Hot answers tagged

3

The ancient Egyptian equivalent of the Hebrew תּוֹעֵבָה (tôʿēbâ) is bawut: Although bwt is sometimes still translated ‘abomination’, the consensus of contemporary Egyptologists suggests a meaning more at ‘taboo’. Specified foods (e.g. pork, fish, honey), behaviors (e.g. sexual activity, walking ‘upside-down’) and people (e.g. menstruating women, ...


3

I would point out that the Hebrew text lends itself to the translation "rib." The text in Genesis 2:21 literally reads, "And he [the Lord God] took one ['aḥat] from his side [miṭṭela'] and he closed the flesh after them [taḥtennah]." The "one" would suggest a part of the side, and the "after them" (with a feminine plural suffix) would suggest that the one ...


2

Yes, it is possible to remove the physical pain of child birth and see the message of the LORD God for its deeper and more relevant aspects. Genesis 3:16 contains two different words describing two different types of sorrow or pain: To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ pangs (6093) in childbearing; in בְּעֶ֖צֶב pain (6089) ...


2

The Idea in Brief The BHS emendation is not justified. In this regard, the Masoretic Text contains helpful hints in understanding ambiguous words. That is, the Masoretic Text correlates the verb in Gen 8:10 and Gen 8:12, but with a different verb. Based on these Masoretic tips (discussed in the next section), the best reading of this verse would appear as ...


2

Backdrop to explain my answer The opening chapters of Genesis provides an interesting framework for understanding the rest of the Bible. That is, the creation narrative of chapters 1-2 includes, within its own framework, the introduction of creation, and a "new" creation. That sounds confusing so let me explain. In Genesis 1 we're given an account of the ...


1

In The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, Leon R. Kass looks at whether there really are two different accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. On pages 55-57, Kass discusses the main differences between chapter 1 and chapter 2, and concludes the second story is not just a magnified version of the human portions of the first. He says it is utterly distinct ...


1

I believe Genesis 1:1 says... בראשית (In first [there is no definite article, just like John 1:1]) ברא (prepares) אלהים (the gods) את (a-z) השמים (the heavens/space) ואת (and a-z) הארץ׃ (the land/matter) This seems to say that there was something called "the first" which prepared all things. The only thing I've been able to come up with is that ...


1

If this question is answered with the knowledge of God found in Scripture the answer is no, the woman was not an afterthought. An all-knowing God does not have an afterthought during His work of creation (or any other time). Genesis 1 makes clear creating man and woman was a planned action. Nevertheless, it is commonly accepted among contemporary scholars ...


1

It is clear that the creation of Eve was an afterthought. It is only after God has taken Adam and put him in the Garden, and after he has given Adam instructions to look after the Garden, told him what he can eat but not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that God decides to create company for Adam: Genesis 2:15-18: And the LORD God ...


1

It seems the story of temptation can only be explained in one of three ways: a talking snake, Satan disguised as a snake, or the whole story was a creation of man. Snakes are physically and intellectually incapable of speech, yet the biblical serpent was certainly not Satan. For Satan to have used the serpent means that Satan was able to deceive God, because ...


1

"El" is essentially the word/name "god." "Elohim" was the plural ("gods" or "the gods"). "Yahweh" is the name of a particular god. This makes more sense when you know that the religion of the Old Testament evolved from polytheistic religion (somewhat like the Greek and Roman gods, for example), with El as the lead god (like Zeus/Jupiter) and Yahweh as the ...


1

These appear to be Jewish assumptions, rather than historical details about Egyptian culture. The Targum Onkelos says in explanation of Genesis 43:32: Ch 41-44: And Joseph made haste, for his compassions were moved upon his brother, and he sought to weep, and he went into the chamber [JERUSALEM. Into the chamber] the house of sleep, and wept there. And ...


1

I understand that this question is looking for an extremely complicated answer, but those have already been given, so I will just come and state an extremely obvious fact.. Dust cannot be molded, it is too dry and wont stay together, therefore it would be safe to assume that the writer (who was a genius at his time as almost all literate people of the time ...


1

This site explains it with more biblical context for support. Namely: Abram/Abraham was currently allies with an Amorite Gen 14:14. "not yet full" Amorites increased in Idolatry = "iniquity" Amorites increased in Immorality = "iniquity" "Complete" when Israel displaces Canaan/Amorite under Joshua. The entire context of Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 ...



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