In the Hebrew, you get one of the most vivid pieces of imagery in all of Scripture: sin as a wild beast crouching at the door, ready to pounce. It’s the verse that has shaped two thousand years of Christian thinking about sin, temptation, and spiritual warfare.
But in the Greek? That imagery is gone. Completely gone. No door. No crouching. No predator.
Instead, you get this: “Be still: his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.”
Same verse. Two radically different pictures. And at the heart of the divergence sits one Greek word. A word that means “turning,” “return,” or “submission.”
That word is ἀποστροφή (apostrophē). And what we do with it determines how we read the entire scene.
I keep prioritizing Kevin's posts, because they are thoughtful, deep, and deal with the hard things in the Text that many don't know how to begin to handle.
This analysis is excellent. Your case for how to understand the complexities and challenges of this verse is very compelling. Brother, I was genuinely blessed by this. Thank you for taking the time to investigate, and honestly wrestle with the tension. Your labor here has proven fruitful, and I am grateful for the sharing of your work.
Are you aware that the masoretic text was translated by known pagans and people who hated Jesus Christ? I just find it interesting that you compare the Hebrew which is a modern transliteration of Aramaic with the Greek Septuagint keon Greek which is much different so basically they translated from the Greek into modern Hebrew how is that a better translation? I'm just curious cuz I believe it does have Aramaic roots and it does somewhat connects to the Paleo Hebrew but it is far off because the language that the Israelites spoke before Aramaic was Phoenician and from Aramaic it was translated into Greek. So are we going backwards in our translations here or are we trusting pagans and gnostics who rewrote the scripture and added scripture onto Isaiah and also fudge the timeline adding years on to shem's timeline to make him alive during the time of Abraham so they can say that he was Melchizedek I'm just wondering if you consider these things when you're trying to translate both of them as equal. Because they are not. The name of God was replaced with Jehovah Yahweh and other pagan deities instead of the name of God. This is a problem for me and I feel like you're an apologetic at the whole masoretic text not even clearly saying anything that I've said or revealing that it was created by people who hated Jesus.
I looked at the content of his that I could find. I'm not sure if he's had videos removed or what, but I couldn't find the one you referenced on his channel. But I looked at the few videos of his that are there.
Before I talk about where I land on all this, I want you to know that I took the time to engage with the material. I took the claims seriously, as I would any claim from a respectable source. And as I would with any claim I'm unfamiliar with, I took the time to do research on each point that I was unfamiliar with and spent time in prayer over these matters.
So understand that I'm not making a snap judgement here.
While he does make a few interesting points and has some genuine insights, overall I found the bulk of the arguments unconvincing.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a case by case discussion of what I think he's wrong about and why, but what I will say is that a lot of the arguments are built on fringe views, flawed logic, and incomplete scholarship.
Not that it's my place to advise you, I recognize that it isn't in any way, but I would highly recommend doing your own research on these topics and spending some significant time in prayer over it before deciding what you believe is true.
I agree I am finding inconsistency in some of his presentation. He does not clarify the Brenton septuagit is only a restoration of the original corruption done by heretics like Oncolos(not sure if I spelled that right). I have found the problem with the masoretic is the timeline in Genesis and the additional verses in Isaiah stating the temple sacrifice will never cease. The only other issue I have is them replacing the name of God with sacred names. If you call God by a name you are not calling upon God. The connection with these names used in the masoretic is disturbing because they are the same names used in occult practices.
While some names used for God (such as Hashem) are certainly later creations (and possibly even serve darker purposes), I don't agree when it comes to the tetragrammaton. It's presence in the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls calls that whole line of thought into question.
It's been well established that by the time the Septuagint was translated speaking His name had become almost taboo for the Jews, which is why it was rendered as Kurios (Lord) in the LXX.
I've done the deep dives into the history of that and I find the evidence compelling.
Have you considered the possibility that occultists use those names purely as corruptions of what was supposed to refer to God as a means of calling on fallen spiritual beings and/or corrupting godly gifts?
However, I agree that the divergent timelines in Genesis are a problem. But each version has its complications and its advantages.
There may be more research on the topic that I'm not aware of, but based on what I've seen I would hesitate to render a verdict on which one is closer to the truth.
One thing we need to reckon with is the possibility that neither text, as we have them today, renders the timeline correctly.
I have considered the possibility that they are referring to God. But this does not make sense. First of all God did not give us a name. None of the anti-nicean fathers believe that God had a proper name. Justin Martyr a disciple of Peter I believe said that God does not have a name because he transcends a name no name can apply to him because he is beyond our comprehension. To a scribe a name to God is applying whatever you are using as your language as the definition of God. I would also like to include that and some historical findings in pottery and other archaeological evidence. There's a few things that struck me as interesting especially in the theological dictionary of the Old testament entry for Yahweh. Out of all of the examples of the extra biblical evidence of findings and archaeological evidence there are a few things that struck me as interesting. One was four fragments found at Kuntillat 'Ajurd near the Sinai peninsula includes the letters h y t b and y h w h and the Divine name of Ba'al in Phoenician script. What I think happened was this. Jesus said to the Pharisees that their father was the devil. Around 100 AD Rabbi akiva along with other prominent rabbis who hated Jesus Christ and did not accept him as Savior changed the scriptures adding a Divine name to God. This name is not the name of God but the name of fallen entities or angels that they call upon because they are proper names. For example Yahweh Jehovah and Adonai are all used in magic circles none of these are the actual names of God they claim them to be but they are not. God does not have a name those who believe in God call him father and Lord. Jesus is the only name of salvation and his name was in the Old testament as Joshua or Yeshua. The name that the Hebrew Roots movement call upon is not Yeshua of Galilee. Many rabbis say that we want Yeshua but we don't want Jesus. This is a red flag. I would like to discuss this more with you. I pray you have a good day and you look into these things more closely especially the time period around the destruction of the temple and investigate what the anti-nicean father said about those times. The information is out there it's up to you if you believe those who were taught by the disciples or the rabbis who are giving us a name of God which the anti-nicean fathers were rebuking.
I have considered the possibility that they are referring to God. But this does not make sense. First of all God did not give us a name. None of the anti-nicean fathers believe that God had a proper name. Justin Martyr a disciple of Peter I believe said that God does not have a name because he transcends a name no name can apply to him because he is beyond our comprehension. To a scribe a name to God is applying whatever you are using as your language as the definition of God. I would also like to include that and some historical findings in pottery and other archaeological evidence. There's a few things that struck me as interesting especially in the theological dictionary of the Old testament entry for Yahweh. Out of all of the examples of the extra biblical evidence of findings and archaeological evidence there are a few things that struck me as interesting. One was four fragments found at Kuntillat 'Ajurd near the Sinai peninsula includes the letters h y t b and y h w h and the Divine name of Ba'al in Phoenician script. What I think happened was this. Jesus said to the Pharisees that their father was the devil. Around 100 AD Rabbi akiva along with other prominent rabbis who hated Jesus Christ and did not accept him as Savior changed the scriptures adding a Divine name to God. This name is not the name of God but the name of fallen entities or angels that they call upon because they are proper names. For example Yahweh Jehovah and Adonai are all used in magic circles none of these are the actual names of God they claim them to be but they are not. God does not have a name those who believe in God call him father and Lord. Jesus is the only name of salvation and his name was in the Old testament as Joshua or Yeshua. The name that the Hebrew Roots movement call upon is not Yeshua of Galilee. Many rabbis say that we want Yeshua but we don't want Jesus. This is a red flag. I would like to discuss this more with you. I pray you have a good day and you look into these things more closely especially the time period around the destruction of the temple and investigate what the anti-nicean father said about those times. The information is out there it's up to you if you believe those who were taught by the disciples or the rabbis who are giving us a name of God which the anti-nicean fathers were rebuking.
Excellent brother. A lot of deep thought of "Both/And" encouraged in this one. 🙏
The best interpretation on this passage that I've seen.
Thank you, Sarah!
Coming from you that is high praise.
I keep prioritizing Kevin's posts, because they are thoughtful, deep, and deal with the hard things in the Text that many don't know how to begin to handle.
Wow, thank you!
That's very humbling.
I pray my work continues to bless you.
This analysis is excellent. Your case for how to understand the complexities and challenges of this verse is very compelling. Brother, I was genuinely blessed by this. Thank you for taking the time to investigate, and honestly wrestle with the tension. Your labor here has proven fruitful, and I am grateful for the sharing of your work.
I'm grateful that my work has blessed you!
I pray it continues to do so, brother.
Are you aware that the masoretic text was translated by known pagans and people who hated Jesus Christ? I just find it interesting that you compare the Hebrew which is a modern transliteration of Aramaic with the Greek Septuagint keon Greek which is much different so basically they translated from the Greek into modern Hebrew how is that a better translation? I'm just curious cuz I believe it does have Aramaic roots and it does somewhat connects to the Paleo Hebrew but it is far off because the language that the Israelites spoke before Aramaic was Phoenician and from Aramaic it was translated into Greek. So are we going backwards in our translations here or are we trusting pagans and gnostics who rewrote the scripture and added scripture onto Isaiah and also fudge the timeline adding years on to shem's timeline to make him alive during the time of Abraham so they can say that he was Melchizedek I'm just wondering if you consider these things when you're trying to translate both of them as equal. Because they are not. The name of God was replaced with Jehovah Yahweh and other pagan deities instead of the name of God. This is a problem for me and I feel like you're an apologetic at the whole masoretic text not even clearly saying anything that I've said or revealing that it was created by people who hated Jesus.
