As a practicing Catholic, I have not viewed religion as primarily restrictive. I think there are those who misunderstand, but the more I learn, the more I understand, within the Church, God's love.
He said dont eat of the tree in the midsnt of the garden but it was never called the tree of the knowldge of good and evil. The result was that they knew good and evil because they had disobeyed God NOT because the tree was inherently of the knowldge of good and evil. yes MOST people who read the bible know this.
I know of no English version that specifies the fruit. Your second point reinforces the implication of the first "word-" " I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt-" not actually being a ?commandment" at all.
I also know of zero Dutch translations that specify the fruit. And the second part, maybe the difference is insanely specific in English, but I never saw it that way. However, i do agree that every translation means that there is always some nuance and meaning lost. But that's why pastors learn Hebrew, Latin and ancient Greek right, to help those who cannot learn it.
Commanding you to do something is equally restrictive and oppresing as forbidding you to do it. The predominant translation is far better and more humanistic as it promotes free will
"After you're done eating, make sure to eat your dessert, and then go and play with your friends outside. Just don't drink the bleach under the sink." "But my father, I wish only to eat dessert! Why would you restrict my freedom like that? Surely you would rather I be free to choose what I wish from all these good things?" A command restricting certain actions is not necessarily oppressive, nor is requiring certain actions. It depends entirely upon what is being restricted or required. It can be very bad for you to have too much of some good things, or none of a certain good thing. Would you get pissed at God because He told you that you must socialize with your fellow man to maintain your mental health? That you must exercise moderately? That you must not obsess over one art or luxury or pleasure to the exclusion of others, though you prefer it? Free will, in regards to preference and choice of good things and deeds certainly has its place. But a sin by omission is still a sin, even if it is merely the exclusion of a good personal pleasure.
@@Digganob590 Bad analogy, the traditional interpretation is more like ''here's the buffet, you can eat whatever you want except from the bleach that will kill you'' versus the interpretation proposed in this video that is more like ''here's the buffet, I command you to try every food on it except from the bleach that will kill you''. The first one is still better because it allows people to make their own decisions and possibly skip the things they find uninteresting
@@paolamaria1992 And what if you shouldn't skip what you find uninteresting? After all, you haven't even tried it, let alone that you know what everything there tastes like, or is made of.
@@paolamaria1992 It sure is. Did God say "you WILL eat that fruit, whether you like it or not," or did God say "you MUST eat that fruit"? Just because you should do something, and even when you are commanded to do something, that does not mean you are forced to. God did not puppet Adam to make him eat the fruit. Adam ate as he was commanded, and did right. He could have not eaten. What is to you that God told him he should do so?
You forget that religion was created for man AFTER the fall, after original sin of eatingg the fruit. So the argument that religion is wrong because it doesn't conform to your translation of what you claim to be "God's first commandment" doesn't stand. Even if God was saying that we "must" enjoy the fruits of the garden, this is before we broke the rules. Genesis clearly explains that from that point onwards, all of creation was altered, and we were permanently affected, condemned to suffering and death. Religion came after that, as a way for God to offer a path to humans back into salvation. But this path by no means is through behaving as if we were back in the garden of Eden. In adition, you seem to imply that the "obligation" of enjoying the fruits means we have an obligation to enjoy material pleasures on earth. But since one of the fruits in the story is the "fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil", it becomes clear that these fruits are symbolic, and not simply bananas or figs. I think you should reflect a bit more before posting videos. Everyone makes mistakes, but maybe we shouldn't all be posting "informative" videos claiming to offer a correct interpretation of religion if we didn't reflect on the topic for some time.
Yes, in Dutch an orange is called "sinaasappel" (china's apple) and a potato "aardappel" (earth apple) and so on. What we call as apples today were just so popular of a fruit that they didn't need any other specification other than apple.
Really interesting start but you need to do about ten more posts on this subject. In my view everything that happened in the Garden was meant to happen, by God. I don't think that he forbad Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but wanted them to, yet warned them that if they did they would come to know suffering and death. That's how you learn. Is there anything in the Hebrew that supports this view?
I would love to do ten more posts on this subject! To your point, the kabbalistic tradition maintains that had Adam and Eve waited until the Sabbath (they were born on day six), they would have been permitted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge! It was never meant to be permanently forbidden.
