Lost in Translation: Genesis 1 is NOT About the Creation of the World!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- The very first verse of the Bible--Genesis 1:1--which millions can quote by heart--is MIStranslated in most all major versions and all languages--with very few exceptions. The reasons are simple--Marketing and Commercialism. Who would buy a Bible translation that does not begin with "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth"? In this short exposition I dhow how the original Hebrew has a completely different meaning. It is not a philosophical or scientific statement--but rather a description of the ordering of the chaotic, empty, water covered, wind sweep, wasteland that was Planet Earth, WHEN the "Force of All Forces" (Elohim) begin to bring order out of the random chaos.
For my translation of the Book of Genesis see:
jamestabor.com/taborgenesis
On-line Courses:
"Jesus & Dead Sea Scrolls”
mvp-courses.com/tabor-dss
Creating Jesus: Gospel of Mark
mythvisionpodcast.com/firstgo...
__________________________________________
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley
מהמלים בקשר את המלים ועל סמך המלים
Retired Prof. of Religious Studies/Christian Origins
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
About Dr. James D. Tabor: jamestabor.com/about-dr-tabor/
Tabor Books: jamestabor.com/books
Academic Blog: jamestabor.com
Personal Blog: genesia.org
UA-cam: / jamestaborvideos
Podcast: Spotify and Apple:
podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Public Facebook: / taborpublic
Join Tabor Research Community: / jamesdtabor
Academia:independent.academia.edu/Jame...
Instagram: / drjdtabor
Twitter: / jamesdtabor
LinkedIn:
/ james-tabor-12119324 - Фільми й анімація
I believe Yah's Word; with all it's possible human interpretations is a great test from Yah to see how we navigate these defences of interpretation and still stay 'Loving & respectful to one another' :
John 13:35, Jesus - Yahusha said to us all :
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
I see you use the correct name of the Father and son Proverbs 30:4 and I am always in awe when I see another Love Yah and His son so much they really seek Him and want to know Him deeply .. May Yah bless you, and we meant at His glorious coming !! HalleluYAH!
Yahuah The Father Yahusha The Son and Messiah.
Praise Yah
Praise Yahusha
Yahawah the father and YAHAWASHI the son who died on the cross to save us forgiven from our sins 🙏🏾😊
We are geocentric, the earth is the focus, and the middle ground...under a dome
I think you mean egocentric 😊
@@uncut-hebrew😂 “domestic” 🙈
@@uncut-hebrew i think u mean sun deity-centric ...
@@jesusislukeskywalker4294 "dumbestic", unless you can scientifically demonstrate gas pressure next to a sky vacuum. 🙊🚽
Wait till the _'Flat-Earthers'_ join the conversation.
“Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.”
2 Timothy 2:14 NASB1995
Are you then saying, The thesis by Wilson J 2010 . 'A Case for the Traditional Translation and Interpretation of Genesis 1:1 based upon a Multi-Leveled Linguistic Analysis.' is wrong? If so, what parts of his analysis are questionable?
He won’t listen to anything that vindicates the Bible
Thank you - excellent as always! In the UK we have the Good News Bible/Today's English Version of 1976, which puts Genesis 1/1 as "In the beginning, when God created the universe..." halfway to the correct translation!
Great analysis! Arthur Custance says the earliest Aramaic version of Genesis says “the earth was laid waste.” He wrote: “There is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Genesis 1:1-2 as “IN A FORMER STATE GOD PERFECTED THE HEAVENS AND EARTH; BUT THE EARTH HAD BECOME A DEVASTATED RUIN… than there is for any of the conventional translations.” This fits geological and other evidence - Earth has experienced many pole shift catastrophes reorganizing the entire surface of the world. Genesis is talking about a previous re-creation. Revelation describes the "new heavens and new earth" after the next pole shift, due within decades. If interested find a book on pole shift evidence. There are many biblical clues. Consider just a few of the clearest verses:
Isaiah 13:13 “I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place.”
Isaiah 24:1 “Behold, the Lord lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants.”
Job 9:5-6 “It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how, When He overturns them in His anger; Who shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble.”
Psalms 46:2 “though the earth should change and though the mountains slip into the heart of the sea.”
Haggai 2:6 “For thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land.”
Revelation 6:14 “The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.“
Yes. I've heard that one before, too. The poles do shift. Does this mean God did not create the universe? Not really.
@@tatie7604 Agreed. The existence of pole shifts doesn't change God's role in creation - just a tweak of our understanding of the biblical description of creation.
Jeremia 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
There won’t be pole shifts because earth is not a globe.
thanks for taking the time to post all those
This is great, and I am happy through this I found a new translation that rejects traditional translation formulas. It's bizarre nothing like this has even happened yet, through centuries of constant new translations coming out.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves Scrolls, are a set of ancient Jewish manuscripts from the Second Temple period.
They were discovered over a period of 10 years, between 1946 and 1956, at the Qumran Caves near Ein Feshkha in the West Bank, on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. Dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE,[1] the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered to be a keystone in the history of archaeology with great historical, religious, and linguistic significance because they include the oldest surviving manuscripts of entire books later included in the biblical canons, along with extra-biblical and deuterocanonical manuscripts that preserve evidence of the diversity of religious thought in late Second Temple Judaism. At the same time, they cast new light on the emergence of Christianity and of Rabbinic Judaism. [2] Almost all of the 15,000 scrolls and scroll fragments are held in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum, located in the city of Jerusalem. The Israeli government's custody of the Dead Sea Scrolls is disputed by Jordan and the Palestinian Authority on territorial, legal, and humanitarian grounds - they were mostly discovered following the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and were acquired by Israel after Jordan lost the 1967 Arab-Israeli War[3] - whilst Israel's claims are primarily based
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements-surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it?
Wow, it's such obvious mythology. Thanks
@@fatoldguy9046Jesus forgives you too
@@Eric_Eric_Eric ???? I don't know how, he's been dead for 2000 years.
@@fatoldguy9046 what you choose to say does not change that you have been forgiven.
@@Eric_Eric_Eric Yes I know, thank Satan
it's not "bereshit BRO elohim et ha shamaim ve et ha aretz" it is "bereshit BARA". BARA is past simple or present perfect form of Create, meaning "created" or "has created". I think it is better to stick to the traditional translation, because 1) it is more faithful to the hebrew traditional reading. 2) The language of Bereshit IS ambigous, therefore good translation has to be ambigous too.
בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמיים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תוהו ובוהו וחושך על פני תהום ורוח אלוהים מרחפת על פני המים.
It doesnt say wind from Elohim, it says Elohim's wind or Elohim's spirit: it may mean wind from Elohim, , it may also mean the spirit of God. Btw, the following word is traditionally translated as "hovers" not "blows", which supports more the second meaning.
The important thing here is the original text, the exact meaning of each was lost with the people who told or wrote it originally, who lived thousands of years ago. Afterwards came a myriad of interpretations from people who have claimed to understand it better than others. Wise Rashi didn't speak with God, as well as the others, and didn't have access to some other secret source of truth, apart from the multitude of interpretations that existed before him. He just theorisised like all the rest.
I wish I could give thousands of thumbs 8:01 up .
Perfect.
Well stated. ~Shalom
Bara is 3rd person masculine completed (past tense). The noun Elohim (plural) takes the number of the verb. So, what is plural in Elohim to denote infinity, is summarised by a single entity. "He Created". Read the words in the order they appear, and you will find a totally different situation for thought. It would be He created G-d. This is Kabbalah. The best way I can explain it is like this. We perceive our existence through 6 senses. But there is more to this existence that we can perceive. Likewise G-d created Emanations (Sephirot). These are the way G-d interacts with creation. But G-d is more than those. "He created G-d" would mean He (En Sof - the unknowable) decided upon ways to interact with creation. They are balanced between Masculine and Feminine, which to me gives more support to the words in Genesis. This is not an argument. It is another way of reading the words and learning about HaShem.
Translated from ancient Greek, so who really knows. We can only believe, or not, what we're told
Doesn't the use of an indeterminate article (be reshit instead of ba reshit) already make it clear that Genesis 1,1 is not talking about THE beginning (of everything), but rather A beginning (of something)?
Correct. That is precisely my point.
Who determined the difference?? In Hebrew, there is just the letter 'Beit' before the word 'reshyth'. 'Beit' on it's own means: in, within, among, in the midst, to dwell, dwelling, house, tent.
Massora
@@MyChihuahua It says בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית, there are two dots under the beit, not a T, hence indeterminate form, not determinate form. The Massora is part of the text.
@@tomhase7007 'Vowel points' were added by the Masoretes as late as 600 - 900 AD, they were not in the original writings.
James did you observe any heavenly body through a telescope or a P 1000 camera? Did you see the stars ? How the Moon looked like? Where is the words planet and universe in the bible? Thank you.
Your family Bible looks better each video! I was looking online and noticed a Bible that looks very similar. It was a late 19th century (about 1882) by the Hubbard Bros. A book repair video I saw years ago suggested that anytime you repair a book, if you can by the strings or inner binding, write your name or initials and date so that in the future, if someone else works on that same book, there is even more of an historical record for generations to come. This Bible has a great family history. :)
I've purchased your translation of Genesis and read it before bed each night. It's very interesting, especially when contrasted to the more mainstream translations. Thanks for making this available.
I am really enjoying these "shorts", Dr Tabor!
Insightful. Thank you, Dr. Tabor.
Thanks, I'll investigate myself!
"the wind of Elohim vibrated the waters"
That was Juno (Air).
מְרַחֶפֶת
The Word merachephet, wants to depict the action of an eagle flapping it’s wings over the waters
@@franklinparedes4036
Juno was the Dove.
This is all about a distinction without a difference. Did we need this? I don’t get the relevance of it to anything.
the issue is whether the bible says that god created everything from nothing or that he simply shaped the already existing earth for the purpose of establishing humanity on it. virtually no christians believe it's the latter
perhaps spend less time writing and more time thinking.
because it is about truth and salvation.
Most interesting..." a distinction without a difference ".
@@fructiferous Tabor's translation in the video STILL literally starts off with "CREATING the land", rather than it cutting straight to "forming or shaping the land", therefore it is STILL essentially about first CREATING the land . . . and THENNN giving it form.
@@TebogoMotlhale this is why I don't get his point. He's still saying that something was created. His translation simply takes away the importance of the Bereshit prophecy and the trinity. This is a great example of how looking at the original Hebrew can go too far. He just made another translation that destroys all doctrine and removes the inspired words of God
hi dr. tabor, after watching how they figured out the year of exodus from the assyrian eponym canon, i'm curious about the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar. if i understand correctly, we are still going by the calculation of bishop usher. is there another verification of the date from astronomical anchor points?
Dr. Tabor, do you think there is anything significant about the lack of definite article in bereishis?
My brain works a little different I guess. When Dr. Tabor was explaining his translation I kept imagining the scene from Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy when they are building a new Earth and now "So long and thanks for all the fish" will be stuck in my mind all night.
"And the earth was without form and void." (Gen. 1:2.) Correctly translated, this verse would read: "And the earth in winter is dreary and desolate" (tohu ve bohu). The earth in winter is indeed dreary and desolate - dreary, i.e., bloody, in the old sense of the word, in allusion to the color of the dead vegetation at this season; desolate, because of the obliquity of the Sun's rays, as opposed to the insolate, or more direct rays of the sun in summer.
"And the Gods said let there be light; and there was light " (vs. 3); i.e. the Sun entering Aries at the spring equinox, brought summer or light out of darkness or winter - winter passed, summer came. The fish scales have been removed from the eyes, sight is restored.
@@harveywabbit9541 We are warned not to add or take away from Scripture...
@@MyChihuahua
That warning was copied from the Egyptian story of coming forth by day (book of the dead).
@harveywabbit9541 I like this translation and even though we don't know what God is and all the big questions, this seems to add a layer of complexity, who were the Elohim and were they God's agents working for him or is this just all fairy tales?
@@johnmcgraw3568
The root “el,” is contracted from the verb = ail, to roll, to twist, and was hence applied as a name to the male of the sheep kind, in allusion to his contorted or “twisted horns" (Gesenius Heb. Lex., p. 41). El, the Ram, is Aries.
Elohim of the Hebrews is only the Sun in conjunction with the Aries of the Zodiac during summer, and that God is but one of its many synonyms. Genesis, chapter one has summer beginning with Aries and ending with Virgo. This is modified when the six days become seven days/months (Aries thru Libra) and winter becomes five days/months or Scorpio thru Pisces.
