Kamala Harris: Illegal To Be Vice-President Of The United States, Illegal To Run For President Of The United States

  “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”   

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1

 

 "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

  United States Constitution, 12th Amendment

Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be Vice-President and is not eligible to be President.  In legal fact, she is a usurper who is criminally in Federal Office by open conspiracy and violates the US Code and the Supreme Law of the Land (which is how Article 6 defines the US Constitution).

3 years after the birth of Kamala Harris, Kamala's mother was STILL a citizen of India and was NOT a United States citizen, but someone who was in the United States as a non-citizen on a VISA.  https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/Shyamala_Gopalan_Harris.pdf

Kamala's father, Donald J. Harris, was a Jamaican at the time of her birth, and is alleged to have naturalized to the United States when Kamala was about 50 years old, but there has been no confirmation that I am aware of in regard to an actual naturalization.  Even so, being born to a Jamaican National Citizen Father and an Indian National Citizen Mother  AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, regardless of where she was born, DISQUALIFIES Kamala Harris as both Vice President and as potential President of the United States.  

 

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.



The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen".  In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified  the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli  (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.  But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of 
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :

"No one has the power / ability / authority
  to leave / reject / disown himself  from the Father's Land."    

  [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]

From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old.  If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.  

As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote.  The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism.  For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue. 

To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born.  This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.

Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. 

The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.  

But is that really just a presumption regarding the intent of defining natural born citizen in the Act of January 29, 1795?  My answer is: No.  Let's review why.  

In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."

 This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".   He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".



The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:
"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."

From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was.  But while we may debate the issue, sole allegiance and sole citizenship to the United States was a definite requirement in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. 

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

 

Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.

Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
 

On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was  in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing. 

In other words, in the strict literal sense, the 14th Amendment disowns those who cease to be citizens of any jurisdiction of the United States.  The dis-ownership of the United States by its former citizens who choose to go overseas and not maintain a home state address and State Citizenship, but do not swear allegiance to another, thereby rendering them Stateless, is prevented in language elsewhere and outside the US Constitution in the codifications of the US Code.

But as it regards Natural Born Citizenship, and the requirements of that Status in order to legally and Constitutionally be a President or Vice-President of the United States, the academic argument over the intent of the 14th Amendment and the ability to rescind a citizenship of a non-resident citizen who chooses to neither live in the United States nor be subject to its laws, is a discussion for another day.

Prior to the 14th Amendment we know that  "Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” stated United States v. Rhodes (1866).

And even after the 14th Amendment, we read  in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102
where the Court said,
"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside." 


With the 14th Amendment, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen:
1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father
2) Be born in  the United States.
3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21.
4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.

If one aspired to be President at age 35, the perpetual residency requirement is to age 35.  If they aspire to be President of the United States at age 45, they need a perpetual residency to age 21, a combined de facto and de jure dwelling within the United States for at least 14 years since the age of 21.  In effect, those who join the US Military and serve outside the United States under the age of 21 were not perceived in the intent of the 14th Amendment, but with the 1971 26th Amendment, the age requirement reduces to age 18 perpetual residency, and still a formula of perpetual residency to age 35 if they run at age 35, as the intent of the clause was a perpetual residency for 35 years in the United States if one were to run at age 35, even with a drop in the age of when a person becomes a voting citizen is Amended into the US Constitution without redressing Article 2.1.5.

Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance.  By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874  

Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.

Concerning the 14th Amendment by the authority of the author of the first clause insertion of having no allegiance to any foreign power at birth, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), states:

“ (I) find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being

 born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.) states:  
…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government. 

But notice that the clause that William Rawles attaches to the creating of Natural Born Citizenship is that the Father be a PERMANENT CITIZEN of the State of the United States in order to pass along Natural Born Citizen status to the child.  

 

The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758)
Par M. De Vattel 
Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1797 ff. English Translation editions)
Le Droit Des Gens. Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle
 states:
 "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."



Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”    

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”



Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
"When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."

