DIVINE LIGHT, CREATORS OMNIPRESENCE

Light is the Idiom around the world. light and truth are basically synonymous.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:15, King James Version)

Let your light in word shine before All for all time to come, that they your progeny may see and hear and sense your good work for all time, so they may glorify you my father my Patriarch, my eponymous progenitor, my genius who rests in peace in the heavenly light you reflected for all time.
Open my eyes that I might see, Visions of Truth Thou hast for me. Now I place each vision, as a sigil for One and All to see the light and truth revealed to me. communication for union


THE COLOR SPECTRUM AND THE ALCHEMY OF  LIGHT. 

Understanding that like matter, light transforms from 'light' to dark, or from white to black  through the same process of dissolution and coagulation.  
The key as I see it, for the original work of  naming things, must have been the process of transforming the observed phenomena into words and successfully translating the reality observed into a living seeing language.   Observed transformation's, or differentiation's or  or distinction's can only be registered graphically alter understanding the relationship between transparent, translucent light and the resultant spectrum of colors. The between light in language. Light is a very old word.‘let there be light’ (in Old English geweorðe leoht). The word (when meaning ‘not dark’) ultimately derives from the same Indo-European root as Greek leukos (white) and the Latin lux (light). And light with this sense has even been spelt the same way(s) as light meaning ‘not heavy’ since they both appeared in English, despite coming from different Indo-European roots. In Armenian, the word LUSAVORICH translates to, LIGHT OF DAY BRINGER. All IE languages speak metaphorically through light. Many are connected with light making things easier to see – the reason, being that nobody has worked out a better reflector of idiom, so all of us use light. For light is the revealer of the unseen things, for from darkness and Secrets we come to light or are brought into the light; information sheds, casts, or throws light on conundrums. Ideas see the light of day, while facts are clear as day – or como la luz del dí(‘like the light of day’) in Spanish; As in Proto-Armenian.
A person’s consciousness is also metaphorically represented as light. To knock someone unconscious is to punch their lights out. The insult the lights are on but nobody’s home is used to suggest that a person lacks intelligence or awareness; in this instance the light seems to indicate mere sentience, and the phrase borrows the image of an empty (but lit) house. The ease with which a candle can be extinguished (or, later, domestic electric lights can be turned off) gave rise to the expression to go out like a light: to fall asleep quickly.
In French, lumières is used to mean the opinions and knowledge of an individual’s intellect – for example, in the sentence J’ai besoin de vos lumières (‘I need your lights’) which has the English equivalent ‘I need to pick your brains’. In the same vein, aider [quelqu’un] de ses lumières (‘help [somebody] to his lights’) is to give somebody the benefit of one’s wisdom, and to avoir des lumières(‘have the lights’) on something is to have knowledge of a subject. Similarly, if someone tiene pocas luces (‘has few lights’) in Spanish, they are dim-witted – or, indeed, not bright.
If it is said in French that somebody is not a light (ce n’est pas une lumière), then they will not amount to much – or, to use an English expression also relating to light, albeit more dramatically, they’ll never set the world on fire. In English, the word light most commonly relates to knowledge when found in the word enlighten: ‘give someone greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation’. The Enlightenment or the Age of Enlightenment are terms often used to refer to a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.
Light is also often a stand-in for general hope, goodness, or positivity. The light at the end of the tunnel(a metaphor drawn from railways) is in indication that a long period of difficulty is nearing an end, while a face lights up when displaying a happy smile. It is the greatest compliment to call somebody the light of my life, and a leading light is a person who is prominent or influential in a particular field or organization. Contrarily, to stand in a person’s light is to block them from attention or benefit.
Another common expression, sweetness and light, is also a quotation; it means ‘good-natured benevolence’ or ‘social or political harmony’ – for example, ‘their relationship was all sweetness and light for the time being’ – and comes from A Tale of a Tub (1704) by the British satirist Jonathan Swift. Swift wrote: ‘Instead of Dirt and Poison, we have rather chose to fill our Hives with Honey and Wax, thus furnishing Mankind with the two Noblest of Things, which are Sweetness and Light.’ 


