Have we Translated Genesis 1 Wrong All this Time?!

[@tobycoxon8138]

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.

[@tuvoca825]

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.

[@ferrosjewellers4558]

Toby, he is currently in hell. Sorry to bring you this news.

[@tracy5721]

And how do you know that? 🙄​@@ferrosjewellers4558

[@lincolnuland5443]

​@@ferrosjewellers4558what makes you say that?

[@bradc6199]

​@@ferrosjewellers4558this makes YOU seem like a nutjob.

[@RaisingMyWildflowers]

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.

[@masimba5000]

Well you wasted your time and tears

[@HEBREWESS]

@@masimba5000 🤗

[@marshagail2727]

✝️♥️Well said👊

[@deludedjester]

​@@masimba5000"Jesus wept."

[@masimba5000]

@@deludedjester it's a parable. What does it actually mean?

[@sammcrae8892]

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. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏

[@Sooner-im9qf]

Oh no. I didn't know Les Feldick passed. So, so sorry to hear that. He was a great teacher. He will be missed.

[@GGboy369.X]

ASMR

[@solutions553]

Add, Bob George to teaching list..he a Feldick understood Grace, New and Old testaments and thier correct context...

[@kennethdelk3842]

I do the same thing, I loved them both very much

[@antichrist_revealed]

Les Feldick taught the Jack Van Impe program of prophecy. He was a great deceiver. And still is because of all his videos out there.

[@LoveJesus-gd4es]

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

[@Mar.y.Luz111]

Praise Heavenly Father.

[@HappyRinn]

Wow

[@Vixsniper]

What's his phone number? 🙏😃

[@LoveJesus-gd4es]

@@Vixsniper youtube doesnt allow to type

[@yallneedjesus7051]

@@LoveJesus-gd4es spell it out

[@billbailey5689]

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!

[@nigelmcculloch3746]

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

[@liljade53]

@@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.

[@nigelmcculloch3746]

@@liljade53 so why has God's name been removed from the scriptures and still is missing from most modern translations?

[@liljade53]

@@nigelmcculloch3746 I don't think anything sinister is going on.

[@nigelmcculloch3746]

@@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?

[@abirdynumnum9612]

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!

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

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.

[@abirdynumnum9612]

@@Baltic_Hammer6162 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'.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

@@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.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@Baltic_Hammer6162from what I glean from the scholars is that it’s not that his fellow scholars didn’t think about “the public”. It’s that the “public” can’t handle it. Creating waves where none should be extremely agreed upon and dogmatic is very problematic and further dividing. As Mike himself has pointed out: not even the early creeds go beyond simply stating that God created and nothing more to be dogmatic about that was needed to be expounded upon. This info is not new to the “public” actually. I easily discovered these things before I found Mike. Why? Because I followed Gods teachings and keep educating myself in Him. The Bible does not make the claim “scripture alone”. Yet it does claim “seek Him through nature and the scriptures that testify of Him”. That is…”all that is natural and supernatural”. Thus, the scriptures are of huge importance and should be studied because they are both natural and super natural wherein God has deemed the fuzzy things to be much more clear to us.

[@amarilloshim]

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.

[@earlysda]

Unfortunately, his teaching is anti-Bible.

[@tracy5721]

@@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. 🙄

[@marshagail2727]

​@@tracy5721👊🎯

[@earlysda]

@@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.

[@kathy888]

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?

[@robertpillowjr.1672]

Im so thankful we have these videos.

[@egopara1]

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

[@pumalibrarian]

The full lecture is on the Naked Bible KZbin channel, titled Genesis 1 1 3 Michael Heiser

[@nschlaak]

Oh, thank you so very much for providing this information on where to find the rest of his lecture.

[@roneesilva]

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!!

[@BRoop89]

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.

[@ImmanuelOluwanifise]

The "modern church" hasn't lost, trust me. People are already picking up from where he stopped.

[@mattgause3178]

Yes, Dr Heiser was an excellent scholar, and left us a lasting record of solid Bible teaching for future generations

[@lindyswanson1]

...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.

[@KVBB-k2z]

Amen 🙏

[@rosemarietolentino3218]

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.

[@sharonsteigers4162]

Thank you for sharing Dr Heiser's work with us. So miss this wonderful teacher. Good Job, Dr. Heiser !

[@theguyver4934]

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 )

[@earlysda]

What is good about throwing shade on the Holy Bible?

[@liljade53]

@@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.

[@otallono]

​​@@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.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@theguyver4934are you saying they did not eat fish and lamb at minimum? I’m amazed…what NT are you reading?

[@whatdoiknowjustamortalsoon8633]

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.

[@picsdumpsign9621]

thank you sir, you lifted the burden off my shoulder, i have always had these feelings that we are dealing with mis-translation in the bible and this has been impacting our understanding negatively

[@plainboxer1]

Specifically, the Old Testament. From oral traditions, to Hebrew, etc. there are many opportunities for mis translations. After reading the Bible many times, it stills seems stilted (to me, anyway). I've always been intrigued by word origination.

[@melissalepper5880]

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.

[@janettedewar6617]

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

[@ErhardTheunissen]

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.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

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?

[@truthteller50]

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.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@@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.

[@saosaoldian6742]

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.

[@ombandajeanpaul7117]

I do agree with you.❤❤

[@earlysda]

I hope Mr. Heiser repented of his attempt to throw shade on the Holy Bible.

[@otallono]

Easy on the ears isn't necessarily the best teaching. It's usually the worst.

[@saosaoldian6742]

@@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.

[@onefeather2]

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. ❤❤❤

[@reijishian2593]

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.

[@onefeather2]

@@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.

[@oscaralegre3683]

I didn't know he was dead. When he died?

[@tomburgess5906]

​@@oscaralegre3683just recently 2023

[@Joan-ph2es]

I like thinking that Dr. Heiser is now serving on the divine council in heaven, working with God to accomplish his will on earth. And that's a good thing. I believe Dr. He used died in 2022? 2023? After a battle with cancer.

[@ghost2030]

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.

[@tuckerchisholm1005]

If you read your Bible you are learning God's word. He wrote it for all people, all places, in all eras. You don't need a hebrew degree to understand. Have faith that His word has been faithfully passed down to you

[@larryclark9380]

The Holy Spirit can teach you if you are willing to listen.

