snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 13 February 2007, 05:50 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,700
Icon215 God's Hidden Message

We frequently use the familiar term, gospel, or good news. Where is the
first place it appears in the Bible?

The great discovery is that the Bible is a message system.

In Genesis Chapter 5, there is the genealogy of Adam through Noah.
In our Bible, we read the Hebrew names. What do these names mean in
English?

These are the meanings of their names. This will amaze you.

Hebrew English
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.

That's rather remarkable:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down
teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

Here's the Gospel hidden within a genealogy in Genesis.
It demonstrates that in the earliest chapters of the Book of Genesis, God
had already laid out His plan of redemption for the predicament of
mankind. It is a love story, written in blood on a wooden cross which was
erected in Judea almost 2,000 years ago.

Truly, our God is an awesome God.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13 February 2007, 10:03 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 23,094
Default

So God deliberately set up the "predicament" so that he could write a love message in his son's tortured blood? I suppose that follows from the omnipotence and omniscience things anyway.

That is the correct order of names from Genesis 5...

Here's a Hebrew dictionary. Plugging in those names:

Adam and Seth mean what they say above.

Enosh comes back as just a name, but apparently he gave his name to a tribe, the Enoshut which means "humanity".

Kenan: "This name seems to derive from words denoting a permanent dwelling place or stronghold."

Mahalalel comes back as just a name. Jared does indeed mean "descent", although that can be in the sense of "descendent" as well as falling or coming down.

Enoch means "initiated, dedicated, disciplined" so at a stretch I guess you could get teaching, although it seems more like "student" really.

Methuselah is "when he dies, it shall be sent" so they're OK on that one.

Again, the dictionary has no meaning for Lamech other than a name. Noah does mean "rest".

So they're stretching a bit, but at least half of their translation seems reasonable, at least as individual words. Kenan seems the weakest link.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13 February 2007, 11:56 AM
Don Enrico's Avatar
Don Enrico Don Enrico is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2004
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 6,428
Default

So, from Richard W's translating efforts (and adding that "Seth" can mean "placed", too), we can conclude that God's secret message is

"(A) man (was) placed (in a) human stronghold. Mahalalel, (his) decendent, (was) dedicated (that) when he dies, it shall be sent (to) Lamech (to) rest (there)."

I wish God would get rid of this difficult to translate secret messages and send open ones instead...

Don Enrico
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13 February 2007, 12:19 PM
hambubba's Avatar
hambubba hambubba is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2000
Location: Gonzales, LA
Posts: 10,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Enrico View Post
I wish God would get rid of this difficult to translate secret messages and send open ones instead...
He tried that. It didn't go over any better.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15 February 2007, 02:06 PM
Quantum Leap2
 
Posts: n/a
Icon605

He tried that. It didn't go over any better.

So true...an agnostic said to Jesus, "Prove to me you have worth; then I will believe." But I knew he would not - even if I turned stones to bread, walked on water, and rose from the dead.

From a poem by W. Joyner
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15 February 2007, 02:37 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,256
Default

So agnostics really love that being undecided thing then?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 15 February 2007, 08:39 PM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringTheNoise View Post
So agnostics really love that being undecided thing then?
No we are just prepared to evaluate available data, draw tentative conclusions, act on them as necessary and seek more information as the opportunity arises. We then conclude that there is insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion in regard to the existence of a God or Gods.

Its a little process we call thinking - some of us are very attached to it.

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17 February 2007, 05:32 AM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,246
Default

Uhm.. I thought the bible was writeen many hundreds of years afer the occourences contained in it.. at least the old testament.

Mind you.. while i do believe in God and Chrits' teachings, i find the bible to be more akin to a collection of experiences and an early attempt to record a families history.. a diary... which is nothing more then a reflection of truth and event he most perfect reflection is flawed.

Then to add to the fact that the bible was edited and translated by people with a specific message to convey do you honestly think the monks that did the translatiosn would go .. oh my .. we totally missed the boat on this whole celebate thing.. we should change our ways.. or would they have done everything in their power to re-inforce the things that they already taught... lets use common sence here..


I laugh inside every time someone justifies bigotry or hatred because "the bible says"..

The bible says what people put into it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03 May 2007, 11:07 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
We frequently use the familiar term, gospel, or good news. Where is the
first place it appears in the Bible?

The great discovery is that the Bible is a message system.

In Genesis Chapter 5, there is the genealogy of Adam through Noah.
..........
It demonstrates that in the earliest chapters of the Book of Genesis, God
had already laid out His plan of redemption for the predicament of
mankind. It is a love story, written in blood on a wooden cross which was
erected in Judea almost 2,000 years ago.
Truly, our God is an awesome God.
Actually the first place the good news appears in the Bible is even earlier and more "awesome" than that, because no fancy wordplay is required: Chapter 3, verse 15, the "protevangelion", where even as God is banishing Adam and Eve from Paradise He promises to send a descendant of Eve who will overcome the serpent that tempted them to their downfall.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16 May 2007, 02:20 AM
trollface
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringTheNoise View Post
So agnostics really love that being undecided thing then?
I've always said there's nothing an agnostic can't do, as long as he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16 May 2007, 02:30 AM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
Actually the first place the good news appears in the Bible is even earlier and more "awesome" than that, because no fancy wordplay is required: Chapter 3, verse 15, the "protevangelion", where even as God is banishing Adam and Eve from Paradise He promises to send a descendant of Eve who will overcome the serpent that tempted them to their downfall.
Well, transforming "seed" into "a descendent" and mutual animosity into a one-sided "overcoming" seems like it's making the words of the verse play twister a bit...

--Logoboros
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16 May 2007, 10:52 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
Well, transforming "seed" into "a descendent" and mutual animosity into a one-sided "overcoming" seems like it's making the words of the verse play twister a bit...