ALL LIFE PATHS within existence are illuminated from inception - a spark of life to birth to rise and fall from dawn to dusk to darkness to light again, it/we are all on the same path of light/life. Light is opposite to dark, as life is to death. 

In the beginning God created  earth in a dark place , then he turned on the process of life with the light, this feat he accomplished through a performative speech act, the like of which since its inception and execution has never been duplicated, even though his speech his words have been translated or transliterated. 

English "Let there be light," or Hebrew, the original, as אור יהי,  refers to the making of "light" the first word after  the 'be' is light, making the word, the first content word that God bestowed on his unseen creation. Seen the operative word, how could light not be the fundamental entity to revealing the truth about everything that we/life experiences, thus the perfect metaphor for the creator of the first language."

"Everything we see, of course, is dependent on the presence of light, and it is this fact that lays the groundwork for many metaphoric equations, in which the constant elements are light and vision as the sources, knowledge and understanding as the targets. To "see" something is to understand or comprehend it. "Light," in such idioms as "shed light," "shine a light on something," "bring something to light," and "see the light," represents not a physical but a cognitive phenomenon that suggests clarity, understanding, and information. 

Lakoff and Johnson, in their foundational work Metaphors We Live By, identify this collection of concepts thus:"

Understanding is seeing; ideas are light sources; discourse is a light-medium

The good Light as perceived by sight ( in and out, as the first cause of all thus the last) must 'be' the source, of all metaphors for the creator of language and logos, for everything on the path of the inner and outer Solar experience of all conscious existence is life. It is so pervasive in all PIE languages, we hardly notice its omnipresence. 
Like for examples in English, we see what you're saying. It looks different from my point of view. What is your outlook on that? I view it differently. Now I've got the whole picture. That's an insightful idea. That was abrilliantremark. The argument is Chrystalclear.It was a murkydiscussion. Could you elucidate your remarks? It's a transparent argument. The discussion was opaque.     

There is hardly a noun, verb, or adjective in English without a core meaning arising from light and vision that cannot be used in metaphoric extension to depict knowledge and understanding. 

In the language of mottoes  "light," in English or in some inflection of Latin lux or lumen, was one of the most common words in the mottoes of various institutions of learning, owing to the pervasive metaphor of light as knowledge.

When we illustrate something, we either supply it with illustrations or give a clarifying example, in order to bring greater understanding. 
The word underlying illustrate is luster, a word that denotes the quality of something that shines with reflected light. Luster,in turn, is from a Latinlustrare,"to brighten." Illumine and illuminate (literally, "make bright or brighter") are even closer to the "light source," both being derived from Latin lumen.     
The metaphoric usage of these is brilliantly illustrated in the well-known 19th century hymn by Clara Scott, "Open My Eyes That I May See":

Open my eyes that I may see
Glimpses of truth Thou hast for me;
Place in my hands the wonderful key
That shall unclasp and set me free.
Silently now I wait for Thee,
Ready, my God, Thy will to see;
Open my eyes, illumine me,
Spirit Divine!

Obvious to me is that her reference to 'Spirit Divine' is the LIGHT of the Sun. 

English did not learn about the metaphoric extension of light and related metaphors from Latin descendants. Consider, for example, behold, one of English's ur-verbs, dating from the 9th century. It has a twofold core meaning: "to regard with the mind," and "to hold or keep in view." Likewise with "bright," an English word of Germanic origin whose core meaning is "radiating or reflecting light," and whose common metaphoric meaning is "quick-witted or intelligent." 

What I intend to throw light on, is that LIGHT was the first/last ontological, core principal used (by the Sumerian scribes,  Haig and wife Nadaba) when creating and structuring what is still a living language Armenian, an original PIE language, phonetically dated back to 2500 B.C. in its conception.

