Well, I'm not Jewish but I speak Hebrew enough to read and understand the meaning of what I read. In the original Hebrew Bible, it says "be reshiyt" the prefix "be" or "ba" means "in the".. ==) ani ba bayt = I'm in the house.
The ancient Hebrews didn't believe in a definite beginning. That was the Greek rendition of what they said. Genesis (a Latin name) is full of Greek ideals.
As a matter of fact, the English OT was translated from the Greek OT &/or the Latin OT. It contains very little Hebrew OT influence.
By beginning he meant in the beginning time line from were the planet was made. I'm decoding the bible and just found out some new things that I got as my theory. I might be right and it all makes more sense then anything or any other theory.
@Myzteryxxx well It look like we have some things in common because I do respect religions to alldo they are false but ideal with a way of life not religion any way sense so much time has past already lets start right now
nobody knows when the actual beginning was but you are correct about the fact that the earth became void, it became void after god destroyed everything in the first earth age, and started over again. the first earth age is when people still lived with God and the whole satan controversy happened.
The original Hebrew text, "BeReshiyt," has taken on several forms. The most basic is "In (a particular) beginning" which does not imply, "THE (definite) beginning (of everything)." But more like "the beginning of what I'm about to tell you" ... which is in fact ... a Story. So, I guess the logic of "Once upon a time" might apply as well.
Hi ChurchBandit. The Story of Genesis is correct but Mistaught. The Bible does tell you Earth pre-existed. In Genesis it was already present but it was in Darkness, Void and in a watery state but why? The answer is in Jeremiah 4 verses 23 to 28 which foretells how Earth was destroyed and the skies above blackened. It also indicates there was life too as it mentions birds yet men are gone! Now we know this is not the same destruction as Revelation because men are present to the end of time.
But the more I study the original text, the more "BeReshiyt" sounds like ... IN SUMMARY ... followed by Bullet Points (i.e. none detailed accounts) categorized by Chapters (i.e. days). In essence, Genesis 1 to me looks more & more like a ... TABLE OF CONTENTS.
As we all know the human kinds first member... So what is going on in the Genesis 1: 27 ? Who were created on the fifth day and what has become of those?...
Moreover Genesis 2:12 : "And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone." This verse is referes to the place where Adam was placed by creator verse 2:8. The Sumerian genesis sugest that there were several gods who created "Adamu" ( plural) to work in the gold mines at the same location as stated in old testament...
@pester1 He created aquatic life and birds on the fifth day. On the sixth day he made man, placed man in the garden of Eden, gave man his instructions, and then made woman from his rib (fun fact: your lower ribs grow back if the periosteum is intact). Genesis chapter 2 is where we find the details of the creation of man and woman, everything described there happened on the sixth day. Also, Adam was not placed in Havilah, but in Eden (see Gen 2 v 8-10). Those are two different places.
I'm rather puzzeled by another strange thing: in Genesis 1: 27 : "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." as it stated previously at 1:23 on the fifth day of creation. However on the seventh day Genesis 2:7 it says : "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Several translators are stated that this verse mentions the creation of Adam
My Source is Reading & Interpreting the HEBREW TEXT. But the average "Junior Scholar" on daTube uses any variety of Concordance, Lexicon or Dictionary. In that vain, my choice is the STRONG'S CONCORDANCE. Altho on occasion, I've found a MISTAKE or two in it.
No. I do not adhere to the -7-day/24-hr interval- Creation Theory. The -original Hebrew Text- DOES NOT endorse it, either. The idea here is not to determine what WE want these scriptures to say. But rather, what those Hebrews, 1000s of years ago, intended to convey!
It is ONE THING to look up -individual words- in a Dictionary, Lexicon, Concordance. But it is something COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT to actually UNDERSTAND how those words were applied in the text you extracted them from.
Did u notice when you looked up the text, -In the beginning- ... u got ONE WORD, -re'shiyth (ray-SHEETH)-? This word, standalone, means: BEGINNING. But WHAT beginning? Where did the Translators get -IN THE-? Did they ... MAKE IT UP?
They got it from the -original Hebrew text- of Genesis 1:1 which says, -ba Reshiyth-, meaning: IN BEGINNING. Still, the text does not use a DEFINITE ARTICAL (i.e. THE). The Translaters DID make that part up!
But -ba Reshiyth- DOES NOT mean, -In (THE [one & only]) beginning (of all creation)-. Some (unbiased) Scholars go as far as to equate it (i.e. In the beginning) with -ONCE UPON A TIME- ... Ergo, THE BEGINNING of a Story! And isnt that what the Text tells us? ... In the beginning blah, blah, blah ...-
If those ancient Hebrews wanted to convey, -IN THE (ONE & ONLY) BEGINNING (OF ALL CREATION)-, they would have used the MORE SPECIFIC & UNDEBATABLE -tĕchillah (teh-chill-AH) H8462-. Since they DID NOT use it ... the English Translation (which suggests they did) ... is INACCURATE!
I'm going to have to disagree with your word became can replace the word was. Reason being something may have been a was and not a became. For i.e. The ball was white. This ball was always white. It did not become white. The earth may have just been void and not became void. Maybe you could offer more evidence of your belief? God bless
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
U r thinking n/t "traditional Christian sense" of scripture. NOT the MOST ACCURATE sense!
Let me b clear: MY ONLY BELIEF is that the English Version of (especially) Genesis is ... INACCURATE! Maybe its "accurate" in the sense that it says what the Translators wanted it to say. But it DOES NOT say what the ORIGINAL HEBREW VERSION says!
According 2/t English Version, "In the Beginning (verses 1&2)" describes the INSTANTANEOUS & DETAILED CREATION of Earth & Heaven.
According 2/t ORIGINAL TEXT, "In the Beginning" identifies "the changes @ a certain point" along an already existing timeline. Much like, the beginning of a story - Once upon a time. And "VOID" does not mean: NOTHING AT ALL EXISTED! It means: What ever existed was "VOID (of LIFE)." ♣
ii guess, once upon a tiime, ii beliieved iin Santa Claus, too. they sayy all good thiings come to an end! altho, iin thiis case ii'm not sure about the "good" part.
Christian-Hebrew Bible Concordances reference: re'shiyth - Beginning. But translate it - "In the beginning."
The actual Hebrew text says: B'reshiyth - In beginning.
