Have we Translated Genesis 1 Wrong All this Time?!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 апр 2024
- Many people think that Genesis 1:1 talks about creation out of nothing, but that is based on an outdated translation of the text. The most accurate translation may surprise you, but it is crucial to your understanding of creation. Check this out!
Развлечения
Mike was literally on his deathbed posting clips explaining the Bible. What a heart he had for bringing Scholarship to regular Christians. He (and Tim Mackie), revived my dying faith about a year ago and now I'm quitting Architecture and am off to Seminary myself. One day I'll thank him.
Very cool.
Anyone who prevents the Accuser from bastardizing children of G-d... anyone who advicates to bring people closer to the Father... is on the right team!
Even if they don't necessarily all think the same.
Toby, he is currently in hell. Sorry to bring you this news.
And how do you know that? 🙄@@ferrosjewellers4558
@@ferrosjewellers4558what makes you say that?
@@ferrosjewellers4558this makes YOU seem like a nutjob.
I love these teachings. He's one of the few people that I mourned despite never having had met him. I couldn't believe how he was still teaching on his death bed. I've learned so much and it's helped me knowing what direction to seek additional information. I trust that there's others out there who are going to carry out his work.
Well you wasted your time and tears
@@masimba5000 🤗
✝️♥️Well said👊
@@masimba5000"Jesus wept."
@@deludedjester it's a parable. What does it actually mean?
This verse is exactly what inspired the father of the big bang theory Lemaître to use a model where you have only radiation at the beginning. „Let there be light“.
Taking genesis literally he furthered science.
But the big bang theory does not align with Biblical creation even using, "When God began creating the heavens and earth." The big bang theory is not true.
No there was water…
Every time I watch him speak I think of how much the modern church lost with his passing. I’m so thankful for his online ministry.
The "modern church" hasn't lost, trust me. People are already picking up from where he stopped.
Yes, Dr Heiser was an excellent scholar, and left us a lasting record of solid Bible teaching for future generations
...and the work goes on because God is the author and finisher of our faith. God will perfect us, thst is, make us complete and whole, lacking in nothing.
Amen 🙏
Unfortunately most Church's are to busy paying attention to Doctrine to read the scriptures diligently. Some Pastor’s have problems with people who know how to rightly divide the word.
Recently i went through a youtube comment a pastor from india shared his testimony ,i was intrested so looked for his contact so i ended up finding his number and called him. What a life people are living for christ in these countries the man is almost losing everything but not his faith was beaten up by people separated from family no home to live but still strong on faith. He prayed for me on a phone call and i got healed right away of my knee issues and started walking praise god for men like him
Praise Heavenly Father.
I love listening to Dr. Heiser. I often listen to him or Les Feldick to get to sleep at night, not because they are boring, but they have soothing voices and I can replay them later to hear anything I might miss. They just help slow it down for me and promote a peaceful mindset. It's a shame that we lost them both recently, but the Lord Jesus Christ has all things in His hands.
🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
Oh no. I didn't know Les Feldick passed. So, so sorry to hear that. He was a great teacher. He will be missed.
I thought it was obvious. First line is stating the premise. The second and third lines are establishing the conditions and the action.
did the heavens and earth exist prior to creation?
@@johnjohn-hj3bl Of course not. Odd question. But I suppose it depends a bit on what you think it means by "heavens".
@@johnjohn-hj3bl Imagine a story that goes like this.
In the beginning your mother gave birth to you.
Now you were void and without form.
Then by your father you were conceived.
@Astrochronic even with Michael's "When God began to create the heavens and earth" translation, it doesn't change the fact that God started with waters that were formless and void. Heister doesn't change the translation that the beginning was water, not a tiny speck of energy, waiting to be blown up.
Thank you for sharing Dr Heiser's work with us. So miss this wonderful teacher. Good Job, Dr. Heiser !
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
What is good about throwing shade on the Holy Bible?
@@theguyver4934 but if you want to talk about what misinterpretations, how about your holy book that showed up about 700-900 years later, and says many things very very different than what Jesus and the Old Testament prophets say?
I pray that you will come to the knowledge of the truth, as Nabeel Qureshi and Abdu Murray and so many other people of your faith tradition have.
@@theguyver4934endless studies prove we're meant to be eating meat and vegetables are only good for preventing starvation, we don't even absorb the nutrients from vegetables as well as we do from meat. It's easier to be a vegetarian when you're living as a poor man and personal health isn't a top priority.
It’s truly eye opener,,, back in the days,, in schools we used to work on ERC, and clauses,,, I see Dr Heiser use the clause explanation!!
The late Mike Heiser brigs out the most beautiful yet simple grammatical points. Makes one think. Clear thinking takes repetition and great teachers. Working in Hebrew and Greek for over 20-years, there is always more to learn. Such a joy!
Plus he was proficient in some other Ancient Near East languages and culture, all which effected the context of the Israelite nation. He also knew a fair amount of Egyptian hieroglyphics. He was reading Bible commentaries in study hall in 7th and 8th grades. I'm so glad God sent us a man like Micheal Heiser. NOBODY remotely is/was close to Heiser in his broad and deep knowledge coupled with a strong desire to make scholarly material understandable and accessible to the public.
@@baltichammer6162 Indeed, Mike Heiser was a gifted scholar--a scholar's scholar, one might say. Of course, there are many scholars around the world (UK, Europe, Asia, NZ and Australia, etc.) who are perhaps just as skilled in his or her field of biblical studies and ancient languages (way more than can be listed here, but thinking of notable eminent scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen (Egyptology), Bruce Waltke (Hebrew/Semitic languages), and the late Alan Gardiner (Egyptologist and philologist). Along with the acquisition of academic knowledge is the important practical aspects of collaborating with God in the real world--namely dealing with the kinds of entities to which Mike Heiser addresses. We seem in short supply of those who can 'show' vs. too many who simply 'tell'.
@@abirdynumnum9612 I heard Heiser complain several times about Bible scholars only discussing topics among themselves, never thinking of the public. That's where Heiser was so valuable to the work of the Body of Christ's Church by doing what others did not.
Can never get enough of Dr Heiser, sure miss his talks and lectures and it is still very hard to know he has passed and I wonder why after so many prayers God did not heal him, I know God knows but it is still hard. So thankful for the videos, many Blessings. ❤❤❤
Often people only listen to those after they're gone
God is not obligated to do anything just because there is a high volume of "prayer-traffic" for a particular request. It may be that there were variables at play we will never know, or may be that God simply allowed him to return home because his work was done.
@@reijishian2593
I know you are right and glad I heard him years ago in Roswell NM UFO convention, but it seems sometimes a lot of the ones passed on really gave us a look into a deeper part of the bible. Just thankful to have come across him in 2003.
I didn't know he was dead. When he died?
@@oscaralegre3683just recently 2023
dear Micheal Plieser. Thanks for this teaching. I made same translation 5 years ago, and my professor refused to accept it. Did not have so much support to prove the point. Thanks for granting me one
I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor a theologian but came to a similar conclusion years ago just from a plain reading of the text
Same here.
You are opposing growth in Christ with that claim. The more I learned about the Bible the more I learned how so much of it has backstories. Every detail in Scripture is there for a reason and knowing the background really fills out the deeper understanding. The more you learn from a rare bird like Michael Heiser the more you can spot meaningful detail words/sentences. Bottom line is there's not much "plain reading" in the Bible, unless you think "plain reading" is buzzing through the text with no thought or understanding what you missed.
Sounds nice but I have two questions that need to be answered. If that's the way we should read it then why did the translators of the LXX not translate it that way? Were they confused by the Hebrew? The LXX took place between 3-1BC and was quoted by some of our Biblical authors.
Second, John is making a clear call back to Genesis with his Gospel in so many ways... especially with his opening verse where he says, "In the beginning..." Did John not know his scriptures? Even a late dating of John has it at the end of the 1st century.
He points out that the vowels weren't created until the 8th century AD. Unless someone can give me a better reason than what is said in this video, I think I'll stick with the earlier understanding.
I was looking for a reply like yours. Everyone praising all the "great work" this guy did, when he was actively working against the faith with the liberal/critical interpretations of everything.
