Mr Empty Conjecture staring into the void in the background
@danielcartwright8868
11 ай бұрын
Michael heiser made the argument that because in medieval Hebrew texts (earlier texts lacked vowels, which give the definite or indefinite meaning to the words) there's an indefinite article used, making 'When God began to create' the more likely meaning.
@dannydement
11 ай бұрын
The more I look at the Creation account, the more it seems less to be an explanation of HOW things were made, and more an account that simply says "everything exists, God did it, here's WHY, and here's why we screwed up and are cursed".
@helentriantafillou6352
11 ай бұрын
Maybe I’m the weird one but I don’t think the authors were trying to teach a scientific description of the Earth here
@lescribe2477
11 ай бұрын
No they are implying a certain cosmology. The one of their moment and showing how God ordered it to bring order to chaos. So the importance is the meaning of the text.
@lohikaarmeherra-1753
11 ай бұрын
Yet god, knowing the abuse of the text and the much more demanding standards for truth in the future, could have inspired something more truhful? Also people trying to convince you that you face an eternity in fiery torment if you do not accept this religion as the truth would be more credible if they were not weighed down by antique myths.
@lescribe2477
11 ай бұрын
@@lohikaarmeherra-1753 What you find in the Bible aren't atemporal writtings. They are fit for a certain moment for certain people. Also you completely disconnect the writters of those texts from their texts. God inspire them not tell them what to writte. We consider something inspired when it bring truths about God. So God inspire people to writte stuff about something which is true about God in their own mental constructions. Did you wanted God to talk about the concepts of Chronos to people doesn't knowing chronos ? Also, basic missenderstanding of the Christian doctrines. Everybody deserve hell but people Can be saved in Jesus Christ. It's not because you not beleave it's just the destiny of all. Also I don't hold a view of Hello like a fire. I don't think Heaven exist neither nor hell in a litteral sens. I think it's the same, Jesus used conceptions at the Time to bring people to believe.
@lohikaarmeherra-1753
11 ай бұрын
@@lescribe2477 I do not consider these texts a-temporal or disconnected from their writers, to an unbeliever that is obvious. It is the faithful who do both, and who taught me that ”everything the bible says, god says”. As for deserving hell, I did not eat from the fruit, I did not choose to be sinner tainted by sin, incapable of good etc. Not my fault, and any reasonable court would find me innocent to my predicament. But here I must believe that I am hellbound, unless I believe in the book with talking animals, sun hovering still in the sky and earth being 6000 years old.
@lescribe2477
11 ай бұрын
@@lohikaarmeherra-1753 First, you completely drawback from your last comment. You clearly disconnected the text from their writters to only speak about God words. Second it's not my fault if you live in USA with a lot of conservative and faith-healing Church crap. So some faithful you encountered in your life doesn't represent all the faithful and even less the intellectual part of the faith. Third you talk about the " fruit " as if it was a base point in Christianity, it isn't, it's an interprétation form the middle ages that kept through him. Also it's an oversimplification. And you didn't choose to be a sinner in general yes it's " no one is Bad the bad is just ignorant ". Yes and so ? If God exists morality is a Law like the speed of light so the " court " allegory is flawded. A better analogy would be if you want to fly and you are angry that you have conséquences even if you didn't knew the outcome. To finish. There is no " talking animals " if you talk about the Donkey of Balaam it's God who talk through him not the animal in itself. The sun stood all day from the morning if you read the text which is an ancient near eastern ideom talking about the Sun and the Moon in their appearance and the interprétation of the 6000 years old IS just false but I have no time to explain
@ShotgunAngel1260
11 ай бұрын
I used to be a YEC, then a Gap Theoriest, and finally I have landed somewhere in the Intelligent Design/OEC crowd (I prefer to see Genesis 1:1 as John Walton has presented it, or as Michael Heiser has, both work). The process coincided with my increasing knowledge of scripture, and the ignoring of gatekeepers like Hovind and Ham. To those struggling with Creationism, I would say this: Science and the Bible are two separate things, material truth and spiritual truth. Both can overlap, and both can be true in different ways. Evolution, Earth Age, and so on are in the field of science, whereas Theology, Doctrine and eschatology are in Faith. Where the Bible is clearly silent, let (Non-bias) science speak. Where the Bible is plain and clear, compare it to science and see if there is overlap. In the case of Intelligent Design, I see that God indeed made all life, even if Genesis 1-3 are possibly non-literal or partially symbolic. The Evolution debate is a field outside Scripture in that case, so I look to science to answer that. I lean toward Design more than Theistic Evolution not because the Bible, but because of science. If Evolution were true, I would see it as Guided, and not Darwinian. But that’s my advice on parsing the two. I love concordists and Theistic Evolutionists all the same, however, it’s the heart and Orthodoxy of Christian that matters.
@abc_12333
11 ай бұрын
Yes! John Walton sees is as a temple construction. Genesis 1 is really about how God wanted to communicate with His creation.
@roerich1848
11 ай бұрын
Always great to learn something new, thanks Dr. Falk!
@SnappKolasChris
11 ай бұрын
Thank you for this insight. This issue has been plaguing my mind for some months now and you have brought clarity to my mind
@carlknaack1019
11 ай бұрын
Medieval Jewish commentators, including Rashi, agree with the more modern translation, arguing the verse should be translated as “At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness…and God said, ‘Let there be light.”
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
Dr. Falk, around 2:00, you used the word “recently” in regards to scholars considering reading Genesis 1:1 in construct as “When God began to create” as if to imply that this is a new view. As you will see in other comments, this is actually a very old view as Rashi and Ibn Ezra, along with others that Ibn Ezra knew read Genesis 1:1 in construct. Targum Onkelos also conveys a similar idea. You noted later that the LXX puts bereshit in the absolute. While you are probably right, it is within the linguistic range of “en arche” to have the same idea as bereshit in construct due to there being no definite article. In other words, there’s nothing certain about the LXX translators thinking it was an absolute statement. Even if we knew it was an absolute statement, this isn’t a surprise as the LXX translators are known for making all kinds of crazy mistakes. They mistranslated relative clauses in Hosea 1:2, Jeremiah 6:15, and 50:31 as well, so it’s certainly possible that they just didn’t understand how a noun in construct could be followed by a finite verb. At 3:10, you mentioned that there are only 2 known constructs for an introductory subordinate clause which are marked by “ki” and “vav”. What do you think of Hosea 1:2? Is that not an example of an exception to this rule you have proposed? Is this not the “strong precedent” you were looking for? While I appreciate your analysis, it doesn’t seem like you interacted with any of the evidence for bereshit being in construct so to mention only the negatives(Which really aren’t that impactful) implies that there is no good reason to think in this way which is untrue as I’m sure you know. Because you didn’t mention any, I will mention a few. 1. Every instance of bereshit in the Hebrew Bible is in construct 2. Every instance where reshit is used is used in the construct except in one instance. The one exception is highly debated but even that one instance doesn’t refer to an absolute beginning 3. The structure of Gen 1:1-1:3(Only if Gen 1:1 is a relative clause) matches with the structure of the start of the second creation account in Gen 2:4b-7 along with other creation accounts in the Ancient Near East like Enuma Elish.
@AChristianGuy
11 ай бұрын
Thanks brother. I favor the synopsis interpretation, though I'm open to other possibilities.
@landon5105
11 ай бұрын
Hud Hudson’s book , “The Fall in Hypertime” pretty much ends the science vs Bible debate. We can feel free to follow exegesis as evidence leads. We can say the same for science as well.
@abc_12333
11 ай бұрын
Jewish Scholar Richard Elliott Friedman's rendering of Genesis 1:1 is correct - "In the beginning OF God creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty." The sentence ends in verse 2. For specific words in Hebrew, we see how they are used throughout the Bible. "Beginning" is NEVER a standalone in Hebrew. It is ALWAYS connected to an event. ONLY the Book of Jeremiah shows other uses of "in the beginning" and it is shown this way: "in the beginning OF King (insert name)'s reign...". It is the Greek that has given us a different meaning since "beginning" can be a standalone term such as John chapter 1.
@bradbrown2168
11 ай бұрын
Just watched Revelation part one. Are you wearing the same shirt? Looks like the white flakes on the shirt are the same. 😄 I really enjoy your style.
@darkblade4340
11 ай бұрын
Another issue I find with the “when God began to create the heavens and the earth” reading is that it is primarily based on there being no definite article between ב and ראשית. It is perfectly normal to omit the definite article ה after the prefixes ב, ל, and כ. This is stated explicitly in the wikipage on Hebrew prefixes. Furthermore, while the prefix ב can be used to mean “when,” this requires a bare infinitive verb (according to Wiktionary), and ראשית is a noun.
@davidjanbaz7728
11 ай бұрын
LOL 😆" Gods"
@darkblade4340
11 ай бұрын
@@davidjanbaz7728 I think that was autocorrect, but don’t really remember.
@Jim-Mc
11 ай бұрын
Love this explanation. What do you think of some of the Rabbinic sources that held a very young earth-like view based on adding the ages of the patriachs, Messianic predictions and so on? I understand this caused some Greeks to have a lower opinion of Judaism.
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
Adding of genealogies is a poor method to determine the age of anything.
@andrewgraham7659
11 ай бұрын
God exists I believe that. I believe He existed prior to the creation of the universe and the world. I do believe God offers us the choice to accept His existence with the Bible and nature as evidence, and the choice to reject that same evidence. The labels were given by mankind much later on - and this is the battle we now face. I do not that He believe that He created out of loneliness or desperation, nor do I believe that he toyed with humanity. nor tried to influence humanity to do anything.
@andrew2715
2 ай бұрын
Is it possible that the “heavens” in Genesis 1:1 refers to creating the space where the heavenly bodies are meant to exist, or does the grammar imply reference to all the heavenly bodies themselves?
@tylerx099
11 ай бұрын
That’s why I don’t care about the evolution and creation debate anymore. I just read the text as God created the world and us and no one else did but him. I think as Christians, that’s all we need to know
@theeternalsbeliever1779
11 ай бұрын
That is a lazy, Laodicean assessment, as the creation account ties in with the gospel Christ brought about the Kingdom of God. Considering Acts 4 shows Peter preaching about Christ restoring the government of God to this world, it makes no sense to believe that God would not include the history of how it was taken away in the first place. Ppl say stuff like this because their faith is woefully shallow or completely dead.
