In the Head 1

The Origin > Head > Source - The Mother of Life/Death

Strong’s #7225, reshit, [feminine] head. This is the feminine of rosh, #7218. The root of these words is unused but means to shake, tremble. Understood to mean “head” (because it shakes) and long interpreted here in the abstract as “beginning of time." Time?

Everywhere that I can tell, this word “head” is used in the sense of “headwaters”, that is a source, or a mountain peak. A “source” could be construed as a “beginning” but the sense is not that of normal time, and I have seen nothing in scripture which would indicate that rosh/reshit are related to space-time. In fact, it should be known there is no word for “time” in the sense of clock time, atomic time, linear time, or space-time in the Hebrew. There is only appointed time, season, menstruation time, then, now, perpetuity, and time of tomorrow, time of the evening. See #6256. 

The writers chose the feminine version of head here. Why? Here lies perhaps the most enigmatic mystery of the Bible. There are a few root verbs that are symmetrical: hayah (to become), nun (to propagate), and harah (to conceive). These are some of the most significant in all of the Hebrew language. They reflect opposites. Taking the individual letters as a cue:

היה hayah: [Look - the hand - Look] to become

נונ nun: [seed - peg/nail - seed] to propogate

הרה harah: [Look - head - Look] to conceive

The Early Hebrew letter resh:
 

With this understanding, "In the head" would refer to the very conception of life itself. Life conceived. Elohim conceived. Eve the "Mother of All the Living Ones". The Mother of all real life. Imagine how beautiful she must be, when she manifests in all her glory?

Strong’s #1245, bara. To cut out, carve out, form by cutting. “cutting, shape out, pare a reed for writing, a stick for an arrow” See Gesenius, BDB, Fuerst, etc. Think of a lump of something or a crude, rough object being shaped into something good. This verb to cut/carve out is in the Hebrew perfect, which means the action is complete. This tells us how the beginning is the end and we now “run toward” the completion, Today, hastening it according to Peter, or running the race set-in-front of ourselves (Heb. 12:1). When elohim “remembers” something (Gen. 8:1, 9:15, 16. 19:29, etc.) he/they are “remembering” what has already happened/become in the future.

God is the People

Strong’s #430, elohim. Gods, mighty-ones, exceeding-ones, very great ones. Rabbis and scholars have debated for centuries over what exactly this word means. And for good reason. They didn't want to hear what is clearly the simplest and most unadulterated meaning. 

The main difficulty lies in the usage of a masculine singular verb with a plural subject. Where the subject-verb is supposed to agree in number, in this special case it does not. On grammatical grounds the rule is broken. Subject-verb agreement is a standard rule in any language with few exceptions. In the case of Greek a 3rd person singular verb can be used with a neuter plural word in which case the third person singular verb is actually read and translated as a plural verb "are."

It is known that this was intentional as this disagreement in number happens repeatedly with the word elohim.

Why?

An astonishing clue lies hidden in the name אליעם (Eliam) which appears in 2 Samuel 11:3, where Eliam is mentioned as the father of Bathsheba ("Daughter of Seven"). He is also referred to as one of King David’s mighty men in 2 Samuel 23:34.

Etymology:

• אֵל (El) – "God"

• עָם (am) – "people" or "nation"

Meaning:

• "My God is the people" or "God is the People"

Elohim, אלהים, is concretely the plural form of eloah, אלה / אלוֹה (#433) which has the feminine suffix ה- attached. Scholars have treated eloah as a masculine noun and called it "prolonged" or "emphatic". It is found only in the Hebrew poetry and later prophets. Certain biases have dictated that there could be no such word "goddess" in the Hebrew. This word however is far easier to interpret as such. Gesenius, the 19th century Hebrew Grammarian who is considered a master of Hebrew, interpreted the unique word לאלהו "le-eloho" in Habakkuk 1:11 as "to his own god", but the problem is with this interpretation is the fact that הו is not a possessive suffix for nouns. It is however a direct object suffix for verbs. Instead, this looks as if eloah is planted in the middle of "to" and "himself". The preposition ל "to" and the proper noun suffix וֹ "of him." This can be translated "to the goddess of himself" —no grammatical rules broken.

אל ← אלה ← אלהים

el → eloah → elohim

Does God beget God? Astonishingly, we find the clue in another name, אליאל Eliel meaning "God is God." Or rather, God begets God through God. Or is God incapable of this?

The professionals never seemed to appreciate the feminine noun, or feminine aspect, or feminine verbiage, or feminine narrative witness existing around the Holy Spirit. Some have embraced some form of the Holy Spirit as feminine like a mother. It was present in some Catholic circles, but they were still unable to see it. Because for many scholars and theologians the Holy Spirit is God and that means incontrovertibilis, irrefutabilis, inexpugnabilis, certus, definitus masculine only. Even though a triune nature was recognized, the false doctrine of "only one god forever" prevailed. No such terminology exists in the texts. The true doctrine, as it is written is "GOD IS ONE". A plurality that equals one. It is in this that we understand the reason for the subject verb disagreement.

Yet the irony is that everything the Trinitarian Theologian says about God is quite true, only he is blind to his own words. God creates himself and begets himself through himself. That's the Gospel, is it not? A pastor might preach it, but not see it. He who loves his woman, loves himself. But if God has no woman, how then is God...Love?

And if Eve, the Mother of Life, be taken from the side of God in the Christ, then she herself is of the same nature. God builds God. And the offspring is also of the same nature, God. Yet at the end of the day, God is still one.

A Mathematical / Logical Analysis:

Unity of Essence. The concept of "one" being preserved in multiplication can be modeled mathematically through the idea of identity and self-similarity. For example, in set theory, an identity element (such as 1 in multiplication) preserves the unity of the set, even when applied to elements within the set. In a sense, no matter how many elements (gods) are "generated" from the identity (God), the core identity (self) remains unaltered.

Self-Similarity and Recursion. The principle of "begetting" implies a recursive relationship, where the process of generation does not alter the original essence. In mathematical terms, this can be viewed as a recursive function where the output of the function (God) feeds back into the input (God), retaining the same essence at each iteration. Thus, each "generation" of God does not create a new or different entity, but rather a reflection or expression of the original unity.

Multiplicative Identity. In the realm of arithmetic, the number 1 is known as the multiplicative identity because for any number x, the equation 1 × x = x  holds. More notably, when one repeatedly multiplies 1 by itself, one obtains: 

Here, no matter how many times the operation (multiplication by 1) is performed, the result remains 1. This is akin to the idea that although God “begets” or “generates” God, the essential nature remains singular and unchanged.