Thanks for your input! I think the main question is not that “the”. Because even if you translate “in the beginning “, I can still view the six-day creation period as “the beginning “ verse 1:1 talks about. It’s like 1:1 is a summary of the following verses.
The question should be: is 1:2 (The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep…) the direct creation by the hands of God? Does God think 1:2 is good? If not, what had happened that resulted in 1:2?
@@civilwar41 I don't know enough about Heiser to voice an opinion on his theology, his methods of getting there or its affects on the church. I know I've recently run into a lot of people who like him.
I'm always willing to learn and entertain ideas. This one just doesn't hold up to me. I could say more but I can't figure out how to share my thoughts without writing more than someone wants to read on youtube.
@@HXing His whole argument was build on translating 1:1 differently. The title of the video (I know someone else is posting it) is "Have We Translated Genesis 1 Wrong All This Time?!" My point is you can't get his translation from the LXX. What you can get is our traditional translation. And John, who was a genius and knew his scriptures, was clearly playing off the same reading and interpretation that the translators of the LXX came to.
I'm not saying there's not room to have discussions about Gen 1. But his argument is based on evidence (at least as presented in this clip) that is about 1000 years older than the translation of the LXX. If you're basing your argument on something other than his "creative" translation then we can have that discussion. But basing it off his possible translation of 1:1 just doesn't hold water for me. It's fine if it does for you. I don't think this is a salvation issue and God is big enough for our questions. Hopefully we're big enough for them as well.
@@Dean_Owens It’s not about the exact words, it’s about how YOU understand the scripture. Arguing about the words will bring about strife, but deep understanding brings life.
He has done a good job to arouse people’s interest to dig into the original Hebrew texts. You also did a good job by giving other related texts including LXX and the book of John.
Being very familiar with Dr Heisers lectures podcasts etc, his point is not about old earth-young earth, it’s about context. We must read the scripture with a Hebrew mindset, which is very different than our Western mindset. That is the point and it gives us a new or different or more complete understanding of scripture.
I agree, and that was partly the reason God told the Jews to be a' light to the world,' but they are not unfortunately, but one day soon they will be with their courage and beliefs and when they accept the Saviour. Isaiah 49v6
I can't agree more. For one thing, the Greek mindset wants "progress" and sees the world as moving forward, whereas the Hebrew mindset seeks patterns in life.
Hi, Melissa.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Heisers, having seen only this clip from this lecture of his.
One thing that I note is that, as Dr. Heisers pointed out, the Hebrew point system (inserting vowels) was invented only several centuries after Christ, whereas the consonantal Hebrew text was recorded several centuries before Christ. With both versions o the pointed (vowel) text which shows a discrepancy with respect to the presence of the definite article, t,he consonantal text is identical in both cases and yields no basis for distinguishing whether the text intended to include the definite article. This gives rise to several related thoughts.
Dr. Heisers notes that the JPS English translation, following the pointed Hebrew text, is a valid translation, but he does not claim in the clip that such is either authoritative or correct. Questions arise as to the history of the development of the understanding that the first word of the bible does not include the definite article.
The Christian perspective holds that the kingdom was taken away from the natural sons of Israel and given to a people who would, did, and do produce its fruit. Is there reliable evidence that the Jewish understanding which Dr. Heisers presents originated and was widespread and accepted before the coming of Christ? If so, then there is good reason to think that such understanding is at least acceptable on equal terms with other understandings. If not, then its only claim for acceptance among Christians is the persuasiveness of arguments which can be adduced in its favour.
On the assumption that the first three verses of the Bible are correctly understood in the manner which Dr. Heisers presents, how strongly does this argue for or at least allow that matter was pre-existing when the action begins? Does it argue that matter was without beginning, or that it at least was from antiquity, or that it was present at all before the action begins? Was it discussing a prior condition for the action, or presenting the reader with a foretaste of or interpretive framework for what was to follow in the development of the presentation?
We can’t read it with a Hebrew mindset when it is translated into our language. That’s one of the main considerations during translating.
@@truthteller50 One of the astounding things in revelation is balance God manages to create in the tension between making Himself known at a meaningful level for anyone in any culture or language and known more fully as we pursue a greater knowledge of His interaction with people. So a simple encounter can be enough, while a lifetime of study and teaching is always beneficial and often important.
I first read Dr Heiser's Unseen Realm in 2017. It totally blew the lid off my current understanding of the Bible at that time. I still go back and discover more. I knew there is way more of our understanding of the Bible and the reality of the unseen. I am positive that the Lord led me to his book looking back. He is greatly missed. But he left a treasure of teaching far more worth than gold. He's basking in the Lord's Glory now. Besides his teaching, his faith throughout his sickness is a witness to the asurredness of what he believed. Well done, Dr. Heiser. Well done!
Interesting comment, did you know that you can get even deeper in understanding the scriptures if you throw off the restraints of human traditions and superstitions, swallow a wee bit of pride ,then in your minds eye when you come across the phrase: " the lord God " or "lord " it has been put there to hide God's name Jehovah! So next time you read Jesus Christ's words at Mark 12 vs 28-34, you will have a better understanding who Jesus was talking about seeing he was quoting scripture, Deuteronomy 6 vs 4,5
@@nigelmcculloch3746 no one is hiding the name Jehovah. I hear sermon's and teaching all the time, good ones, one Jehovah Jireh, Jehovah Rapha, Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shalom, etc. No one is hiding the man Jehovah.
@@liljade53 so why has God's name been removed from the scriptures and still is missing from most modern translations?
@@nigelmcculloch3746 I don't think anything sinister is going on.
@@liljade53 Pope Benedict in the early 2000,s issued a decree that God's name Jehovah was not to be used or seen in their worship any more. Is there something sinister in leaving out God's name in our worship of him? Well judge for yourself, you have a name, how would you feel if despite you giving your name to others and generously supplying a comfortable means to live and even a house to live in, the people refuse to refer to you by name, in fact they start to disrespect you?
One thing for sure. We all will stand before Judgement Day. Amen!
Can’t you keep your perversions private? There might be children here.
Dr. Heiser's teaching has allowed me to understand the Bible in a way that actually makes sense to me. I am so thankful to have discovered his work.
Unfortunately, his teaching is anti-Bible.
@@earlysda How so? Do you have a PhD in Hebrew? Do you even know Hebrew? Or Greek? Have you even read the Bible for yourself or do you just not like what he teaches because it might contradict what you’ve been taught? You prefer to believe what your imperfect church has taught you instead of what the Bible actually says. I bet you haven’t even listened to his teachings. I bet you just make assumptions and criticize. 🙄
@@tracy5721👊🎯
@@tracy5721 tracy, your judgments of me before hearing the matter are expressly forbidden by the Holy Bible.
.
I forgive you.
.
Now please repent, pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you, and start reading and following what the Holy Bible says to do.
Did God REALLY say? We need a guru? God can't speak to us? Did God give ALL of us a brain? Do I get to worship the man in the mirror?
Thank you Dr for the language explanation.
I have always, without having your knowledge, explained it in this way using a table as similie
In the beginning when I started to make the table, all the wood was in a pile, then I.... You get the story.
You confirmed what I always felt was the correct understanding.
Dr W. vd Heever Ph.D Philosophy of Religion.
So happy that his material lives on. Please honor him by passing his knowledge to all.
@XX847 I am with you. Honoring the memory of another person is truly a wonderful way to remain thankful and grounded. It honors God. (It seems the apostle Paul recommended this in 1 Thess. 5:18). 🙂
Talk about serendipity I was just thinking how to approach my article on Genesis 1 when this was the first video I clicked on. I wish he were still alive would love to talk with him. His thoughts on Genesis 1 reflect my own but I have much more to add. Our understanding of Genesis 1 is completely deficient.
And it's so key to understand. Existance before the fall. What we were called to do before death entered the world.
I do agree with you. I’ve read genesis thousands of times. I’m drawn to it. Specifically genesis 1. I’ve always felt we’ve missed something. It’s in front of me and I’m not seeing it.
On RUclips, you can find countless teachings from him, some very short, digestible videos, probably based on some of the longer teachings. I have found that supernatural seminar part one was a great place to gain a major grasp on the Bible, and how great God really is!
Serendipity... or supernatural guidance? Given Michael's calling to reveal our supernatural God, I'm leaning more and more, lately, into the latter.
