ELOGIO APASIONADO DEL CONOCIMIENTO

por Antonio Muñoz Molina

No sé si hay un rasgo más singularmente humano que el instinto de aprender, en su doble sentido de adquirir una habilidad y descubrir algo nuevo. Nacemos mucho más torpes y más indefensos que las crías de cualquier otra especie. Nuestra supervivencia depende de manera inmediata del amparo prolongado de nuestros mayores y de nuestra capacidad de adquirir mediante la curiosidad y la imitación destrezas que no recibimos en la herencia genética. Las primeras frases rudimentarias que aprendemos a decir son preguntas. Pero aún antes de que hayamos comenzado el proceso asombroso del aprendizaje de la lengua ya estamos preguntando al indicar las cosas con el dedo, al fijarnos en ellas con esa intensidad sin parpadeo de la mirada infantil. Tener hijos es recordar o más bien descubrir hasta qué punto la mayor parte de los gestos más naturales en apariencia son el resultado de un aprendizaje lento y laborioso; es darnos cuenta de la extensión de lo que no sabíamos y ahora damos por supuesto. Salvo respirar y succionar la leche materna casi todo hemos tenido que aprenderlo, y es probable que ni siquiera fuésemos capaces de caminar completamente erguidos si no nos hubiéramos fijado en los adultos. Aprendemos con cautela y aprendemos con temeridad; a saltos súbitos y con perseverancia. Julio Cortázar escribió unas instrucciones célebres para subir una escalera. Su lectura tenía un gran efecto humorístico, pero basta fijarse en cómo un niño intenta gatear en los primeros peldaños o cómo el filo de un descansillo al que se asoma puede ser un abismo terrible para revelarnos la dificultad extrema de lo que nos parece muy fácil tan sólo porque hemos olvidado el esfuerzo que nos costó al principio. Y qué cuento habría podido escribir también Cortázar con las instrucciones para hacerse el nudo de los zapatos, en el que se nos enredaban tantas veces sin éxito nuestros dedos infantiles, o para llevarse a la boca una cucharada de sopa.

Cada niño es un filósofo presocrático que se hace las preguntas fundamentales sobre el origen y la naturaleza del universo y sobre los fenómenos más comunes. Obtiene conclusiones fantásticas de la observación directa y establece hipótesis que explican satisfactoriamente la forma de la tierra, el motivo de que el fuego queme y el hielo dé frío, de que pegue el pegamento y la luna aparezca en el horizonte al anochecer. Cada niño es una máquina de aprender que imita, que pregunta, que imagina, que se muere de ganas de saber el final de una historia apenas se le ha contado el principio, que señala cada cosas y cada animal con el dedo para saber sus nombres, que nos agota con sus preguntas insaciables sobre todo. Empieza a aprender laboriosamente las primeras letras porque ha hecho el descubrimiento de la equivalencia artificial entre esos signos y los sonidos familiares, y entonces va por la calle queriendo descifrar cada uno de los letreros que encuentra, tirando impaciente de la mano adulta que lo guía.

En esa actitud no somos distintos de los otros primates superiores: lo que nos distingue de ellos es el volumen de todo lo que tenemos que aprender y la capacidad intelectual equivalente. Y absorbemos de una manera tan profunda lo que hemos aprendido que se nos vuelve natural y nos parece instintivo, lo mismo las palabras de la lengua materna que adquirmos a los tres años que las del otro idioma en el que nos sumergimos en la edad adulta; y con la misma desenvoltura que damos un paso después que otro o realizamos la complicadísima sucesión de operaciones físicas y mentales que nos permiten subir o bajar una escalera nos acostumbramos después a pedalear en una bicicleta manteniendo un equilibrio que al principio parecía imposible, y conducimos un coche por una autopista mientras escuchamos música o conversamos con un compañero de viaje. Aprender bien es olvidar que hemos aprendido.

Verdades obvias, desde luego. Pero conviene no perderlas de vista para apreciar el valor y la dificultad de lo que damos por supuesto, que suele ser lo más importante de la vida. Damos por supuesta la salud hasta que caemos enfermos. Nuestra existencia entera depende del hábito de la respiración, pero sólo pensamos en ella a no ser que notemos un ahogo. Nadie como un asmático aprecia el don del aire limpio y fresco en los pulmones. Sólo cuando se ha vivido bajo una tiranía conserva uno la plena conciencia del valor de la democracia. Y quizás, cuando nos hemos convertido en personas razonablemente cultivadas, nos cuesta más apreciar nuestro privilegio y recordar los años de esfuerzo que hemos dedicado al aprendizaje, y la diferencia enorme que hay entre saber algo y no saberlo, entre el analfabeto y el letrado, entre la explicación racional de los hechos y la confusión de la mentalidad supersticiosa o fanática. Es una diferencia, casi siempre, de clase, y perdonen que use un término poco de moda en una época en que la izquierda ha abandonado el marco conceptual de las clases sociales para sustituirlo por el de las identidades colectivas.

Sólo quien vive en un país regido por el imperio de la ley se deja seducir románticamente por fantasías libertarias; y para encontrar el paraíso en la vida rural es imprescindible habitar en una ciudad moderna. Tristemente nadie aprecia lo que ha tenido desde siempre. Pero lo que no se aprecia no se defiende, y basta que algo se dé por seguro para que esté en peligro, porque no hay nada valioso que no sea también muy frágil. Quizás por eso lo que más sorprende de la España democrática es el poco apego que parece tenerse a la democracia, y el poco prestigio que se concede al saber.

No es una impresión subjetiva, una muestra más de esa cansina pesadumbre con la que los españoles miramos a nuestro país. Tenemos uno de los índices más altos de abandono escolar de la Unión Europea y uno de los más bajos de gasto en investigación científica. Ni una sola de nuestras universidades aparece en las listas de las mejores del mundo. La productividad de nuestra economía no ha dejado de caer en los últimos años, y una de las explicaciones más habituales entre los economistas es la baja calidad de la enseñanza en España. No hay político en el poder que no diga esa tontería triunfal de que la actual generación es la mejor preparada de nuestra historia, pero el estado de ánimo habitual entre los que se dedican de verdad a la enseñanza en las aulas ?por distinguirlos de la caterva de los pedagogos y los entendidos- es la desolación. Desolación ante el bajo nivel de conocimiento que se arrastra de un curso a otro, de la escuela al instituto, del instituto a la universidad, y más desolación todavía ante la dificultad de mantener en las clases una atmósfera propicia al aprendizaje. Algunos levantamos la voz queriendo alertar de esta degradación de la enseñanza hace ya más de veinte años, y se nos llamó alarmistas y reaccionarios. Pero llegaron uno por uno los demoledores informes internacionales a partir de 2007 y la clase política y sus aliados en el establishment pedagógico se mantuvieron inamovibles en su ceguera interesada, en su optimismo catastrófico, en su astucia para eludir responsabilidades. Se recordará que el general Franco murió en 1975, pero aún así la consejera de educación de la junta de Andalucía atribuyó el mal estado de la enseñanza en su comunidad a la herencia franquista. Y disculpen si continúo hablando de mi tierra, ya que por ser de allí me hieren más los disparates que vienen de ella. Para paliar -verbo de moda- el abandono escolar, la Junta de Andalucía estableció un renovador sistema pedagógico: pagar un estipendio a los alumnos por el simple hecho de no irse de la escuela.

Pero hay un dato que me parece más doloroso y más significativo, por razones personales que explicaré después: por primera vez, en España, está llegando a la edad adulta una generación menos cualificada académicamente que la de sus padres.

Mi indignación es civil y política, pero también personal. Pertenezco a una generación que nació en la mitad del siglo pasado y por lo tanto ha vivido a medias entre dos mundos. Nos hicimos adultos en un país que empezaba a ser próspero, pero tenemos recuerdos muy nítidos de la pobreza y el atraso. Vivimos en grandes ciudades y en mayor o menor medida casi todos nos hemos asomado a otros países del mundo, pero nos criamos en sociedades rurales en las que la vida se reducía al círculo muy estrecho del pueblo o del barrio campesino, y en las que las expectativas de bienestar eran muy limitadas, y menos verosímiles que las de retroceso, porque una mala cosecha o unos años de sequía o una enfermedad podían traer la ruina, o estrechar más aún el cerco de la pobreza. Muchísimos de nosotros fuimos los primeros en nuestras familias no ya en llegar a la universidad sino en terminar la escuela primaria y hacer el bachillerato. Los escritores tienden a atribuirse pasados singulares en los que muy prematuramente ya se insinuaba la predestinación para la literatura. Pero que yo me hiciera escritor no es más significativo, en términos de cambio social, que las carreras profesionales de otros coetáneos míos de parecido origen: profesores, médicos, ingenieros, periodistas, abogados. Cuando nos encontramos por el mundo nos reconocemos sin vacilación, con una fraternidad instantánea basada en la memoria común, que nos alivia de la necesidad de explicarnos. Algunas veces tenemos recuerdos que parecen más antiguos que nuestras propias vidas. Somos parecidos a ese tipo de personaje tan frecuente en las novelas americanas del siglo XX, el hijo de emigrantes que habla sin acento la lengua del nuevo país y se mueve con fluidez en él pero conserva la lengua de sus padres y siente que viaja a otro mundo o a otra región del tiempo cuando visita el barrio en el que nació, y del que los emigrantes de la primera generación nunca salieron del todo. Nuestros padres pertenecen al país del pasado, nuestros hijos al del porvenir. Nosotros, que hemos vivido con plena conciencia el tránsito del uno al otro, no nos identificamos por completo con ninguno de los dos. Dibujamos las primeras letras sobre una pequeña pizarra con un marco de madera y ahora escribimos en un ordenador portátil en el que acarreamos sin peso toda la biblioteca de nuestros trabajos y todas nuestras conexiones instantáneas con el mundo exterior. Nuestros padres segaban con hoces y cavaban la tierra con azadas y nuestros hijos envían a toda velocidad mensajes por el teléfono móvil en un lenguaje cifrado que a nosotros nos cuesta comprender. Nos acordamos de cómo era el mundo antes de la televisión y ahora navegamos con soltura por Internet y sabemos encontrar en youtube una actuación recóndita de Thelonious Monk en los años cuarenta. Para nuestros hijos viajar en el AVE en menos de tres horas de Madrid a Barcelona es tan natural como lo fue para nosotros pasarnos largas noches enteras en los expresos que nos llevaban a Madrid. Ellos se mueven por Europa sin fijarse mucho en las fronteras que cruzan. Nosotros nos acordamos de cuando hacía falta un certificado de buena conducta expedido por la policía para solicitar un pasaporte, y los hombres de la generación de nuestros padres apenas salieron de jóvenes de su pueblo natal para ir al ejército, y cuando salían a Europa era para trabajar en tareas agotadoras y muchas veces serviles en países de gente arrogante y hostil que les daba órdenes en lenguas que ellos no entendían. Y cuando nos va a ganar el fatalismo sobre nuestro sistema político una punzada instintiva nos recuerda siempre que por muy defectuosa que sea la democracia nunca es lícito renegar o capitular de ella, porque hemos vivido en una dictadura y recordamos la experencia de su grosería y su fealdad, y conocemos de primera mano la diferencia entre tener libertad y no tenerla, entre ser un súbdito y ser un ciudadano.

Y nos damos cuenta, según cumplimos años y tenemos hijos, de que una de nuestras obligaciones es contar lo que nosotros hemos vivido, explicar con cuidado cómo fueron las cosas para que quienes no las vivieron sepan calibrar cómo son ahora, qué reciente es todo lo que ellos tienden a dar por supuesto qué poco tiempo ha pasado desde que parecía imposible lo que ahora resulta casi aburridamente cotidiano. Pero ésta ha sido inmemorialmente la tarea de la enseñanza y la responsabilidad de las generaciones mayores hacia las jóvenes: la transmisión de conocimientos fundamentales para explicar con veracidad el mundo y para sobrevivir con dignidad en él. La historia entera de la especie humana se basa en ese trasiego permanente de la experiencia acumulada y renovada por las generaciones sucesivas.