Idempotent Elements in Algebra. An element e in an algebraic structure is said to be idempotent if e ∗ e = e where ∗ represents a binary operation (which might be multiplication, union, or some abstract operation). In this sense, if one models the divine nature as an idempotent element, the repeated “begetting” operation (represented by ∗) does not alter the identity of the element:

This model encapsulates the idea that the process of "begetting" does not lead to a fragmented plurality but rather a plurality of iterations or repetitions in the essential divine nature.

Fixed Points Under Functional Iteration. Another perspective comes from the concept of a fixed point in functional analysis. A point x is a fixed point of a function if . If we consider a function that represents the act of “begetting,” and if the divine essence G is such that

then iterating the process yields

and so on. In this scenario, no matter how many times the process is applied, the output remains G, reinforcing the notion of an unchanging, unified entity.

The masculine-feminine reality is a paradox that begins with GOD singular and ends with...GOD plural. It's not magic, just math:

ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה

and elohim is saying toward Moses I am whom I am

שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד

Hear, God-Straightened (Ishra-el),

"He Is our-mighty-ones He Is

ONE."

"He Is our-mighty-ones He Is"

אהיה←אשר→אהיה

יהוה←אלהינו→יהוה

 הוה
(to be/become)

ו

(man)

Christ was asked "which is the most important commandment of all?"

"The Salvation separated that she is first, 'Hear Israel, Master the God of Ourselves Master, he is one.'" (Mark 12:29 RBT)

את - The "Accusative Direct Object Marker" or, The Mark of the Eternal Self?

Strongs Definitions gives:

אֵת ʼêth, ayth; apparent contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly, self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely):—[as such unrepresented in English].

See "Mark of the Eternal Self" for complete analysis.

Dual-Heavenly One(s) - Stretched out like Two Hands

Strong’s #8064, shamayym. This is a dual word, and only appears in the dual. Heavenly ones, but more specifically, dual heavenly ones as enayyim is the dual word for eyes, a pair of eyes, because we only have two, or kenaphayyim for a pair of wings etc., but more objectively because there is a symmetry or inverse reflection, or type-antitype. The one side is the inverse of the other. Sometimes the word is rendered “heavens” as though it meant something like the English plural “skies”. However, Isaiah 40:22 gives this liberal approach away as incorrect and misleading since the writer uses the masculine plural “he stretches them out” (like a pair of hands) in referring to the “Heavenly-ones”.

Strong’s #776, ha-eretz. The Earth. A feminine noun + definite article. This word is sometimes translated earth, and sometimes as land depending on context. The English word “earth” is not the same as “land” just as “sky” is not the same as “heaven”.

Tohu and Bohu: Divided Against Herself

תהו ובהו [tohu v-bohu]

Strong’s #1961. hayetah. She has become. Verb to be is in the perfect/complete “tense” and the third-person feminine singular. “Have been” would be equivalent to a past-tense incomplete.

The words tohu and bohu are a pairing, where the one is based on the other. Tohu #8414 (inane, unreal, no form, fake, chaos) and Bohu, #922 (plumb/pure). These have always been difficult to translate. “primary meaning difficult to seize” -BDB.

1 Sam. 12:21 connects tohu to the Baalim (other gods, false gods) and the Ashtarot (the goddesses) collectively: “they are tohu” usually translated worthless, useless, nothing. The traditional interpretation is “formless” but idols are not really “formless”, hence ugly, worthless, useless, out of balance, the opposite of harmony or in the Hebrew, shalom.

The word bohu according to Gesenius is from the root bahah “which properly appears to have had the signification of purity"

One is crooked, and the other upright. She is divided against herself, and thus cannot stand. One side of her is lame, paralyzed.

Jeremiah the prophet describes these in a vision of "the Day of HE IS" which can also be translated "Today He Is":

“I have seen the Earth, and behold: a formless/ugly one of himself [tohu] and pure/plumb one of himself [bohu], and toward the Dual-Heavenly-ones, and their light naught” Jer. 4:23 RBT. 

“Those who make flesh miss in a word, and for the One-who-corrects in the Gate, they are baiting and are causing to incline down a just one in the Formless/Ugly One of himself [tohu].” Isaiah 29:21 RBT

Their light is nothing because she (Zion) is plucked-up [barren] (Isa. 54). Isaiah too,

“They have owned/married her—a vomiting-one, and a contracting-one, and a blowing-one, and a darkened-one. They are sitting within her. And he has stretched out upon her the line of the formless one of himself [tohu] and the plumbstones of the pure one of himself [bohu]” (Isaiah 34:11 RBT)

The line measures the evenness—chaotic, uneven. (Gen. 8:13). The plumb stone measures straight up and down—pure/upright.

“And I have placed a judged-one for a line, and a just-one for a level; and the hail has swept away a refuge of lies, and dual-water-ones are washing away the hiding place.” (Isaiah 28:17 RBT)

Hebrew Strong’s #2822, chosek. noun masculine. From chashak;

חשך is one of those words that gets flattened almost beyond recognition when it is treated as a mere absence of light. Aonically, that reading does not hold. And the irony:

Who is this that obscures [חשך] counsel?

(Job 38:2 RBT)

In Hebrew usage it does not mean “nothing” or “void,” but to withhold, restrain, keep back, prevent disclosure, make dark, be darkened. In verbal forms it regularly means to hold something in reserve (e.g., “he did not withhold his son”). So the noun חשך is not negation but concealment by restraint.

Read that into Genesis:

ולחשך קרא לילה

This is not naming a time-slot. It is designating a mode of being:

• Light (אוֹר) = manifest, disclosed, accessible

• Darkness (חשך) = withheld, latent, unmanifest

Aonically, חשך is potential held inward, not chaos. It is the inner side of the circuit.

This aligns exactly with later Hebrew usage:

• “walking in darkness” = acting without disclosure or clarity, not living at night

• “the darkness did not overpower/comprehend it” (John 1, in Greek but Hebraic logic) = concealment cannot absorb manifestation

So חשך functions as:

• the unseen interior of reality,

• the latent depth from which manifestation can emerge,

• the necessary counter-state to disclosure.

This is why Genesis does not oppose light to evil, but light to concealment. Both are named, both are functional, and both belong inside יוֹם אחד — one unified field of being.