The Definite Article "THE" is used only in the English Translation. Properly translated, Gen.1:1 should read: In (a particular) beginning; In (one of many) beginnings; In (this) beginning. But most definitely NOT - In (THE VERY) beginning.
In Gen.1:2b: (Eng) and darkness was upon the face of the deep -- (Hbr) choshek paniym tehowm -- DARKNESS FACE TIAMET. Or perhaps, "darkness was upon the face of Tiamet" -- the ancient Sumerian name for the watery planet before its cosmic destruction (forming the Asteroid Belt & a smaller watery planet in a new orbit).
The ancient planet of water, "Tiamet," once orbiting btwn Mars & Jupiter, was struck by a passing Comet. Part of the planet broke into pieces, forming the Asteroid Belt still btwn Mars & Jupiter.
But the bulk of the watery planet settled in a new orbit between Mars & Venus. I think Genesis 1:2 begins just about right here. The gods came to explore the new version of a very old planet.
Oh yeah, Psalms 89:10 references "Tiamet" under the Hebrew name, Rehab.
I dabbled once in the Sumerian Tablets - the oldest scriptures around. They suggest the Earth has a history of "millions of years" PRIOR to Genesis 1:1. Ergo, the Hebrew text suggests, "The Beginning of a Certain Stage of Development." NOT - the "Beginning of all Creation."
We have a tendancy to think that OUR FINAL (REVISED) VERSION is MORE ACCURATE than any of the ORIGINALS written 1000s of years prior.
What the hell are you talking about? You sound like one of those "Introverts" who think they know everything. But to everyone else, you're "babbling nonsense."
And both religion and science are based on the same knowledge...you don't even need to be a Rocket Scientist ( LOL, Sumerians ?) to see that.....they only took seperate ways...to finally come to the conclusion that both were an illusion from the "thinking-part" of the brain....and we'll soon all find out.
Please first re-search how mankind's brain works...otherwise you don't even know what you're talking about....
THIS CONFIRMS WHAT ETERNAL RELIGION AKA HINDUISM SAYS, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY NON THEORY BUT FACTUAL SCIENCE AKA HALF LIFE DATING AND OSCILLATING UNIVERSE! P.S. PEEP MY VIDEOS and the part about Genisis vs. evolution a false dilemma maybe needs editing now lol.
I research (ancient) Hebrew words (i.e. definitions, usage, origins). I do not speak (modern) Hebrew language. I also research the origins of the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures, themselves (i.e. prior versions). ♣
I would be more or less inclined to believe this stuff if it were "based on documented facts." Oh ... guess what! This stuff "is" based on documented facts.
Genesis, English Version, makes it sound as tho the "entire universe" was created in 6 (24-hr) days. But THAT'S why they call it a VERSION. Ppl who don't study any further than the FACE-VALUE of the English texts ... REMAIN IGNORANT!
Hi Joel. Nothing is obvious. You just want 2 appear "smarter" than t/average bear. It happens!
I am not investigating what s/n THE TORAH (i.e. B'reshit [since u want 2 nit-pick, get your spelling right!]). I could have gone n2 a lengthy explanation about "B'reshit" VS "Re'shiyth." But what would b/t point f/that? And ... WHAT IS YOUR POINT? There is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between them. Neither one suggests "the beginning of all creation b4 anything was ever made." ♣
First off, there is a prefix to Rayseet: the letter Bait, 'B'. The first word of the Bible is 'Braysheet'. The Bait prefix means 'In' or 'with' or 'when' etc... Raysheet means 'Head', 'top', 'start' or, indeed, 'beginning'.
Also, the first verse of Genesis is thus:
'Braysheet bara Ehlohim et Ha'shamim vet Haharets' you have obviously just used a dictionary and looked up the words individually without a grounding in Hebrew or its grammar.
The text u refer 2 (Mt 24:5, Mk 13:6, Lk 21:8) is of Greek origin & is basically a word 4 word translation. Have u ever wondered why ppl who spoke Aramaic wrote in Greek? These scripts were written by UNKNOWN AUTHORS who spoke Greek. They wrote t/Gospels ACCORDING TO what they were allegedly told by said parties (i.e. Matthew, etc). Where these Greek authors telling the truth? Or did they MAKE THAT PART UP? A continuos debate.
The text does not refer 2/t LAST DAYS. It refers 2/t END OF THE AGE (erroneously translated END OF THE WORLD, Mt 24:3). Believe it or not ... that AGE has COME & GONE. But those who want 2 cause PANIC & FEAR make u believe this text s/a PROPHECY 4 OUR TIME. That we should look 4 Christ 2 return. MANY CHRISTIANS (who don't study) r being deceived. ♣
There may not be a "correct" version but there is an "original" version. But alas, the Hebrew version is not the "original" version. Empire after empire created their own version of the same ancient scriptures. Our English version is so far from the original, it ain't even funny. Which is why you can equate it to a fairytale. ♣
It took 54 guys who were trained to be Scholars from early adulthood god knows how long to produce the KJV. Don't even THINK about ONE GUY trying to do that!
this was a little hard 2 follow @ 1st but ii eventually caught on. "in the beginning" is an ancient way of saying "once upon a time" riight? so its possible the "genesis story of creation" is "fiction." INGENIOUS!
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, just being OBJECTIVE.
What makes u think it is 100% TRUTH? For t/sake f/argument, it is SOMETHING U READ n/a BOOK ... written 1000s f/yrs ago. For all u really know, t/Author back then was WRITING FICTION. How can u b 100% certain that THIS was NOT t/CASE? Inquiring minds really want 2 know! ♣
god is a contagious delusion responsible for more evil than any other human concept, misconcept or group of consentual actions however inspired, conspired or instigated... The probability of there being a 'god' as defined by religion (any god/any religion) is so slim as to be unworthy of any intellectual consideration... A belief in such is no more than a manifestation of the frailty of our existence and ignorance... A more honest answer is "As yet we do not know"...
ok now what is this the ancient Sumerian Tablets of Creation hey if you want to make a point do it from real stuff like the bible not from a different religion sheesh
Guess what genius ... the Bible IS NOT a religion! And just bcz Hollywood makes movies about it ... doesn't make it any more real than other ancient writings!
of course not the bible is not a religion but what it says is. about God coming down and trying to have a relationship with man that is 100% thuth and i would die on that statement im so sure its true
@CambricFinish But it is true, and not because of the movies, but because of its message and endurance through the centuries. I don't doubt that there was stuff drifting without form in the void of space before God began to put order to all the chaos, but there is simply no way the earth and man could have created themselves in the midst of all that. It's like leaving a paintbrush, paint, and a canvas in a room, then leaving it saying "In millions of years, that will be a masterpiece!"
