the whole establishment…” Col. 1:13 literal

For a man is not out from a woman, but a woman out from a man; for indeed a man was not established through the Woman, but a woman through the Man; because of this one the Woman owes to have exousia-authority upon the Head through the Messengers.

1 Cor. 11:8-9 literal

This text is not as black and white as was thought. In fact, it is incredibly obscure. If you have read this before in any context you have no doubt applied a enormous amount of presupposition to the meanings of the words without realizing it simply because it is so obscure. Obscure, dark sayings have a way of forcing our minds to “fill in the gaps” of meaning. But how do we know what to fill the gaps with? Even the thought that Paul is referring to the narrative of Adam and Eve is an assumption, since we have no quote or specific reference by Paul about it. The inherent problem with obscure language is that anyone can build any kind of dogma they wish from it. This is precisely why doctrine and denominations have multiplied beyond reason in the last few centuries. The more accessible biblical text has become to the masses, the more multiplied the dogmas have become until the point at which it is now—a massive jungle of babel.

If Paul intended to teach a basic male-female leadership paradigm here, he failed miserably. Exousia-authority is the highest form of authority and means a de-facto rulership or dominance, not some pseudo “servant-leadership” which is a new linguistic slight-of-hand invented by a failing modern church. The enigmatic text would seem to tell of an authority of “angels/messengers” being placed upon the (governmental) Head a specific “woman” (nation). Angels are defined as “sons of Elohim” in the Hebrew scriptures.

Pondering further, one could think of the symbolic pillars that were erected in the OT and the “oil” that was subsequently smeared on pillars’ heads. Is “anointing oil” upon the head symbolic of “angels” which is symbolic of “sons of Elohim”? And what of the first literal word of the Bible in Genesis 1:1, “In the head“, which is indeed the feminine construct of the Hebrew word for head? The mystery of it all would seem that the entire language of the Bible is enigmatic, meaning that although the world needs to be saved, it is in fact not for the world to know the truth. The trouble is, who can know it? He who has an ear to hear, right?

Classical Greek provides plenty of words and means to teach such a paradigm so that this could have been written in an indisputable manner and a 1000 times easier to understand.  When one reads and studies a forced euphonic translation of an obscure text, confusion inevitably results because it is no longer possible to add up the actual thoughts of the author (Paul, Jesus, etc.). Their thoughts will seem inconsistent at best or contradictory at worse which is the case with a great many translations. What was Paul thinking? Paul knows. Elsewhere we have additional thoughts of Paul that we must take into account:

Let the Man the debt give back to the Woman.  In like manner now also the Woman to the Man.

The Woman [who?] exousia-rules not her own body [her man?], but the Man [who’s that?]. In like manner now also the Man [who’s that?] exousia-rules not his own body [his woman?], but the Woman [who?].

1 Cor. 7:3-4 literal

It is Paul who has in mind the body as symbolic thing referring to a gathered people. Everywhere important words are used symbolically, and the trouble is knowing when he is using a word symbolically and when he isn’t. Riddles are the toughest things to figure out for anyone, and scholarly degrees don’t help one bit. In fact, academia will do very well to make you fudge the riddles.

Perhaps we read this wrong all along? Perhaps Paul is speaking sequentially? First the Man is in debt to the Woman, then the Woman becomes in debt to the Man? Perhaps the Man rules the body of the Woman first, then later the Woman rules the body of the Man? Maybe—understanding this as an enigma—Paul is speaking of two different men and two different women? Perhaps this is summation of a greater enigma of the Scripture regarding the first woman (a harlot) ruled by the Man, and afterwards, a second Woman ruling the first, as when a maidservant displaces her mistress…

Under a servant when he reigns; and a fool when he is satiated of bread

Under her-who-is-hated when she is being owned (becomes a beulat), and a maidservant when she is taking possession of her lady-queen [a head].

They are four small-ones of earth, and they are the Wise-ones from those-who-are-wise. The Nemalim (clipped-off ones, #5243, 5344) are a people not powerful, and they are erecting in the Harvest their bread.

Prov. 30:23-25 literal

What are you saying Paul?

Some will regard this hunting of pseudo-definition and deep riddle-solving as a complete violation of the whole of Christian orthodoxy. Of course it is. The orthodoxy is a tyrannical bitch goddess that entraps men in her lair where they whither away in self-denial. As long as the grandees keep scaring the common man away from breaking with the traditions and digging into the enigmatic possibilities of scripture by holding an abstract concoction of “hell” over their heads, they will continue to slave away in the tar pits of Egypt, unsaved.

An enigma necessitates the study of every individual word of a given text. The hypothesis that this and other sayings are not what they seem but constructed of an entirely different language or “tongue” (i.e. “man” and “woman” do not mean theologically what we take them to mean socially) is indeed an idea that would undermine the entire known paradigm of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy, which has always been controlled and dictated by the elite anyway.

And that’s just fine with me.

The Hebrew thought of “world”?

תֵּבֵל

This word, tebel, #8398, means world. It is a highly “extended” word, i.e. a “poetic synonym of earth” (eretz). But it is hard to pinpoint just what the idea behind this is since it is always used in “poetic” prose.

The root is יָבַל yabal, #2986, which means to conduct or bear along, as a river bears along a boat.

He has been driven-hard, and himself is he-who-is-bowed-down, and he is not opening his mouth, according as the Sheep to the Slaughtering he is conducted along, and according as the ewe [Rachel] to the faces of those-who-shear-her, has been mute, and he is not opening his mouth.

Isaiah 53:7 literal

This sounds like it could be similar to our modern idea of “world” as that collective human force that carries us along whether we like it or not, and hence the adage, “to go against the flow”. The world goes…and it takes you with it. If it invents the phone, you will be inevitably be compelled to use it if you want to survive. If it discards the phone and invents the smartphone and Facebook, you will inevitably be compelled to use it to survive. Going against the flow of the world is always, I think, a drastic move with tough isolating consequences. One is forced to weigh the pros and cons, and it is never easy. The only alternative, as I see it, is to rule the world. 

Here’s some other interesting related words from the same root:

יָבָל yabal, #2988watercourse, stream

יָבָל Yabal, #2989, – son of Lemech (Gen. 4:20)

יַבֵּל yabbal, #2990 – a running, supperating (sore? – Lev. 22:22)

יִבְלְעָם Yibbl-Am #2991 – a conducting people, worldly people? This is a city in Manasseh. Thought by Strong to be “From bala’ and am; devouring people”

Tapping into the text of the NT we find Jesus providing an allegorical interpretation of this,

The Field is the World and the good seed [singular] these ones are the sons of the queen,

Matt. 13:38 literal

the singular “good seed” interestingly is equated with the plural sons…

John the Baptist vs. Elijah

The book of Job is heavy in enigma. It seems to have multiple contexts by which one could interpret. Is it poetry? Is it a historical dialog? Who speaks poetically in dialogue? Perhaps the author had in mind something even deeper?

In the following passage from Job, translators have always added the word “way” which is not in the original text. The words “one” and “two” are in the feminine form (achat, shtayyim) which is intentionally different from the masculine form as nothing in the sentence dictates the gender.

Behold this-one, he has not been just. I am answering you for eloha is abounding more than mortal-man. Why have you wrestled toward him? For the whole of his words are not answering. For in one, El speaks. And in two he [enosh, mortal man from v. 12] is not beholding her.

Job 33:12-14 literal

כִּֽי־בְאַחַ֥ת יְדַבֶּר־אֵ֑ל וּ֝בִשְׁתַּ֗יִם לֹ֣א יְשׁוּרֶֽנָּה

It’s like the dark allegory of three women. Were there not three “Mary’s” at the foot of the cross, and three who went to the tomb? Nah, must be just coincidence.

The Gospel appears to have its own hidden agenda….but you have to pay real close attention…

In the days of Herod [a wicked killer of all the boys], king of Judea [Judah, the Chosen Possessors], there was a priest named Zacharias [God remembers], of the division of Abijah [my father is Yah]; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron [the latter time], and her name was Elizabeth [God is an oath].

Luke 1:5 NASB

Aaron’s name is of unknown origin the scholars say. Or is it? As it happens his name aharon (אַהֲרוֹן) is spelled and pronounced exactly as this word acharon (אַחֲרוֹן), with the exception of a chet (ח) in place of the het (ה), a very slight difference. Is there something here about remembering sons? And what does God remember? His oath, his promise….

And are you sure you had the right translation when you read that verse about Elijah [My El is Yah]? Jesus spoke in the present participle active, “is about“….

And if ye are willing to take, he is Elijah, the one about to come. Matt. 11:14 literal

Jesus again breaks the linguistic boundaries of time. It’s almost as though Jesus is saying that Johnny boy is both from the “past” and “future”. What the? I suppose he is right to preface his bizarre, enigmatic statement with, “If you are willing to accept it…”.

It’s a funny thing to ponder about what time-space really is. The Greek-Western concept plots points along a line. Both ends are open to infinitum. But look at how we are forced to symbolize infinitum:

Znalezione obrazy dla zapytania infinity symbol

It’s closed and not open. The only way to express infinity/eternity is with a closed line, a.k.a a circle. Is time closed? If it is, Jesus would certainly know. And this “living” and “active” book, might actually be living and active….

Who has heard according to this-one? Who has seen according to these-ones? Can the earth be made to circle in day one? If a nation is being born in step one, then she has circled, also Zion has borne her children.

Isaiah 66:8 literal

Note that “day one” in the Hebrew is י֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד yom achad which is exactly the same reading as found in Genesis 1:5, י֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד yom achad the first day/day one.

Is Zion a “woman” now? Let’s add to the mystery—Zion means Dry-Land.

The Heavens are Counting Ones

God told Abraham about Heaven.

And he is causing to go out אֶת-himself the Outside-ward, and is saying, `Look, now, Heavens-ward, and count the Stars, if thou are able to record אֶת-themselves.` And he is saying to-himself, `Thus he is thy seed.`

Genesis 15:5 literal

The Mesapharim

The Hebrew for “to count” is saphar. The passive participle masculine plural means those-who-count, it is written mesapharim and is similar to chayyim (living ones), cherubim, raphaim (giant ones), or nephalim (fallen ones), etc. The word mesapharim, or counting ones, appears in two scriptures,

To the eminent, a song to David: the Heavens are those-who-count [mesapharim] of the honor of El, And the work of his hands is he-who-exposes [or exposer, maggid] the expanse.

Psalm 19:1 Literal

We are not hiding from their sons, to a latter generation those-who-count [mesapharim] the praises of Yahweh, And his fierceness, and his wonderful-ones [participle feminine plural] whom he has made.

Psalm 78:4 Literal

Not “in the twinkling of an eye” but “in a wink of an eye”

Behold a mystery-secret to you all I tell: we will not the whole sleep, however we will the whole be changed—in an indivisible-instant, in a wink of an eye, in the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised up incorruptible and we will be changed.

1 Corinthians 15:52 literal

Bringing out more of the concrete meaning in these words is important as it allows us to draw a some important connections with the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul chooses the word wink of an eye to help us understand this secret. This is the only instance of the the word in the New Testament. It is connected to the Hebrew רֶגַע rega which is a noun that means wink.

It is based on the Hebrew verb רָגַע raga, which according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance means,

to toss violently and suddenly (the sea with waves, the skin with boils); figuratively (in a favorable manner) to settle, i.e. Quiet; specifically, to wink (from the motion of the eye-lids) — break, divide, find ease, be a moment, (cause, give, make to) rest, make suddenly.

Let’s examine a few scriptures where this word shows up.

Behold like a lion he is ascending from the majesty of the Jordan toward an enduring abode; for I am causing her to wink; I am causing him to run from upon her…

Jeremiah 49:19 literal

My flesh has been clothed with worms, and a clod of dust of my skin has winked.

Job 7:5 literal

For a triumphing of the wicked is from close by, and the gladness of the soiled is until a wink.

Job 20:5 literal

Pay attention towards me my kinship, and my tribe towards me give ear, for the law from me is going out, and my justice for a light, kinships I cause to wink

Isaiah 51:4 literal

And the desert-dwellers have met near the howlers, and the hairy-satyr upon his friend is calling; indeed there a female-night-spectre has caused to wink and she has found for her a resting-place.

