Interesting Bible Translations

[LionHeart]

I recently listened to part of an audio book by a certain bible scholar who is also up to speed on the Hebrew language.

Among the fascinating things he pointed out was this translation of the genealogy from Adam to Noah. This genealogy can be found in Genesis chapter 5. Another improtant thing he pointed out is that the characters of Hebrew literature are not like English where the characters represent a certain sound. The Hebrew characters represent a certain expression. Some may have multiple meanings depending on the context; which is established by the characters before and after them. For example: one character could represent the expression 'he ran quickly' etc.

So here it is:

The name 'Adam, translated directly from Hebrew, means 'Man'.

Adam begat Seth, which means 'Appointed'

Seth begat Enos, which means 'Mortal'

Enos begat Cainan, which is a mistranslation; it is supposed to read 'Keenan' which means 'Sorrow'

Keenan begat Mahalaleel, which means 'Blessed God'

Mahalaleel begat Jared, which means 'Shall come down'

Jared begat Enoch, which means 'Teaching' (intersting because Enoch was a great teacher)

Enoch begat Methusaleh, which means 'His death shall bring forth' (Also interesting because he is the oldest man in the bible. The same year he died was the year the great flood commenced; which fulfilled a prophecy made about him)

Methusaleh begat Lamech, which means 'despair'

And Lamech begat Noah, which means 'Comfort or rest"

So to put the names together like this:

Adam Seth Enos Keenan Mahalaleel Jared Enoch Methusaleh Lamech Noah, you are actually saying this sentence:

Man shall be appointed mortal sorrow but the blessed God shall come down teaching that His death shall bring forth despair, comfort, or rest.

Which is the essence of Christainity.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

...the characters of Hebrew literature are not like English where the characters represent a certain sound. The Hebrew characters represent a certain expression. Some may have multiple meanings depending on the context; which is established by the characters before and after them.

I studied Biblical Hebrew and never ran across this theory. The 22 consonants of the Hebrew alphabet represent discrete, unvarying sounds. Alpeh (a); beth ("b"); veth (v); geemel (g); dahleth (d); heh (h); vahv (v); zahyin (z); kheth (ch as in Loch); teht (t); yodh (y); kahf (k); khahf (kh); lahmed (l); mem (m); nun (n); samekh (s); ayin (no sound); peh (p); feh (f); tsahdee (ts); kofh (q); rehsh ("r") seen (s); sheen (sh); taw (t).

Maybe he was referring to the fact that Biblical Hebrew wasn't written with any vowel markings, so the meaning of a cluster of consonants depended on context (much like cstl in English could mean castle or coastal). Anyway, it's an interesting theory about the genealogy in Genesis 5.

[Dr T]

Hey L.H.,

Was that tape from Chuck Missler?

Just wondering.

Dr. T

[Traveler]

Part of the problem in translations is understanding what was first meant and then finding the correct meaning in the new language. In addition, sometimes names became associated with what great men did and thus the name became a title as well and were used in the language. For example dead end jobs in our society have come from the term Mc job. The word cheaters evolved from officals that "cheated" at sporting events.

The Traveler

[LionHeart]

Hey L.H.,

Was that tape from Chuck Missler?

Just wondering.

Dr. T

Yeah, it was actually.

L.H.

[Dr T]

I've never heard of him.

Sounded like something he would say. :)

[LionHeart]

I've never heard of him.

Sounded like something he would say. :)

Does he have a reputation for having wild ideas?

[Dr T]

Not that I know of. I've only heard him a few times. I thought they were really good.

Dr. T

[LionHeart]

One thing I like about it is the fact that he knows the bible well enough that he can jump around between bible passages to answer questions that might come up from insufficient information given through a particular passage. For example: The great flood. Why was Noah's family the only one spared? Chuck Missler pointed out, through other passages, that the other inhabitants of the Earth were 'Nephilim.' Or the result of the angels mixing with the daughters of men. Noah's family was the only ones left who were not Nephilim.

Chuck Missler is also a scientist (who opposes evolution) so he offers many possibilities that help us to better understand biblical events. I find it very fascinating.

L.H.

[Dr T]

That kind of stuff is facinating to me too.

Noah's family was the only ones left who were not Nephilim.

That sounds like a big jump. I can't say that I would agree with that statement. I wonder where he got that idea.

Dr. T

[pushka]

LH, do you know of any other Bible scholars/scientists who have come up with the same conclusions as Chuck Missler? Sort of 'extra' sources?

[LionHeart]

LH, do you know of any other Bible scholars/scientists who have come up with the same conclusions as Chuck Missler? Sort of 'extra' sources?

No, He's the only one so far.

That kind of stuff is facinating to me too.