[@Lunaxire]

It actually starts "Beginning" - the very 1st word, berahsheet (spelled by pronunciation), is a reference to our Savior. The very 1st word depicts YAHshua/Jesus. This presented a good understanding.

[@That_one_introvert.]

‎- בְּ (be) means "in." ‎- רֵאשִׁית (ray-sheeth) means "beginning." ‎בְּרֵאשִׁית(be ray-sheeth) means *in beginning

[@bibleprophecy4400]

I miss him so much. I’ve learned a LOT from him, just wish I’d found his teachings about 13 years ago.

[@gardenjoy5223]

Those are 13 lost and wasted years. He's a false teacher.

[@davidbrand1648]

​@@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.

[@SeekingHisWill77]

@@gardenjoy5223 not necessarily wasted years. We can learn much from some of the most unlikely sources. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone... shouldn't see any stones being hurled.

[@gardenjoy5223]

@@SeekingHisWill77 Well, if you want to learn from false teachers, who am I to stop you? But if you think, that is His Will, I can't agree.

[@rodglen7071]

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.

[@7seasons31]

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.

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

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.

[@morethanaveragejoe8224]

@@7seasons31 Would it imply a pre-Adamic race? Fallen angels?

[@7seasons31]

@@morethanaveragejoe8224 chuck Missler has spoken of that possibility. But I don’t know.

[@JRTIGER07]

​​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* ).

[@EarlHall-zi4cm]

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

[@arlenegojocco7518]

Same here.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

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.

[@H0n3yc0mb7]

⁠@@Baltic_Hammer6162plain reading + the Holy Spirit is a powerful combination, I don’t think they were discounting heiser or the importance of learning because obviously they watched this video.

[@stephenmcguire7342]

Well look on the bright side, now you know the dangers of private judgement!

[@tonylee7163]

Verse 3 makes it clear that there was an original person, with a mouth to speak, a language already agreed upon, and the power in those words to manifest reality. All before time began.

[@bruceshaw3881]

Yes, that is The Word in John 1:1.

[@rizdekd3912]

How can words be spoken without any time in which to speak them. Time is the temporal separation between things...even words in sequence. So if God 'said' some words in sequence, then that sequence implies time. And if those words happened in one eternal moment, then nothing separated God's eternal existence and those words which resulted in creation meaning creation always was...ie creation exists eternally. There could be no existence at all...not even God's existence but that God uttered those words and it happened.

[@mrpocock]

There is no notion of time beginning in genesis 1. I'm not sure that's even a concept that the writers would have been able to articulate.

[@jefffeix8576]

@@mrpocock Well Gensis was written by Moses who WASNT around at creation so he was INSPIRED BY the Holy Spirit what to write because the Holy Spirit was PRESENT at the act of creation along with God and Jesus. And many times in Gen.1 God said the evening and the morning were the first day. Now since 1 Corinthians 14:33 says God IS NOT the God of confusion and having 1000 year days in Genesis when we have 24 hour days today would b VERY CONFUSING I believe it's safe to say the evening and the morning were the first day means a 24 hour day. John 14:26 tells us that the Holy Spirit WILL remind u of all I have told u, also John 16:13 says the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth. Only God exists ETERNALLY. JESUS said I'm the first and the last, I'm He Who was, and Is, and IS TO COME. God can speak and act without the confines of space and time. He is beyond all that. Only man is confines by time and space. And saying that God speaking words in sequence and that sequence implies time. I mean God is going to speak in heaven as will the angels and man, yet the heaven that we will spend eternity in IS NOT boxed in by time. In eternity there's is ABSOLUTELY no need for TIME. Please read ur bible and if u believe what God said then let the Holy Spirit do His job and give Him a listen. The Bible never said MAN would lead u into all truth, He said the Holy Spirit would. God bless y'all.

[@psybin]

​@@rizdekd3912 Time must've begun in the beginning, right when it says "when" in the first word. If we were to try to fathom the letters and language, the building blocks of reality, and when they came into existence for God to be able to use them and speak, we can see they were uncreated and have always existed as the Word, the Son of God, as Bruce replied above. So as God separated day from night with light, and waters from waters with the firmament, He "separated" eternity from time at the first instant of the breath of creation, בְּ. Of course, we'll never know HOW this happened, and the concept of "How long did God exist in eternity before beginning to create everything?" is impossible to grasp and probably not even the right way to think about it using "how long", but it happened. That seems to be the instant the waters of the deep were formed, a sort of empty/void medium of creation. Symbolically, the second letter of the aleph-bet, bet (ב), is a house with its door open facing left. It is also Yeshua/Jesus. Creation flows from the Word. The first letter is aleph (א) and symbolizes God, the Father. What's really cool is father in Hebrew is av (אָב), so you have the Word creating everything with the Father standing silently behind Him. Then if you take the first word b'reshit (בְּרֵאשִׁית) and remove the middle three letters, you get rosh (רֹאשׁ), meaning head or chief. Then you take the first and last letters and get beit (בֵּית), or house. Then the second word bara (בָּרָא - created), where you see the aleph and bet again, and bar (בַּר) means son. If you put a space in, בָּרָ א becomes "Son of the Father/aleph". Then the third word, Elohim, and the fourth word et (אֵת), which is a direct object marker that doesn't get translated into English, and is used twice in the first verse, before "heavens' and "earth". The aleph (א) and tav (ת) are the first and last letters of the aleph-bet, so there's Jesus again! Then you see the Holy Spirit in verse 2. I didn't mean to make this so long, but it's fascinating! Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

[@reddblackjack]

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!

[@marionchase-kleeves8311]

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.

[@Will-wk3]

Tasty, though muscles may necessitate a frame, the L rd is Spirit and three persons. All one, in creation The Spirit of God or Holy Spirit spread or floated across the waters, and G-d spoke let there be light. In the Gospels we read Jesus spoke only what the Father said in John 16, not from Himself, John saw this in Genesis. Black matter, could be an exertion of the L rd edging scientists to Him. Hopefully many do not repress Him.

[@Will-wk3]

As for an aspect he was possibly referring to the word of God being an aspect. That's how rabbis translated the word of G d in their Aramaic translations, which comes from the text, the Hebrew has three distinct persons in G d interacting with the World. Jesus in Exodus 3 is the Angel speaking out of the bush and had revealed Himself as the Angel, and was the rock, in the fire and wind leading Israel out of Egypt (Jude and Stephen in Acts). In execution in the Aramaic Targum the Word is unique and understood as the Angel. I myself would need to read if Rabbis think three person Godhead got absorbed into aspects to maintain the semi-scriptural circumspection of God being Uniplural.

[@dominicgraham5310]

I recommend 'Navigating Genesis: A scientist's Journey Through Genesis' by Hugh Ross. Really fascinating and full of insights into these verses.

[@paulwyns3502]

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.

[@ddsshe9337]

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.

[@motown7542]

On KZbin, 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!

[@lindyswanson1]

Serendipity... or supernatural guidance? Given Michael's calling to reveal our supernatural God, I'm leaning more and more, lately, into the latter.

[@ChazMcMahon]

Look up Timothy Alberino's take on "tohu and bohu" Very interesting

[@truthmonger7]

For more on this topic, No King But Caesar & The Return Of The Melchisedec is available online at Advantage Books. Peace to all.

[@PiaseckiAdam22]

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!

[@FishermensCorner]

Nothing. He believes in the resurrection, not a soul waiting for resurrection in another place.

[@TheRealPureBlood]

If he's dead he sees nothing (see Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:3, 4)

[@sunnybrowne7293]

What could he possibly learn? He acted like he knew everything and every other view that wasn't his was wrong.

[@jimmyboy131]

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.

[@andys3035]

​@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.

[@richcam1230]

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)

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"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.

[@robinreeve]

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.

[@stephenmcguire7342]

Why does a liar who is deceiving you by trying to change the Traditional (capitalized on purpose) meaning of Scripture have your respect? Because he's soft spoken? Then you would have hated Sts. James and John.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

​@@stephenmcguire7342 "Why does a liar who is deceiving you by trying to change the Traditional meaning of Scripture have your respect?" I do not understand your question. But I will examine each part. 1. Liars: Apparently, all people lie. Every last one except maybe Jesus and even there it is more of a prevarication. So, I will respect someone (or not) independently of their status as "liar". 2. Traditional meaning of Scripture: There is *no such thing* as traditional meaning of scripture. From the very moment scripture was written, people have been interpreting the meaning in various ways. That I interpret it differently than you is expected; what would be abnormal and surprising is we see a verse exactly the same way. 3. Hating people. As near as I can tell, I do not experience this emotion. It seems confined more to "blue people". Certainly it seems that evangelical Christians hate Mormons; a thing they ought not but there it is. 4. Respect. The Second Great Commandment is to love your neighbor. The parable of the Good Samaritan exists to help undderstand who is, or might be, your neighbor. I don't know that "love" is equivalent to "respect" but they are similar. I respect even my enemies IF they have at least some qualities or virtue such as honor.

[@svicesv]

Dr. Heiser proves the old saying, “PHD - Piled Higher and Deeper.” His first sentence in this video says a lot. Moses understood what he was writing. Those who followed Moses understood. Now, 3400 years later, this man has a better understanding?

[@jenniferwhite1837]

What did you think of the video content?

[@robotbasketball]

Exactly

[@jacobmoran3102]

Did those that followed Moses have the English translation or the Hebrew that Heiser was translating?

[@JustBrowsing777]

Where did he say he has a better understanding than Moses or his followers? He's arguing that we likely read it in a different way in our translations than what the Hebrew text is saying. It's interesting, but it changes nothing for me either way. There are some things we won't find out in this life. Faith is all we need.

[@אריק-צ5ר]

I had the strict syntax in mind from the time I began to think this through because I had been trying to understand the corelation between science and the Bible. I have sat through several Young Earth Creation talks and seminars, and even with Ken Ham, and I think there is more to the story. When we have both complete Biblical and scientific understanding, it will harmonize perfectly.

[@jayminasi6073]

a thoughtful, calm presentation. thanks

[@jackfrost2978]

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.

[@savageryreally7058]

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

[@TomFranklinX]

@@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.

[@mr.emaaejae6058]

Our sun was made before this planet and the suns/stars and other planets out in the universe.

[@mr.emaaejae6058]

​@@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.

[@kurtwinslow2670]

@@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.

[@lisam.3310]

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. 🙏🏻✝️🙌🏻

[@stevemcgough263]

The teaching on KZbin available now is amazing. Chuck Misler, rock island books (beresheet) and all the Hebrew codesearchers.

[@odysodys1098]

So glad I stuck with you. That's actually a profound difference. Particularly if you understand "light" to be the antecedent light by which you "see to see" (Emily Dickinson), the light you yourself must contribute to see physical light (or to "see" darkness )-- the light of consciousness. Thanks!

[@sishrac]

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.

[@Gutslinger]

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?

[@sishrac]

​@@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.

[@richiejourney1840]

@@Gutslingerquite easily…sinful mankind. This is evident even among modern scientist who claim to “know” even when they disagree. There are things the Holy Spirit has always left as mystery. The correctly minded Christian soul knows that some things we aught not be being dogmatic about while at the same time recognizing our brother’s fallibility along with our own. Although I have certain beliefs about Genesis 1-11 I personally declare it open theology except for the clear spiritual points that we all agree on. We can’t, however , allow dogmatism where it does not belong. However, I do find it quite fascinating to discuss the views on open theology. There is the church physical but the true church invisible is spread out among them and are drawn to like minded or are really there to give proper witness-yet we all suffer from sin and it’s true…there is always some strife among us and will always sinfully argue about something. Again, this is true in your worldview religion as well…I doubt you will ever be in 100% harmony with anyone else.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

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

[@KingSardius]

I love the NRSVUE translation for these verses because it reads more natural.

[@vegetablevampire3901]

KJV !!

[@rodrogers6895]

@@vegetablevampire3901 That’s right, no need to study Hebrew; God dictated directly to the KJV writers. You tell’em 😂

[@jonathanloadholt344]

"...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.

[@bogusphone8000]

​@@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.

[@XX847]

So happy that his material lives on. Please honor him by passing his knowledge to all.

