Have we Translated Genesis 1 Wrong All this Time?! 

I love these teachings. He's one of the few people that I mourned despite never having had met him. I couldn't believe how he was still teaching on his death bed. I've learned so much and it's helped me knowing what direction to seek additional information. I trust that there's others out there who are going to carry out his work.

I love listening to Dr. Heiser. I often listen to him or Les Feldick to get to sleep at night, not because they are boring, but they have soothing voices and I can replay them later to hear anything I might miss. They just help slow it down for me and promote a peaceful mindset. It's a shame that we lost them both recently, but the Lord Jesus Christ has all things in His hands. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏

Mike was literally on his deathbed posting clips explaining the Bible. What a heart he had for bringing Scholarship to regular Christians. He (and Tim Mackie), revived my dying faith about a year ago and now I'm quitting Architecture and am off to Seminary myself. One day I'll thank him.

Recently i went through a youtube comment a pastor from india shared his testimony ,i was intrested so looked for his contact so i ended up finding his number and called him. What a life people are living for christ in these countries the man is almost losing everything but not his faith was beaten up by people separated from family no home to live but still strong on faith. He prayed for me on a phone call and i got healed right away of my knee issues and started walking praise god for men like him

The late Mike Heiser brigs out the most beautiful yet simple grammatical points. Makes one think. Clear thinking takes repetition and great teachers. Working in Hebrew and Greek for over 20-years, there is always more to learn. Such a joy!

Every time I watch him speak I think of how much the modern church lost with his passing. I’m so thankful for his online ministry.

I first read Dr Heiser's Unseen Realm in 2017. It totally blew the lid off my current understanding of the Bible at that time. I still go back and discover more. I knew there is way more of our understanding of the Bible and the reality of the unseen. I am positive that the Lord led me to his book looking back. He is greatly missed. But he left a treasure of teaching far more worth than gold. He's basking in the Lord's Glory now. Besides his teaching, his faith throughout his sickness is a witness to the asurredness of what he believed. Well done, Dr. Heiser. Well done!

Verse 3 makes it clear that there was an original person, with a mouth to speak, a language already agreed upon, and the power in those words to manifest reality. All before time began.

thank you sir, you lifted the burden off my shoulder, i have always had these feelings that we are dealing with mis-translation in the bible and this has been impacting our understanding negatively

Sounds nice but I have two questions that need to be answered. If that's the way we should read it then why did the translators of the LXX not translate it that way? Were they confused by the Hebrew? The LXX took place between 3-1BC and was quoted by some of our Biblical authors. Second, John is making a clear call back to Genesis with his Gospel in so many ways... especially with his opening verse where he says, "In the beginning..." Did John not know his scriptures? Even a late dating of John has it at the end of the 1st century. He points out that the vowels weren't created until the 8th century AD. Unless someone can give me a better reason than what is said in this video, I think I'll stick with the earlier understanding.

I studied Hebrew for 3 years and came across this interpretation as well. The NIV translation footnotes it, but I'm not clear on what the implications are overall. Nor from this clip from the larger lecture. Biblical old earth adherents often claim this as support for theistic-driven, long-term evolution, culminating in the Edenic conditions at only a specific point in time much later. I don't see a contradiction here with short-earth age, and I'm not even sure if that's what Mike was getting at without seeing the whole lecture. I respect him very much, but would like to see further dialog on it.

Dr. Heiser's teaching has allowed me to understand the Bible in a way that actually makes sense to me. I am so thankful to have discovered his work.

Thank you for sharing Dr Heiser's work with us. So miss this wonderful teacher. Good Job, Dr. Heiser !

dear Micheal Plieser. Thanks for this teaching. I made same translation 5 years ago, and my professor refused to accept it. Did not have so much support to prove the point. Thanks for granting me one

It’s truly eye opener,,, back in the days,, in schools we used to work on ERC, and clauses,,, I see Dr Heiser use the clause explanation!!

Imagine what Dr. Heiser sees now? The questions he must have now? The mind satiated only to find WAY more questions and things to learn and do in the NEXT life! Thank You Jesus for your Victory, our sins paid in full by Your Holy Perfect Righteous Blood!

So happy that his material lives on. Please honor him by passing his knowledge to all.

I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor a theologian but came to a similar conclusion years ago just from a plain reading of the text

The full lecture is on the Naked Bible RU-vid channel, titled Genesis 1 1 3 Michael Heiser

Thank you for continuing to upload Mike’s vitally important content. I’m so grateful for his work and his “easy on the ears” method of teaching. He will be remembered as one of the greatest scholars in the Body of Christ as far as I’m concerned.

Can never get enough of Dr Heiser, sure miss his talks and lectures and it is still very hard to know he has passed and I wonder why after so many prayers God did not heal him, I know God knows but it is still hard. So thankful for the videos, many Blessings. ❤❤❤

Every time i read Genesis 1: 2 i also think about Jeremiah 4: 23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. Would have loved to hear Mikes thoughts on this.

This verse is exactly what inspired the father of the big bang theory Lemaître to use a model where you have only radiation at the beginning. „Let there be light“. Taking genesis literally he furthered science.

I was told once by a Jewish friend that it was the aspect of God Christianity refers to as the son that was the one who created the universe. That has always made sense to me because it kind of explains why the universe is so full of wonder. I also tried my entire life to reconcile Devine creation with big bang theory and ideas like dark matter and energy and the structure of the universe and all that jazz! I was able to do this after watching an episode of Nova on PBS about origami. So, check this out. The universe is an artwork created on fourth dementional God paper for lack of a better term. The big bang was a folding of this that became the universe we see. We will never be able to capture dark matter because this is what the god paper is made of. It's like if you lived on a molecule of paint trying to capture a piece of the canvas your universe was painted on. Science is holy. God created us in his image in mental capacity and figuring out how the stuff he created is what he wants us to do. I also think God gives us clues to help us. In one part of the Bible it clearly states that to Him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Well science says the universe is 13.4 billion years old and the Bible says He made it in seven days. I don't see this as contradictory at all. He's timeless. A billion years to him could be a day. I think there's relevance to this translation thing too. Especially when you consider the fact that the Hebrew alphabet is a later invention with roots in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Another show I watched told me about this as well. The hieroglyph for house is associated with the sound of the first Hebrew letter in that alphabets word for house for instance. The Israelites basically got the idea for a written language from Egypt. It's all pretty mind-blowing if you really get into it. God created the universe and he WANTS us to figure out HOW this was done. Dark energy is what science is confused about. That's what they call the force that's making the universe continue to expand. But it's actually the hand of God. His "muscles" are the source of this force. It's all kinda clear to me but I can't possibly understand all of it myself as I don't have a degree in physics or theology but rather food management. There was a recipe that only God currently understands. But science is figuring out lots of the little culinary techniques He used and that's awesome!

I miss him so much. I’ve learned a LOT from him, just wish I’d found his teachings about 13 years ago.

I was talking to a local Rabbi about the scriptures and he told me that what we know as the first verse of the bible is actually the title of the book we know as Genesis and that the first verse is actually'And the earth was without form..etc' and that a whole history about fallen angels has been written about what came before the 'And'

Dr. Heiser was a gifted and brilliant speaker. He has my respect. I disagree with changing the meaning of Genesis 1:1 with the word when. I had to comment on this post so that I could share my understanding of creation according to Genesis. In the beginning God created a single diamentional parallel universe consisting of an uninhabited shapless earth immersed in water that was a dividing point for other waters above the earth. This area is beyond measure. The universe we know is contained in a measurable firmament where earth is still without form. (or defined shape)

All those linguistic, mumbo-jumbo aside, the text clearly states that God created the heavens and earth in the beginning, which means before there was time space, or matter, which means out of nothing and science, as it’s currently understood, agrees that the universe is not eternal- it had a beginning.

