EDENIC FAQ   (Frequently Asked Questions, with responses by Isaac Mozeson)

 

FAQ:   How could every dictionary in the world  and all the language experts in the world be wrong, and your new “Edenics” project be right about all human words being related through Biblical Hebrew or “Edenic?”

 

Mozeson:   New evidence forces new perceptions.  The Edenics data is very new; it is the tip of a large iceberg.  Hard scientists, like physicists, have the integrity to admit mistakes and to reconceive the science.  For example, the “Big Bang” theory was reluctantly accepted, even though scholars hated the concept of a “beginning of the universe.”  Hard Scientists respect data.  Soft scientists are a different breed. They invent elaborate, flawed things based on zero evidence to bolster pet, racist and Darwinist theories.  The best example of shoddy work by historical linguists:  the Indo-European “root.”

 

In the 1930s the world’s experts denied that the Earth’s continents were once connected.  They considered it a joke to see Brazil fitting into West Africa… a childish game based on silly myths.  Then came the submarine and undersea photography … and the experts were proven wrong.  Submerged mountain ranges provide exact traces of where a single continent (“the dryness” of Genesis 1) was torn apart.  Botanists and zoologists, not merely geologists, can link the jungles of Brazil and West Africa.   Only a Darwinist on the lunatic fringe would claim that African and Indian elephants evolved separately, rather than an original, single herd adapting to new environments.  An impartial mind looking at the new data from Edenics will not automatically dismiss Edenics, the 600-pound elephant in the room.

 

Edenics has overwhelming new evidence that a human language program (“Edenic”) was intelligently designed at the homeland of Modern Humans (“Eden”), and neurologically diversified to create new cultures at Shinar/Sumer/ referenced as Babel.

 

The new science of Edenics should never have had to be new.  It should be centuries old and well established.  But scholars avoided the clues because of racial and religious prejudice.  The first linguists in the 19th Century believed that Aryans evolved language from different, read better, monkeys than did the “unrelated” Semites, Africans and Asians.

 

The “new” Edenics thesis is straight out of Genesis 11:1.  The academic establishment automatically feels that anything in the Bible is wrong.   The Genesis-Edenics thesis is echoed in pre-historic beliefs by the Chinese and Maya: that a divinely-created, universal language was divinely diversified.  A thinker, rather than a bigot (with or without a PhD), will consider that any myth held by three of the planet’s most ancient, literate peoples is worth investigation.

 

FAQ:   As documented in The Origin of Speeches, there now are language scholars who accept the concept that there once was a universal language.  They say it evolved naturally, and broke up naturally, and that it wasn’t Semitic.  On what basis does Edenics make the claim that this theoretical “Proto-Earth” language from 100,000 years ago was Proto-Semitic, or as the Edenics blogs prefer, “Pre-Semitic?”

Doesn’t all evidence point to an African homeland, making any first language African?

 

Mozeson:   The numbers are way off because the “I Love Lucy” evolutionists of the “Out of Africa “ school of voodoo anthropology want to believe that speaking humans evolved from primitive knuckle-walking Africans and apes.  Our topic is not hominids but modern, speaking humans.  Genesis has no problem with hominids. These are animals, with ape-like small brains. A trillion years era of hominids is of no relevance.

 

The Creation date of 5,766 years is only about the first speakers, Adam and Eve. The Tower of Babel incident was traditionally to have happened in the year 1996 after those first speakers received their factory-installed Proto-Semitic/ Edenic language program.  All humans would still think in Edenic even though the output stage got garbled.  This neuro-linguistic Big Bang of language diversity broke up the Edenic language, kickstarting multi-linguistic, multi-national human history as we know it.

 

Did grunting ape-men evolve a new bone by random mutation so they could whisper sweet nothings?   Only speaking, modern humans have the delicate bone floating in our throats called the hyoid bone.  The oldest hyoid bone enabling speech that was ever found was NOT dug up in Africa but in the Carmel Caves near Haifa, Israel.  If someone wants to speculate about the oldest human language NOT being Semitic, they had better come up with an older hyoid bone from somewhere else.

 

FAQ:   Most of our 6,000 languages are relatively recent.  Even Latin came way after the alleged Tower of Babel story in Genesis.  It is little wonder why scholars think of The Tower of Babel episode as an imaginative myth to explain so many languages.  Of course Edenics can not challenge the observable facts of language breakup?