An amazing  project underway at the University of California (Berkeley) is called MetaNet, it is an ambitious attempt to develop a multilingual repository of metaphors that are common across languages.  It will be a brilliant day when the project can catalog the forms of light metaphors across languages, it would be even brighter if they looked into the origin of the earliest structured language that speaks of light as the creative principal of creation/god, for all ART as Reflective and Science starting with the principal that the speed of Light is the constant. 

Language (philosophical, metaphysical, ontological) to be true and instructive to all be-ings and be-comings conscious or unconscious, to start with must differentiate COLOR/LIGHT the first resultant of the differing light reflected or absorbed or passed through matter. 

So its the description of the first and last civic Light that Dawn and Dusk represent.

The verb illuminating like explaining/clarifying refers to light or to setting free from confusion (from darkness,chaos). This is suggested by the ex- of explaining. 
A great example in Korean is the word for explaining, which contains within the sun/moon ideogram, also again, in Slavic languages there is a reference to sunshine in all those verbs.

The Hebrews it has been shown had a way of "doubling-up" or "doubling-over" a word, a term, a phrase, so that one would emphasize the other, despite both meaning essentially the same thing. This method hits a concept from two slightly different angles so that it becomes more emphatic. Light and truth are the similar ideas, the word "truth" channeling the author's illustration of light and what it signifies. Light illustrates, emphasizes, and expands the abstract idea of truth.

Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.^{[citation needed]}

Illuminationism is a doctrine according to which the process of human thought needs to be aided by divine grace. It is the oldest and most influential alternative to naturalism in the theory of mind and epistemology.^[5] It was an important feature of ancient Greek philosophy, Neoplatonism, medieval philosophy, and in particular, the Illuminationist school of Islamic philosophy.

Augustine was an important proponent of Illuminationism, stating that everything we know is taught to us by 'God' as He casts His light over the world,^{[web 3]} saying that "The mind needs to be enlightened by light from outside itself, so that it can participate in truth, because it is not itself the nature of truth. You will light my lamp, Lord," ^[6] and "You hear nothing true from me which you have not first told me."^[7] 

Augustine's version of illuminationism is not that God gives us certain information, but rather gives us insight into the truth of the information we received for ourselves.

Metaphysical naturalism,  me me me, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", yes yes yes,  is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, refers exclusively to the methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.^{[citation needed]}

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.^{[citation needed]}

Divine light(also called divine radiance or divine refulgence) is an aspect of divine presence, specifically an unknown and mysterious ability of God, angels, or human beings to express themselves communicatively through spiritual means, rather than through physical capacities. 

The term light has been used in spirituality (vision,enlightenment,darshan,Tabor Light). Bible commentators such as Ritenbaugh see the presence of light as a metaphor oftruth,good and evil,knowledgeandignorance.^[1]        

In thefirst Chapterof the Bible, Elohim is described as creating light byfiatand seeing the light to be good. InHinduism,Diwali— the festival of lights — is a celebration of the victory of light over darkness.^[2]AmantrainBṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad(1.3.28)urges God to 'from darkness, lead us unto Light'. TheRig Vedaincludes nearly two dozen hymns to the dawn and its goddess, Ushas. And Buddhist scripture speaks of numerous buddhas of light, including a Buddha of Boundless Light, a Buddha of Unimpeded Light, and Buddhas of Unopposed Light, of Pure Light, of Incomparable Light, and of Unceasing Light.               ^[3]

Various local religious concepts exist:

• Inner light – Christian concept and Quaker doctrine
• Prakasa - Kashmiri Saiva concept of the light of Divine Consciousness of Siva
• An Noor – Islamic term and concept
• Ein Sof – in Rabbinic Judaism
• Tabor Light – in Eastern Orthodox theology
• Theoria – in Christian theology, illumination on the path to theosis
• Ayat an-Nur – in Arabic, the Sign of Light

Light is the core concept in Iranian mysticism. The main roots of this thought is in the Zoroastrian beliefs, which defines The supreme God Ahura Mazda as the source of light. This very essential attribute is manifested in various schools of thought in the Iranian Religions and philosophy. Later this notion has been dispensed into the whole Middle East, having a great effect of shaping the paradigms of different religions and philosophies emerging one after another in the region. After the Arab invasion, this concept has been incorporated into the Islamic teachings by Iranian thinkers, most famous of them Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, who is the founder of the illumination philosophy.