Look up Timothy Alberino's take on "tohu and bohu"
Very interesting
Thank you for continuing to upload Mike’s vitally important content. I’m so grateful for his work and his “easy on the ears” method of teaching. He will be remembered as one of the greatest scholars in the Body of Christ as far as I’m concerned.
I do agree with you.❤❤
I hope Mr. Heiser repented of his attempt to throw shade on the Holy Bible.
Easy on the ears isn't necessarily the best teaching. It's usually the worst.
@@otallono well in my experience over 40 years it’s usually the most relatable leading to deeper understanding as you progress. Heiser is speaking to the layman. The lowest common denominator in the mostly anemic Protestant church in the 21st century who doesn’t even know what the differences are in translations, church history, even what the reformation was, what distinguishes denominations, what the orthodox churches believe…I could go on. He specifically said he is a bridge from the ivory tower intellectual, as I assume you are, to the laymen. Again, praise God he soiled himself and stooped to the level of us unwashed peasants.
Im so thankful we have these videos.
I miss him so much. I’ve learned a LOT from him, just wish I’d found his teachings about 13 years ago.
Those are 13 lost and wasted years. He's a false teacher.
@@gardenjoy5223 take yourself and your idiots guide to the bible and get the hell out of here. This is for Gods children not for you.
I was told once by a Jewish friend that it was the aspect of God Christianity refers to as the son that was the one who created the universe. That has always made sense to me because it kind of explains why the universe is so full of wonder.
I also tried my entire life to reconcile Devine creation with big bang theory and ideas like dark matter and energy and the structure of the universe and all that jazz!
I was able to do this after watching an episode of Nova on PBS about origami.
So, check this out.
The universe is an artwork created on fourth dementional God paper for lack of a better term. The big bang was a folding of this that became the universe we see. We will never be able to capture dark matter because this is what the god paper is made of. It's like if you lived on a molecule of paint trying to capture a piece of the canvas your universe was painted on. Science is holy.
God created us in his image in mental capacity and figuring out how the stuff he created is what he wants us to do.
I also think God gives us clues to help us. In one part of the Bible it clearly states that to Him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Well science says the universe is 13.4 billion years old and the Bible says He made it in seven days. I don't see this as contradictory at all. He's timeless. A billion years to him could be a day.
I think there's relevance to this translation thing too. Especially when you consider the fact that the Hebrew alphabet is a later invention with roots in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Another show I watched told me about this as well. The hieroglyph for house is associated with the sound of the first Hebrew letter in that alphabets word for house for instance. The Israelites basically got the idea for a written language from Egypt. It's all pretty mind-blowing if you really get into it. God created the universe and he WANTS us to figure out HOW this was done. Dark energy is what science is confused about. That's what they call the force that's making the universe continue to expand. But it's actually the hand of God. His "muscles" are the source of this force. It's all kinda clear to me but I can't possibly understand all of it myself as I don't have a degree in physics or theology but rather food management. There was a recipe that only God currently understands. But science is figuring out lots of the little culinary techniques He used and that's awesome!
Science is man's search for answers about our universe. Mathematics are the answer. Man's opinions and theories cannot be distilled down to math unless it is absolute. We've just scratched the surface.
How interesting! I have often wondered why when reading Genesis 1: 1 this understanding would emerge for me...
In the beginning, (this is how) God created the heavens and the earth.
Admittedly, I approach the study of Scripture with 100% reliance on the Holy Spirit that inspired the writing to provide meaning as I read it.
A lot of people who read scripture believe they rely 100% on the Holy Spirit to help them interpret it. And then in many cases they'll butt heads with each other about the true interpretation of various passages. Both believing they're right, and both believing that the Holy Spirit helped them obtain the correct interpretation.
How does one reconcile something like that?
@@Gutslinger You asked how a 3rd party could reconcile conflicting interpretations claimed as revelations. The obvious answer to that is through discernment by relying on the Holy Spirit as it's impossible otherwise to be absolutely certain.
However many scholars who interpret Scripture do not claim H.S. revelation but instead, employ human intellectual tools. Most of the conflicting meanings are derived this way. Then some claims of H.S. inspiration are false claims. Most importantly, the ones reading Scripture with the love of truth (at all costs) are those likely to receive the correct understanding. It's better to obtain understanding directly from God than second-hand knowledge from humans.
My experience thus far with H.S. revelations is that it is always followed by Scripture verification and another source of witness with a similar interpretation of said Scripture. We are not left here to figure this out on our own. Here are Jesus' assuring words in John 14: 18 - 27...
18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.
That made so much more sense. I wish i could sit down with someone with that type of knowledge of the bible so i could feel more comfortable that I'm actually learning gods word.
a thoughtful, calm presentation. thanks
I studied Hebrew for 3 years and came across this interpretation as well.
The NIV translation footnotes it, but I'm not clear on what the implications are overall. Nor from this clip from the larger lecture.
Biblical old earth adherents often claim this as support for theistic-driven, long-term evolution, culminating in the Edenic conditions at only a specific point in time much later.
I don't see a contradiction here with short-earth age, and I'm not even sure if that's what Mike was getting at without seeing the whole lecture.
I respect him very much, but would like to see further dialog on it.
The implications are that there used to be some other sort of existence on this earth, probably related to Satan somehow. Passages in Ezekiel back that up. It’s called gap theory and it doesn’t mean that evolution is true. It still means there was a literal 6 day creation week. It just also means that the earth being created took place long, long before everything else, and probably was destroyed with a flood, hence verse 2.
I agree. I would love to be able to explore this with Dr. Heiser. I am not sure if he is trying to posit a long age before Adam in Eden or not. If the first word can be translated either way, then we need to see how it was practically understood by the Jews of the first century thought as well as Jesus, Paul, and Peter. Christ said they were made male and female in the beginning. Paul said sin came before death. Moses wrote that created in six days. So we have some amplification by the rest of scripture. Peter wrote scoffers will say all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. I have several books of Heiser on the divine council but I cannot recall his reason for this reinterpretation.
@@7seasons31 Would it imply a pre-Adamic race? Fallen angels?
@@morethanaveragejoe8224 chuck Missler has spoken of that possibility. But I don’t know.
It seems there was Sin before Adam & Eve fell in the Garden of Eden ... Due to the fact there is a Tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil... Im guessing *Revelation 12 explains this Rebellion in Heaven (Fallen Angels as in *Genesis 6* ).
Imagine what Dr. Heiser sees now? The questions he must have now? The mind satiated only to find WAY more questions and things to learn and do in the NEXT life! Thank You Jesus for your Victory, our sins paid in full by Your Holy Perfect Righteous Blood!
Nothing. He believes in the resurrection, not a soul waiting for resurrection in another place.
If he's dead he sees nothing (see Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:3, 4)
What could he possibly learn? He acted like he knew everything and every other view that wasn't his was wrong.
He doesn't have questions now. He's either asleep until the resurrection (depending on what you believe) or he's there now spiritually and can see things we couldn't see in this world.
@MatSphere Luke 20:38 -For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.”
II Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
I was talking to a local Rabbi about the scriptures and he told me that what we know as the first verse of the bible is actually the title of the book we know as Genesis and that the first verse is actually'And the earth was without form..etc' and that a whole history about fallen angels has been written about what came before the 'And'
thats the jewish myths or copeland style, mystery babylon stuff
Genesis 1 & 2 are separate events.
fascinating,, where can I find that history?
I took classes in the 90’s. Professor York at the University of Cincinnati discussed this very topic.
Dr. Heiser was a gifted and brilliant speaker. He has my respect. I disagree with changing the meaning of Genesis 1:1 with the word when. I had to comment on this post so that I could share my understanding of creation according to Genesis. In the beginning God created a single diamentional parallel universe consisting of an uninhabited shapless earth immersed in water that was a dividing point for other waters above the earth. This area is beyond measure. The universe we know is contained in a measurable firmament where earth is still without form. (or defined shape)
"I disagree with changing the meaning of Genesis 1:1 with the word when"
As do most Christians here, clinging to human tradition rather than the written text. The verse was *already changed* and he is trying to change it back.
It is not about the written text, but about the vocalisation decided by the Massoretes in the Middle Ages, that hasn't the authority of divine inspiration and can be contested in many places.