Guest Blog:DNA Contamination in Pfizer COVID Vaccine Exceeded 500 Times Allowable Levels, Study Finds by John-Michael Dumais

 This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dna-contamination-pfizer-covid-vaccine-exceeded-500-times-allowable-levels/

A new peer-reviewed study raises concerns over inadequate testing methods for measuring DNA impurities in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Genomics expert Kevin McKernan critiqued the study’s methods but argued that contamination is still over allowable limits and that current regulations are “entirely unfit for purpose.”

by John-Michael Dumais

May 16, 2024

A new peer-reviewed study raises concerns about the methods used to test for potential DNA impurities in the Comirnaty COVID-19 mRNA vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech.

In the study published this month in Methods and Protocols, German researchers Brigitte König and Jürgen O. Kirchner questioned the reliability of the quantitative PCR (qPCR) technique Pfizer-BioNTech used to measure DNA contamination in the vaccine’s active substance.

The researchers experimented with dissolving Comirnaty‘s lipid nanoparticles. They found DNA impurity levels ranging from 360 to 534 times higher than the 10 ng (nanogram) per dose limit set by regulators globally.

The researchers proposed that fluorescence spectroscopy methods could more reliably quantify the total levels of DNA contamination present in the final, ready-to-use vaccine product.

Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer and founder of Medicinal Genomics, told The Defender that while the authors raised some crucial points regarding DNA contamination in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, fluorometric dyes can be unreliable, leading to inflated readings.

 

‘A massive under-detection of DNA impurities’

Manufacturers like Pfizer-BioNTech use DNA contamination testing that relies on a qPCR method applied to the vaccine’s active substance before it is combined with lipid nanoparticles.

König and Kirchner pointed out that the qPCR test looks only for a tiny 69-base-pair segment of the original 7,824-base-pair DNA template used to produce the mRNA vaccine.

This means Pfizer checks less than 1% of the original template. The other 99% goes unanalyzed, resulting in “a massive under-detection of DNA impurities,” they stated.

The researchers also argued that this small segment may get destroyed at different rates than the rest of the DNA template fragments during the enzyme digestion process, further confounding accurate measurements.

Another complicating factor is that the qPCR target sequence overlaps with a section of DNA called the T7 promoter used to produce the mRNA. Cellular machinery or byproducts could bind to this promoter region, blocking it from being detected by the qPCR test.

David Speicher, Ph.D., co-author with McKernan and others of a preprint study on DNA fragments in Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines, expressed similar concerns.

PCR can quantify only a particular DNA/RNA sequence targeted by the primers used, he told The Defender. If there are any breaks or mutations in that target sequence, the “DNA will not amplify and the loads will be under-reported.”

“There is also an assumption that the DNA in the vaccine is only from the plasmid and not bacterial or any other source,” Speicher said.

McKernan pointed out another problem: Regulators allow Pfizer to use qPCR to measure the DNA and fluorometry to measure the RNA.

“The regulations from the EMA [European Medicines Agency] are a ratiometric measurement of RNA:DNA,” he said. “The ratios should not be measured with inches for RNA and meters for DNA.”

He said Pfizer should measure both the RNA and the DNA using fluorometry or qPCR. “When they allow them to mix and match tools like this, they enable overt deception.”

McKernan also shared a portion of Moderna’s patent application acknowledging that qPCR is inadequate for measuring small DNA fragments.

‘We are no longer debating whether the shots are contaminated’

To avoid the pitfalls of qPCR, which targets only a tiny fraction of the contaminant DNA, König and Kirchner proposed using fluorescence spectroscopy techniques like Qubit to quantify total DNA levels in the final vaccine product.

These methods employ fluorescent dyes that bind specifically to nucleic acids like DNA and RNA.

Their experiments using the fluorescence technique with Comirnaty found DNA contamination significantly higher than the 10 ng/dose limit after breaking apart the nanoparticles.

 

 

Figure 2. Quantification of total DNA in batches of Comirnaty using Qubit fluorometry without and with the addition of Triton-X-100 as a detergent to disintegrate the lipid nanoparticles contained in the vaccine formulation. Credit: Brigitte König and Jürgen O. Kirchner.

McKernan, who wrote about fluorometry’s limitations on his Substack, urged caution when considering König and Kirchner’s results.

“Fluorometric dyes can cross-talk between RNA and DNA such that large amounts of RNA present in the vaccine will trigger the DNA-specific dye to provide some signal from RNA,” he told The Defender. “This is leading to inflated readings of the DNA in the König paper.”

