Bore Corpus or Of the Value and the Extension 1 For this chronicle, apraz me it chance to reflect by means of compared truths, that is: I want to compare the Biblical truth in the philosophical one. At posterior moment, I still wait to inquire the reason of both in the present time of the hypothetical human behavior. For even more analysis, hear from Ripple. For such intention, I believe that it is in good ways to initiate this too much confused reasoning and mistake as all the ones that, while chronic, I reflected – from two citations: 1 – ' ' Then God said: ' Let us make the man to our image and semelhana' (…) ' God created the man to its image; the image of God created it, created the man and mulher' ' ' 2 (Gnesis 1, 26-27 -) 3; 2 – ' ' The man is the measure of all the things, of that they are for what they are and of that they are not for what not so' ' 4 (Protgoras) 5. Leaving of the hypothesis of that the meaning of all and any sentence is placed in the proper 6 sentence, we will say that the express thought in the first one configures considerable opposition to second, of luck that is logically incompatible. Assuming as mechanism of our reflection the beginning of third excluded according to which the thing is or it is not, let us inquire initially that proposal that is the first one in the order of my listing. It would like to start declaring that I will proceed not from a illustrative reading, as demands us Career of Snows, but literal of the same one, to the way of Saramago. When in them &#039 is pronounced; ' Then &#039 said God (…); ' , we can, with effect, to ask: It said for who? It would have then somebody next to God and that it would not have been for it created? But this is equivalent to ignore the possibility of any capable entity of language to reflect in high voice, is to say: when somebody pronounces a thought, such act not necessarily is destined to somebody.