Como a mucha gente de mi edad, me criaron personas que poseían saberes prácticos muy valiosos y sutiles y que profesaban una reverencia temerosa hacia las formas abstractas del conocimiento, para ellos inaccesibles. En la mayor parte de los casos escribían y leían con dificultad pero al decir la palabra saber parecía que la pronunciaban con mayúscula. "El Saber no ocupa lugar", decían. "El que no sabe es como el que no ve". Muchos de ellos no habían tenido nunca la oportunidad de ir a una verdadera escuela. Otros habían acudido brevemente a aquellas escuelas llamadas de "perra gorda" en las que maestras aficionadas, con buena voluntad y no mucha instrucción, les enseñaban rudimentos de escritura y de cuentas en graneros o portales. A mi abuelo materno, que llegó a tener una letra elegante y leía con una noble entonación algo enfática, le enseñó a leer y a escribir por las noches, a la luz de un candil, un capellán o sacristán del cortijo en el que trabajaba como mulero(y perdonen que me sume a la moda de sacar a relucir un abuelo:lo hago por razones estrictamente sociológicas). En 1936, cuando estalló la guerra, mi padre tenía ocho años, y mi madre seis. Los dos dejaron entonces la escuela para no regresar, él forzado a trabajar en el campo ayudando a su abuelo mientras su padre estaba en el frente, ella en una casa de muchos hermanos en la que las obligaciones domésticas le hicieron olvidar pronto una afición precoz a la lectura. Hombres y mujeres eran conscientes con la misma agudeza de las limitaciones que la falta de instrucción formal imponían en sus vidas, pero las experimentaban de manera distinta. Los varones, a los que uno veía moverse con tanta seguridad y soltura en los trabajos del campo, se volvían medrosos cuando trataban con personas que tenían sobre ellos una posición de poder basada en los privilegios misteriosos del conocimiento: funcionarios, médicos, abogados, jueces, inspectores, sacerdotes, figuras de autoridad casi siempre despectiva y muchas despótica que habían accedido a ella por nacimiento o porque tenían estudios. "Tener estudios" quería decir vagamente haber hecho una carrera, hablar de una forma sonora usando palabras poco comprensibles, incluso saber latín. "Ese sabe latín", decían de alguien no particularmente honrado, pero sí muy hábil para sacar beneficio sin demasiado esfuerzo, y muchas veces con engaño. Hasta un oficinista que supiera escribir a máquina y hacer anotaciones enigmáticas en grandes libros de registro ostentaba poder y disfrutaba privilegios: entre otros, el no pequeño de trabajar bajo techado, a salvo del calor, de la lluvia o del frío. Para defenderse de esa gente hacía falta un dominio de las palabras habladas y escritas equiparable al suyo. Por mucho que se esforzara en su trabajo, un campesino o un artesano sabía que sus posibilidades de progreso eran muy limitadas. Pero abogados, jueces, inspectores, recaudadores, podían quitarle lo que era suyo y arruinarle la vida. La ignorancia era una debilidad y una humillación; un insulto de clase.

Para las mujeres esa conciencia de inferioridad era aún mayor porque reforzaba su posición subordinada hacia los hombres. Nosotros, de niños, imaginábamos que ese era el orden natural de las cosas, y ni siquiera cuando empezamos a alimentar conatos adolescentes de rebeldía política se nos ocurrió que las mujeres en nuestras familias sintieran alguna forma de disgusto hacia el papel que se les asignaba. Leíamos en secreto el Manifiesto Comunista de Marx y la Revolución Sexual de Wilhelm Reich pero no teníamos el menor reparo en que nuestras madres y hermanas nos hicieran las camas, nos sirvieran la comida y se quedaran fregando platos y barriendo la cocina cuando nosotros ya habíamos regresado a nuestra lectura emancipatoria. Para las mujeres de clase trabajadora que no pudieron seguir yendo a la escuela ni tener derechos civiles después de la victoria franquista la falta de educación formal era una injuria todavía más inmediata, porque confirmaba su dependencia absoluta de padres y maridos, su encierro en la casa y en las labores domésticas, la pura imposibilidad del libre albedrío. Muchos años después, en la democracia, muchas de esas mujeres, quizás en mayor medida que los hombres, acudieron a las escuelas de adultos, queriendo desquitarse de una ignorancia a la que secretamente no se habían resignado nunca, y que sólo habían podido compensar alentando en sus hijos, y más aún en sus hijas, la dedicación al estudio, la ambición de hacerse autosuficientes por el único medio que les parecía digno y posible, el conocimiento.

Pocas veces ha habido un salto tran grande entre las generaciones como el que hemos vivido muchos de nosotros. Hemos tenido suerte con la época histórica en la que nos tocó hacernos mayores, del mismo modo en que nuestros padres fueron infortunados con la suya. Pero estamos aquí, la mayor parte de ustedes y yo mismo, gracias a dos cosas: la primera, el sacrificio enorme que ellos hicieron, levantando con su trabajo un país atrasado y en ruinas; la segunda, el acceso a la educación, en el que tanto empeño pusieron nuestros padres. Sería revelador hacer una encuesta entre los hombres y las mujeres que han destacado en cualquier campo de la vida pública desde los primeros tiempos de la Transición hasta el pleno asentamiento de la democracia y la modernidad en los años 90 para saber cuál es su origen social y qué nivel de formación tuvieron sus padres. Cuántos de los legisladores, líderes políticos, investigadores científicos, escritores, cineastas, que han protagonizado el cambio formidable de nuestro país en los últimos treinta años tuvieron la oportunidad de desarrollar sus mejores cualidades gracias no al privilegio económico ni a la posición social sino a la educación. Perspectivas insospechadas se abrían con el desarrollo de los años sesenta, propiciado en gran parte por la llegada de millones de turistas y los ahorros enviados de vuelta por millones de emigrantes, pero la más importante de todas fue que muchos de nosotros, a llegar a los once o los doce años, en vez de abandonar la escuela para unirnos a nuestros padres, pudimos seguir estudiando. Las becas eran escasas, y el sacrificio familiar considerable. Pero el ansia de saber más y de tener vidas menos estrechas y el aliento de algunos maestros y de algunos profesores que nos abrían el mundo en el bachillerato cambiaron literalmente nuestro destino. Otros mejor situados socialmente tenían bibliotecas familiares y padres que podían orientarlos y llegado el momento proporcionarles el acceso a redes de influencia. Nosotros dependíamos en exclusiva de lo que aprendiéramos en la escuela y en el instituto. Lo que no nos enseñaran allí no lo podíamos estudiar en ninguna otra parte. El lujo de los libros sólo nos era accesible en la biblioteca pública.

Nuestros padres veían cumplirse en nosotros un sueño inaccesible para ellos, pero en su satisfacción, en la de los padres más que la de las madres, sospecho, había una nota de melancolía. Notaban que la educación multiplicaba y aceleraba la lejanía inevitable de los hijos al salir de la infancia. El conocimiento que ellos habían reverenciado y que les daba cierto miedoy cierta desconfianza ahora sentían que nos apartaba de ellos. Deseábamos cosas que ellos no comprendían, adquiríamos gustos que los irritaban o los alarmaban. Los hijos nos dejábamos el pelo largo, las hijas se volvían respondonas, fumaban, se ponían faldas demasiado cortas. Peor aún, mostrábamos una indiferencia hostil hacia casi todo lo que a ellos les importaba más, precisamente los saberes y los oficios gracias a los cuales nos habían sacado adelante. Repetían, machaconamente: el saber no ocupa lugar. Estaba bien que estudiáramos, pero qué daño podría hacernos aprender también los oficios que ellos amaban, el trabajo de la tierra, la capacidad de hacer cosas con las manos. Si todo salía de la tierra, ¿de qué iba alimentarse el mundo cuando no quedara nadie que la quisiera trabajar? Ellos y sus padres habían visto cómo de la noche a la mañana la normalidad que conocían había sido arrasada por la guerra. ¿Quién nos aseguraba a nosotros que el día de mañana no íbamos a vernos forzados a volver al campo, a cultivar plantas y criar animales para subsistir?

En el fondo lo que les daba más pena es que no supiéramos apreciar los saberes que ellos dominaban, el conocimiento que no habían adquirido en las aulas y gracias a los libros sino a través de la experiencia directa, de las destrezas aprendidas de sus mayores. Nosotros, los que hemos vivido a medias entre dos mundos, recordamos aún lo que en gran parte ya se ha perdido, el legado de saberes populares que no dejan huella porque se transmitían al margen de la cultura escrita, y porque pertenecían a la gran cultura universal de los pobres, que se borra para siempre como un idioma que nunca se escribió y que ya no habla nadie, pero que contenía todos los nombres y los matices del mundo. No hago romanticismo de la pobreza: simplemente atestiguo la desaparición de una cultura popular que existió hasta ayer mismo, y en la que muchos de nosotros hemos nacido, de la que no sentimos nostalgia, pero hacia la que sería indigno no mostrar lealtad, respeto hacia todas las cosas que aquellos hombres y aquellas mujeres sabían, eran capaces de hacer, lo que hubieran querido enseñarnos, lo que aprendimos con desgana y luego hemos olvidado.

Cada habilidad era decisiva para la supervivencia: cómo ordeñar una vaca, con qué mezcla de delicadeza y de presión al apretar las ubres; cómo elegir los mimbres para tejer una cesta en la cual se recogerían luego las hortalizas o se guardaría la comida; cómo hacer una soga con hilos secos de pita; cómo calcular los días mejores para la siembra del trigo en otoño o para empezar la siega a principios del verano; cómo trazar una hilera de surcos paralelos en la tierra recién arada y cómo levantar de un solo golpe de azada un breve dique de tierra para cambiar la dirección del agua en el riego; cómo degollar a un cerdo de una sola cuchillada y cómo remover la sangre para que no se coagulara mientras iba cayendo en el gran lebrillo que recibía su borbotón rojo oscuro y caliente; cómo mantener separados los pies mientras se estaba cavando para que la hoja de la azada no hiriera uno de ellos; cómo desprender del tallo los higos o los tomates sin dañarlos; cómo recoger la aceituna de un olivo muy joven no golpeando con la vara sus ramas todavía demasiado tiernas sino rozándola con las dos manos abiertas, como se ordeña; cómo saber si una sandía o un melón estaban ya lo bastante maduros para separarlos de la mata; cómo ceñir la cincha al lomo de un mulo o de un burro o un caballo para que la albarda, sin sofocarlo, no se deslice y haga caer al jinete o volcar la carga; cómo escrutar cada día con perspicacia y paciencia el cielo para averiguar si lloverá o no.

Era una sabiduría de la escasez, de la perseverancia, de la autosuficiencia; también, por supuesto, de la confianza en la rutina y el recelo ante los cambios. Era un talento forzoso para aprovecharlo todo al máximo y no desperdiciar nada, para apurar una tajada de carne hasta que no quedaba una brizna en el hueso, para alimentar con sobras a los cerdos de los que dependía la alimentación de la mitad del año, para zurcir con un primor admirable un calcetín o una camisa, para hacer jabón con el aceite usado, para cocinar un plato sabroso con los materiales más humildes, de modo que se aprovecharan y además duraran más en aquellas casas en las que no había frigoríficos. En bordar una mantelería o unas sábanas nupciales las mujeres ponían un impulso estético tan iletrado y tan infalible como el que resplandece en la cerámina vidriada de un jarro o en la poesía de un romance popular. En los puestos del mercado las frutas y las hortalizas se apilaban según criterios estrictos de armonía visual. Un buen herrero o un buen alfarero moldeaban la materia con una maestría sin esfuerzo aparente a la que habían dedicado sus vidas enteras. Había que hacer las cosas lo mejor que uno pudiera, con diligencia pero sin aturdimiento, con atención pero sin recrearse holgazanamente en la tarea. No hacer algo bien tenía consecuencias negativas inmediatas. El orgullo de uno era su trabajo. El que no se ganaba la vida poniendo los cinco sentidos en lo que tenía que hacer era un gandul o un tramposo. Los pobres no tenían más carrera que la honra. A nosotros, claro, nos sacaba de quicio que fueran tan machacones, tan austeros, tan desconfiados de los extraños y del mundo exterior, tan atentos a no levantar la cabeza del plato hasta que no habían apurado la última brizna de comida, tan obsesivos con el recuerdo de los años del hambre, tan temerosos de cualquier indicio que diéramos de inconformismo político. Lo más importante era no llamar la atención, no destacarse nunca. Incluso bien entrada la democracia nos pedían cautela. Por mucho que hubiéramos estudiado nosotros no podíamos imaginar lo que ellos habían visto.

