Where Is the Greek Word for These Words in English?

[ChristB4us]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

My question for those that may have knowledge is; What is to say that "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 should be rendered "from" instead, in regards to how this was being spoken?

I am having a hard time finding the Greek word for how they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 from.

I understand that not everything is translated well into English, and so if "unto" and "to" is assumed for how this was being done, would not "from" be just as true to how this was not being spoken as well as how this was being spoken? Mayhap true to the message being given?

I would discern that the man in verse 28 is not speaking TO himself as if he is mad, but speaking out of turn for why there is no interpretation. When you have the practice of 2 or 3 speak in tongues one by one and one interpret, a foreign visitor could very well speak out of turn, rising up and speaking for why there is no interpretation coming. And so verse 28 is Paul saying he understands what he is saying as God does too.

And so cut to verse 2, speaking in tongues, when it is manifested, it is from God and not from the man as he does not understand what is being said as it is done in the language of men that he does not understand, albeit in the Spirit, he speaks mysteries to those in the assemblies since there are no mysteries in speaking TO God.

If anyone can explain from the link provided what Greek word(s) they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28, I would appreciate it.

 

[Josheb]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

My question for those that may have knowledge is; What is to say that "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 should be rendered "from" instead, in regards to how this was being spoken?

I am having a hard time finding the Greek word for how they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 from.

I understand that not everything is translated well into English, and so if "unto" and "to" is assumed for how this was being done, would not "from" be just as true to how this was not being spoken as well as how this was being spoken? Mayhap true to the message being given?

I would discern that the man in verse 28 is not speaking TO himself as if he is mad, but speaking out of turn for why there is no interpretation. When you have the practice of 2 or 3 speak in tongues one by one and one interpret, a foreign visitor could very well speak out of turn, rising up and speaking for why there is no interpretation coming. And so verse 28 is Paul saying he understands what he is saying as God does too.

And so cut to verse 2, speaking in tongues, when it is manifested, it is from God and not from the man as he does not understand what is being said as it is done in the language of men that he does not understand, albeit in the Spirit, he speaks mysteries to those in the assemblies since there are no mysteries in speaking TO God.

If anyone can explain from the link provided what Greek word(s) they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28, I would appreciate it.

Thou couldst venture forth unto men that be wise like unto Robert Mounce for he hath a spider's home that hath the land be covered wherein the knowledge thy seeketh may thee find.

Do you use the KJV and, if so, why?

 

[ChristB4us]

Thou couldst venture forth unto men that be wise like unto Robert Mounce for he hath a spider's home that hath the land be covered wherein the knowledge thy seeketh may thee find.

Can you tag him to this thread or is he not a member here? Do you have a link?

Do you use the KJV and, if so, why?

I had used the NASB & the NIV until I got tired of coming across troubling passages that supported false teachings and so I checked with the KJV and found it kept the message of His words in truth and so I stuck with the KJV ever since in keeping the faith which is the good fight. It is Jesus Christ I credit the increase in my walk with Him; the KJV is not a perfect Bible, but it certainly exposes the changed messages in the modern versions for why they are being used to support false teachings.

One can use any bible version to preach the Good News but when it comes to reproving the works of darkness, the changed messages in modern bibles do support false teachings for why I find the KJV as keeping the truth in His words to discern good & evil by His words.

Only Jesus can show that to other believers also that the KJV is the one to rely on in correcting false teachings by the truth in the KJV.

Like how John 16:13 in all bible versions testify that the Holy Spirit CANNOT speak from Himself but speaks what He hears and yet most modern bibles has Romans 8:26-27 implying that when He makes intercessions for us, groans or sighings can be heard coming from Him whereas the KJv and a few modern versions testify that not even His groanings can be uttered when he makes intercessions for us. That means tongue for private users cannot use that as proof text for using tongues for private use as if the holy Spirit can turn God's gift of tongues around and babble in gibberish nonsense back to God for His own personal use in uttering His intercessions out loud.

Then there is 1 Corinthians 1:18 as some modern bibles has it as being saved instead of how KJV and some other Bibles has it as "are saved". As self proclaim Greek scholars will contend that it is being saved and that it is referring to the ongoing sanctification process, they ignore that Paul is testifying to the result of the preaching of the cross in how God is pleased to save those that believe in 1 Corinthians 1:21.

Like I said, only Jesus can show the errors in the modern bibles for why I rely on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by.

Hebrews 5: 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The KJV is not perfect. There are places where the translations into English can be better, but none of the modern bibles has done that yet either.

 

[Josheb]

Can you tag him to this thread or is he not a member here? Do you have a link?

rotflmbo! Big hug, bro.

Google, "bill mounce greek"


Bill Mounce is one of the leading experts on koine Greek and the author of the text books most seminaries use when teaching New Testament Greek to seminarians. Some forums (like CARM) have boards where members well-trained in original languages (Hebrew and Greek) argue over how to conjugate what, where to do it and when, and something can be learned from them. I don't know if CCCF (this forum) has a seminarian who can answer your question. I've got Mounce's books (slowly attempting to learn Greek on my own) gifted to me from a pastor friend so I can tell you it isn't easy but the question of "unto" and "to" isn't really a Greek thing, imo.

The modern (and more literal) translations (like the NAS) don't use "unto." It has more to do with the 400-year-old English employed by the KJV than the koine Greek. Take a look at Matthew 25:40. There are four "unto's" in that verse and only the KJV and the translations holding to the KJV tradition (RSV and ASV in this case) use the word. All other simply say "to." If the Greek is examined, you'll see none of them are separate and distinct words "to," or "unto," but inferred by the conjugation of the objects (nouns) referenced and the syntax of the verse. If you scroll down the page (or click on the "parallel Greek" link), you'll also see none of them have anything to do with variations in the Greek manuscripts (because there are no differences). If you click on the "Interlin" link, you'll find an interlinear Greek/English transliteration. Not much help with this particular verse but sometimes the transliteration is helpful, sometimes more informative than the English translation.

A more curious concern relevant to your inquiry might be the "eph" in this verse. The KJV uses "inasmuch" and the NAS (which is recognized as one of the most literal word-for-word translations of the Hebrew and Greek) uses "to the extent," while some of the other translations are more direct. If you click on the term and visit the concordance, you'll see a sample of how three different translations translate the word in the various verses using the term. In this particular case none of them are consistent with the term! This is useful because a lack of consistency within a translation may indicate liberties were taken in translation. Next, if you go to Strong's, you'll see the plain meaning of the word with variations used in their respective contexts (if you scroll down the page you'll see comparative contexts that are secular/extra-biblical). In this case the "eph" simply means, "on," against," "on the basis of," so neither the KJV nor the NAS did the best job in comparison to some of the others.

That's why it is always useful to use more than one translation, one of which is word-for-word (formal) and the other concept-for-concept (dynamic). However, the truth is we live in an age where all of this information and more are within a few split seconds of mouse clicks away, making allegiance to only one translation pointless, if not foolish. There are to her sites like the one I've used here (Bible Gateway, Blue Letter Bible), but Bible Hub is fast, easy and, as you can see, filled with resources.

Hope this helps and I didn't bore with stuff you already knew .

 

[ChristB4us]

rotflmbo! Big hug, bro.

Hope this helps and I didn't bore with stuff you already knew .

Thank you for sharing. Had to cut words out of the quote because of the 1000 word limit.

Not everything is translated well into the English from the Hebrew & the Greek.

When you look at the Hebrew like in Genesis, you would wonder how they got all those other words in English like that from the Hebrew.

Same with the Greek.

So the "how" they were speaking in relation to themselves and to God is where I believe the assumption into English had been made in which confusion comes about since God's gift of tongues are not for private use when 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 testifies the bottom line for tongues is for God to speak unto the people in their native tongue; NOT for God to suddenly change His mind and have the Holy Spirit turn it around and start giving His intercessions "to" God as they would apply Romans 8:26-27 in most modern bibles to 1 Corinthians 14:2 to mean.

Yet in all bible versions, John 16:13 testifies that the Holy Spirit CANNOT speak from Himself but speaks what He hears thus being the Spirit of Christ as it is Christ Jesus speaking to us through the Holy Spirit.

And so Romans 8:26-27 in the KJV is correct in that not even His groanings can be uttered from the Holy Spirit even though He can be grieved which believers have been warned not to do per Ephesians 4:30.

So while tongues for private users are exalting themselves that the Holy Spirit is making intercessions for them, leaving those who do not speak in tongues or pray in tongues out in the cold, wondering if they really have the Holy Spirit after all, is why many go astray seeking the baptism with the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues as proof of salvation. And like it or not, in spite of the warning from Jesus not to do that in order to believe in Him in Matthew 12:38-40 for salvation, they are committing spiritual adultery for why those that do seek that, actually get that tongue by a sign of having received that "spirit" which really is the spirit of the antichrist for why that tongue is never coming with interpretation because that is not the real God's gift of tongues.

I know some will accuse me of being KJVO and think that I believe the KJV is perfect, but I do not believe it is perfect and even the KJV translators implied to that truth as well as not debasing the Bible that has gone on before the KJV. It was the errant marginal notes in the Geneva Bible of 1599 that led the Puritans to ask King James for a newer version.

Anyway, I believe not everything is conveyed well into English in the KJV, and one such example is Luke 17:37 where the Greek word for eagles in English is "aetos" which is defines as winglike flight and not just eagles. Then there is how we are gathered together in English from the Greek word "sunago" as it means received with hospitality to resort in and so contenders cannot say that Luke 17:26-37, the body is actually corpse and eagles are actually vultures in Luke 17:37 in their modern Bible, thus alluding to the false message that it is the bad guys that are being taken out when in context of Luke 17:26-37, it cannot be when Jesus is warning believers to not even think about going back t the house to get something to take with them as they are to leave everything behind, including their valuables on earth in verses 31-33.

Believers are to be ready & willing to leave when the Bridegroom comes for why they are to exhorted to have their hearts on the treasures above rather than on the earth in this life.

Another example is the English "not" in Revelation 3:5 about "not" removing our names from the Book of Life. In the Greek "ov un", it is a double negative which means He would never do that. In Revelation 20:19, the warning to not remove any words from the Book of Revelation, will result in having his "part" taken out of the Book of Life, and out of the "holy city" which means being left behind at the pre great tribulation rapture event, but his name is still in the Book of Life for why when he does, his spirit will be with the Lord in Heaven, but to be resurrected after the great tribulation as vessels unto dishonor in His House, vessels of wood & earth, thus a glorified terrestrial body to serve the King of kings on earth from all over the world. They will be allowed to visit the City of God on earth, but they have no home in that City; only the first fruits of the resurrection lives in that City of God on earth.

And lastly, another example is how hell in English that has been translated from "Gehenna" which originally refers to a reuse dump outside the city of Jerusalem thus symbolic of the rapture event for those not found abiding in Him or/and being unwilling to go that gets left behind. But later on God had added to the definition to meaning the valley of slaughter also. So when you read His warnings to believers in how they treat their brothers that they will be cast into hell, the word hell is from Gehenna, a place on earth; a refuse dump & a valley of slaughter, and so Jesus was not referring to the afterlife "hell" at all.

But Strong's Concordance err by including also the definition of the afterlight to Gehenna when it has never referred to the afterlife in scripture at all. They mistaken Jesus as referring to the afterlife but Gehenna by reference and usage has always been a lace on earth in the land of the living and so He would not use that term in referring to the afterlife.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

It is the physical bodies of saved believers that are cast into Gehenna as in left behind at the pre great tribulation rapture event and not the afterlife hell as that "hell" in English is from the Greek word "geena" or "Gehenna" as a refuse dump & a place of slaughter on earth.

So I can see how it is important to have the actual message in the scriptures in English to align all the truths in His words so as to keep false teachings out of the minds and hearts of believers as they lean on Jesus Christ to be their Good Shepherd for abiding in His words in truth.

 

[EarlyActs]

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

My question for those that may have knowledge is; What is to say that "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 should be rendered "from" instead, in regards to how this was being spoken?

I am having a hard time finding the Greek word for how they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28 from.

I understand that not everything is translated well into English, and so if "unto" and "to" is assumed for how this was being done, would not "from" be just as true to how this was not being spoken as well as how this was being spoken? Mayhap true to the message being given?

I would discern that the man in verse 28 is not speaking TO himself as if he is mad, but speaking out of turn for why there is no interpretation. When you have the practice of 2 or 3 speak in tongues one by one and one interpret, a foreign visitor could very well speak out of turn, rising up and speaking for why there is no interpretation coming. And so verse 28 is Paul saying he understands what he is saying as God does too.

And so cut to verse 2, speaking in tongues, when it is manifested, it is from God and not from the man as he does not understand what is being said as it is done in the language of men that he does not understand, albeit in the Spirit, he speaks mysteries to those in the assemblies since there are no mysteries in speaking TO God.