Although this school had stemmed from the Iranian culture and beliefs, it has spread far into Europe and can be seen and traced in the teachings of the Enlightenment era, Renaissance movement, and even the secret cults as early Illuminati.

Higher consciousness is the consciousness of a higher Self, transcendental reality, or God. It is "the part of the human being that is capable of transcending animal instincts".^[1] The concept was significantly developed in German Idealism, and is a central notion in contemporary popular spirituality. However, it has ancient roots, dating back, so far, to the Bhagvad Gita and Indian Vedas.

Higher consciousness requires, at a minimal level semantic ability, and "in its most developed form, requires structured linguistic ability, or the mastery of a whole system of symbols and a grammar". So we should be able to trace higher consciousness first in the Sumerian scribes of 2600 B.C. who designed high language.

Upanishad means setting to rest ignorance by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit. Light?
The concepts of Brahman (ultimate reality) and Ātman (soul, self) are central ideas in all of the Upanishads,^[9][10] and "know that you are the Ātman" is their thematic focus.

Divine presence, presence of God, Inner God, or simply presence is a concept in religion, spirituality, and theology that deals with the ability of a god or gods to be "present" with human beings.


The trifunctional hypothesis of prehistoric Proto-Indo-European society postulates a tripartite ideology ("idéologie tripartite") reflected in the existence of three classes or castes—priests, warriors, and commoners(farmers or tradesmen)—corresponding to the three functions of the sacral, the martial and the economic, respectively. The trifunctional thesis is primarily associated with the French mythographer Georges Dumézil,^[1] who proposed it in 1929 in the book Flamen-Brahman,^[2] and later in Mitra-Varuna.^[3]

Alternating Three way division between Episcopal, Royal and Communal.

According to Dumézil (1898-1986), Proto-Indo-European society were comprised of three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions. 

• Sovereignty,  which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts:

• one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly; the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world.

• Military, connected with force, the military and war.
• Productivity, herding, farming and crafts; ruled by the other two.

In the Proto-Indo-European mythology each social group had its own function. Many such divisions occur in the history of Indo-European societies:

Were Enoch Noah Jabed, Sem and Ham PIE's? Did the three sons of Noah represent a three-way division, the original three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions all originally under one overarching family group Noah the inheritor of the principals passed down by forefathers Methuselah and Enoch. 

The text of the Book of Genesis says Enoch lived 365 years, it could represent the year cycle measured as 365 days before he was taken by God the text reads that Enoch "walked with God: and he was no more; for God took him", which some Christians interpret as Enoch's entering Heaven alive. In Spirit. Assent.

Enoch is the subject of many Jewish and Christian traditions. He was considered the author of the Book of Enoch^[2] and he was also called Enoch the scribe of judgment.^[3] The New Testament has three references to Enoch, who was from the lineage of Seth. 

The Second Book of Enoch (usually abbreviated 2 Enoch, and otherwise best known as The Secrets of Enoch) is a epigraphic text in the apocalyptic genre dating from the first century CE. It describes the ascent of the patriarch Enoch, ancestor of patriarch Noah, ancestor of Haig, all pass through the ten heavens in an earth-centered cosmos.

The cosmology of 2 Enoch corresponds closely with early medieval beliefs about the metaphysical structure of the universe. Though it may have been influential on the shaping of those beliefs, the text was lost after several centuries; it was recovered and published at the end of the nineteenth century. The full text is extant only in Old Bulgarian, but Coptic fragments have been known since 2009. The Old Bulgarian version itself represents a translation from an original in Greek.^[1]

Some scholars attribute 2 Enoch to an author representing an unidentified Jewish sect, while others regard it as the work of first-century Christians. 2 Enoch is not included in the Jewish or Christian canons.