According to Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon (which predates Strong's Hebrew Concordance), the Hebrew noun "re'shiyth" does imply "a former state." As a matter of fact, Gesenius equates it (In the Beginning) to saying, "Once Upon A Time...." Not specifying "the very beginning" of something. But "the beginning of a story or an era" =0= agreeing with the video. Own it!
I find it "weird" that "Atheists" seem to know the Bible a lot better than anyone. And I've heard a few of them say some of the same things found in this video series. Only, they just say it (w/sarcasm, in passing) with no explanation.
A person puts themselves in a much better position 2 make "life altering decisions" when they r educated about a thing (n this case, t/Bible). And, "You're welcome." ♣
But all in all it is more novice to accept that god spake all things into existence at the time he "refaced" the earth. this obvious because idnosaurs were here before us in a different chapter of history. the seven say story in the bible was earth rehabilitation... sun moon and the stars were present, but the atmosphere was cloded and earth was desolate.
True dat. But u also need 2 <u>apply those definitions</u> n their <b>proper context</b>. Which goes beyond just <b>looking up a surface definition</b>. ♣
I would suppose that as well. But in order to have time (on earth) t/earth has to spin on its axis while revolving around t/Sun. If we take t/scripts @ <b>face value</b>, t/<u>Sun does not yet exist in Genesis 1:1</u>.
For the longest, Bible Scholars have known Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning...) to mean: "'beginning' at a certain point along a time-line". But as with selling any "product" one has to "market it" using the "catchiest phrases."
In this case, "In the beginning of .. everything."
They've KNOWN nothing of the sort. Many have posited this - but indeed, until Darwin and Lyell, there was simply no reason to doubt the relative young age of the earth.
Indeed, I find no reason yet to doubt it. Not from science, nor the linguistics of the ancient Hebrew.
And no liberal so-called "scholar" of Hebrew is likely to shake that understanding, unless he brings a whole lot more light than I have seen so far in this little ramble.
Like I say on my channel, I only tend to concern myself with matters of life and death, not bothering with pop culture, fashion, momentary fads, and the like.
When somebody is in life-threatening error, I tend to get energetic, sort of like you would expect from someone who sees an urgent and life-threatening need.
Hi Verich. Thanks for your input. Not that I disagree but I would like 2 know y u r so sure that "somebody had to create this universe?" Also, I would like 2 know y u think a "modern translation" can b "more accurate" than t/"original work (provided they say 2 entirely different things)?"
t/Bible may b t/most published & translated book on t/planet but does that n any way make it t/"most accurate?"
The creation screams "created." You never would suspect that stonehenge or rushmore came to be the way they are by erosion - how can you think for a moment that DNA assembled itself, matter came from nothing, or that life came form nonliving material? None of that has ever been seen.
lost chapters of the bible well destroyed chapters of the bible that where said to be untrue by the catholic church where taken out the church chose what to use and what not to in the bible so even if all the bibles true as christians believe what about the parts not included and from what i have read they go deeper into the nephilim story cool vid
Somebody had to create this universe, and hold it together. The bible has been historically true. And when you compare modern translations of the bible to the earliest know copies, you find the bible to be accurate, even when copied by hand!
The bible is the most published book in human history and the only book translated into 3,000 different languages!
yes maybe the bible is true but lost chapters of it may also be true yopu cant just choose what you want from the bible you rather believe or you dont
But they are shallow parsing of words, and ignore so much!
Elohim uses a common form of Hebrew expression whereby the personal pronoun takes on a plural number much as has been heard in the "royal we" of English, or the formal "vous" of French.
It may mean plural, it may not.
Christ taught a trinity. He mentioned that He and His father were one, and promised the "Comforter" (Holy Spirit) would come.
I have NO idea. As far as I can tell, WE ARE NEVER TOLD. And it was NEVER t/POINT f/t text 2 tell us. We merely interpret "Gen1:1" 2 mean, "In t/beginning f/EVERYTHING N EXISTENCE." But we READ THAT n2 t/words. "In t/beginning" s/stated n/a more ABSTRACT way. In much t/same way as 1 would say, "In a minute..." Do u actually mean "60-seconds?" But t/original text s/MORE specific.
I spent some time on t/SKEPTICS ANNOTATED BIBLE DISCUSSION BOARD - a member quoted t/following:
[Mark 10:6]
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[Matthew 19:4]
... Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female ...
See how "in the beginning" s used n a more ABSTRACT way. NOT directly saying "at t/very 1st instant anything was ever created." Believe it or not, Genesis 1:1 s used n this same manner.
Hi DeeGlobal. Like u already said, t/ROMAN CHURCH MANIPULATED t/SCRIPTURES 2 meet THEIR OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION centuries ago. Is what we read 2day anywhere near WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN (when they were moved by t/HolyGhost)?
Even t/Apostle Paul PATTERNED CHRISTIANITY off of HIS OWN BELIEFS. Do u know t/GOSPELS did not exist when he wrote his epistles? Which is why he NEVER QUOTES JESUS or any of the other Eleven. And his letters have been REVISED countless times over the centuries.
The English version of the Torah is no different than the English version of the Bible. So, if the HEBREW VERSION probably says (and means) SOMETHING DIFFERENT in both.
Torah:"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" This earth is not our earth! This earth are to(near)Heaven!!! Adam is created from this earth!!! Not from our present world!
Heaven and earth are created simultaneously,before creation of our universe and earth.
These are very informative vids. You really did your homework. I'm curious to know, "What religion are you (if any)?" And, "What do you think about 'Atheism' [not that I'm an Atheist]?"
I have a strong religious background but I don't currently adhere 2 any particular one. Call me a "Student of Biblical Research (SoBR)." Its been a "hobby" of mine for years! I found t/Bible "fascinating" once I began researching it. Especially, "Genesis." Do u c, after two 5-min vids, we're still not off the 1st verse!? But I don't think researching the Bible makes a body "religious."