It's important to bring out the meaning of the words: without form and void. In Hebrew, it gives the impression of the Earth falling into a state of waste and decay; probably from Satan's rebellion. I think this helps bring clearer meaning to the first three verses.

I don't have PhD in Hebrew but I am a native English speaker and teacher. I love Dr Heiser's work but sometimes, like everyone, things get simplified to make a point but the simplification isn't always accurate "When Jim studied in his room for his Chemistry exam" can be a complete thought and stand alone as a clause, let me explain how. Someone asks a question e.g. When did the Earthquake happen? (you can insert nearly anything where Earthquake is) and someone can reply "When Jim studied in his room for his Chemistry exam". Punctuation matters in languages, especially English. In English the word "when" doesn't make something a question it is a time connective that can be used in multiple ways.

So is the NRSVue: ”When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.“ ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬ ”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.“ ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

There's more to the Creation than Genesis 1:1-3. For example, the term "day" is used three different, conflicting ways.

" When Jim studied for his chemistry exam. " could be the answer to a question and therefore a complete thought.

Now I'm confused...what was Christ actually saying if the vowels didn't come until the middle ages by the translation, "not one jot or tittle shall be removed"?

That's always how I read it anyway. Verse one is like the intro. "Hey, we are going to talk about how God created the heavens and the Earth. Let's get started..."

One of these days some simple soul will pick up the Book of God, read it, and believe it. Then the rest of us will be embarrassed. We have adopted the convenient theory that the Bible is a Book to be explained, whereas first and foremost it is a Book to be believed (and after that to be obeyed). Leonard Ravenhill,

I've learned over the years that there are layers upon layers when it comes to understanding scripture. How many times have we read a verse for the hundredth time only to have it open up to give us a whole new understanding?

Time Mark 5:23 - That is a frightening position / perspective: "I have a PhD - I can do whatever I want."

Where's the rest of this lecture? This video is incomplete

Robert Alter came to this conclusion about 30 years ago, and went on to translate the whole of Genesis with the same alacrity.

If you obey Hebrew you can also translate it as “in first position or in chief position God created the heavens and the”

So then, hmmm, so when did He create the formless and void thing. I’m not arguing against what he said but it leaves me with questions. It sounds like creation (of time, space and matter- which are in continuum and each one must exist for the others to exist) had started BEFORE Genesis 1:1. Right?

I have three questions about this. The word Day in Hebrew in Genesis chapter 1 is the same word for day used in Genesis chapter 20 when discussing 6 days of work and on the 7th day is the Sabbath, clearly referring to 24-Hour time period. The second question is what is the most ancient reliable manuscript we have? We can go back more than 2000 years to look as I have. And the third question is when Jesus points out they were created male and female in the beginning he never talks about a longer creation process. In fact the entire Bible, Old Testament and New Testament assumes 6 24 hour time periods when using the original Hebrew in the Old Testament end of the original Greek in the New Testament. The greater issue here I think is that people do not believe God could do it in 6 days. Very sorry to hear that this gentleman passed away.

I'm not sure what to take from that presentation. That clip doesn't seem to really change things very much, if at all. So what's the rub?

One thing for sure. We all will stand before Judgement Day. Amen!

A beautiful video. When I studied Biblical Hebrew, I was taught that 'bara' was a verb in the perfect tense indicating a completed action, outside of time (so not a modern past tense.) In the beginning God finished creating ...

Genesis 1 is the trecena of Ix simultaneous with the decan of Ax. It is the only chapter that has 3 lines before the trecena begins. 1 is Batz, 2 is E (the water), and 3 is Aj. Then begins the trecena with 1 Ix. The entire book relies on the standard order of the 36 decans and the 20 days,.by chapter and within the chapters. Langton must have known the decans and days.

Shalom Friends! Is there any way to watch this entire lecture????