El, disjointed from the Sun is often associated with winter. The setting of Aries became the Golden Ram caught in the thorn bush (winter). This is the ram that Abraham “slays” and burns on the altar (Ara constellation).
In 1 Sam. 4.8, these seven summer months (Aries thru Libra) are called "mighty Gods;" Elohim adidim by the Philistines, or winter months (Scorpio thru Pisces). Some of the ancients supposed Aries was upon the meridian (noon-mark) at the great natal hour, when the Sun rose directly after in Leo. This would refer the beginning of the year to the summer solstice (popular in Egypt). These seven months makes up the Temple of God that Solomon the sun, builds every year. The simplest way to remember Solomon’s Temple is to think of it as April thru October. The writers often mixed the age of the bull with that of the ram.
It makes absolute sense since the earth is a fllat plane which is part of God's heavenly throne room and the centre of what people think of as the universe which leaves you with the thought that God's kingdom has been there all along, the earth and heavens were created within this kingdom, closed by a firmament, a terrarium if you will.
Thank you. Our world is a flat plan and NOT a globe.
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not
@@HouseMediaLLC absolutely not my friend. I am dead serious.
@@whatdoiknowjustamortalsoon8633 the physical earth has been proven an oblate spheroid. how would you explain night and day and the four seasons if the earth is not rotating and revolving around the sun? are you talking about the earth plane that existed in the spiritual realm?
right James ! Be blessed!
Thank you, Doctor....I had tried to come up with the phrase "At once...."
Again, thank you. I look forward to getting your book with...thank you very much... the footnotes.........
I remember reading somewhere that tohu w bohu was a reference to tiamat in the old babylonian story. I think Christians have been reluctant to acknowledge how much the ancient Hebrews were part of that larger culture and not always monotheistic..
Christians weren't always monotheistic. The New Testament is a polytheistic text. Monotheism was invented in around 200 AD at the earliest.
The Hebrew word for deep (tahom) is considered etymologically related to Tiamat.
@@thomasdalton1508 Disagree. The New Testament is clearly monotheistic in that it is about worshiping Yahweh and accepting Jesus as his son and messenger. Christians, unsurprisingly, turned that into worshiping Jesus, and hence we get all the Trinity nonsense to make the pieces fit. The move to singular Yahweh the one and only god takes place within the pages of the Old Testament.
@@chrimony It is certainly about worshipping Yahweh and accepting Jesus as his son and messenger, but nowhere does it say Yahweh is the only god. He's the only god they worship, but they acknowledge the existence of other gods. In 1 Corinthians 8:5, Paul says "in fact there are many gods". He goes on to say "for us there is one God" and he refers to the others as "so-called gods", so he's preferring to reserve the word "god" for Yahweh, but he is clear that the beings others worship as gods do exist. They aren't the creator of all things - that's Yahweh - but they exist. Similarly, in Galatians 4:8 he talks about "beings that by nature are not gods" - he isn't saying they don't exist, but is just restricting the definition of "god" to exclude them.
To describe Paul as a monotheist, you have to accept his definition of what is and is not a god (a definition he doesn't even entirely stick to himself). I don't think that is a useful way of defining what a monotheist is. It is very artificial to be a monotheist only because you've invented your own categorisation system that says other gods aren't really gods rather than because you don't think those other gods exist.
@@chrimonyall i know is that the new testament says the Word in the beginning (a) was with God and (b) was God. and i'm pretty sure the Word is supposed to refer to Jesus, but regardless, if there's a god with God who's also God, then it sounds like there's at least a fraction more than one god
I bought Dr. Tabor's translation months ago. Well worth it.
Is translation of what and where did you buy it from?
01:05 in the morning and I am learning, it will stop when there is light.
Great stuff thanks
Ok do 99.
Thank you for your insight and work.
This makes a big difference. It does. ❤ thanks for the heads up.
With all due respect, Rashi's view on Genesis 1:1 is not universally accepted. While he argued for a pre-existing void preceding creation, this doesn't necessarily contradict creation ex nihilo. The accepted understanding is that Rashi saw Genesis 1:1 as referring to the beginning of Gd's creative acts, not an absolute beginning.
Another point of interest is that the Jewish people are no longer the Isreal of God, as they had rejected the cornerstone, so it thereby reasons that any Jewish enlightenment is not from the Holy Spirit.
@@ksgraham3477 I guess thenapostle Paul didnt get the memmo when he wrote Romans 9-11.
@@sephardim4yeshua155 Did you read Romans 11? Especially verses 7-10 says that "...the rest (Jews not of the election remnant) were blinded."
Gentiles have been grafted in and the Jews that denied Christ as their Messiah were broken off. (No longer the Isreal of God) But, when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in we will see reformed Jews grafted in.
(The rest of the chapter).
Any reasonings from Jews should only be paid attention to are from Messianic Jews, not Jews in name only.
@@ksgraham3477 this antisemetic thinking can not be from Ruakh HaChodesh, but straight out of hell’s Replacement Theology. The New Testament mirrors- and largely comes from Jewish Commentary of the day on TeNaKh. Such wholesale ideas about all Jews’ lack of understanding shows gross ignorance of how many NT verses are found in both the “T” book, and, gasp! even the “K” book, sometimes word for word!
@davidcohen12345 my point, please take no offense, was about God's promise to Abraham regarding Isaac and his seed. That the writings referred to were a millennium after Christ by a Jew indicates that it cannot be from God, because if it were from God, he'd be a Messianic Jew and one of God's children, ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE.
The Jews that rejected the "cornerstone" are cut off.
I paused at the beginning and wondered if you would translate as "to shape the land..." and the Pene - or face I was hoping to get the footnote ;) Thanks for sharing..
Thanks, it does make a difference.
Hebrew is a phenomenological language, it describes what it sees, it does not try to describe the details. One of the fascinating things about Genesis (James briefly alluded to this) is that the sequence of events described in Genesis matches what one would observe from the standpoint of a person standing on or close to the earth's surface during creation matches what astronomers and astrophysicists agree on would be how the earth was created from a massless shapeless form, that then condensed into a solid, and as the gaseous clouds dissipated and while the earth was spinning one would see diffused light first then the light would be Separated from the dark as the solid earth was spinning, even to occurrence of greenery first followed by the rest matches what most scientists agree is the the order in which life appeared.