[@abirdynumnum9612]

@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). 🙂

[@neilreid9005]

To me, this is highly interesting and relevant. What I wish this vid included was the "so what" from the importance of verse 3. I seek this.

[@Heisrisin3]

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,

[@jonathanloadholt344]

How can you apply it if you don't understand it?

[@revbud3123]

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.

[@revbud3123]

@@jonathanloadholt344 The Bible was not written in chapters and verses and needs to be read like the book it is to understood properly.

[@jonathanloadholt344]

@@revbud3123 No sh*t, Sherlock!

[@robotbasketball]

How can you believe the words unless you understand the words? The Bible needs to be read and understood and the Holy Spirit helps us understand.

[@raeveth]

If you obey Hebrew you can also translate it as “in first position or in chief position God created the heavens and the”

[@sunnybrowne7293]

But there is no Lamed before the word Elohim. How could that be possible?

[@raeveth]

@@sunnybrowne7293 why would you need the lamed? the DDO tells us what Elohim did

[@Dean_Owens]

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.

[@civilwar41]

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.

[@HXing]

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?

[@Dean_Owens]

@@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.

[@Dean_Owens]

@@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.

[@HXing]

@@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.

[@rickhall517930]

Dr. Heiser was a once-in-a-generation scholar.

[@ArcanusLibero]

Thanks for sharing your expertise and analysis.

[@NathanBolton-jw5xh]

I have been following paul wallis and have purchased his series of books, it has been refreshing to see the interpretation looked at with fresh eyes.

[@michaelmccarthy3139]

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.

[@empese1127]

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.

[@michaelmccarthy3139]

@@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..."

[@empese1127]

@@michaelmccarthy3139 I'm with you on that one

[@truthmonger7]

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.

[@_Belisarios_]

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.

[@franklyn427]

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.

[@Qriusme]

No there was water…

[@sholland42]

Science is largely a religion, the Big Bang was rebranding the beginning of Genesis, yes, but the entire heliocentric theory is completely against every word in the Bible, and is of the enemy. I place my trust in God, not Man.

[@stephenmcguire7342]

How easily some souls are deceived by "scientific" analysis of the Word of God.

[@ChristopherCudworth]

That’s not literalism. 😊

[@HenryGibbs-u2r]

One thing for sure. We all will stand before Judgement Day. Amen!

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Can’t you keep your perversions private? There might be children here.

[@aaronwilcox6417]

Not worried about. Any truly in Christ looks forward to passing from this life to the next.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

@@aaronwilcox6417 Want help?

[@richiejourney1840]

And what a “day” that will be… Nor am I worried about believing OLD Earth or Young Earth or somewhere between…it’s not important to grace and salvation and all those other sins I have to account for…I would rather be a “ditch digger” in Heaven than a “king” in Hell…

[@bradleymasson1777]

It's important to bring out the meaning of the words: without form and void. In Hebrew, it gives the impression of the Earth falling into a state of waste and decay; probably from Satan's rebellion. I think this helps bring clearer meaning to the first three verses.

[@MichaelFineMusic]

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 ...

[@taxineil1]

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'

[@johnjohn-hj3bl]

thats the jewish myths or copeland style, mystery babylon stuff

[@davidmillward3108]

Genesis 1 & 2 are separate events.

[@DougRoles-t2u]

fascinating,, where can I find that history?

[@greglogan7706]

@@DougRoles-t2u Its a late inter-testamental piece of Jewish apocalyptic literature - standard fantasy - called the Book of Enoch

[@objectiveobserver2792]

@@DougRoles-t2u G.H. Pember - Earth's Earliest Ages

[@Qriusme]

Makes so much sense! Also fascinating that water already existed!!!

[@TheHelper-l9m]

Scientists discovered years ago that water is older than the sun. Google it!

[@marshalljordan2416]

Two problems come from what Heiser is saying, from his assertion that God created out of preexisting stuff. 1. Hebrews 11:3 reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” This verse says God created ex nihilo, not by using eternal preexisting matter. 2. The original Hebrew had no vowels, so his view that the vowels inserted in modern times are the inerrant expression of the text is questionable. If inerrancy is defined as the status of the text in the original language, the original autographs, then vowels added in 800 AD which change the meaning as it has been historically understood violate the principle of inerrancy.

[@rizdekd3912]

But doesn't that simply go along with God creating light...so what things were 'visible?' Is visible synonymous with physical? Not all things in the physical world are 'visible.' Saying the worlds were prepared by the word of God might be synonymous with how someone prepares a meal...ie out of already existing materials/existence.

[@mrpocock]

I don't think that's how to read that. The things which are seen (visible, tangible, material) are made from the things that are unseen (invisible, intangible, spiritual).

[@RivetHead999]

Well, now I want to see how the rest changes based on this. This is some really interesting stuff. I study languages and have noticed how dependent translations can be on context, both historical and cultural. I have also learned that it can be limiting. Communication is essentially the transmission of information, a simple or complex idea, with the intent of the person receiving this information comprehends to the same level of integrity as the origin. And we do so in speech or writing, both having advantages and disadvantages. Reading requires more description than speech, because in speech, we use body language, as well as tone. When you only have the words written without other aspects, certain value can be lost. An example is a dog wagging his tail. That alone does not indicate the temperament without more context, and people think “tail wagging is happy” but it can also indicate severe anxiety and the potential for an attack out of fear. Wagging tail with relaxed facial muscles, or whole body moving with the wag can be playful, stiff body, closed mouth, ears back, and wagging tail indicates severe anxiety. Just like in written words, certain elements can be misunderstood. Key and Peele did a funny sketch about texting where one sent a text in a passive friendly way, and the other got the text and read the exact same words out loud with an aggressive tone and it completely changed the whole meaning. Either way, communication has become a fascinating topic for me over the last 20 years.

[@truethought369]

Thank you for your explanation, I know this is correct because God is Consciousness. When enough power of thought is concentrated, it becomes light. I believe all matter is condensed light. Looking at creation in this way, makes us realise that darkness is there due to not being created into anything yet? Leaving humanity room to follow our father in this work. 🇬🇧

[@batmandeltaforce]

Creation is NOW... and that is what we perceive as the passing of time.

[@saltnprepper]

That is a very interesting way of looking at it. Would you explain more please?