(cf. Strongs, Gesenius, Feurst on the word)

Strong’s #6440, panim. Faces. Always in the plural. It is one of the mystery plural Hebrew words, like mayim (dual-waters) and shamayim (dual-heavens). Some suggest that these words have the characteristic of plurality, as in, there’s a lot of it or many. Some Jewish scholars understand that it does not mean plurality, but multiplicity, i.e. water has many forms such as lakes, rivers, pools, rain, etc. Let’s see what the Scripture has to reveal to us. There are five allegorical types of faces presented to us in Scripture:

“Ye hypocrites, the faces of the earth and the heaven ye know-how to discern; the time of this one however, how do you not know-how to discern?” Luke 12:56 literal

“In His causing to erect the dual-heavenly-ones, there is myself, in his cutting-in a circle over the faces of the abyss…” Proverbs 8:27 literal

“Send forth your bread over the faces of the dual-water, for in the abounding of the Days you are finding him.” Ecclesiastes 11:1 literal

“and a mist is going up from the Earth and has given drink to the whole of the faces of the Red-one.” Genesis 2:6 literal

“And mighty ones say, the dual water is swarming with a swarming one of the breath of life, and a bird is flying above the earth above the faces of the stamped space of the dual heavenly ones.” Genesis 1:20 RBT Paraphrase

The Abyss ⇒ Inarticulate Noise, Ferment, Clamor of Voices

First, תְּהוֹם (tehom) is not semantically inert “depth.” It sits on the phonosemantic field of הוּם / הָמָה / הִים: surge, roar, tumult, agitation, disquiet. This is not a later poetic overlay; it is native to the root environment. The abyss is audible before it is visible.

So tehom is not “silent emptiness,” but mass-in-motion, a fullness that has not yet been articulated into distinctions. “Noisy” here does not mean chaotic in a moral sense, but unresolved, unseparated, unmodulated.

Second, forms like:

• ותהם (the city being “in a stir” Ruth 1:19),

• מהומה (discomfiture, tumult Deut. 7:23),

• המה / הים (roar, murmur, rush about, be distracted),

These words point to the same semantic core: many voices without ordering. Even when applied to people, the idea is not evil but undifferentiated collectivity.

Everyone is certain, and no one agrees.

Strong’s #8415, tehom. Abyss. The Depths. Noisy, agitated, roaring. From a primitive root #1949 hum (compare hamam); to make an uproar, or agitate greatly. A mysterious, cryptic word, but not really. Clues from Gen. 7:11 “abundant/many uproar” and Gen. 49:25, “upon the kneeled-ones of the uproar, she-who-lies-stretched-out underneath”.

The abyss symbolizes a state of directionless, chaos, emptiness, or inaccessible mystery. The present Bible in all of its translation and tradition, is just such an experience. The bias of the flesh takes the reader not up, but down into an abyss. It is the depths of the pit, of hell, of sheol, of death. It is also the life of Job, before the light dawns on him, he lifts his eyes up, and he sees.

“…and the whole of God Straightened is causing to blast a great war-blast, and the Earth is being uproared [tehom].” 1 Sam. 4:5 literal

Strong’s #7363, rachaph, flutter the wings. Participle feminine singular (verb noun) מְרַחֶ֖פֶת. The “spirit/wind” is a feminine noun and therefore a feminine verb form is used here. This syntax cannot be debated, though it has been covered up/ignored by scholars and translators since time immemorial.

This word is related to the word for wing (kanaph #3671). An eagle flutters upon his nestlings (Deut. 32:11), “the whole of my bones flutter…” Jer. 23:9. There appears to be an allegorical meaning of “bones” as well...

Water as the Word(s)

Strong’s #4325, ha-mayyim. The Dual-Water. Dual of a primitive noun. These words, and others, are capitalized to show they are prefixed with the definite article whereas some instances do not have a definite article as in verse 6. The wind is fluttering over the faces Dual-Water. The water represents the word in its most primitive state. There are many words, yet as a whole, it constitutes one word. In the singular, water needs no extra study. But because this is in the dual form, there is more to learn. The interpretation of "waters" does not do a noun with a suffix denoting a "pair" much justice. Watery-pair, or dual-water is indicative of something more than just "water". 

In the New Testament, the genitive plural for water hydatōn  (of the water ones) in Greek is found only in the book of Revelation. One time it is in the plural dative hydasin, the swine "died in the water(ones)".
Five times in the accusative or nominal form hydata, "walking on the water(ones)"

Notably there are a couple of odd semantical instances of "many water(s)" polly hydata: "because there were many waters there" (John 3:23)

Also an interpretation of "Waters" is given in Revelation:

the water ones who you saw, where the prostitute sits, are people and multitudes, and nations and tongues.(Rev. 17:15 RBT)

Dual Light

Strong’s #1961, יהי אוֹר. he is a light. The verbs to be/become are in the third-person masculine singular and are called “Vav-consecutive” verbs. This word is found throughout the scriptures and is endlessly debated and definitions provided are extensive or unnecessarily complicated. This Hebrew phrase "yehi owr wa-yehi owr" is a duplication of the same exact words, יהי אור ויהי אור “he is light, and he is light”. The jussive mood, i.e. let light be is a grammatical conjecture, i.e. made up. There is nothing syntactically that indicates it here and often moods are interpreted liberally from context or surrounding words.

Hebrew generally follows a pattern of Verb-Subject in sentences. The rendering "let there be light" reverses this general principle as well as adds a "jussive mood" that doesn't exist. The straight reading is simply, "he is light." 

Elohim "Mighty Ones" as an Angelic Host

The Hebrew verb ויבדל (vayibadel) can be in Qal "he is separating" or the Niphal (passive) form, "he is being separated." It is from the conjugation of the verb בדל (badal), which means "to separate" or "to divide." The Hiphil causative form generally should have the letter yod י which is missing.

Hebrew כי "ki". Gesenius and Fuerst both have extensive entries on this conjunction And other scholars have studied its use extensively. In its ~4500 occurances it is usually a relative conjunction "because" or "for" and used with verbs. The interpretation of כי טוב "that it was good" is problematic as it is adding the verb for "to be" where there is none in order to force the meaning of  טוב as an adjective "good." However, טוב is also a verb meaning, "to be pleasing/good" (cf. Strong's #2895). In the complete/perfect form, it would mean "he became good." 

The entire structure in this phrase is attested elsewhere:

וירא בלעם כי טוב בעיני יהוה

"And Balaam is seeing, for he became good [טוב] in the eyes of He Is..."

(Numbers 24:1 RBT)

כי טוב לנו

for he became good [טוב] to ourselves

(Numbers 11:18 RBT)

tov (טוב) is a great example of how language reveals the perceptual frame it grew out of.

Hebrew, the Language of Beyond, treats “good” not first as a property but as a state-event. It’s something that happens. A configuration becomes aligned, fitting, well-ordered, pleasing. So the root ט-ו-ב comfortably forms a verb meaning “to be good / to become good / to be well-aligned.”