To address this concern, McKernan said the researchers should perform an RNase control. RNase is an enzyme that erases RNA, so there is no interference from RNA when measuring DNA.

Without this control, König and Kirchner “have left an easy attack surface for their critics,” he said.

In research in preparation for publication, McKernan said several labs performing RNase experiments observed a 10-fold reduction in the DNA signal observed when using fluorometry.

“This still leaves the DNA contamination well over the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] limit,” McKernan said. He emphasized that his “hair-splitting critique” of the study should not diminish or derail the call to reevaluate DNA contamination testing protocols for mRNA vaccines.

“We are no longer debating whether the shots are contaminated,” he said. “We’re just debating whether they are 10-fold or 100-fold over the limit and how much they vary from lot to lot.”

Potential risks of DNA contamination

König and Kirchner cited concerns that higher-than-expected levels of DNA contamination could be taken up into human cells during vaccination, with unknown consequences if that DNA integrates into the genome.

They cited the “risk of insertional mutagenesis,” where foreign DNA segments disrupt normal gene sequences when inserted into the genome, possibly leading to mutations and associated diseases like cancer.

Researchers like McKernan have already determined that DNA in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines includes the simian virus 40 (SV40) cancer-promoting gene and E. coli plasmid DNA sequences left over from the vaccine production process.

In a February presentation at the International Crisis Summit-5 conference, McKernan pointed out that Moderna’s patent application for its COVID-19 mRNA vaccine acknowledged the risks of insertional mutagenesis.

 

 

The same patent application states that DNA contamination can cause cancer:

“The DNA template used in the mRNA manufacturing process must be removed to ensure the efficacy of therapeutics and safety, because residual DNA in drug products may induce activation of the innate response and has the potential to be oncogenic in patient populations.”

McKernan asserted in his International Crisis Summit presentation that “We are always cancering.” He proposed the following “3 hit hypothesis” on the negative health impacts of mRNA vaccines:

1. Increased mutagenesis with dsDNA [double-stranded DNA] plasmid contamination.

2. The effects of N1-methyl-pseudouridine used to stabilize the RNA, causing lymphocytopenia, neutropenia, IgG4-related diseases, etc.

3. The inhibition of the “guardians of the genome,” the P53 and BRCA1 tumor-suppressing genes.

DNA contamination regulations ‘entirely unfit for purpose’

McKernan stressed that current regulations governing the allowable limit of DNA contamination in vaccines are “entirely unfit for purpose.”

“The public must know that the DNA contamination guidelines assumed a 5-10 minute half-life of naked DNA in the blood,” he said. “Once this DNA is protected by lipid nanoparticles, it is no longer naked and does not degrade but instead transfects your cells.”

According to McKernan, mammalian-based DNA fragments are part of a “highly replicative gene therapy vector designed to make more of itself” and therefore can self-amplify indefinitely once transfected.

“What good is a 10 ng limit if Pharma can sneak an amplifiable DNA molecule through that regulation?” he asked.

Regulators established the 10 ng/dose DNA contamination allowance in 1998.

“10 ng is an extra-cellular consideration,” said Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense. “If you were to ask how much foreign DNA should be allowed within the nucleus, the answer is zero,” he told The Defender.

Speicher added that regulators ignore fragments under 200 base pairs long because these would not likely be problematic if the DNA remained outside our cells.

For perspective, with the DNA in the entire human genome averaging 6.41 pc (picograms), Jablonowski noted that “10 ng of DNA is our entire genome 1,560 times over.”

 

‘How reckless can they be with the human genome?’

Despite possible limitations, European regulators approved the qPCR method for checking whether Comirnaty meets the required DNA contamination limits of 10 ng/dose.

According to König and Kirchner, apart from the manufacturer’s qPCR tests on the active ingredient, “no further experimental DNA quantification is carried out for the vaccine.”

Regulators contend that testing the final product isn’t feasible, citing potential interference of the lipid nanoparticles encapsulating the mRNA.

However, the researchers pointed out that manufacturers can accurately quantify the mRNA in those same nanoparticles. They criticized regulators for relying on manufacturers’ limited qPCR data and not mandating direct quantification of total DNA in the final Comirnaty product.