[@batmandeltaforce]

@@saltnprepper There is only one consciousness. It is frequency based. WE stream consciousness from Source/God/42/whatever... That streaming is what we perceive as Time. Consciousness creates our reality in real time. Science supports this. In experiments time for people in traumatic situations literally slows down. That is because we stream more consciousness, faster, having the effect of slowing time for us. Also the Double Slit Experiment proves this. But you have to understand more, to understand that. If this seems too foreign to you, then try to create something yesterday, or tomorrow:) We can't, it is always NOW:)

[@Astrochronic]

I thought it was obvious. First line is stating the premise. The second and third lines are establishing the conditions and the action.

[@johnjohn-hj3bl]

did the heavens and earth exist prior to creation?

[@Astrochronic]

@@johnjohn-hj3bl Of course not. Odd question. But I suppose it depends a bit on what you think it means by "heavens".

[@Astrochronic]

@@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.

[@franklyn427]

​@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.

[@ajforms4818]

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.

[@That_one_introvert.]

‎בְּרֵאשִׁית(be ray-sheeth) translates to "in beginning." ‎- בְּ (be) means "in." ‎- רֵאשִׁית (ray-sheeth) means "beginning." So, the straightforward literal translation is "in beginning." The definite article "the" and the article "a" are not present in the Hebrew text; they are added in other translations for clarity and readability.

[@cjf5412]

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.

[@ameribeaner]

Where's the rest of this lecture? This video is incomplete

[@godswarrior45]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpqoq6h9q6mdi5Ifeature=shared

[@morefiction3264]

Almost like a dependent clause.

[@ameribeaner]

@@morefiction3264 that's funny! But I still want to hear the rest of what he said.

[@morefiction3264]

@@ameribeaner Thank you, I do to.

[@kajikanna]

Leaving a comment here as well. Hopefully we’ll get an answer

[@crosion5]

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..."

[@curtisscott9251]

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.

[@questor5189]

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.

[@questor5189]

@@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.

[@ryanqvincent144]

@@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. ;-/

[@questor5189]

@@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.

[@ryanqvincent144]

@@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. ;-/

[@FLDavis]

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.

[@danielvelasco2948]

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.

[@StephenNotmanlogosinliterature]

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.

[@AloysiusChristopher-pm7gg]

Dr heiser was a gnostic

[@StephenNotmanlogosinliterature]

@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?

[@abj136]

@@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.

[@StephenNotmanlogosinliterature]

@@abj136 I'm happy to let the Bible speak its words, while pointing out that in doing so it loses the authority you ascribe to it and becomes just another text among many, relating the same mythological stories as any. If you're happy with the Bible repeating a creation narrative that other texts you consider false and demonic also relate, how do you continue to hold out that the Bible is authoritative? Your feelings?

[@clarkemorledge2398]

In other videos, Heiser affirms creation ex nihilo based on Colossians 1. For that matter , you can affirm creation ex nihilo based on John 1. You do not need Genesis 1 alone to affirm creation ex nihilo. We have other texts which do.

[@MaxMBJ]

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.

[@neilaneliew5624]

I agree. Actually, if you drop the "now",it does become a dependent clause, but certainly not WITH it. I've always seen the "now"as a adjective of confirmation, not time.

[@chipcurrin]

Curious, is he saying that there was something in existence that God did not create? Meaning the earth, formless and void always existed? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the point.

[@Maaad-maaan]

Don’t think so. It sounds like a Work In Progress Verse 1 explains that the Bible starts at the creation. Verse 1, God BEGAN creating the heavens and the earth Verse 2 This is what the earth was like before it was finished, without form (water has no form) and void, and dark as the Spirit of God hovered over the waters Verse 3, then God created light Sounds like any narrated build project you’ll find on yt. “I started doing by doing x. This is what it looks like at this stage. Then I added y”

[@kimo.devalera]

He did not explicitly say that something existed that God did not create. One could infer that, but that would contradict other scripture. The proper perspective is that something existed before God said “Let there be light”. Then, in context with other scripture, what existed before was also created by God, by Jesus, in fact, Jesus being God and the agent of all creation.

[@seanflanagan2441]

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.

[@JonathanNelson-nelsonj3]

I love that the Hebrew says this. I have always understood my KJV Bible as "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. [When He began to create them] the Earth was without form..." basically the same as what he is saying.

[@michaelau5159]

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.

[@theres_noplacelike_home]

"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.

[@lukejones5272]

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)

[@michaelau5159]

@@theres_noplacelike_home it is a comlete sentence as it can be an answer to someone elses question.

[@michaelau5159]

@@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.

[@lukejones5272]

@@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.

[@supplanterjim]

And yet people *_still_* pretend that "Elohim" is not plural... "But muh Strong's Concordance..."

[@BeeBlot]

Tripartate

[@reijishian2593]

Inconsistent with the text. The Bible certainly affirms the Trinity, but it is not what Genesis is referring to.

[@TheRastacabbage]

At no point does the bible mention anything remotely resembling a trinity

[@bogusphone8000]

​@@reijishian2593 "... let us make man in our image ..."

[@bogusphone8000]

​@@TheRastacabbage "... let us make man in our image ..."

[@ReinholdHed]

*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❤️

[@BriannaNoah476]

I'm in a similar situation where should I look to increase income? Do you have any advice? What did you do ? Thank you 🙏

[@ReinholdHed]

Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Ms Maria Luisa Abrams.

[@ReinholdHed]

She's a licensed broker in the states 🇺🇸

[@ReinholdHed]

[@ReinholdHed]

+1256

[@bycracky22]

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.

[@victoriakederian9359]

So in Hebrew class at temple the teacher explained that a more accurate translation was: In beginning as opposed to In the beginning It is so profound a teaching here. As if it is a course correction for our journey to understand all the following scriptures. Yes

[@That_one_introvert.]

That’s literally what it says.

[@timconstable7348]

Robert Alter came to this conclusion about 30 years ago, and went on to translate the whole of Genesis with the same alacrity.

[@DavidDHorstman]

Do you have a link?

[@scorpionformula]

Thank you for this info, will go and check this out! ❤

[@timconstable7348]

@@DavidDHorstman NO I have his book!