Of curse it does not describe the events in detail the account was not meant for that, rather it gives a quick overview that we could fill in later through our observations.
This separates the Bible from other creation stories that contain the idea of some kind of mystical event that gave birth to the earth.
Hebrew is a concrete language whereas Greek moved to abstract thought ( because of Plato et al)
@@davidmillward3108 seems you are not a linguist. I suggest a few years of study in linguistics before you comment.
I have learned a lot from this amazing teacher.
Read John chapter 1 verses one through 14. This man hasn’t taught you anything correctly.
@@eliasgodwin8729 this is a scholar and you are not. Stop.
Scholars killed Jesus. There is one teacher, the Christ. Those are the words of Jesus himself. Please read the New Testament for yourself. Let no one teach you. Just speak to God and pray for understanding. Pharisees were scholars. It’s all they were and Jesus condemned them for not understanding who He was.
It's the next sentence I'd love to hear from rabinnical circles the translation of the 2 words "tohu" and "bohu".. What are the ROOTS of those 2 words?
"And the earth was without form and void." (Gen. 1:2.) Correctly translated, this verse would read: "And the earth in winter is dreary and desolate" (tohu ve bohu). as the earth in winter is indeed dreary and desolate - dreary, i.e., bloody, in the old sense of the word, in allusion to the color of the dead vegetation at this season; desolate, because of the obliquity of the Sun's rays, as opposed to the insolate, or more direct rays of the sun in summer.
"And the Gods said let there be light; and there was light " (vs. 3); i.e. the Sun entering Aries at the spring equinox, brought summer or light out of darkness or winter - winter passed, summer came.
The separation of summer (blessings) and winter (cursings) is a common bible them.
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge so openly.
I do not see a difference in the two different ways of writing this sentence. They still mean the same thing.
...I rather like my Best Friend's take on Genesis 1:2-3:
"2. And desolation and emptiness were upon the waters. 3. And God/Elohim said: 'Let there Be LIGHT ' -- and you Could SEE for F-ing MILES !"
"And the earth was without form and void." (Gen. 1:2.) Correctly translated, this verse would read: "And the earth in winter is dreary and desolate" (tohu ve bohu). The earth in winter is indeed dreary and desolate - dreary, i.e., bloody, in the old sense of the word, in allusion to the color of the dead vegetation at this season; desolate, because of the obliquity of the Sun's rays, as opposed to the insolate, or more direct rays of the sun in summer.
"And the Gods said let there be light; and there was light " (vs. 3); i.e. the Sun entering Aries at the spring equinox, brought summer or light out of darkness or winter - winter passed, summer came. The fish scales have been removed from the eyes, sight is restored.
There's a cool video called "Star in a Jar" that shows how all you need to create light is sound and water, just like God said he used.
And way too many miles for whay they tell us the circumference of the earth is.. very strange indeed
@@ourfamilylucu There is an Eastern Philosophy Book Titled " Nada Brahma, The World is made of Sound"
I thought immediately of Jesus the Christ, the Living Word , Alpha and Omega, speaking the World into existence. ✝️🙏❤️🔥🕊️
I praise His Holy Name.
🥹😔
Let there be light is quite deep. First of all Father Elohim is in fact a Spirit of Illumination. Isaiah 60:I9 (by revelation) Revelation 2I:23 through reading.
Also it comes with a purpose, Purpose being redemption, back too light/life, born again of spirit. John 3:5
If you read Jeremiah 4:22-28 This where the fall was happening. Note 4:25 No men. Not Noah. A formless void. See 4:28 Father has proposed? Proposed what? The was back to life for our first life. Rev 2:5
First there has to be one found worthy too be king. Then everyone will have their opportunity (breath) this mortal to choose redemption. I Peter I:3 Be redeemed from those in darkness. Strong delusion. Isa 66:3, 2 Th 2:II,I2
So let there be Light, is also John I:I the Word. The way back to Life/light. The directions that lead to life.
Genesis I:2 and darkness was on the face of the deep. Who, what is the deep? I Corinthians I5:22 All are heavenly sons and daughters are asleep, in darkness, absent of the Spirit of light/life.
Simply read Proverbs 8:23 if you are uncertain about the earth. 8:23 Before there ever was an earth. The heavens were alive, and all of our created celestial bodies, born of Spirit lived. Immortal soul living eternally. Our eternal Glory. 2 Cor 5:I
Rev I2:7 war broke out in heaven and Father Elohim pulled Hs Spirit of Light from all those at war, and into darkness we went. Jeremiah 4:28 for the earth shall mourn and the heavens be black.
How do I know this is True and correct? Because I learned from the end to the beginning. The knowledge came down to me several years ago, however today I have and hold all the provided complimentary scriptures.
Interesting observations Mr. Tabor
One of the pieces I would find most interesting in discussing both the justice system and the idea of a fallible deity who want to partner with beings to make a good physical creation. Obey still leave the being who is obeyed alone.
It also looks like the story of an artist, who walks into his dark room and sits down at his spinning table. There is a bowl full of water and a ball of clay sitting in the water. He stares at the bowl of water and clay in deep thought and concentration. He has a room full of pottery but this is going to be the ultimate work and expression of himself. His foot starts pumping and the table starts spinning. He takes the clay out of the bowl and puts it on the spinning table and begins to form and transform it.
Very beautiful❤
Adam was given the task of REPLENISHING the Earth. From what? There was something here that needed reconstructed.
The God in Genesis 1 is not the creator God, it is the Elohim and they are who are in the ufos. we are seeing and they will be landing soon.
Being fruitful and multiplying.
@graceanneful I believe it could mean what he says in Gen. 2:5-15. "and there was not a man to till the ground". I believe that God's plans were for Adam to work in his garden. To till the land, prepare it, and maintain it. To replenish it.
@@heavensgateway Replenish means to make anew or to fill again. There was a previous earth age before adam that was destroyed
@@heavensgateway good point. Yes he was to till ( replenish) the Garden. Replenishing means a few things. But it just leads in to wonder. I have heard of pre-Adamic peoples and civilizations.
Who knows, we weren’t there and the Bible has been changed so many times. But I side with Tabor, and I have had to relearn.
Thank you, Dr Tabor ❤
Thank you sir. I've just bought your book. I needed something like this to understand. ❤
The way I've looked at it is that God was considering the audience at the time. This was a time when the only things that flew were living things, only the simplest of machines existed (the wheel being high tech), most people were illiterate, etc. While God could have given a physics and chemistry accurate description of creation and the universe, no one could understand it at the time. Certainly the majority would laugh it off.
