Hebrew Old Testament

Genesis 1–11: God’s Design for Personhood (Pt. 2/5)

Genesis 1–11: God’s Design for Personhood (Pt. 2/5)

God created humanity “in his image.” The meaning of “the image of God” matters; it is our identity as human beings. Today there is a tendency in OT scholarship to confuse the purpose for being made in God’s image with the meaning of being made in God’s image. This video gets beneath the English translation and concludes that to be made in God’s image is to be like God in some ways—in terms of humanity’s God-like nature of personhood, qualities of love and justice, and abilities to communicate and create. All this is so that humanity could fulfill God’s purpose for them. Persons can think, reason and make decisions; God’s design for personhood is for humanity to think, reason and make decisions in a way not independent of God and his will. Humanity began to deviate from this design when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To appreciate why in modern civilization humanity is on a path to self-destruction we need to return to what happened in the garden of Eden.

You can view the video at

Genesis 1–11: God’s Design for Personhood (Pt. 2/5)

Genesis 1–11: God’s Design for Humanity. Pt. 1/5

Genesis 1–11: God’s Design for Humanity. Pt. 1/5

Genesis 1–11 is about the beginning not only of the universe, but also of humanity, civilization, nations, and even government. This video is the first in a series of five on God’s design for humanity based on Genesis 1–11. In today’s intellectual climate, even God does not make sense, let alone his design for humanity. Modern civilization has deviated from God’s design for humanity in a way unprecedented in human history since the days of Noah. There are two consequences: humanity seems to be heading toward self-destruction (the problem); God and his design for humanity (the solution) no longer make sense. So modern civilization is such that the only solution to the intractable problem it has created does not make sense! This series of videos seeks to show that God and his design for humanity are indeed the solution to the problem. This first video is to reorientate our thinking so that God and his design for humanity make sense even today. It thus sets the stage for the other four videos, which are about God’s design for personhood, civilization, nationhood, and government.

You can watch the full video at

Genesis 1–11: God’s Design for Humanity (Pt. 1/5)

Genesis 1:1 – The Correct Translation: “In the beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth” (KJV, ESV, NIV) vs “In the Beginning when God Created the Heavens and the Earth (NRSV, JPS).”

The standard translation takes Gen.1:1 to be an independent clause which refers to the absolute beginning of the universe: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The word bərēʾšît (beginning) denotes the start of a whole sequence of events, that is, the absolute beginning of “the heavens and the earth.” The phrase is a rhetorical device (merism) which combines two extremes in order to refer to everything in between them. The translation is consistent with the idea that God created the whole universe ex nihilo.

The NET Bible supports the traditional scholarship in its translators’ notes on Gen. 1:1 – “the translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper.”

This traditional interpretation has been dominant for centuries. However, it has recently been seriously challenged by scholars who are informed by historical criticism of the Pentateuch which began in the 19th century. Continue reading “Genesis 1:1 – The Correct Translation: “In the beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth” (KJV, ESV, NIV) vs “In the Beginning when God Created the Heavens and the Earth (NRSV, JPS).””

Genesis vs Ancient Near East Polytheistic Myths: Plagiarism or Polemics? Part 1

Many critical scholars in Western universities suggest that the biblical Creation and Flood stories borrowed ideas from Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET). For example, the Creation story in Genesis must be influenced by the Babylonian creation story of Enuma Elish since the story in Genesis is briefer and the preserved records of Genesis belong to a later date. However, Kenneth Kitchen rejects this notion. He writes, “The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the Flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds. In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. In the Ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as has been assumed for early Genesis.”/1/

On the other hand, the relationship between Genesis and the Babylonian Flood story of the Epic of Gilgamesh could be more nuanced. There are some similarities, but also differences (the form of the Ark, duration of the Flood and the birds sent out by Noah). Perhaps, the similarities and differences arose because the memories and traditions of the event of the Flood were transmitted differently by Israel and its neighboring societies.

More importantly, Genesis displays vocabulary similar to ANET not because it borrowed ideas from ANET but because it is mounting a polemical theology against the pagan polytheism of Israel’s neighbors. Continue reading “Genesis vs Ancient Near East Polytheistic Myths: Plagiarism or Polemics? Part 1”

Series 3: The Prophecies of the Messiah and His Kingdom in the Book of Isaiah. Part 1. Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?

Question: Matthew cites Isa. 7:14 and says it is fulfilled by the birth of Jesus. However critical scholars argue that in the context of Isaiah 7, this verse is about a child born during the time of Ahaz. How would evangelical scholars like you respond to this critical scholarship?

Discussants: Dr. Leong Tien Fock and Dr. Ng Kam Weng.
You are welcome to join the discussion at:

Part 1. Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Three Questions Arising from Article on Paleo-Hebrew

Reply to Three Questions From a Reader Arising from the Paleo-Hebrew Article “How to Misread the Bible in the Name of Paleo-Hebrew 3 (Full Article)”
Answers by Dr. Leong Tien Fock*

Question 1. In terms of the historical progression of language development from Proto-Sinaitic to Paleo Hebrew to Aramaic square script, are you suggesting that when paleo Hebrew was used, the original pictographic meaning of the letters was lost to users? i.e. was the use of paleo Hebrew only phonetic, with no progressive overlap from the old (Proto-Sinaitic) to the new (Paleo script) in the understanding of users?

Answer: The original article “How to Misread the Bible in the Name of Paleo-Hebrew 3 (Full Article)” is quite comprehensive in showing that all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet EVEN in the Proto-Sinaitic script were originally ONLY phonetic. Thus when this script was changed to the Paleo-Hebrew script, there was no change from pictographic meaning + phonetic meaning to phonetic meaning only. It has always been phonetic ONLY. Hence the question of “progressive overlap” or the “original pictographic meaning” being lost does not arise. Continue reading “Three Questions Arising from Article on Paleo-Hebrew”