"Atheism?" I have nothing but the "utmost respect" 4 "Atheists." As u can c, I don't really believe n t/traditional Christian idea of "God." Does THAT make ME an "Atheist?" Perhaps! Or, not! I'm really not that sure. But I AM comfortable enough to NOT FREAK OUT about it.
In a sense, "Atheists" r like t/LONE GUNMAN (or, lone voice of sanity)"=0=they never really fell 4 any of this [not trying 2/b disrespectful] "religious mumbo-jumbo."
let me add though...I'm interested to see where you go with it in part 3. (and to be fair, I guess it's not "irrelevant" in some discussions...just as a grand picture)
Well, I'm not Jewish but I speak Hebrew enough to read and understand the meaning of what I read. In the original Hebrew Bible, it says "be reshiyt" the prefix "be" or "ba" means "in the".. ==) ani ba bayt = I'm in the house.
xvzw 1 year ago
The ancient Hebrews didn't believe in a definite beginning. That was the Greek rendition of what they said. Genesis (a Latin name) is full of Greek ideals.
As a matter of fact, the English OT was translated from the Greek OT &/or the Latin OT. It contains very little Hebrew OT influence.
HAPeMILL 2 years ago
By beginning he meant in the beginning time line from were the planet was made. I'm decoding the bible and just found out some new things that I got as my theory. I might be right and it all makes more sense then anything or any other theory.
Myzteryxxx 1 year ago
@Myzteryxxx would you like to share what you have found ?I guess that will be MOST interesting
yisraeldoctor 1 year ago
@yisraeldoctor
of course! When do we start! I respect religions but I don't believe in them. Just to be clear!
Myzteryxxx 1 year ago
@Myzteryxxx well It look like we have some things in common because I do respect religions to alldo they are false but ideal with a way of life not religion any way sense so much time has past already lets start right now
yisraeldoctor 1 year ago
nobody knows when the actual beginning was but you are correct about the fact that the earth became void, it became void after god destroyed everything in the first earth age, and started over again. the first earth age is when people still lived with God and the whole satan controversy happened.
jimzy61 2 years ago
BaadSiide
The original Hebrew text, "BeReshiyt," has taken on several forms. The most basic is "In (a particular) beginning" which does not imply, "THE (definite) beginning (of everything)." But more like "the beginning of what I'm about to tell you" ... which is in fact ... a Story. So, I guess the logic of "Once upon a time" might apply as well.
ChurchBandit 2 years ago
Hi ChurchBandit. The Story of Genesis is correct but Mistaught. The Bible does tell you Earth pre-existed. In Genesis it was already present but it was in Darkness, Void and in a watery state but why? The answer is in Jeremiah 4 verses 23 to 28 which foretells how Earth was destroyed and the skies above blackened. It also indicates there was life too as it mentions birds yet men are gone! Now we know this is not the same destruction as Revelation because men are present to the end of time.
jolonui 2 years ago
But the more I study the original text, the more "BeReshiyt" sounds like ... IN SUMMARY ... followed by Bullet Points (i.e. none detailed accounts) categorized by Chapters (i.e. days). In essence, Genesis 1 to me looks more & more like a ... TABLE OF CONTENTS.
ChurchBandit 2 years ago
Ingenious analysis!
msmetrokite 2 years ago
I heard some where that "In the beginning" the ancient Hebrew way of saying, "Once upon a time."
Any truth to that?
BaadSiide 2 years ago
There's several different conclusions about that text, "In the beginning." How does anyone know which is most accurate?
tubulaar 2 years ago
I was about to critique your work but you took it in a pretty interesting direction.
windmeal 2 years ago
Anyone has any ideas? perhaps another movie to make upon this?
You welcome...
pester1 2 years ago
As we all know the human kinds first member... So what is going on in the Genesis 1: 27 ? Who were created on the fifth day and what has become of those?...
Moreover Genesis 2:12 : "And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone." This verse is referes to the place where Adam was placed by creator verse 2:8. The Sumerian genesis sugest that there were several gods who created "Adamu" ( plural) to work in the gold mines at the same location as stated in old testament...
pester1 2 years ago
pester1
You're mixing a whole lot of Apples & Oranges trying to make sense out of confusion.
ChurchBandit 2 years ago
MOI !!!???
No, no, no, no no!
I do not mix anyting at all, I´m just reading the most popular book of the last two millenia... WITH ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
pester1 2 years ago
Actually, u seem 2 UNDERSTAND VERY LITTLE about the most popular book of the last two millenia.
ChurchBandit 2 years ago
Well! Will YOU be so kind to explain everything about it ? You SEEM to understand more than me... ;D
OriMedian 2 years ago
The Hobbit; The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Are in no way a part of it.... XD XD XD
OriMedian 2 years ago
@ChurchBandit Well ! Please educate me then. Perhaps you can shed some light on the mistery after 25 thousand years...
pester1 1 year ago
@pester1 He created aquatic life and birds on the fifth day. On the sixth day he made man, placed man in the garden of Eden, gave man his instructions, and then made woman from his rib (fun fact: your lower ribs grow back if the periosteum is intact). Genesis chapter 2 is where we find the details of the creation of man and woman, everything described there happened on the sixth day. Also, Adam was not placed in Havilah, but in Eden (see Gen 2 v 8-10). Those are two different places.
mahairbear 1 year ago
I'm rather puzzeled by another strange thing: in Genesis 1: 27 : "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." as it stated previously at 1:23 on the fifth day of creation. However on the seventh day Genesis 2:7 it says : "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Several translators are stated that this verse mentions the creation of Adam
pester1 2 years ago
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KRU78 3 years ago
Interesting...
Can I have a source pweeese? :)
AtheismWeekly 3 years ago
Hi Atheism
My Source is Reading & Interpreting the HEBREW TEXT. But the average "Junior Scholar" on daTube uses any variety of Concordance, Lexicon or Dictionary. In that vain, my choice is the STRONG'S CONCORDANCE. Altho on occasion, I've found a MISTAKE or two in it.
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
Hi pgfracing
No. I do not adhere to the -7-day/24-hr interval- Creation Theory. The -original Hebrew Text- DOES NOT endorse it, either. The idea here is not to determine what WE want these scriptures to say. But rather, what those Hebrews, 1000s of years ago, intended to convey!