I really appreciate this distinction in the translation of Genesis 1: 1. Several years ago I was contemplating whether or not the universe has positive curvature. Although this question is still open, it seems logical that it most likely does have positive curvature even though it almost appears to be flat (in the same way that the Earth is a sphere but appears to be flat to anybody on one particular location unless very precise measurements are made that show a horizon). And it occurred to me that if it does have positive curvature that must mean that it's oscillating. This means that when the universe enters maximum entropy and dies (something called the heat death); - all of the matter will eventually coalesce back to the origin due to the positive curvature. All of the matter will approach the temperature of absolute zero. At that time the individual atoms will lose their distinctive properties and become known as an Einstein Bose condensate. Or in other words, "formless and void". And this matter will coalesce into one location that will form a gigantic singularity (commonly called a black hole). This black hole will reel all of time and space back into it very rapidly - as a matter of fact - faster than the speed of light. When this singularity (which is by definition a great darkness) has swallowed everything, the entire system should restart itself as would be the nature of an oscillating universe. Or as stated in the book of Revelation; - God will say "Behold I am making all things new." There are other Scriptural principles that also point toward an oscillating universe. For example the Scripture teaches that God's word will not return to him void, but will complete what it was set out to do." And since the Scripture records that the universe was created by the word of God it is logical to assume that this principle of returning - applies to the universe itself - meaning that it will return to the source. Thanks for taking the time to produce this video.

So in Hebrew class at temple the teacher explained that a more accurate translation was: In beginning as opposed to In the beginning It is so profound a teaching here. As if it is a course correction for our journey to understand all the following scriptures. Yes

The translators did a great job. The error is on the reader. Verse 1 gives us the result, then Verse 2 back flashes to when it didn’t happen yet to explain furthermore details (“now the earth was WITHOUT form and void”) so clearly V2 is before V1, and V3 explains how it was done. Which also takes place before V1 & after 2. This is common throughout the Bible.

I have always read Genesis the way he described. My church always read it that way, that verse 1 and 2 was just the setting where everthing is void, and creation of the universe starts at verse 3 (big bang). I didn't know anyone who thinks verse 1 is part of the steps. That's just weird and doesn't make sense.

What Mike is saying without saying it, is simply, That those who wrote the book of Genesis, told a different story of the original oral text. They changed words, invented words and miss translated main words to develop a continual theological story of monotheism, which never existed in Hebrew and Judaism until it's first introduction by Kings Hezekiah and Josiah in the 6th-7th century BCE.. Scholars supported a Redaction of Scripture in this time period once again to create monotheism. This was done to gain power and control of the people. However, there is new research that is being suggested that the Old Testament as we know it, was a work done by those who translated the Old Testament into Greek. First they wrote the Old Testament then made the translation into Greek at the same time around 273-270 BCE. in the Alexandra Library, this is called the Septuagint. This hypothesis is from the research in the writings of a Babylonian High Priest named Berossus. However, what I am saying is this writing of the Old Testament was a fabrication of those scribes to air brush over the oral tradition .to develop the theology of monotheism as wanted by those two Kings. I suggest a research into the both of those kings.

This made me rethink how I understood the first three verses in the traditional translation, because I always took verse one to be a generalized summation of the entire creation while taking verse three as the first creative act with regards the universe (what some may view as a big bang), and then seeing verse two as focusing on the earth. But if the “let there be light” is the first creative act, why does it follow verse two? The thing is, Michael’s explanation didn’t clarify things at all, because he states that in the “When God…” translation, the first two verses are preconditions for verse three, which he says the latter is the first creative act. But if verse three is the first creative act, how can any preconditions exist? Is He suggesting that God did not create all things? But that contradicts John 1 where John clearly states that “all” things were made by Christ, so there could not be any uncreated things that eternally existed prior to God creating. So while I’ll defer to Michel’s expertise in Hebrew grammar, he’s apparently not as skilled as a logician (that's not meant as an insult, but only noting that he sometimes makes logically flawed arguments).

If God did not create ex nihilo, then where did the material He used to form the Earth come from? What deity created it?

