Hebrew Scholar Affirms YEC and Other parts of Genesis

[Shar]

 

 

Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning. The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables because of this lack of understanding. Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning. G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work. We have been through the duality possibility. Opinions otherwise won't change it.

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew."

 

But the Author was Jesus Christ.  I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement.

 

..and he used Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles and other Jews to put it in pen.  Jesus and Paul attest to Moses and what He said. Ro. 10:5

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning."

 

I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me.  I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages?

 

 

Jews were charged to bring the ways and word of G-d to the nations and teach them about the one true G-d of Israel.  The Bible is for all of mankind.  The Jews did not fully obey their charge to the nations.   You do not need to be a Jew or Hebrew scholar, but you cannot wipe out the Jewishness of the Bible or Jesus and expect to come to a clear understanding of the word.

 

 

"The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables"

 

What "church" might that be?

 

In some churches, when teaching some parables, because they do not understand some of the Jewish customs of the times, have made efforts to completely interpret it on what they think it is saying.  For ex. Mt 5:22.  The eye is good, eye is bad referenced here is still talking about money.  Some want to say that it has to do with what you are looking at, instead.  The  whole parable has to do with money.  The good eye in the Jewish culture meant some one who was generous and giving.  The bad eye was someone who was closed-fist and not generous.  That is why Jesus said you cannot serve both G-d and money. 

 

 

"Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning."

 

I would have to agree with you.... in some instances.  Perhaps someone can speak to this. 

 

 

"G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work."

 

100% agree.....

 

(Proverbs 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

 

One last issue....I've seen alot of posts in the forum with "G-d".  Is it that difficult to add the "O" and spell it "GOD" or I am "out of the loop" and not following proper etiquette?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Shiloh, you have self-proclaimed yourself a Hebrew scholar, knowledgeable of science, and of great knowledge in Judaism and the Hebrew way - and you did not know this?  Well, it now looks like you are holding yourself out as an etiquette expert too.  Shall we call you Shiloh Vanderbilt or Shiloh Post?

 

What makes you think I didn't know any of that???

 

I have not proclaimed myself a Hebrew scholar, knowledgeable of science nor having great knowledge in Judaism.   I think you need to stick with the topic and the OP instead of trying to throw barbs at me and accusing me of things I didn't say.  I will tell you what I told LFR.   If you have something to say about the OP or the topic at hand, I will respond to those posts.  I will not respond to any more posts where you are complaining about me.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning. The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables because of this lack of understanding. Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning. G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work. We have been through the duality possibility. Opinions otherwise won't change it.

 

 

Writing G-d instead of the way you write it stems from the Jewish perspective that G-d's name is most holy, as G-d states, and must be respected, protected and highly regarded.  It is written this way to not write out in entirety and to safeguard not taking His name in vain.  You must respect this as an expression for the love of G-d and not as a violation of proper etiquette.

 

I'm not a Jew so can I write it "GOD" and not offend any of our Jewish Brothers and Sisters?

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew."

 

But the Author was Jesus Christ.  I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement.

 

..and he used Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles and other Jews to put it in pen.  Jesus and Paul attest to Moses and what He said. Ro. 10:5

 

 

Yes, Thanks.  Was Luke Jewish?....just for my information and no disrespect to you or your point above intended.

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning."

 

I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me.  I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages?

 

 

Jews were charged to bring the ways and word of G-d to the nations and teach them about the one true G-d of Israel.  The Bible is for all of mankind.  The Jews did not fully obey their charge to the nations.   You do not need to be a Jew or Hebrew scholar, but you cannot wipe out the Jewishness of the Bible or Jesus and expect to come to a clear understanding of the word.

 

 

Was that what I was doing?

 

 

"The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables"

 

What "church" might that be?

 

In some churches, when teaching some parables, because they do not understand some of the Jewish customs of the times, have made efforts to completely interpret it on what they think it is saying.  For ex. Mt 5:22.  The eye is good, eye is bad referenced here is still talking about money.  Some want to say that it has to do with what you are looking at, instead.  The  whole parable has to do with money.  The good eye in the Jewish culture meant some one who was generous and giving.  The bad eye was someone who was closed-fist and not generous.  That is why Jesus said you cannot serve both G-d and money. 

 

 

Now that I did not know, thanks.

 

 

 

 

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew."

 

But the Author was Jesus Christ.  I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement.

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning."

 

I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me.  I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages?

 

 

"The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables"

 

What "church" might that be?

 

 

"Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning."

 

I would have to agree with you.... in some instances.  Perhaps someone can speak to this. 

 

 

"G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work."

 

100% agree.....

 

(Proverbs 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

 

One last issue....I've seen alot of posts in the forum with "G-d".  Is it that difficult to add the "O" and spell it "GOD" or I am "out of the loop" and not following proper etiquette?

 

Writing G-d instead of the way you write it stems from the Jewish perspective that G-d's name is most holy, as G-d states, and must be respected, protected and highly regarded.  It is written this way to not write out in entirety and to safeguard not taking His name in vain.  You must respect this as an expression for the love of G-d and not as a violation of proper etiquette.