De adolescente, de joven, yo pensaba que elegir un mundo era renegar de otro. Por una parte estaban las aulas, por la otra el trabajo detestado en el campo. La literatura era una ventana por la que escaparse, un submarino y una máquina del tiempo que me ayudaban a vivir en la casa familiar y en la huerta de mi padre como si ya me hubiera marchado de ellos. Sólo muy poco a poco descubrí que esa disyuntiva era ficticia porque el alimento principal de mi imaginación literaria era la experiencia del mundo que había elegido abandonar y la tensión incesante entre el presente y el pasado, entre el irse y el volver, entre lo que parecía que iba a durar siempre y se perdió sin rastro de la noche a la mañana y su huella en mi conciencia. Y descubrí también, mucho más lentamente, que en aquellos saberes que a mí me habían parecido monótonos y obsoletos, ajenos a las visiones mucho más excitantes que me ofrecían los libros, había una lección muy pertinente para mi vida y para estos tiempos: una atención a la realidad concreta que compensaba saludablemente las dañinas tendencias a las abstracciones y las generalidades de la imaginación intelectual. Las plantas, los animales, las estaciones del año, merecen ser observados con la atención aguda de un campesino, que es la de un científico instintivo, consciente de los ritmos y los delicados equilibrios del orden natural. Y hacer cosas con las manos, cuidar un jardín o preparar con aplicación una comida, requiere aprendizajes prácticos que lo fuerzan a uno a despertar de los ensueños halagadores y tantas veces narcisistas de un trabajo exclusivamente intelectual.

También esta biografía ha determinado en gran parte mis posiciones políticas y mi militancia apasionada en defensa de la instrucción pública. Como me crié en una dictadura procuro no olvidarme del valor supremo de la democracia, que no es un logro definitivo y por lo tanto seguro y estático, sino un proceso en el que casi todo está en juego cada día. Si no defendemos cada día lo que es evidente corremos el peligro de que nos lo arrebaten. Cada día hay que defender el imperio de la ley, la igualdad de los ciudadanos ante ella, la presunción de inocencia, la libertad de expresión, negándose a rajatabla a admitir coacciones o rebajas.

Cuando un derecho se ejerce sin conciencia de su valor se convierte en un privilegio. En este tiempo en que las conquistas del Estado de Bienestar están en peligro es más urgente que nunca, si queremos salvarlas, transmitir a quienes las han disfrutado desde que nacieron el conocimiento de lo recientes que son y del esfuerzo de responsabilidad personal que es necesario para mantenerlas.

Pero es que la plena ciudadanía en ningún caso es posible sin el conocimiento. Tal vez por eso la clase política española pone tanto interés en propagar la ignorancia. La hegemonía abrumadora de las redes políticas y clientelares en un país de sociedad civil tan débil como el nuestro se sustenta en gran medida sobre la resignación o la indiferencia de las inmensas mayorías, que carecen de influencia sobre la selección de candidatos para las elecciones y de cauces de control y de exigencia de responsabilidades una vez los representantes han sido elegidos. Libres de control efectivo, forzados a la obediencia a los aparatos partidistas de los que dependió su candidatura y de los que dependen por completo sus carreras y sus medios de subsistencia, los miembros de la innumerable clase política española han parasitado cada ámbito de la vida pública y de una administración hipertrofiada que ha de proveer cuantiosas colocaciones para todos ellos. Una administración profesional se basa necesariamente en el mérito, y es la espina dorsal del estado de derecho y del estado de bienestar: maestros, médicos, profesores, jueces, técnicos competentes, policías, administrativos. Pero el contagio clientelar y la intromisión política en el ámbito de decisiones que deberían ser estrictamente legales o técnicas subordinan el mérito a la adhesión partidista y minan a la vez el imperio de la ley y el prestigio del conocimiento. Una cosa que sorprende cuando se vuelve a España de países socialmente más asentados es la omnipresencia de los políticos, de sus trifulcas y sus declaraciones. Y sorprende todavía más la cantidad de cargos decisorios y bien remunerados para los cuales no se exige más cualificación ni más credencial que el carnet de un partido en el poder. ¿En qué país serio cambia el director de un museo o el gerente de un hospital o de un teatro porque ha habido un cambio de gobierno?

Sin una ciudadanía formada y responsable, el debate político se reduce a palabrería de charlistas, sectarismo partidario y publicidad electoral. Todo la educación obligatoria en una democracia es, en este sentido, una educación para la ciudadanía. Sin un conocimiento sólido de la historia y de la geografía universales no es posible situarse en el tiempo y en el espacio. Hace falta una rigurosa introducción a las ciencias físicas y naturales para adquirir una conciencia racional del mundo y de la posición del ser humano entre los demás seres vivos, y para fortalecer la conciencia contra el fanatismo y la superstición. Y es necesario que desde niños se nos vaya introduciendo con sensibilidad, imaginación y rigor en el conocimiento de las artes -la literatura, la plástica, la música- porque es el contacto temprano con ellas lo que nos educa la sensibilidad y nos permite descubrir nuestras mejores inclinaciones estéticas.

La ignorancia no libera, simplemente embrutece; la falta de exigencia impuesta en nombre del igualitarismo en la enseñanza pública favorece sobre todo la desigualdad, porque quien tenga medios los invertirá en dar a sus hijos la educación que no reciban en la escuela. Democratizar la enseñanza no es sólo garantizar que todo el mundo tenga un puesto escolar y que cualquier alumno, por ignorante que sea, pueda llegar a la universidad. Democratizar es asegurarse de que cada persona, independientemente de su origen social y educativo y de los medios económicos de su familia tiene la oportunidad de desarrollar al máximo sus capacidades. Democracia no es que el alumno haga en clase lo que le venga en gana o que el padre o la madre puedan insultar al profesor si le da el antojo: democracia es que un chico encuentre en la escuela los libros que no hay en su casa, y que gracias a ella descubra su vocación para las matemáticas o para la literatura o para la mecánica, y que al cumplir los 18 años pueda votar evaluando racionalmente las posibilidades que se le ofrecen y sabiendo detectar las mentiras halagadoras que se le cuenten.

Nadie nace sabiendo, decían los mayores machaconamente. La vida es aprender siempre y disfrutar de ese aprendizaje. Todo puede ser apasionante si se explica bien, porque llevamos la curiosidad en los genes. Bien explicada la astronomía es mucho más apasionante que la astrología, y la historia que cualquiera de las leyendas de pasados novelescos con que los nacionalistas se obstinan en alimentar sus quejumbrosos narcisismos colectivos. La política, con frecuencia, consiste en crear diferencias irreconciliables: la ciencia nos enseña que todos los seres humanos somos una extensa familia, y la descodificación del genoma humano confirma los que ya sabíamos por la literatura: que siendo cada uno de nosotros un ser único nos parecemos tanto que podemos conmovernos con las experiencias de los desconocidos. El conocimiento racional nos da la medida de nuestras fuerzas pero también la de nuestros límites. Nadie nace sabiendo, y algunos parece que además nacen condenados a la ignorancia y a la miseria, pero gracias a la instrucción pública y a la voluntad personas eminentes han salido de la nada para mejorar modesta o radicalmente el mundo. Las utopías radicales de mayo del 68 se mezclaron con éxito a los intereses del capitalismo de consumo para inculcarnos la idea de que cualquier deseo o capricho es un atributo de nuestra libertad personal: pero biología, la ecología y la psicología nos avisan de que la gratificación instantánea del capricho sólo produce frustración y ansiedad, y de que los recursos del planeta no son ilimitados. Nuestra tendencia natural, también alentada por las tonterías publicitarias, es creer que cada uno de nosotros es el centro del mundo, que nuestra época es la culminación del tiempo, que como en nuestra comarca no se vive en ninguna parte, que nuestros hijos son los guapos y los más listos, que pertenecemos al pueblo más antiguo, al más perseguido, incluso al pueblo elegido. Desde que Copernico desbarató la idea de que la tierra era el centro del universo, el conocimiento racional no hay hecho más que ponernos saludablemente en nuestro sitio: somos primos hermanos del gorila y del chimpacé y parientes próximos de la rata de laboratorio y de la mosca del vinagre. El orgullo de las raíces y del origen que tanto les gusta celebrar a los peores gánsteres de la política nos lleva a todos exactamente a la misma patria, las savanas del África oriental de las que emigraron algunos de nuestros antepasados hace unos sesenta mil años. La idea tan original que tú piensas que acaba de ocurrírsete la pensó hace milenios un egipcio o un griego, y la podías haber aprendido antes y mejor formulada en cualquiera de los libros que no te molestas en leer. Tu soledad no es tan amarga porque la reconoces en un poema escrito por un desconocido. El ser humano no es el rey de la creación ni la medida de todas las cosas: más lúcida y más cercana a la ciencia que la soberbia occidental es la intuición budista y taoísta de que formamos parte de una malla infinita de conexiones que abarca a todos los seres vivos y a la materia inerte, y por lo tanto al universo. Aspirantes a caudillos políticos o religiosos quieren robarnos el albedrío en nombre de la adhesión a la patria o a la causa o al reino de los cielos: el conocimiento fortalece nuestra soberanía personal y la fraternidad con nuestros semejantes y nos ayuda a desbaratar las mentiras que nos cuentan. Y también nos descubre el saber que más falta nos hace: cómo vivir con dignidad, aquí mismo, ahora mismo, honrando a los que vivieron antes que nosotros, cuidando los dones valiosos y frágiles de este mundo, que es el único mundo y el único paraíso posible, trantando de no hacerlo inhabitable para los que vengan detrás de nosotros.

JEWISH KINGS FROM AUSTRIAN CHRONICLE
Rulers
Lengths of Reign
Dates

Gennan, middle son of Peyman, became duke. He was overcome, records the Austrian Chronicle, by the Jews and was circumcised, accepted Jewish marriage customs, put away images and acknowledged the Hebrew faith. He called himself 'Gennan, a Jew.' There were not yet any Jewish noble, willing to give their daughters in marriage to him. So he died without wife and heir.
4
708-704

Nanman and Saptan, sons of Peyman, split the country. Nanman chose the lower and Septan the upper part. Nanman married a Hungarian duchess called Meynin (Mennin). Saptan became the Master over his brother and over all the land, also changed its name to Mittanauz. He married a Bohemian duchess called Salaim (Salan, Salann, Salim), who was a Jewess. They had two sons, Tanton and Rippan. Tanton died without wife before his father.
61
704-643

Rippan, a Jew, married a countess from Penenaw (Pennawe), named Menna. They had one son, Lantawz, and two daughters, Pamyn and Rachaym. Lantawz and Pamyn (Panym) died unmarried before their father.
57
643-586

Salant, a Jew, a duke from Hungary, married Rachaim. They had one son, Piltan II (Pilton, Pilkan) who died. After both this son and Salant had died, Rachaim remarried.
45
586-541

Laptan, a Jew from Bohemia, married Rachaim. Changed the name of the land from Mittanauz (Mittenaus) to Fannau (Fannawe). They died without an heir.
15
541-526

At that time there ruled a Jewish duke in Hungary, called Almantan. He usurped the power and conquered the dukedom of Fannaw. Almantan brought with him his wife, a Bohemian duchess, named Schlammyn (Schalmmyn). She was Jewish. They had two sons, Rantanaiz and Halman (Halbman). Halman became duke of Hungary.
40
526-486

Rantanaiz (Rattans), in his day the name of the land was changed from Fannaw to Aurata. He called himself 'Rattanaiz, a Jew.' Married Bohemian duchess called Sawlin (Sawlim). They had a son who died without name, and a daughter, Lenna.
57
486-429