2 Enoch is distinct from the Book of Enoch, known as 1 Enoch. The numbering of these texts has been applied by scholars to distinguish the texts from one another. 

Abram himself was sustained by Melchizedek since he refused to consume of the luxury of Sodom because his Lord was of the non-material world. In the New Testament, references to Melchizedek appear only in the Epistle to the Hebrews (later 1st century AD), though these are extensive (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21). Jesus Christ is there identified as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.

The Zohar (redacted by Moses de León c. 1290s) finds in "Melchizedek king of Salem" a reference to "the King Who rules with complete sovereignty". or according to another explanation, that "Melchizedek" alludes to the lower world and "king of Salem" to the upper world (Zohar 1:86b–87a). 

The Zohar's commentary on Genesis 14 cites a Rabbi Yitzchak as saying that it was God who gave tithe to Abram in the form of removing the Hebrew letter He from his throne of glory and presenting it to the soul of Abram for his benefit. The letter he is the letter God added to Abram's name to become "Abra-ha-m" in Genesis.

The book can be divided in four sections:

• In the first section (chapters 1–22), Enoch, at the age of 365, is taken by two angels through the ten heavens, one by one.
• In the second section (chapters 23–37), Enoch, now guided by Gabriel, speaks with God in the tenth heaven face to face. Afterwards, he is anointed by Michael, and becomes similar in appearance to the angels. God tests the obedience of his angels by having them bow down before Enoch. A group of angels, identified as the angels of Satanail, refuses. They are imprisoned. Eventually they bow before Enoch, addressing him as "a man of God." (This story seems similar to that of the War in Heaven between God and Satan.^[16]) The Lord asks the angel Vereviel to dictate to Enoch 360 books containing all that is knowable. Later, the Lord himself tells Enoch the secrets, unknown even to the angels, of the Creation until the Flood. Enoch is finally sent back to Earth for thirty days.
• The third section (chapters 38–68) is a list of doctrinal and ethical instructions given by Enoch to his sons. The main moral principle is to have love for all living beings (similar to the ethics found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). Particularly noticeable is a lack of interest in the sin of fornication, and not once is the Law of Moses referred to. Enoch teaches the uselessness of intercessions. At the end of the thirty days, Enoch is taken into heaven forever.
• The last section (sometimes referred to as the Exaltation of Melchizedek) outlines the priestly succession of Enoch. Enoch's son, Methuselah, is asked by the people to act as an interim priest. The priesthood of Nir, grandson of Methuselah, is also temporary. Then the miraculous birth of Melchizedek and his priesthood are narrated (see Melchizedek in the Second Book of Enoch for a short summary). In manuscript B and in the long versions, this section ends with a short narrative of the Deluge. Expressing a kabbalistic point of view, the Zohar commentary to Genesis 14 cites Rabbi Yitzchak as saying that it was God who gave a tithe to Abram in the form of removing the Hebrew letter He from his own throne of glory and presenting it to the soul of Abram for his benefit.^[25]
• Origin of the idea of the tripartite nature of man
• You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals.
• God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are.
  That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.
  The Bible clearly speaks of: God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. But emphasizes that there is only ONE God.
  If we were to use math, it would not be, 1+1+1=3. It would be 1x1x1=1. God is a triune God.
  Thus the term: "Tri" meaning three, and "Unity" meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three "Persons" who have the same essence of deity.
  Some have tried to give human illustrations for the Trinity, such as H₂O being water, ice and steam (all different forms, but all are H₂O). Another illustration would be the sun. From it we receive light, heat and radiation. Three distinct aspects, but only one sun
•  Luther writes:

  Scripture divides man into three parts, as says St Paul (1 Thess. v. 23)... And every one of these three, together with the entire man, is also divided in another way into two portions, which are there called Spirit and Flesh. Which division is not natural, but attributive; i.e. nature has three portions spirit, soul, and body... In the tabernacle fashioned by Moses there were three separate compartments. The first was called the holy of holies: here was God's dwelling place, and in it there was no light. The second was called the holy place; here stood a candle-stick with seven arms and seven lamps. The third was called the outer court; this lay under the open sky and in the full light of the sun. In this tabernacle we have a figure of the Christian man. His spirit is the holy of holies, where God dwells in the darkness of faith,where no light is; for he believes that which he neither sees nor feels nor comprehends. His soul is the holy place, with its seven lamps, that is, all manner of reason, discrimination, knowledge, and understanding of visible and bodily things. His body is the forecourt, open to all, so that men may see his works and manner of life.

  The Old Testament consistently uses three primary words to describe the parts of man: basar (flesh), which refers to the external, material aspect of man (mostly in emphasizing human frailty); nephesh, which refers to the soul as well as the whole person or life; and ruach which is used to refer to the human spirit (ruach can mean "wind", "breath", or "spirit" depending on the context; cf. Ezek. 37:1-14 where ruach is translated as all three). In the Old Testament basar occurs 266 times, nephesh occurs 754 times, and ruach occurs 378 times with at least 100 times referring to the human spirit.^[16]
  According to trichotomists, the full anthropology of man and the proper distinction between his inward parts (Psa. 51:6) while latent in the Old Testament, do not receive a clear treatment until the New Testament. Genesis 2:7 "rather implies than asserts the trichotomy of spirit, soul, and body"^[17] and must be "illuminated by the light of subsequent Scriptures"^[18] to reveal its full import. This corresponds with what many theologians call progressive revelation.^[19][20][21] As with Genesis 2:7, other verses in the Old Testament directly correlate man's spirit (ruach) with God's breath (neshamah) (Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14). However, the revelation of the human spirit is obscure in the Old Testament, as is the revelation of the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. Not until the New Testament is the nature of God fully and explicitly revealed and likewise not until the New Testament (especially the Epistles) is the nature of man fully and explicitly revealed.^[22][23]
  Heard explains:

  We have only another caution to make before entering on our task; it is that revelation being a progressive manifestation of the truth of God, the discovery of man's nature must also be progressive. In the same way that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead, and their relation to each other, was only gradually unfolded in Scripture, so we may expect it to be with the trichotomy of man's nature, spirit, soul, and body. As in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity it was not fully understood until the Spirit was given, so the distinction of Psyche and Pneuma is implied rather than taught when the race was still in its spiritual infancy....It would be out of harmony with the “analogy of the faith,” if the tripartite nature of man were fully described in those books of the Bible which only contain implied hints of the plurality of persons in the Godhead. All we shall see of the subject will confirm this view of the harmonious way in which doctrines and duties, the nature of God and the nature of man, are unfolded together.^[24]

  The relation between body and soul itself wasn't clear to the ancients, much less the relation between soul and spirit. The physiology and psychology of the Hebrew and the Archaic Greek world was speculative, and so, reasoning on imperfect data, they spoke of various physical organs as the seat of thought, feeling, and decision.^[25] The heart primarily was the seat of thought and feeling, the kidneys the seat of reflection (Psa. 16:7; 26:2; Prov. 23:6), and the bowels the seat of affection (Gen. 43:30; Phil. 1:8). It wasn't until the Alexandrian physicians (e.g. Erasistratus and Herophilus) and the Classical Greek philosophers (e.g. Plato and Aristotle) that a more accurate understanding of man's inward parts began to emerge.