 

Mozeson:   Of course. That universal language that our common ancestors spoke in Eden, thus Edenic, was diversified or spun-off into seventy variants, the 70 national divisions listed in Genesis 10.   Only the ancestor of Latin was formed then.  By natural means, yes, Latin broke up into Italian, French, Spanish and so forth. But later Edenicists may be able to identify patterns of this diversity.

 

The Big Bang of language diversity happened at Shinar, much later to be known as Babel.  Language diversity began then, but is ongoing.  In much the same way, continental drift had its Big Bang when the single land mass was broken up into continents at the Deluge.  But continental drift continues today.

 

The dating of the writing down of the Tower of Babel narrative has nothing to do with the dating of this prehistoric event.  Genesis should not be confused with journalism.

 

FAQ:   One of the orthodox academic linguistics beliefs that you question involves Paleo Hebrew.  Secular scholars, and even many Christian teachers, do believe that there was this alphabet of Semitic glyphs which later evolved into the purely phonetic Aleph-bet as

Seen in scrolls of the Torah?  How might this logical thesis be mistaken?

 

Mozeson:   Certainly Paleo Hebrew was widely used by most Semites. The Torah Aleph-Bet was lost by the masses, and was kept underground for centuries. The same happened in Japan, when the masses were swayed by Chinese culture, and the older phonetic alphabet was preserved only by a handful of sacred scribes.  The square, boxy script was named “Assyrian script” not because it was invented by the exiled Ezra the Scribe, but it emerged there from its scribal keepers.  

 

In Paleo Hebrew the glyph for Mem/the M sound (mayim, water) is a wavy line depicting water. This is obviously human intelligence. The book depicts the shapes of the phonetic Torah Aleph-Bet as signifying things that are not within the intelligence of primitive humans. The Torah’s Mem is not a picture of water, but of a nasal sound encased within lips.  The masses neglected Torah and literacy, and the glyphs of Paleo Hebrew were an attempt to reconstruct it.

 

But a refutation of the common “Paleo-Hebrew” misconception is much more simple and powerful.   The boxy (Torah) script was for hammer and chisel. For carving in rock, for a late Stone Age.  This Aleph-Bet predates, NOT follows, a curvy script like Paleo Hebrew. The letters of Paleo Hebrew were based on newer quill ink-jet technology.

 

Again, the person who reveres the Paleo Hebrew Aleph-Bet, and considers them sources of profound teaching must ask himself the following:

 

Would the Creator have a Mem that 1) pictures nothing in the natural world, but that depicts the nose and throat and air flow that He designed? or 2) that depicts water (Mem from Mayim) as a wavy line, as a child or primitive would do???

 

In scenario #1, the word for water need not have existed before the square, Torah Mem.

In scenario #2, the word Mayim already existed. Humans were just trying to devise a glyph to represent the "M" sound. The human brilliance of this strategy is diminished with the prospect that there once existed a phonetic alphabet -- but this was replaced by lowly people who couldn't deal with a letter that meant a number (40), and who wanted to name the letters after something they could see. (This compelling graphic imagination, a need even to see the Eternal, is called idol worship in Judaism and Islam.)

 

The Torah days of the week and month similarly had no names. They were numbered. Here too, along came the minds of idol-worshipers, like the Babylonians, Norsemen, Germanics, and Romans, who named the days and months after deities like the Sun, Moon, Thor, or Frig (wife of Woden), Janus or emperors like Julius and Augustus.

 

It would appear that the named Paleo Aleph-Bet best fits an atheist world view, rather than one where a Divine Lawgiver carved (straight) letters in stone. When Moses was told to redo the second tablets, he chiseled them. He was not introduced to quill and inkjet technology for writing curvy glyphs.  Like a round Ayin, as opposed to an Ayin of straight lines which can not possibly depict an eye.

 

Again, Edenics does not depend on the demotion of the Paleo Aleph-Bet as a later, merely- human device.  It is a hunch, not a thesis carved in stone.

 

FAQ:   Since Edenics follows the story in the Hebrew Bible, why not call this theoretical language of Adam and Eve “Hebrew?” Why coin the new language term “Edenic?”

 

Mozeson:   Back in the 1980’s it was just called “Hebrew.”  But by now we know that “Proto-Semitic” is more accurate.  “Edenic” signifies the pre-Babel language spoken well before Abraham, the first Hebrew.  There are Semitic roots preserved in other Semitic languages, including extinct ones that must be considered Edenic. The advantage of documenting words with a Hebrew Bible citation is that the meaning and antiquity are easily verified.   This can’t be done for a Ugaritic word found in a stone fragment.

 

The world’s words for WOLF is not from the later Hebrew wolf, but are forms of the older, generic word for canine, KeLeBH (dog).  KeLeBH is older Biblical Hebrew, and is more like other Semitic dog words.  Apparently, there was only one pair of canines on Noah’s Ark. Diversity of the species, along with the need for new canine names, came afterwards.   Proto-Semitic or Early Biblical Hebrew are terms that are too academic or divisive.  “Edenic” is not only far more accurate than “Hebrew,” but it brings us back to a time when there were no national, racial or linguistic differences in the human family.

 

FAQ:   The Origin of Speeches is an anti-Evolutionary answer to Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species.   But didn’t you write about a proto-canine evolving later into wolves, hounds, foxes and coyotes?

 

Mozeson:   Of course there was diversity and new sub-species among the creatures charged to survive and thrive in new environments. There were no accidental mutations, with 99.9% of them unfit for survival.  The Intelligent Designer gave the early canines, early humans and early words all the genes to diversify and adapt to new environments and needs.  One branch of KeLeBH, stressing the L-B, became Latin lupus (wolf), which later gave rise to the Spanish wolf, lobo.

 

FAQ:   Besides the European languages, Edenics cites many words from remote corners of the globe.  Does the Edenics project involve people who speak all these language?

 

Mozeson:   Only a few key Edenecs researchers around the world actually speak exotic languages.  There are some who live in Alaska, Venezuela or New Mexico who have an interest in the native languages near them. Most of our data come from dictionaries where the words are spelled in English letters.  Edenics is focused on sound and sense, so foreign fonts and extraneous grammatical forms are done away with.   Readers are to come away knowing that all humanity make similar sounds for similar meanings, because we were, and will again be, a unified family.

 

FAQ:   Does Edenics want to be the new Esperanto?

 

Mozeson:   Not at all.  Vive la difference.  But we all can understand that we think and speak only because of our common ancestors and common Intelligent Designer.  Practically speaking, if one learns the Edenic word DaReKH (direction, way, road) one knows words of similar meaning and music in scores of “unrelated” languages.

 

FAQ:   Do you yourself have an international background? And what is your Hebrew background like?

 

Mozeson:   I was born in British Columbia, and I was in Israel as a baby for a year. My parents spoke English at home, with a touch of Yiddish.  I went mostly to Hebrew Day Schools in my childhood in Massachusetts.  I still have trouble trying to spell “forward” with an R or two. Besides Hebrew and some Aramaic, I only had French and a little Latin in school.  My training was in poetry, NOT linguistics. Only an outsider makes changes.

 

My most important foreign language lessons came from my children.

We were living in Greenwich Village, NYC, and I had begun my obsession with language when we adopted a two-year old boy from El Salvador in 1981. He asked to close the luna.  Luna meant “moon” according to my Spanish dictionary, from Edenic LeBHaNaH (moon).  I couldn’t put out the moon.   But LaBHaN is white, as in the silvery moon, as in luna and LUNAR, so I was able to figure out that in his Indian dialect luna meant a light.  This helped me think more creatively and thematically, and to realize that dictionaries are limited.

 

Two years later we adopted an eight-year girl from Hong Kong. Her only English word was “McDonald’s”.  I began to see how many of her “mistakes” in English were hard-wired. At the table she’d say “pass the life” instead of “pass the knife.”  I tied this in with the Mandarin vs. Cantonese dialect shift, with one saying “Nay ho ma?” (How are you?) and the other saying “Lay ho ma?” (How are you?). I learned that the N-L letter shift, unknown in the West, was deep in the brain. And so must be the letter shift shifts that turn Edenic HahR (hill, mountain) into English HILL or Russian gora.

 

FAQ:   According to that Jerusalem Post op ed in your introduction to The Origin of Speeches, this whole project began accidentally, even reluctantly?

 

Mozeson:   True. I did not want to take Linguistics in graduate school.  It was a requirement I needed to complete my coursework for the doctorate in English literature at N.Y.U.   I entered grad school with a typical reverence for my professors. But I left with the knowledge that most academics are seriously illiterate in things Semitic and Biblical.