After other scientists replicated McKernan’s work, regulatory agencies like the FDA, EMA and Health Canada were compelled to acknowledge the presence of SV40 in the Pfizer vaccines.

However, according to McKernan, these agencies have maintained that the DNA fragments are too small in length and quantity to be functional and have taken no steps to further regulate or withdraw the vaccines from the market.

McKernan also pointed out that before the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA), the DNA contamination limit was 1,000-fold lower than the current 10 ng limit.

This loosening of regulations, together with the NCVIA’s liability shield and technology advancements, has made DNA sequencing technology “100,000 times cheaper,” he said, allowing vaccine companies to add “transfection reagents [like LNPs] to ensure this DNA gets into your cells, can self-amplify and tinker with cell circuitry.”

McKernan said:

“Why is the FDA not sequencing these vaccines? What excuse do they have to not know the precise sequence and frequency of every molecule of DNA and RNA in a vaccine they plan to inject into billions of people? How reckless can they be with the human genome?”

Despite apparent agency inaction, a recent Freedom of Information Act request by a Canadian citizen revealed “alarming activity behind the scenes,” according to McKernan.

“The regulators are telling the public not to worry about the contamination but scrambling internally to have this DNA removed,” he said.

John-Michael Dumais

John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dna-contamination-pfizer-covid-vaccine-exceeded-500-times-allowable-levels/

 This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

 

 

In The Beginning - A Bible Study Review of Genesis 1:1-2 by Brianroy

 

 In the New Testament, we simply see revealed what was in the Old Testament just somewhat concealed. As we move from Torah to Writings to Prophets in the Old Testament (called by the Hebrews as The Tanakh), we see this pattern of unfolding insights, revelations, and happenings consistently supporting the New Testament through many legal and prophetical precedents.

      If I were discussing the Beginning of Creation in Genesis 1:1-2 with nuclear physicists, we would take the first word in the Hebrew and work around it as being translated after a Scientific Fashion saying “using a First Cause” GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.  We would be discussing matters like the Big Bang, various radiation readings of the Earth and the Galaxy, findings of the C.O.B.E. Satellite and the Jet Propulsion laboratory, and especially the changes in the reading of TIME for the same TIME Period.  If a dime represents 2.2 lbs or a kilogram of mass, having a kinetic atomic speed of light within its entire atomic structure, and you expanded that in equal structural form, but to a size of say 3.1 miles or 5 kilometers in diameter with a reduced atomic metabolism to 3,100 miles per hour or 5,000 kilometers per hour respectively, and that over a course of 6,000 years, knowing it is only 6,000 years old in the growing of that object, at the current molecular rate, how old would the object be projected as being if you fail to know how old it actually really is and why?  Would the projection of the Age of that Universe of that object now be virtually inestimable?  In many ways, Science has failed to come up to an intelligent discussion on the wisdom of the Bible, and is stuck in a mindset that is often too faulty to call anything but unscientific.  But even with mathematics at the level of nuclear physics, philosophical illustrations and hypotheses must accompany projections which always end in, without a definitive source and witness of the Beginning of who was at the Beginning, from a blind vantage point here and now, who can know? 

     GOD was at the beginning, and GOD through His scriptures we learn that GOD the creator was there to create this Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in the First Place. That is wisdom, to take the words of the Primary Witness who was there at an event that happened, to tell us what happened, and in part why Paul writes to Timothy that:

“All scripture is GOD-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)

But in the end, as Revelation 19:10c informs to this effect, that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit / true-intent of Bible prophecy. Our focus is ever on Him, and the revelation of Him in our hearts, minds, and lives -- unto eternity.

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ

1 In the Beginning [Bere-sheith]

God created the heaven and the earth / the Land.

[bara Elohim ath ha=sh’mayim ve’ath ha’eretz].
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ:

 

In the beginning is beresheith

Divided in the art of Gematria, leaving aside the numerology, which is unlocking  the secrets of Hebrew words in the Scriptures, we can read Beresheith as “Creating a garment” or "bara-sheith". 

בָּרָ֣א

שִׁ֖ית

There is also the art of reducing the Hebrew down to 3 and 2 letter roots that Rashi and Maimonides engaged in as part of their studies, but I will leave that aside for the sake of flow on this topic of Genesis 1:1.