It is ONE THING to look up -individual words- in a Dictionary, Lexicon, Concordance. But it is something COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT to actually UNDERSTAND how those words were applied in the text you extracted them from.
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did u notice when you looked up the text, -In the beginning- ... u got ONE WORD, -re'shiyth (ray-SHEETH)-? This word, standalone, means: BEGINNING. But WHAT beginning? Where did the Translators get -IN THE-? Did they ... MAKE IT UP?
They got it from the -original Hebrew text- of Genesis 1:1 which says, -ba Reshiyth-, meaning: IN BEGINNING. Still, the text does not use a DEFINITE ARTICAL (i.e. THE). The Translaters DID make that part up!
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
-ba Reshiyth- more accurately means:
In (A) beginning;
In (ONE OF MANY) beginnings;
In (THIS PARTICULAR) beginning;
or even .. In (THAT) beginning.
But -ba Reshiyth- DOES NOT mean, -In (THE [one & only]) beginning (of all creation)-. Some (unbiased) Scholars go as far as to equate it (i.e. In the beginning) with -ONCE UPON A TIME- ... Ergo, THE BEGINNING of a Story! And isnt that what the Text tells us? ... In the beginning blah, blah, blah ...-
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
If those ancient Hebrews wanted to convey, -IN THE (ONE & ONLY) BEGINNING (OF ALL CREATION)-, they would have used the MORE SPECIFIC & UNDEBATABLE -tĕchillah (teh-chill-AH) H8462-. Since they DID NOT use it ... the English Translation (which suggests they did) ... is INACCURATE!
I can go on ... if youd like!♣
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
I'm going to have to disagree with your word became can replace the word was. Reason being something may have been a was and not a became. For i.e. The ball was white. This ball was always white. It did not become white. The earth may have just been void and not became void. Maybe you could offer more evidence of your belief? God bless
pgfracing 3 years ago
H7225
ראשׁית
rê'shîyth
ray-sheeth'
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
pgfracing 3 years ago
Could you please explain your belief on how you have a former state of something that is created from a void? God bless
pgfracing 3 years ago
Hi pgfracing
U r thinking n/t "traditional Christian sense" of scripture. NOT the MOST ACCURATE sense!
Let me b clear: MY ONLY BELIEF is that the English Version of (especially) Genesis is ... INACCURATE! Maybe its "accurate" in the sense that it says what the Translators wanted it to say. But it DOES NOT say what the ORIGINAL HEBREW VERSION says!
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
According 2/t English Version, "In the Beginning (verses 1&2)" describes the INSTANTANEOUS & DETAILED CREATION of Earth & Heaven.
According 2/t ORIGINAL TEXT, "In the Beginning" identifies "the changes @ a certain point" along an already existing timeline. Much like, the beginning of a story - Once upon a time. And "VOID" does not mean: NOTHING AT ALL EXISTED! It means: What ever existed was "VOID (of LIFE)." ♣
ChurchBandit 3 years ago
Let me ask you this. Do you believe in the 7 days of creation? Each day being a 24 hour period? Thank you for your time. God bless
pgfracing 3 years ago
ii guess, once upon a tiime, ii beliieved iin Santa Claus, too. they sayy all good thiings come to an end! altho, iin thiis case ii'm not sure about the "good" part.
underwuld 3 years ago
FASCINATING!
HelpMeObiiWAN 3 years ago
Christian-Hebrew Bible Concordances reference: re'shiyth - Beginning. But translate it - "In the beginning."
The actual Hebrew text says: B'reshiyth - In beginning.
The Definite Article "THE" is used only in the English Translation. Properly translated, Gen.1:1 should read: In (a particular) beginning; In (one of many) beginnings; In (this) beginning. But most definitely NOT - In (THE VERY) beginning.
DarkConfMan 3 years ago
In Gen.1:2b: (Eng) and darkness was upon the face of the deep -- (Hbr) choshek paniym tehowm -- DARKNESS FACE TIAMET. Or perhaps, "darkness was upon the face of Tiamet" -- the ancient Sumerian name for the watery planet before its cosmic destruction (forming the Asteroid Belt & a smaller watery planet in a new orbit).
DarkConfMan 3 years ago
The Sumerian Tablets tell:
The ancient planet of water, "Tiamet," once orbiting btwn Mars & Jupiter, was struck by a passing Comet. Part of the planet broke into pieces, forming the Asteroid Belt still btwn Mars & Jupiter.
But the bulk of the watery planet settled in a new orbit between Mars & Venus. I think Genesis 1:2 begins just about right here. The gods came to explore the new version of a very old planet.
Oh yeah, Psalms 89:10 references "Tiamet" under the Hebrew name, Rehab.
tomahawkone 3 years ago
I dabbled once in the Sumerian Tablets - the oldest scriptures around. They suggest the Earth has a history of "millions of years" PRIOR to Genesis 1:1. Ergo, the Hebrew text suggests, "The Beginning of a Certain Stage of Development." NOT - the "Beginning of all Creation."
We have a tendancy to think that OUR FINAL (REVISED) VERSION is MORE ACCURATE than any of the ORIGINALS written 1000s of years prior.
starmaYker 3 years ago
Actually i'm an extrovert...and i know nothing...just try to read and understand, just as i do...
Cheers
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
Mud
What the hell are you talking about? You sound like one of those "Introverts" who think they know everything. But to everyone else, you're "babbling nonsense."
MidnitXpres 3 years ago
And both religion and science are based on the same knowledge...you don't even need to be a Rocket Scientist ( LOL, Sumerians ?) to see that.....they only took seperate ways...to finally come to the conclusion that both were an illusion from the "thinking-part" of the brain....and we'll soon all find out.
Please first re-search how mankind's brain works...otherwise you don't even know what you're talking about....
Greetings
wetenschap-eindtijd(dot)com
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
here's a more accurate description of the beginning
wetenschap-eindtijd(dot)com
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
Mud
Not even close!
BaadSiide 3 years ago
LOL, you read the whole website in a few minutes and claim that it's not even close...
the beginning is the same as the end...you'll notice...soon...
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see that much of the material there is based on "Religious Superstitious."
BaadSiide 3 years ago
by the way...the maker of the website is an atheist...religious superstitious my ass...