English can’t do this cleanly because English is built around static adjectives. “Good” is a label you stick on a thing, not a process the thing undergoes. To express the Hebrew idea, English needs circumlocutions: to be good, to go well, to please, to be fitting. It slices the concept apart into states and judgments.

If you zoom out, the mismatch ties straight into our chronos/aion tension.

Hebrew’s verbal system is aspectual, not strictly temporal. A verb like tov doesn’t pin an event to a timeline; it describes the quality or shape of an unfolding. It’s closer to “this situation has come into rightness.” There’s no forced timestamp. English, meanwhile, wants to know: was it good, is it good, will it be good?—it locks the concept into sequence.

So the challenge is that English thinks of being as a series of static snapshots, and Hebrew thinks of being as a relational becoming. The semantics lean more aionic than English can comfortably represent.

That’s why certain Hebrew ideas feel larger than their translations—they weren’t designed for a chronological grammar in the first place.

To Call Out, Summon, Read, or Encounter?

Hebrew #7121 קרא to call out, summon

Hebrew #7122 קרא to meet, encounter, happen 

Hebrew #7123 קרא to read, recite

This verb is a polyfunctional root, which makes it rather tricky to decipher. (cf Strongs #7122 and #7121) Calling is simply causing an encounter at a distance.

"...and he has written to himself a self eternal repetition of the Flowing Teaching ("Torah"), this one, upon a book from and to the faces of the Joined Priests. And she has become in company with himself, and he has encountered [קרא] within himself all the manifestations of the Living Ones of himself."

Deuteronomy 17:18 RBT

When it means "read":

ספר התורה ... ויקראהו

"a book of the Torah...and he is reading/encountering Himself."

(2 Kings 22:8)

 הספר החתום אשר יתנו אתו אל יודע הספר לאמר קרא נא זה ואמר לא אוכל כי חתום הוא

"the Sealed-Close Book which his eternal self is giving toward he who knows the Book, to speak, 'Read, pray, this one!' And he said, 'I am not able!' For he who is sealed-close is Himself."

(Isaiah 29:11) 

It is a very frequent word, found about 750 times. Understanding the right meaning typically involves surrounding grammatical cues. But its most primitive meaning has to do with encounter/meeting.

Does it mean to name?

The verb קרא (qārāʾ) does not, in itself, signify the creation or composition of a name. 

The gloss "give name to" (cf. Brown-Driver-Briggs #7121) is somewhat misleading in this context. The Hebrew קרא (qal stem) generally means “call,” “call out,” or “summon an encounter,” rather than the creative or compositional act of giving or inventing a name. 

It is found most commonly with the preposition ל and person which is a strong clue (as an accusative marker) to the usage of "calling to/encountering" rather than "giving a name to." 

Her Night

The noun for night ליל, is masculine and most often found with the (feminine) suffix לילה. Thought by some to be an emphatic form, by others the “directional/locative hay”.  The “locative hay” ה is also the same as the feminine 3rd person possessive suffix. The primary meaning is the feminine possessive.  All instances are rendered and highlighted with the suffix -her. No one could imagine that "Night" was speaking/prophesying a particular Woman, so the idea of a "direction" and "location" was attributed to it. But why then, is the Day not written with a directional suffix? And what sense does it make to say that "Night" has a direction or location? 

But is it a pointless directional suffix or something much deeper? Consider the fact that about six times this masculine noun “night” is found with a feminine plural suffix:

“To put in front in the Dawn your kind one, and your firm one in the/Their Nights [lel-ot].” Psalm 92:2 RBT

On the feminine plural suffix attached to a masculine noun the scholars are silent. A single, unique feminine construct לִּילִ֔ית Lilith (#3917) called by many a "night-demon" or "night-creature", appears in a prophecy:

‘And the desert-dwellers have met near the howlers, And the sa'iyr [half man half donkey] is calling-out upon his friend. Only there Lilith has caused to wink, and she has found for herself a resting place.” Isaiah 34:14 RBT

The masculine plural for nights, laylim does not exist anywhere in the Hebrew. The suffix is not understood. Brown-Driver-Briggs says, “probably לילי and ending הָ radical, and not ה locative.” Yet others have suggested that it is directional/locative and suppose it to mean at night. Night is not a place but a condition as is the day. But in the Hebrew "day" and "night" are found with definite articles that cannot be overlooked. “Night” is found with the definite article, i.e. the Night, about 107 times, to reveal a definite place or object. See Gesenius, Real and Supposed remains of Early Case Endings.

According to Gesenius, “the accusative form is preserved in Hebrew most certainly and clearly in the (usually toneless) ending ־ָה…This is appended to the substantive: (a) Most commonly to express direction towards an object, or motion to a place, e.g. יָ֫מָּה seaward, westward, קֵ֫דְמָה eastward, צָפ֫וֹנָה northward, אַשּׁ֫וּרָה to Assyria, בָּבֶ֫לָה to Babylon, חֶ֫רָה (from הַר) to the mountain, Gn 1410, אַ֫רְצָה to the earth, בַּ֫יְתָה to the house, תִּרְצָ֫תָה to Tirzah”

But perhaps Gesenius missed it, and these same words mean respectively, "her sea," "her front," "her hidden side," her Assyria," "her Babylon,"  "her mountian," "her earth," and "her house"?

The notion of a "directional suffix" apparently was satisfying enough to the scholars and translators to not even translate it. In the long run, it became a reason not to translate it, but ignore it altogether.

For additional knowledge of the subject see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminative_case and Meek, Theophile James. “The Hebrew Accusative of Time and Place.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 60, no. 2, 1940, pp. 224–233. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/594010.

Strong’s #7549, raqia. Beaten down, pounded, stamped surface. This does not have anything to with open space apart from a surface. It is inherently related to a surface. The root verb is raqa #7554 to to pound the earth, stamp, beat out.

“And they are stamping [raqa] אֶת-sheets of the Gold…” Exodus 39:3 RBT

“Thus is saying master Yahweh, strike in [against] your palm, and stamp [raqa] in [against] your foot…” Ezekiel 6:11 RBT

“And I am beating them as the dust of the earth, as mire of the outsides, I am crushing them, I am stamping [raqa] them." 2 Sam. 22:43 RBT

Hebrew him-dividing. Participle masculine verb to divide. Could also be read “him who is dividing”. See Strong’s #914. “Expanse” is from the Hebrew raqia (Strong’s #7549) and means canopy, extended surface, vault. A.k.a. a tent. Raqia is from the root raqa which means to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out.