@@menschsense1 Thanks for that. I think the interpretation put on this story has been one of the key features in Christian thought over the past two millenia, and it has not always been a beneficial interpretation, reflecting badly on both God and man. I know less, or next to nothing, about the case in Jewish culture. Yet after all that time it is begining to be re-examined, strangely at a time when many people have concluded that it's all tosh anyway.
Well yes and no, it might not have been translated because nobody of their day and age necessitated that that was important of the translations but still good knowledge. Protestantic beliefs also spring fourth the same idea.
It’s YES. It’s a deliberate mis representation of the original intention of GOD’S commandments. The whole of Christianity is traitorous to SHOEHORN Jesus (worship of man and idols) to cover the Pre Ghandi Pre Buddha humanitarian culture of the JEWS. The barbaric tribes from Egypt to Persia to Assyria to Thrace to Sparta to Rome etc ALL worshipped Men and conquering their foes. Statues were erected and the apotheosis in AFTERLIFE was the greatest gift of their Gods. So they deliberately MADE man weak unredeemable UNLESS SUPERMAN GOD MAN Apotheosis arrived on the scene. ENTER APOLLO, MITHRA, DIONYSIS and JESUS. Genesis 3:22 clearly states that there was NO FALL of man, but instead a responsibility of Man to accept they have the power to KNOW good from evil and REDEEM themselves if they do bad things. The translation deliberately obfuscates this in the Greek Text and the. The church INVENTED Original inherited SIN Without JESUS GOD AMONGST MORTALS and the church that represents GOD. You are in redeemable worthless EVIL doers.
The Christian bible doesn't mention Apple - it says fruit. The Hebrew bible translations I have seen say that Adam may eat of all the fruit not must. I'm going to stop watching your video now.
Regarding the introduction of apple, it was traced back to the 4th century vulgate translation: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/30/526069512/paradise-lost-how-the-apple-became-the-forbidden-fruit Regarding the Jewish translations, you are correct that many translate it as "you may eat." However, long before its English translation, many rabbinic commentaries, among them Rabeinu Bachye and Rabbi Elyahu of Vilna, point out that the Hebrew explicitly uses the command form.
@@menschsense1 frankly almost all translations say "may", no matter the source. Even if it didn't, it doesn't mean anything really. You are forcing you conclusions on the texts. You say that God saying that Adam must eat all fruits is a message of an obligation to enjoy earth but when the same story talks about a "fruit of knowledge of good and evil", it becomes pretty clear that these fruits weren't bananas or peaches, it is clearly a symbolic meaning. It does mean that man was free to enjoy creation, but not necessarily talking about material aspects. Moreover, this is all before the fall, before man committed the first sin, which permanently altered his relationship with creation and with God. Religion came after, and the nature of both Jewish and Christian religion is within the context of a fallen creation. You trying to interpret abrahamic religion as if the fall has never happened and as if the rules of the garden of Eden were still the current order of things is quite ignorant. Which is ok, we all make mistakes, but maybe we shouldn't all be voicing opinions on youtube trying to teach people things before thinking them through
the oldest surviving bible complete manuscript are ... a translation : Septuagint . and the oldest fragments are dead sea scrolls . But the oldest hebrew manuscript Masoretic is 10th century ... Even Masoretic hebrew manuscript don't evade from clerical error . Just a dot become line , or line become dot can make huge different word .
Islam narrative is better to understand that story. Jewish narrative is based on deviated text. Islam , however, is based on undeviated text. If you say both are deviated, then I'll say it is safer to follow the latest if it is confirmed to be delivered by a confirmed messenger of GOD.
Okay, with respect, what is the proof that he is the "confirmed messenger of God"? His own testimony? Many have claimed to be messengers of God, why should anyone believe Mohammed is? And why should anyone trust a text that was written by a man who didn't know any hebrew, greek or latin, and lived centures after the originals were written? It seems completely reasonable to assume Mohammed just made his "version" of the story up to justify his hunger for power.
