What is the Study of Edenics?
“In the Beginning, Before There Was The Word”
Note: In the several years since this document was written, continuing research has led us to the use of the term ‘Edenic’ as the earliest language and ‘Edenics’ as the study of that language. The term ‘Edenic is less cumbersome than proto-Hebrew, pre-Hebrew or proto-Semitic. Many people seem defensive about terms such as ‘Proto-Semitic,’ or ‘Proto-Hebrew’ and especially that ‘B’ word…Biblical. If use of ‘Edenic’ can allow readers to examine the evidence calmly and thoughtfully we believe the scholarship and preponderance of evidence will become clear. The use of the term Edenic is also more accurate, since the language long predates connection with anything ‘Semitic’ or ‘Hebrew.’ And, of course, it predates any connection with the ‘J’ word…Jewish. Edenics is everyone’s proto-language, including yours!
The Tower of Babel scenario of the Biblical account in Genesis 11 posits that all people spoke the same language before the Lord confused human tongues. Up until the nineteenth century it was common knowledge that the pre-Babel tongue was the language of the Bible, Ancient Hebrew and the language of Adam and Eve. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was so revered that the first dissertation in the New World, at Harvard College, was on Hebrew as The Mother Tongue. The Continental Congress nearly made Hebrew the language of the new republic, as much to break away from England as to reaffirm America’s status as the new Promised Land.
Post-Darwinian thinking dealt harshly with the lexicography of Noah Webster, whose dictionary offered “Shemitic” (Semitic) origins for many English and European terms from Germanic, Greek or Latin initial sources. It was thought that Asians, Africans and Semites evolved from separate monkeys than did the Aryans, and so these foreign tongues could have no extensive relationship to that of the different (thus superior) Indo-Europeans who dominated from Ireland in the West to India in the East.
Silent challenges to the racist and anti-biblical status quo were made by Englishman Arthur Hall in 1894 and American Simon Perlman in 1947. Their privately issued books linking English back to ancient Hebrew were too small and too flawed to make a dent in the academic linguistic community. After a decade of research came Mozeson’s The Word: The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English (first published by Shapolsky, NY in 1989) offering 22,000 English words linked back to Hebrew. Unlike previous attempts, only accepted linguistic methods were used, and all the etymological steps leading back to Hebrew were cited. While hailed by many religious thinkers and secular hard scientists (not involved in historical linguistics), The Word was the object of obsessive attacks by philologists like Noam Chomsky (the MIT professor and champion of anti-Israel causes).
Not long after this book documented the unity of all world languages, secular linguists began publishing articles that suggested the same, but without Hebrew or Semitic as the unifying force. In April of 1991 Scientific American, Atlantic Monthly, and U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT all came out with the work of (largely Soviet) linguists who were placing all the thousands of world languages into comprehensive superfamilies that ultimately did come from some “theoretical” proto-world language. One superfamily, named Nostratic, included Semitic and European languages and even Korean.
Japanese, Etruscan and Eskimo-Aleut, however, were still seen as incomparably different. Via Hebrew as their common ancestor, though, one can see clear relationships between Japanese and Slavic terms or between Eskimo and Celtic words. But such links would require an examination of Hebrew. And no secular linguist dares to investigate the veracity of linguistic claims made by that jumble of myths called the Bible.
Even as linguistics slouches painfully toward the Tower of Babel (and most do place the geographical motherland of Proto-world language in the Near East, the location of the Tower of Babel), geneticists have been on the trail of Adam and Eve. Newsweek of Jan. 11, 1988 and Discover Magazine of August, 1990 had cover stories on the discovery of “Eve” in mitochondrial DNA. DNA research indicated that all the diversity within the human family came from one original common ancestor. (Finding an “Adam” is not presently possible.) The majority of scientists still uphold the racist monkey business of Darwin, and so the work of avant garde linguists and geneticists continues to be debated. Like those who condemned the heresy of Copernicus, these religious fanatics of scientific atheism will soon be objects of derision.