 

Shiloh, you have self-proclaimed yourself a Hebrew scholar, knowledgeable of science, and of great knowledge in Judaism and the Hebrew way - and you did not know this?  Well, it now looks like you are holding yourself out as an etiquette expert too.  Shall we call you Shiloh Vanderbilt or Shiloh Post?

 

 

The prohibition against taking God's name in vain, is in speech, or swearing by God's name.  

 

In this case, it is written. The Tetragrammaton when written is handled with great care because it is the Holy Name. It is not to be defaced, or treated as trash etc. So, books which contain the Holy Name are handled with great care, and treated differently to honor God. This view sometimes extends to other names of God.

 

So, essentially, in written form, the addition of a dash which replaces a letter, means that full name is not written, and special care need not be taken. G-d, has to do with ensuring the actual name is not used, so no one might out of ignorance misuse it, or those who do know the tradition, accidently mistreat the document not realizing the Name of God is contained in it.  

[nebula]

 

 

 

Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning. The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables because of this lack of understanding. Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning. G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work. We have been through the duality possibility. Opinions otherwise won't change it.

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew."

 

But the Author was Jesus Christ.  I've "heard" that there is some proof that it was given to Moses 1 letter @ a time...can't support that statement.

 

 

"Moses wrote the Bible and was a Jew. You have to view it from a Jewish perspective or you will lose its intent and full meaning."

 

I may be misguided but I thought he wrote it to me.  I'm getting a feeling here that I either have to be a Jew or a Hebrew Scholar to be able to discern what the LORD is trying to say or distill the TRUE meaning....is that a fair assessment or am I misunderstanding the messages?

 

 

"The church has misinterpreted some of Jesus' parables"

 

What "church" might that be?

 

 

"Once you do, however, they burst open with meaning."

 

I would have to agree with you.... in some instances.  Perhaps someone can speak to this. 

 

 

"G-d states there are mysteries here. You have to do a little detective work."

 

100% agree.....

 

(Proverbs 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

 

One last issue....I've seen alot of posts in the forum with "G-d".  Is it that difficult to add the "O" and spell it "GOD" or I am "out of the loop" and not following proper etiquette?

 

Writing G-d instead of the way you write it stems from the Jewish perspective that G-d's name is most holy, as G-d states, and must be respected, protected and highly regarded.  It is written this way to not write out in entirety and to safeguard not taking His name in vain.  You must respect this as an expression for the love of G-d and not as a violation of proper etiquette.

 

Shiloh, you have self-proclaimed yourself a Hebrew scholar, knowledgeable of science, and of great knowledge in Judaism and the Hebrew way - and you did not know this?  Well, it now looks like you are holding yourself out as an etiquette expert too.  Shall we call you Shiloh Vanderbilt or Shiloh Post?

 

 

Hello Shar -

 

Enoch asked the question, not Shiloh.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 14 Jan 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

It's more than that.  The Hebrew grammar of the text only allows for the use of "yom" to be rendered as a litreal 24 hour day in that particular text.  That is the crux of the problem.

 

Does this include having to believe that vs 1 was a part of Day 1? That in the first 24-hour time period God creates the entire universe, the earth, waters, and then light?

Does this include having to believe that days were marked off as 24 hours before the creation of the sun?

Does this include having to believe that evenings and mornings likewise existed before the creation of the sun?

 

1. Actually day 1 only includes the creation of light and the separation of light and darkness.

 

2. I dont know what is hard to accept about that given that this would not be a problem for an all-knowing God.  Furthermore, the sun is the catalyist for photosynthesis yet there was vegitation prior to the creation of the sun.   In the OEC view, photosynthesis might have been happening for billions of years without the aid of the sun. So I don't see the problem with believing that an all-knowing God can mark off 24 hours without the aid of the sun.

 

3. What does the text say?   Why add such modifers to the text if 24 hour days were not intended?

 

I definitely see the obsession with 6 24-hour periods trumping the spiritual message.

 

 

But If I were obsessed with OEC view of billions of years that would not trump the spiritual message???    I don't get where this can be called an "obsession."   I am simply committed to the truth of what the text says. 

 

I don't see where holding to the 6 24 hour day trumps the spiritual message.

 

OK, if I were to ask the average Christian what common Gospel doctrine comes out of Gen. 1:2 by itself, what would I be told?

Or if I were to ask the average Christian what common Gospel doctrine comes out of Gen. 1:14-19, what would I be told?

 

There are many who would not be able to answer those questions not because those texts don't speak to doctrinal issues, but because they have never been trained to see the doctrines in Genesis.   They have been trained to see it all as a bunch of stories that have little to no relevance to them and their lives.

 

Then why is everyone trying to glean a scientific interpretation out of it rather than a spiritual one?

 

You will have to ask them, because that isn't what I am trying to do.