Isaiah 34:14 literal

How agenda ruined Scripture translation – 1 Peter 3:1-7

Greek seems like a hard language, and you are sure to be put off by the complex presentation of it that inevitably happens at the higher levels of church clergy. But people have been scared away from it unnecessarily. It’s not complex. It was a real language. Real people spoke it.
Hundreds of millions of people put their trust into the work of a handful of men who have been responsible for the transmission of the Scriptures from their original languages. Hardly anyone reads them in the original languages. The thought patterns of the author, the deliberate word choices, and the intentional obscurities of the texts are all but lost and can never be meditated on by anybody.

We are in fact told not to look to closely at original texts unless we are instructed on the “proper” way at a seminary under “qualified” Ph.Ds. Yet which seminary of which sect? And which Ph.D. of which doctrinal bias?

In the case of Islam, a great majority of Muslims read the Qur’an in its original language, or learn to. They will tell us that it must be read in Arabic and that translations are not to be relied upon. They would consider a watered-down paraphrase of the Qu’ran an abomination.

Conversely, a typical clergyman or pastor will tell us that a gross paraphrase of the Bible is “just as good as any other” because after all the “Holy Spirit can use anything”. Laypeople have not realized the amount of trust they have extended to translators. Were the translators being faithful and honest, really? Unbiased? Factual? Lets put forth this question, if Bible translations were labeled this way:

  • New International Interpretation
  • New Living Interpretation
  • King James Interpretation
  • Good News Interpretation
  • New American Interpretation
  • English Standard Interpretation

Would you buy any of them? Would you entrust your life to what you read? Any yet many do, blindly following the advice to “simply trust” that “the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth.”

As was the case with the lawyers, scribes, and religious authorities of Jesus’ time, the Christian authorities today are playing the people with a massive gimmick of “Don’t ask too many questions, just trust us.”  It is a gimmick that is worth a lot of money, fame, and accolades. It doesn’t take much (especially these days) to look up in dictionaries and lexicons the words that are consistently fed to us by the grandees. All one has to do is log on to the Internet. I believe this is a noble thing to do. Do not believe everything you hear.
Most, if not all, of the Bible has been defaced and skewed linguistically through heavy religious bias.  One good example is 1 Peter 3:7. Greek and Hebrew have no specific words for husband/wife. Occasionally Greek words may have a broad meaning, and the translator must choose, as is the case with sunoikeo. Sunoikeo occurs only once in the NT, in Peter’s exhortation.

sunoikeo συνοικέω 1

I.to dwell together, Plat., etc.; ς. τινί to live with, Aesch., etc.

2.to live together in wedlock, cohabit, Hdt., Eur., etc.; τούτων συνοικησάντων γίνεται Κλεισθένης from their marriage sprang Cleisthenes, Hdt.
3.metaph., ἄχθος ξυνοικεῖ the grief with which he is associated, Soph.; so, ς. φόβῳ Eur.; ἡδοναῖς, ἀμαθίᾳ Plat.; ἱππικοῖς ἐν ἤθεσι ξ. being versed in the ways of horses, Eur.
b.reversely, with the thing as subject, γῆρας ἵνα πάντα κακὰ κακῶν ξυνοικεῖ old age with which all evils are associated, Soph.; of the poisoned robe of Hercules, to cling closely, id=Soph.

II. to colonise jointly with, Κυρηναίοισι ς. Λιβύην Hdt.:—Pass., of a country, to be thickly peopled, Xen.

Source: Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889. 

Many times words are just outright changed because they are thought to be “figures of speech”. Maybe the text is a figure of speech, and maybe it isn’t. Translators are no longer translators but interpreters when they change the words. This is why Bible translations are largely speculations and not what’s actually there.  Hypotassomenai [G5293], meaning those-being-subject, is a participle verb and not an imperative command. In 1 Pet. 3:5 it is translated correctly, “…those hoping into God, ordered themselves, being subject [hypotassomenai] to their own men.”

It suddenly becomes difficult to argue that something is an imperative command when it isn’t. Take note of how Peter spoke of women and men in the plural, not singular. An accurate, and far less biased translation of 1 Peter 3:1-7 would therefore be this:

Likewise the women, those-being-subject [hypotassomenai] to their own men, in order that even if any are disobedient to the word, through the up-turn of the women, without a word they will be won over having beheld your pure up-turn in fear.