In 1992 the oldest human skeletons ever found with the hyoid (throat) bone for speech were excavated in the Mt. Carmel caves near Haifa in northern Israel. Until older remains are found elsewhere, the burden of proof is on the scientific community to demonstrate that the first human speakers were NOT Proto-Semitic or Hebrew speakers. In Mozeson’s research on Hebrew, however, it is the physics and chemistry of Hebrew that speaks for its primacy rather than any anthropological artifacts.
In The Word, only the most current etymological research is employed to link English words with their Hebrew counterparts. For example, the Indo-European root for SPARROW is sper (a generic term for birds). The non-borrowed counterpart in Hebrew is TSiPoR (the generic term for birds). It is argued that two unrelated languages can have a word with similar sounds in similar sequence purely by coincidence. The fallacy with this point is that the odds are millions to one against the two words meaning the exact same thing. Once several hundred common terms are arrayed, the odds of coincidence soar to the billions to one, and the denial must be equated to a leap of faith.
Most word links do not involve pairs as obvious as TsiPoR and SPARROW. Only the most conservative rules of linguistic change are used, such as metathesis (root letters changing sequence), Grimm’s Laws shifts (such as German V becoming English B) and nasalization (adding N or M to a root), to link the two vocabularies. Essays documenting these common changes of the Hebrew/Edenic root are elsewhere at this site. Fairly obvious parallels between English and Hebrew do not number in the dozens, but in the hundreds. Aside from dramatic history or theology, this research allows for easier foreign language acquisition. It is far more effective to teach Hebrew to English speakers when LaBHaN (white) is paired with ALBINO or HaLaL (space) is positioned near HOLE and HOLLOW.
The bulk of the research does not involve word pairs with fairly exact correspondence of sound and sense. The work is literally radical in that one has to first isolate the roots of the proposed twin words separated at birth since Babel. Edenic (Proto-Semitic or Ancient Hebrew roots plus non-Biblical roots recovered from other Semitic languages) demonstrates that language in its uncorrupted state is a natural science, much like physics or chemistry and created by the same Mind. Despite what we learned in school, language is NOT the result of the evolved grunting of cavemen who evolved from separate herds of apes. On the contrary, understood correctly, word roots are as perfect a value as are numbers. Just as there is a positive and negative number in math or matter and antimatter in physics, Edenic roots can also be charged with negative ions or carry the meaning of their antonyms. (Another proof of non-human engineering.) Let us quickly observe an example of Edenic’s organic, modular 2-letter root system where sound-alike synonym and antonyms are observable.
There is a HL/Het-Lamed root letters of health words. On the “positive” side there is HeLooTS, vigor, (source of HEALTH, HALE, German heil, HEALTHY and HELLO). On the “negative ” side there is HaLaSH , weak, (source of ILL, AILment, melanCHOLY,etc.). To note the modular structure of 2-letter roots, see, for instance, that PR/Pey-Resh + RK/Resh-Het combine to make up the PeRaKH or flower. The PR sub-root is found in PeRi or PeRoT , fruit, singular or plural (source of words like FRuiT, aPRIcot, PeaR, BeRRy, etc.). In botany we know that every fruit is a flower first. The second sub-root within the term for flower is RK. RayaKH means smell, fragrance, and is the source of English ReeK (once a positive smell). There is no better system in the universe to indicate a flower than by combing the botanical fruit element with that of fragrance. In other terms, PR +RK = PeRaKH (flower).
Here’s an example of two-letter roots taking on a stronger prefix letter to offer three similar words that go up the piano scale of intensity. BL, Bet-Lamed means intertwined, balled up like the words of the world being BaLaL (confused) since Babel. Loosely folding over two strands makes a braid or pleat called a GaBHeL. Five letters up is Het, and a HeBHeL is a string. The intertwining got tighter and stronger. Going up from letter #8 to #20 is KHaf. The strands are so strongly intertwined that KHaBHeL means CABLE. Yes, CABLE does come from KheBHeL.
Exposing the sub-roots in the architectonics of Edenics is one of many aspects of this field that is too vast to be completed in our generation.