If anyone can explain from the link provided what Greek word(s) they translated "unto" in verse 2 & "to" in verse 28, I would appreciate it.

Case spelling can tell us what unstated preposition was meant (nominative, genetive, dative, accusative...) This happens more often with verbs that aren't followed by direct objects; they are just assumed to be there. The NEV notes usually will mention this.

An analytical lexicon will help you see this too, but you start with the spelling of the Greek term.

 

[ChristB4us]

Case spelling can tell us what unstated preposition was meant (nominative, genetive, dative, accusative...) This happens more often with verbs that aren't followed by direct objects; they are just assumed to be there. The NEV notes usually will mention this.

An analytical lexicon will help you see this too, but you start with the spelling of the Greek term.

Are you familiar at all with Peshitta Aramaic?

 

[EarlyActs]

Are you familiar at all with Peshitta Aramaic?

Not sure

 

[ChristB4us]

Not sure

Have you applied the gospel of John in regards to creation?

Does the latter part of verse 3 not signify that there was no creation of the heaven and the earth before that first day as there would be no purpose for that to exist before Day one?

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

[EarlyActs]

Have you applied the gospel of John in regards to creation?

Does the latter part of verse 3 not signify that there was no creation of the heaven and the earth before that first day as there would be no purpose for that to exist before Day one?

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Sorry you have such a difficult time with a simple concept.

There is no affirmation of evolution whatsoever.

There is also no denial of God speaking all things into existence.

The assertion here in BACK IN BUSINESS is simply that, as the text shows, there is a consistent difference between distant objects (and their light) and local. Based on what we know about light-years, that means there are things out there older than the creation week of the local. That's the main contention. The outer line for "local" might be our system, but objects in the Milky Way rotated and thus communicated in ancient near east astronomy, and could be included in v14-17.

Minor to that is that this allows, as the text does, for earth to be a bit older than day 1, if we follow established recitation practice. It was dark (distant light did not arrive til day 1 and unformed, like pottery clay stock in a container. For the same reason, Rebekkah was not beautiful just at the moment that that exchange with Sarai took place; she had been beautiful for most of her life. It is very simple.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't know why BACK IN BUSINESS is not at B&N, but it is at Amazon, which account I'm trying to close.

 

[ChristB4us]

Sorry you have such a difficult time with a simple concept.

There is no affirmation of evolution whatsoever.

There is also no denial of God speaking all things into existence.

The assertion here in BACK IN BUSINESS is simply that, as the text shows, there is a consistent difference between distant objects (and their light) and local. Based on what we know about light-years, that means there are things out there older than the creation week of the local. That's the main contention. The outer line for "local" might be our system, but objects in the Milky Way rotated and thus communicated in ancient near east astronomy, and could be included in v14-17.

Minor to that is that this allows, as the text does, for earth to be a bit older than day 1, if we follow established recitation practice. It was dark (distant light did not arrive til day 1 and unformed, like pottery clay stock in a container. For the same reason, Rebekkah was not beautiful just at the moment that that exchange with Sarai took place; she had been beautiful for most of her life. It is very simple.

How about another look at Genesis 1 from a Hebrew scholar?

 

[Josheb]

How about another look at Genesis 1 from a Hebrew scholar?

I like Heiser in general and appreciate you posting the video. However, there's a problem with Heiser's conclusion. at 4:48 he states, "The writer is describing conditions that already exist before God actually creates anything." This implies the earth, the formless, dark earth that was void existed prior to God creating creation. In other words, the earth pre-exists creation. This further implies God did not create the earth but simply changed it. He changed it from the formless dark void it was previously to that which it later became as a consequence of God's creating its subsequent attributes. That view, that interpretation, directly conflicts with later texts...

Psalm 102:25
In time of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their lights, the earth and everything that is on it, the seas and everything that is in them. You give life to all of them, and the heavenly lights bow down before You.

John 1:3
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

There are many verses like these.

I like Heiser in general, but he sometimes falls prey to Judaizing. Tim Mackie has the same problem. Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism was often incorrect. I suspect this clip continues on and at some point in the larger lecture Heiser affirmed God created everything (as you noted in Post #9), including the planet earth.

 

[EarlyActs]

How about another look at Genesis 1 from a Hebrew scholar?

He’s very close to what Cassuto was saying but didn’t compare any of the many similar structures or recitation generally. Obviously it means the earth was there for a bit.