Rettan, Hungarian duke, marries Lenna. He changed the name of the land from Aurata to Fyla. They had a son, Manton (Montan).
45
429-384

Flanton, married Sanna, a duchess from Bavaria. They had a son, Hegan and a daughter, Semyn. Hegan died unmarried before his father.
54
384-330

Rattan, a Hungarian duke, marries Semyn. They had one son, Attalon.
39
330-291

Attalon, married a Bohemian duchess, Magalim. They had three sons, Raban, Penyn and Effra, and Semna, a daughter. Semna died young. Penyn also died without wife and heir.
57
291-234

Raban (Rawan, Raban), married a Bohemian duchess called Sancta (Santta, Santla). They died without Elelr.
(6 months)
(234)

Effra, Attalon's youngest son, married Hungarian duchess, Samaym, who was Jewish. They had one son, Naban.
49
234-185

Naban, married a Hungarian duchess, a Jewess, Samanna. They had a son, Rolan, and a daughter, Signa who died unmarried.
52
185-133

Rolan (Nolan), changed the name of the land from Fyla to Rarasma. Married a Hungarian duchess, Sanna. They had two daughters, Eminna and Sanna. Eminna died unmarried.
32
133-101

Remar (Reinar, Reimar), a Bohemian duke, married Sanna. They had one son, Natan.
53
101- 48

Natan, married Hungarian duchess, Satym (Satyn). They had two daughters, Masym and Rachym.
41
48- 7

Masym, a duchess. She died before marrying. Her sister Rachym obtained the duchy.
2 1/2
7- 5

Raban (Naban), a Bohemian duke, married Rachim. They had two sons, Lanat (Lenat, Lamer, Laniar), and Sannet (Samet, Samer). Lanat died young.
51
5 B.C. to 47 A.D.

Sannet, married a Hungarian duchess, Enna. They had a son, Laban, and a daughter, Racha (spelled also Ratha, Rachaym, Rathaym). Laban died before his father.
34
47- 81

Saptan, duke from Bohemia married Racha. They had a son, Salamet (Salamer), and a daughter, Semna (Sanna, Senna). Salamet died unmarried before his father.
42
81-123

Rolant, a Bohemian duke marries Semna. They had a son, Rattan, a daughter, Amama II (Amania), and another son, Jannat (Jannas, Jannet, Jamer). Rattan and Amama died without heir before their father.
52
123-175

Jannat (Jannett Janner), changed the name of his inheritance from Rarasma to Corrodancia. Married a Bohemian duchess called Samanna. They had a son, Manton (Montan). With him ended the predominance of the Jewish faith, and the land lapsed again to Heathenism.
51
175-226

Manton
45
226-271


In his time heathen from Hungary and other lands forced Manton to become a heathen and to pray to images. 'He called himself Manton, a Heathen.' He married a heathen duchess from Hungary, named Signa. They had two sons, Natan (Mathan) and Reptan. Reptan died young and unmarried.

By: Herman L. Hoe

UNA HUMILDE EMULACION DEL SALMO VEINTITRES

Oh Padre Eterno, Tú eres mi Pastor, mi Escudo y mi Gozo ! Tú provees todas mis necesidades, y siempre lo has hecho !
Tu me apacientas en los verdísimos, frescos y suculentos pastos de Tu pradera. Aquí puedo yo beber de la gran Fuente de Tu Espíritu, que fluye silente, pero profundo, a lo largo de las sombras de poderosos robles que me protegen del sol canicular del día. Tú me llenas con nuevas fuerzas cada vez que me siento débil; me ayudas y me guias a hacer todo lo que Te pueda honrar, y aún cuando camine en el valle profundo de la oscuridad y en las sombras de la muerte, no siento temor alguno porque se que Tú estas allí, a mi lado, guiándome y llevándome por Tu Camino.
Siempre pones ante mi una mesa de banquetes con deliciosos alimentos, aún en presencia de mis enemigos. La copa de vino de Tu Espíritu desborda por sus lados y cae también sobre aquéllos que estan a mi lado.
De forma magnífica me has dado la bienvenida como Tu invitado, como Tu hijo, y muchas han sido las bendiciones que he recibido, a pesar de ser indigno de ellas !
Tu Justicia, Tu Miseridordia y Tu infalible generosidad me habrán de conducir a lo largo de todos los días de mi vida; y, después de ell; espero, con ansias, poder vivir junto a Tí en Tu Reino y en Tu Santo Monte, un Monte de paz donde el cordero y el león jugarán juntos guiados por un niño. Cuán Grande, cuán Glorioso y cuán Majestuoso eres Tú, Oh Eterno Creador y Soberano, absoluto Gobernador del Cosmos y sus universos, y de todo lo que en ellos se encuentra !

“Las Bozes de Tus Pasos”

Te huites en deshando mi korason asolado,
De tu ombre ke kreyiya ke era tu amado,
Estava oroso I a tu kerensya atado,
Biviya feliz savyendo ke era tu amado.
****
Tu figura en mis ojos,tu boz en mis oyidos,
Los mijores kantes se kambiaron en bruidos.
Tu alesho me mata,esta de grande largiya,
Mis visyos se amataron,piedri mi alegriya.
****
Kamino en las kayes kon mis miradas vaziyas,
Akodrandome tus rizas i lo ke me diziyas.
El kontakto amoroso de tus lavyos de seda
Emposible d’olvidarlo en mi memorya keda.
****
Siento la ambiertura de tus ermozos kantes
Kero bivir akeyos tiempos amorozos d’antes.
Mi alma te dezeya I kon suspiros te nombra,
En los kaminos mis ojos bushkando tu solombra…
****
Kon despasensya aspero las bozes de tus pasos,
Dezeyo tus kaveyos sedozos por karesarlos.