So, we get the Cliff's Notes of all Cliff's Notes version.
Bear in mind also that The Bible said that there would be a continuing revelation. That did has been taken, rightly, to mean spiritually, but it did not exclude revelations on the scientific side. I think this is where a lot of the misunderstandings we see today come from.
A consideration: “No scripture is of any privy interpretation….”
This prevents us from bouncing on one verse and encourages us to build out to other scriptures and precepts to have a sure Word - a firm and complete foundation.
Sad to have such a small god
Good point. Plus it's plain wrong that no scripture is a matter of interpretation. It's impossible for any text to not have the potential for multiple interpretations. Whether it's 'private' or not makes no difference either, as ultimately the interpreter is human. If the text weren't open to interpretation, there could only be one translation of the bible (and for the KJV-only folks out there - no, it's not that one). Also, everyone studying with a close eye and honest intentions would then all come to the same interpretation for a given text. We know all too well that isn't true.
"No scripture is of any privy interpretation"
So who does the interpreting? Everyone! I read, and I understand, or think I do. You read, and end up with a different understanding from the very same words although often it is not the very same words (dozens of different bibles exist).
I must not get it.
Sounds like you're pronouncing tomatoes or tomahtoes to me, because it didn't change the interpretation that dramatically.
@@slack9400 There's a significant difference when "create" means ex-nihilo, from absolutely nothing, poof now suddenly everything exists; from "form" as in a potter takes clay and forms a bowl. The substance was already there, but the form was not.
I believe the more correct understanding of Genesis is that the Earth was already here, but formless. The description is not particularly scientific, separating the waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmament, so this is an area where I treat it as an excellent story but not science.
But it does not prevent anyone from bouncing on one verse. I've noticed many pastors are too closed minded to allow any thoughts outside the box they were trained to live in.
Dr Tabor, should “create” in G1:1 be “transform,” since the land already existed, albeit desolate and empty?
Desolate and Empty describes winter and the six nights (autumn equinox - spring equinox). This was modified by taking the first night (Libra) and adding it to the six days (Aries thru Virgo). Summer became Aries thru Libra and winter became Scorpio thru Pisces. See Rev. 9.5. where the five months of "winter" are led by the scorpion. The writer highlights Sagittarius thru Pisces. These are the four eunuchs whose head is Sagittarius (Joseph). See Egyptian tale of the two brothers, Anpu and Bata.
Yes; form or transform. The Earth is already here, nothing grows on it.
But how does Dr Tabor's translation differ other than a tense change?
Yes the world is a big baseball game. In the big inning.
...no, just all sorts of no.
GOD: The Only Game In Town !!!
i also heard that the word CREATE didn't exist in old Hebrew that the best translation is "to manufacture" not to create.
Create is a much better word. Creator or Manufacturer?
@@joinjen3854 the point is very significant . when you manufacture something is out of something else , but create is create out of nothing . thats the point.
Where'd you hear that? The Internets? 😂
BARA means to create and to bring something from an internal to an external state, and it is used only in reference to the Creator.
It just proves the point .... they translate it how they want to reflect monotheism, rather than what the story really tells us. The Bible is now so removed from its original form it is now a fictional story.
If it was beresheth it wouldn't have the definite article, that would be bareshith, from my understanding. Does anyone know of a Hebrew Bible that shows that distinction?
I’ve enjoyed studying it in Hebrew and noticed… there are symmetries that should be compared at every day: what letters, phrases, and rhythms from day 1 repeat day 2 and how, etc? Thus the method of creation is communicated with syntax. Esoteric schools have caught on to this. I hope we find the right answers!
This forever long intro..... GO TO THE POINT . I lost my patience in 3.20 when you still talking about nothing.
Whole video is nothing
Right on!
Don't trust ANY "new revelation" in the end times of false teachers and false prophets but be born again and follow the risen Jesus only!
@@time_2_get_ready Why I need to trust a Bible? How you know that a Bible is truth? Or even a Jesus how you know he existed and he was as somebody described him in bible? I dont believe in anything what is not possible to experience. Because I dont know if I can be sure about that.
Don’t be so rude
@@avitalsheva same here, that’s why I know you’re an artificial intelligence
The Blood of Jesus makes us The Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. 😊
Blah bla blah. Crucifixion isn’t the meaning of salvation.
What does this even mean please ? What an abstract statement..
As Dr. Tabor explains in his book, translating from one language to another is an art that depends on the intention of the translator, as languages are the ways that humans use to communicate ideas, and the cultures that create languages often have very different ways of thought, and therefore the translator must choose whether to translate words or ideas.
The beauty of Dr. Tabor's is that it captures the beauty of the Hebrew expressions that are being used. So standard translations use better English thought patterns, but are not as "literally accurate" as Dr. Tabor's version which gives more flavor of Hebrew idioms.
Translations are always bent to the likes of the translators.
Interesting and fascinating to see it put this way.
It's not directly related to your argument here, but curious to get your take on the alleged Mandela Effect in Gen 1:1? In the KJV it says "heaven and earth", singular. Or at least it's singular NOW. Apparently it once was plural, "heavens and earth". Of course, the Hebrew is and always was plural: "Hashamayim". So has there been a change? I suppose if it is local creation as you posit though then maybe "heaven" makes more sense. But then it's at odds with the Hebrew.. so would be good to get clarity on this.
Heaven and Earth are the Egyptian Nut and Geb. Nut and Geb became Eve and Adam. They must be pushed apart in order to separate night and day. The god Shu (air) does this for us every morning. If Heaven and Earth (vagina and phallus) are not separated (Hebrew verb bara) we would remain in darkness and no work would be done. We should soon starve.
That's because He originally created one heaven and later sperated it , no Mandela Effect going on here
@@koreyoneal2623 Okay, possibly not, on that one. But did Job 21:24 (KJV) always say "His breasts are full of milk"?
Not only did it not always say that, it also makes no sense.
I was shocked when I first checked and saw that's what it says (now); one of many examples of the Mandela Effect.
Makes sense, as the authors apparently had no concept of the universe that we have today.
They thought the sky was a dome with the stars fixed to it.
They were told it was a dome with the stars fixed in it and recorded the same for us. Prove it's otherwise...
