Introduction to Edenics

Bookmark and Share

By Isaac Mozeson

"I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they may call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent." - Zephaniah 3:9

If the link between the ear and the sense of balance is a relatively recent medical discovery, why is it that the ancient Hebrew language has the same linguistic root for both words? Science fiction, or science fact? Is Hebrew the first human language?

Only Hebrew language dynamics with its built-in synonym and antonym system explains why LeaF and FoLio (LF=FL) mean the same, or why a person who knows Hebrew well can fully understand English, Basque or Swahili.

The majesty of Hebrew is only faintly visible in its offspring. Yet, some continue to maintain that most words are random, meaningless symbols which evolved from your basic caveman grunting.

Hebrew, with its right brain/left brain neurological keyboard demonstrates that Greek and Latin are merely grandparents, while Hebrew is the common ancestor, the original computing language of our biological random access memory, which was scrambled during the output stage by the Master Programmer (Tower of Babel story in Genesis).

Don't worry if you have never heard a word in Hebrew or read anything on language, you will soon find out that you have never heard a word that wasn't Hebrew.

While the spelling of biblical words is highly significant, much meaning is lost to those who ignore the sound-alike letter substitution -- one aspect of the divine music that remains unattainable to those who rely solely on available translations. One special aspect of biblical craft remains lost in translation to Greek, Latin, or English.

The language disk in our brain is formatted for language. A unique neurological disturbance may be involved in a phenomenon which allows patients with multiple personalities and people who "speak in tongues" a mysterious facility with unlearned languages.

To uncover the true miracle of language and understanding, we must go on an archeological dig. We must remove the sands of millenia and put away the dictionaries with their quaint myths of standaraized spelling and pronunciation.

The Hebrew etymon breaks the cherished icons of the high priests of voodoo linguistics and secular humanism -- as exemplified in the polygensis theory of language origin, that languages evolved independently. Why do peoples with divergent grammars, the Maya, the Chinese, the Persians and the Greco-Romans, have variations of the Bible's Tower of Babel account or The Flood? Hebrew's extensively related synonyms and antonyms, along with its modular, reversible two-letter roots, represents a profound system of language that resembles the organicism of natural science rather than the product of human development.

Through the primal Hebrew root hidden behind every English word, a whole new world of order and meaning unfolds.

I shall be providing for this column samples of words from many languages, not just English (where I have 23,000 examples), to reveal their ultimate origin in the language of our first ancestors, Adam and Eve. I call this original language Edenic, combining Proto-Semitic roots defined in Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages. Besides the usual skepticism from Eurocentrics, more intelligent opponents correctly cite that many coincidences result from there being so few different sounds in the human mouth. True, one may say there only seven basic letters, since all vowels, lip letters (plosives b,f, p, v, w), gutturals (hard c, g, h, j, k, q, x), tooth letters (dentals d, t), liquids (l,r), nasals (m,n) The trouble with this mathematical objection to my findings (say, linking SKUNK to TSaKHaN, stinker) is that there are a billion billion things/meanings in the universe and I am not linking SKUNK to a word that means giraffe, cupboard, them or heavy.

I want to land a major blow before going several rounds and taking you through lists of common or exotic words and introducing you to their long-lost ancestors (lost since the big bang at Babel, though language corruption continues today, ask anyone in the inner city.) A great deal of work has been done tracing the thousands of languages back to only a dozen superfamilies. For example, Stanford professor Joseph H. Greenberg proved that there were only three major American Indian languages, and that the hundreds of "languages" counted in 1985 were merely dialects. Greenberg's work involved comparative vocabulary, like my own. He was furiously attacked by historical linguists until genetic studies with DNA (similar to the work that proved all homo sapiens derive from one initial "Eve") precisely corroborated his findings both on Native American and African languages.

In Merritt Ruhlen's 1994 book, The Origin of Language (Wiley, NY) there is a chart (page 103) of the best preserved/reconstructed words from a dozen of the planet's language families. I will attempt to demonstrate that Edenic words provide the clearest origin for these terms, and should not merely be classified as one branch of the Afro-Asiatic family -- which includes Semitic. Letters A, B, and C refer to the African language families called Khosian, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian. D, being Afro-Asiatic and including Hebrew, is the only family where a Semitic source should fit. Language family E is Kartevilian and F is Dravidian (India). G is Eurasiatic (includes Latinate, Germanic and Slavic), H is Dene-Caucasian (includes Chinese). Further from Europe is I (Austric), J (Indo-Pacific), K (Australian) and L (Amerind). In one example, only families B and F do not have an M-vowel or M-N word for "what?" Four of the groups have MA for "what?" In other words Hebrew Ma (what) is the most popular form of "what?" on the planet. Four other families have an M-N term, like the manna of Exodus 16:15 "for they said to one another 'What is it?'" M-N "what?" terms exist in Amorite and Old Arabic; Aramaic has a similar word meaning "who?" The above example may have disappointed you for not having an English term offering the shock of the familiar. It disappointed me, because the Edenic fit too easily, as if dispersed mankind clearly remembered the word from Eden rather than used Edenic roots to form a new word slightly "confused" (BiLBaiL since being BaLLed up in the linguistic mixing BowL of Babel) version.