Returning to the art of reading as we may in hidden secrets when applying Gematria:

 Bere, spelled the same as bara, sheith 

In the Beginning / Creating a Garment

GOD creating  (a coming prophetical) sign

[is/ was]  bara elohim  oth

[oth being a prophetical sign, spelled the same as ath]

 אֹתֹ
of the heaven and the earth / the land

ha-sh'mayim ve'ath ha'eretz

Rashi states: “and they shall be for signs”: When the luminaries are eclipsed, it is an unfavorable omen for the world, as it is said [in Jeremiah 10:2]

“and from the signs of the heaven be not dismayed, etc.”

 

 

 

The word eretz in conjunction with Israel is translated as “The land of Israel”, rather than as “the earth of Israel.”  This relationship is often passed over in translating other uses of eretz, such as the eretz of Goshen (e.g., Exodus 8:22), where the Hebrews inhabited in the Nile Delta, and important educational points are lost because of this usually intentional oversight in translation.

In Genesis 1:1 we have the three letters of bara, followed by Shin-Yod-Tav (a garment; something that is put or set, and/or thorn bushes), followed by three letters "bara" again.   

This changes to an understating of  “bara” – Creating,  “Sheith” a garment  or we could even say a curtain or tent. 

 It is GOD

^2”Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain”  (Psalm 102:2)

 

^21 “Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

²² It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in”

(Isaiah 40:21-22)

 

“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”  (Job 26:7)

 

 

 

 It is then followed by the explanation for this purpose, GOD was creating the Heavens and the Earth  [Cf. Isaiah 40:18, 21-22; Job 22:12-14;   Job 26:7-11.] for the purpose of a coming miraculous sign.   The Earth being “the Land.”


Psalm 68:
4 Sing unto GOD, sing praises to his name: extol Him that rideth upon the heavens by his name YaH, and rejoice before him.
8 The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of GOD: even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of GOD, the God of Israel. 

In Psalm 68:4, YH rides the Heavens, and then in verse 8, drops them over Sinai. 

Rashi concurs with this in his commentary on Exodus 19:20's "Vayeired YHVeH al Har Sinai", saying Heaven was made like a bedspread over Sinai, because GOD still talked from Heaven (Exodus 20:19) WHILE BEING PRESENT AT SINAI!

In other words, the pattern at Genesis 1:1 is that of the Holy of Holies.  After a sense, the New Jerusalem or Heaven is as the Ark of the Covenant, and the Earth is as Eben Shethiyah (the rock upon which the ark sits), and the curtains of darkness of this Universe, after the manner of the Holy of Holies and Scripture are the bounds of an enclosed universe within a greater universe of light.

The insight of reading Eben Shethiyah (the rock upon which the ark sits) after the art of Gematria after one branch of discipline will be to read Eben as Alef -BeN (GOD's Son: Jesus) and Shethiyah as Sheth: a Garment or 6th of, and YaH: YHVeH.  

In Scripture, Man is seen as a 6th, and when he suffers a shriveling up that Jesus restores to health, that limb or appendage is something that in the Koine Greek is effectually 1/6th of what it was.  So in effect, the real interpretation of Sheth in its healthy form is to point us to the incarnation of Messiah, who is YaH clothing Himself with the garment of a physical Man.  This is Jesus.  

In Colossians 1:15, the Apostle Paul refers to Christ as the -- "(the) One."

In Colossians 1:15-17, it is Christ Jesus  

"...Who is the image of GOD the invisible

"prototokos pases ktiseos"

before-the-birth of all Creation / (the One who is) pre-eminent above and over all Creation and its Creatures

 because in Him were created all the things in the heavens and those upon the Earth, those invisible and those invisible: whether thrones, whether lord-ships, whether (first)rulers, whether authorities - ALL THINGS THROUGH HIM AND FOR HIM HAVE BEEN CREATED, and He is prior to all things, and all things in Him *stand*together*with*(Him)* / *stand*because*of*(His power)."  

-- Translation mine with word pictures and reiterations

 

If we compare this to Revelation 3:14's "he arche tes ktiseos", we again from the New Testament’s Koine Greek see that Jesus as the Logos is the Source or First-Cause of creation, the Intelligent Reason issued forth from GOD the Father taking on personhood.