  Intertestamental period[edit]

  During the intertestamental period, two factors shaped and "enlarged the semantic domain of the Greek and Hebrew words for the parts of man"^[26]and set the stage for a more complete and accurate understanding of the nature of man. The first factor was Greek philosophy. The Greek philosophers, unlike the Greek poets,^[27] clearly distinguished the material from the immaterial part of man, defined the functions of the soul in more precise terms, and in general expanded the vocabulary for the parts of man. The second factor was the translation of the Septuagint. The translators of the Septuagint incorporated the linguistic developments of the Greek philosophers into the biblical revelation when they translated the Hebrew into Greek.
  Good explains:

  Although the classical Greek writers did not arrive at the same realization as the New Testament writers, their use of certain key words in Greek gave the New Testament writers a greater and more precise vocabulary to work with in describing the parts of man. After Plato and Aristotle, there was a richer array of words to describe the inward parts of man, particularly the mind (e.g., nous, noëma, di-anoia, and phronëma).^[28]

  Dichotomists often argue against the tripartite view of man by discrediting it through its apparent connection with Platonism.^[29][30] However, Plato and the Greek philosophers, strictly speaking, were dichotomists.^[31] Plato did divide man into three parts,^[32] but his trichotomy was different from Paul's trichotomy in essence, function, and primacy. Plato's divisions were a tripartite division of the soul (See Plato's tripartite theory of soul). He conceived of man's soul as consisting of an appetitive, irascible (spirited), and rational element.^[33] In Timaeus 30 he also divided man into nous(mind), psychë (soul), and söma (body), with nous being the noblest part of the soul. When Plato does speak of spirit (thumos not the pneuma of Paul) he means something essentially different from Paul.^[34] The three parts of man are not equivalent for Plato and Paul and the master faculty for Plato (nous) is a subordinate faculty for Paul. "To discredit trichotomy by a similarity with Platonism confuses similarity with source. One could likewise attribute the source of the dichotomist view with Greek dichotomy (mater and spirit); some writers have argued for such a connection."^[35]

  New Testament[edit]

  Trichotomists believe that a tripartite view of man is clearly taught throughout the New Testament (see the Scriptural Basis section above). The writers of the New Testament, like the writers of the Old Testament, consistently use three primary words to describe the components of man's nature: sarx, used 151 times (and söma about 129 times), refers to the physical aspect of humanity; psychë, used 105 times, refers to the psycho-logical aspect of humanity; and pneuma, used 385 times total in the New Testament, refers to the human spirit in approximately 80 of those instances.^[36]
  In the New Testament, finer distinctions can be made between the functions and relations of man's inward parts.^[37]
  A full treatment of man's nature must consider the New Testament use of such words as flesh, body, spirit, soul, heart, mind, and conscience. For instance, dichotomists often dismiss the distinction between soul and spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as a piling up of terms for emphasis, that spirit and soul is "rhetorical tautology".^[38] They claim that if 1 Thessalonians 5:23 proves that man is composed of three parts, then Mark 12:30 must prove that man is made of four parts since Jesus enumerates heart, soul, mind, strength. However, trichotomists see only three parts here based on their understanding of how the Bible uses the terms heart, soul, and mind. The heart is a composition of the soul plus the conscience,^[39] and the mind is the leading part of the soul. Thus, Mark 12:30 is well within the parameters of a tripartite view of man.