@@zenalexander9278 if you are measuring accuracy by comparing to the originak Hebrew text, then the Qran is the most innacurate version of all. It alters not only small meaningless words, but changes whole stories. If the Qran held any ground as a trustworthy version of the stories in the bible, scholars would use it as so. But they never will, because it's a text written centuries later, in a different culture, by a man who didn't even speak hebrew and clearly was making it all up
@pedrofalk what is the proof of Moses, Ibrahim, David or any of the devine historic figure of the Ibrahamic religion is a prophet ? Also, why would GOD choose only Hebrews as prophets?
@@jasemali1987 friend, I understand this is your religion and I know it is hard to look at it critically. But you must think about it: unless you already believe Mohammed is a prophet, there is no reason to trust his text over the hebrew bible. Mohammed wrote his text centuries later, in a land far away, without direct knowledge of the original, and his story varies a lot in the precise ways that help serve is own purpose. You only trust the Qran pecause you believe Mohammed to be a prophet (probably because you were born in a muslim culture), but if you weren't a muslim, you would never trust the Qran over the Bible. Scholars use the bible to this day to study ancient hebrew history, but none of them has EVER used the Qran to study ancient hebrew history, because it makes no sense that it would actually be a faithful description of the story of a people who lived centuries before. Again, I know its hard to hear what I am saying, but I believe the truth is always liberating and I hope you'll see it. Mohammed was a conqueror, he killed people, he had relations with a child, he preached violence against oposers. Jesus preached love, never abused anyone and didn't hurt even the people who were killing him, instead prohibiting his followers to seek revenge against them. He embraced his own death for our salvation, including your salvation if you only open your heart. Jesus is the one who offered nothing but love and truth, he didn't take power, money, women, or any priviledges, he only served us until his death. Why trust a military conqueror who had relations with a child over Jesus Christ? I know its outside of your culture, and I promise I really don't mean to offend you, but I hope you see it. Read the New Testament with an open heart and I know you'll see it. Peace to you
As a practicing Catholic, I have not viewed religion as primarily restrictive. I think there are those who misunderstand, but the more I learn, the more I understand, within the Church, God's love.
Thank you brother. I needed this positive message today.
So happy to hear this resonated!
I love what you're doing on this channel
Thank you, glad you're enjoying it!
He said dont eat of the tree in the midsnt of the garden but it was never called the tree of the knowldge of good and evil. The result was that they knew good and evil because they had disobeyed God NOT because the tree was inherently of the knowldge of good and evil. yes MOST people who read the bible know this.
Not sure what you mean, in Genesis 2:9 it is explicitly called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
“Fructus” means “fruit”. “Malum” means “evil”. Specifically, it is the second declension of “mal”, which means “evil”.
Another thing is based on the region people believe it to be a pomnigranit. Most of the time people have changed it to restrict it from our time
I know of no English version that specifies the fruit.
Your second point reinforces the implication of the first "word-" " I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt-" not actually being a ?commandment" at all.
I also know of zero Dutch translations that specify the fruit. And the second part, maybe the difference is insanely specific in English, but I never saw it that way. However, i do agree that every translation means that there is always some nuance and meaning lost. But that's why pastors learn Hebrew, Latin and ancient Greek right, to help those who cannot learn it.
Commanding you to do something is equally restrictive and oppresing as forbidding you to do it. The predominant translation is far better and more humanistic as it promotes free will
"After you're done eating, make sure to eat your dessert, and then go and play with your friends outside. Just don't drink the bleach under the sink."
"But my father, I wish only to eat dessert! Why would you restrict my freedom like that? Surely you would rather I be free to choose what I wish from all these good things?"
A command restricting certain actions is not necessarily oppressive, nor is requiring certain actions. It depends entirely upon what is being restricted or required. It can be very bad for you to have too much of some good things, or none of a certain good thing. Would you get pissed at God because He told you that you must socialize with your fellow man to maintain your mental health? That you must exercise moderately? That you must not obsess over one art or luxury or pleasure to the exclusion of others, though you prefer it?
Free will, in regards to preference and choice of good things and deeds certainly has its place. But a sin by omission is still a sin, even if it is merely the exclusion of a good personal pleasure.
@@Digganob590 Bad analogy, the traditional interpretation is more like ''here's the buffet, you can eat whatever you want except from the bleach that will kill you'' versus the interpretation proposed in this video that is more like ''here's the buffet, I command you to try every food on it except from the bleach that will kill you''. The first one is still better because it allows people to make their own decisions and possibly skip the things they find uninteresting
@@paolamaria1992 And what if you shouldn't skip what you find uninteresting? After all, you haven't even tried it, let alone that you know what everything there tastes like, or is made of.