By itself, like Jeremiah 2:13 and 17:13, Shethiyah is seen a the source of living drinking waters.  And we know that this rock of waters known by Moses and Israel, is clearly designated by Paul as a prophetical type of Jesus Christ, because Sheth can also mean that which is "put and substituted" as Christ our substitute and redeeming sacrifice, the Lamb of GOD, was for us.  As the body is a garment for our soul and spirit, so also did GOD the Son put on a suit of flesh as His garment, and have that perish for us to atone for our sins upon the Cross.

So with Beresheis, we read bara sheith, and see the shethiy (the warp weave of a garment) through the whole Bible in Jesus (Revelation 19:10c). 

  "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

    Inverted,

 "for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus."

 Isaiah 26:1's use of "sets" designates this same thought, that Yeshua, whose Name means "salvation", is set as a garment as our walls and ramparts.  

 "salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks."

He it is who is the prophetical Ath/Oth, that special and yet coming "miraculous Sign" of GOD whom is present in Genesis 1:1, for which the universe and all Creation was made for.  

At the Creation, in John 1:3 , of YHVeH Messiah, we are informed twice that “all things through Him εγενετο” -- all things came into being at a point in time when the “Beginning” was in a new state, and still unfolding into existence (i.e., ginomai being twice in the aorist).

“Egeneto” is followed immediately by an emphasis on ginomai’s perfect tense: “gegonen”. This tells us the continuing existence of the new state that has come into existence, as being upheld by the word of His power (as it were).

Jeremiah 17:12
“A glorious high throne from the Beginning* is the place of our sanctuary.”
YHVeH is a name that subsumes all 3 tenses of the Hebrew verb “to be”.  The verb “to be ”in the Hebrew is:   hayah “was”,

hoveh” is”,  and

yiheyeh “will be”.

Genesis 1:1
“In the Beginning** God created the heaven and the earth.”

*Rishon (the primary word used here) is something or someone that is FIRST in place, time, or rank.  It is derived from the feminine noun of Rishah (found only in Ezekiel 36:11) which is used in the sense of a Beginning of Time, or a Time Beginning thus.  Rishah in turn is derived from Rosh, he who is the head person or first in rank.  In the application of  Jeremiah 17:12, we see that the time is Genesis 1:1, because the source of the person first in rank is GOD Himself in the very next verse of Jeremiah 17:13 which reads:

"O LORD, the Hope of all Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed; they that depart from ME shall be written in the Earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of Living Waters."
 
**Reshith (the primary word used here in Bereshith) is a feminine noun that also finds its definition in being first in place, time, order or rank.  Both Jeremiah 17:12 and Genesis 1:1, deal with being in the presence of GOD at or before the Beginning of Time.  

 

 Rashi, in explaining Genesis 1:1 teaches us that wherever the word resheith occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. Rashi then gives us some examples, such as:

Genesis 10:10, "The beginning of (resheith) his kingdom,"

Deuteronomy 18:4, "The firstfruit of (resheith) thy corn."

Jeremiah 26:1, "In the beginning of (resheith) the reign of Jehoiakim,"

In this, Jewish sage Rashi teaches us that GOD created the Universe in the Beginning, and like the Jewish Christian Apostle Paul, rules that the creation occurring in Genesis 1:1 is likened unto the "first fruits" of Creation.  In I Corinthians 15, Paul informs us:
"Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept... Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (I Corinthians 15:20,23).

And so it is at the Creation.  For 3 days and nights there is no day or night as we know it.  The stars and planets are non-existent...for only the singular Earth rests in a Universe filled with darkness.  The Spirit of GOD acting as the Shekinah or dwelling presence of GOD over the Earth, is as the Day.  The Spirit does NOT shine forth into the deep, but radiates of His own accord, as the skin of Moses radiated forth like a glow in the dark light stick...but did not penetratingly "beam" forth like the rays of the sun (or as a powerful flashlight) into the darkness.

In effect, the Creation begins with the death of Jesus, being in the Earth 3 days and nights, and the sacrifice of YH clothed in the Garment of Man is right there in Genesis’ Beginning, foretelling Jesus’ sacrifice at the coming Cross.  Get that.  The Cross is in the very design of the Creation.

