[boaz212]

I have been studying the Book of Genesis. I am at chapter 5 right now. I have found an interesting study done by Chuck Missler. I like your thoughts on it.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/284/
The Composite List

Now let's put it all together:

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

Here is a summary of God's plan of redemption, hidden here within a genealogy in Genesis! You will never convince me that a group of Jewish rabbis deliberately "contrived" to hide the "Christian Gospel" right here in a genealogy within their venerated Torah!


My other question is that how much attention should I be paying to the meaning of the original languages? I personally believe that the knowledge of the original languages in not required to understand God's Word. But the above study could not be done without those knowledge. I could only find the meaning of Seth and Noah's names only. Is there a time that we should use the help of the original languages ie. proper names of people and places? Please let me know what you think about this issue and your approach on it. Thanks!
Tim

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Yeah, I was pretty tickled pink when I heard Missler expound that. Its hard for me to verify if thats really what each of those Hebrew names literally mean, but I wouldn't put it past God to do that. But then again, it would have been hidden there for the unbelieving Jew, not the gentile per se. Yet there are plenty of other references to Christ suffering and death that are astoundingly overlooked by the Rabbis.

As for necessity to know Hebrew, I don't believe it necessary at all, but granted, one wouldn't find that out without some knowledge of the language.
Let's face it though, you don't need the pattern referred to above to discover the gospel in English..

I have, however, often wanted to know the meaning of people's untranslated names, and place names, since the Jews were quite particular about what they named things.

[Samuel]

My dictionary of translated Scriptural names, doesn't exactly track along with this. Close but a different interpretation of several, of the names.

The first three names check out the same.

Others example:
Kenan, their smith (a fabricator).
Mahalalel, praise of God.
Jared, a descender.
Enoch, dedicated.
Methuselah, they died - the dart: man of the dart.
Lamech, why this with thee? : unto bringing low.
Noah, rest.
Noah, (2) movable (name of female).

The last one Noah, had two different definition lists. So going with the first definition, this one is also the same in my book.

[chette777]

Boaz, do you want our comments on Genesis Chapter five or Chuck Missler's study?

Each Hebrew word because of the lack of consonant's has many meanings. that is why the KJV translation is so much more accurate it uses English words that preserve the broad meanings of the "Original" languages of Hebrew and Greek.

Boaz,

You see that "plan of Redemption" laid out in his message? It is a cover for those who teach that Old Testament saint's looked forward to the cross. Missler and others just like to make the Old testament say more than it actually does. Manly because they have such a hard time teaching the O.T. verse by verse. The plan of redemption is not in that genealogy any further than to preserve the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry to say but NO Old Testament Saint was looking forward to the cross. It is a lie of Scholarship to befuddle the simple.

[Samuel]

I also checked this out with my old strongs, we call it the tables of Moses because it is so big (library sized volume).

The word meanings were the same as my littler book, except Methuselah, which was "man of the javelin".
But "dart" - "javelin" - six of one seven of the other. So neither of my resources, agree with Chuck Missler's interpretation.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

For the record, I used to listen to alot of Missler (I have everything I could download, which is alot! - he's quite popular), but the more I learnt, the more I disagreed with him in various areas.
He is some kind of walking encyclopedia, but men like that can also become dangerous.
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This guy has certainly studied the Bible, yet he's one of those Greek correctors, and quite frequently such that it really put me off. He does have some great stuff, and I did learn much from him, however I've put his expositions on the back shelf as not being reliable. He definitely sparks alot of curiosity, and his Acts 17:11 motto is repeated at the start of every lesson he gives, and urges you to do your own homework, not to take his word for it, which is comendable.

Thank you Samuel for getting out the tomes and doing some homework for us. I guess Missler does what most Bible-correctors do, they check a lexicon and pick whichever of the various possible translations that fit a desired end, but its not necessarily correct.

Its almost too bad, the gospel hidden in the names thing would be pretty neat if it were reliably correct.

Chette, it was pretty obvious from post#1 that Boaz was seeking comments on the Missler interpretation, and I think you meant to say that Hebrew lacks vowels.

Since its on-topic; I agree OT saints weren't looking forward to the cross per se, since that method of execution wasn't even common yet, but given the fact that there were sufficient prophecies about Christ's suffering and atonement in their hands back then, is it not safe to say they were looking forward to perfect redemption? (Although they focused on the Kingdom prophecies more).
Some examples that even point towards crucifixion: Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Zechariah 12:10, Genesis 3:15 (!?!), Genesis 49:10 Sceptre passing from Judah would indicate that it ought to be at the hands of the Romans and their methods.
Anyways, I'm sure there are more.

[chette777]

HuH yes lacked vowels Opps! I had my consonant's on backwards.

and yes Kingdom Prophecies were their primary focus. and the prophets could point to crucifixion however they would have been blind to it being for their salvation. They were to busy looking for the coming of a king with an army to set them free. But soon to come to an earth near you.

[boaz212]

Thanks guys for your thoughts on my post. I read Chuck Missler's commentary online here and there. It's good that he uses the KJB but he does correct the Bible with the Greek and Hebrew which I don't like. It's good to know that there's no real agreement on the meaning of these names in Genesis 5.
Chette, if you have any other insights to this chapter besides the chuck Missler question I had, feel free to put them on this thread.
Thanks!
Tim

[Samuel]

I've always heard that if you use the KJV, you don't need to correct the Greek, and Hebrew. You only need to do that with those other strange books; Er, I mean Bibles.