Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

I do not pretend to know the minds of the ESV revisers. But there is some justification for their rendering of Genesis 2:16, although exploring the (possible) reasoning cannot be done briefly. Here we go... Genesis 2:16-17 We need the text, and in this case it is imperative to work from the Hebrew, with the immediate context also in view (I'll stick with ...


6

As far as I know, the only other place in the Old Testament where this same Hebrew term ("desire for you") is used, is in the next chapter, when God speaks to Cain. "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4:7, ESV) In the literary ...


5

The view one takes on the credibility of the assertion is going to depend largely on one's presuppositions and level of allowance for the Bible text to speak for itself. If the Torah (Law, i.e. "teaching" is the idea in Hebrew, not just the actual commands and prohibitions), which includes Genesis, was formed contra what critical scholars claim, and instead ...


4

This theory is pretty credible. There a great deal of scholars which entertain this idea who are collectively known as Panbabylonists. This seems to raise the ire of many purists who would like to believe that Genesis was influenced by God alone. In my opinion, however many fail to consider the idea that perhaps sections of Genesis were not derived from ...


4

Note: Since some gap theory arguments rely on phrasing in the King James, I will be quoting from the KJV unless otherwise noted. All verses will be examined in the KJV, other versions will be listed if they correct or add to the discussion. The Gap Theory, sometimes called the Ruin and Reconstruction Theory of creation, postulates that an unspecified amount ...


3

This answer complements (and, to an extent, challenges) the existing answer (although the commentary offered on the passages is certainly insightful). The distribution of the two patterns shows a marked preference for the negation being "attached" to the finite form:1 30× (in 28 vss) - Exod. 5:23; 8:24; 34:7; Lev. 7:24; 19:20; Num. 14:18; 23:25; Deut. ...


3

The Idea in Brief A survey of the uses of the infinitive absolute in tandem with the negative adverb לֹא in the Hebrew Bible provides new perspective. In this regard, there are six passages where the adverb לֹא negates the infinitive absolute and/or negates the main verb depending on context. These examples therefore help to understand the correct meaning ...


3

The Idea in Brief From the perspective of the Hebrew Bible, there are three apparent reasons why there is a “gap” of indefinite time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Discussion First, the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that the Lord did not create the earth formless and void. The word for “create” (בָּרָא) in the following verse is the same word for “create” ...


3

With any theory like this its just as credible that the influence goes the other way. The argument that the Sumerians could not influence the Hebrews directly is bunk, in that perhaps they could not directly influence the author of Genesis, but since they would have been contemporary with Abraham they could have influenced the stream of Hebrew thought at an ...


2

The Idea in Brief The “serpent” was a quadruped that became an unclean creature. This creature was to creep on the ground and thrive on “dust,” which connotes what is unclean (to include death). The general imagery in Genesis therefore was that the “serpent” became unclean, and had become a threat to man, whose heel the “serpent” could bite and precipitate ...


2

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" (2 Peter 3:6 KJV) The key word here is "perished". No one died from a flood before Noah's day. The scripture at Gen. 1:1 describes the earth as being "empty" so there were no people to destroy with floodwater. Also if we look at the context of Peter's word in this verse, we can ...


2

God tells humanity to "rule over" (LXX-κατακυριεύσατε) the earth in Genesis 1:28. This cannot be taken as divine permission to trash the planet. In the ancient world, image bearers of potentates acted as royal regents. God created humans, both male and female, as his image bearers to act as his regents. Stewardship of the created world seems to be part ...


2

Abraham, at Gen. 22: 16-17 is promised that his descendants would be blessed with an "exceeding multiplication of his seed like the stars of the heaven and the sand upon the seashore." Previously, at Gen. 13:16, God promised Abraham that his posterity would be as numerous "as the dust of the earth." Rabbi Mendel Weinbach writes about this: "Sand, dust ...


2

This is clear use of hyperbole. Jesus makes use of similar hyperbole in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:21-48) in which he instructs us to cut out our eyes if we even look lustfully at a woman or cut off our hand if we stumble. He doesn't mean this literally, but is using hyperbole to emphasize his point. Likewise, here we have an over-emphasis to drive ...


2

Even if this "surely" in Genesis 2:16 were meant to imply predestination (which does not seem likely), it does not refer to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but to eating from all the other allowed trees. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, So this verse is not about ...


1

The question is about Gn 15:5, which is God's response to Abraham's concern that he has no children. Basically God is saying, don't worry, you'll have kids - plenty of kids! That's the simple - pshat - meaning of the verse. To go deeper, it is clear to me that God's answer here should be interpreted as referring to all of Abraham's descendents, not only the ...


1

While I partially agree with Davïd's analysis, I think it misses the point and context. Let's start with some fundamentals. First, lets consider the Jewish theory that while in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve could not die. Second, let's also consider that while in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve did not have complete free will in the sense that they ...


1

A question about how old or recent an interpretation is goes beyond basic hermeneutics into textual studies of the hermeneutics of the ancient and medieval church. I can't go in depth, but I can give a brief overview. Respected scholar Richard Bauckham notes in his book, God and the Crisis of Freedom, "Neither the theological nor the exegetical tradition ...


1

In John Gill's commentary on Gen. 3:1, he says, the words therefore may be rendered, "that serpent"; that particular serpent, of which so much is spoken of afterwards; "or the serpent was become" F20, or "made more subtle", that is, not naturally, but through Satan being in it, and using it in a very subtle manner, to answer his purposes, and ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible