As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, I have been teaching a discipleship class at our church (different from the Hebrews Bible Study that some of you are following). It is a four-part series on Genesis 1:1, among other things. The class is a study of the supernatural nature of the Hebrew language and the ancient Hebrew pictographs making up Genesis 1:1 and other Biblical names and passages.
I have tried to upload the Power Point files, but none of the services that I am aware of allow for the Hebrew fonts I have used, so I have taken screen captures of the slides and included them as images. I hope it makes sense. Also, there are many slides, so I will publish the teachings in multiple parts.
The first class was entitled “Why do you believe the Bible?” We looked at at three key places in scripture where the same event is graphically depicted in the ancient Hebrew pictographs. I will publish the first teaching in three parts.
Why do you believe the Bible?
Genesis 1:1
We began, appropriately enough, “In the beginning,” by looking at the pictographs that make up the Hebrew word “Barasheet,” most frequently translated, “In the beginning.”
In the original Hebrew alphabet, each pictograph represented a letter of the alphabet, a number, and had a symbolic meaning. By looking at those pictographs, a richer, deeper understanding of the text is gained.
Barasheet is spelled in Hebrew BET (the equivalent of our letter B, depicted in the ancient Hebrew pictographs as a house or tent, symbolically meaning “house” as in a lineage; RESH (R), depicted as a man’s head, meaning the first or highest person; ALEPH (A), depicted as an ox head, meaning strength or God, as in, “the Lord is my strength;” SHIN (S or Sh), depicted as two teeth, meaning to consume or destroy; YOD (Y), depicted as an arm from the elbow to the fist, meaning “my” or efforts or works; and TAV (T), depicted as two crossed sticks, meaning mark or covenant.
The first two letters of Barasheet BET and RESH together form the Hebrew/Aramaic word “bar” or “son.” So, when we look at the ancient Hebrew pictographs, we see that “In the beginning” is actually a graphic depiction of the SON of GOD being CONSUMED/DESTROYED with his HANDS on a CROSS. The slides show the modern Hebrew letter, the name of the letter, the symbolic meaning, what is pictured in the pictograph (in parentheses), and the pictograph itself.
In the beginning
That’s quite a remarkable beginning. For a slightly different look at this, you can read my earlier post In the beginning.
During the class, I taught that the traditional belief that the first prophecy in scripture is in Genesis 3 is actually incorrect, and that it is, “In the beginning.” I believe the most powerful and creative force in the universe is the spoken word of God. If so, by its very nature, it must be prophetic especially in view of God’s creativity. God not only created the universe, but in speaking, He created language, an alphabet, math and science, and everything else.
This week, however, I was humbled by the Lord who showed me something else quite remarkable. In Genesis 3, the “first prophecy” is God cursing the serpent saying,
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
“In the beginning,” the very nature of the Son’s destruction on the cross is accomplished by the pictograph depicting two teeth, the very manner in which a serpent would “strike.” So, the first prophecy in scripture is both “In the beginning” and in Genesis 3.
There was obviously a lot more, it was an hour-long class. I will try to put as much as I can in parts 2 and 3 which will follow soon. Enjoy.
Related Posts:
#1 by Seth Ehorn on September 29, 2009 - 5:34 am
Yikes. I see no warrant to read Genesis 1:1 the way you have sketched it. Among the problems I see:
1. Hebrew and Aramaic are related in that they are both Semitic, but they are not the same language. They often have unique vocabulary, including the very word you brought up. While the Aramaic בר (bar) means “son,” the Hebrew word is בן (ben). It seems like special pleading to go back and forth between appealing to Hebrew then Aramaic in making your point (all in the context of the Hebrew text of one verse).
2. Your “pictograph” approach is certainly special pleading. Why do the first two letters of bereshith get combined to form the consonantal stem of the Aramaic word “son”, but the other letters do not? Why stop with bereshith? Why not subject bara (“to create”) to the same process? And so on…There are no methodological controls in play here.
3. The pictographs you present do not all appear to come to from the same era of Biblical Hebrew (cf. GKC introduction). Assuming my suspicion to be accurate, why combine different forms from different eras?
4. I understand that you are probably not attempting to argue that the human author (presumably Moses) intended to convey all that you say this text conveys. However, one wonders, what do you suppose the author actually thought he was communicating? Shouldn’t we strive for that meaning? Isn’t that meaning enough?
5. No other passage of Scripture interprets Genesis 1:1 in this manner. That is, there is no authoritative voice commending me to read the text as you have suggested. On a related note, what does Paul do with Genesis 3:15 in Romans 16:20? He certainly does not apply it to Jesus. Should we?