  Early Church

  The tripartite view of man was considered an orthodox interpretation in the first three centuries of the church and many of the early church fathers (see Supporters of a Tripartite View chart) taught that man is made up of body, soul, and spirit. Irenaeus, Tatian, Melito, Didymus of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Cesaraea, all held to the distinction firmly according to its supporters.^[40][41][42] 
  However, there arose, primarily, three historical errors, the fear of which have caused a "prejudice against trichotomy": the pseudo-Gnostic view, the Apollinarian error, and the semi-Pelagian error. "But", Delitzsch argues, "in the face of all these errors, its opponents must confess that man may be regarded trichotomically, without in the least degree implying the adoption of such erroneous views." ^[43]
• It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.^[5] Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead. He writes:
  The distinction betweenousiaandhypostasesis the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.^[5]    
"Generations of Adam" is a concept in Genesis 5:1 in the Hebrew Bible. It is typically taken as the name of Adam's line of descent going through Seth. Another view equates the generations of Adam with material about a second line of descent starting with Cain in Genesis 4, while Genesis 5 is taken as the "generations of Noah".
• Adam Eve:Because of their Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. AdamEnochMethuselaLamechNoah
• Methuselah (Hebrew: מְתוּשֶׁלַח‬, Methushelah "Man of the dart/spear", or alternatively "his death shall bring judgment") is a patriarch and a figure in Judaism and Christianity. He was said to have lived the longest of all characters mentioned in the Torah at the age of 969.^[2]
•  Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah. 
• The Sethite genealogy may also be connected to the Sumerian King List.^[1][2][3][5] Evidence for this include the solar symbolism of the seventh figure on each list (the Sumerian king Enmeduranna sharing his name with the city where worship of the sun god was focused, Enoch living 365 years).^[1] Like Enoch, Enmeduranna's advisor Utuabzu ascended to heaven.^[5]Fritz Hommel further argued that Amelon was Enosh (both third in the list with names meaning "mankind"), that Ammenon  was Cainan/Cain (both fourth and connected to craftsmanship), and so on; noting that the tenth in each line was a hero who survived a world flood. Still, this position is argued against due to linguistic incompatibilities in half the names.^[2]Similarities between Irad and Eridu have also been pointed out.^[6]Thomas Kelly Cheyne argued that the two genealogies may also be connected to a North Arabian genealogy, one reproducing the other. Cheyne claimed that Mahalalel was a corruption of Jerahameel, and Methuselah was a corruption of Ishmael.^[3] Cheyne's theories are now rejected, however.^[7]
• The following table displays the most common line of comparison between the Sethite and Cainite lines (which reverses much of the Cainite list),^[1][3][4][8] as well as North Arabian genealogy (per Cheyne),^[3] and the Sumerian king list.^[5]

  Sethite line	Cainite line	North Arabian (Chayne)[3]	Sumerian kings[5]
  1. Adam	1. Adam	1. Jerahmeel	1. Alulim of Eridu
  2. Seth	8. [Seth]	2. Eshtaol	2. Alalgar of Eridu
  3. Enosh	9. [Enoch]	3. Ishmael	3. Enmenluanna of Bad-tibira
  4. Kenan	2. Cain	4. Fabric	4. Enmengalanna of Bad-tibira
  5. Mahalalel	5. Mehujael	5. Hanoch	5. Dumuzid Shepherd of Badtibira
  6. Jared	4. Irad	6.  Think	6.  Ensipazianna  of  Larak
  7. Enoch	3. Enoch	7. Jerahmeel	7. Enmeduranna of Sippar
  8. Methuselah	6. Methusael	8. Ishmael	8. Urbatutu of Shuruppak
  9. Lamech	7. Lamech	9. Jerahmeel	9. [Illegible]
  10. Noah	10. Naamah	10. Nahman	10.  Ziusudra

  The 2nd-century BC Book of Jubilees, regarded as non-canonical except by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Beta Israel, gives the wives' names for the Sethite line:

  Husband	Wife
  Seth	Azura
  Enos	Noam
  Cainan	Mualaleth
  Mahalaleel	Dinah
  Jared	Baraka
  Enoch	Edna
  Methuselah	Edna
  Lamech	Full
  Noah	Emzara

  The Jemdet Nasr Period  is nowadays dated from 3100–2900 BC based on radiocarbon dating. is contemporary with the early Ninevite V Period of Upper Mesopotamia and the Proto-Elamite Period of Iran, and shares with these two periods characteristics such as an emerging bureaucracy and inequality.^[7]I have to start with the definition of Color of course, for that is the first distinguishing factor I see. Color changes, in time and space, transforms from light to dark and back again and reflects from white to black through gray. The blue to green a good place to start, for translucent light blue the sky and dark blue the sea.