 

FAQ:   If you already had The Word dictionary in 1989, 1995 and 2000, why didn’t you keep expanding this instead of writing The Origin of Species?   How are they different?

 

Mozeson:   The data in The Word are twice as long now, available in CD and as a download.  OOS first classifies and organizes all that data from English, its sources and unknown cognates, discussing the thesis, and examining aspects of Babel-babble like letter shifts, nasalization, and metathesis.  There are special topics like word families and animal names and a dozen more that will have to wait for the next book

 

The Word was begun in the mid-Eighties. I was going to postpone other projects until retirement from teaching.  When I had a life-threatening disability in 1997, I suddenly had the time to work on these projects.

 

FAQ:   The Origin of Speeches recalls the initial excitement around The Bible Codes phenomenon.  Why won’t Edenics be a similar flash in the pan?

 

Mozeson:   It was too easy to find whatever one wants in the codes.  Mathematicians apparently showed that even a phone book can be made to have a similar oracular ability.  Even with only seven basic letters (from the same part of the mouth) that can shift root position, the odds are millions to one that 100s of similar Edenic words mean the exact same family member in English, body part in Japanese or topographical term in Quechua (Inca) – to mention categories of words that are never borrowed.  

 

FAQ:   Edenics claims that its etymologies provide superior sources that what we have in our dictionaries.  Isn’t Latin dormir, to sleep, a more straightforward etymology than Edenic RaDaM, to sleep, for the word DORMITORY?

 

Mozeson:   Yes, the Latin and French are more immediately historical, and more “straightforward.”  But it is worth knowing that DRM was bent from RDM, the original “sleep” word gifted to our ancestors in Eden.

 DRM is a meaningless sound we use to signify sleep.  It would seem that humans are merely more sophisticated signal speakers than dolphins.

But Resh-Daled-Mem is the chemical compound or haiku where RaiD (to go down – source of ROOT) is added to DahM (silent – source of DUMB). To slump into SLEEP, Latin dormir, therefore, means to “go down into silence. “ Our pre-Edenics understanding of words lacks science, poetry, spirituality and common sense.

 

FAQ:   Our Culture Wars, and specifically the debate over Intelligent Design, were hot enough before The Origin of Speeches came out.  Who are some of the authorities that support Edenics, and who are those that oppose this thesis?

 

Mozeson:   Back in the 1980s the first well-known etymologist to support this work was Dr. Joseph T. Shipley. He authored The Dictionary of Word Origins and The Origins of English Words.  The greatest Semitic scholar of that generation was Dr. Cyrus Gordon. He also saw that the field of language history was being exposed as an emperor with no clothes.  Unlike Shipley, he passed away without giving Edenics a written endorsement. He did write that he was afraid that all his graduate students would be blackballed by the vindictive champions of Free Speech who run the universities.  There are prominent proponents like classicist Louis Feldman and New Testament scholar David Bivin, but the most famous scholar to take sides is a bitter opponent.  Since the 1990s M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky was behind attacks on The Word in academic journals, and even forced the editor of a chain of Midwest Jewish newspapers, The National Jewish Post & Opinion, to drop an Edenics column. Amazingly, this world-class linguist and anarchist had to write a negative review for Amazon.com where he put absurd words in my mouth. The same tactic was done, and finally apologized for, by the amateurs at the Take Our Word For It website,   but Chomsky shows that Edenics is powerful enough to disturb the greatest linguist of all time. 

 

FAQ:   It is inaccurate and unprofessional to link ancient Proto-Semitic words with recent languages like Modern English.  Even Greek, Latin and Germanic are too young for real historical comparison.  Any Edenics study of comparative vocabulary should be limited to the most ancient languages like Sanskrit and Chinese.

 

Mozeson:   Edenics is not for a dozen academics.  It is for the masses.  So entries are named for modern words. But after the headline of an entry, the full etymological background is given. I don’t believe in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European roots, but I cite them.  The most ancient source words available are also cited.

Sanskrit is ancient; an example of how cumbersome those initial spin-offs of Edenic were.  It is full of all manner of prefixes and suffixes, and harder, not easier to link to Edenic.  Sanskrit’s daughter languages are simpler, just as Modern English is a much streamlined version of Old English. The natural de-evolution of these older languages were therefore beneficial. This is why Bengali or Modern English is, ironically, closer to their Edenic origin than Sanskrit and Proto-Germanic. The essence of a word is its 3-consonant root. Words have gotten more streamlined in the winds of time.