6. If this text means all that you suggest it means, this completely eclipses the meaning of the Hebrew text as it is understood from a grammatical-historical approach. Is this passage the opening summary statement of God’s creative work? Or, is it a “Biblecode-esque” presentation of Christ already in Gen 1:1?
7. The word את occurs in your slides with “???” appearing where the translation value should occur. את, of course, is the definite direct object marker and has no translational value. Your markings “???” make me wonder if you have studied Hebrew. Have you? When you hear others say that knowledge of the original languages allows one to go deeper into the meaning of the text, this is now what they had in mind.
Sorry to harp on you for so long. To be clear, I am not saying that you are presenting heresy to your class…but, it seems to me that you are not presenting to them the text of Genesis 1:1.
#2 by Peter on September 29, 2009 - 9:13 am
1. I actually agree with your first point. I do use “ancient Hebrew” as sort of a catch-all term rather than saying this is specifically Aramaic, or this or that version of the script of Phoenician, or early Semitic, or whatever. Honestly, that’s primarily for convenience.
2. I actually do exactly what you suggest, and those will be shown as the posts are published. The best example of this is “the heavens” (hashamayim) which contains several words, water, sea, Moses, HaShem, etc. As far as methodological controls, no, there are none. There is no attempt to be scientific or to be exact, only to show how, in my opinion, God is doing much more than one thing at a time.
3. Correct, the pictographs come from a much earlier era, but the symbolism and numeric values exist even to today. The pictographs just more closely depict the symbolism.
4. You are correct, I don’t believe the authors intended more than they were inspired to write. And, yes, we should do our best to strive for that particular meaning. I’ve found nothing at all that contradicts anything in the original text, and quite a lot that confirms it. For example, I believe Elohim depicts Psalm 23 as I have shown previously and will again. I don’t want to look for other meanings, but looking to the ancient Hebrew alphabet for symbolism is nothing new, it is, in fact, ancient. Admittedly, my bias is from a Christian perspective, so I see the pictographs through that lens. I readily admit that.
5. I don’t think I’ve interpreted Genesis 1:1 in any particular way other than what’s there. I don’t suggest a different reading, by any means, I’m just looking at the pictographs that make it up. In fact, I have and will show the entirety of Genesis 1:1 which I think depicts much, much more.
6. I do not mean to alter the reading of the text at all. I think the text should be read exactly as is, and to mean exactly what is intended by it. I don’t know enough about the Bible Code stuff to say, but it is just a fun presentation of what’s in the pictures. So, that’s probably a better description. “Biblecode-esque,” I like that.
7. I simply mean that the aleph-tav is untranslated, nothing more. I am no Hebrew scholar, and I have never claimed to be. I have only studied conversational Hebrew for a short period of time and a little Biblical Hebrew as time permits. I have always done my best to make that abundantly clear.
Thank you, I appreciate that you do not believe I am not presenting heresy. And we always begin by reading Genesis 1:1, typically in English and Hebrew. I would never suggest that it be read in any other way. I just think the text is multi-dimensional, and I certainly don’t think I have cornered the market on one of the dimensions, it’s just fun to look at the symbolism.
I do hope you return. Believe it or not, I welcome the criticism. I certainly want to be kept in line with Biblical teaching. Thanks for your thoughtfulness.
#3 by Seth Ehorn on September 29, 2009 - 6:11 pm
Thank you for your cordial response. I appreciate your willingness to hear criticism and dialogue about it. I will not respond in detail, but some of the broader questions lingering for me are:
(1) I am curious how you justify using both Hebrew and Aramaic words and concepts (e.g., pictographs) within the same verse? Do you have a warrant for making the switch between the two?
(2) With regard to the intention of the author in the communication of the text, how would you go about demonstrating that this is what the author intended? Further, would you argue that the author had intentions like this for the entire book of Genesis? If yes, isn’t that a bit tedious? If no, who gets to choose which verses? (Sorry to commit the fallacy of the excluded middle)
#4 by Peter on September 30, 2009 - 9:39 am
1. As I mentioned, I readily admit using the term “ancient Hebrew” very loosely, primarily for sake of the audience, but also to shorten these presentations, including blog posts. That is why, in the case of “bar” for example, I use the “Hebrew/Aramaic” combo; I recognize it as Aramaic, but the discussion has broadly labeled the alphabet “Ancient Hebrew.” I suppose it could be labeled “ancient-anything,” but “Hebrew” is a familiar term.