The Septuagint, which dates back two centuries BC, translates the Hebrew to Greek with the idea of a definite article - that John 1.1 reproduces with a clear reference to Gn 1.1.
We have two ancient traditions here and the question is complex.
I got this in college years ago, and I never saw this as particularly enlightening. Perhaps it gives a little more credibility to an old earth view, but it leaves plenty of mystery.
The problem with accepting an old-Earth view (which I don't think is what Dr. Heiser is advocating for here) is that it is inconsistent with the rest of the counsel given in the Bible. If God did't create Earth in 6 literal days and took a literal 7th day to rest, then the commandment of the Sabbath loses it meaning completely (man rests a day because God rested a day), also Hebrews 11:3 and Revelation 4:11 would be giving a false account. That would be impossible. Cheers.
@@empese1127 and if an old-Earth view is not what Heiser is advocating for here, then that's my question: what is the point of distinction in meaning between the two possible translations? I had an OT professor who made this her major example of how we cannot lean on our English Bible, and I just don't get what is so profound here that I don't also get from "In the beginning, God created..."
@@michaelmccarthy3139 I'm with you on that one
Just as night precedes day, darkness precedes light. It is God's method of creating something from nothing. God could have breathed breath into Adam before He formed him from the dust... just because He can. But He didnt. God formed Adam then completed him. God's process is to form in steps or sequence then complete. It is a pattern throughout the Scriptures.
For more on this topic, No King But Caesar & The Return Of The Melchisedec is available online at Advantage Books. Peace to all.
Love this stuff, it can be hard to sort out. It’s almost like saying “when God“ could mean “ at the time that God“, but they didn’t want to use the word time.
Who knows
I still believe in a short earth application because I’m immature and it’s satisfying to me😂
Your children are precious! God bless you all and thank you for this message. May the peace and joy of our LORD be with you always. 🙏🏻✝️🙌🏻
Every time i read Genesis 1: 2 i also think about Jeremiah 4: 23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.
Would have loved to hear Mikes thoughts on this.
This totally backs up the tradition view that the heavens and the earth were created first. Water and darkness are not eternal but created. Since בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ) means utmost first, we shouldn't drop the most important word(beginning) just to opt out for an idea that there are multiple creation(s) or anything that predates Genesis 1:1 when the bible is absolutely clear that there is only 1 world(Cosmos). In Jeremiah 4:23, the earth and the heavens were already there for him to see the formlessness and the lightless state.
Since Mike is no longer with us anymore, I hope there are more on this topic you suggested in the archive. Good luck and God bless you
@@savageryreally7058 Water and darkness can be interpreted as the primordial chaos that is the initial state of existence itself, before God's divine will brought the cosmos into order.
Our sun was made before this planet and the suns/stars and other planets out in the universe.
@@savageryreally7058
Before God created the heavens, plural, (i.e., the universe and the atmosphere of this planet), the only realm that existed from eternity past was heaven where God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit existed because they had to be somewhere before he made this physical universe.
@@mr.emaaejae6058 I'm not saying you're wrong. But are you sure God a dimensionless being had to be somewhere before creation? Could it be possible that all that existed before creation, was the mind of God? Meaning he's the only thing in reality that's eternal by nature. Space, even space not of our space\time didn't exist eternally. Meaning heaven and our universe were both created.
Just a thought, I've thought about this scenario but on this side of eternity, it's still just a thought, for I don't have a clue.
Dr. Heiser was a once-in-a-generation scholar.
I am sad to learn of his passing (I acknowledge being a very selfish person and don't begrudge his receiving his eternal reward, yet would like to receive more 'lessons' from someone whom I can learn from without having to test every word that he utters), but his explanation of these verses did NOT change my understanding of Creation - it DID enhance my view, but that is all mental and human {which astute folk understand to be shorthand for ignorant | stupid}.
So I'm a little sad at my loss ("discovering" him too late) but joyous imagining his eternal reward.
The teaching on RUclips available now is amazing. Chuck Misler, rock island books (beresheet) and all the Hebrew codesearchers.
That's always how I read it anyway. Verse one is like the intro. "Hey, we are going to talk about how God created the heavens and the Earth. Let's get started..."
Thank you Dr. Heiser.
Thanks for sharing your expertise and analysis.
I always just kind of assumed it that way in reading it anyways. I think that’s how we were brought up too. We never read it as a separate event. We read it all as one event and just explanation of the event as it goes on. This is interesting to confirm that way of reading it though. Because I have gotten into arguments where people try to say it is like many different creations that it is talking about.
One of these days some simple soul will pick up the Book of God, read it, and believe it. Then the rest of us will be embarrassed. We have adopted the convenient theory that the Bible is a Book to be explained, whereas first and foremost it is a Book to be believed (and after that to be obeyed).
Leonard Ravenhill,
How can you apply it if you don't understand it?
Right on. The Bible must be read like the book it is to be understood. Dividing the Bible into chapters and verses was a horrible thing.
@@jonathanloadholt344 The Bible was not written in chapters and verses and needs to be read like the book it is to understood properly.
@@revbud3123 No sh*t, Sherlock!
The full lecture is on the Naked Bible RUclips channel, titled Genesis 1 1 3 Michael Heiser
Oh, thank you so very much for providing this information on where to find the rest of his lecture.
A beautiful video. When I studied Biblical Hebrew, I was taught that 'bara' was a verb in the perfect tense indicating a completed action, outside of time (so not a modern past tense.) In the beginning God finished creating ...
I'm struggling to see why Dr. Heiser (RIP) would want to go this route as I don't see how it helps to maintain that God created all from pre-existent matter. That places Genesis alongside just about alongside all other creation narratives. Dr. William Lane Craig (while certainly not the final authority), makes, to my mind, a compelling point about Genesis saying God created ex nihilo, out of literally nothing, and that that was interesting because it stands out as markedly different from other creation stories (which all dealt with gods creating out of preexistent matter), and is supported empirically by Big Bang cosmology. If anything, Dr. Heiser seems to be inadvertently giving textual ammunition to the Gnostics who claim Yahweh was the finite and fallible demiurge rather than the ultimate Creator and cause of all things, including matter itself.
Couldn't God have created something before heaven and earth?
Dr heiser was a gnostic
@@thekingchrissyg Are you suggesting we should base our knowledge of God on baseless, imaginative speculations of what he 'might' have done, rather than adhering to the actual data provided to us through reason and revelation?
The Bible isn't a science textbook. It has nothing to do with the big bang theory and everything to do with ancient near east cosmology.
@@StephenNotmanlogosinliterature I think rather, your argument above is baseless speculation. You want the standing translation because it makes your theology more grounded. How about let the BIBLE speak its words, and if the Bible is silent on a matter, let it remain silent. More explicitly, if Genesis 1:1-3 isn’t claiming (nor denying) Creation from Nothing, you don’t need to force your translation to present this way.
So is the NRSVue:
”When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.“
Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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 God said, Let there be light: and there was light.“
Genesis 1:1-3 KJV
I love the NRSVUE translation for these verses because it reads more natural.
KJV !!
@@vegetablevampire3901
That’s right, no need to study Hebrew; God dictated directly to the KJV writers.
You tell’em 😂
"...and there was light...". But He hadn't created a source for that light(sun,moon,stars) yet- which was on the 3rd(?) day. Am I confused or is there something I'm missing? PLEASE HELP ME.
@@jonathanloadholt344
No confusion. Almighty God made light, free and independent. The entire universe was illuminated.
Shortly there after, He constrained that light to create light and dark.
Why?
So that the rotating sphere could traverse through both light and dark and time could begin for the created universe.
The dependent-clause translation of Gen 1:1 has been proven incorrect by scholars, such as for example Dr. Joshua D. Wilson.
Would it be possible to link to the original recording of the lecture? Also in the other snippets.
Shalom Friends! Is there any way to watch this entire lecture????
Yes type in his name and genesis you will see it
Robert Alter came to this conclusion about 30 years ago, and went on to translate the whole of Genesis with the same alacrity.
Do you have a link?
Thank you for this info, will go and check this out!
❤
@@DavidDHorstman NO I have his book!
Clause structure is the key to understanding why it can be take a ... variety of ways? Or it shows how it ought to be taken?
When I read the Bible: I pray for wisdom and understanding before starting; then give thanks after!
I enjoy the KJV 1611; eventhough I have read many others.
I use a program e-Sword I downloaded as a study aid.
I don't have PhD in Hebrew but I am a native English speaker and teacher. I love Dr Heiser's work but sometimes, like everyone, things get simplified to make a point but the simplification isn't always accurate "When Jim studied in his room for his Chemistry exam" can be a complete thought and stand alone as a clause, let me explain how.
Someone asks a question e.g. When did the Earthquake happen? (you can insert nearly anything where Earthquake is) and someone can reply "When Jim studied in his room for his Chemistry exam". Punctuation matters in languages, especially English. In English the word "when" doesn't make something a question it is a time connective that can be used in multiple ways.
"When Jim studied in his room for his chemistry exam" has no subject, so it is a sentence fragment. Since it is not a complete sentence, it can't be an independent clause.
It still is not a complete thought. The independent clause is in the question, and is implied in the answer. The most proper way to write what you have above is:
"When did the earthquake happen?"
"The earthquake happened (implied) when Jim studied in his room..."
Without the implied phrase, the answer is understandable but not a complete thought.
This is similar to implied subjects and implied verbs, as he mentioned in the same part of the video.
"Go!" (implied subject is the listener)
@@shellysangrey it is a comlete sentence as it can be an answer to someone elses question.
@@lukejones5272 writing and talking are 2 different things. In the history of humanity I seriously doubt anyone talked in a fashion we could call the "proper way to write". The crux of your debate stands on the "proper way to write" and throughout most of history most people didn't communicate through writing. The fact is the answer to the question I posed is a complete thought in vernacular conversation. Furthermore if you want to bring up the "most proper way to write" your sentence "It still is not a complete thought" is not a proper written sentence yet you and I both know exactly what you meant.
@@michaelau5159 Sorry friend, I wasn't trying to debate! In my opinion, you're both right. Yes, in vernacular, spoken conversation, the answer stands alone as completely understandable. But it's understandable because of the information in the question, which is implied in the answer, and therefore it is still a dependent clause. *IF* you were writing in the most proper grammar, you would include the question's clause in your answer. I was just trying to bridge the gap and show that the point you're making works, but doesn't change anything that was said in the video.
Dr. Heiser's point stands because he *IS* talking about precisely written grammar.
I really appreciate this distinction in the translation of Genesis 1: 1. Several years ago I was contemplating whether or not the universe has positive curvature. Although this question is still open, it seems logical that it most likely does have positive curvature even though it almost appears to be flat (in the same way that the Earth is a sphere but appears to be flat to anybody on one particular location unless very precise measurements are made that show a horizon). And it occurred to me that if it does have positive curvature that must mean that it's oscillating. This means that when the universe enters maximum entropy and dies (something called the heat death); - all of the matter will eventually coalesce back to the origin due to the positive curvature. All of the matter will approach the temperature of absolute zero. At that time the individual atoms will lose their distinctive properties and become known as an Einstein Bose condensate. Or in other words, "formless and void". And this matter will coalesce into one location that will form a gigantic singularity (commonly called a black hole). This black hole will reel all of time and space back into it very rapidly - as a matter of fact - faster than the speed of light. When this singularity (which is by definition a great darkness) has swallowed everything, the entire system should restart itself as would be the nature of an oscillating universe. Or as stated in the book of Revelation; - God will say "Behold I am making all things new." There are other Scriptural principles that also point toward an oscillating universe. For example the Scripture teaches that God's word will not return to him void, but will complete what it was set out to do." And since the Scripture records that the universe was created by the word of God it is logical to assume that this principle of returning - applies to the universe itself - meaning that it will return to the source. Thanks for taking the time to produce this video.
An excellent observation. If I may theorize, a pulsation of light from the Cosmos on day one of Creation may account for the dividing of light from darkness and day from night before the Sun has taken it's preordained position in our Solar System and ignited on day four. Nevertheless, feel free to disagree.
@@ryanqvincent144 Gravity must also be factored in, to support a flat earth theory. All rivers flow downward because the head is at a higher level than the mouth at sea level. Your analysis of the survey of canals is interesting, and I assume you believe the Earth is a sphere.
In my best estimation, based upon the sciences, it is illogical to believe that the Earth is anything but a sphere, and Biblical exegesis is a matter of interpretation.
@@questor5189 Your comment about 'gravity' is interesting but flawed. Imagine that there is no 'pulling' force towards the earth but there is a 'pushing' force towards the earth due to an 'electric flow' that affects everything depending on what it is made of.
It it always at 90 degrees to the sky and the surface of the water. There is a constant electric field on the earth of 100V / m. It is that which provides the equivalent of what you believe is 'gravity' here on earth.
Clue: there is no 'gravity' that effects anything here. It is always 'electostatic' effects that are well understood and well documented. Just not explained to us.
p.s. Large areas of undisturbed water are always 'flat'. There is no directly measureable 'curve of the earth' over water. There never has been. It was always a falsehood. 71% of the earth is water with no measureable curve. The rest of the globe must be elsewhere. Or it doesn't exist. ;-/
@@ryanqvincent144 I see you are writing from a Flat Earth perspective. While gravity remains difficult to explain by modern scientists, your theory on a pushing force, when applied to Earth, must also be applied to other planetary bodies, with or without liquid or fluid elements. Atmospheres, gases, even rocks remain tied to the surface or hover above the surface, such as the crystaline objects in Saturn's rings.
Obviously a balance is taking place between inertia and impetus, and centrifugal force has been demonstrated to exist. However, Newton's Third Law may provide support for your hypothesis.
@@questor5189 No... It only applies to the earth. :) Remember, the physical earth is stationary. There are no direct measurements of any kind showing it is moving. Clue: All speed is relative... has never been shown to be true. :)
I suggest you start with something easy... Show any direct measurement that large areas of undisturbed water actually curves. Clue: We see too far. :) How about frozen lakes? Show any direct measurement that confirms your belief and can be verified. there is nothing. ;-/
Makes so much sense! Also fascinating that water already existed!!!
I’ve always wondered why I read sentences somewhat backwards. Or analyze sentences too much. But when I read the Bible it makes sense. Praise the Lord.
If you obey Hebrew you can also translate it as “in first position or in chief position God created the heavens and the”
But there is no Lamed before the word Elohim. How could that be possible?
@@sunnybrowne7293 why would you need the lamed? the DDO tells us what Elohim did
So, how did the Septuagint translate it? And/or the Aramaic Targums? Did the Protestant translation history really have such a heavy influence?
En archei epoiesen ho Theos... literally "at first made God..." That is, "First, God created..."
En archei echoes the articleless construct form bereshit, so not in THE beginning. The later Latin follows suit with in principio creavit Deus.
I think you make a good point about Protestant translation history! While the D.R. beats the KJV by a couple of years, and also translates in principio as "in the beginning", the KJV is certainly better known in the US at least! And that may well be colouring your perception.
I think the more interesting question would be: why did the 16th century translators use "the"?
In any event, the oldest English translations do what I just did:
"First the everlasting
Lord, protector of all things, created heaven and earth;
as the almighty King put forth the firmament and with 115
victorious might established this ample world. The
earth was as yet unadorned by vegetation: the ocean
covered it far and wide, turbid waves in the eternal
night. Then was the glorious Spirit of heaven's guardian 120
borne over the sea with sovereign virtue. For the King
of the angels commanded Light, dispenser of life, to
come forth over the broad expanse: quickly was the
Arch-King's mandate fulfilled, and Holy Light appeared 125
over the waste spaces, as the Creator had ordained it."
There are more questions: what does the pair heaven and earth refer to? If the preposition b- does not have the article does it mean “In A beginning”? That sounds weird. Is the word beginning in the construct form, which would make it mean “In the beginning of”? But then the next word is a finite verb. Can you have a construct form of a noun before that? Or is the word translated “created” an infinitive or a noun?
Mike Heiser passing , Rabbi Ted Tedfords passing has left me with 1 live full time scholar to increase my learning/ understanding with which is Dr. Eddie Chumney. All are outstanding at making you think.