Chinese is certainly ancient, but it has experienced the most drastic changes from its original form.  Chinese is the world’s most urbanized language for the most millennia. Therefore, most importantly, consonants got replaced by rising or falling accents.

Japanese was far more isolated, and so it retains more consonants, and is perhaps the best non-Indo-European to link to its Edenic source.

In sum, your question is based on the old assumptions. In Edenics, we learn that the younger, NOT the older languages, are better for linking to the original language.   And that original language, Edenic, is not cumbersome like Sanskrit, but more economical --like English slang.  

 

FAQ:   There are human remains dated many thousands of years before the alleged                            Tower of Babel.  Surely the language of these people wasn’t Edenic?

 

Mozeson:   We have no evidence that such hominids or knuckle-walkers could speak. No records of literacy predate Shinar/Sumer (later called Babel) or a theoretical Eden. Anything before Adam does not involve Homo sapiens sapiens, the modern, speaking humans as we know them. Therefore, anything before 58 hundred years ago is of NO relevance to Edenics, and doesn’t involve B’nai Adam (children of Adam, modern humans.

 

The earth can be 6 billion years old. We cannot know how long a Yom (mistranslated “day”) in the Creation “week” was. YoM is more like eon, (a word from Greek, from Edenic YoM).  The age of the Earth is not a concern to Edenics or to any reasonable Bible reader. It is posited by Bible commentators that there were 6 previous creations on our Earth, where the humans were wiped out by a Deluge and did not warrant a Noah to keep them going. A Deluge is the Creator’s “restart” button, wreck-creation or re-creation. Ancient human and animals remains can be found from our Deluge, and maybe from previous ones, older attempts divine attempts to grow some ethical monotheists in our terrarium.

 

FAQ:   Grimms Laws are fairly consistent.  It is easy to follow how the same word is Dutch, German and English will vary, as for example, the bilabials shift from B to F and V. When will Edenics have consistent, reproducible, predictable rules that would get the respect of scientists?  Right now there are too many seemingly arbitrary ways to link words to Edenic. This allows rational minds to call this Edenics enterprise a hoax.

 

Mozeson:  35,000 words treated with similar sound and sense make this quite an enormous hoax.  Everything in our Creator’s world reflects elaborate patterns, so I assume that future Edenicists with super computers will find such patterns.  Right now, such consistency as in the Grimms’ Law rules eludes us, so quantity has to make up for quality. It is 10000-to-one that there are even vaguely linkable words in five different language families. Multiply this by the scores of entries where several remote cognates are traced.

 

Edenics is admittedly in its infancy.  In 1985 I was working with file slips and old library card shelves, before PCs.  In my generation, all Edenicists can do is keep amassing data, eliciting derision from religious fanatics of Darwinism, but, at least, breaking open the mold.

 

FAQ:   Why are there some languages that you don’t research at all?  In fact, there is nothing in your CD data on African or Hamitic languages.

 

Mozeson:   In early 2009 we did add Igbo (Nigeria).  Lately, we have got much Bantu data. But many African languages have too many borrowings from Arabic, thanks to commercial ties or to Islam.  Languages like Indonesian, Turkish or Swahali have so much Arabic that finding a Semitic source is misleading.

All African languages are already grouped with Semitic in a language superfamily called Afro-Asiatic (formerly Hamito-Semitic).  Therefore, finding a Semitic link to a Hamitic word raises no eyebrows. 

 

FAQ:   According to the Jerusalem Talmud, BEFORE the dispersion at Babel, there were 70 languages.  This seems to go against the Genesis record. .

 

Mozeson:   The even more respected Babylonian Talmud also recommends leeches. Both Talmuds are crucial for ascertaining Jewish law.  That said, it is the internet of its time, and records several inaccurate scientific details (even if quite advanced compared to what scholars then thought).  First century rabbis are a tad removed from the prehistoric neuro-linguistic happenings recorded by the ancient Chinese, the Maya and Genesis 11.

 

Someone who cannot concede that a human rabbi (NOT a prophet or scribe) recorded something in the Talmud which might be in error is guilty of superstition, perhaps even of idol worship.

 

Before Babel (Shinar)  Genesis 11:1 infers that there was only the one human language program in the earliest settlement of speaking homo sapiens, a place called Eden.