[@marmeemarch7080]

So, how did the Septuagint translate it? And/or the Aramaic Targums? Did the Protestant translation history really have such a heavy influence?

[@padraicbrown6718]

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."

[@tzephon]

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?

[@lproof8472]

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.

[@harrycraft3359]

L said

[@harrycraft3359]

Well said

[@_relle_ville_]

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

[@Klffsj]

@@_relle_ville_ To answer the original question, Dr. Heiser's take is that God didn't create the heavens and the Earth and then speak light; rather God spoke light and then Creation formed. This is important to say that God doesn't simply create; He speaks His will and it happens because His authority is so great. So, we know that His word is always faithful. It also fits nicely with John, Chapter 1: God spoke light, and Creation formed. Well, John calls Jesus the Word of God, and we already know that Jesus is the light of the world. In order for John to be correct that all things were made in Christ and through Christ, then nothing could've been made before Christ, before God spoke the Word of Light. To clarify verse 2: My understanding is that there is no Hebrew word for the entire universe or [all of] Creation, so they instead say "the heavens and the earth", since that entails the Earth (and everything in it) and everything outside of it (the heavens). As for darkness, darkness doesn't actually exist; it's just the absence of light. So, verse 2 is basically saying that the universe was empty (void), the Earth had not yet been formed (God doesn't even separate the heaven from the Earth until verse 6), and light had not been spoken yet.

[@IS-br1jm]

הרעיון שלך עובד גם בלי הידוע. יישר כח

[@nlpmindsetcoach]

Dr. Chuck Missler is another treasure for scholarship and helping you draw closer to God.

[@FrankGrauStudio]

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).

[@pointofrevelation]

My thoughts precisely. Thank you. Perhaps someone from his team can enlighten us?

[@logic8673]

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.

[@FrankGrauStudio]

@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]

@bettyblowtorthing3950 I never suggested that historical context is irrelevant. There obviously may be times when historical context helps to enlighten a passage. But there’s a vast difference in communicating in a person’s known language (which has no impact on the substantive content of the message as we see that same message has been translated and passed down in many languages) and suggesting that God is beholden to the false cosmologies of ancient pagan thought. After all, one can acknowledge the existence of ancient views on cosmology, but there’s no reason to suppose God cannot communicate facts that have nothing to do with those false views. To simply repeat the mantra that Genesis was written during a time that ancient pagans held to some particular view isn’t an argument. If I wrote a book about marriage today, and then someone in the future suggested that I wrote the book in a culture that allowed same-sex marriage, would it be rational to conclude that therefore everything I wrote somehow condoned same-sex marriage? God forbid. Such a conclusion would be just as much a non sequitur as suggesting we need to view Genesis through the lens of ancient pagan beliefs.

[@FrankGrauStudio]

@bettyblowtorthing3950 To say that the “the human authors describe an ancient near east cosmology in the text” is to simply reaffirm a particular view. But what justifies such a view? After all, it is God who inspires scripture, and He isn’t going to inspire false writing based on erroneous ancient cosmologies. To your point about God revealing big bang cosmology or quantum mechanics: That’s irrelevant to my point, as I wasn’t suggesting God should reveal anything about such technical minutiae. If God says He created thus and so on day one, and thus and so on day two, and so forth, it isn’t important to go into further details. I’m simply suggesting God means what He says and says what He means. So to go back to my original post, when Michael offers an alternate interpretation of the grammar of verse one (of Genesis 1) and concludes that it renders verse three as the first creative act, he must mean that it’s the first creative act AFTER God already created the formless earth and the waters that covered it, because certainly the formless earth and water didn’t create itself and it wasn’t eternal, since, as I already noted, the gospel of John is clear that Christ created all things, modern cosmology affirms the universe had a beginning, and the Kalam demonstrates the logical necessity of a first cause of the universe and the impossibility of an infinite regress of tensed events, such that there can be no eternal earth and water (even one that is without form and void).

[@gregb6469]

If God did not create ex nihilo, then where did the material He used to form the Earth come from? What deity created it?

[@JoshuaCEdwardsMusic]

You’re misunderstanding the argument, it’s not that God didn’t materially create the universe, it’s that Gen 1:1-3 isn’t describing the material creation of the universe

[@gregb6469]

@@JoshuaCEdwardsMusic -- Then where is the creation of the material universe described?

[@JoshuaCEdwardsMusic]

@@gregb6469 plenty of places but Job 38 would be a great example

[@gregb6469]

@@JoshuaCEdwardsMusic -- And what makes you think that Genesis 1 and Job 38 are not describing the same thing?

[@JoshuaCEdwardsMusic]

@@gregb6469 there’s nothing explicit in the language to suggest that it is, Heiser explains that pretty well in this video. John Walton’s work on functional ontology and analysis of the word bara in the bible is also very compelling. I just think if people are going to take the Bible seriously, we need to work hard to understand what it’s saying and what it’s not saying.

[@charlesoneal4866]

Well how did the waters het there?

[@SaviorAslan]

Definitely makes sense, corresponds with , John, He is the Light of the world and nothing was made without Him

[@Zeupater]

I took classes in the 90’s. Professor York at the University of Cincinnati discussed this very topic.

[@CeciliaMorris]

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"?

[@abj136]

Good question. I get maybe there was a date when vowels wee introduced, but it can’t have been as late as medieval times.

[@scorpionformula]

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.'

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

​@@abj136The way I understand it, there were always vowels, they just weren't always written.

[@richardhayward5814]

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

[@richardhole8429]

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?

[@Critter145]

The Hebrew version makes far more sense than the modern American interpretation.

[@danielbrowniel]

in what way? They both make sense to me.

[@healthcareforallfiftyseven3773]

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.

[@Critter145]

@@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.

[@bjbrandt2506]

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.

[@truthmonger7]

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.

[@j.m.4858]

Awesome 😎

[@galenhaugh3158]

There's more to the Creation than Genesis 1:1-3. For example, the term "day" is used three different, conflicting ways.

[@philWynk]

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.

[@ljjdcm]

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.

[@gustingdis]

The earth was formed out of water.

[@srulik666]

Actually, this linguistic exercise is the tradition of people who got Bible from God. If you believe, that Bible is from God, you need to pay attention to people who got the Bible. On other hand, if you think this is archaic mythology, then your understanding is mambo-jambo. At time, people didn't think using the same categories. So it is you who put your understanding to the book, regardless what the author ment. So, if we go to the original traditional explanation, "bet" does used as word "For" in Bible. So, the whole sentence is read in one of the interpretations as follow: "For RESHIT, created God the heavens and the earth". Now, you need to understand what is "reshit". There are a few versions, for example in some places Jewish nation called "reshit". In some other places, offering called reshit. In any case, this sentence doesn't speak of time, but the reason why heavens and earth are created.

[@DLB1858]

I have a phd in Hebrew, I can do whatever I want. 🤦‍♂️

[@vinceroworld]

Did you stop there?

[@thedude5740]

The foundation of belief for the modern mind is Symbolism. Language is Symbolism, it is only a representation of what reality is. The language you use isn't the reality itself. Language can never fully express experience. Language is what is considered a false idol. It provides an unstable foundation to your view of reality.

[@dwaynenewton1]

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.

[@scorpionformula]

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

[@truthseeker9454]

@@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.

[@dwaynenewton1]

​@@scorpionformulaNot contradictory. Complimentary. And different in purpose.

[@tonyjames7345]

For many years now I have taken Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" as a headline statement for the entire chapter. This video confirms that! Gen 1:2 describes the fact that nothing was in place setting the scene for the first act of creation when God spoke and there was light (Gen 1:3). So, rather than the current false narrative that night was created before day (where the Israel of today celebrates the start of the Sabbath when the sun sets on Friday evening), Matt 28:1 clearly defines the start of a new day when the sun dawns, thus ending the previous sabbath which started the previous day at dawn. So the light of day overcomes the darkness of night, Day is before night etc, NOT the other way round! Jesus and his followers celebrated the beginning of days differently from the the Pharisees who stuck to the Northern Kingdom timing. PS this makes a huge difference in understanding the 3 days and 3 nights of Jesus' death and resurrection. Historical sources (for those that want in depth analysis): "...Early in the old testament period, when Canaan was under Egypt's influence, the day started at sunrise... later, perhaps under Babylonian influence, the calendar seems to have changed. the day began at moonrise (1800 hrs) and a whole day became an evening and a morning..." (Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible - p.163). "...according to the Karaite historian Al-QirqisanI (ca. 975 CE), the dissident Meswi al-Okbari (ca.850 CE) broke from traditional Rabbinical Judaism in an attempt to get back to the original religion and began the reckoning of the day from sunrise. (The Itinerary of R. Benjamin of Tudela, ix, 5-8, ed. Gruhut-Adler, (1904), p. 23) "...To the Light He gives the name Day, to the Darkness the name Night...Thus the work of the first day, reckoned probably from morning to morning, is accomplished. The period of Light is followed by Evening and Darkness, which comes to an end with the next morning when the second day begins..." (Peake's Commentary on The Bible, p.136). "Among the Greeks the day was reckoned from sunset to sunset..." (Handbook of Chronology, op.cit., p.8) "the Mishnah (the collection of Jewish law made at the end of the 2nd century AD) fully describes the system which the Jews had worked out under Babylonian influence..." (Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible). "In order to fix the beginning and ending of the Sabbath-day and festivals and to determine the precise hour for certain religious observances it becomes necessary to know the exact times of the rising and setting of the sun. According to the strict interpretation of the Mosaic law, every day begins with sunrise and ends with sunset... (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 591-597) "There can be no doubt that in pre-exilic times the Israelites reckoned the day from morning to morning. The day began with the dawn and closed with the end of the night following it..." (Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951), p. 446) "Among the ancient Israelites, as among the Greeks, the day was reckoned from sunset to sunset. This was the custom also of the Gauls and ancient Germans, and was probably connected originally with the cult of the moon. There is, however, evidence that this was not the custom at all times..." (Delitzsch in Dillmann's commentary on Gen. i. 5) "...Numerous scholars have argued for the existence in Bible times of a sunrise method of day reckoning...the evidence for the sunrise reckoning is significant and cannot be ignored..." (The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, Chapter 5) "the days of creation are not reckoned from evening to evening, but from morning to morning..." (Commentary on the Old Testament, The First Book of Moses, p. 51) "From a very early period the time of reckoning the day was from sunset to sunset, and this BECAME THE JEWISH METHOD..." (Unger's Bible Dictionary, "Day", page 1098) "...In earlier traditions a day apparently began at sunrise (e.g., Lev. 7:15-17; Judg. 19:4-19)... later its beginning was at sunset and its end at the following sunset... this system became normative... and is still observed in Jewish tradition, where for example , the sabbath begins on Friday evening at sunset and ends Saturday at sunset..." (Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.744). "When the Jews returned to Palestine after their Babylonian exile (516 B.C.E.) they brought back with them the Babylonian astronomy and way of reckoning time..." (What is a Jew, p. 108) "Days were reckoned from morning to morning... Following the reign of King Josia (c. 640-609), and especially after the Babylonian exile a number of significant and enduring changes occurred in the Israelite calendar showing that the Jews gradually adopted the Babylonian calendar of the time...the seven day week persisted despite its failure to divide evenly either the month or the year. the day however, was counted from evening to evening, after the Babylonian fashion..." (New Catholic Encyclopedia -Volume 11, p.1068) "...The nighttime is considered as belonging to the preceding period of daylight. from this there developed the meaning of "day" in the sense of the cycle made up of one period of daylight and one period of darkness, or according to our modern reckoning, twenty-four hours...from the natural viewpoint the twenty-four hour day begins at sunrise... however, beside this conception there arose another idea of the twenty-four hour day, according to which this daily period began at sunset. It was no doubt the lunar calendar of the Jews which gave rise to this viewpoint... although the earlier computation did not die out completely, the custom of considering the day as beginning at sunset became general in later Jewish times..." (Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible. p.497) "In the Old Testament the earlier practice seems to have been to consider that the day began in the morning. In Gen. 19:34, for example, the "morrow" (ASV) or "Next Day" (RSV) clearly begins with the morning after the preceding night..." (Jack Finegan, The Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p.7-8). "In Israel, the day was for a long time reckoned from morning to morning...and it was in fact in the morning, with the creation of light, that the world began; the distinction of day and night, and time too, began on a morning (Gen. 1:3-5, cf. 14:16, 18). The opposite conclusion has been drawn from the refrain which punctuates the story of creation: “There was an evening and there was a morning, the first, second, etc., day”; This phrase, however, coming after the description of each creative work (which clearly happens during the period of light), indicates rather the vacant time till the morning, the end of a day and the beginning of the next work...The change of reckoning must there fore have taken place between the end of the monarchy and the age of Nehemias... this would bring us to the beginning of the exile..." (Ancient Israel, p.181-182). "That the custom of reckoning the day as beginning in the evening and lasting until the following evening was probably of late origin is shown by the phrase "tarry all night" (Jdg 19:6-9); the context shows that the day is regarded as beginning in the morning; in the evening the day "declined," and until the new day (morning) arrived it was necessary to "tarry all night" (compare also Num 11:32)" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) "in the second Temple, throughout its entire existence, the practice seems to have been in all ritual matters to reckon the day from dawn to dawn, and not according to the later practice, from sunset to sunset...even the rabbis, who, themselves, reckoned the day from sunset to sunset, and refused to admit the legitimacy of any other practice, or rather, absolutely ignored all divergent practice, none the less had to admit the validity of the interpretation of Lev. 7:15... the day was at one time reckoned from sunrise to sunrise... The earlier practice, which continued until the time of the secondary strata of the Priestly code, was to reckon the day from dawn to dawn... The later practice was to reckon the day from sunset to sunset... It was probably coincident with the revision of the festival calendar, which took place in the period after the time of Ezra, and was, in all probability, the work of the soferim or of the Great Synod in the fourth century B.C. This may also be inferred from the statement in the Talmud (Berachoth 33a) that the men of the Great Synod instituted the ceremonies of Kiddush and Havdalah, the solemn sanctification of the Sabbath on Friday eve, and its equally solemn ushering out on Saturday eve, in other words, ceremonies specifically marking the beginning and close of the Sabbath as at sunset. These were ceremonies for the Jewish home instead of the Temple. This, coupled with the fact that in the second Temple the old system of reckoning the day from dawn to dawn continued to be observed, as we have seen, may perhaps indicate that this entire innovation was the work of an anti-priestly group or party in the Great Synod..." (The Sources of the Creation Story - Gen. 1:1- 2:4, p. 169-212)