I've also seen it translated as: "In A beginning..." meaning, the beginning of the story

I appreciate the tribute to Mike, but I didn't get his point here. I think he was saying that creation activity began with light, verse 3. Great, theologically and in every way, that starting point makes sense. But how do you explain the presence and purpose of verse 2? It seems like it should be the prelude to verse 6, an activity of the second day; Earth appears but then needs to be formed and filled to reverse the tohu vabohu. I get that verse two can be an incomplete phrase, but I would loved to hear Heiser (or any scholar) explains the presence of the earth description put as the second verse, and not after "and there was evening/morning day one?"

Rashi, writing in the 11th century, already pointed this out. It's not new.

I’ve always wondered why I read sentences somewhat backwards. Or analyze sentences too much. But when I read the Bible it makes sense. Praise the Lord.

Then it makes complete different in our understanding of Genesis. How? one may ask. My answer is: If the verse is read " In the beginning" , it means all the creations are destined to end someday because where there is beginning there is always end. There is no beginning without end. Which means the earth was created to have ending( The world is destined to end whether Adam and Eve sin or not). On the other hand if the translation is "when" instead of "In the beginning" as what you said is a legitimate translation, the earth was not yet destined until the fall the fall of man or sometimes later. So to say, the earth was not created to have beginning and the end but the sin does later after the fall. Through this verse we can somehow understand the will and purpose for His creation. This changes can bring whole lot of difference in theology. Please reply this comment 🙏

He has so many books out, they are so good and easy to understand.

Thank you for your explanation, I know this is correct because God is Consciousness. When enough power of thought is concentrated, it becomes light. I believe all matter is condensed light. Looking at creation in this way, makes us realise that darkness is there due to not being created into anything yet? Leaving humanity room to follow our father in this work. 🇬🇧

We actually could have picked this up without understanding Hebrew grammar like Dr. Heiser did. Genesis 2:1 says "And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights." This indicates that what preceded was what the author intended to be taken as "creat[ing] the heavens and the earth." It becomes obvious that Genesis 1:1, no matter how it's voiced grammatically, is not a separate act of creation but rather an introductory description announcing what we're about to read. Genesis 1:3-31 is "God creat[ing] the heavens and the earth." (Note that all of Genesis 1-11 is broken into segments, each beginning with an introductory description: "These are the generations of Noah," "These are the generations of the heaven and earth," and forth. The introductory announcement of the first segment is Genesis 1:1.) This means that the starting condition of the creation account is announced in Genesis 1:2, just like Dr. Heiser suggested: "Now the earth was formless and void..." The earth already existed at that point; it was just useless in its then-current state. We know that "formless and void" does not mean what we moderns would think if we heard "non-existent." The concept of non-existence didn't appear in the ancient world. To the ancients, the Arabian desert was "non-existent," in the sense that it could not be used for any sensible purpose. We can get a sense of what the Hebrews would have mean by "formless and void" (Heb., "tohu v'bohu") in the one other place in scripture where that phrase gets used. It's in Jeremiah 4:23, and in it the prophet describes what's going to happen to Judah's pleasant farmland when the people get taken away into captivity; it will become "tohu v' bohu," and "the heavens will have no light." (That refence to light has to be figurative; it's a desert. There was plenty of light during the daytime.) Check verse 26 of Jeremiah 4 for the plain description of what he meant: "I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger." So in fact, the Genesis 1 account does not describe a transition from non-existence to existence as we would imagine it; that's a 20th and 21st century anachronism. The Genesis 1 account describes a transition from fruitless chaos ("tohu v'bohu") to productive fruitfulness, full of life and purpose. And "Let there be light," the first creative act, actually declares the favor of God on the earth, not necessarily the appearance of visible light for the first time. Dr. Heiser's careful Hebrew grammar makes this clear for us; but it was there all along.