And yet people *_still_* pretend that "Elohim" is not plural... "But muh Strong's Concordance..."
Tripartate
Inconsistent with the text. The Bible certainly affirms the Trinity, but it is not what Genesis is referring to.
At no point does the bible mention anything remotely resembling a trinity
@@reijishian2593
"... let us make man in our image ..."
@@TheRastacabbage
"... let us make man in our image ..."
Now I'm confused...what was Christ actually saying if the vowels didn't come until the middle ages by the translation, "not one jot or tittle shall be removed"?
Good question. I get maybe there was a date when vowels wee introduced, but it can’t have been as late as medieval times.
In earlier translations I.e. William Tyndale, it is pretty much very similar to the King James authorised, yet Tyndale had his published in the 1520s. You can still read them by finding digital copies online. Anyways the English letters were slightly different and J didnt exist then, but still has the phrase 'jot and tittle,' but all the letter 'j's' are 'it's.'
@@abj136The way I understand it, there were always vowels, they just weren't always written.
The 'jots' and 'tittles' in Hebrew writing are not the vowel marks; they are components of the consonants themselves. The jots (better pronounced as yots for English speakers) were consonants
Ancient Hebrew did not record the vowel sounds, but the vowel sounds were spoken nonetheless. Inserting the vowel marks does not alter the text. The early New Testament copies did not put spaces between the words, should we do that in our English translations?
Since I got baptized, back in 1994, Mike's way is how I have always understood it. The rest of the story requires this set-up.
“In the beginning” is the most sufficient start of the writ about existence of earth.
This made me rethink how I understood the first three verses in the traditional translation, because I always took verse one to be a generalized summation of the entire creation while taking verse three as the first creative act with regards the universe (what some may view as a big bang), and then seeing verse two as focusing on the earth. But if the “let there be light” is the first creative act, why does it follow verse two?
The thing is, Michael’s explanation didn’t clarify things at all, because he states that in the “When God…” translation, the first two verses are preconditions for verse three, which he says the latter is the first creative act. But if verse three is the first creative act, how can any preconditions exist? Is He suggesting that God did not create all things? But that contradicts John 1 where John clearly states that “all” things were made by Christ, so there could not be any uncreated things that eternally existed prior to God creating. So while I’ll defer to Michel’s expertise in Hebrew grammar, he’s apparently not as skilled as a logician (that's not meant as an insult, but only noting that he sometimes makes logically flawed arguments).
My thoughts precisely. Thank you. Perhaps someone from his team can enlighten us?
i think most people would have thought as you did. so the video is incomplete. I see a gap between verse 1 and 2, regardless, ie. while verse 1 and 3 are continuos thought, the conditions are in verse 2. It has already happened. One thought was God destroyed the earth and is actually recreating. This is one of the old views. It is also related to the fall of Satan. However the scriptural support, I cannot get round it. Check it up with Google, you will find it.
You have to watch the full video. He's pointing out that in its ancient near east context, Genesis describes ex materia creation.
@@bettyblowtorthing3950 Creation ex materia is more of a Mormon view, since their theology requires an uncreated, infinite-past universe. Since traditional biblical theology, current cosmology, and logic/philosophy via the Kalam all point to a finite universe, an ex materia view doesn’t at all appear credible or plausible.
Moreover, I keep hearing people advocating for interpretations built within the framework of ancient near-east beliefs, but since when is God bound by the beliefs or understanding of pagan nations? And I'm not suggesting the "When God..." interpretation is incorrect or an illegitimate translation, but only noting that there's still some interpretation required beyond getting the grammar correct. One must understand the verse withing the context of the entirety of scripture, and any interpretation must not violate laws of logic, nor contradict history, etc.
@@FrankGrauStudio well frank, no offense, but your modern understanding of the universe doesn't change how people of the ancient near east understood cosmology and origins. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that context matters.
And the Bible doesn't depend on its ancient context. It simply is a part of the ancient context. It's the same reason that the Bible is written in Hebrew and Aramaic and not 21st century English. God chose ancient people to carry His message and that's just the way it is.
Where's the rest of this lecture? This video is incomplete
ruclips.net/video/diEzuGvDjU0/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Almost like a dependent clause.
@@morefiction3264 that's funny! But I still want to hear the rest of what he said.
@@ameribeaner Thank you, I do to.
Leaving a comment here as well. Hopefully we’ll get an answer
This is the translation of Rashi. Rashi lived about a thousand years ago in France. Rashi is considered to be the greatest Hebrew grammarian and Torah is learned with Rashi’s commentary.
The translators did a great job. The error is on the reader. Verse 1 gives us the result, then Verse 2 back flashes to when it didn’t happen yet to explain furthermore details (“now the earth was WITHOUT form and void”) so clearly V2 is before V1, and V3 explains how it was done. Which also takes place before V1 & after 2. This is common throughout the Bible.
I'm not sure what to take from that presentation. That clip doesn't seem to really change things very much, if at all. So what's the rub?
He’s stating that verses 1 and 2 lead to verse 3-which then becomes the central point of the opening of Genesis rather than verse 1, which is the traditional emphasis.
It doesn’t change much in terms of your beliefs about creation, but it’s an alternative approach to the Bible altogether.
L said
Well said
Idk if this is what Heiser is hinting towards in this cut off vid, but I've come across a school of thought that in 2, the prep work of "now the earth was without form and void and darkness was over the face of the deep" was already laid out for God.
Then the question arises "why was the earth (already there?) formless and void?" Another question arises "Since when does God create things without form (not to mention the darkness)?"
Just a school of thought and this video reminded me of that
It means that the Bible never says how long earth was formless and void before God began creating it.
Awesome 😎
The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) used the translation he outlines in the 2nd Century BC and the JPS 1985 translation follows the Hebrew to Greek translation.
Speaking from the grave.....brilliant stuff. Anything else you can reveal to us? 😅
The Hebrew version makes far more sense than the modern American interpretation.
in what way? They both make sense to me.
And in terms of what is important it makes a lot of sense that light be done first because John 8:12, I am the light of the world. I have concerns because I think the triune God exists all at once, but maybe, not--a father usually exists before a son. He'll explain it all to us when we get there I suppose.
@@danielbrowniel I think Heiser has a point in that the “when God was making the Heaven and Earth…” sets up the third verse in a more clear way. It’s almost like “Let there be Light” was the point, even though the American English “In the Beginning” still has impact.
I greatly appreciate and enjoy Dr Heiser’s work, and maybe in the rest of the lecture he engaged with the Septuagint, which would have interpreted genesis one about 1000 years before the vowel system was invented. I would suppose that the Septuagint would be more reliable than the vowel system and medieval Jewish rabbis. Still, however Genesis 1:1 is translated, that must echo in John 1:1.
Translations are supposed to be deliberate (by definition). Interpretations are always liberal (by definition). For more on this topic, No King But Caesar & The Return Of The Melchisedec is available online at Advantage Books. Peace to all.
This is a very important teaching! This little 10 minute teaching supports an old earth and the re-creation of fallen, destroyed earth!
Although I see your perspective, the Hebrew doesn’t support a re creation of a destroyed earth. The Jews didn’t describe God creating out of nothing, but instead focused on God ordering out of chaos. This translation lends itself to that, not to a destroyed earth/recreation event. But again I see your perspective and although I believe myself to be correct I can’t prove you wrong lol so feel free to ignore me lol
One of my take-aways is that what Mike said here dismantles the gap theory. Which he has previously mentioned is impossible based on the grammar of these very verses.
you got it wrong buddy
Assuming it was a fallen and destroyed earth…who created it? And the text
Simply says unformed and unfilled. It’s just a way of saying it wasn’t completed yet.
Recreation is better supported by the Hebrew, see Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's commentary on Genesis
Anyone have a link to the full lecture?
I'm halfway through your video, but wanted to say I see the 1st line as the beginning of the paragraph -- a summary of what is to follow. It may not be the correct perception; I can appreciate multiple perceptions.
Have we Translated Game of Thrones 1 Wrong All this Time?!
Michael glosses over the first word of verse 2: Now. It doesn’t flow, at least in English, with his view that 1 and 2 are dependent clauses arriving at the main thought in verse 3.