Haim Vitali Sadacca
New York

IN THE BEGGINING
PART I
By Charles J. Voss

Introduction
“MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO IN THE EMPTINESS OF SPACE, THE ETERNAL CREATOR SOVEREIGN spoke and created a pure physical language and then spoke the pure language and created all that there is (Genesis 1:1). Then the mighty CREATOR came with His angels to a part of the Cosmos1 to begin the second step of His sovereign plan. For untold æons He had carefully planned out and conceived every detail, and the time had come to put His great creative powers into motion. Where there had once been only the void of space, His powerful Spirit now brought a great number of solar systems into existence. When the last planet had been set in into place, He turned His attention to the centerpiece of His creation - a planet called Eden2 a place that was to be an important part of an even greater creation. On the surface of this planet the most spectacular life that could be conceived in the Mind of the SOVEREIGN was brought into being. Like a living painting, life forms began to take their place in this new world: a wondrous creation that was only the beginning of the CREATOR SOVEREIGN’s ultimate plan.
“When the SOVEREIGN’s angels saw what He had prepared, all of them erupted into a great celebration, singing out their praises to the Almighty CREATOR of the Cosmos.3
“This new world was to be home to a huge number of angels of ETERNAL, whose job it would be to take care of this paradise.4 One of the angels was chosen to rule over this new world. One of the stars of the SOVEREIGN had been created to rule over this new world. It was ‘more cunning than any beast of the field5 ’It is called the bright Morning Star, or the Son of Dawn. It was created sinless and in perfect beauty--a fantastically beautiful creation to rule a world of beauty and harmony. This new world was a place of happiness as nations of angels lived and worked over the entire surface of the planet. As the Great CREATOR looked down on His handiwork He was pleased and surely smiled to Himself."6
IN THE BEGINNING - PART I
“In the Beginning - Part I” is a transcription of a United Hebrew Congregation
forum tape between Lawrence C. Williams and Charles J. Voss in late 1999.
HELLO. MY NAME IS LAWRENCE WILLIAMS of United Hebrew Congregations. For today’s introduction, I will use the one from our web page at Quest for the ETERNAL CREATOR of the Universe:
“The stars in the sky are proof of an overall power in the universe that somehow put them all in place and controls all that there is. The Designer of the universe must have had an overall plan for all of the inhabitants of the earth. This is a search for that plan. The Quest will first focus on the ancient writings of the Hebrew people that left Egyptian slavery. These Hebrew writings were chosen as a beginning for our Quest because there is no big religious faction that is based on them alone, without any other mediating documents. It is true that the religion of Judaism claims to be based on these ancient writings, but they have books that are just as holy to them. In our Quest, we must find one set of writings that stands alone and has a plan for all of humankind. Thus, The Holy Scriptures were chosen as the beginning of our Quest.”
The overall theme for all of our forums is "Quest for the Ancient of Days." Our presentation today is called "In the Beginning - Part I." To present this information today is my friend, Charles Voss.
CV: Thank you, Lawrence, and to add to what you said, we must make our "Quest for the Ancient of Days" while He still can be found. As we look at the overall conditions in the world and all of the problems with the population of the whole world as a group, it appears that we are now into the time of trouble when ETERNAL cannot be found (Psalm 32:6; Isaiah 55:6-7; Amos 8; 12). As we look into the heavens or the skies above with their unending expanse, it is a very beautiful sight. Almost any rational person who ever even so slightly ponders the complexity of the enormous expanse of the heavens above should be awed at the magnificence of our universe! In addition, as we look at the photographs released by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, by the Hubble Telescope satellite, we should be almost spellbound.
LW: The picture that is the most outstanding picture in my mind is the picture of the earth rise as it was seen and photographed by the astronauts on the moon.
CV: Yes that truly is an outstanding photograph. Just for a moment, hold that thought in your mind about the universe, and let us ponder something else. Consider the extremely large variety of life forms upon the earth. If you can imagine them all, you have to conclude that all of the complexity of the cosmos must have been created by some sort of Intelligence. It could not have just come into existence all by itself. Even if we allow the infinity of times past, it still requires a Central Intelligence to design and produce it.
LW: I'm reminded of the statements of many of the astronauts, as they looked out of their cockpit windows and stated that these wonders must have been designed and created.
CV: Yes, and the exactness of the design is so precise regardless of whether we look outward into the solar system or whether we focus inwardly toward the complexity of matter and its molecular structure. If we look at the CREATOR’s design, what do we see? We see the same basic design of bits of matter orbiting other bits of matter. The design of the structure of the solar system is roughly the same design as that of a molecule. Therefore, it required a great Central Intelligence to design and produce it.
LW: If we were to observe the most beautiful painting on earth, it would appear perfect from a distance. Yet, the closer we examine the painting the more obvious the lack of detail becomes and at a very close proximity the lines are seen jagged. For another example, with the naked eye the cutting edge of a razor blade appears to be straight; however, under a microscope it resembles a saw blade.
CV: Exactly. If an astronaut out in space was able to focus in on a single snowflake on earth, its design would be flawless. If he had the ability from out in space to zero in closer to the microscopic level of this snowflake, he would see the design of the molecules is the same as the designs of the heavens above him.
Classical chemistry developed the Law of the Conservation of Mass, which states that in an isolated system the total amount of mass does not change. Classical physics produced the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Relativity theory has revealed that these two laws are actually two aspects of the same law—the Conservation of Energy-mass or the Energy-mass Equivalence. In fact, matter and energy can be transformed from one to another, but the total amount of the Energy-mass Equivalent remains constant. If you are wondering what all of this has to do with the "Quest for the Ancient of Days," please be patient—we are headed there.
LW: In other words, what you are saying is that if I were to strike a match, it would burn and be transformed into smoke and ashes. It would also release heat. However, the total amount of matter and energy would remain the same. Thus, the burning of the match produces ashes, smoke, and heat. But, what do you mean by the Energy-mass Equivalent?
CV: If we could isolate the products of the burning match and then had the ability to convert them back into a match, nothing would have been gained or lost. The total Energy-mass Equivalent of the match would be the same as the total Energy-mass Equivalent of the ashes, smoke, and heat. In changing them from one form to another would not increase or decrease the total Energy-mass Equivalent.
LW: In other words, the Energy-mass Equivalent of the match is the same quantity as the Energy-mass Equivalent of the ashes, smoke, and heat combined.
CV: Exactly. To take that concept to its conclusion, the total Energy-mass Equivalent of the universe will always remain the same. The energy and mass could be converted from one form to the other but the total Energy-mass Equivalent would remain the same. If half of all of the energy in the universe were converted into matter, the total Energy-mass Equivalent would still be the same.
LW: I remember that Albert Einstein once said that the design of the laws of nature could not have come into existence by itself. Didn't he work on the law of the conversion of matter into energy?
CV: Yes, and Einstein discovered the formula by which matter is converted into energy. His approach to the subject was to determine the amount of destructive force that could be released when the atoms, (from which molecules are made) were destroyed.
LW: Then molecules must be the building blocks of nature.
CV: Well, more or less. But that statement is exact enough for our discussion today. The conversion formula that Einstein discovered is E=mc2.
LW: I remember that. "E" is the amount of energy, "m" is the amount of matter, and "c2" is the speed of light multiplied by itself.
CV: Hey, very fine. The formula will also work backwards to indicate the amount of energy required to produce matter.
LW: Let me see. That would be m=E/c2. Since the amount of energy required must be divided by the speed of light multiplied by itself, it would seem that a gigantic amount of energy would be required to produce even a pinhead of matter.
CV: True, and the amount of energy required to produce the earth would be so large that our most powerful computers could not even begin to come close to that number, much less the energy required to produce the universe itself. Now, let me summarize all of this, where we are up to this point.
1. A Central Intelligence has designed and created all matter.
2. Matter can be created by the transformation of pure energy into matter, but the Energy-matter Equivalence remains the same.
Only One Being Can Control Matter & Energy
LW: Then once energy is converted into matter, the matter can have different characteristics.
CV: True, and the conversion of energy into matter could only be done by some central form of intelligence that has total control, or is the source of all the energy in the universe in the Energy-matter Equivalence. For the sake of simplicity, we will call the Central Intelligence that has control of all energy and matter "CREATOR."
LW: Since, as has been pointed out, the total amount of energy or matter cannot be destroyed, but can only be changed from one form to the other, then this amount of Energy-matter Equivalence must be eternal.
CV: Yes, it is eternal, and furthermore, the Central Intelligence, or the CREATOR who controls all energy and matter must be ETERNAL. From the beginning of mankind observing the starry skies above, whether it was done with the naked eye until the present-day Hubble Telescope, there is no written record of this Energy-matter Equivalence being increased or decreased. Neither is there a record of energy and matter, as a pure source, competing with itself or with any other source of energy matter. Therefore, there is only ONE Central Intelligence in total control of all energy and matter, and that is the CREATOR. For lack of a better term, I will call CREATOR a being, or the Supreme Being or the SOVEREIGN, who totally controls all energy and matter in the universe. For lack of a better pronoun, I will use "He" in reference to Him.
LW: Then there can only be one Supreme Being who has total control of all energy and matter.
CV: Yes. In addition, because the total amount of energy and the total amount of matter are constant and cannot be increased or destroyed, but can be changed from one to the other, they are eternal and are under the control of the Supreme Being, the CREATOR of the Universe.
René Descartes once said, "I think, therefore I am." For whatever reason you and I are here, we are alive on planet Earth. We live, we breathe, we walk, we eat, and we die. We encounter matter all around us, and, in fact, we ourselves are made of matter.
LW: Are you indicating that we are matter, and all matter is transformed from pure energy. How can that be?
CV: For simplicity and because no man knows how it is performed, I will just call the process that the CREATOR used to transform energy into matter "creating." By some process known only to Him, He compressed or hardened, if you would, His energy into matter. Matter, in the form of different chemicals, can take on many forms, structures, and shapes. We can mold it, we can build with it, or we can eat it to sustain life.
LW: Sort of like how water can be invisible vapor, cold ice, or a wet liquid.
CV: Exactly. How would you say that we interact with matter?
LW: Through our five senses; we taste it, we touch it, we smell it, we hear it, and we see it. What we see is actually light energy. As human beings, we can interact with many forms of matter and energy. Are there any forms that we cannot interact with?
CV: Yes. We ourselves cannot interact with radar or radio waves, sonar or many other sound waves. Since we cannot detect them, they are undetectable or invisible to us. To simply restate a very complex system into its most basic form, the CREATOR compressed, by whatever process, energy into matter. The matter that was created appears to be mostly physical matter.
Energy and Matter Conversion
CV: Now, I realize that this is a very, very simplistic approach to a highly complex process and I realize I would be laughed out of any class of physics by using it. However, I have intended to break down a great mystery into a very simplistic understanding to explain the point that there must be a Supreme Being that controls all energy and matter. In the entire universe, there cannot be more than one Supreme Being. Our CREATOR is that one single unit, or being, and is not broken down into two or three or more parts.
LW: Are there very many books that speak of creation?
CV: Yes, there are. However, we will focus in on one book and cover the others later. Only one book makes the claim that the CREATOR of the universe inspired it to be written (Deuteronomy 4:2 and Ezekiel 1:1-3). Only one book proclaims that there is only one Supreme Being (Deuteronomy 6:4) and that He alone, created (Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 104:5) and controls (Job 38:3-4) the universe. Only one book sets forth the beginning and the conclusion of all things (Isaiah 46:9-10). Only one book states that the CREATOR created human beings in His image, in the CREATOR'S image (Genesis 1:27) and He did that from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7). It also states the purpose for that creation (Psalm 8:5-6). That one book is the Hebrew Scripture (the Tanakh or Old Testament).
The Hebrew Scripture states that the one CREATOR created many animals after their kind. For example, He created cows after the cow-kind, and He created dogs after the dog-kind. Each of these animals He created after their kind and in the image and form of their kind. In other words, cows look like cows, and dogs look like dogs. Interestingly, the Hebrew Scripture states that the CREATOR created us in His image and in His form. In other words, we were created after the CREATOR or the Elohim-kind7 because we are in His image and form.
LW: Doesn't it say that He created us from dust, and after death we will return to the dust of the ground, but the spirit will return to Him?
CV: Yes it does, but the part about the spirit is jumping ahead a bit and we will cover the subject of humans8 later. However, the Hebrew Scripture states that He created other beings that are not detectable by our five senses and are invisible to us. For lack of a better term we will call these beings "angels" (Psalm 104:4). The angels are created a little above human beings at this time (Psalm 8:5). The Hebrew Scripture states that the CREATOR built in humankind the ability to determine if our actions are right or wrong, and this means that He gave us free moral agency or a free will to choose. We do not have the authority to declare an action right or wrong; in other words we cannot make or change the rules. But, we can choose to follow the rules and do right or break the rules and do wrong.
The Supreme Being instructed humankind from the beginning in the right way of life. He has told us that He set before us life, and that is right choices; and He set before us death, and that is wrong choices. In addition, He instructed us to choose life—in other words, to make the right choices on how to live (Deuteronomy 30:15-16 and Jeremiah 21:8). To learn to live by making the right choices is called "Developing Righteous Character."
Abraham lived by making right choices; it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6), and he is called the CREATOR'S friend (Isaiah 41:8). Our CREATOR wants us to select the right choices that we may live and be included in His Kingdom that He will set up. If our actions prove that we will follow His will and obey Him, then we are righteous (Genesis 15:6). If we are found to be righteous, we will be selected to be in His kingdom (Daniel 12:2,13), we will live forever (Proverbs 12:28; Genesis 4:22; Daniel 12:2), and then we will be over the angels (Psalm 8:4-6).
LW: Does our CREATOR give us a set of guidelines to live by so that we will know what the right choices are?
CV: Yes, He does. The Hebrew Scripture is divided into three sections: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. The first five books of the Hebrew Scripture are called "The Torah" and are filled with instructions on how to live.
This life is a test to determine if we will follow His path, or rules, or not. In addition to that, He ponders our paths to see what we will do (Proverbs 5:21). If we live by His rules until we die, we will be awakened from the dead and be included in the awakening of everlasting life (Daniel 12:2). On the other hand, if we do not follow His Way we will stand from our graves for the awakening of shame and contempt (Daniel 12:2).
LW: Then why doesn't humankind just simply live by the rules and thus live a happy fulfilled life?
CV: That is a good question Lawrence, it sure would make living easier and more enjoyable.
Creation of Angels
CV: To answer that question, let us back up a little bit to the time of the creation of the angels. Remember they are the non-visible spirit beings that the Supreme Being created. They were also given free moral agency, or the ability to make decisions on their own. The Hebrew Scripture states that humankind was created of the dust of the ground and a little lower than the angels. Thus, we are made of visible matter, and we will die (Genesis 2:17). However, angels are made of invisible material, thus they are eternal (Psalm 104:4).
LW: Have all the angels always made the right decisions?
CV: No. The chief angel tried at one time to overthrow our CREATOR and become the Supreme Being itself (Isaiah 14:13). Of course it failed and was cast back to the earth to live and has now become the adversary of humankind (Isaiah 14:16-17).
LW: Why would it want to overthrow our CREATOR?
CV: Evidently, long ago the angels were also tested as we are being tested now. Some of them must have failed (Job 4:18).
LW: How could a spirit being be tested to determine if it would obey or not?
CV: Well, let us just see if we can develop such a scenario which would show whether spirit beings would obey the CREATOR or not. First, recall that science tells us that at some point in earth-time dinosaurs roamed the earth. Science also tells us that in the time of the dinosaurs, there were life forms that vaguely resembled humans. These creatures were not humans, but were primates like monkeys. An example of these life forms are the Australopithecus, the Neanderthal caveman, and the Cro-Magnon man. For lack of a better term, I will call these prehistoric-caveman-life forms "hominids." They were primates and not human, yet they vaguely resembled humans.