@tylerx099
11 ай бұрын
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 or because there are more important things to be concern about than learning about the fine details how God created the world. Like saving souls for instance. If we get too tied up on the creation and evolution debate, we are missing the point.
@treeckoniusconstantinus
11 ай бұрын
I'm glad there is still credible pushback against the JPS/Alter/NRSVue Genesis 1:1 rendering ("When God began to create heaven and earth"). I feel this newer reading has been given wide academic acceptance too easily, presupposing 2,000+ years of undetected mistranslation and misinterpretation, starting with learned Jews mistranslating it into Greek in the third century BC.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
“When God began to create…” was not an “undetected mistranslation”. Rashi and Ibn Ezra both explicitly argued for bereshit being in construct. The Targum onkelos also conveys a similar idea. Additionally, the LXX translators were known for making ridiculous mistakes. They were in no way perfect translators. It should be no surprise that they mistranslated something that is a very rare use of Hebrew grammar (noun in construct next to a finite verb) Some examples of them mistranslating this same thing is where they mistranslated relative clauses in Hosea 1:2(Exact same structure of noun in construct with finite verb), Jeremiah 6:15, and 50:31.
@abc_12333
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Correct! Jewish scholar has a similar translation in his Genesis book. But the emphasis is on the word "beginning". Jeremiah 6:15 and Jeremiah 50:31 is read as "beginning of". Hebrew has no reference to an absolute beginning.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
@@abc_12333 Thanks for the thoughts. You said that Hebrew has no reference to an absolute beginning. That seems to be correct if Genesis 1:1 is a relative clause. What do you think about Isaiah 46:10? Is it not a reference to the absolute beginning? Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’
@abc_12333
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Great question. I see that as the Genesis beginning - the beginning of established Yahweh worship. Since God is speaking to an Israelite audience, He would be referring to something they were familiar with. The giveaway IMHO is "I make KNOWN". The absolute beginning is not known by anyone.
@voymasa7980
11 ай бұрын
I appreciate to review. Iirc, modern judaism has translated with that new grammar construction (both the reform JPS Tanakh and the more orthodox Chumash and Artscroll Tanakh). I am curious how you would handle verse 2 was versus became tohu va bohu
@charleysanders4748
11 ай бұрын
I think many YEC interpret "the heavens and the earth" as meaning spacetime and matter.
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
Okay, but were was all that matter? They can't have all matter being made and claim ex nihilo creation in Day 4. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
@charleysanders4748
11 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebible "16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Fair point. Some like to say that the Hebrew term for "made" implies that the material was already there and God used the preexisting material to fashion what he was making on that day. In this case, the stars wouldn't have been created ex nihilo on day four as the material was created ex nihilo on day one.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
@@charleysanders4748good point! Probably not right but good point!
@abc_12333
11 ай бұрын
@@charleysanders4748 You're right about "bara". It ALWAYS refers to fashioning/carving/forming something out of pre-existing material. Genesis 1:1 is no different. Jewish scholar John Walton's view is correct. This is referring to a temple construction. The Hebrew word "raqia" is the giveaway (used in ancient times to hammer gold plates).
@thebigbadrascal3398
5 ай бұрын
@@charleysanders47480O1a❤
@MathewDRhys
11 ай бұрын
While on the one hand I see no reason to assume from scripture that matter and heavenly bodies may not have pre-existed day 4, likewise I do not believe it follows that heavenly Bodies must have been created on day one merely because the heavens were. That seems to me to assume that a nest cannot exist unless there are eggs in it. It doesn't make sense to necessitate that should every planet dissolve, and every Star collapse, that the heavens cease to be the heavens.
@izzykhach
11 ай бұрын
The exegete Rashi who lived c. 1000 C. E. suggested the possibility that Genesis 1:1 can be an introductory subordinate clause, though this is not the popularly accepted reading.
@richardlamer3910
11 ай бұрын
When I take a class and begin writing notes, I start with a subject, heading or a topic (in general terms), ie, algebra, I write a topic heading. ALGEBRA and Gen 1:1 is just that; In the beginning, God created the (Spiritual) Heaven/ (physical) Earth. Of course, God could have done it all with a snap of His fingers or in a single instant or a single day. But, to include time, in which we live, God did it in 6 days with rest on the 7th. The complete Bible, continues with this foundation/theme of 7s.
@5BBassist4Christ
11 ай бұрын
"When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void..." I'm an amateur on Hebrew but I saw red flags about this the first time I heard it a couple of years ago. It overemphasizes the vav-conjuction. But the ultimate flaw with this reading, however, is the complete rejection of the word "בראשית" (berashet). Berashet means "In the beginning", and there is no way around that. The beyth is a prefix "in". Yerushalim, -Jerusalem. BaYerushalim, -in Jerusalem. Rashet means beginning. The root of it is "rash," which is the Hebrew word for head. So, Berashet means "In the head of time." Beyond that, Berashet is not just the opening word in Genesis, it is the Hebrew name for the book of Genesis. I've been begging Theistic Evolutionists for years to stop using this argument. It is a bad argument that makes their credibility look lower than it is. Thanks for making this video Dr. Falk. I know there are some good apologists who respect you that need to hear this.