Mudbikerz 3 years ago
I agree - the earth has a history that precedes the text of Genesis. For some reason, Religion endorses the 7-day creation nonsense. Why?
bubbledumm 3 years ago
where can i find the Sumerian creation tablets?anyone?thanks in advance ;D
AxelDerRaven 3 years ago
Try a Google search:
Sumerian Seven Creation Tablets; Epic of Creation; Sumerian Creation Epic; Enuma Elish; Sumerian Tablets of Creation, etc. etc. etc.
starmaYker 3 years ago
THIS CONFIRMS WHAT ETERNAL RELIGION AKA HINDUISM SAYS, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY NON THEORY BUT FACTUAL SCIENCE AKA HALF LIFE DATING AND OSCILLATING UNIVERSE! P.S. PEEP MY VIDEOS and the part about Genisis vs. evolution a false dilemma maybe needs editing now lol.
Playitalready 3 years ago
bandit: i really like your research and approach to this book. have you learned hebrew.
what would be really cool is if you or a friend read the words. taught the lessons.
keep on it.
peace
johnnierah 4 years ago
Hi johnnie
I research (ancient) Hebrew words (i.e. definitions, usage, origins). I do not speak (modern) Hebrew language. I also research the origins of the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures, themselves (i.e. prior versions). ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
I would be more or less inclined to believe this stuff if it were "based on documented facts." Oh ... guess what! This stuff "is" based on documented facts.
I would "question anything" on FOX NEWS!
OutrLiimitz 4 years ago
Was not the former state the 'myths of' atlantic (etc)?
coach3sheff 4 years ago
There is a whole lot of them but there is only 1 (one) God Most High. Cant wait to view the rest of these vids. ty for posting.
coach3sheff 4 years ago
Genesis, English Version, makes it sound as tho the "entire universe" was created in 6 (24-hr) days. But THAT'S why they call it a VERSION. Ppl who don't study any further than the FACE-VALUE of the English texts ... REMAIN IGNORANT!
SymonSehz 4 years ago
Very insightful, with good humor. hehe, thanks.
yadsik 4 years ago
Hi Joel. Nothing is obvious. You just want 2 appear "smarter" than t/average bear. It happens!
I am not investigating what s/n THE TORAH (i.e. B'reshit [since u want 2 nit-pick, get your spelling right!]). I could have gone n2 a lengthy explanation about "B'reshit" VS "Re'shiyth." But what would b/t point f/that? And ... WHAT IS YOUR POINT? There is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between them. Neither one suggests "the beginning of all creation b4 anything was ever made." ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
so...um...DO you believe in God? or not?
AnaLetixoxo 4 years ago
Problems with your translation:
First off, there is a prefix to Rayseet: the letter Bait, 'B'. The first word of the Bible is 'Braysheet'. The Bait prefix means 'In' or 'with' or 'when' etc... Raysheet means 'Head', 'top', 'start' or, indeed, 'beginning'.
Also, the first verse of Genesis is thus:
'Braysheet bara Ehlohim et Ha'shamim vet Haharets' you have obviously just used a dictionary and looked up the words individually without a grounding in Hebrew or its grammar.
JoelCornah 4 years ago
Hi Vegit
The text u refer 2 (Mt 24:5, Mk 13:6, Lk 21:8) is of Greek origin & is basically a word 4 word translation. Have u ever wondered why ppl who spoke Aramaic wrote in Greek? These scripts were written by UNKNOWN AUTHORS who spoke Greek. They wrote t/Gospels ACCORDING TO what they were allegedly told by said parties (i.e. Matthew, etc). Where these Greek authors telling the truth? Or did they MAKE THAT PART UP? A continuos debate.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The text does not refer 2/t LAST DAYS. It refers 2/t END OF THE AGE (erroneously translated END OF THE WORLD, Mt 24:3). Believe it or not ... that AGE has COME & GONE. But those who want 2 cause PANIC & FEAR make u believe this text s/a PROPHECY 4 OUR TIME. That we should look 4 Christ 2 return. MANY CHRISTIANS (who don't study) r being deceived. ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Hi tellnet
There may not be a "correct" version but there is an "original" version. But alas, the Hebrew version is not the "original" version. Empire after empire created their own version of the same ancient scriptures. Our English version is so far from the original, it ain't even funny. Which is why you can equate it to a fairytale. ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
"Racism" is a "Mental Illness!" (Google it)
Now, let's get back on topic!
Its fascinating to learn that the 3 words "In the beginning" can have "more than one" interpretation. Great job!
MidnitXpres 4 years ago
Racists are closeminded, brainless nfools. Ignore'em! That aside, this video is EXCELLENT!
MestaMynd 4 years ago
A "racist" calling someone else a "nut case?"
KanadaDry 4 years ago
nut case...always have conspiracies
racistfree 4 years ago
It took 54 guys who were trained to be Scholars from early adulthood god knows how long to produce the KJV. Don't even THINK about ONE GUY trying to do that!
UncleFesterFrump 4 years ago
this also supports the "whiite superior god theorii" INVENTED by the "whiite church."
PrettiiWhiteFemale 4 years ago
this was a little hard 2 follow @ 1st but ii eventually caught on. "in the beginning" is an ancient way of saying "once upon a time" riight? so its possible the "genesis story of creation" is "fiction." INGENIOUS!
PrettiiWhiteFemale 4 years ago
Hi WTFD...
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, just being OBJECTIVE.
What makes u think it is 100% TRUTH? For t/sake f/argument, it is SOMETHING U READ n/a BOOK ... written 1000s f/yrs ago. For all u really know, t/Author back then was WRITING FICTION. How can u b 100% certain that THIS was NOT t/CASE? Inquiring minds really want 2 know! ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
why dont you right a the correct version of the bible????
Vegitasmind 4 years ago
A correct version of THE BIBIEL would take ... FOREVER!!! That's why this series only covers the 1st several chapters of Genesis.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Vegitasmind:
There is no 'correct' version of a fairytale !!
tellnet 4 years ago
whats so what's even the purpose of the bible?And what the real story about life???
Vegitasmind 4 years ago
The bible is an instruction book written by men to control men (& women)....
... Absolutely nothing else..