So which made up story do you believe the made-up story by the Nazi scientists LED NASA that tell you even today the pictures of Earth they show you are CGI created. In the heliocentric thought of the universe came from some person grounded on Earth thinking about something in his imagination and in that imaginative thought was forced on the world
@@MyChihuahua Then they were lied to.
@@revelator5754 Nope, It's is clearly provable. The firmament dome was said to be at 13,000 ft in the Encyclopedias from the 1970's that recorded the exploration expeditions of Admiral Byrd. Do some research.
@@revelator5754 By whom?
thanks a lot! please keep these videos coming! also, a microphone might help!
Thanks, good translations are appreciated.
I think it's pretty cool that Abba Father the creator of all things seen and unseen chose our little marble in Eternity to make his home and family✝️🌻🕊
Little blue marble ? I've heard nasa say so 'But' the Holy Scriptures' No'
@Shivey-Caroline-7-23 whatever... Flat Earth has been debunked by any person with a half a brain , misunderstanding or misinterpreting the Bible is no excuse and yes I've been born again Spirit-filled Christian for 50 years✝️🌻🕊
You missed the mark. By a long shot.
Lol....and you've got it all figured out huh? Let's hear your take on creation Einstein. No one knows the truth they only have an opinion, theory or hypothesis which is just an educated guess on what the truth about creation, God(s) and humanity. He's simply forming his own opinion based on his own understanding. So to state he missed the mark indicates clearly you believe he's wrong when you have only your own belief that differs from his and NOT the truth. Humility is the birth child of knowledge.......arrogance is the birth child of ignorance.
Tell us why.
Not sure how it fits with verse 15 about making the celestials. Can you explain?
The whole thing is geocentric. The sun, moon and stars are part of the heavens.
Thanks for the video. I find it very interesting indeed.
When did this confusion begin? I presume ancient Jews new this. But it seems even Jews got confused somewhere along the line, as you say Rashi addressed in the Middle Ages. Why would Jews be confused? Were they influenced by confused Latin or Greek translations? Hebrew became dead language (as a spoken language) after about 200 AD, then revived in modern times. Did that lead to a loss of clarity in this passage at the time?
The truth is, Hebrew cannot be properly translated into English. It's not confusion, it's a limitation that stands in the way of pure understanding of the Old Testament. Even the best English translation falls short.
There's a secret method to reading Genesis 1... Rearrange the days and read it in this order and it begins to pull together nicely...Day 1,4,2,5,3,6. Reminds me of a V6 engine doing it that way, but I promise it's worth doing!! ❤
@@sandradkennedy If it cant be translated properly you better tell that to fundamentalist Christians in America.
The Christians don't even read Old Testament anyway, they focus on the even more distorted New Testament. 😆 The Mormons stopped by the other day, and I told them we won't mesh well since I read the Bible in Hebrew. They left me fully alone besides being amazed that I'm using the source, they even said they would like to learn Hebrew and I said, well then you won't need the Mormon church anymore. He looked at me like my head fell off and I haven't seen those two guys since!
I tell anyone that will listen, English translations are a waste of paper. Just learn the Hebrew and quit spinning your wheels my friends!
@@sandradkennedyAm intrigued by your take about Hebrew and the limitations of translation into English. Or any language for that matter. I know 3 languages (none of which is Hebrew unfortunately) so am fully aware of the essence of something lost in translation. My take then is that we put on humility when reading any scriptural text.
The best teacher is one who knows he/she doesn't have all the answers. English speaking preachers need to acknowledge this lack of perfect rendering, both in a particular translation as well as in their own lived experience in the faith. Again, the best teachers are those humble enough to learn as they go along.
You have piqued my curiosity: are you discovering the depth of emotions from the Hebrew text? The cadence that helps memorisation? Please enlighten while I humbly do my best in the NIV.
I feel that your interpretation of "At" instead of "In" is believable and that the words may have only pertained to this earth because it's unreasonable to assume that God who had no beginning and created countless galaxies doesn't have other earths out there. Our planet could be relatively young compared to other earths. I can still retain my belief in God and the Bible and believe that as well. I've even thought it. The Interlinear Bible starts of with "and" so "at" isn't difficult to accept. Thank you Dr. Tabor for your Lost In Translation take on a most fascinating subject.
Nothing like a good old fashioned rationalization….
It is better than non-study and non-understanding.
They're weird and deluded but i can see where they're coming from in their theology
The authors of Genesis knew nothing about galaxies or other planets. The description in Genesis is very clear. You have a flat Earth covered by a dome (firmament). The sun, moon and stars are all lights in that dome. Above the dome is water. There are no other planets.
@@thomasdalton1508 The author didn't need to know about other planets or galaxies if the focus was on just this one.
Thank you
I learned so much from you
I'm waiting to see the backflips and cheese that will be used to make this argument.
Literally translated, it says "The Earth and the Heavens, God, He Created in the beginning." Which would say, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." Because the Ath points to God, who is the agent doing the creating.
How can you be so wrong and so confident? 40,000 people watched this, and now believe the first verse of Genesis is mistranslated.
so you gonna watch the video now or what
In head created Powers [object] the land and [object] the heavens. I like the Jewish Publication Society's phrasing of "When God began to create" though. I'll of course admit if they named me Flipjeff I'd just start doin' flips
@@flannigan7956 But that's clearly adding more to the text than what's there.
@@flannigan7956 That's something unfortunately that Jews do, is overcomplicate the simple meaning of their words.
They do that to hedge themselves against accepting Christians are right.
@@fructiferous No. Because in the title, he's prejudicing people to believe the Bible Translations we have cannot be trusted. And that's wrong. Because languages are universal, and if something's true, it can be commonly expressed in any of them.
It is said Gen 1 is the descent of consciousness into our dimensional world.
I’m definitely ordering one of those Literal versions of Gen
I'm more inclined to say it's Gen 2 because that's when they acquire knowledge, which means thought, which means the need for mind.
Great video, thank you.
Acts 17:38: for in him we live, and move, and have our being.
Since “B’ “ means “in”, and “Rosh” can mean “head”… (can you guess where I’m going?)
Is this a possible translation: “In God’s head when he was creating…” meaning that we and all creation exist in the mind of God?
Asherah was known as “Lady who moves on the sea”. Just noting the “coincidence” with “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. “
Not disputed. The idea was always that the false gods copied from God.