@davidvines3883
11 ай бұрын
Good morning. I've been watching more of your videos and I'm enjoying them but I do have a question (and I'm sorry if you've answered this in another video). I've heard you say that you aren't a Creationist. So do you think that Theistic Evolution is more accurate or something else? Thank you!
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
7 ай бұрын
he is not a theistic evolutionist either
@davidvines3883
7 ай бұрын
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Thanks for the reply. Has he ever given his viewpoint on this? I was raised Creationist but am willing to hear other thoughts (such as Inspiringphilosophy, etc.).
@mugglesarecooltoo
11 ай бұрын
I... I need a visual aid or something. I'm too uneducated to follow along. 😅
@missionisagape
11 ай бұрын
I don't see how the supposed new rendering supports OEC / TE; I agree with the whole video though. 🔥🔥🔥(edit: can anyone explain how it might would?)
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
You can’t have a Young earth if we don’t know when the earth was created.
@missionisagape
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou In my opinion, we do know when the earth was created! In my opinion the study of geology and astronomy reveal the date of the earth's creation and the the Bible teaches an "old earth." (@all the video "Young Earth Creationism vs Old Earth Creationism by explore christianity would be a good way to look into this more.)
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
7 ай бұрын
sure, as I'm sure you noticed. This only applies if you take a specific reading of Genesis as if it's describing something that happened in historical reality.@@missionisagape
@djpodesta
11 ай бұрын
How hard is it to compare the beginning of Genesis with other ancient creation stories and place this text in it’s historically conceptual context? I *don’t* think that one denies the existence of God by pointing to how ancient thinkers may have come up with reasoning that we find naive. Though I am sharing this without having any knowledge of the ancient languages.
@Yan_Alkovic
11 ай бұрын
Well as a theistic evolutionist I see no issue with this. Then again, I am at present mostly a layman and have yet to really delve into the nitty-gritty of theology
@maddam50
11 ай бұрын
Does the word heavens in hebrew always include planets and stars? A YEC could say that space was created before day 1 and then stars populated them on day 4.
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
In a Biblical sense, that seems to be the case. But then again, a YEC might say a bunch of things to salvage a position where they are having difficulties.
@gazzmilsom
11 ай бұрын
They could, but then how would it have been understood by ancient Hebrews? What concept of space did they even have apart from what confronted them when they looked up at night. If anything in Genesis means something that requires modern physics to understand, then God's gave people scripture they couldn't understand at the time.
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
@@gazzmilsom Or Genesis was talking about something completely different like the organization of the earth to act as a temple of God so he could have relationship with his creation.
@gazzmilsom
11 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebible Agreed
@vedinthorn
11 ай бұрын
As someone with a John Walton view, none of this bothers me in the least. YEC still has to contend with some kind of water existing as a deep sea for the Spirit to brood or hover over, and this well before the seas were "created". Simply put, I stopped being a YEC when I realized the earth was manifestly here in physical form before Day 1, therefore some other kind of view MUST be true. What that view is is in dispute.
@vedinthorn
11 ай бұрын
Either that or we must fault the author for being extremely sloppy and vague and a poor communicator of whatever ideas he was trying to convey...but I'm not going to do that
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
Walton thinks 1:1 is a summary statement so this makes sense
@abc_12333
11 ай бұрын
EXACTLY! There is no mention of God creating the waters.
@OrthosAlexandros
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYouWell, it doesn't work as a summary statement when you get into the other texts and the structure of the Tabernacle and the Temple. There are two readings of Genesis 1:1. It is either a summary statement of what is to come or an event in its own right. The former is associated with the translation “when God began to create the heavens and the earth” and the latter is “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The latter translation is undoubtedly the right one. The creation week is given a literary recapitulation many times in scripture, enabling us to see from many angles the way the biblical authors took these texts. The “heavens” of Genesis 1:1 is the throne-room of God within which myriads of angels dwell and serve. This is why Psalm 104, which provides a poetic commentary on the seven creation days, begins with a celebration of God’s heavenly ministers. Likewise, Job 38 makes clear that when the “foundations of the earth” were laid, the heavenly courtiers were already present and singing. On the second creation day, God separates the waters below (oceans) from the “waters above the heavens” and names the space in between “Heaven.” This is a visible representation of the throne-room of God which is distinct from the Heaven of Genesis 1:1. That this is the case is very clear from the fact that the architectural representations of the cosmos- the tabernacle and temple- are triply structured, with the upper two levels corresponding to each other and with the middle layer corresponding to the visible Heaven. Consider that in the Tabernacle and Temple, the Menorah is actually called by the very word identifying the heavenly lights made on the fourth day. The seven branches of the Menorah represent the sun, moon, and five “wandering” stars which are the five planets visible with the naked eye. These seven celestial bodies are representative of the entire visible heaven and demonstrate decisively that there are two distinct Heavens, one of which is higher than the other and the lower of which contains the celestial bodies visible to us. Moreover, the biblical authors refer to two distinct Heavens explicitly. For example, King Solomon speaks of “Heaven” and the “Heaven of Heavens.” The latter is the gathering place of the heavenly council and is thoroughly permeated by the divine presence. The work of the Church is in unifying High Heaven with our world so that the two are interior to each other. The “waters above the heavens” are the bridal veil separating the material cosmos from God’s throne-room until the veil shall be wholly removed and the two shall be married. The binary pair of Heaven and Earth at the beginning of Genesis 1 matches the binary pair of male and female at the end- the first and last creations of God. We see, moreover, that Adam is the “generations” or offspring of the “heavens and the earth”, a clear reference back to 1:1 explained by the union of the Spirit (Breath) of divine Life and the dust of the ground to form the first human being. It is through man that the two spheres of reality are bound into each other’s life intimately.