[@rampant59]

I'm sure this guy knows more about translation than anyone who has ever lived, I wait with baited breath for every morsel of his philosophical wisdom.

[@StephanieSmith-l1h]

I'm blessed only God knows how much I praise Him, $80k every 4weeks! I now have a good house and can now afford anything and also support my family

[@nanhu3072]

The miracle of God is flowing, thanks for sharing your blessings, please help others too ❤❤

[@elisagiurni-z8y]

God is wonderful, thanks for sharing such good news and opportunity for others

[@LiYuanPark]

I'm so happy for you dear, please can you elaborate more about this I'm having a lot of family crisis lately. I definitely believe you're God sent

[@SarahCc-p4b]

I'm genuinely curious to know how you earn that much monthly

[@StephanieSmith-l1h]

I Thank God for Bringing Christine Evelyn Mackie brokage service into my life, I'm happy for God's grace have found me through her.❤️😊

[@davidlarson7384]

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.

[@Mr.Riojas]

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.

[@Mr.Riojas]

@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.

[@Klffsj]

My understanding of Hebrew is that it doesn't have a term for universe or [all of] Creation. So, when you see "the heavens and the earth," that's the Hebrew way of saying the entire universe, or all of Creation. Formless and void would describe empty space. As for the waters, ancient Israelites were likely flat-earthers, and their thinking probably required that there be something to indicate the "realm" or "plane" of the Earth, even when there's nothing; so, water (lack of land) would describe the emptiness of both heaven and earth (before God separates the waters or "realm" of each in the following verses). So, the initial conditions are that the heavens and the earth-everything-was empty, then God began speaking Creation into existence. Before God spoke light into existence (verse 3), there was absolutely nothing except Him. So, God didn't create anything before, not without destroying it at least (and I kinda doubt that He would create something to just destroy it). If you're trying to reconcile how the rest of the universe or possibly the Big Bang Theory fits into the Creation story: Firstly, I do believe that Genesis 1 isn't the story of how God created just the Earth; I believe that it's the story of how God created everything. Secondly, notice how days (and nights) are created before the sun, moon, and starts (on the fourth day)? We define a day as a rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun, and an ancient Israelite would've defined a day as the rising and setting of the sun. But how can you have days with no sun? I don't think the days of the Creation story are meant to be literally defined days as much as they're meant to be a sequence of events or describe the passage of time. In context of ancient Hebrew (of which I am in no way a scholar), I'd imagine that they probably wouldn't have a word to describe an abstract, indeterminate period of time, so "day" was likely the best word to communicate such a vague idea of time. But, that's just my hypothesis (emphasis on hypo- meaning lowly).

[@alejandrovalenzuela377]

@@Mr.Riojasthe word create ALWAYS entails forming something, never to magically poof something into existence. That is anachronous and simply reading something into the text to support an incorrect doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Creation is always forming or shaping or cutting something into a thing with form and purpose thus giving it existence, things without form or purpose are said to not have existence.

[@Mr.Riojas]

@@alejandrovalenzuela377 True, while it does not explicitly source the materials used (just like when making furniture I start with material that is not furniture yet) it does indicate the substance present when God began working on creation was water and not dirt. Just leaves the question of where did the water come from.

[@stephentaylor2051]

Hit the 👍🏻!!

[@gardenjoy5223]

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.

[@stephentaylor2051]

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.

[@gardenjoy5223]

@@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.

[@stephentaylor2051]

@@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.

[@gardenjoy5223]

@@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.

[@Rizzycat1]

In the beginning is general .. that can include the very beginning but also inclusive of many time periods and pertaining to the passage of time in the beginning “general” time period ….thus, translating it “when he was”… seems appropriate to interchange with: “in the beginning”…being that it is just once instance of it when he then created light. It doesn’t change the idea of priority where one supersedes the other.

[@spitfirered]

Dr. Heiser And His Teaching Is Missed💯💯👍👍❤❤