I once worked with a PhD expert in computer science. I overheard the specifications of the task given to him (by my boss as well) and thought "This should take about one month. He was always bragging about writing perfect computer programs. Well, 3 months he was still bragging about it. Anyway, my boss then quietly asked me if I could have a try at the task. Well, I had heard what is was all about for 3 months, so no need to get written specs. After one month, I had it running in full production and the PhD young man went to another section. So my opinion is that if you can't understand the first chapter of Genesis by a simple reading, go and play trains. Never believe a PhD. My deeper reading is this (I'm not a PhD): Day 1: Beginning: God created Time first. The history of the universe begins at the first hour, Sunday, at 6 pm on Saturday in our time. It was dark. God created Time, Space, Matter and Energy in the very sequence that it is logical to do and must be done physically. Day falls at the 12th hour, 6am our time, God speaks light/energy into being. V2. And the earth was without form and void. There it is for a child to understand. without form -no mountains, valleys, rivers and oceans. void - empty, no life, and totally covered by water, maybe 2 or more km deep. What would you expect? Like a potter making a vase - first he turns a lump of clay into a ball. And darkness covered the face of the deep. No light had been created yet so it was still dark. More mysterious is the end of verse 2: The spirit of God was brooding (not just moving) over the waters. The same word is used for a chicken sitting on her eggs. She’ll turn them 180° to keep them evenly warm. Is this to indicate that the Holy spirit was starting the earth’s rotation. It's no stretch of the imagination to believe it could take 3 days. Imagine the chaos if there was a sudden jerk from zero to 1000 MPH at the equator. V3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. So after 12 hours of darkness, it was morning. Notice that the sun was not created yet so God Himself was the light. V5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Just a normal 24 hour day as we have now. The Day for Old Testament begins at 6pm Roman time. Night comes before day, just as we read.

this is actually how it is translated in the Chinese bible… I’ve always understood it this way, that “Let there be light” was the first “act” of creation

As some others have mentioned: Dr Heiser says the writing of vowels on the Hebrew only happened around 800AD. So, there's no reason to assume the vowel he emphasises in the video is a preferred reading. And yet, from this clip he appears to be suggesting one vowel reading more than the other. Why take a medieval Jewish reading of the vowels as the preferred one? It seems unnecessarily biased to me, without due evidence or logic. He'd be better saying that both vowel readings are possible, yet the early Christians translated it in one way, for certain reasons. For anyone interested in the the Genesis creation account, I recommend 'Navigating Genesis: A scientist's Journey Through Genesis' by Hugh Ross. Really fascinating and full of insights into these verses.

Because Gensis 1:1 is the first verse in the Bible laying the basic premise of everything to come, it is a summary statement. It is matter of writing style. This style is repeated several times in the following chapters with a summary statement followed by details and illucidation. W"e must not "play around" with the text and add or take away anything, be it 800 years later or thouusands of years later.

Strange that this guy is arguing for a changed translation based on accent marks, etc. The Bible says that not one jot or tittle (accent mark) will be changed until the second coming. And him using the fallacy of authority ( I have a PhD in Hebrew.) is a red flag. So he is saying that the Jews whocwalked and talked with Christ as native speakers of Hebrew didn't understand their own language? How heterodox of him.

PhD in Hebrew can't change the way God made Hebrew grammar. The KJB still stands as best translation. Hallelujah! ❤😂🎉

Possible Translations: - in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - when God began the creation of the heaven and the earth. - in the beginning of God creating the heaven and the earth. - when God began creating the heaven and the earth. - in origin God created the heaven and the earth. - in the origin of God creating the heaven and the earth. Doesn't really matter the dicing or slicing of the sentence structure, you still get the same idea of the narrative. One thing you get for sure is the idea of a cause and effect. Cause of a scenario and the Effect it led to, with one ruling factor each sentence above have in common: time of causality, beginning, origin or start time of something, TIME

Well it's certain from Genesis that before the six days of creation there's an existent earth that's covered with water.