@OrthosAlexandros
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYouAll of this is designed to accentuate one major point: the “earth” in Genesis 1:1 is what is formless, void, and dark. During the six creation days God forms, fills, and brightens it. But the earth itself, as identified in 1:1, is the raw material out of which the developed and perfected creation is shaped. That means that God is explicitly identified as having first created this raw material and then shaping it. This is reinforced by creation week patterns like the seven speeches giving the design of the tabernacle- the first slot frequently includes the gathering up of all the raw materials out of which all else will be made. Creation ex nihilo is about the reality that God’s creation of the world was free and without any necessity, whether in God or in the world. It is present in Christianity from the earliest antiquity and is clearly at an advantage in prima facie assessments of the New Testament: the creation of the world out of things which were not is most easily read as a reference to creation ex nihilo, and given the fact that we know this to be the normative tradition in Judaism, there is absolutely no reason to seek an alternative reading. Early witnesses alleged to undermine creation ex nihilo usually are simply stating that God formed His creatures out of preexisting material. But He did! That’s not the question. There was one and only one act of creation ex nihilo- the creation of the “heavens and the earth” in 1:1. The heavens are perfect, mature, and do not develop. Angels do not multiply. Heaven is thus the archetype for earth, which is shaped and developed by divine action through history. Man is created in the image and likeness of God to extend the divine work which began in the six day creation. The question is not whether creatures were shaped out of preexisting matter, but whether that preexisting matter was created ex nihilo by God and shaped it or self-existed. Also, St. Peter identifies the shapeless matter which was created out of nothing with the waters from which the matter was shaped.
@younggrasshopper3531
9 ай бұрын
Hidden treasures of the book of job by Hugh ross
@NeymarJunior-iw4gn
11 ай бұрын
The video is very good, I already talked to a young earth creationist and he said what you showed in the video. Do the similarities between Moses and the reports from the ancient East make Moses' report invalid? Why is it later?
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
> Do the similarities between Moses and the reports from the ancient East make Moses' report invalid? No, they don't make Moses's report invalid. But it does show that Moses and everyone else in the ancient Near East understood the world through a similar frame of reference. > Why is it later? Depends what you mean by this. The Israelites were guided by providence to be in the right place and the right time, and record their accounts so as to produce the greatest good. Timing as they say is everything.
@NeymarJunior-iw4gn
11 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebibleI will study the stories and genealogies of the Bible up to Moses, to see where the tradition of Moses comes from
@NeymarJunior-iw4gn
11 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebibleThis is a study that does not take divine revelation, to answer atheists
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
@@NeymarJunior-iw4gn indeed.
@FollowersofTheShepherd
11 ай бұрын
0:17 What is a concordatist?
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
Someone who tries to fit science with the Bible
@FollowersofTheShepherd
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYouOh 😂. Thanks
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
@@FollowersofTheShepherd haha awesome emote
@notofthischurch2822
11 ай бұрын
Can we read Genesis 1:1 as an integral part of the biblical narrative? Given the conjunctive particle "And" opens the second verse, essentially pulling the first verse into the broader reading, can Genesis 1:1 serve as opening the Bible's creation narrative? I do not believe evolution is a contention. When reading Genesis 1:1 as an integral part of the narrative, evolution is merely a contextual consideration to highlight the spiritual evolution of man from an instinctive being to a deliberative being. Reading Genesis 1:1 as an integral part of the narrative opens our understanding of what it portends for man to spiritually migrate from living among the beast of the field to distinguishing himself from among those very beasts.
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
I think you should contest evolution. At the moment of speciation, that moment being the first individual of population group B who is no longer reproductively compatible with the members of group A - who does that individual mate with? There are presently no other B members to mate with, and backward compatibility is no longer an option. Either macro scale evolution is not possible, or the world should be absolutely brimming with so called "ring species", which it is not. Every alleged instance of ring species has been, by evolutionists, debunked and found to be not what they were hoping. Evolutionary theories sound erudite and convincing, until we apply the hard, cold razor of practical simulations.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
What do you mean by “integral part of the Biblical narrative”?