See Gen 24:15 about Rebekah

 

[EarlyActs]

Sorry you have such a difficult time with a simple concept.

There is no affirmation of evolution whatsoever.

There is also no denial of God speaking all things into existence.

The assertion here in BACK IN BUSINESS is simply that, as the text shows, there is a consistent difference between distant objects (and their light) and local. Based on what we know about light-years, that means there are things out there older than the creation week of the local. That's the main contention. The outer line for "local" might be our system, but objects in the Milky Way rotated and thus communicated in ancient near east astronomy, and could be included in v14-17.

Minor to that is that this allows, as the text does, for earth to be a bit older than day 1, if we follow established recitation practice. It was dark (distant light did not arrive til day 1 and unformed, like pottery clay stock in a container. For the same reason, Rebekkah was not beautiful just at the moment that that exchange with Sarai took place; she had been beautiful for most of her life. It is very simple.

Corr: it was not an exchange with Sarah in Gen 24:15, it’s the introduction of Rebekah.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you go to the next Biesler film on the dragon, my view is what you might call post-Peter. That he refers back to that earth, not to what the text means about OT era paganism, but in a way that gives it geologic sense.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I like Heiser in general and appreciate you posting the video. However, there's a problem with Heiser's conclusion. at 4:48 he states, "The writer is describing conditions that already exist before God actually creates anything." This implies the earth, the formless, dark earth that was void existed prior to God creating creation. In other words, the earth pre-exists creation. This further implies God did not create the earth but simply changed it. He changed it from the formless dark void it was previously to that which it later became as a consequence of God's creating its subsequent attributes. That view, that interpretation, directly conflicts with later texts...

Psalm 102:25
In time of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their lights, the earth and everything that is on it, the seas and everything that is in them. You give life to all of them, and the heavenly lights bow down before You.

John 1:3
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

There are many verses like these.

I like Heiser in general, but he sometimes falls prey to Judaizing. Tim Mackie has the same problem. Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism was often incorrect. I suspect this clip continues on and at some point in the larger lecture Heiser affirmed God created everything (as you noted in Post #9), including the planet earth.

Again, absolute nonsense. Heiser did NOT say or mean anything you claim. And no, I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you. You continually display a closed mind so it's of no use pointing you to the facts.

 

[ChristB4us]

I like Heiser in general and appreciate you posting the video. However, there's a problem with Heiser's conclusion. at 4:48 he states, "The writer is describing conditions that already exist before God actually creates anything." This implies the earth, the formless, dark earth that was void existed prior to God creating creation. In other words, the earth pre-exists creation. This further implies God did not create the earth but simply changed it. He changed it from the formless dark void it was previously to that which it later became as a consequence of God's creating its subsequent attributes. That view, that interpretation, directly conflicts with later texts...

Psalm 102:25
In time of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, the heaven of heavens with all their lights, the earth and everything that is on it, the seas and everything that is in them. You give life to all of them, and the heavenly lights bow down before You.

John 1:3
Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

There are many verses like these.

I like Heiser in general, but he sometimes falls prey to Judaizing. Tim Mackie has the same problem. Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism was often incorrect. I suspect this clip continues on and at some point in the larger lecture Heiser affirmed God created everything (as you noted in Post #9), including the planet earth.

Thanks for pointing that out because as he explained it by changing out "In the beginning" with "When", I took it to mean differently as the following verses was how God did it, thereby the earth was not there at all, and neither the heavens yet in verse 1.

 

[ChristB4us]

He’s very close to what Cassuto was saying but didn’t compare any of the many similar structures or recitation generally. Obviously it means the earth was there for a bit.

See Gen 24:15 about Rebekah

Thanks to Josheb, I had thought I had understood the whole video but I reckon not because when he explained it by changing out "In the beginning" with "When", I took it to mean differently as the following verses was how God did it, thereby the earth was not there at all, and neither were the heavens yet.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Again, absolute nonsense. Heiser did NOT say or mean anything you claim.

Thanks to Josheb, I had thought I had understood the whole video but I reckon not because when he explained it by changing out "In the beginning" with "When", I took it to mean differently as the following verses was how God did it, thereby the earth was not there at all, and neither were the heavens yet.

That is not true at all. What Heiser means to say (he is not as precise as he needed to be), is that at the point of the start of the Creation narrative, that is the state of matter. That is not the point where God had actually begun to create.