When a headline, title, or article asks a question the answer must always be a firm no. Headlines, titles, and articles speak from authority. If there is evidence to support the writer or speaker’s conclusion then they make statements. When there is no clear evidence these people ask questions and lead the reader to the conclusion desired. Questions have no authority. Did we get this wrong? No. If we did there would be a statement, not a question.

You have just witnessed an over educated (he even brags about it) nerd pontificating about what he thinks. He thinks

Hit the 👍🏻!!

Just knowing God the creator is enough for me, not want to overthink it, even if knowing in what sequence, the first line was enough to have faith, my belief

The problem that religionists have with Iron Age mythology isn't how its translated, it's refusing to acknowledge that its mythology.

I’m not really impressed with any urgency to change my thoughts on something I can’t understand much about. God is perfect, holy and infinitely beyond us. He is totally distinct from his creation. He spoke the universe into existence. That is enough for me. It doesn’t change who God is or who I am. He dragged me into his kingdom kicking and screaming. He called me out of this evil world and broke me down with my sins, until I surrendered completely to him. Don’t major on the minors people, focus on Jesus and give up on the cares and pleasures of this world. Follow his teaching in the gospels. Eternity is waiting and coming very very soon.

In verses 1-3 four things are created. 1. Time starts. 2. Space is created. 3. Matter is created. 4. Energy is created. "In the Beginning" TIME. "Created the heavens" literally means 'stretched out space'. "Created the earth" means just matter. It is not talking about the planet earth, but dirt... ie... 'a hand full of earth'. Imagine an artist 500 years ago... He would first stretch out a canvas over a frame, then he would get his paints and supplies ready to start creating. Then he would CREATE! That is exactly what God did. He stretched out space, got his materials ready, then in the later verses he starts his masterpiece.

Except that John clearly thought it said, "In the beginning..."

Yes, I totally agree! We need MORE people like him. Instead we have so many teachers who are "King James only" and going with whatever sayeth one of the great grandparents of Queen Elizabeth. (The same Elizabeth who RECENTLY passed away).

Another possible translation is , By (using) beggining God creted Heavens and Earth. This corresponds to the translation (New messianic Bible) Prov 3:19: "The LORD-Yehōvah [Messiah Pre-Incarnate] by wisdom has founded the earth; by understanding has he established the heavens." And thus RESHIT/beginning is actually WISDOM, using which God creates Heavens and Earth.

I have a couple questions. First, with no vowels in the oldest manuscripts, how can he be sure his construction is the original? Second, what does this do the the context and theology of the passage? Is this a distinction without a difference? Or is he postulating that God didn't begin the creation, that He just improved upon a preexisting structure? Perhaps the rest of his talk clarified things, but this snippet leaves me wondering what he's getting at.

It shouldn't be called the "Hebrew syntax view". Rather, it should be called "interpretation of the medieval Masoretes who placed the other vowel" view. Yes, the masoretic text does say as explained, but it need not be what the author meant. After all, the Septuagint and the author of John's gospel have an independent clause.

My Hebrew language study (brief) indicated the "now" presented a change on time from the preceding. I take this to indicate the passage of 'time' (whatever that might mean in this context) and the suggestion the Hebrew word translated "day" as a time period longer than a twenty-four hour period (as in "...day of dial phones..."). I am delighted to see and hear the concept that the KJV is not the absolute and final determiner of translation meaning. The 'word of the Lord' does not equate to 'the word of the KJV translation team'.

Mike Heiser passing , Rabbi Ted Tedfords passing has left me with 1 live full time scholar to increase my learning/ understanding with which is Dr. Eddie Chumney. All are outstanding at making you think.

I do appreciate this video, and Dr Heisers explanation. However I have 2 concerns: 1. based on his feeling of the wording of Genesis1:1 as a dependent clause, verse 2 does not flow or connect smoothly with verse one. 2. Verse 2"Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was waste and without form; and it was dark on the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God was moving on the face of the waters." Amplified Bible Which Dr Heiser did not contest; in this context sounds like God in the beginning started with something waste and void and did His creation. Why start with something waste and void? All that God created was good or very good, not waste and void. To me verse 2 is specific indicating that God restarted with the earth covered by water and did a new creation from the old. This begs the question how and why was the heavens and the earth made waste and void?? The Bible is God's speaking. " All scripture is God breathed..." 2Tim 3:16a.