Who should not be the outwardly plaiting of hair and putting around of things of gold, or the dressing of garments of the world

“Up-turn” comes from the Greek noun 391 anastrophḗ (from 303 /aná, “down to up” and 4762 /stréphō, “turn”) – properly, up-turning. In external Greek literature it means turning back, recourse, etc. (see Liddel).

Peter grouped a bunch of nouns into three symbolic points as seen in bold. Kosmos in this sentence is always interpreted as “adorning” and plugged into the first part of the sentence. But this is the literal reading of the the sentence and it has always confused scholars since kosmos is a nominative noun. The only verb in the statement is to be found at the beginning. It is fascinating that out of 186 instances of the word kosmos in the New Testament, meaning world, this one time we are told that Peter had in mind something totally different. Taking into account the definite articles (the) we can read “the secret” rather than “a hidden” and “the meek, tranquil spirit” rather than “a gentle quiet spirit”:

but rather the Secret Man of the heart, in the incorruptible Meek and Tranquil Spirit, who is before Theos, of great cost.

The men, likewise, dwelling [colonizing jointly] with them, according to knowledge, as to a weaker vessel — to the woman– imparting honor, as also being joint-heirs of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.

1 Peter 3:7 literal

When it comes to the original, the concepts and thinking of the writers suddenly becomes far less clear.  The NT, along with the OT, is a plethora of obscurities hidden from the common man by all who interpret it. Euphony (making it sound good, sensible) is their goal, not translation. Those who really know the languages of the Bible would readily admit they understand a great deal of what is in there, if they were honest. However, in a position of authority or a good paying relgious position it is preferable to them to not be so transparent. Why if the grandee doesn’t have a clue about so many of these texts, how could any lay person? So the game continues—what the lay-person doesn’t know, won’t hurt him.

The Elect – Before Abraham, THEY ARE?

Jesus breaks the rules of language and tenses with the statement “before Abraham became, I am”. The verb used is not to be (#G1510) but to become (genesthai #G1096). Yahweh did this too,

And Yahweh has said, `The One-Covering is myself from Father-of-Tumult which myself is he-who-makes. 18 And Father-of-Tumult to become he is to a nation great and mighty. And the whole of the nations of the Earth have been kneeled in-himself

Genesis 18:17-18 literal

הָיֹ֧ו יִֽהְיֶ֛ה TO BE(COME) HE IS means he is and is to become. Perhaps as Jesus is, and is to come.

It is a complete anomaly of any ancient language to play on, or with, it’s own written language in a religious or sacred text, yet the Bible does it frequently and very deliberately, as if to outsmart the so-called authorities,

And comes forth the sun, and goes in the sun. And to his place panting [running the race, Ps. 19:5, Heb. 12:1], coming forth he there.

Walking toward the south and turning around towards the north, around and around, walking the spirit, and on his circuit returning the spirit [John 3:8].

The whole of the rivers are walking toward the Sea, but the Sea is not full. Toward the place the rivers are walking, there they return to walk.

The whole of the words are wearisome [the Bible]. Man is not able to speak [mute]. The eye is not satisfied to see [blind]. The ear is not filled to hear [deaf].

What HAS BECOME, is he who IS. And what has been made, is he who will be made. And nothing of the whole is new under the sun [the sons of Day, 1 Thes. 5:5].

Is there a word [the son] of whom he says, ‘See, this is new’? He already HAS BECOME to the ages, which he HAS BECOME from-to before us. There is no remembrance for the first ones; nor also for the last ones WHO ARE; He is not for them a remembrance with those who are for the last one.”

Ecclesiastes 1:7-11 Concrete, literal translation

Can you wrap your mind around that? Time is not linear to these old writers. This is smashing the rules of how we perceive the Hebrew Bible’s order from within and out of time. And we don’t even know what time (much less eternity) is. The Bible, according to Jesus, is a book of insider knowledge. Seek and you will find, he says. His appearance was a revelation that there was still yet a revelation. He didn’t explain anything, only compounded the mystery. His followers did the same. This is why the whole of the Catholic and Protestant “tree of Babel” is exactly that, nothing but confusing, incoherent, and conflicting babel. As soon as someone starts thinking seriously about the text in which they so blindly confide in, things get really scary, because it gets really dark.