Only after the Tower of Babel incident was this one program spun off or diversified with the Big Bang that continued to naturally de-evolve.

 

אין מוקדם ומטחר בתורה  Classical Torah commentators know that the Five Books follows a THEOlogic, not the CHRONOlogic better fitting a Western, linear mindset.

There is NO problem with Genesis 10, in context of the descendants of Noah, being classified by these 70 original language super-families.

 

Most non-Jewish "scholars", and some Jewish ones, jump on Genesis 10's Table of Nations to assume that these 70 languages preceded the Tower of Babel. Relax. This breakup of continents, races, etc. is the Torah's M.O.

 

The   theme of  ויבדל  (“and He separated”) begins in Genesis 1.  The Creator made this diversity; it didn't happen merely by itself.  One Nimrod, one all-powerful politburo competes with the authority of the Torah’s Holy ONE.

 

The babel-babble of languages and cultural difference creates chaos, even while it prevents a global Nimrod, Stalin or Mao.  Why darkness? Why night? Why oceans? Why death? Why races? Why languages?  G-d knows.

 

But different languages, cultures and realities foster different religions.  Don't we want the entire world to believe in the same Creator?

Yes, that's the goal of this 6000-year video game we call history. Only in the end-game, when people like you help projects like Edenics, will Zephaniah 3:9's global unification of belief (via the Pure Language) come about.

FAQ:   How do you determine whether a metathesis is an inter-language one or an intra-language one? One gets the impression from your book that all your finds are inter-language ones. But maybe some are intra-language ones?

Mozeson:   In theory, the neuro-linguistic phenomenon at Shinar/Sumer (The Tower of "Babel") should have meant that ONE metathesis affected one word of Edenic in the same way throughout newly formed language families: Proto-Bantu, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Polynesian, etc.  

But I'm finding that the subsequent, or the "natural" breakup of parent languages can involve different intra-lingual aspects of Babel-babble. So, one can find different metatheses of  דרך DaReKH (way), so that the Dutch and English version of "the proper way" became CORRE(C)T, an M321 of דרך DaReKH (way).

Yet, in closely related German we have richtig (RIGHT, correct) -- an M231 of  דרך DaReKH (way). In time we'll know if this is truly different metatheses within language groups (as there are with different letter shifts).

Or, if one early Germanic speaker was thinking "way" and another was thinking "path" --- and so they “recalled” different (ancient or original) metatheses of the same Edenic word.

FAQ:   Is it not possible that many Hebrew words were borrowed from many languages?

MOZESON:   After the Tower of Babel nobody spoke an unscrambled form of Edenic, the once-universal Human Language Program (Genesis 12).  Noah survived one generation’s destruction, and another generation’s neuro-linguistic dispersion. Shem, son of Noach, thought the language of Eden was important enough to teach his son Ever (the Ivri or Hebrew), and this promising Chaldean fellow named Abram, who shared their obsession with ethical monotheism and the pristine world of Eden.  Abram later became Abraham, founder of the first Edenic-speaking, now “Hebrew” clan (in the post-Tower era).

 

Then, a small, rural and relatively isolated clan of herdsmen spoke this Hebrew language. Very few words got borrowed. They weren't Silk Road traders like the Arabs.

 

One of the few Hebrew words and concepts to get around was the radical idea of Shabbat. A weekend rest period that was not recorded in any lunar or solar movements. This word only spread with the wide Diaspora of Jews. No places without Jews has a word for Shabbat. For evidence of this one popular borrowing see the 

“SABBATICAL” entry.” 

But the amount of clearly Semitic-related words among the most remote human populations ridicules the dismissal of Edenics data as mere borrowings. Of course, if historical “borrowings” could be extended to the “prehistoric,” Edenicists could somewhat embrace the word “borrowing.”

FAQ:   Are words in all languages scrambled from the one Edenic word for that thing?

 

Mozeson:   Of course not.  The Edenic letters were engineered for later diversity, but not for the eventual 6000 dialects.  The different cultures, not merely languages, were created at Shinar/Sumer/"Babel."   Just as the Creator wanted Adam to name the animals, each language is charged with that Adamic task. 

 

Some saw the butterfly as a "twitcher"  [PYRALIDID], others as a "fly-fly [AVIATE].   It may take generations to figure out What They Were Thinking (in scrambled Edenic, of course) when ALL the butterfly words were coined... and some getting corrupted   beyond retrieval).