Wrapping himself with light of the Garment, extending heaven like a tent curtain. Psalm 104:2 literal

cf. Ezekiel 1:22-24 for a vision of this firmament [raqia].

Strong’s #3651, ken. Upright, firm, erect, base, pedestal. From kun (#3559) to be set upright. Supposedly used in many figurative or non-literal ways, i.e. thus, right, so, honest, etc. BDB admits that the meaning is “sometimes to be elicited from the context.” It represents an upright support, base, or stand.

“…the basin and אֶת-his stand [ken].” Ex. 31:9 literal

Another word, koh (#3541), is obviously more fitting for thus or so as found in Gen 15:5, 22:5, etc.

Strong’s #8145, שני sheni. Second, double. Being from the root shanah (#8138) to repeat, duplicate, do again. Which is also the basis for “year”. A “year” is a repetition or replication. From shanah; properly, double, i.e. Second; also adverbially, again -- again, either (of them), (an-)other, second (time).

Strong’s #6060, qavah. To twist together, bind together. Most have interpreted to mean wait/hope for. The dual-waters is being bound or twisted together like a rope, tiqvah, which is also the word for hope (#8615) and related to qaveh measuring line (#6961). Gathered is not a sufficent translation. Something to think about considering the prophetic nature of Dual-Waters and the fact that the dual-waters “bind together” at a head, where they begin. The word occurs only here and in Gen 49:18 in the Torah. 

“And a pool [miqvah] you have made between the Two Walls for dual-waters…” (Isa. 22:11 RBT)

“Therefore know her, Wisdom, to your breath, if you have found him, and there is an end and your rope [tiqvah] is not being cut off.” (Prov. 24:14 RBT)

Strong’s #3004, yabbashah. That which is dry. A feminine noun from the root verb yabesh, to be dry (#3001). Out of this “dry” were made the earthenware vessels—pottery. Earthenware is used figuratively in 2 Cor. 4:7, 2 Tim. 2:20, and Rev. 2:27. Jabesh is also a town in Gilead, Judges 21:8, and a man, 2 Kin. 15:8.

Which his is the Sea, and himself made him, and dry his hands have formed.” Psalm 95:5 literal

The "Bath" of the Days

Strong’s #4723, miqveh. Hope, binding place, collection, pool. This word speaks of a place where things bind or unite as in a reservoir or pool, or rope (as twisted together). The NT uses the pool in many instances as a place of hope.

“as a shadow are our days upon the Earth, and there is not a hope [miqveh].” (1 Chron. 29:15 RBT)

 “and now, there is a hope [miqveh] in Israel upon this one.” (Ezra 10:2 RBT) 

“A hope [miqveh] of Israel, his savior in time of trouble…” (Jer. 14:8 RBT)

“The hope [miqveh] of Israel is Yahweh, all of those who forsake you are being ashamed, withdrawn ones within the Earth are being written, for they have left the dug-fountain of the Dual Waters, living-ones of את self eternal Yahweh.” (Jer. 17:13 RBT)

“Yahweh, the hope [miqveh] of their fathers” (Jer. 50:7 RBT)

Manifestation of Light

Hebrew #3220 ימים yamim, "days"

“in multiplied dual-waters the Rowers brought you את-you, a wind of the East/Front has broken yourself in the heart of days [yamim].” Eze. 27:26. 

ימים (yamim) is a classic example of a Hebrew homograph that can mean either:

• “days” (plural of יוֹם, yom), or

• “seas” (plural of יַם, yam). But how much sense does it make to create a sea, and then call it "seas" in plural? Moreover, if the seas are to be no more (Revelation 21) were they ever made in the first place?

Is it a chronological "day"? If יומ / יום is read aonically rather than temporally, the primary mistake to avoid is treating it as a unit on a timeline at all. What Fürst (and already Strong, Gesenius, etc.) preserve—almost despite themselves—is that temporal “day” is a late abstraction from a much more concrete, qualitative field.

What is usually missed is that יום is not fundamentally a measure of duration, but a state of manifestation.

Several points emerge once you strip away chronological assumptions.

First, the root complex. The lexica themselves admit that the verbal stem יומ is not productively used as a verb in Hebrew, surviving mainly in derivatives and cognates. This is already a signal: we are dealing with a nominalized condition, not an action unfolding in time. The cognate field (Arab. to glow, be hot, shine; Heb. אור, Aram. cognates) clusters around radiance, heat, clarity, emergence. “Day” is the name given to the condition in which things are exposed, differentiated, and intelligible.

Second, Genesis 1 confirms this ontologically. Light exists before luminaries or cycles. יום אחד is not “day one” in sequence, but a unified condition of lightedness. Only later does יום become opposed to לילה and subordinated to luminaries. Chronos is derivative; manifestation is primary.

Third, Fürst’s own glosses betray this. He defines יום as “brightness, splendour, shining, light” before he ever gets to calendrical usage. Even when he discusses “mid-day” or “evening,” these are intensities of the same condition: fullness, decline, withdrawal. These are phase-states, not ticks on a clock.

Fourth, the “civil day” definition (including night) is explicitly secondary. That is a human administrative construct, not the semantic core. The lexicon quietly acknowledges this by labeling it “various applications.”

In an aonic frame, then, יום names a mode of presence. It is the state in which being is “on,” exposed, available, radiant. Night is not a later time, but a different ontological condition—concealment, contraction, unavailability.

This also clarifies texts like:

• “כי יום נקם בלבי” — not “a day of vengeance” temporally, but a state in which judgment becomes manifest.
• “ביום ההוא” — not a date, but the condition in which the referent reality comes into visibility.
• “יום יהוה” — not an eschatological calendar point, but the full intensification of divine manifestation.

In short, what is missing is that יום is not about when something happens, but whether and how it is manifest. Chronos borrows the word later to measure recurrence, but the aonic sense is ontological: lightedness, exposure, active presence.

יום = “the condition of manifest being.”

If we are to give a single English noun for the primary meaning, “manifestation” is preferable to “light,” because the word does not merely denote luminosity but the condition in which things are exposed, differentiated, and operative. “Light” names the medium; יום names the regime.

Thus, ordered by semantic priority rather than tradition:

1. Manifestation / manifest state (primary, aonic, ontological)

2. Radiance / shining condition (sensory-correlate)

3. Day (secondary, chronotic, administrative)

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα
“the one making the truth comes toward the light, in order that his works may be made manifest”

(John 3:21)

φανερόω does not mean merely “to inform” or “to disclose data.” It means to bring into the domain of light where reality becomes intelligible and verifiable. Manifestation is not epistemic only; it is ontological. What is “in God” already is; φανέρωσις is its emergence into visibility.