@notofthischurch2822
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou, thanks for your reply. Genesis 1:1 is an integral part of the Bible's creation narrative in that, within it, not only lies the creation and evolution of the entire physical Universe. But Genesis 1:1 also contains the metaphysics of how the Divine accounts for the soul of every living thing that enters the physical realm. All centers on the phrase, "the Heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 KJV). How you understand the phrase "the Heaven and the earth" is as a pillared image. By its construction, God uses this pillared image of "the Heaven and the earth" to account for every living thing that enters the physical realm. While, given every living thing as a soul, upon its soul's return, the Divine uses the pillared construction of now "the earth and the Heaven" to evaluate the changes the soul underwent within the physical realm. Understanding the construction of "the Heaven and the earth" as a pillared image (in the likeness of Jachin (the Heaven - spiritual pillar) and Boaz (the physical, cultural, and legacy pillar) allows us to reckon ourselves with the "And" particle that opens Genesis 1:2. Wherein, when we take up Genesis 1:2, what we surmise is that this verse attends to the Divine's valuation of the primordial souls of man that returns from out of the earth. It is an interpretation that brings evolution to heel, given this reading of Genesis 1:1-2 awakens us to the implications born with our migration from instinctive to deliberative beings. In that, given for 6 million years, man has walked the earth. Only in the past 300,000 years have we lived to establish settlements and cultures. That is, for over 5 million years, our earliest ancestors lived as beasts in the field. In comparison, it's only in the last 300,000 years that we've lived in a manner that distinguishes us from beasts. How does this general synopsis of anthropology aid us in unveiling and understanding the truths of the Bible? When we lived as beasts, we lived as God created us, whereby there was no sin because we did not know sin. When we became deliberative, however, when we began taking steps that distinguished ourselves from the beast of the field, the height of which is that we are the only living thing that picks and chooses where, if, when, and how we're going to procreate. In that hour, when we awoke from this dark, long sleep, we began to foster what I term "spiritual displacement." Spiritual displacement is the distance between our living as God envisions mankind apart from how we live. What makes spiritual displacement operative as a biblical and spiritual concern is that it recognizes our need to distinguish between "God" and "Lord." When we lived as beasts in the field, we lived to glorify God as we lived as He created us. Yet, when we became deliberative, we lived to glorify ourselves, placing us apart from God. What's everlastingly needed is a "Lord" who teaches and reveals those truths that close the spiritual gap, if not resolve the displacement entirely. By recognizing the phrase "the Heaven and the earth" as a pillared image, we begin to recognize Genesis 1:1 as an integral part of the Biblical narrative.
@PowerfulRift
11 ай бұрын
Here we go ☝️👍
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
In other news, Dr Falk is now in witness protection, after waking up to a cross-denominational crowd milling about his front yard with torches and pitchforks 😂👍
@blackdog75
11 ай бұрын
i was under the impression that בְּ is the issue. it’s a preposition, not a definite article, so the english word “the” shouldn’t be there. there is also the matter of בָּרָא. it doesn’t necessarily mean created from nothing. these seem to be a couple of issues to also consider when interpreting this passage
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
It looks like you might have two comments so I’ll copy and paste here as well. Yes and yes, but also no. Yes, there not explicitly being a definite article is used by some scholars to argue that bereshit is in construct. With that being said, it’s not a great argument as there are a lot of exceptions in the Hebrew Bible to that rule. There are many instances in the Hebrew Bible where the definite article isn’t used but the noun is still in the definite form. In Hebrew, the letter "ה" (pronounced "heh") can often serve as the definite article, equivalent to "the" in English. When it appears at the beginning of a noun, it makes the noun definite. For example: - ספר (sefer) = book - הספר (hasefer) = the book However, when certain prepositions are attached directly to the noun using a prefix form, the "ה" (heh) of the definite article might be dropped. One such preposition is "ב" (bet), which means "in" or "at". So: - הספר (hasefer) = the book - בספר (besefer) = in the book Here, you can see that when the preposition "ב" (bet) is prefixed to the noun, the "ה" (heh) from the definite article "הספר" (hasefer) is dropped. This happens with several other prepositional prefixes in Hebrew, such as "ל" (lamed) and "כ" (kaf). This phonological process helps make the language more fluid and easier to pronounce. Regarding creation Ex nihilo, yeah, that’s certainly in question.
@missionisagape
11 ай бұрын
🔥 4:00
@theloveofgod1740
11 ай бұрын
Oooh. As a theistic evolutionist and OEC/Big Bang, I leave Genesis out of science and vice verse, so I'm open to any interpretation of Genesis 1:1, lol.
@TitanCJM
11 ай бұрын
This is highly cosmetic, but with Gen 1:1 being a title, would adding a colon to the end of it make this clearer when reading the text? So rendering it as... "At first, God created the heavens and the earth: [...]"
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
That could be helpful. There’s no certainty that it is a title, though. Translating it as a title could make it confusing for readers.
@rovingwolverine5786
11 ай бұрын
I would think a synopsis view works best, especially when most people take the view that chapter two is not another creation account, but rather a synopsis of creation week and then deep dive on the events of day six. It makes the interpretation more consistent. Most people I've run into who insist on the "everything was created in the first verse view" is so they can split verse one and two in order to cram the whole war in heaven Lucifer's Flood sex with angels stuff which supposedly destroyed all of creation and then verse two starts with God doing creation week to clean up the post apocalyptic mess left behind by his first creation.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
I honestly don’t come across many people who believe in the gap theory so that’s funny to hear you say that! 1:2 has a disjunctive vav so it doesn’t really make sense within Hebrew or the context.