 

 

FAQ:   Linguistics is about grammar, and about precise pronunciation.  Edenics and Mozeson's amateurs have nothing to do with linguistics.

 

Mozeson:   True. Grammar, like the order of subject-verb-object, as well as the intimidating symbols for exact pronunciation, are irrelevant to the significant “meaning” questions of human language. The anal-retentive scholars miss the forest for the trees. If one wants to learn a foreign language, go to Berlitz.  Never mind silliness like glottal stops, even vowels are a hindrance to the serious study of language as the Music of Meaning.  Vowels change even in areas of major cities.  Only consonants are consonant, and worthy of study for Sound and Sense.  As a secular, Darwinist "science" Linguistics is senseless and meaningless.

 

A linguist does not ask WHY a word means what it does. An Edenicist lives for meaning.

Yes, call us Edenicists, not linguists.

FAQ:   Why is it that the March 2010 Jewish Bible Quarterly is the most recent Edenics treatment in print media?  Certainly, the Israeli press should take interest. On August 4, 1995 your Dictionary of Rap and Hip-Hop Slang (Berkeley/Putnam) was a cover story in Kol Hair. The Edenics project is many times larger and more significant than street slang. Why such silence from especially the Israeli media? 

Mozeson:   Since my Heat Stroke of 1997, I can no longer give video-lectures… and get write-ups. My slow and difficult voice turns off any editor or reporter on the phone. Maybe next decade we’ll do less documenting of data, and more promotion. Some exceptional reporters have sensed a big story here, but it was, of course, killed.

Any responsible writer/editor will check such a story-idea with academic consultants, the perceived “experts” on historical linguistics.  The professor of linguistics hinges his life's work on ultra-orthodox Darwinist principles that are certain that words, like humans themselves, evolved from apes, and are meaningless. A HORSE is a HORSE only if we agree that it is. (Not if חורש  HoaRaiSH means “plower.”)  Edenics is Deist, suggesting vast engineering for language, and subjective meanings for words, God forbid.  The editor is very strongly advised not to print such a laughable thesis, whose 80,000 bits of evidence are mere coincidences and borrowings. Next thing you know, some whackos without credentials will suggest that the Earth is round.

FAQ:  I would like to see if many words of my native language have possible origins in Semitic. I can barely read Hebrew, though. Would I still be able to get involved in the project?

Mozeson:   Absolutely. Every Hebrew word is transliterated. You’ll know how it sounds. The color-coding makes the 7 letter-sounds very simple.  Search the data by meaning(s) of the word. If like-meaning words have sounds that can match… then you’ve probably discovered an ancient link.

Before you produce an eBook, DVD or booklet of your discoveries, someone on the Edenics global team will add the Hebrew font for you.

FAQ:   Could the Edenics theory coincide with the Pangaea theory of a single supercontinent? Is there a possible timeline that would allow for the Flood and the breakup of Peleg’s era (Genesis 10:25), even though these are both before the “Tower of Babel?”

Mozeson:   Genesis 1 describes one יבשת YaBeSHeT, "dryness." Names like Pangeia or Atlantis are fine. Scientists have evidence that this is no myth; submarines tracing undersea mountain ranges can follow how Continental Drift went. The continents are still moving, but now glacially slowly. At the Flood the Dryness was broken up from geological fault-lines and deep undersea currents involving planetary rotation, etc. that is way over my head. The splitting did not result into (relatively fast) perceptible continental movement until the time of Peleg. After the neuro-linguistic phenomenon at Shinar (referenced as near the later "Babel), the newly formed ur-nations, based on their new languages (later to become the proto-languages of language families) migrated to new homelands. The Ur-Slavs migrated east of the Ur-West Europeans. (There is NO evidence of a Indo-European people... thought they roughly share patters of how Edenic was split off.) Rather than epic Kon-Tiki treks over 1000s of miles, the clans let the Earth move them far away from each other. Just as the African and Asian elephants were once one herd on two sides of a river, when the "river" widened to the Indian Ocean... future Ethiopians and future Indians adapted into different sub-species. You would think that some Eternal Creator beyond time knew the future, and planned the earth's language program ("Edenic") and world map ahead of time. This line of thought adds weight to Zephaniah 3:9.  The Edenics project may be a circle that we need to close... before we can get back to the Garden, before we can see Oneness in all the diversity.

→ back to Home