LW: I have wondered about them. Were these prehistoric hominid creatures created or did they evolve as the evolution theory tells us?
CV: Taking a very simplistic approach, remember that matter is compressed or hardened energy by whatever processes the CREATOR used to create matter. Energy cannot compress itself into matter and the one Supreme Being is the only source of all energy, matter, and life. Therefore, He alone created the prehistoric world and when He did, all of the angels shouted with joy (Job 38:7). The earth was created first, and then its prehistoric life forms were created.
LW: Why would our CREATOR even want to create a prehistoric set of life forms on planet earth, especially hominid creatures?
CV: Remember, we are in the process of trying to establish a scenario for testing the angels. What if—I cannot prove the next statement which is totally my own opinion—but, what if the Supreme Being created the prehistoric life-forms of dinosaurs and such creatures and then He created the hominids as a test for the angels?
LW: How could that possibly be a test for the angels?
CV: Remember that science has proved the prehistoric existence of a set of life forms that we can only know about by their remains that have been left. These include the fossils or crude oil that they turned into. Since energy cannot compress itself into matter, the Supreme Being created these prehistoric creatures on earth for some purpose. But, why would He do that? Why would He create a prehistoric situation that would be hostile to humankind, but create these hominids into it?
LW: Are you saying that our CREATOR actually did create hominid people?
CV: No, I am not saying that He created hominid people. However, science has proved that there were so called "cavemen," that were pre-human-being-type creatures on the earth, yet they were not humans. Thus, I am not saying that the CREATOR created people or human beings in prehistoric times. He created primate hominids that rather resembled human beings, but were more like monkeys. Does that answer your question?
LW: Yes, I believe it does, thank you.
CV: Okay, let us go on. What if—and this is also just my own opinion, but, what if—at the time that the CREATOR created these hominids, He told the chief angel that its job was to protect and to help these hominids? Psalms 91:11 tells us that the purpose for angels is to help humans. Well, why not have the angels help hominids? The reason for that assignment would be for them to learn how to protect and to help those hominid creatures.
LW: Why would the CREATOR want the angels to learn how to protect these hominid creatures?
CV: Because the CREATOR knew that He would create humans later on, after the Elohim-kind, or after His kind, in His shape, form, and image. He must have told that to the chief angel—that, at some future time, when He refashioned the earth, humans would be created in His image and would have dominion over all the earth and everything on it (Psalm 8:4-6). The chief angel's job would then be to protect these human beings (Psalm 91:11).
LW: Let me guess what happened. Ezekiel 28:12 states that the chief angel was created the sum total of perfection and beauty. Thus, it must have decided at some point to rebel because it did not want these human beings that would be created at a future time in the form of the Elohim-kind to have dominion over the earth as well as the angels that were there.
CV: Sounds like you have it summed up perfectly. Let me ask you a question. What would your decision have been to the following scenario? First, you were created the chief angel, the sum total of perfection and beauty. Second, you had even spread your wings over the very throne of the CREATOR (Ezekiel 28:14). Then you were told that the reason for your creation was to help these humans that were to be created later on who would have dominion over the earth and all that was there.
LW: Well, I guess that my first thoughts would have been, that having been created the sum total of perfection and beauty that things just never could get any better than that. However, after being told that I would have to be servant to human beings, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have been very jealous and had a hard time with it. However, I just sincerely hope that I would have made the right decision and followed the CREATOR's Plan.
CV: That's a very good answer, Lawrence, and I feel the same way. I just hope that if I were in that position I would follow the CREATOR's will and do as He wanted. Whether or not the test that the angels went through was the scenario that we have gone through, I do not know. However, that does explain to me why the CREATOR would even bother to have a prehistoric creation. Because science has shown there were creatures here before humankind—prehistoric creatures like dinosaurs and these hominids. But whether that was the test or not, the Hebrew Scripture shows that there was a test of some sort and that some of the angels failed and even attempted to overthrow the Supreme Being and take control of the universe (Ezekiel 28:15, 18). Some angels passed the test and were obedient (Psalm 103:20). I realize this is an outstanding statement to make, so I want to go back over this with Scripture.
Ezekiel 28:1. 9 “The word of ETERNAL came to me again, saying, ‘Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre...’”
We will see as we go through this that two different types of beings were discussed. One is a mortal physical human being and the other is the chief angel, a spirit being.
...28:2. “Thus says ETERNAL CREATOR: “because your heart is lifted up, and you say, 'I am a g-d, I sit in the seat of ‘g-ds,’ In the midst of the seas,' yet you are a man, and not a g-d. Though you set your heart as the heart of a g-d."
The word “g-d” used here is with a lower case “g” and the prince is specifically referred to as a man. Remember the Pharaoh in Egypt was thought to be the “the g-d” of Egypt. Thus, this physical king, puffed up with pride, claimed to be a “the g-d."
...28:3-10. “Behold, you are wiser than Daniel! There is no secret that can be hidden from you! With your wisdom and your understanding you have gained riches for yourself, and gathered gold and silver into your treasuries. By your great wisdom in trade you have increased your riches, and your heart is lifted up because of your riches." Therefore, thus says ETERNAL CREATOR: “Because you have set your heart as the heart of a ‘g-d,’ behold, therefore, I will bring strangers against you, the most terrible of the nations. And they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom, and defile your splendor. They shall throw you down into the Pit, and you shall die the death of the slain In the midst of the seas. Will you still say before him who slays you, 'I am a ‘g-d’? But you shall be a man, and not a ‘g-d’, In the hand of him who slays you. You shall die the death of the uncircumcised, by the hand of aliens. For I have spoken,” says ETERNAL CREATOR.”
The Chief Angel
Tyre was an island city fortified with high walls and the sea. ETERNAL had said (Ezekiel 26) that its enemies would destroy the city of Tyre and it happened. In 332, BCE after a seventh-month siege, Alexander the Great destroyed it by building an earthen bridge to the island. The next section of verses is obviously speaking of a spirit being because it was in Eden and yet was still alive. This being was addressed as the king of Tyre, whereas the man was the prince of Tyre. This being could not have been Adam because he had long since been dead. Starting in verse 11:
Ezekiel 28:11-13. Moreover the Word of ETERNAL came to me, saying, “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says ETERNAL CREATOR, you were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of the CREATOR. Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.”
Humans are born, but the being in question here was created. There was a specific day this cherub was created. We know it had the ability to produce music by the mention of musical instruments that were prepared in it.
...28:14-16. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you. You were on the set-apart mountain of CREATOR. You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading, you became filled with violence within, and you sinned. Therefore, I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of CREATOR and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones.
This spirit being that rebelled was the anointed chief cherub that covered. In other words, it covered the very throne of the CREATOR with its wings. Thus this being who was the sum total of beauty and perfection was found with iniquity. Notice that from this point the narrative seems to fade back to referring to the prince of Tyre, the man.
...28:17-19. "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, that they might gaze at you. You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading. Therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all whom saw you. All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you. You have become a horror, and shall be no more forever".
LW: I am getting a little bit confused. The prince of Tyre is a human being, a man. I assume Ezekiel is talking to him as a man, and then our CREATOR comes to Ezekiel and tells him to go to the king of Tyre. Evidently, the king of Tyre is a spirit being, which would definitely be Lucifer from all accounts. That is a little bit confusing to me. How could the prince be a man and the king be Lucifer?
CV: That's a good question and to answer it let us go back to verse 16 referring to the chief angel.
...28:16. Therefore, I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of the CREATOR and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones.
The English word "destroyed" comes from the Hebrew word "'abad" (aw-bad') and in Strong's it is #H6 and means to wander away, i.e. lose oneself. It does not mean to destroy so that it will be consumed or vanish. It means that it will not be where it was; it has been removed, but it does not mean destroyed. Referring back to verse 18:
...28:18. You have defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic. Therefore, I will bring forth a fire from the midst of you, it shall devour you, and I will bring you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold you.
The English word "devour" comes from the Hebrew word "'akal" (aw-kal') and in Strong's it is #H398 and means to eat, burn up, consume or literally "to totally destroy". Whereas in verse 16, the spirit being is not destroyed but is removed or driven away. Malachi 4:3 states that the wicked will become ashes under the feet of the righteous. This ties back into verses 18 and 19, speaking again about the prince of Tyre, who is the man, the human being. Turn if you would to Isaiah 14:4 speaking of the king of Babylon.
Isaiah 14:4-8. That you will take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: “how the oppressor has ceased, the golden city ceased! ETERNAL has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers. He who struck the people in wrath with a continual stroke, He, who ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted and no one hinders. The whole earth is at rest and quiet; they break forth into singing. Indeed the cypress trees rejoice over you, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, 'Since you were cut down, no woodsman has come up against us.’”
When the king of Babylon is destroyed, the whole world will rejoice saying no one is going to come up against us. Symbolically the trees are saying that we can rejoice because no one is going to come cut us down.
...14:9-10. Hell from beneath is excited about you, to meet you at your coming; it stirs up the dead for you, all the chief ones of the earth. It has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. They all shall speak and say to you, “Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?"
"Hell" in the above verse is the Hebrew word Sheol and means: the grave. In reality, there is no ever-burning hell to torture people forever, but we will cover that later.10 In the following verses, Sheol ties in with the pit. Going on, the text begins to fade into the spirit being again.
Isaiah 14:11-12. Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the sound of your stringed instruments; the maggot is spread under you, and worms cover you. How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!
The word "Lucifer" is a Latin word and means "the bright and morning star." The Hebrew word "heylel" (hay-lale') in Strong's is #H1966 and means "the bright and morning star." There is also a New Testament reference, but we will cover that later except to note now that the brightest morning star is the sun. Originally, it was to be Heylel's job to bring truth and light from our CREATOR.
...14:13-15. For you have said in your heart: “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of the CREATOR. I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High." Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit.
After that allegory, speaking of how Lucifer was the bright and morning star, because of its iniquity, Lucifer was cast down to the earth. Now we fade back to the king—the physical human king.
...14:16-17. Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying: “Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?" All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, everyone in his own house.
LW: Since the Supreme Being has total control of all energy and matter, it was a stupid decision on the part of the chief angel to rebel and try to overthrow the CREATOR. For ‘It’ and the angels who followed were cast back down to earth and became the adversaries of humankind.
CV: Exactly. That is stated in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 which we have just covered. We will call the chief angel who is our adversary, Heylel. The Hebrew word "Heylel" is the same spelling as the English word "Heylel." It is pronounced in Hebrew as "saw-tawn'," and it simply means: the adversary.
Some of the angels passed the test and are helpful to humankind. An example is the angel that helped Hagar in Genesis 21:17-19.
No angel, whether fallen or otherwise, can control a human being. They can influence humans into making the wrong choices. For example, Eve was influenced into making the wrong choice in Genesis 3:13--and King David in making the wrong choice in I Chronicles 21:1. However, in the final analysis, we human beings, must choose right or wrong. Physical life here on this earth is our test, and the CREATOR has placed before us life and death and has instructed us to choose life (Deuteronomy 30:15-18).
LW: The scriptures state that the chief fallen angel was the sum of perfection and beauty. What would have been its position if it had passed the test?
CV: The original Hebrew name for this fallen chief is "Heylel" but the Latin word "Lucifer" is used and Lucifer both mean "the bright and the morning star" and its job would have been to influence human beings into making the right decisions to obey the CREATOR. Instead, “It” has chosen to be the adversary of human kind. When we refer to Heylel we will use the pronoun "It" and maybe "She." There are indications in the scripture as to the gender of Heylel, but we will cover that later.
LW: If Lucifer is a Latin word, why is it used in the English King James Version of the Hebrew Scripture?
CV: The Supreme Being has allowed our adversary to fool humankind in order to complicate matters and make the test that we must pass more difficult. Our CREATOR wants to see if we will truly Quest and search diligently for Him and for wisdom. As the slogan of the "X-Files" TV program states, "The truth is out there." We just need to find it.
The Hebrew Scripture is absolutely true and is total. What was originally written was inspired by the CREATOR. He will not let Scripture be perverted into total false statements. Yet, He has allowed some small amount of sleight of hand trickery in order to make our search for Him and His wisdom truly a Quest for the untarnished, real truth. It is too bad that Heylel failed the test because it could have been of great help to humankind and still be the chief angel who spread its wings over the throne of the Supreme Being.
LW: Let me see if I have all of this correct. The Supreme Being controls all energy and matter. He converted or hardened energy into matter that is visible to us because we are created out of matter. Yet, He created angels out of energy into some kind of material that is invisible to us.
CV: Yes that is correct.
LW: Then the CREATOR gave the angels some sort of test which some failed. They were created to be helpful to humans, but now some of them are our adversaries. In addition, the CREATOR has allowed the chief adversary to hide its name and true self from us.
CV: Exactly, and in addition, the CREATOR has allowed Heylel to hide the CREATOR's Name and how it is pronounced.
LW: What is our CREATOR's Name?
CV: The Hebrew letters of His Name are hwhy (Yod He Waw He). The English letters of His Name mean ETERNAL.11
LW: How could Heylel do this and why would it want to?
CV: The Supreme Being has allowed the adversary to have some influence over us by putting thoughts into our minds to do wrong things. Thus, He has allowed Heylel to influence some of the things the scribes and translators wrote in transcribing or translating the He brew Scripture. One thing that the CREATOR allowed was for the adversary to hide its own name—Heylel. Remember the name means "the bright and morning star" (Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16). This single act has had tremendous effect on all of the religious activities of human kind from the very beginning, but we will cover that point later.
Another thing the CREATOR has allowed Heylel to do is to hide the CREATOR's name. Hebrew is the original language of the Hebrew Scripture. It is written using consonants only without any vowels.
Vowel points are used where the vowels should be. For example, your name Lawrence written without vowels, but using vowel points would be “L.WR.NC." In addition, Heylel has influenced the Jewish scribes to think that it is blasphemy to speak the name of our CREATOR. Therefore, they even left the points out where the vowels should be. The English version of our CREATOR's name is (or means) "ETERNAL" with no indication of how many vowels are needed or where they should be placed. (would you look at that sentence? Does it sound right to you?) The Jewish scribes, under the influence of Heylel, have done a perfect job in hiding the correct pronunciation of our CREATOR's Name. The English word “Lord” is used instead of "ETERNAL." 12
LW: What happened when Heylel tried to take control of the universe and tried to replace the CREATOR?
CV: We cannot say for sure, but the universe gives many clues as to what happened. Since there can only be one Supreme Being who controls all energy and matter, Heylel was doomed from the start and was cast back down to the earth (Isaiah 14:9-12, Ezekiel l 28:17). The second verse in the first chapter of the Hebrew Scripture states...
Genesis 1:2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The English word "void" comes from the Hebrew word "bohuw" (bo-hoo) #H922 in Strong's and means an undistinguishable ruin. The two English words "without form" come from the Hebrew word "tohuw" (to'-hoo) #H8414 in Strong's and means to lie waste, a desolation of surface. Isaiah 45:18 tells us the earth was not created "without form" and again: the only one SOVEREIGN or CREATOR.
Isaiah 45:18. For thus says ETERNAL, who created the heavens, who is CREATOR, who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain (tohuw), who formed it to be inhabited. “I am ETERNAL, and there is no other."