Strong’s #1877, deshe. A sprout, or shoot. Singular noun form of the verb to sprout. Not specifically food for Adam. Commonly understood as green, tender, new growth, fresh grass, etc. That which is eaten by herds and livestock, Job 6:5.

The Self Referential Paradox of Life

Which comes first, the seed or the tree?

Genesis 1:11 presents a challenging text. Pick any translation and you'll find a lot of words crammed into a sentence that makes little sense. Translation traditions swapped the verb "sowing" with words like "yielding" or "bearing" or "seeding". But the word is in the causative participle form of to sow or scatter seed, i.e one who sows seed. Is the grass sowing a seed? Or, is the seed itself(himself) sowing a tree? This verse lacks any vav-conjunction which makes it challenging to break down the thoughts, yet the words themselves are plain.

“Because the whole flesh is as grass, and the whole glory of her as a flower of grassy-place; the grassy-place dries up and the flower falls away.” 1 Pet. 1:24 literal

Mathematics "fundamental flaw" of incompleteness means essentially math cannot prove itself. This kind of self-reference with seed leads to interesting philosophical or logical considerations. It creates a situation where the action of sowing is directed back onto the seed itself, implying a self-generating or self-propagating quality.

Hence the self referencing paradox of I am straight I am, or, I am being straight I am being.

This paradox seems to be embedded in the Hebrew verb roots נונ nun (Strong's #5125) and היה hayah (Strong's #1961) as well which mean to propagate and to be/become respectively. Notice also the verb roots can be spelled backwards and forwards. They are a several other "symmetrical" verbs as well.

Strong’s #4327, מן min. Form, race, species, kind.

This is also the preposition "from". Strong's #4480, מן min from

ל-מינ-הוּ

to-kind-himself

ל-מינוּ

to-kind-ourselves this could be easily taken for the masculine singular "to his kind" except the appropriate form was already given. Hence this is the plural suffix נוּ with the extra נ being dropped.

Hebrew אשר זרעו בו, asher zaro bo. Literally, “Whose his seed is in-himself”. The verse progresses between three levels of vegetation: from a general “shoot” to a “grass with seed” to a “fruit making fruit wood”. The Hebrew preposition -ב means “in”. The suffix added to prepositions gives a reflexive, passive, or possessive sense and thus should not be confused with the accusative sense, i.e. into him which would be signified by אֵל, towards, into. בּֽוֹ = in-himself, לּוֹ = to-himself.

A Luminary

המארת is derived from the root א־ו־ר (ʾ-w-r, “to give light”) in the mfʿōlet (מפעלת) pattern, which is typical for feminine nouns indicating an instrument or means of action—especially something that causes an action. In this case, it denotes "something that gives light", i.e., a luminary.

• The ending -ת (segol-tav) is a standard marker of feminine singular nouns in Hebrew.

  • Compare:

    • מלאכָה (melākhāh) – "work, task"

    • תורה (tōrāh) – "instruction, law"

    • מנרה (menōrāh) – "lamp"

    • מארת (mē’ēret, “curse,” “imprecation”), from the root א־ר־ר (ʾ-r-r, “to curse”). 

• Plural feminine would be המארוֹת (hamme’ōrōt) – with וֹת as the plural feminine suffix, which is not used here. 

Thus, המארת is unmistakably feminine singular due to its morphology.

The Hebrew ושנים (ve'shnayim) translates to "and two". It is a masculine plural. How did they turn this into a feminine plural "years"? The word for year is feminine shanah. The masculine שנים means "scarlet ones/scarlet threads" or "twofold." The prepostion to/for which also acts as an accusative preposition, is present on all the words except shnayim. If it was meant to be "years" surely there would have been a preposition "for/to years" also?

Strong’s #8141, shanah. This is the word for "year" and it is feminine. The plural of shanah would be שנות shanot.  There is a strong correlation between "two" and "year" however. Noun derived from verb #8138, shanah, to repeat, fold, duplicate, transmute (change to higher form). 

Hebrew את שני המארת הגדלים.  self eternal two the Luminary of the Great Ones. As noted in the previous verse (v14), המארת "ha'me'arot" is a feminine word for "light" with a definite article here. שני can be either two or second.

In שני המארת הגדלים, the words don’t fully match in gender or number so shouldn't be treated as though they do:

• שני – dual (masculine or common, depending on context)

• המארת – singular feminine with definite article (in Genesis 1:16 it’s masculine: maʾor)

• הגדלים – masculine plural

Hebrew הקטן, ha-qaton. Strong’s #6996. From the root qatan (#6994, 6962), to cut short, cut off, abridge, crop, pare. Cf. Gesenius and Fuerst. Interpreted as “young” or “small”. Hence the “little finger” in 1 Kin. 12:10 is properly the small finger and likely means the thumb. This noun is mostly used of younger or youngest builders [sons] and built-ones [daughters], i.e. “We have a small [qaton] sister…” Song of Solomon 8:8. This is not the normal word for “small/little”, but speaks of something cut short.

“But you are not thus, yet the greater-one in you -- become as the small-one; and the one leading, as the one serving.” Luke 22:26 RBT

Strong’s #3556, ha-Kokavim. The round ones, balls, globes. From an unused root kavav meaning to be round, circular. Cf. Gesenius, Fuerst. One would think that a different root would be used, related to fire, sparks, or light.

Mark of the Eternal Self and the Pronominal

The mark of the eternal, in the case of pronouns, according to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, is “only used with a suffix, when it is desired to emphasize the pronoun.” This of course overlooks the eternal emphasis signified by the first and the last. Therefore the Hebrew otam here emphasizes the eternal accusative masculine plural “them.” 

The Hebrew makes an obvious and intentional change from the normal pattern of "and he said mighty ones" (va-yomer elohim) to "and said them God" (va-yomer otam elohim). 

To Liken / Compare

Strong's #4910 - משל (mashal) To rule, have dominion, reign.

Strong's #4911 - משל (mashal) To represent, liken, compare, be like.

Strong's #4912 - משל (mashal) A proverb, parable, or discourse

Soul of Life

Strong’s #5135, nephesh. Soul/Breath. Out of 754 instances in the Bible, the NASB translates this word as breath 238 times, as person or self about 140 times, and as life 146 times. This word is often made complicated when interpreted into the abstract languages (Greek, English, etc.) and thus the definitions provided in concordances are long. The Hebrews didn’t think of the breath as an absract concept, but as objective substance, i.e. soul. The nephesh is associated with the blood:

 “for the soul [nephesh] of the flesh is in the blood” (Genesis 9:4-5, Leviticus 17:11)

“the blood is the soul [nephesh]” (Deuteronomy 12:23) 

Strong’s #8577, ha-tanninim. Masculine plural with definite article. Serpent, dragon, sea-monster. Of the Sea or River. Isaiah 27:1, 51:9, Job 39, summoned to praise God, Psalm 148:7.