In Genesis 1:2, we might inquire that if the Earth is physical matter of the garment, what is the relationship of the waters with the Garment of the Earth created in Genesis 1:1? 

Rashi: "The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters, and Scripture had not yet revealed/proclaimed and called out [as though read aloud] - (HaMiQRA) when the creation of the waters took place -- See now, you must now have learned from this that the waters preceded that of the earth.”

 

In the Bible, we see a relationship between severe earthquakes and an opening of inter-dimensional windows that appear to solidly bridge the gap so that we can understand how that waters preceded that of the Earth.

“And it shall come to pass, that … the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.” Isaiah 24:18

The Bible recognizes these inter-dimensional windows or gates up at cloud level. It is not only a recognition of UFOs being present over mankind as far back as 741 B.C. and prior to this, but the visible inter-dimensional portals they flew in and out of at great heights attributed as at cloud level, out of reach of man at the time.

“Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?” Isaiah 60:8

When the Earth was covered with water, we are told that in the Days of Noah that these windows on high were a crucial part in how the Earth was flooded, not just from below, but from above as well. 

With the shaking of the Earth’s foundations in the days of Noah, for at least 40 days by presumption, these “windows” on high were open and then shut.

“The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;” Genesis 8:2

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Genesis 7:11

In other words, if we know that Heaven has water because it flows from GOD's throne (Revelation 22:1, Ezekiel 47:1, Jeremiah 2:13 & 17:13, etc.).  

  "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."  (Revelation 22:1)

"Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar."  (Ezekiel 47:1)

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." (Jeremiah 2:13)

 "O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters." (Jeremiah 17:13)

[Note: Jeremiah 17:13 should especially be read with John 8:1-11's woman caught in the act of adultery and the implication of Jesus writing (vv 6, 8) the 23 names of the Sanhedrin Katan before him in the dirt.  The Sanhedrin Katan was the lesser Sanhedrin group authorized to condemn people to death and have them executed for violating the mosaic Law in the land of Israel in ancient times such as Jesus’ Day and before, though severely restricted by the Romans at the time of Jesus’ ministry.]

Therefore, citing these verses, GOD on His Throne must be present at the Creation. As with the windows on high being opened at the Flood of Noah, Scripture also informs us that, when searched out, the water from GOD's throne is also able to gush forth as rain (Psalm 65:9, Revelation 22:1, Joel 3:18), not just with the coming Temple of Ezekiel 47:1.    

  "Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it: thou greatly enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water: thou preparest them corn, when thou hast so provided for it."  (Psalm 65:9)

"And in that Day, it will be that the mountains
will rain down YHVeH's Spirit,
as though flowing down forth an intoxicating New Wine;
and the hills will gush forth and flow with fatness;
and all the deep channels of Judah shall flow with Living Waters;
and an overflowing river shall pour forth as a artesian well-spring
from out of the House of YHVeH,
and a refreshing and watering it shall give as it fills (even)
the Valley of the Pierced Tree."
(Joel 3:18, fully amplified from Hebrew with Alternate Word Pictures and Reiterations [AWPR], my translation)

Through 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, and many other passages like the gathering of the Sons of GOD in Job 1:6, and 2 Chronicles 18:18, we see the Throne of YHVeH is the destination of all GOD's own.  In Job 38:7, we see that the angels (sons of GOD) and the cherubim (morning stars) are present at this Creation of the Earth (vv.4-7). We know that these creatures are implied, because (again) there are no constellations or material matter present in the universe outside the confines of the Earth until the 4th evening/day.

Returning to Genesis 1:2, the Jewish sage Rashi comments on this "Throne" of GOD or “Throne of Glory” hovering at the Creation, and this should be thought of in the same manner as at Mount Sinai, where he states in regard to Exodus 19:20:

"Vayeired YHVeH al Har Sinai", saying “Heaven was made like a bedspread over Sinai.”

“And the Spirit of GOD was hovering -- The Throne of Glory was standing in the air and hovering over the surface of the water by the breath/Spirit of the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed is He, and by His statement, like a dove that hovers over the nest.”