Psalms 104:30 tells us that ETERNAL sent forth His Spirit and renewed the face of the earth. It was not created in tohuw, bohuw, an undistinguishable ruin, and without form, but it had become that way. Since it had become an undistinguishable ruin between the prehistoric creation and our present creation, something gigantic must have happened.
LW: Then evidently there was a struggle for control when Heylel rebelled, and the resulting war destroyed the earth in sort of a pre-historic "Star Wars."
CV: Again, we cannot know this for sure because we were not there. However, there are clues that indicate that there was a struggle of mighty proportions that had taken place before the time of Genesis 1:1, when the CREATOR refashioned and reformed the shape of the earth.
LW: What are some of these clues?
CV: If you look at the surface pictures of the moon or Mars, for example, you see their surfaces are full of potholes and scattered debris. The only thing that could have caused these craters and strewn boulders would be to have been struck with meteors of various sizes, which could have been the result of a gigantic prehistoric struggle.
LW: Yes, I have seen some of the pictures that NASA has sent back from the surface of both the moon and Mars. The surfaces are filled with craters, and there are many sizes of rocks scattered all around. In fact, there are many large craters on earth such as Crater Lake. What could have caused these things?
CV: Well, let me say again that no one can say for sure, but there had to have been a source for the materials that pock-marked the surfaces of the moon, earth, and Mars. I have read scientific speculation that there was originally another planet in our solar system. If that is true, then it was destroyed in a prehistoric struggle for power when Heylel tried to overthrow the one Supreme Being. That would account for a lot of things that took place in our solar system.
LW: What are some of the other things?
CV: Something was destroyed, whether it was another planet or not; who is to say. However, whatever it was left a trail of destruction. This would account for all of the craters on the surfaces of the earth, the moon, and Mars. It would also account for the strewn rocks and boulders on the moon and Mars. In addition, the asteroid belt around the sun seems to be the remains of something; also, the rings of Saturn appeared as the gravity of that planet pulled some of the debris toward itself. It could also account for some of the moons around Jupiter and the comets that circle the sun. It would certainly account for the sudden destruction of the prehistoric creatures, of the dinosaurs and hominids.
LW: That could also account for the fact that the book of Genesis begins with the earth in utter confusion and disarray and covered with water. Nevertheless, where would the water come from?
CV: That is hinted at in Scripture, but we will cover that at another time. We will continue with the earth being refashioned by our CREATOR and the creation of the life forms that we know of today. The Hebrew Scripture states that humankind began with the creation of Adam and Eve and that Heylel, the adversary, influenced them into disobedience. Heylel has been influencing humans ever since into making wrong decisions. Humans became so corrupt with evil and sin that the CREATOR had to destroy them with water—an earth-covering flood called "The Deluge."
LW: Was Heylel able to influence all of humankind or human beings?
CV: No. There were a few that walked and talked with the ETERNAL and obeyed His Ways.
LW: I thought you said spirit-beings were invisible, so how could He walk and talk with human kind? (human kind also means civilization)
CV: Spirit-beings are invisible. However, by whatever process, they can manifest themselves so that we can see them. Somehow, they can change themselves into matter so that we can react with them with our five senses. For example, Abraham, when he saw the CREATOR and two angels (Genesis 18:1-2), and Jacob when he wrestled with the CREATOR all night (Genesis 32:1-2; 32:24-29).
LW: Who are some others who walked and talked with the ETERNAL our CREATOR and followed His ways?
CV: Before the flood, there was Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and his son was Methuselah, whose son was Lamech, whose son was Noah. Noah found grace in the sight of ETERNAL (Genesis 6:8). Since Enoch and his great-grandson Noah followed the one ETERNAL CREATOR, then Enoch must have been the patriarch of a family line of people who followed our CREATOR's Ways. The civil statutes of the city or cities that this clan lived in would have been based on the ways of life CREATOR told (or taught) their patriarch. Thus, if any cuneiform tablets of civil laws were found that predated the deluge; their contents would naturally follow the instructions of the way of life ETERNAL gave Enoch, and later Moses. Whatever the CREATOR told Enoch was the exact same thing that He later told Moses because He is ETERNAL and cannot change.
LW: So even though the CREATOR had not yet given His laws and statutes to Moses, that does not mean that the civil codes of earlier cities would not have been based on the CREATOR's Word. ETERNAL explained His Ways to Enoch, who explained them to his clan and so forth. Therefore, the civil statutes that were found on cuneiform tablets in the remains of earlier cities would naturally have been based on the Ten Commandments.
CV: Bingo! You have it.
LW: That explains why the civil codes on any cuneiform tablets found in the ruins of cities from before the deluge were based on the Ten Commandments. But what about any cities after the flood?
CV: Coming through the deluge were Noah and his son, Shem. They would be the patriarchs of the first cities after the flood. Noah, Shem, and their clan would have written the civil structure of these cities. These civil structures would have been based on what Noah and Shem learned from Enoch's clan and would be reinforced with words from the CREATOR as He spoke with Noah (Genesis 7:1; 8:15).
LW: Was Shem also close to our ETERNAL CREATOR?
CV: Yes, he was. Genesis 9:26 states: "Blessed be the 'Lord, The Sovereign' of Shem." Or better stated it would be: "Blessed be ETERNAL, the SOVEREIGN of Shem." Nowhere does Scripture state that ETERNAL was the SOVEREIGN of Noah's other sons, Ham and Japheth.
LW: Okay. You seem to make a distinction and set apart Noah and Shem as a clan distinct and separate from Ham, Japheth, and their clans.
CV: That distinction is made by the Hebrew Scripture and not by me. I am only stating what is written. Noah is described as being perfect in his generations (Genesis 6:9). The English word "perfect" comes from the Hebrew word "tamiym" (taw-meem) which is #H8549 in Strong's and means "entire, integrity, and without blemish." The English word "generations" comes from the Hebrew word "towledah" (to-led-aw') which is #H8435 in Strong's and it means "descent or family history." In other words, Noah had a pure, single bloodline, which can easily be traced back to Adam's third son Seth (Genesis 5:4-32).
Obviously, Ham and Japheth had interracial marriages before the flood because the first time the word "gentile" is used in the Hebrew Scripture it is referring to the descendants of Ham and Japheth (Genesis 10:5). Let us look at that verse in Scripture (but you, the reader, need to check the context).
Genesis 10:5. From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
LW: If the descendants of Ham and Japheth are called "Gentiles", what about the descendants of Shem? What are they called?
CV: Let us look at Genesis.
Genesis 10:21-24. Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. The children of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. The children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. And Arphaxad begot Salah; and Salah begot Eber."
The word Eber is interesting and we will use its meaning later in referring to Abraham. It is the same as the Hebrew word "Eber" (ay'-ber) and in Strong's is #H5676 and means a region across; on the opposite side (especially of the Jordan; usually means the east). However, to answer the question, Shem's descendants are called Semites in AHD.13
1. Semite: A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. Bible: A descendant of Shem.
3. A Jew. [This is what Semite means today, but we want the Scriptural definition.]
4. Compton's 14 adds Assyrians to the list of Semites.
As time passed, the Semites became a large river of many clans speaking many languages and following different religions but the original clan lived in Mesha (Genesis 10:30) and Ur of the Chaldeans (Genesis 11:28). Notice that Shem and Noah's descendants formed these cities:
Genesis 10:30-11:1. And their dwelling place was from Mesha as you go toward Sephar, the mountain of the east. These were the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their nations. These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these, the nations were divided on the earth after the flood. Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.
...11:28. And Haran died before his father Terah in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
LW: From Noah descended the two general classifications of people. If they were descendants of Shem, they were Semites and if they were descendants of Ham and Japheth, they were Gentiles. In addition, everyone from Adam until the tower of Babel all spoke the same language.
CV: Yes that is what the Hebrew Scripture states.
LW: Where does Abraham fit into this river of Semites who descended from Shem?
CV: Picking up where we left off with Eber...
Genesis 11:16-31. Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg.... [who]... begot Reu.... [who]... begot Serug.... [who] begot Nahor.... [who] begot Terah.... [who] begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. [who] begot Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in his native land, in Ur of the Chaldeans. ... Then Abram and Nahor took wives ... the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, ... But Sarai was barren; she had no child. And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, ... and his daughter-in-law Sarai ... and they went out ... from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there.
It is interesting to note here that Terah had set out for Canaan. Since Shem15 later ended up being the Priest of the Almighty in Salem (Genesis 14:18) which later became Jerusalem, Shem and his clan must have been informed by the CREATOR that He would set up a sub-group of Semites in Canaan. The first time the word Hebrew is used is in Genesis.
Genesis 14:13.. "And there came one that had escaped [as Lot was taken captive], and told Abram the Hebrew; who dwelt in the plains of Mamre."
The English word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "'Ibriy" (ib-ree') #H5680 in Strong's and means a descent of Eber or an Eberite. Remember the word Eber means a region across or the other side. To quote the note for Genesis 14:1316 from the Stone Edition:
"Abraham was called the Ivri from the word: the other side. Literally, this means that he came from the other side of the Euphrates. Figuratively, he was on the other side of a moral and spiritual divide from the rest of the world. Alternatively, the name means that he was a descendant of Eber. Only Abraham's descendants are called ‘Ivrim’ for they alone spoke Hebrew, Eber's language.”
Now keep that point in mind. But before we go any further, we in United Hebrew Congregations—are just like Abraham. We are on the other side of a moral and spiritual divide from the rest of the world. We are not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic—we are Hebrews. We are Questing for the faith of the Hebrew Scripture which I believe is the single faith of the clan of the patriarchs, the Abrahamic Hebrew faith. This same belief as our Hebrew fathers has our ETERNAL CREATOR as ONE being, the Supreme Being who created the heavens and the earth.
The reason religious groups are different from us, is because they all have other books that they claim to be holy to them and supersede the Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures as I prefer to say. The Jews have two books, the "Talmud" and the "Midrash." The Muslims have a book called the "Koran." The Christians have a book called the "New Testament." The Mormons have a book called the "Book of Mormon." All of these books supposedly supersede, override, and bear more reverence than the Hebrew Scripture. So we, just like Abraham, are on the other side of a moral and spiritual divide from the rest of the world.
LW: Since Eber was of Shem's clan and spoke Hebrew, then Shem must have spoken Hebrew because the entire world spoke the same language after the Deluge until the tower of Babel.
CV: That is true. I am just beginning to study the Hebrew language. I cannot speak it yet, but I can recognize some of the letters and there is something that is a question in my mind. Looking at the Hebrew in The Jerusalem Bible, by Corinth Publishers in Jerusalem, 1997, the first three words translated into English are: "Beginning created ELOHIM," then separated by a space come two Hebrew letters: “aleph and tau” however they are not translated. Then the next translated words are: “the heavens” then after a space there are three Hebrew letters: “vav, aleph, and tau” which also are not translated. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon states that: "vav” is copulative (adj. coupled or joined) and serves in connecting both words. I would guess that the original creation of the Hebrew alphabet is being emphasized. Then the next translated words are: “the earth."
I checked with someone who speaks Hebrew and when I pointed this out to him, he was amazed just as I was. He had not realized Genesis 1:1 was written that way either. He told me that aleph and tau usually refers to the Hebrew alphabet. So putting that all together in a new sentence, I believe it means...
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning created ELOHIM the Hebrew alphabet, the heavens, the Hebrew alphabet (emphasized meaning He spoke it to create), and the earth.
I am not a Hebrew scholar, but it seems to me, this Scripture is stating that, in the beginning ELOHIM created the Hebrew language, a physical language, then spoke it and created the heavens and the earth. I realize by saying that, I am going out on a limb. However, those letters are there and they are not translated in all of the fifteen or so translations that I have. In thinking about it, Heylel would not want the world to know that Hebrew was the original language.
My Hebrew speaking friend also said, "The English word 'heavens' actually should be translated 'waters,’” but we will cover that later. Another point that I want to bring out is from the Encyclopedia Britannica17 in an article about the Hebrew language...
"The Aramaic hand in use in Babylon was adopted by the Jews about the fifth century 'BCE.' Another form of the same hand allowing the differences of material is found in the Egyptian Aramaic papyri of the fifth and fourth centuries 'BCE.' From these were developed the square character used in the missals of the Bible."
The square characters are used today in the Hebrew Scriptures. The square modern Hebrew letters used for "ETERNAL" are h w h y (Yod He Waw He).
LW: What did the Hebrew writings before the fifth century look like?
CV: In Gesenius' comparative table of ancient alphabets, the ancient Hebrew characters look exactly like the cuneiform script of the ancient Phoenician, Samaritans, and Greeks.
LW: What is a cuneiform script?
CV: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary states:
“Cuneiform - 1. Wedge-shaped. 2. Writing typified by the use a character of characters formed by the arrangement of small wedge-shaped elements and used in ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian writing.”
The Hebrew language is one of the Semitic languages of the Middle East. In the ancient Hebrew script, the letters for "ETERNAL" are hwhy (Yod He Vav He) and it was originally used to record the Hebrew Scriptures. The table in Gesenius' shows that the ancient Hebrews also used a cuneiform writing script.
LW: Then the scholars are wrong in saying that the ancient Hebrews could not write and that the Hebrew Scriptures were copied from ancient Gentile writings.
CV: Yes that appears to be true because Enoch's clan before the Deluge, and Shem's after it, were the people who started the first cities. Babylon was not the first city and we will cover Babylon on Part II of this series. Remember the American Heritage Electronic Dictionary stated that the ancient Sumerians also used cuneiform script.
LW: Who were the Sumerians?
CV: American Heritage states for "Sumerian:
1. Of or relating to ancient Sumer or its people, language, or culture
2. A member of an ancient people, probably of non-Semitic origin, who established a nation
of city-states in Sumer in the fourth millennium [BCE] that is one of the earliest known historic civilizations.”
American Heritage's usage of the word "probably" means they do not know or will not reveal if the Sumerians were Semitic or Gentile. However, Zecharia Sitchin18 states Sumer was:
"The first great civilization known to man." He states, "the early name for southern Mesopotamia, just as the Book of Genesis had clearly stated [Genesis 10:10]: 'The royal cities of Babylon, Akkad, and Erech were in 'the land of Shin'ar.' (Shinar is the Biblical name for Sumer.)" With the exception that, "in 1869 Jules Oppert mispronounced the name to the French Society of Archaeology, it should have been 'Shumer' and not Sumer."
Babel was built in the ancient land of Shinar, so the Scriptural word Shinar has come to be associated with Babylon. The early Sumerians (p23): "stylized wedge writing on soft clay tablets to become the cuneiform writing that was [later] adopted by the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and other nations of the ancient Near East."
Sitchin then discussed medical practice and states, (p33) "A Sumerian tablet excavated in Ur, nearly 5,000 years old, names a medical practitioner as the doctor." The point being, that Sitchin indicates that the Sumerians lived in Ur and we already saw that the forefathers of Abraham lived in Ur. Therefore, I suggest to you that the cuneiform writings of Ur prove that the ancient Sumerians are the clan of Shem and thus the forefathers of Abraham and the Hebrews.
All languages were the same until the tower of Babel which was established after the Shemites established Ur. After the tower of Babel was destroyed, only the Hebrews retained the ancient Hebrew cuneiform which must have been the original language.
In summary, we have seen that:
1. There is a single Supreme Being and He created the cosmos and all that is in it.
2. He created a chief angel with the total sum of perfection and beauty. Its name is "Heylel" which means "the bright and morning star."
3. Human kind was created a little lower than the angels.
4. This chief angel rebelled and became our chief adversary.
5. It was purposed by the CREATOR that Heylel was to help and teach human kind.
6. The word Lucifer, a Latin word, was used to hide the adversary's original purpose.
7. The clans of Enoch and Shem followed the way of ETERNAL and they built the first cities.
8. The Sumerians were the first to use the cuneiform alphabet on clay tablets.
9. Since the ancient Hebrew script is cuneiform, it could have been the original language.
10. The Sumerians began the city of Ur from which the ancestry of Abraham began.
11. The descendants of Shem are Semites and the descendants of Ham and Japheth are Gentiles.
LW: Thank you Charles, and we will be with you all again on the UHC forum, "In the Beginning – Part II."