This is what I call .. Permanent Head Damage

Scholars have said for ages that the concept of creation ex nihilo is not implied in Genesis, but, as is so often the case, this understanding has not percolated down to the man or woman in the pew.

How does this compare to John 1?

It also helps if you use the immediate and larger contexts to realize that Heaven is the atmosphere where the fowl fly (see days 2 and 5) and earth is the DRY land in between the Seas that God had made (day 3). Remember that verse 2 describes our planet as being covered by water. Obviously, before God could put Adam and Eve on this planet He had to do something about all that water. So now verse 1 makes sense... we are being told that God had to make AIR to breathe and DRY LAND to live on BEFORE He put Adam and Eve here, which God did at the BEGINNING of the WEEK, on days 2 and 3. The beginning in verse 1 is referring to the beginning of the Genesis creation week, nothing else. Day 1 has an evening (sunset) and a morning (sunrise) which can only happen if our planet was rotating in the solar system. So God had made the universe at an earlier creation event(s). The context of the Genesis creation story is God dealing with the rebellion of Lucifer and his fallen angels. Jesus said that all believers will become equal to and like the angels of Heaven, so it was one of God's intentions with the Genesis creation event to replace the fallen angels.

I was taught verse 1 was a HEADLINE statement like you would read for a chapter title or newspaper headline. Verse 2 and so on, begin to describe the event.

Is there any full teachings video from this one?

This is interesting--"Let there be light" becomes the Big Bang if we admit that we do not know the length of a Day of Creation. Keep in mind that Orthodox Christians have always said that we are living in the 8th Day of Creation which dawned at Christ's resurrection, implying that the 7th Day of Creation lasted from Genesis 2 throughout the Old Covenant, until Christ rose from the dead--the New Covenant!

I am Christian. Middle aged. I never thought verse 1 was indicating something had now been created. I viewed it as sort of a title, an introduction to the creation story which followed. Here's the thing: I never imagined anybody would interpret it any differently. Otherwise the whole passage would be sloppy. Creation began at a time when there was a void existing on the deep which was already there. Next came the creation of the heavens and the Earth, beginning with light. And of course every reader would know that the Sun causes the light. Block the sunlight and there is shadow. The sun sinks below the horizon and presumably keeps sinking, and the light goes away. Except for the faint moonlight and starlight. So we have another introduction statement that God created light. And then we learn how: he created the sun, moon, and stars. The author of this text knew that no reader is going to assume that there was light created before the sun, moon, and stars were created. Because if that was so, then where is this light today that does not depend on the sun, moon, and stars?

I'm not suggesting that we actually leave out Genesis 1:1 -- but what if it is a title? An introduction?

Correct me if I am missing something here… Is it that you’re saying God did not create the Heaven and Earth in the beginning… but rather when He started to work ( create), it was on something already created before?

Curious, is he saying that there was something in existence that God did not create? Meaning the earth, formless and void always existed? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the point.

I am a Ph. D. holder in OT and I read Hebrew. I have written on Genesis 1:1-3. The Hebrews/Jews started it like that mainly to counteract the pagans beliefs of creation and their process. So, what Genesis did is: Blueprint-implimentation-summary throughout. We have this in smaller and bigger sections. Note, after verse one, the author of Genesis turned his attention to the earth. Now, it was left for the New Testament to explain to us about the heavens. By the time you reach the book of Revelation, the whole gates of heaven are opened and you can see it's contents. Anyway, thank you for your comments. They will probably ginger us to go back to study the text deeper. Again, thank you.

Seriously! Thats it ? We all need much more than this!

What does the phrase "the face of waters"? Does it mean water already exist? Thank you in advance!