[nebula]

 

shiloh357, on 14 Jan 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

It's more than that.  The Hebrew grammar of the text only allows for the use of "yom" to be rendered as a litreal 24 hour day in that particular text.  That is the crux of the problem.

 

Does this include having to believe that vs 1 was a part of Day 1? That in the first 24-hour time period God creates the entire universe, the earth, waters, and then light?

Does this include having to believe that days were marked off as 24 hours before the creation of the sun?

Does this include having to believe that evenings and mornings likewise existed before the creation of the sun?

 

1. Actually day 1 only includes the creation of light and the separation of light and darkness.

 

2. I dont know what is hard to accept about that given that this would not be a problem for an all-knowing God.  Furthermore, the sun is the catalyist for photosynthesis yet there was vegitation prior to the creation of the sun.   In the OEC view, photosynthesis might have been happening for billions of years without the aid of the sun. So I don't see the problem with believing that an all-knowing God can mark off 24 hours without the aid of the sun.

 

3. What does the text say?   Why add such modifers to the text if 24 hour days were not intended?

 

1. So would you agree then that the "formless and void" earth with waters was created before Day 1?

 

2. What reason would God have for marking off 24 hours? What knowledge of His Son comes out of this?

 

3. What is an "evening" and what is a "morning"?

[nebula]

 

I definitely see the obsession with 6 24-hour periods trumping the spiritual message.

But If I were obsessed with OEC view of billions of years that would not trump the spiritual message???    I don't get where this can be called an "obsession."   I am simply committed to the truth of what the text says. 

 

I don't see where holding to the 6 24 hour day trumps the spiritual message.

 

The "trump" is that no one is discussing the spiritual message.

Please don't assume that I am "obsessed with the OEC view" - if anything, I"m obsessed with chucking the whole debate and read the text for the meaning it was meant to convey - and that was NOT a science lesson. But this is what these debates have turned Genesis 1 into, science rather than theology.

Where is the theology of Genesis 1 being taught and preached? (And if anyone thinks the message is "God is all-powerful", I have to say they've missed the boat.)

 

 

 

OK, if I were to ask the average Christian what common Gospel doctrine comes out of Gen. 1:2 by itself, what would I be told?

Or if I were to ask the average Christian what common Gospel doctrine comes out of Gen. 1:14-19, what would I be told?

There are many who would not be able to answer those questions not because those texts don't speak to doctrinal issues, but because they have never been trained to see the doctrines in Genesis.   They have been trained to see it all as a bunch of stories that have little to no relevance to them and their lives.

 

My point exactly!!!!

 

 

Then why is everyone trying to glean a scientific interpretation out of it rather than a spiritual one?

You will have to ask them, because that isn't what I am trying to do.

 

OK, then if this is about theology, what theology has been gained from this thread?

[Guest shiloh357]

The "trump" is that no one is discussing the spiritual message

 

Does every thread on Genesis 1 have to be about the spiritual message of the text?   Please take note that the OP was presented to give evidence to the fact that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 doesn't allow for the days of the creation week to be understood as long epochs of time.

 

Please don't assume that I am "obsessed with the OEC view" - if anything, I"m obsessed with chucking the whole debate and read the text for the meaning it was meant to convey - and that was NOT a science lesson. But this is what these debates have turned Genesis 1 into, science rather than theology.

 

 

I am not assuming that about you.  It's just that if this thread were about demonstrating the view that the days of creation were really long epochs of time, if that would be called an "obsession."

Where is the theology of Genesis 1 being taught and preached? (And if anyone thinks the message is "God is all-powerful", I have to say they've missed the boat.)

 

That's not the topic of the thread.  Does it have to be the topic?

 

1. So would you agree then that the "formless and void" earth with waters was created before Day 1?

 

No.

 

2. What reason would God have for marking off 24 hours? What knowledge of His Son comes out of this?

 

God is sovereign and can do as He pleases. 

 

3. What is an "evening" and what is a "morning"?

 

Well on a Hebrew time cycle, "evening" begins at noon and until midnight.  It is divided at 3:00 pm, the lesser evening from the greater evening.   Same with the morning:  midnight to noon marked off at 9:00 am, the lesser morning from the greater morning.

 

Again, not a problem for an all-knowing God to calculate without the need of the sun.

 

OK, then if this is about theology, what theology has been gained from this thread?

 

 

Well, in terms of the OP and not some of the rabbit trails that have ensued on this thread, it deals directly with both the theological concepts of God's sovereignty and the authority of the Word of God.

[nebula]

 

The "trump" is that no one is discussing the spiritual message

 

Does every thread on Genesis 1 have to be about the spiritual message of the text?   Please take note that the OP was presented to give evidence to the fact that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 doesn't allow for the days of the creation week to be understood as long epochs of time.

 

Conversations on this board have a way of veering off from the OP; this thread is no exception.

 

And I only know of one thread that dealt with the spiritual message of the text. Every other thread kept wresting the Hellinistic intepretation of Genesis 1.

 

 

Anyway, I've said my piece, and at this point we're just throwing the same old dust at each other, so I think it time to give this a rest.

 

You may have the last word if you wish.