@@Digganob590 It's my right to chose poorly, that's the entire concept of free will
@@paolamaria1992 It sure is. Did God say "you WILL eat that fruit, whether you like it or not," or did God say "you MUST eat that fruit"?
Just because you should do something, and even when you are commanded to do something, that does not mean you are forced to. God did not puppet Adam to make him eat the fruit. Adam ate as he was commanded, and did right. He could have not eaten. What is to you that God told him he should do so?
You forget that religion was created for man AFTER the fall, after original sin of eatingg the fruit. So the argument that religion is wrong because it doesn't conform to your translation of what you claim to be "God's first commandment" doesn't stand. Even if God was saying that we "must" enjoy the fruits of the garden, this is before we broke the rules. Genesis clearly explains that from that point onwards, all of creation was altered, and we were permanently affected, condemned to suffering and death. Religion came after that, as a way for God to offer a path to humans back into salvation. But this path by no means is through behaving as if we were back in the garden of Eden.
In adition, you seem to imply that the "obligation" of enjoying the fruits means we have an obligation to enjoy material pleasures on earth. But since one of the fruits in the story is the "fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil", it becomes clear that these fruits are symbolic, and not simply bananas or figs.
I think you should reflect a bit more before posting videos. Everyone makes mistakes, but maybe we shouldn't all be posting "informative" videos claiming to offer a correct interpretation of religion if we didn't reflect on the topic for some time.
Apple was a generic term for all fruit in middle English
Yes, in Dutch an orange is called "sinaasappel" (china's apple) and a potato "aardappel" (earth apple) and so on. What we call as apples today were just so popular of a fruit that they didn't need any other specification other than apple.
Really interesting start but you need to do about ten more posts on this subject. In my view everything that happened in the Garden was meant to happen, by God. I don't think that he forbad Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but wanted them to, yet warned them that if they did they would come to know suffering and death. That's how you learn. Is there anything in the Hebrew that supports this view?
I would love to do ten more posts on this subject! To your point, the kabbalistic tradition maintains that had Adam and Eve waited until the Sabbath (they were born on day six), they would have been permitted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge! It was never meant to be permanently forbidden.
@@menschsense1 Thanks for that. I think the interpretation put on this story has been one of the key features in Christian thought over the past two millenia, and it has not always been a beneficial interpretation, reflecting badly on both God and man. I know less, or next to nothing, about the case in Jewish culture. Yet after all that time it is begining to be re-examined, strangely at a time when many people have concluded that it's all tosh anyway.
No it CAN be an act of betrayal if the men who are doing the translating don't faithfully translate it!
What's faith got to do with analytics?Linguistic pronunciation is done by A İ
Well yes and no, it might not have been translated because nobody of their day and age necessitated that that was important of the translations but still good knowledge. Protestantic beliefs also spring fourth the same idea.
It’s YES. It’s a deliberate mis representation of the original intention of GOD’S commandments.
The whole of Christianity is traitorous to SHOEHORN Jesus (worship of man and idols) to cover the Pre Ghandi Pre Buddha humanitarian culture of the JEWS.
The barbaric tribes from Egypt to Persia to Assyria to Thrace to Sparta to Rome etc ALL worshipped Men and conquering their foes. Statues were erected and the apotheosis in AFTERLIFE was the greatest gift of their Gods.
So they deliberately MADE man weak unredeemable UNLESS SUPERMAN GOD MAN Apotheosis arrived on the scene.
ENTER APOLLO, MITHRA, DIONYSIS and JESUS.
Genesis 3:22 clearly states that there was NO FALL of man, but instead a responsibility of Man to accept they have the power to KNOW good from
evil and REDEEM themselves if they do bad things.
The translation deliberately obfuscates this in the Greek Text and the. The church INVENTED
Original inherited SIN
Without JESUS GOD AMONGST MORTALS and the church that represents GOD. You are in redeemable worthless EVIL doers.
The Christian bible doesn't mention Apple - it says fruit. The Hebrew bible translations I have seen say that Adam may eat of all the fruit not must. I'm going to stop watching your video now.