See, we took the ancients for uneducated, culturally suppressed, nomadic primates who just needed a little extra help from us superior-minded, liberated demigods, when the reality appears to me to be just the opposite. You’ve been had. There are deep teachings about Elohim, order, and time in the Bible but they are obscure and translators can’t wrap their minds around the riddles so they reject that they exist; they seem to be trigger-happy with changing texts rather than striving to understand them, and then, if they can’t, they don’t allow anyone else a chance. In fact they all have changed this one:

For now, we are looking through a mirror, in an enigma. However then, face towards face. For now I am recognizing [ginōskō] out from a portion; however then I will recognize [epiginóskó] as also I have been recognized.”

1 Corinthians 13:12 literal

Is the Bible is an enigma of you? When you open the Bible, do you see yourself in the Scriptures? (James 1:23-24). Were you fully known from ancient times and revealed within the pages of the Book? Are you yourself a “word” of God become flesh? If so, what would that mean?

Several verses add to the mystery,

according as He did choose us in himself before the sowing [#G2602, Liddel] of the world. Eph 1:4 literal

Then will say the king to those out from his right, Come, those being praised of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from  sowing of world. Matt. 25:34 literal

I will open in parables the mouth of myself; I will spit [#G2044] hidden ones from sowing of world.”  Matt 13:35 literal

And will worship him the whole dwelling on the earth of whom the name [singular] of them has not been written in the book of zoe-life of the Lamb—the one having been slaughtered from sowing of world… Rev. 13:8 literal

In the following verse, to be is not found in the text before the adjective “conformed” which is in the plural. It is added by interpreters.

For those whom he foreknew, he also predetermined, conformed to the image of His Son, into his being the firstborn in many brothers. Rom. 8:29 literal

Enigmas are dark, obscure, and require a lot of thought. They will vex you. Read the verse in Revelation again. “Name” is in the singular, not the plural, the name of them. Who was slaughtered at the conception of the world? Abel. Remember? Do we swallow the traditional interpretation that Jesus is referring to himself as being slaughtered from the inception of the world? How does that make any sense? But if he is referring to Abel, the text reads much more sensibly, albeit surely unorthodox. Does Abel represent those not written in the book of life?

Read that line again from Ecclesiastes 1:11. The first and the last are in the plural:

 no remembrance for the first-ones; nor also for the last-ones, WHO ARE;

Jesus is the first and the last and the one WHO IS. But apparently he isn’t the only one? The Bible is living and active. What if we are writing its story today? What if our deeds, paths, risings, and sittings, are being searched out today (Ps. 139) and are being written down for us “before” the conception of the world? Remember, Hebrew thought sees a circular flow of time like of the rivers flowing to the Sea and returning to where they came. It was also said that the Bible was living and active. Maybe this story is more trippy than we thought? The writers love to use pronouns in rather important statements which force us to interpret the context to figure out who is the object and who is the subject. This forcing us to interpret context is a huge feature of the Bible and no doubt allows for some very unorthodox readings if we put aside religious tradition and bias.

A rule or a riddle? Deuteronomy 22:5

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV says, The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth [keli]of a man [geber], neither shall a man [geber] put on a woman’s garment [simlah]: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

We have looked at how a geber-man was a mighty man or man of valor. The first definition of keli given in the concordance pertains to general things, such as utensils and vessels, and not things worn. So we are after the second definition which pertains to things a geber-man would wear:

2 utensil, implement, apparatus:

a. implement of hunting and (especially) war, = weapon Genesis 27:3 (J), 1 Samuel 20:40; 1 Samuel 21:9 (גַּם חַרְבִּי וְגַם כֵּלַי), 1 Kings 11:8 2 Chronicles 23:7; 1 Kings 11:11; Isaiah 54:16,17; Jeremiah 22:7; probably also Numbers 35:32, כְּלִי בַּרְזֶל Numbers 35:16, כְּלִי עֵץיָֿד Numbers 35:18 (all P); כְּלֵיחָמָם Genesis 49:5 (poem); כְּלִי מַשְׁחֵתוֺ Ezekiel 9:1, מַמָּצוֺ׳כ Ezekiel 9:2; figurative of God’s weapons כְּלֵימָֿוֶת Psalm 7:14 (“” חִצָּיו); זַעְמוֺ׳כ Isaiah 13:5; Jeremiah 50:25; of entire equipment of warrior, armour or armament offensive and defensive 1 Samuel 17:54 (compare 1 Samuel 17:5 ff.), 1 Samuel 21:6 (twice in verse) (see Dr Sm 139. 293), 1 Samuel 31:9,10 = 1 Chronicles 10:9,10; hence נשֵֹׁא כֵלִים (כֵּלָיוׅ armour#NAME? weapon-bearer Judges 9:54; 1 Samuel 14:1,6,7,12 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 14:13 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 14:14,17; 1 Samuel 16:21; 1 Samuel 31:4 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 31:5,6 = 1 Chronicles 10:4 (twice in verse); 1 Chronicles 10:5,2Samuel 18:15; 2 Samuel 23:37 = 1 Chronicles 11:39; figurative וְכֵלַי כֵּלָיו רָעִים Isaiah 32:7 and a knave, his weapons (i.e. devices, Che ‘machinations’) are evil; more precisely כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה Judges 18:11,16,17; 1 Samuel 8:12; 2 Samuel 1:27; Deuteronomy 1:41; Jeremiah 21:4; Jeremiah 50:20 (figurative), Ezekiel 32:27; 1 Chronicles 12:34 (van d. H v. 1 Chronicles 12:33); כְּלֵי צְבָא מִלְחָמָה 1 Chronicles 12:38 (van d. H v. 1 Chronicles 12:37); כְּלֵי קְרָב Ecclesiastes 9:18; בֵּית כֵּלָיו 2 Kings 20:13 = Isaiah 39:2 is perhaps armoury; ׳כ Ezekiel 40:42 is sacrificial knife.

Source: Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew #3627

The word “wear” is not actually found in the first part of the verse. The Young’s Literal Translation renders it thus:

The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

But there is more here to uncover. The most literal translation would be this:

And HE IS NOT a weapon of a valiant-man on a woman, and a valiant-man is not wearing a garment of a woman, for an abomination of Yahweh thy God is the whole of him-who-makes these ones.

“Weapon” [keli] is from a singular noun. It is not in the plural. The NASB translates this word keli as “armor” 24 times and “weapons” 22 times. That is significant. The only meaning that gets rendered more, is “utensils” or “vessels” which are not things worn. But because “wear” is not a part of the first clause, one can surmise what a “utensil of a valiant-man” might be.

“Him who makes” comes from a participle verb עֹ֥שֵׂה to make/do in the masculine singular. It is not in the plural.

The last word “these” is a plural pronoun (#428).

So what does it mean?

In the fully literal translation this sounds much more like a riddle that one has to figure out, does it not? Think of how far off that understanding is from the traditional interpretation that this was just a law or rule to not think about but simply obey. Consider that the whole law is a set of riddles rather than rules. If that is the case, the target was missed by miles by everyone who’s ever interpreted or translated it.

He is not a weapon of a warrior on a woman.

The warrior is not wearing a garment of a woman.

An abomination is the whole of the one who makes these.

There are also two women spoken of here, hence the plural pronoun these ones.

The context dictates translation/interpretation big time, and most know that. But what is the context? Is it a rule or a riddle?

Taken as rule, one can see how obscure and impossible it is to arrive conclusively at anything enforceable. It seems to be talking about crossdressing…but give no useful information, boundaries, explanations, or lines. How can one transgress the line when there are no lines? It is the “goodness of God” to be so ambiguous?

All those people cross-dressing, and trans-gendering—said to be transgressing God’s law and under his judgement because of this verse when this verse neither condemns nor vindicates them, but leaves us all scratching our heads.

Taken as a riddle, we could conclude we missed the point altogether, and that this God doesn’t give a damn what a man or woman chooses to put on, but is rather interested in communicating things to those “who have the ears to hear” the riddles…