2. Again, I don’t think the human authors intended any such thing, necessarily, although under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I cannot say. I do think God is quite capable of orchestrating something like this from the beginning of creation, but not necessarily as something theological, only because His very nature is creativity. If I were a betting man, I would say this permeates the entire Old Testament. In fact, when asked by my pastor to look up a given word, they all are quite remarkable. See, e.g.:
http://beautyofthebible.com/2007/11/19/gods-blessing/
See also (one which someone else asked me to do):
http://beautyofthebible.com/2008/09/16/when-evil-is-beautiful/
I no longer have any intention of searching out the entire book of Genesis. Although when I began I did. After spending a year in Genesis 1:1, I was humbled and gave up the proposition. But, as I said, it’s still something fun to do.
#5 by andi on August 16, 2010 - 6:37 pm
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to accept criticism. This is crucial in being open to the truth of the Word. Rather than getting caught up in semantics, I think that it is very important to see that no matter what you call it, the pictographs agree with the Word.
This is another ‘witness’ within the Word. I am not concerned with whether or not it is Aramaic, Hebrew or Phonecian, but that it is in agreement with the Word itself. I believe that the Word is supernatural, and that it is God-breathed, waiting for us to discover the layers that are hidden within it.
As long as it does not contradict or cause confusion, it can help us to recognize the depth of truth that God has hidden for those who will seek it as hidden treasure.
I have truly enjoyed your blogs and will continue to read and learn. True scholars think with their heart as well their minds, and are willing to admit when they are wrong, which you seem to be willing to do. Thanks for sharing!
#6 by William Brannan on September 30, 2011 - 10:18 am
I am curious where you are getting “ancient Hebrew pictographs” from?
#7 by Yaaqov ben Yisrael on February 8, 2012 - 12:32 pm
Pictographic Hebrew:
There is a group of individuals who make the claim that there is a deeper meaning of the Ancient Hebrew based upon the suggestion that the original Hebrew script might have been pictographic. This is really a pseudo-science and poor scholarship. Those making the claim are not trained linguists, and have no real clue how languages evolved or work.
The earliest languages recorded are the Sumerian and Egyptian Hieroglyphic. Both languages are infact hieroglyphic in nature, being that Sumerian is also based on pictures. In these most ancient of languages, which utilize pictures for letters, even these did not utilize the picture as any inner meaning to the word.
Ancient Egyptian can demonstrate this easiest, as everyone is sure what the pictures are and represent; as opposed to the Sumerian Cuneiform, which has lost much of its original form.
The Egyptian writing method employs 134 Phonetic signs, and 180 ideographic and determinative signs. The phonetic signs are divided into: monoliteral, the sign represents one phonetic sound; biliteral, the sign represents two phonetic sounds; and triliteral, the sign represents three phonetic sounds. The entirety of Egyptian grammar is much like any other Semitic language. It uses the phonetic signs to build vocabulary, verbs, and is used in the same manner as the later alephbets are used. The ideographs and determinatives are only used to give a clearer meaning to the words built upon the phonetic signs. This is due to the fact that there are many words (in many languages) which are homophones. They are spelled and sound the same, but have different meanings. It is the ideographs and determinatives which give the reader the true meanings of these words. The Egyptian Phonetic signs are used identically to how we use our English alphabet.
For instance, the phonetic signs for “i/y” is a reed, the “glottal stop ie. aleph and ayin” is a vulture, and the “w” is represented by a quail chick. Looking at them together they would be: a Reed, Vulture, Quail chick. No Egyptian would read this as having anything to do with a Reed, Vuture or Quail chick. They would understand that these are Phonetic symbols, here they are monoliteral, and represents the sounds I, 3 (glottal stop), and W or I3W. In Egyptian this can represent two different words. This is where the ideograph or determinative comes into play. The ideograph and determinative come at the end of each word to give specific meaning about the word represented by the phonetic symbol. A man leaning on his cain or staff would represent “old age”, a man standing with arms stretched toward heaven would represent “adoration/worship”. Hence, when you see the Reed, Vulture, Quail chick with a man leaning on a staff, it means “old, or olderly”, while the exact same signs with a man holding his hands toward heaven at the end would represent prayer, or adoration. Two different meanings and neither have anything in common with the actual picture representations used for the phonetic symbol. This same method is employed by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, and even the modern Chinese and Japanese.