The next example is all about BiLBaiL (confusion). Eight of the twelve language families have a B-L (P-L or B-R) word for "two," since two infers the ambiguous, confusing challenge of multiple alternatives. (As opposed to one; more than two is already a quantity, not a dilemma.) Two, twain, twin, German zwei or Latin duo are familiar, but they do get reconstructed to the most common Euriasiatic "two" - which is ALA. The Edenic sources for these familiar "two" words include TeoM (twin) and Du- (two, a Hebrew prefix from Aramaic). Besides BaLaL (to mix up), there is BaLooL (blended), the BL root suffixed to IRBaiL (to mix, cause to whirl, confuse) or the words for casting lots: HiPeeL PuR (Esther 3:7). Now you know why REVOLVING BALLS or pelotas (Spanish), blended BALLET movements, choosing by BULLET or BALLOT is as much a BL/BR term of confusion as is the incoherent BABBLE of BARBARIANS (as heard by Latin speakers). You probably don't know that two is mbili in Swahili, and so you'd still like to see a primordial Eurasiatic term that you could recognize in English.
The next Eurasiatic word in Ruhlen's chart of the oldest and most common words in every corner of Earth is "ak(w)a" (water) - which you will recognize in words like AQUATIC. The first time lower water appears in Genesis (1:9) it is [Ye]KaVoo haMaYiM (the waters gather). A MiKVA is a pool of water because water finds its level, and the two-letter root KV or QV means a line or measuring line. People waiting on a British QUE (line), living near the EQUATOR or waiting to live with EQUALITY aspire to the linear quality of Edenic water. Seven of the twelve language families have some form of Kuf-Vav term for water. The reconstructed terms for water in those groups that do not use the Edenic root for AQUA- words, prefer other Edenic roots, like those found in MaYiM (water), NaHaR (river) and RaToV (wet). If you could taste WET, WATER and VODKA in the Resh-Tet (R/WR-T/D) of this last Edenic word than you should be helping with the research.

The remaining examples are of less interest to those who want to hear Edenic echoes in English. To fly through them, the world's dominant Dental-Guttural term for "one" or "finger" (seen in DIGIT) is KhaD (the Aramaic one, like EKHaD, one, which should be read backwards), the wold's most popular word for "arm" links up to KaNeH (source of CANE and used for the arm of a lampstand), the top (and related to SUMMIT) "hair" term is traceable to ZeMeR (wool, animal hair), "smell" words are scented from the S-M root of Edenic words for spices and incense, and, lastly, one has to pluck the PR root of the Edenic bird (ZiPPOR is the source of SPARROW), the flea, the butterfly and the word for departing, fleeing and scattering to catch the PR term of flight that most world languages share. Many decades before this immense research was available, linguists knew that words like MAMA, PAPA and SACK were nearly universal. Rather than turning to their biblical EMA or ABBA (mom and pop), the anti-Semiticists put their heads in a SaQ (sack), cried "coincidence" or concocted theories.

Jamie Withers   10/17/2015 8:06:00 AM
ome people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12).1 In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2 Job had to be familiar with the animals on God’s list for the illustration to be effective. God points out in Job 39:9–12 that the unicorn, “whose strength is great,” is useless for agricultural work, refusing to serve man or “harrow (plow) the valley.” This visual aid gave Job a glimpse of God’s greatness. An imaginary fantasy animal would have defeated the purpose of God’s illustration. Modern readers have trouble with the Bible’s unicorns because we forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal.) The Bible describes unicorns skipping like calves (Psalm 29:6), traveling like bullocks, and bleeding when they die (Isaiah 34:7). The presence of a very strong horn on this powerful, independent-minded creature is intended to make readers think of strength. Unicorn Courtesy: Domenichino, Virgin and Unicorn, [working under Annibale Carracci], Fresco, 1604–1605, Farnese Palace, Rome) The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.) Eighteenth century reports from southern Africa described rock drawings and eyewitness accounts of fierce, single-horned, equine-like animals. One such report describes “a single horn, directly in front, about as long as one’s arm, and at the base about as thick. . . . [It] had a sharp point; it was not attached to the bone of the forehead, but fixed only in the skin.”3 The elasmotherium, an extinct giant rhinoceros, provides another possibility for the unicorn’s identity. The elasmotherium’s 33-inch-long skull has a huge bony protuberance on the frontal bone consistent with the support structure for a massive horn.4 In fact, archaeologist Austen Henry Layard, in his 1849 book Nineveh and Its Remains, sketched a single-horned creature from an obelisk in company with two-horned bovine animals; he identified the single-horned animal as an Indian rhinoceros.5 The biblical unicorn could have been the elasmotherium.6 Assyrian archaeology provides one other possible solution to the unicorn identity crisis. The biblical unicorn could have been an aurochs (a kind of wild ox known to the Assyrians as rimu).7 The aurochs’s horns were symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism.8 Fighting rimu was a popular sport for Assyrian kings. On a broken obelisk, for instance, Tiglath-Pileser I boasted of slaying them in the Lebanese mountains.9 Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures.10 Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as, . . . a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied. . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.11

Kevin O'Neil   9/24/2014 8:23:00 AM
Very intriguing. I discovered this site by searching for 'Zodiac' which I had been led to believe was derived from the Greek root Zoe/Animal, hence 'circle of animals'. I was unconvinced and then stumbled here, and the explanation that Zodiac derives from Tzedek, righteousness/justification is nothing short of exhilarating. I am indebted already, thankyou. Keep up the good work, Isaac Mozeson.

susanna   8/14/2014 7:36:00 AM
Who was here first a man or a baby? A baby cannot speak nor take care of himself. He learns. BELIEVE. God spoke the world into existence

more comments

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated and rel="nofollow" is in use. Offensive / irrelevant comments will be deleted.


 *Email (will not be published)

 *Enter captcha code

 Website (optional)