@@PedroCavalcanti-nk9ik OK, yeah, but, who is the true God?
Asher is the phallus. add the female suffix ah and you get Asherah. Think of Asher as Gemini and don't forget the May pole (sex). Remember the tale of Ra, the sun/phallus riding across the celestial sea in a barque aka crescent moon (vagina). Think of God as the Sun and his wife as the Moon. Like in King and Queen. The King and Queen "know" one another and their princes/princesses become stars. One is Venus who is aka Esther.
@@piesho The embodiment of fundamental psychological truths such as morality in a personal level and cultural development towards a better society.
Well, thanks to "Let there be light," the beginning could unfold. So I don't see any remarkable difference; all the wonder still belongs to God, no matter how one tries to shift "in the beginning" out of the way. This is too theoretical and too picky for the average me. Sorry. God bless.
The translation represents the perspective of a pastoral people rather than appearing to be a divinely inspired grand theological statement is the take I gleaned from the comments. And the fact that Rabbis have discussed this for centuries corroborates the significance. Also, someone pointed out that the word create means manufacturer, which means to make from existing materials, which greatly underscores the point
Don't feel bad, I didn't get it at first either, and I consider.myself pretty smart lol
maybe you should dare to be a little bit more academic about this thing in which you claim to believe.
Very good and insightfull......❤❤
As usual, very informative and captivating.
The idea's not new, but I see several problems with it:
1. "Bereshit" means "in the beginning OF", it is a construct state, but in Genesis, it lacks a noun, so literary it should be translated as "In the Beginning OF ... God created."
2. The word Bara (ברא) as a verb does not appear anywhere else in the Bible so nobody can infer its original meaning. Gen. 2 uses Yatzar extensively meaning "formed" and that aligns perfectly with Babylonian literature of that period. I suspect Bara and Yatzar are merely synonyms that mean "to form" and not "to create".
Yeah. Been telling you this for 4 years now. Plagiarism? Matters not... let's FIX this 'heap of ruins'.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. That's the way Almighty God wants us to see it. The healthy human mind doesn't need the complications of science it just needs an overview of the absolute truth. It's righteously clarified further in John...in the beginning was the 'word'...and that word was so powerful and complex that it remained with God, as the property of God, shared only with Jesus Christ, as a witness to the knowledge of that righteous science, which states that spiritual laws supercede, electromagnetic laws which otherwise control the universe.
It was the Egyptian Tefnut (moisture) and Shu (air) who gave birth to Nut (Heaven) and Geb (Earth). Nut and Geb became Eve and Adam.
Thank you! Yes, an important difference.
Thanks James. 🙏
Quick question, Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis talk about the 'Ruach' as 'something that created wind', nearly like a helicopter's blades would. Could that be the case, considering the 'hovering'/'fluttering', 'shaking' that it is causing on the 'deep waters'?
Ruach, in this instance -- and in others -- is "understood"/interpreted (by some) to mean, the Holy Spirit.
@@GilObregon-hj6zh, there is no 'holy spirit' in Judaism (as far as I'm aware). So, where does this 'interpretation' come from?
@@BenSolomonIM The only one that I can recall, off-hand,
is Shepherd's Chapel.
We don’t live in a simulation, simulations DO NOT FEEL OR BLEED , rather we ARE MAKING IT INTO ONE ! - reincarnation in the making
Elohim is plural but has a far deeper meaning that what you have shared here. Could you expand on the meaning of Elohim? Who are the Elohim (i.e. Gods) participating in creation. I personally link Elohim to the Sumerian gods of El, Anu, Enki, and Enlil. Thank you sir.
The Father & The Son. They say, "Let US make man in OUR image, and in OUR likeness." And nothing was made that was made that The Word didn't make. The Word ofcourse is The Son.
Ah yes….in the shade of the Original Bible Project…. Takes me back to a better time!
This is a comment I just Messengered to a Face To Face Friend, based on James Tabor's UA-cam video!
~
Something else this guy did in the video is to ignore the Hebrew word translated DEEP. It;'s completely different then The WATERS!
But what he also did with the Spirit of Elohim ???
He said it is a WIND!!!
From what I can tell he turned the Spirit of Elohim in Genesis 1:1-3, Numbers 11:16-17 and Joeal 2:26-27 into WIND.
The Spirit of Elohim MOVED upon the face of the Waters (sewage).
That word MOVED means HOVERED.
It's not a WIND in the passages I mentioned.
It is a WIND in the passages he used, except for Genesis 1:1-3.
I don't understand why Gordon shared this? I am going to reply to his last statement on the post. I still think we are on the same page! I just don't understand why he used this video to bring out this subject?
Why no discussion of the fact that Elohim is plural and there is no good etymological reason to translate as "God"? The only words in the Tanach that can reasonably be associated with God are El Elyon, El the most high, who was served by the Melchezidek priesthood in Salem, for which there is no good reason to assume is the same as Jerusalem.
Much more lost translation and unsupported assumption there than you mention, which calls into question the whole idea of a single chosen people, single creator, or single plan for this plan-ET. Especially when you consider the accounts of other traditions like the Sumerian Enuma Elish and the Vedas.
Elohim can be singular or plural (like the English word moose, for example), the verb is what determines the number.
@@andyk5768unfortunately no Elohim is plural and if you go back and look at all spiritual knowledge it's always more than one God always one God is the religion system
Nonsense. Any good Hebraist knew how to translate Gen 1:1-3 over a full generation ago. Ephraim Speiser provided a correct translation in his 1964 Genesis for Anchor Bible (Doubleday). The normative Judeo-Christian theological tradition is based on creatio ex nihilo, so that they have always been afraid to provide a correct translation. Scholars know no such boundaries.
What are you saying is nonsense? He said in the video that this was first raised a thousand years ago. He's not claiming this is a new discovery...
@@thomasdalton1508 I guess you couldn't read far enough to discover that the correct translation was not simply discussed by the rabbis long ago, but that a mainstream Bible actually included the correct translation in 1964. We have a surfeit of yokels who just don't pay attention.
@@BobSmith-lb9nc He gives an example of a correct translation from the Jewish Publication Society in the video. That translation is decades old. At no point has anyone claimed that this is a new discovery. Why are you arguing against something that nobody has said?