--Logoboros
Read a modern Bible and you will find the "seed" in the Renaissance Bibles is translated into modern English as "offspring" or "descendant". As my dictionary confirms. No "transformation" necessary. I don't know Hebrew but I'll bet if you tried to argue that the Hebrew word means something else, like maybe "seed" in the modern sense, you'd be rowing upstream in a barbed-wire canoe.

"He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" doesn't sound anything like just "mutual animosity" and an equally balanced two-sided struggle to me. If I was refereeing a fight where one bloke got his heel struck and the other got his head crushed, I wouldn't have the slightest doubt whom I'd call the winner!

This verse has been seen as a prophecy of the Messiah since probably BC. If you want to come up with some other interpretation of it, it'll be you who's "playing twister".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16 May 2007, 11:14 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 23,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
"He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" doesn't sound anything like just "mutual animosity" and an equally balanced two-sided struggle to me. If I was refereeing a fight where one bloke got his heel struck and the other got his head crushed, I wouldn't have the slightest doubt whom I'd call the winner!
If the one who "strikes his heel" is a venomous serpent, then wouldn't they both be dead?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16 May 2007, 04:15 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 9,533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
Read a modern Bible and you will find the "seed" in the Renaissance Bibles is translated into modern English as "offspring" or "descendant". As my dictionary confirms. No "transformation" necessary. I don't know Hebrew but I'll bet if you tried to argue that the Hebrew word means something else, like maybe "seed" in the modern sense, you'd be rowing upstream in a barbed-wire canoe.
I had three semesters of Hebrew; perhaps I can help.

You would only be rowing upstream in a barbed-wire canoe to the degree that you argued that "seed" only carried the modern sense. It carried that as well as "sperm" (and curiously enough, "egg" in the sense of an egg from a human ovary) or descendant/offspring.

Avril
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16 May 2007, 05:52 PM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,219
Default

Peter,

My assertion would be that the most literal interpretation of this passage is that humans and snakes are cursed to be enemies -- humans will hate snakes and try to kill them, and snakes will hate humans and try to kill them.

Such an interpretation requires no fancy or restrictive glossing of the terms.

The Messianic interpretation requires deliberate narrowing of the noun seed/offspring noun (including paring down it down to a singluar), it ignores the parallelism between "offsping of woman" and "offspring of the serpent" (which makes good sense talking about the "race of humans" and the "race of snakes" not getting along, but becomes imbalanced when talking about a Divinely annointed human and a supernatural foe). And it also calls in all kinds of additional expectations and interpretations. In other words, I sincerely doubt that someone who was not already primed to look for a messianic prophecy would see anything of the kind in this verse.

And I'm not alone in such an interpretation.

--Logoboros
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16 May 2007, 06:14 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

What Logoboros said: the verse is not a promise of a future savior; it is the curse upon Adam and Eve. Adam will eat bread in the sweat of his brow; Eve will suffer in childbirth, and some of her children will die of snakebite. You don't "curse" someone with a promise of redemption. If a "light at the end of the tunnel" was intended, the writers would have made that clear: they knew how to use the word "however" to offset a change or contradiction in the course of a passage.

Silas

Last edited by Silas Sparkhammer; 16 May 2007 at 06:15 PM. Reason: wrong word; oops.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16 May 2007, 06:25 PM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,219
Default

I feel I should add that I don't think the messianic interpretation is invalid. Certainly, if one takes the Bible, OT and NT, as a whole, such an interpretation fits the overall eschatology.

What I object to is the claim that the messianic interpretation is in any way self-evident or literally obvious -- or that it is indisputably the best or most rational way of understanding the verse.

--Logoboros
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16 May 2007, 10:46 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
I feel I should add that I don't think the messianic interpretation is invalid. . . .
I think it must be invalid. Remember, God has yet to kill all mankind save Noah and his family. God, far from being ready to reconcile himself with humanity by sacrificing his son, is still mad enough at us to commit genocide against us.

One might be able to see a hint of future forgiveness in the covenant of the rainbow, but not in the tripartite curse of Eden.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 17 May 2007, 01:13 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
If the one who "strikes his heel" is a venomous serpent, then wouldn't they both be dead?
I can understand a pommie not knowing this, but most snakes (esp. in the Middle East) are not venomous, and most bites from venomous snakes are not fatal. In any case it says "strike" (or "bruise"), not "bite". Whereas crushing someone's head is invariably fatal.
Also consider the picture it is portraying: The one standing on the head of the other, who can do no more than strike at his heel, is clearly in the superior position.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 17 May 2007, 01:23 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
Peter,

My assertion would be that the most literal interpretation of this passage is that humans and snakes are cursed to be enemies -- humans will hate snakes and try to kill them, and snakes will hate humans and try to kill them.

Such an interpretation requires no fancy or restrictive glossing of the terms.

The Messianic interpretation requires deliberate narrowing of the noun seed/offspring noun (including paring down it down to a singluar), it ignores the parallelism between "offsping of woman" and "offspring of the serpent" (which makes good sense talking about the "race of humans" and the "race of snakes" not getting along, but becomes imbalanced when talking about a Divinely annointed human and a supernatural foe).
"The race of humans" would be the offspring of Man AND Woman. "The offspring of the Woman" refers to the offspring of the new Eve, who had no human father.
Quote:
And it also calls in all kinds of additional expectations and interpretations.
Quote:
In other words, I sincerely doubt that someone who was not already primed to look for a messianic prophecy would see anything of the kind in this verse.
Of course we don't read the Bible, especially not a book like Genesis, in the same wooden way we would read a daily newspaper. I'm sure the ancient Israelites wouldn't have.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.