Noah's family was the only ones left who were not Nephilim.

That sounds like a big jump. I can't say that I would agree with that statement. I wonder where he got that idea.

Dr. T

He gets it from Genesis 6: 9 which reads:

These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations,, and Noah walked with God.

He pointed out that the word 'Perfect' in this verse is a mis-translation. The actual Hebrew word that was originally there is correctly translated into 'without blemish' or 'undefiled.' So it should actually say "Noah was a just man and 'undefiled' in his generations." Inferring that the other inhabitants were defiled.

L.H.

<div class='quotemain'>

...the characters of Hebrew literature are not like English where the characters represent a certain sound. The Hebrew characters represent a certain expression. Some may have multiple meanings depending on the context; which is established by the characters before and after them.

I studied Biblical Hebrew and never ran across this theory. The 22 consonants of the Hebrew alphabet represent discrete, unvarying sounds. Alpeh (a); beth ("b"); veth (v); geemel (g); dahleth (d); heh (h); vahv (v); zahyin (z); kheth (ch as in Loch); teht (t); yodh (y); kahf (k); khahf (kh); lahmed (l); mem (m); nun (n); samekh (s); ayin (no sound); peh (p); feh (f); tsahdee (ts); kofh (q); rehsh ("r") seen (s); sheen (sh); taw (t).

Maybe he was referring to the fact that Biblical Hebrew wasn't written with any vowel markings, so the meaning of a cluster of consonants depended on context (much like cstl in English could mean castle or coastal). Anyway, it's an interesting theory about the genealogy in Genesis 5.

I went back and listened to it again and discovered that I misunderstood. He said that three hebrew letters go together to form a "root" expression. The context of these expressions can vary according to the previous and/or the following expressions.

My apologies for being misleading.

L.H.

[lds_mormon]

One thing I like about it is the fact that he knows the bible well enough that he can jump around between bible passages to answer questions that might come up from insufficient information given through a particular passage. For example: The great flood. Why was Noah's family the only one spared? Chuck Missler pointed out, through other passages, that the other inhabitants of the Earth were 'Nephilim.' Or the result of the angels mixing with the daughters of men. Noah's family was the only ones left who were not Nephilim.

I don't know if I agree with the theory that angels mingled with mortal women. I don't believe it has much basis in the Bible. In fact, that doctine is, to my knowledge, only found in the gnostic book of Enoch. The book of Enoch supposedly gives more meaning to the verses directly preseding the flood. This account is found in Genesis 6:2-4

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

According to Enoch, the sons of God that these verses are speaking of are rebellious angels, and the daughters of men, were just that, the human women. And the giants that are being spoken of are the offsprings of the angelsl and mortals. Then the Book of Enoch tells that God sent his righteous angels to fight these evil ones, and eventually, they cast the lead rebel angel into this pit in the ground. Imediately following this, God floods the earth to get rid of these giants.

So I don't know if his theory is all that original as the Book of Enoch was written in about the 2nd century A.D. And I am unfamiliar with anything in the Bible that might give this theory any merit.

[Dr T]

Hi L.H.,

I'm familiar with Noah's righteousness as expressed in Genesis but it is a huge jump to say that he was undefiled because he did not mix with the Nehalem.

Dr. T

[LionHeart]

One thing I like about it is the fact that he knows the bible well enough that he can jump around between bible passages to answer questions that might come up from insufficient information given through a particular passage. For example: The great flood. Why was Noah's family the only one spared? Chuck Missler pointed out, through other passages, that the other inhabitants of the Earth were 'Nephilim.' Or the result of the angels mixing with the daughters of men. Noah's family was the only ones left who were not Nephilim.

I don't know if I agree with the theory that angels mingled with mortal women. I don't believe it has much basis in the Bible. In fact, that doctine is, to my knowledge, only found in the gnostic book of Enoch. The book of Enoch supposedly gives more meaning to the verses directly preseding the flood. This account is found in Genesis 6:2-4

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

According to Enoch, the sons of God that these verses are speaking of are rebellious angels, and the daughters of men, were just that, the human women. And the giants that are being spoken of are the offsprings of the angelsl and mortals. Then the Book of Enoch tells that God sent his righteous angels to fight these evil ones, and eventually, they cast the lead rebel angel into this pit in the ground. Imediately following this, God floods the earth to get rid of these giants.

So I don't know if his theory is all that original as the Book of Enoch was written in about the 2nd century A.D. And I am unfamiliar with anything in the Bible that might give this theory any merit.

It is also contained in a book called "The septuigent" which is the Torah translated directly from the Hebrew language to Greek.

The Book of Jasher also says "angels" instead of "sons of God" And likewise in the Books of Josephus.