Santa Claus for adults...
tellnet 4 years ago
god is a contagious delusion responsible for more evil than any other human concept, misconcept or group of consentual actions however inspired, conspired or instigated... The probability of there being a 'god' as defined by religion (any god/any religion) is so slim as to be unworthy of any intellectual consideration... A belief in such is no more than a manifestation of the frailty of our existence and ignorance... A more honest answer is "As yet we do not know"...
tellnet 4 years ago
sooo???Believe in nothing???i guess its all evolution
Vegitasmind 4 years ago
Can you do a video translating the part in the bible when it says "in the last days many will come and try to decieve you"
Vegitasmind 4 years ago
The deception is of the mass's if this stuff was on fox news would you be more or less inclined to believe it?
coach3sheff 4 years ago
ok now what is this the ancient Sumerian Tablets of Creation hey if you want to make a point do it from real stuff like the bible not from a different religion sheesh
WTFD3SECRATION 4 years ago
Guess what genius ... the Bible IS NOT a religion! And just bcz Hollywood makes movies about it ... doesn't make it any more real than other ancient writings!
CambricFinish 4 years ago 3
of course not the bible is not a religion but what it says is. about God coming down and trying to have a relationship with man that is 100% thuth and i would die on that statement im so sure its true
WTFD3SECRATION 4 years ago
@CambricFinish But it is true, and not because of the movies, but because of its message and endurance through the centuries. I don't doubt that there was stuff drifting without form in the void of space before God began to put order to all the chaos, but there is simply no way the earth and man could have created themselves in the midst of all that. It's like leaving a paintbrush, paint, and a canvas in a room, then leaving it saying "In millions of years, that will be a masterpiece!"
mahairbear 1 year ago
According to Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon (which predates Strong's Hebrew Concordance), the Hebrew noun "re'shiyth" does imply "a former state." As a matter of fact, Gesenius equates it (In the Beginning) to saying, "Once Upon A Time...." Not specifying "the very beginning" of something. But "the beginning of a story or an era" =0= agreeing with the video. Own it!
BaadSiide 4 years ago 8
I find it "weird" that "Atheists" seem to know the Bible a lot better than anyone. And I've heard a few of them say some of the same things found in this video series. Only, they just say it (w/sarcasm, in passing) with no explanation.
Thanks for explaining everything!
VideoJosephine 4 years ago
A person puts themselves in a much better position 2 make "life altering decisions" when they r educated about a thing (n this case, t/Bible). And, "You're welcome." ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
But all in all it is more novice to accept that god spake all things into existence at the time he "refaced" the earth. this obvious because idnosaurs were here before us in a different chapter of history. the seven say story in the bible was earth rehabilitation... sun moon and the stars were present, but the atmosphere was cloded and earth was desolate.
burtonchalmers 4 years ago
Hi <b>static</b>
True dat. But u also need 2 <u>apply those definitions</u> n their <b>proper context</b>. Which goes beyond just <b>looking up a surface definition</b>. ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
This is the meaning of that word:
The first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
staticnetwork 4 years ago
A NOVICE ATTEMPT!
SymonSehz 4 years ago
Who knew there was more to it? I'm impressed!
ChilliiWillii 4 years ago
This video was pretty darn good!
snowlobo 4 years ago
This video is remarkable!
I always suspected something took place before Genesis 1:1.
VideoFoe 4 years ago
What was all the fuss'in about? Can't we all just get along???
This is one of my favorites!!! But I always thought it meant something like "In the Beginning of Time."
JettLogg 4 years ago
I would suppose that as well. But in order to have time (on earth) t/earth has to spin on its axis while revolving around t/Sun. If we take t/scripts @ <b>face value</b>, t/<u>Sun does not yet exist in Genesis 1:1</u>.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Am I to understand that Genesis 1:1 uses "In the beginning" in the same "broad sense" as it is used in Mark 10:6? Very interesting, indeed!
JumpNjackZ 4 years ago
Nice analogy <b>jack</b>! I wish "I" had thought of this 2 include n t/Video. ♣
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Puff, puff, pass!? Damned! I missed the party!
JumpNjackZ 4 years ago
For the longest, Bible Scholars have known Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning...) to mean: "'beginning' at a certain point along a time-line". But as with selling any "product" one has to "market it" using the "catchiest phrases."
In this case, "In the beginning of .. everything."
UncleFesterFrump 4 years ago
They've KNOWN nothing of the sort. Many have posited this - but indeed, until Darwin and Lyell, there was simply no reason to doubt the relative young age of the earth.
Indeed, I find no reason yet to doubt it. Not from science, nor the linguistics of the ancient Hebrew.
And no liberal so-called "scholar" of Hebrew is likely to shake that understanding, unless he brings a whole lot more light than I have seen so far in this little ramble.
LTCJeffWhite 4 years ago
Gee Whiz Man ... Puff, Puff, Pass! Puff, Puff, Pass!
starmaYker 4 years ago
I don't get that, sorry. Is that directed at me?
LTCJeffWhite 4 years ago
LTCJW, "Puff, Puff, Pass" is what ppl say when they want you to "share the marijuana."
bubbledumm 4 years ago
LTC, do you always "freeeak ouut" when ever someone disagrees with what ever it is you believe (& want to force on everyone else)?
UncleFesterFrump 4 years ago
Like I say on my channel, I only tend to concern myself with matters of life and death, not bothering with pop culture, fashion, momentary fads, and the like.
When somebody is in life-threatening error, I tend to get energetic, sort of like you would expect from someone who sees an urgent and life-threatening need.
Why? What are you trying to force down my throat?
LTCJeffWhite 4 years ago
I think it's funny how we can look at a word like "beginning" and get so much out of it (and so little).
I agree, the beginning of everything - except God of course, who predates even the beginning.
He is "from everlasting until everlasting," if the Scriptures are to be taken seriously, (at which many here balk)
LTCJeffWhite 4 years ago
Hi Verich. Thanks for your input. Not that I disagree but I would like 2 know y u r so sure that "somebody had to create this universe?" Also, I would like 2 know y u think a "modern translation" can b "more accurate" than t/"original work (provided they say 2 entirely different things)?"
t/Bible may b t/most published & translated book on t/planet but does that n any way make it t/"most accurate?"
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Most published does not make it accurate.
The creation screams "created." You never would suspect that stonehenge or rushmore came to be the way they are by erosion - how can you think for a moment that DNA assembled itself, matter came from nothing, or that life came form nonliving material? None of that has ever been seen.
What makes you imagine it?
LTCJeffWhite 4 years ago
BRILLIANT WORK ... MASTERFULLY DONE!