@vedinthorn
11 ай бұрын
I'm VERY convinced that Genesis 2:4 onward is a sequel rather than a zeroing in
@ConsideringPhlebas
11 ай бұрын
'But, but, but Rashi said!'
@platonicguardian6923
11 ай бұрын
I find it hard to believe that Nahum Sarna and John Walton wouldn't know the linguistic limitations of rendering the passage "When God began to create the heavens the and the earth..." 🤔 I can tell you that Saint Jerome, translating directly from the Hebrew in the Vulgate, rendered the passage as "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram," which aligns with the English, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Regardless, those of us who are theists and evolutionists, usually us Catholics, don't hinge our position on this one passage. Our stance on evolution is based on the scientific data on the development of life on earth as attested by the fossil record and genetics or, as we say in the Catholic Church, the book of nature. Our reading of scripture, which is not restricted solely to the Grammatical-Historical method, involves analyzing the literal, or human, meaning of a text in order to ascertain the spiritual, or divine, meaning. The historical background, grammatical structure, rhetorical features, canonical context, liturgical usage, and interpretive tradition of a passage are all taken into account If anything, either translation of Genesis 1:1 would lead to the same interpretive conclusion: God created the world as his temple (Genesis 1-2:3). Adam was called to be the priest of the temple (Genesis 2:4-25). Adam failed in his mission in the face of temptation (Genesis 3). No essential doctrine is really changed or challenged, not even Creation ex nihilo which is more clearly affirmed by John 1:1-3. I highly recommend Pope Benedict XVI's sermon series on this topic which were collected in a book entitled...surprise, surprise: "In the Beginning...A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall."
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
So your position is that evolution is true and also that Adam (and presumably Eve) were literal individuals?
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
I’ve realized that there are a lot of misconceptions in this debate so it wouldn’t surprise me if big name scholars didn’t fully understand the nuance. With that being said, John Walton doesn’t argue that it should be translated as “When God began to create..”, he argues that it is a title/summary statement.
@platonicguardian6923
11 ай бұрын
@@bc4yt I don't know if my original reply was deleted by Dr. Falk, but Catholics don't see an inherent contradiction between the evolution of human beings and the existence of Adam and Eve. The Catholic philosopher Dr. Dennis Bonnette outlines the evidence for the compatibility between evolutionary science and the doctrine of creation in his book "Origin of the Human Species." It's an excellent companion to Pope Benedict XVI's sermons. It might be also worth reading William Lane Craig's recent book "In Quest of the Historical Adam" as well as S. Joshua Swamidass' "The Genealogical Adam and Eve."
@ravissary79
11 ай бұрын
The use of "merely" here artificially forces a trichotomy. Also why assume heaven, must include everything we now see in it? When the earth was created did that inckude everything we now see on it? Heavens and the earth is an old way of looking at the contexts geo-centrically regardless of whether pyolomy was wrong or right, as a vantage point for the description if nothing else... earth is the thing an observer is standing on or floating above, the heavens extend outward and upward from that. Traditionally jews believed in a minimum of 3 heavens... the sky, the visible expanse or place above the sky where the sun/moon/stars move in, and the spiritual or invisible heavens above that. There's nothing logically incoherent in the belief that God could spread out the heavens and then create objects in the heavens... or as some phenomenological readers think: God may have merely revealed or redolved/completed the sun/moon/stars at different times. As Walton and WLC and others have pointed out, while God is indeed creating ex-nihilio for some of this, much of the creative process is just rearranging, segmenting and then labeling/naming things for their intended functions. The real throughline is telos, not creation ex-nihilio. This doesnt disprove ex-nihilio creation as theyre not mutually exclusive. Things are made of other things, but even those things theyre made of had to be made so ex-nihilio creation is upheld, but not necessarily being employed at each step... often not at all.
@joshnichols1438
11 ай бұрын
Origins!!!!!
@micahwatz1148
11 ай бұрын
When are you gonna play us a riff?
@Jamie-Russell-CME
11 ай бұрын
The light was there at the beginning and became apparent on day 4. It is a theological idea about Jesus.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
The writer of Genesis 1 had no idea who Jesus was and therefore would not have been making a claim about someone they didn’t know existed. Why do you assume it is about Jesus while discounting other options?
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
Interesting take that aligns with something I had thought, therefore it must be right 😃👍
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou which of the prophets who prophesied about Christ knew who He was?
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
@@bc4yt Nobody knew specifically who or what the messiah was but they knew there was a messiah coming. They had a vague idea of a messiah of which was supposed to rescue them. That’s very different than saying the writer of Genesis 1 already knew Christ was there and he just happened to be the light in place of the sun. Genesis 1 has nothing to do with a future coming messiah. There isn’t even a hint of it by the writer of the narrative. The messiah has nothing to do with the text. Is it possible this light was Christ? Sure, is it likely? Not at all.