Love Dr. Heiser. His work has been super helpful. I'm struggling with this translation though as beginning verse 1 with "when" seems to suggest were doing something with chronology, which fits fine going into verse 3. But with verse 2 in between, it seems to read like "When God created the heavens and the earth, now the earth was already there, empty of life, and unfit for life." Can someone help me to better understand how to deal with that or recommend a reference for me to pick up some insight on this possible translation?
I would recommend the channel "what your pastor didn't tell you". He has lots of videos on this subject.
As someone who is not a biblical scholar or a grammarian , Hebrew or otherwise, I watched this based on the inference from the title that I would be introduced to an idea that fundamentally changed what Genesis was relating about God’s act of creation. I’m not sure that is what it does and I’m also not sure, if at the end of the day whether this different translation actually changes anything. I guess crudely put but with respect, I’m asking, is there any new meaning about the creation process I should be thinking about?
I will always be convinced that Mike getting pancreatic cancer was an act of spiritual warfare because the enemy knew that if Mike kept going the way he was going that it would have seriously revived the church in ways that we can't even fathom.
Edit: Yes God is in control, but he also tells us to pay for "His will to be done on earth like in heaven." To say that "Mike got cancer because God wanted him to come home" is too simplistic of a view of reality and the biblical story. If this is true, then every single bad thing that happens to people is because God let it happen or even ordained it to happen which is a very deterministic/calvinistic approach which many Christians debate and find atrocious. God allows the consequences of sin to have a real impact on the earth, including allowing the "principalities and powers" to run the show (outside of God's redemptive plan). That does not mean that God can't turn evil (Mike getting cancer and dying) into good (Mike's teachings spreading even FURTHER than it would have normally) and it does not mean that God is not in control. God bless you.
I tend to agree with you. His life, even to the very end gave the middle finger to the enemy. I find that I can be much more discerning when I listen to other preachers. Currently our church is without a pastor so I have taken up the task of presenting video messages through the lens of his teachings, and including his teachings.
@@motown7542 God bless you and good luck to you!
No way, he died!!! Ah man….such a loss. I looked it up, he passed Feb 20, 2023. PhD in Hebrew is impressive!
As Beautiful and genuine I think his work was, Is, also detrimental to the Powers of Darkness, God is above all. And controls everything, Dr Heiser couldn’t have gotten Cancer, Passed. If our Father wasn’t done with him.
I believe in accordance to the job God gave him, he was done. Even Paul expected to head to Spain from Rome. Sadly Nero killed him. Don’t you think God knew and had all this in his sight?
He did my brother. Pardon I’m long winded, no power can hold or keep Dr Heiser from doing Gods work, except God himself.
@@nonainai and just like Paul has a legacy, so does Dr. Heiser...we get to be part of it!
*I love the grounded reality of this channel!!!*
Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $27,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD❤️
I'm in a similar situation where should I look to increase income? Do you have any advice? What did you do ? Thank you 🙏
Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Ms Maria Luisa Abrams.
She's a licensed broker in the states 🇺🇸
+1256
The Massorete's vocalization may be contested.
The Septuagint, 2nd century BC, seems to reflect an understanding of the Hebrew which implies a definite article - not speaking of constructing בראשית with a conjugated verb (which is how it is rendered in the MT) rather than a construct infinitive.
A reading of ראשית in a defined sense without an article exists elsewhere in the Tanakh, with a different preposition, but it exists.
The problem is complex and Dr Heiser makes it seem extremely simple to solve, which is not the case.
All those linguistic, mumbo-jumbo aside, the text clearly states that God created the heavens and earth in the beginning, which means before there was time space, or matter, which means out of nothing and science, as it’s currently understood, agrees that the universe is not eternal- it had a beginning.
No. The Bible isn't a science textbook. It's describing ancient near east cosmology and creation ex materia, not ex nihilo.
Well it's certain from Genesis that before the six days of creation there's an existent earth that's covered with water.
Yes, and this is also stated in more ancient text from India.
Perhaps the New Testament came before the Old Testament. 🤣🤣
Just as night precedes day, darkness precedes light. It is God's method of creating something from nothing. God could have breathed breath into Adam before He formed him from the dust... just because He can. But He didnt. God formed Adam then completed him. God's process is to form in steps or sequence then complete. It is a pattern throughout the Scriptures.
For more on this topic, No King But Caesar & The Return Of The Melchisedec is available online at Advantage Books. Peace to all.
Not really, it was the "face of the water" seemingly
God's to do list for day one of creation:
1. Create Heaven and Earth.
2. Speak light into existence.
3. Divide light and darkness.
4. Give day and night names.
Miller time!
Genesis 1:1-5 are clearly God's creative work on day one of creation. It doesn't matter how you read it or try to interpret it. The simplest way of saying it is probably correct. There doesn't seem to be a natural way of saying that verse 1 is anything other than part of day 1 creation activity. For it to mean something different is to make it something it's not. Most Hebrew scholars and the Masoretic scribes who understood the nuances of Hebrew language disagree with what Dr. Hieser is saying hear. It being a possible translation does not mean it is the likely, correct or accepted translation. I'm no expert but you dont have to look very hard to find solid scholarly work that disagrees with this notion.
Did you notice that the two accounts of Genesis creation are slightly different or contradicting?
I don't like to think the bible has contradictions but it took me so long to wrap my head around the fact that they were different
@@scorpionformula If you're referring to the account beginning in 1:1 and the one beginning at 2:4, my understanding is that the first is an overview of creation. The second is a closer look, zooming in, as it were, for a closer look at the creation of mankind. Verse 2:4 could, in fact, be where chapter two should have begun in our versification.
@@scorpionformulaNot contradictory. Complimentary. And different in purpose.
Verse one is a title verse or a general statement, or summary statement. Nothing more, nothing less.
To paraphrase, "God created everything". It's just a summary statement.
Then verse two begins the actual details of God creating everything.
To paraphrase, "Now here are the specific details of everything that God created...".
Genesis 12:1-3 is also a summary statement of God calling Abram. It is nothing more than a general statement of God calling Abram. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then the actual details of God calling Abram begin in verse 4.
There are other places in the OT that also carry this Hebraic expression of a summary statement with the details following.
good video.., Is the story in Genesis 1;1-3 describing the creation of the entire universe ? Could the description given there be speaking of just our solar system within our milky way ?
Close enough. In fact, it is describing the creation of the earth alone! That's why I don't agree with Dr. Heiser here. I believe he is trying to place Light before everything else as a support for the Big Bang i.e. evolution. People in the comment do not seem to get his point. If Genesis 3 is dependent on Genesis 1, that means that there is no time between the two. Or basically it's like saying verse 2 and 3 can be swapped. Hence, Big Bang, Evolution, the earth was without form...
After listening to this lecture, I feel stronger for the gap theory. The inspired English shows that gap between Genesis 1 and 2, the earth was underwater probably to destroy the fallen angels' physical forms. Now, why do I say that God created the earth first? Because the Heaven (not heavens) was the Earth's atmosphere. The heaven was stretched out, described into 3 heavens later: God creates the stars after creating the earth and sky, He stretched the sky, pushed the waters out, then placed the stars in the universe. You can't have the created Light first, for once where do you put the verse stating that Darkness comprehended not the Light when Darkness and Light were divided? The Bible is extraordinary, Genesis 1-2 a masterpiece.
Now, not sure if Dr. Heiser believed in stellar evolution and so on but if he places the Light first, as he said that the Light would be the very first creation, where does it place it? Even the Light needs a space to fill. I don't think he thought this through fully. I still stand with the Reformation Bible, it just blows my mind any time I study it.
do you think your little mind can comprehend GOD, HE created our solar system? so who created the other galaxies other gods what a watering of the book of creation
@@adeniyiajiboye6301 Genesis 1:16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
God made the stars i.e galaxies etc. on the 4th day. It's not "rocket" science. I don't get your objection. Tell me more...
@@adeniyiajiboye6301 God created ALL things, I believe that, my question is more specific. In Genesis, could the story presented be describing OUR galaxy and solar system? Take a look and see for yourself, the concept does not conflict with Genesis.