In the Jewish Commentaries, rabbis discuss this "breath aspect in Chagigah 15a and Midrash Tehillim 93:5. They essentially rule out the impersonal of the word "breath", and insert the translation that by the Spirit the Throne of Glory was hovering.


In John 7, we read:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

In other words, if the Throne of Glory is present, and the waters flow from GOD's throne in Ezekiel 47:1, from the Father and the Lamb in Revelation 22:1, again it is the pre-incarnate Jesus who is the one from whom the water flows at the Creation of the world.

In other words, from Genesis 1:1, in a hidden manner or open secret to those with eyes to see and trusting-faith into GOD, we are informed of the coming purpose and design of Creation that is to include the incarnation of GOD, covered with earth (a new thing, a new material).

Leviticus 17:11 tells us that the blood is the gateway to the soul,

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

 

The blood is mainly composed of water and then blood cells, but  what is that true gateway to eternal life if physical blood cannot be manifest at all times in physical application to both atone and flow?   John 6:63 tells us that the words of Christ Jesus (in time and through time and in spite of time) act as the means of granting eternal life:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

 

When the pre-incarnate Yeshua breathed into man the breath of the second life

(cf. Lamentations 4:20,

“The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen.”

 

He breathed into our forefather Adam the "breath of Heaven" as it were, as if the smallest sliver of the spirit and soul of GOD.

 Genesis 2:7

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

 

Man was formed of Land / Earth and water was placed into him to form him.  With the water he had a singular soul or life, just like the animals. But something was added, the sliver or the Yod of GOD Himself went into man’s nostrils and he was born of water and the Spirit.  In John 1, we are informed that not only is Jesus the Creator of the world and of man at the Beginning, but His Spirit, His Yod, is the pilot light that lights everyone who believes into Him, and possession of that Yod, that sliver of His Spirit and their trusting-faith into Him, qualifies them to be and be called the Children of GOD.  There is a relationship in which the Believer into Jesus has GOD indwell him or her as if in a spiritual physical presence like the Holy of Holies, and the light within illuminate in lesser or greater degrees like the Shekinah Presence at the Camp of Meeting or the Holy Temple itself.  Since GOD is Light (1 John 1:5), and Jesus as the Lamb shines bright enough to light up all of New Jerusalem and far beyond (Revelation 21:23), whether He in habits a born again believer or is present at the Beginning, He shines brighter than any sun could. 

This relationship between water and light now goes back to Genesis 1:2

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

And it also pertains to the discussion Jesus was having with the chief rabbi of Israel, who was likely a major influence to the good in the Great Sanhedrin of 70, but not one of the Lesser Sanhedrin group within that, the Committee of 23 who generally had the power to condemn to death those who broke the Law of Moses. 

^3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[Adam, in receiving the breath of GOD, a sliver of His Spirit, was given lives or a second life, and instantly graduated far above the animals as on who was BORN AGAIN.  This did not register with Nicodemus who thought more carnally.]

⁴ Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

⁵ Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[Jesus now reverts to Genesis 1:2, but Nicodemus, as learned as he was far above most Jews and Jewish sages, still could not grasp this.  Nor could he call to mind the treatment for one cured of leprosy nor of the Syrian who washed in the river Jordan and was so cured. (2 Kings 5:1-14)]

⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

⁷ Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

⁸ The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”   (John 3:3-8)

Again, when a person is born again, in the body, it is as if the Spirit of GOD hovers over the blood, but it is not something that can be pinned down in a physical understanding, even though the imprint of us is a restored person in our spirit and soul. 

When we die as believers, we go to be with the LORD (2 Corinthians 5:1-8, John 12:26, et al.).  That which the LORD has given returns to Him, it is not something that is voided (Isaiah 55:11). 

For now, I will leave it there, as many secrets of the Beginning and its relationship to Jesus and the Spirit of Prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, has been revealed. As directed by Scripture, I have in no way financially profited in sharing the Gospel / the Good News of Jesus, following the command:

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”   (Isaiah 55:1)

May those who are in the LORD Jesus learn and be blessed by what insights into the WORD that I personally believe that GOD has shared with me and helped me to learn, the which I have shared above.  Again, it is shared without money and without price as wine and milk for the souls of those who with trusting-faith believe into Jesus.  Shalom.  Amen.