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I don't think the suggestion is that Christ was literally the light, but that it is metaphor. I am assuming the idea is that the sun was in place from day one, but became visible on day four, perhaps by the clearing of overcast skies for example. The metaphor being that Christ was always there but only became known later through His incarnation. If true, Moses didn't need to know anything, he's not inventing a story, but recording what God did during the creation. It would be God Himself who created the metaphor. I'm not a huge fan of trying to tie *everything* back to Christ, but I also don't have authority to completely dismiss the idea.
@jsto6056
11 ай бұрын
I agree with your assessment, but I quit watching because you missed something. In the city of Avaris, later named Pi-Ramses, the ancient Hebrews there likely read the Book of Job BEFORE Thutmose III, or his father, enslaved them. Job was written centuries before Genesis. So, the Hebrews of the Exodus would have had knowledge of Job 38:8-9, which states: “Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb (likely the Earth's under mantle where Ringwoodite is found); 9When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band (Likely the black clouds keeping the sun out from the Earth's early volcanic age), 10And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors (Raising of the continents post Gen 1:1-3), 11And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop’?
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
> but I quit watching because you missed something. You are mistaken about a couple of things. > In the city of Avaris, later named Pi-Ramses, Those are two difference cities separated by 2 km. The latter was never renamed to the former. > Job was written centuries before Genesis. No, it wasn't. Job was clearly written during the Iron Age or later. You are simply wrong about this.
@jsto6056
11 ай бұрын
@@ancientegyptandthebible Ah. So, I see. You're not a believer. You're a skeptic. Job, placed around Abraham's day or before, is a story written in the 6th Cent BC you claim. That may be the earliest manuscript fragment they have. But it was likely written earlier. Did you see that they discovered a stone tablet in Babylon in 1903 with one of King David's descendants on it? Exactly as the Bible says. You have 1000s of years of Jewish scribes/scholars faithfully writing down scriptural texts intentionally doing their best NOT to change the text or try to write it from memory. It is most likely that the earliest, original manuscript, was written before the Exodus, and by many years. In order for some to speculate that Moses wrote it, placing it around 1440 BC, Moses MUST have heard of the story somewhere, and so would the early Hebrews! It would have predated those living in Avaris most likely, since they had been made slaves. So, that is likely many decades or more earlier than Moses' birth!
@isaakleillhikar8311
11 ай бұрын
Doesn’t it say « By the First, God(s) begat the heavens and the earth. » ? Beh Risheet.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
No, elohim(Gods) is almost certainly not plural as bara is singular and the verb must match with the noun(Except on extremely rare circumstances). “Begat” is not in the semantic domain of bara. Not only is it not used that way in other texts, it would just confuse readers. In regards to “by the first”, while the ב can be translated as “by”, I don’t see any reason to translate it that way and I’ve never read a commentary which argues for it. The only time I hear people arguing for it is random people online that don’t know Hebrew so I’m very skeptical. With that being said, I don’t see why translating it as “By” or “in” makes much of a difference so maybe you can explain the significance. In regards to reshit, yes, it can be translated as “first” but that is only used in specific contexts which makes it unlikely that it is used this way here. There’s a number of other reasons that isn’t a good idea but here’s a couple more. First, we don’t have that translation attested throughout history. It also wouldn’t make much sense as it would lack context. The first of what?
@ancientegyptandthebible
11 ай бұрын
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I agree.
@darkblade4340
11 ай бұрын
What do you mean by “by”?
@bc4yt
11 ай бұрын
I assume "by the first" means "through Christ"?
@isaakleillhikar8311
11 ай бұрын
That’s exactly right and it’s what John says and Proverbs 8 shows.
@blackdog75
11 ай бұрын
i was under the impression that בְּ is the issue. it’s a preposition, not a definite article, so the english word “the” shouldn’t be there. there is also the matter of בָּרָא. it doesn’t necessarily mean created from nothing. these seem to be a couple of issues to also consider when interpreting this passage
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
11 ай бұрын
Yes and yes, but also no. Yes, there not explicitly being a definite article is used by some scholars to argue that bereshit is in construct. With that being said, it’s not a great argument as there are a lot of exceptions in the Hebrew Bible to that rule. There are many instances in the Hebrew Bible where the definite article isn’t used but the noun is still in the definite form. In Hebrew, the letter "ה" (pronounced "heh") can often serve as the definite article, equivalent to "the" in English. When it appears at the beginning of a noun, it makes the noun definite. For example: - ספר (sefer) = book - הספר (hasefer) = the book However, when certain prepositions are attached directly to the noun using a prefix form, the "ה" (heh) of the definite article might be dropped. One such preposition is "ב" (bet), which means "in" or "at". So: - הספר (hasefer) = the book - בספר (besefer) = in the book Here, you can see that when the preposition "ב" (bet) is prefixed to the noun, the "ה" (heh) from the definite article "הספר" (hasefer) is dropped. This happens with several other prepositional prefixes in Hebrew, such as "ל" (lamed) and "כ" (kaf). This phonological process helps make the language more fluid and easier to pronounce.
Пікірлер: 124