[ In the Beginning Part 2 ]
[ The Children of Eden and SHE Introduction ]
[ The Hope of Israel Main Page ]

Footnotes
[1] The Hubble Telescope has photographed many universes in one huge Cosmos.
[2] Strong s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew Numbers H/5730/5731/5727 adan’ (aw-dan’) pleasure: delicate delight, to be soft or pleasant; figuratively and reflexively to live voluptuously.
[3] Job 38:4-7
[4] Ezekiel 28:13
[5] Paraphrased from Genesis 3:1.
[6] MYSTERY BABYLON THE CREAT The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth, by Darrell W. Conder,Commonwealth Publishing, 1995, p. 1.
[7] ELOHIM is the Hebrew word that is translated "The Sovereign." That means we are in the same shape and form as our CREATOR. It does not mean that we are created of the same material that He is composed of. He created us out of matter, out of the dust of the earth, and we are part of a material universe that is detectable by our five senses.
[8] Read our article "When a Man Dies, Shall He Live Again?" and ”the Wonderful World of Tomorrow.”
[9] Unless noted all Scripture if from the New Kings James Version.
[10] See our article "When a Man Dies, Shall He live Again?" and also “The Wonderful World of Tomorrow.”
[11] In the Hebrew Scriptures our CREATOR tells us to call upon His Name hwhy, in the older Paleo Hebrew, being translated into English as the “Ever Living One” or simply “ETERNAL.” Note that this is a translation of the meaning and not a transliterationa of the sound as the sound of His Name is not known at this time. The Name of our SOVEREIGN is not known today because He took it away. Notice these startling statements.
a A Hebrew name is transliterated into English by a phonetic spelling of its sound.
Please read these verses in context beginning in Jeremiah chapter forty:
Jeremiah 44:26-28. Therefore hear the word of ‘Yehovah’ (H3068), all Judah who dwell in the land of Egypt. “Behold, I have sworn by My great name,” says ‘Yehovah,’ “that My name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, ‘Adonay’ (136) ‘Yehovih’ (3069) lives. Behold, I will watch over them for adversity and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, until there is an end to them. Yet a small number who escape the sword shall return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, [ but return without the Name ] and all the remnant of Judah, who have gone to the land of Egypt to dwell there, shall know whose words will stand, Mine or theirs.”b
b ETERNAL gives this as proof of Scripture, that the Jews do not know His Name. In addition, by this time period, Israel had long since been taken into captivity and did not use or know the Name: thus the Jews were the only ones who had it and it was taken from them and locked up. Therefore, according to Scripture, no one now has it. The Name is now unknown.
Strong’s states that “Yehovih” (3069), a variation of “Yehovah” (3068) used after Adonay (136), and pronounced by Jews as Elohiym (430), in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce Yehovah (3068) as Adonay (136).
Ed Note: No wonder it is lost! In addition to that the Jews in Babylon chose to lose it:
"When in captivity in Babylon the Jewish people learned certain practices from their heathen captors. One of these items was the practice of “ineffability.” This was the practice of not speaking the name of your mighty one in an effort not to make him angry. After this practice was adopted by the Jewish scribes, the Name hwhy disappeared some 6813 times from the Hebrew Scriptures and was replaced by “Adonai.” This Babylonian substitution was justified by saying that the Namehwhy was so reverent that it just could not be spoken. Eventually, “Adonai” was replaced with “HaShem, which means the Name.” The English ‘Bibles’ have put “ETERNAL” in all of those 6813 places.” (adapted from K. Laymon)
Notice in the below quotation how the CREATOR uses His Name constantly in the first person. The Scriptures speak of “calling upon the Name of ETERNAL” which conveys a completely unrelated meaning when mistranslated and says, “calling upon the Name of the L-rd.” People call upon many so-called the g-ds and l-rds. We hear constant talk of this L-rd of this or ETERNAL of that and one might just ask, “Well, who is this L-rd? What is his name? What L-rd of what religion are you talking about?” Notice what Jeremiah says:
Jeremiah 33:2-3. Thus says ETERNAL, who made the earth, ETERNAL, who formed it to establish it, ETERNAL is His Name. “Call to Me and I will answer you. I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.”
But you may ask, “If we do not know what His Name is, how can we call on it?” Let’s let ETERNAL answer that through Isaiah:
Isaiah 52:6. Therefore, My people shall know My name; therefore, they shall know in that dayc that I am He who speaks: “Behold, it is I.”
c In that day refers to the Time of Jacob’s Trouble and the Advent of the Prophet and the Mashiach.
ETERNAL took His Name away and He will give it again. Notice that “shall know” is future. We will know when we are given a new language (see Zephaniah 3:8-9; Jeremiah 16:21; Ezekiel 36:23; 39:7). In the meantime for His Name we must use the best that we have and that is the meaning of His Name which is ETERNAL (Strong’s #H3068/H1961; [the] self-Existent or ETERNAL).
ETERNAL also stated that we should not even “make mention of the name of the heathen g-ds” (Josh. 23:7; Jeremiah 23:26-27). Humankind again, has done just the opposite. Therefore, whenever I speak or write about one of the b-als, I will leave out a vowel or two (e.g. j-sus or jc). However, if it is a direct quote of someone and they use one of these names I will put them in quotes, either single ‘~’ or double “~”. When quoting Scripture, I will use ETERNAL for “the L-rd” and I will use CREATOR, The Mighty One, or SOVEREIGN for “G-d.” Furthermore, notice what Unger’s Bible Dictionary states:
J-hovah (je-ho´va) Heb. ETERNAL, (LXX usually ho Kurios), the name of “The Sovereign” most frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures; but commonly represented - we cannot say rendered - in the Authorized Version by “Lord.” The true pronunciation of this name, by which “The Sovereign” was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost by the Jews. The Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it, and substituting in its stead one or more points in how it may happen to be written, usually the name “Adonai.” They continued to write “YHVH,” but read Adonai, where the Sovereign is called “My Lord Jehovah” (“Adonai” “g-d”).
In addition, the name of a supposed ‘g-d’ being used that is in quotes (i.e. “some name”) is the word of the original author, as I do not use these words myself.
[12]. Since the actual sound of the CREATOR's name has been lost, I will use the meaning of the name "the existing one who was and is" or simply, "ETERNAL." Dr. James Moffatt uses this name in his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew word “ELOHIM” is translated as “The Sovereign." But the actual meaning of the word is "the Almighty CREATOR" or just "CREATOR." I will use the word “CREATOR”, “SOVEREIGN”, or “The Mighty One." The derivation of the words "Lord" and "The Sovereign" are covered in our article "Who is ‘G-d?’” or “‘G-d’ Is..."
[13] From American Heritage Electronic Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Co. 1992.
[14] The Compton's Reference Collection, 1996 Compton's NewMedia, Inc.
[15]. Reference our article New Proof of the Messiah chapter 2.
[16]. The ArtScroll Series, Published by Menorah Publications Published in 1996, page 28,
[17] Encyclopedia Britannica, the Eleventh Edition, 1911, p 168. In an article about the Hebrew language.
[18] The 12th Planet, Avon Books, p27, on p22.