The Hebrew language developed much later than the Egyptian, Sumerian or even Chinese. By the time the Semites developed their own alphabet, their language already employed the Cuneiform system of the Akkadians, which was a hieroglyphic type system, utilizing pictures to represent phonemes. Even if one could prove positively that the ancient Hebrew was indeed pictographic, these pictures were phonetic signs only, and the pictures had no significance to the meaning of the words in which they were employed. The names of the alphabet were used only to represent the intitial sounds. For instance, the letter Beth only represented the “b” sound, and did not have any meaning inherent in a “house” which was what the name Beth meant.
Hebrew developed among the nations which utilized pictographic writing, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. It would stand to reason that if the ancient Hebrews did employ a pictographic language, then their rules would resemble those of the nations in which it developed. Indeed it does. Looking at these early languages we find that there were certain signs which were used to represent phonemes; the phonetic signs. In each of these languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. there are signs which represent consonants, and vowels (Egyptian excluded); these languages had verb conjugation, and noun declensions, prepositions, adverbs, participles, ect. There are strong verbs, doubling verbs, weak verbs, and doubly weak verbs.
Egyptian verbs work in a similar way to Hebrew verbs, mostly utilizing a triliteral root. For instance: SDMNF means “he heard”; which was written with the picture representation of: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water, Horned Viper (representing the “He” suffix pronoun). The perfect tense in Egyptian, like Hebrew is governed in the suffix. “I heard” in Egyptian would be SDMNI which would be written as: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water and a kneeling man (representing the “I” suffix pronoun).
Hebrew works similarly to the Egyptian method. שמע Shama’ means “he heard”. It is written with the Shin (two front teeth) Mim (Water) and Ayin (Eye or Spring). “I heard” would be written שמעתי Shama’ti Shin (Two front teeth) Mim (Water) Ayin (Eye or Spring) Tav (an “x” mark) Yod (Hand). In Both Egyptian and Hebrew the 1st singular perfect is represented with and “I/Y”. Sedjemeni (I heard) Shamati (I heard).
One famous Egyptian word is MS which is written: Three Fox Skins, Piece of Cloth meaning “to bear/give birth”. This is found in famous names such as Tutmoses, and could also possibly the origin of the name Moses. Notice the meaning of the word has no relation to three fox’s skins nor a piece of cloth.
The point I am trying to make is that even among those most ancient of languages which we all know to have used pictographs, these pictographs didn’t work the way many claim ancient Hebrew works in regard to pictographs.
One final example. In Egyptian Hieroglyphic there is no pictograph for a “dove”. The word for “dove” is PAT, which is written as a Reed Mat, Arm, Loaf. What then does a reed mat, arm and loaf have to do with a dove? Nothing at all; the glyphs only represented the phonetic signs to pronounce the word PAT.
#8 by Kyle on July 15, 2012 - 12:04 pm
As a believing Jewish person in Jesus (Yeshua) I read this about Gen 1:1 and I must say that your interpretation is the best I’ve seen. A jewish person who does not see Jesus “In the begining” as in John 1:1 This makes for a great witnessing tool for me along with the :Feasts of The L~rd” as in Tabernacles, Passover…ect. The Hebrew language is alive and whatever it takes to win a soul to the Kingdom of G~D. If need be to “mix” arimaic and Hebrew together (modern or ancient) to get the message across, Then so be it…”Who is wise? He who wins souls”…Keep up the good work…and remember, just because someone is Jewish does not make them an expert in Hebrew. The message of Salvation superceeds all debates in language and doctrine..
#9 by Daughter on July 29, 2012 - 4:11 pm
This makes me think of “The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.”
#10 by Crystal on October 5, 2012 - 12:55 am
Hi. I was looking at your post. I love it! vary interesting. I have beginning to study a few of the Hebrew words too. I am finding it fascinating. A preacher named Joseph prince has really gotten me inspired. He talks a lot about “in the Hebrew”. I listen to his podcasts lots. I noticed that you have question marks for the middle word. Joseph said this. God works in sevens. On either side there is three words. He ‘aleph taw’ alpha and Omaga, the beginning and the end, God is in the middle. Where you have question marks is Gods name. Joseph talked about this verse in reference to tithing as well. He said that if Beth is taken away from ‘barasheet’ it means first fruit. Food for thought.
I have been reading other comments to this post. I think the pictographs are very powerfull with the Hebrew words. Look at the word sick for example. If one follows the pictographs it says. Lamedah, cheth, he. Learning, fence, grace. There is a barrier to learn grace. Where heal is ‘rapha’. Resh, pe, aleph. Head, mouth, sacrificial ox. The head needs to think then the mouth speaks of Gods sacrifice. Listen to Joseph. You will be blessed on his teaching
That is awesome you are teaching this in your classes at church. Blessings to you.
Crystal