HelpMeObiiWAN 4 years ago
lost chapters of the bible well destroyed chapters of the bible that where said to be untrue by the catholic church where taken out the church chose what to use and what not to in the bible so even if all the bibles true as christians believe what about the parts not included and from what i have read they go deeper into the nephilim story cool vid
666zakk666 4 years ago
Somebody had to create this universe, and hold it together. The bible has been historically true. And when you compare modern translations of the bible to the earliest know copies, you find the bible to be accurate, even when copied by hand!
The bible is the most published book in human history and the only book translated into 3,000 different languages!
Verlch 4 years ago
yes maybe the bible is true but lost chapters of it may also be true yopu cant just choose what you want from the bible you rather believe or you dont
666zakk666 4 years ago
So far I have been enjoying these videos, I have learner alot from them. Thanks! on to # 3....
pfctjd 4 years ago
But they are shallow parsing of words, and ignore so much!
Elohim uses a common form of Hebrew expression whereby the personal pronoun takes on a plural number much as has been heard in the "royal we" of English, or the formal "vous" of French.
It may mean plural, it may not.
Christ taught a trinity. He mentioned that He and His father were one, and promised the "Comforter" (Holy Spirit) would come.
LTCJeffWhite 4 years ago
Now "this" is news!
HelpMeObiiWAN 4 years ago
my brain hurts but that was pretty good.
SpyderMahn 4 years ago
[ex670]
I have NO idea. As far as I can tell, WE ARE NEVER TOLD. And it was NEVER t/POINT f/t text 2 tell us. We merely interpret "Gen1:1" 2 mean, "In t/beginning f/EVERYTHING N EXISTENCE." But we READ THAT n2 t/words. "In t/beginning" s/stated n/a more ABSTRACT way. In much t/same way as 1 would say, "In a minute..." Do u actually mean "60-seconds?" But t/original text s/MORE specific.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
[ex670]
I spent some time on t/SKEPTICS ANNOTATED BIBLE DISCUSSION BOARD - a member quoted t/following:
[Mark 10:6]
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[Matthew 19:4]
... Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female ...
See how "in the beginning" s used n a more ABSTRACT way. NOT directly saying "at t/very 1st instant anything was ever created." Believe it or not, Genesis 1:1 s used n this same manner.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
actualy i already asked my theology prof about "the beggining"... i asked him, "the beggining of what?"... fucking catholic school suspended me...
birdyboy20 4 years ago
Recte, Valde Bene!...
Best fiction ever written.
STEELPOT1 4 years ago
Hi DeeGlobal. Like u already said, t/ROMAN CHURCH MANIPULATED t/SCRIPTURES 2 meet THEIR OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION centuries ago. Is what we read 2day anywhere near WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN (when they were moved by t/HolyGhost)?
Even t/Apostle Paul PATTERNED CHRISTIANITY off of HIS OWN BELIEFS. Do u know t/GOSPELS did not exist when he wrote his epistles? Which is why he NEVER QUOTES JESUS or any of the other Eleven. And his letters have been REVISED countless times over the centuries.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
What do you think about 2Peter 1:20-21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
DeeGlobal 4 years ago
I thinik it says what it means. But one never knows, apparently.
HAPeMILL 4 years ago
The English version of the Torah is no different than the English version of the Bible. So, if the HEBREW VERSION probably says (and means) SOMETHING DIFFERENT in both.
BaadSiide 4 years ago
Torah:"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" This earth is not our earth! This earth are to(near)Heaven!!! Adam is created from this earth!!! Not from our present world!
Heaven and earth are created simultaneously,before creation of our universe and earth.
lutfialtinel 4 years ago
Very intriguing!
DarkConfMan 4 years ago
Now, this took some really intense thought!
CambricFinish 4 years ago
This is going to "freak out" a lot of church folks.
BaadSiide 4 years ago
I admit, after watching this video, I'm beginning to feel the "rusted gears" in my brain trying to crank. Very enlightening stuff.
tomahawkone 4 years ago
THINGS one doesn't THINK ABOUT everyday! Very good!
OutrLiimitz 4 years ago
Now THIS is interesting!
HAPeMILL 4 years ago
Keep'em com'in!
tubulaar 4 years ago
Smarter!
SeaBiscuiit 4 years ago
Hurry up!!! I can't wait to see where this trip leads!
VideoJosephine 4 years ago
=ChurchBandit=
These are very informative vids. You really did your homework. I'm curious to know, "What religion are you (if any)?" And, "What do you think about 'Atheism' [not that I'm an Atheist]?"
SpyderMahn 4 years ago
I have a strong religious background but I don't currently adhere 2 any particular one. Call me a "Student of Biblical Research (SoBR)." Its been a "hobby" of mine for years! I found t/Bible "fascinating" once I began researching it. Especially, "Genesis." Do u c, after two 5-min vids, we're still not off the 1st verse!? But I don't think researching the Bible makes a body "religious."
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
"Atheism?" I have nothing but the "utmost respect" 4 "Atheists." As u can c, I don't really believe n t/traditional Christian idea of "God." Does THAT make ME an "Atheist?" Perhaps! Or, not! I'm really not that sure. But I AM comfortable enough to NOT FREAK OUT about it.
In a sense, "Atheists" r like t/LONE GUNMAN (or, lone voice of sanity)"=0=they never really fell 4 any of this [not trying 2/b disrespectful] "religious mumbo-jumbo."
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Very interesting (& unique) perspective (on Atheism).
HelpMeObiiWAN 4 years ago
mY bRAIN iS aBOUT tO eXPLODE!!!
windmeal 4 years ago
I would really hate for this to happen. You just need a little time for NEW INFORMATION to sink in.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
ii can't wait to see where this leads. So far, you're bet'in "100." But its beginning to look like "Genesis" DOES NOT REALLY contradict "Evolution."
daWiiZarD 4 years ago
I don't think it does. But the way that the KJV is translated + ppl taking it "literal" creates a FALSE IMPRESSION.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
Just setting the "foundations" for things to come ... beginning w/t next segment.
ChurchBandit 4 years ago
interesting...irrelevant...but interesting.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
let me add though...I'm interested to see where you go with it in part 3. (and to be fair, I guess it's not "irrelevant" in some discussions...just as a grand picture)
KingHeathen 4 years ago
ASTONISHING!
KanadaDry 4 years ago