Hebrew ha-hayah ha-romeset. Feminine noun/adj + feminine singular verb participle with definite articles. From Strong’s #7430 ramas, creep, crawl, move lightly. This crawling life which creeps the dual-waters seems to indicate creatures of both the water and the land, a mix of the two worlds.

Psalm 105:30 says, “Creeped hath their land with frogs, In the inner chambers of their king” which speaks of the plague in Exodus, “and the River hath creeped with frogs, and they have gone up and gone into your house, and into the inner-chamber of your bed, and on your couch…” Exodus 8:3 YLT.

Strong’s #3671, kanaph. Extremity. “Wing” is implied but the word is also used in the context of garments and the (ends of) earth.

To Bless⇒to Kneel

Strong’s #1288, barak. To kneel. This is the concrete definition. “To bless” is an abstract implied meaning. In the Piel form. “The Piel stem is the most flexible in its use of all the various stem formations; it can express simple action, intensive action, resultative action, causative action.” (UHG Hebrew Grammar - Piel). The Psalmist, who must have been a die-hard observer of the Law, helps us understand this word better,

“Come in, may we be bowing ourselves down, and may we be bending-the-knee, may we be kneeling [barak] to the faces of Yahweh.” Psalm 95:6 literal

Behemah - A Mute/Shut Beast

There is perhaps no other place in the entire body of Hebrew Scripture where letters and words have been so modified, manipulated, and "rearranged" as in the beginning of Genesis. 

All of the words in this verse are highly interesting, making all former interpretations highly suspect.

"The earth is bringing out/leading out..." This was rearranged to mean something like "produce" i.e. "bring forth" yet the word יצא refers to going out/exiting/coming out. In otherwords, a scholar will tell you it's "an idiom." תוצא is also a rare form, and not the standard hiphil causative which is הוֹצא. The closest to a verb it comes is the 2nd person masculine or 3rd person feminine singular incomplete "you are/she is going out." In fact, it is most likely a noun meaning "an outcome/an exit/a result." A simple question to AI will reveal:

The word חיתו "his life" was interpreted as "an animal" thus making it a redundant saying, if both "behemah" and "chayatow" mean the same thing, "animal/beast."

Strong’s #929, behemah. Interpreted as quadrupeds, or “beasts”. But it is not a plural word. The root baham means to shut, or be shut (cf. Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon). Gesenius thought this referred to the mouth being shut.

Like Mother Like Daughter

His [feminine] life of the Earth. Strong’s #2416, חיתוֹ chayat-ow. The suffix וֹ makes this feminine noun a possessive one—his life. Gesenius reasoned that this was some special “termination” used to emphasize but states, “its exact explanation is difficult…It is also remarkable that so archaic a form should have been preserved only in two words and those in quite late passages” (See Gesenius Real and Supposed remains of Early Case Endings). The same exact word construct, חַֽיְתוֹ, is translated as his life in Job 33:20 and Ezekiel 7:13.

This word chayat is the feminine singular for life. It is the counterpart to the masculine chay which also means life. It is like the Hebrew construct of other masculine-feminine pairings (Man/Woman - Ish-Eshet, Uniter/United - achad-achat, Owner/Owned - Baal-Beulat, Fish - Dag-Dagat, Ruiner/Ruined-one - Ra-Ra’at, Son(Builder)/Daughter(Built-one) – ben-bat, etc.) which seem to signify a sense of ownership/belonging or cause/effect. See note on Genesis 20:3.

This is the Hebrew word for life and is apparently answered by the Greek word zoe in the New Testament. It is translated as “beast” because of certain presumed contexts but this is incorrect. For example, the prophet Isaiah spoke the same word construct chayat-ow, “And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor his Life sufficient for a burnt-offering.” Most translate “life” as plural beasts because animals were offered as part of the burnt-offering sacrifices but translators failed to see the prophetic nature of the verse and so changed it. The same error occurs everywhere you read “beast of the field” or “beast of the earth” which should read “Life of the field” or “Life of the earth.”

“For to me is the whole of his life of a forest, Behemoth in mountains of a thousand [aleph].” (Psalm 50:10 RBT)

A distinction is made between הארץ "the Earth" and ארץ "an earth" (no definite article). I.e. like mother, like daughter.

The Shadow Phantom/Illusion

The preposition for “in” (-ב) is never used as a function of comparison anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. That function belongs to -כ which is used with the next word “figure”. The suffix is possessive, “our shadow”. Strong’s #6754, tselem. “From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom”. A shadow image. Cf. Gesenius.

“A dark-one and a death-phantom [tsel]…” Job 3:5 literal

“they have come in the phantom shadow [tsel] of my beam…” Genesis 19:8 literal

“a man [ish] is walking himself about only in a phantom [tselem].  They are roaring only a vapor,. He is heaping up and he is perceiving not who gathers themselves!” Psalm 39:6 literal

The form נעשה can be a Qal imperfect 1st person plural, meaning “we are doing” or “we are making” or a Qal perfect passive 3rd person masculine singular, meaning “he was done” or “he was made”

Anything made within shadows is probably contrary to that which is made in the light.

Strongs’ #1823, demuth. Model, figure, form, similitude, of external appearance, figure, pattern, shape. Examples are “pattern of the altar” 2 Kin. 16:10, and “figure of adam” Ezekiel 1:5

The interpretation of "to rule" is taken from the weak verb Strong’s #7287, radah. Rule, dominate, reign, have dominion. However as a third person plural form (ירדו) this contradicts the singular noun "adam." This also assumes the letter ה was dropped from רדה which is typical for weak verbs. The more obvious and grammatically fitting word here is ירד yarad "to descend" (cf. Strong's #3381) they have descended. Also verse 28.

Singular noun. בדגת In a female fish. This word occurs here, verse 28, Eze. 29:4-5, 47:10. The narrative of Genesis 1 is presented not in plural words as one might expect but through singular nouns. This female fish, dagat is the counterpart of the male fish, dag, which swallows Jonah. She appears in Ezekiel 47:10 as “the fish of the Great Sea.” Dagon is a (fish?) god, according to Judges 16:23.

Snakes

Hebrew הרמש הרמש ha-remes ha-remes. The Torah gives a few unidentified variations of a definitive masculine creature “over the Earth” that play on the same words:

• הרמש הרמש Crawling Crawler (Gen. 1:26)

• השרץ השרץ Creeping Creeper (Gen. 7:21)

• השרץ הרמש Creeping Crawler (Lev. 11:44)

The Man of Heaven

If the Heavens are dual (as is the noun shamayyim) the the man of heaven would be...

...dual.

This second instance of the Hebrew word Adam, "Red One", has a definite article in front of it, ha-adam, which is literally “the Red-one”. The word Adam is a unique Hebrew word as it is considered both a common noun and a proper noun. See Strong’s #120. In any other case attaching a definite article to a proper noun is not done. According to Gesenius, “the article cannot be prefixed to a proper name” for Hebrew names (cf. §125) although some “gentilic” names can, i.e. the Hebrews, the Canaanites, the River (Nile), and the Jordan. It occurs with the definite article 552 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Without the definite article it occurs around 368 times. Interestingly, the word philistines is almost always without a definite article as though it was meant to be taken for a common noun.

This is a definitive and specific man, made in the image of elohim—a man of heaven. The Hebrew describes him first as one self "cutting himself out", then as two—"male" and "female", then as many "themselves."

Speaking in Tongues

זכר zakar (Strong's #2145): remembered one. From the root zakar (#2142), meaning to remember, memorialize. The word for "male".

נקבה neqebah (Strong's #5347): pierced one. From the root naqab (#5344), to puncture, literally (to perforate, with more or less violence). Other contexts give additional meanings such as blaspheme, bore, and curse. The word for "female", but not a favorable etymology. It is not the word for hole, but for piercing/stabbing.

"You have pierced [naqab] with his staves the head of his leaders" (Habbakuk 3:14 RBT)

"he is taking him with snares, he is piercing [naqab] his nose" (Job 40:24 RBT)

Hoy to those secure in the desert place [Zion], and those confident on the mountain of Samaria: those who pierced [neqab] the head of the nations, and they are coming to them in the the house of God Straightened ("Israel"). (Amos 6:1 RBT)

remembered-one and pierced-one (male and a female). Hebrew zakar ve-neqebah. These are two singular nouns, not adjectives. "Them" is also the mark of the accusative + them emphasizing them.

Zakar is derived from the verb zakar which means to remember. Traditionally interpreted as signifying that the male is generally "remembered" over a female in carrying on family name. Neqebah is from the root to pierce or bore. The word is generally used in the context of a sharp object such as a sword, piercing something, i.e. making a hole where there was not one. Hence, the assumption that it had to do with sexual innuendo doesn't seem consistent. "Can you pierce [naqab] his jaw?" Job 41:2. See Strong's #2145, #5347

These verbs can be translated as either imperative or third person plural complete. See verb chart.

Strong’s #3533, kabash. To tread down, subdue, conquer. As under the feet (cf. Gesenius Hebrew Leixcon). This verb construct has the third-person feminine singular as its object, וכבשה vekibshu-ha and you all tread down her. The word speaks of conquest or causing to come in into subjection/bondage.

See Esther 7:8 where the the verb is used in the context of assaulting a woman; conquering enemies in Zechariah 9:15; El trampling sins in Micah 7:18-19; forcing slaves back into slavery in Jeremiah 34:11; the Israelites subduing the land in Joshua 18:1.

"Yahweh armies is defending over them, and they have eaten, and they have tread down [kabash] the stones of a sling."

(Zech. 9:15 RBT)

"And six steps is to the Throne, and a footstool [kabash] of the Gold is possessed to the Throne..."

(2 Chron. 9:18 RBT)

Strongs #7287 רדה also means to tread down/trample. This is used more in the sense of tyranny.

You did not seek! And within violence, you have trampled [radah] their eternal selves, and with cruelty!

(Ezekiel 34:4 RBT)

The Hebrew word הנה (hinneh) has several meanings and uses, often translated as "behold," "here is," "see," or "look!" It is used to draw attention to something, emphasize a point, or introduce something noteworthy. Here’s a breakdown of its meanings and its variations with suffixes.

Basic Meaning of הנה (hinneh)

• "Behold," "look!" — Often used to call attention to something significant or unexpected.
• "Here is," "there is" — Indicates the presence or arrival of something or someone.
• "Indeed," "now" — Can introduce a statement to emphasize its certainty or importance.

Variations with Suffixes: -הנ (hin-)

Suffixes can be added to הנ to indicate a possessive form or to refer to specific persons or groups:

1. הנני (hineni) — "Here I am" or "behold myself"

2. הננו (hinno) — "Here he is" or "behold him"

3. הנהו (hinneh-hu) — "Behold him" or "there he is"

4. הנה (hinneh-ha) — "Behold her" or "there she is"

5. הננו (hinennu) — "Here we are" or "behold us"

6. הנם (hinem) — "Behold them" (masculine)

7. הנן (hinen) — "Behold them" (feminine)

8. הנך (hinnecha) — "Here you are" (masculine singular)

9. הנך (hinnech) — "Here you are" (feminine singular)

10. הנכם (hinnechem) — "Here you are" (masculine plural)

11. הנכן (hinnechen) — "Here you are" (feminine plural)

הנה by itself often means "behold," "here is," or "look." When combined with suffixes, it personalizes or specifies the attention, addressing or indicating specific individuals or groups.

The form חיה (ḥiyyāh) represents the Piel perfect, third-person feminine singular conjugation of the root ח־י־ה, meaning "to live." In the Piel stem, which typically conveys intensive or causative action, this verb takes on the meaning "to give life" or "to revive."

Thus, חיה should be understood as the verb "she gave life" or "she revived." This form is morphologically distinct from the similarly spelled noun חַיָּה (ḥayyāh), which denotes a "living creature" or "animal." The Piel stem is marked by the doubling of the middle root consonant (as the Masoretes point חִיָּה), and this causative nuance is well-attested in Biblical usage (e.g., Ps. 71:20). The confusion between the noun and verb forms is common due to their orthographic similarity, but context and vocalization clarify their distinct grammatical roles. In these passages, the traditional interpretation left an entire sentence of ten words without a verb. How does one make sense of ten words in which there is no verb? Short answer: you don't!

Hebrew יום הששי definite article + sixth. Why does this ordinal include a definite article while the others do not? If this is to be rendered “the Sixth Day” there should be a definite article for “day”, i.e. the day the sixth just as we see in the following verse for the Day of the Seventh, בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י Because there is not, the most proper rendering would be day of the Sixth-one. The emphasis is on a specific “sixth” thing.