@@thomasdalton1508 Speiser was not only the translator for the Anchor Bible, but he was also the translator for JPSA. You and Tabor were not paying attention to what was actually happening, or why, perhaps because you are each too young to have noticed. You both need to own up to your deficits. Stop making lame excuses.
@@BobSmith-lb9nc What do you think you are arguing against? What has anyone said that you think is incorrect? Please give a quotation.
thank you 🙏 mr tabor
Dr. Tabor, I've heard others online explain Gen 1:1 and say it could mean "In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth...", meaning that the earth and the universe were not 'creatio ex nihilo' but where shaped into their current state out of existing matter that was 'formless and void'. I would also venture that the first few words could carry the meaning of 'when ELOHIM started creating...'. Also, I like your translation using "ELOHIM" instead of 'God'. I think it fits better with the ELOHIM in Genesis when God says 'let US go down and make man in OUR image'.
Lastly, the translations you make of the words for Spirit as 'wind' and the word 'heavens' as the 'sky' are not only more literal, but also more literary. The wind and the sky fit better with other natural elements used in the passage, including 'the waters' and 'the earth'. So we have wind, sky, earth, and water.
There's also a relationship between wind and spirit in Acts 2:2-4 when the mighty rushing 'wind' (πνοῆς) blew and everyone was filled w/ the Spirit (Πνεύματος). Both words can also be translated to or relate to breath, gust, respiration, breeze, etc.
Looking forward to other videos like this. I like the short, 10-12 minute format. Not too long, not too short. Thnx Dr. Tabor...
The be in Beresheith is most commonly "with." The ancient Jerusalem Targum interpreted the initial phrase as "With Wisdom." Reshith is beginning, but also first fruits. So, the scribes of the JT were equating the first fruits with Wisdom.
Excuse me. the passage of Jeremiah 26:1 is "Bereshit mamlekhut Yehoyaqim ben-Yoshiyahu melekh Yehudah" and we have a real "status constructus" between "bereshit" and the following name "mamlekhut", meaning "in the beginning OF the reign", but how could you possibly form a status constructus between the name "bereshit" and the following verb "bara": it doesn't make any sense from a grammatical point of view.
Scholar Gordon Wenham considered 4 possible options, including the one by Rashi, for a correct understanding of 'In the beginning, God created the heaven(s) and the earth'. He concluded, based on the Hebrew and the text composition, that the standard translation is most likely correct, and does refer to God creating the whole cosmos.
The problem, of course, is that even the wisest people in those ancient days had very poor idea of the actual cosmos. It is said in Genesis 1 that God divided the water above from the water below, thus creating heaven and earth. That is, people believed that just above the heavens (firmament, if google translate is right) was water. The story of Noah and the arch affirms that this was the perception, as the text says that the windows / openings of the heavens were opened and the water from above came through those windows.
Would not the beginning have to be the creation of God? Did God create him/its self. If there is no beginning of God, then there is no beginning. Your thoughts, please.
The mother of God is the Egyptian Neith of Sais.
Genesis 1 is our beginning. John 1 is ELohim's beginning, of which there isn't one, or an end. YHWH ELohim is pure energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, just its form changed.
I think it could also be translated as : "While" God was Creating the Heavens [i.e. the Spirit Realm] the Earth [the physical environment[ was Just Water with the Holy Spirit acting upon it ".
The first use of Earth in verse 1 ; is slightly different than the form used in verse 10. Water wasn't covering anything . Everything that would be formed into the Physical Universe was originally composed of this primordial Water .
The Hebrew for earth in verse one and verse 10 is identical. Verse one has the prefix ה which just means "the".
@@andrewmiles2370 Thanks for the reply, All I can say with confidence is ; Ancient Hebrew is very elusive and unless a person was actually there at the time : Translations are more often an opinion-driven Art-form and not an exact-science. . I know in Koine Greek there is a vast difference between ; [[a] subject and 'The' Subject'' ] . Like ; a apple is generic . non-specific ; whereas The Apple is referring to one specific apple . And isn't just 'earth' by itself in Hebrew often used in a generic sense ? Like 'ʽAm haʼaretz ? Sometimes referring to the Land of Israel and other times meaning just dry-ground .
Not trying to be argumentative or dogmatic ; just not completely convinced that there cannot be more to the story than just 'The'. 🤔😊
Q: James do you believe in the big bang theory? do you believe in the theory of evolution? do you believe there was a flood that covered everything and killed all life on the earth with the exception of ocean life? do you believe that Jesus is the son of God (and to be clear that he is a part of the trinity and is God) and that he died and was resurrected on the 3rd day? do you consider yourself to be a Christian? if so, do you think you should change the fundamentals of Christian doctrine?
1Co 3:19 KJV - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Why the thumbnail image of Pluto?
Pluto aka Hades became Shem (winter) a son of Noah (Earth). Japheth is spring (Aries thru Cancer) and Ham is summer (Leo thru Scorpio).
That is Pluto?
@@VictorianMaid99 Yes, that's the iconic heart-shaped region revealed by the New Horizons flypast.
Very interesting. But I've always been confused. God does not seem to create the waters. It's like they were always there and God worked with that to separate out the land and heaven?
Seems like water was the building block for heavens but we cant say water was always there
It seems to me that this "transparent" translation is now more in line with some ancient post-Socratic Greek views, e.g. Plato's Timaeus primordial chaos, an unformed and infinite void that characterizes the initial state of the world. But not quite, since the emergence of order out of chaos through the "goodness" of the Demiurge creates the cosmos, the whole universe, not just the (informed) Earth, which is less anthropomorphic.
I am not an expert in this, but I am encouraged by the fact that God often reveals things to the most base of us (even to the extent that a donkey speaks to a man of God). When I started reading the Bible I was stuck by the fact that it said that the earth was and not that the earth was not. So I understood it to be saying that at the beginning of this story that is going to be related, here is the condition of the earth. It’s without human form or animal form. It was a watery world and this is the condition of the world as the story or account of mankind begins.
Hi Dr James T, sooo interesting. I was wondering if you could do a video on the sun, moon and star - Gen 1-14 though to 1-19. I have ordered your Translation should be here in Australia in 2 weeks. Thanks for all you share cheers🥂 and YAH bless.
Yes @JamesTabor this would be very interesting.
I agree. Tell us about the Sun, Moon and Stars!
Could the, “face of the deep” be the ocean floor where of course the sun don’t shine…..pardon the weird thought….