Regarding the introduction of apple, it was traced back to the 4th century vulgate translation: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/30/526069512/paradise-lost-how-the-apple-became-the-forbidden-fruit
Regarding the Jewish translations, you are correct that many translate it as "you may eat." However, long before its English translation, many rabbinic commentaries, among them Rabeinu Bachye and Rabbi Elyahu of Vilna, point out that the Hebrew explicitly uses the command form.
@@menschsense1 frankly almost all translations say "may", no matter the source. Even if it didn't, it doesn't mean anything really. You are forcing you conclusions on the texts. You say that God saying that Adam must eat all fruits is a message of an obligation to enjoy earth but when the same story talks about a "fruit of knowledge of good and evil", it becomes pretty clear that these fruits weren't bananas or peaches, it is clearly a symbolic meaning. It does mean that man was free to enjoy creation, but not necessarily talking about material aspects.
Moreover, this is all before the fall, before man committed the first sin, which permanently altered his relationship with creation and with God. Religion came after, and the nature of both Jewish and Christian religion is within the context of a fallen creation. You trying to interpret abrahamic religion as if the fall has never happened and as if the rules of the garden of Eden were still the current order of things is quite ignorant. Which is ok, we all make mistakes, but maybe we shouldn't all be voicing opinions on youtube trying to teach people things before thinking them through
the oldest surviving bible complete manuscript are ... a translation : Septuagint .
and the oldest fragments are dead sea scrolls .
But the oldest hebrew manuscript Masoretic is 10th century ...
Even Masoretic hebrew manuscript don't evade from clerical error .
Just a dot become line , or line become dot can make huge different word .
shekoiach
Islam narrative is better to understand that story. Jewish narrative is based on deviated text. Islam , however, is based on undeviated text. If you say both are deviated, then I'll say it is safer to follow the latest if it is confirmed to be delivered by a confirmed messenger of GOD.
Okay, with respect, what is the proof that he is the "confirmed messenger of God"? His own testimony? Many have claimed to be messengers of God, why should anyone believe Mohammed is? And why should anyone trust a text that was written by a man who didn't know any hebrew, greek or latin, and lived centures after the originals were written? It seems completely reasonable to assume Mohammed just made his "version" of the story up to justify his hunger for power.
@@pedrofalk
Because the Qur'an doesn't contain the error the Bible did.
@@zenalexander9278 if you are measuring accuracy by comparing to the originak Hebrew text, then the Qran is the most innacurate version of all. It alters not only small meaningless words, but changes whole stories. If the Qran held any ground as a trustworthy version of the stories in the bible, scholars would use it as so. But they never will, because it's a text written centuries later, in a different culture, by a man who didn't even speak hebrew and clearly was making it all up
@pedrofalk what is the proof of Moses, Ibrahim, David or any of the devine historic figure of the Ibrahamic religion is a prophet ? Also, why would GOD choose only Hebrews as prophets?
@@jasemali1987 friend, I understand this is your religion and I know it is hard to look at it critically. But you must think about it: unless you already believe Mohammed is a prophet, there is no reason to trust his text over the hebrew bible. Mohammed wrote his text centuries later, in a land far away, without direct knowledge of the original, and his story varies a lot in the precise ways that help serve is own purpose. You only trust the Qran pecause you believe Mohammed to be a prophet (probably because you were born in a muslim culture), but if you weren't a muslim, you would never trust the Qran over the Bible. Scholars use the bible to this day to study ancient hebrew history, but none of them has EVER used the Qran to study ancient hebrew history, because it makes no sense that it would actually be a faithful description of the story of a people who lived centuries before.
Again, I know its hard to hear what I am saying, but I believe the truth is always liberating and I hope you'll see it. Mohammed was a conqueror, he killed people, he had relations with a child, he preached violence against oposers. Jesus preached love, never abused anyone and didn't hurt even the people who were killing him, instead prohibiting his followers to seek revenge against them. He embraced his own death for our salvation, including your salvation if you only open your heart. Jesus is the one who offered nothing but love and truth, he didn't take power, money, women, or any priviledges, he only served us until his death. Why trust a military conqueror who had relations with a child over Jesus Christ? I know its outside of your culture, and I promise I really don't mean to offend you, but I hope you see it. Read the New Testament with an open heart and I know you'll see it. Peace to you