@@Sergedb74 another thought.., the story in Genesis 1, mostly describes the Earth and it's fullness, the mention of the stars is secondary in importance to the overview presented. God created the earth, heaven and the heavens as well, no argument there. Take a look, tell me what you think. I am not saying that my thoughts ARE correct, no , I am only suggesting another viewpoint. Another point of interest is that the person(s) who penned Genesis could not have known the vastness of the universe as we understand it today. There is no mention of other galaxies and the quantity of them in Genesis, that was not the point, but the story is specific on Earth's beginning. thanks for your comment.
Hmmm.... So from this interpretation, it sounds like Genesis 1:1-3 is a description of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, with the initial conditions of the earth being formless and void and the Spirit hovering over the "waters". It doesn't mean that God didn't do anything before that. It just means (I think) that it's about to describe the chapter where God creats the heavens and the earth, not the stuff he did before that.
We see in Genesis, to create, God must speak it into existence; "God said..." then creation followed. The first time we see that is "God said let there be light, and there was light.". Everything after that is God creating heaven and earth through similar statements.
Also that isn't to mean that God didn't create something before heaven and earth.
Well, either way, day one starts with light, a lead up to day 1 being completed. There is water (what the water consisted of beyond H2O is not knowable at present, but since dry land was made to appear, it was perhaps muddy), then with the introduction of light we also have the introduction of time as well.
The creation account is ex materia, not ex nihilo. God creates heaven and earth by giving it form, where in the beginning it was formless. Like molding something out of clay. It has no form, and so God creates by giving it form.
@@bettyblowtorthing3950 Indeed, but even that formless something came from nothing as elsewhere it is stated in John 1: 'All things came into being through Him (Jesus Christ), and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." There is also 2 Peter 3: "The earth was formed out of water and by water" There is the implication that water was created, though it is not explicitly stated.
Something being overlooked in the process of how to translate the Hebrew today is this: The LXX, which is how the Hebrews translated their texts into Greek.
Seems like Genesis 1:1 is mistranslated because Brashyt is a noun, feminine singular and the next word bra is a verb, masculine singular and then the next word Elohim is a noun; but it's masculine plural. Since Jesus brought the truth and Jeremiah 8:8 says the scribes lied let's see what Jesus says about this. Reading John 1:1 this refers us to Genesis 1:1...seems like it should be translated as Br=Son aleph=first shay=gift Tau=last...then this would agree with the next word bra which means create and is a verb masculine singular and then Elohim would be gods. What does Jesus say about the Elohim...well that takes us to John 10:34-35 and that takes us to Psalm 82:6. I've found some more interesting things in the scriptures. The KJV has added words, deleted words, mistranslated words and has even changed the word order. The men that translated the Bible had to adhere to King James' rules so that they weren't tortured, burn't at the stake or fear having their heads cut off.
My Hebrew language study (brief) indicated the "now" presented a change on time from the preceding. I take this to indicate the passage of 'time' (whatever that might mean in this context) and the suggestion the Hebrew word translated "day" as a time period longer than a twenty-four hour period (as in "...day of dial phones...").
I am delighted to see and hear the concept that the KJV is not the absolute and final determiner of translation meaning. The 'word of the Lord' does not equate to 'the word of the KJV translation team'.
We actually could have picked this up without understanding Hebrew grammar like Dr. Heiser did. Genesis 2:1 says "And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights." This indicates that what preceded was what the author intended to be taken as "creat[ing] the heavens and the earth." It becomes obvious that Genesis 1:1, no matter how it's voiced grammatically, is not a separate act of creation but rather an introductory description announcing what we're about to read. Genesis 1:3-31 is "God creat[ing] the heavens and the earth." (Note that all of Genesis 1-11 is broken into segments, each beginning with an introductory description: "These are the generations of Noah," "These are the generations of the heaven and earth," and forth. The introductory announcement of the first segment is Genesis 1:1.)
This means that the starting condition of the creation account is announced in Genesis 1:2, just like Dr. Heiser suggested: "Now the earth was formless and void..." The earth already existed at that point; it was just useless in its then-current state.
We know that "formless and void" does not mean what we moderns would think if we heard "non-existent." The concept of non-existence didn't appear in the ancient world. To the ancients, the Arabian desert was "non-existent," in the sense that it could not be used for any sensible purpose. We can get a sense of what the Hebrews would have mean by "formless and void" (Heb., "tohu v'bohu") in the one other place in scripture where that phrase gets used. It's in Jeremiah 4:23, and in it the prophet describes what's going to happen to Judah's pleasant farmland when the people get taken away into captivity; it will become "tohu v' bohu," and "the heavens will have no light." (That refence to light has to be figurative; it's a desert. There was plenty of light during the daytime.)
Check verse 26 of Jeremiah 4 for the plain description of what he meant:
"I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were pulled down
Before the LORD, before His fierce anger."
So in fact, the Genesis 1 account does not describe a transition from non-existence to existence as we would imagine it; that's a 20th and 21st century anachronism. The Genesis 1 account describes a transition from fruitless chaos ("tohu v'bohu") to productive fruitfulness, full of life and purpose. And "Let there be light," the first creative act, actually declares the favor of God on the earth, not necessarily the appearance of visible light for the first time.
Dr. Heiser's careful Hebrew grammar makes this clear for us; but it was there all along.
Proverbs 30:6 warns, “Do not add to [God’s] words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” As with so many errors, the gap theory arose when fallible, sinful humans tried to squeeze their ideas into the Bible. Instead we should start from the Bible and submit our views to His Word.
Strange that this guy is arguing for a changed translation based on accent marks, etc. The Bible says that not one jot or tittle (accent mark) will be changed until the second coming. And him using the fallacy of authority ( I have a PhD in Hebrew.) is a red flag. So he is saying that the Jews whocwalked and talked with Christ as native speakers of Hebrew didn't understand their own language? How heterodox of him.
First, he is making a joke when he said "I can do whatever I want.." which you would know if you watched the entire video and secondly what he said doesn't change the point of these verses which is GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.
If he had gone off on some tangent trying to show that GOD really didn't create the Earth then I could understand your reaction, but that isn't remotely what he did here.
Actually you are proving his point for him... those jots and tittles that we should not ignore are what makes the clearer translation possible. The good doctor, being a Hebrew nerd, was in front of an audience of Bible scholars, and the PhD joke was totally in keeping with that setting, you notice it barely landed though, because people were not so focused on being entertained as being educated.
Are you serious? Because you do understand….the English you are using is LITERALLY changing the jots and tittles. You are using a bad translation, to try to rationalize NOT accepting the original. Heiser is trying to point that out to you. The words you read in your Bible are NOT the exact words spoken by God, or Christ, nor His prophets, nor the apostles. That’s the whole point of this video….modern translations aren’t exactly correct.
The Bible was not written in English. God chose to reveal his word in Old Testament, Hebrew and New Testament Greek what is wrong with your brain.
It was a very arrogant comment and poor reasoning to believe him.
Creation was an electrical process
I'll demonstrate in my video 'Begining of understanding '
Sounds like creation ex materia which would make perfect sense when talking about leviathan.
Hit the 👍🏻!!
No way. Scripture explains Scripture. He's leaving out a whole lot of other Scriptures and comes to this interpretation, because of leaving those out.
I’m guessing you’re not familiar with Heiser. What in this short video did you not agree with? I suggest a re-watch of the video.
@@stephentaylor2051 That's the point. I am familiar with Heiser. The conclusion he makes is covert in this video. It was cut short, I guess. He tries to sell that some 'god' found an empty planet to play with.
Try Exodus 20: 11. That one alone totally destroys his view. Also John 1: 1-5 and Hebrews 11: 3 makes excellent reading.
Even Genesis 1 further on, where we read that the sun and moon were created on day 4 only.
@@gardenjoy5223 I agree that what you are saying is true. But Heiser is making a point about translation philosophy. About why some translations read differently than others.
Yes it was a clip of a much longer video ( about 5 hours or so). He is looking at that verse from Hebrew. If you watch other videos or podcast he is a regular 7- day creationist and creation out of nothing (ex nilo) believer.
@@stephentaylor2051 How weird it is, that all I see by him is anti-Bible.
Guess a whole conspiracy of clip makers must be out there then...
Seems far fetched, really.
How silly to make videos, that can be used to easily to come to the opposite of what you are trying to prove. And that with a PhD? Silly man.