First, I am not an apologetic for any witness. My whole goal is to let them speak on their own terms.
And second, with all due respect, I've never seen any credible evidence for any of this. That's why I don't talk about it.
I'm more than happy to look at any credible evidence you might present, however.
I did not compile the research personally. I can refer you to the source. Ben Born again YouTube channel. Jesus never called God Yahweh documentary.
Okay.
I looked at the content of his that I could find. I'm not sure if he's had videos removed or what, but I couldn't find the one you referenced on his channel. But I looked at the few videos of his that are there.
Before I talk about where I land on all this, I want you to know that I took the time to engage with the material. I took the claims seriously, as I would any claim from a respectable source. And as I would with any claim I'm unfamiliar with, I took the time to do research on each point that I was unfamiliar with and spent time in prayer over these matters.
So understand that I'm not making a snap judgement here.
While he does make a few interesting points and has some genuine insights, overall I found the bulk of the arguments unconvincing.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a case by case discussion of what I think he's wrong about and why, but what I will say is that a lot of the arguments are built on fringe views, flawed logic, and incomplete scholarship.
Not that it's my place to advise you, I recognize that it isn't in any way, but I would highly recommend doing your own research on these topics and spending some significant time in prayer over it before deciding what you believe is true.
God bless.
I agree I am finding inconsistency in some of his presentation. He does not clarify the Brenton septuagit is only a restoration of the original corruption done by heretics like Oncolos(not sure if I spelled that right). I have found the problem with the masoretic is the timeline in Genesis and the additional verses in Isaiah stating the temple sacrifice will never cease. The only other issue I have is them replacing the name of God with sacred names. If you call God by a name you are not calling upon God. The connection with these names used in the masoretic is disturbing because they are the same names used in occult practices.
While some names used for God (such as Hashem) are certainly later creations (and possibly even serve darker purposes), I don't agree when it comes to the tetragrammaton. It's presence in the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls calls that whole line of thought into question.
It's been well established that by the time the Septuagint was translated speaking His name had become almost taboo for the Jews, which is why it was rendered as Kurios (Lord) in the LXX.
I've done the deep dives into the history of that and I find the evidence compelling.
Have you considered the possibility that occultists use those names purely as corruptions of what was supposed to refer to God as a means of calling on fallen spiritual beings and/or corrupting godly gifts?
However, I agree that the divergent timelines in Genesis are a problem. But each version has its complications and its advantages.
There may be more research on the topic that I'm not aware of, but based on what I've seen I would hesitate to render a verdict on which one is closer to the truth.
One thing we need to reckon with is the possibility that neither text, as we have them today, renders the timeline correctly.
I have considered the possibility that they are referring to God. But this does not make sense. First of all God did not give us a name. None of the anti-nicean fathers believe that God had a proper name. Justin Martyr a disciple of Peter I believe said that God does not have a name because he transcends a name no name can apply to him because he is beyond our comprehension. To a scribe a name to God is applying whatever you are using as your language as the definition of God. I would also like to include that and some historical findings in pottery and other archaeological evidence. There's a few things that struck me as interesting especially in the theological dictionary of the Old testament entry for Yahweh. Out of all of the examples of the extra biblical evidence of findings and archaeological evidence there are a few things that struck me as interesting. One was four fragments found at Kuntillat 'Ajurd near the Sinai peninsula includes the letters h y t b and y h w h and the Divine name of Ba'al in Phoenician script. What I think happened was this. Jesus said to the Pharisees that their father was the devil. Around 100 AD Rabbi akiva along with other prominent rabbis who hated Jesus Christ and did not accept him as Savior changed the scriptures adding a Divine name to God. This name is not the name of God but the name of fallen entities or angels that they call upon because they are proper names. For example Yahweh Jehovah and Adonai are all used in magic circles none of these are the actual names of God they claim them to be but they are not. God does not have a name those who believe in God call him father and Lord. Jesus is the only name of salvation and his name was in the Old testament as Joshua or Yeshua. The name that the Hebrew Roots movement call upon is not Yeshua of Galilee. Many rabbis say that we want Yeshua but we don't want Jesus. This is a red flag. I would like to discuss this more with you. I pray you have a good day and you look into these things more closely especially the time period around the destruction of the temple and investigate what the anti-nicean father said about those times. The information is out there it's up to you if you believe those who were taught by the disciples or the rabbis who are giving us a name of God which the anti-nicean fathers were rebuking.
I have considered the possibility that they are referring to God. But this does not make sense. First of all God did not give us a name. None of the anti-nicean fathers believe that God had a proper name. Justin Martyr a disciple of Peter I believe said that God does not have a name because he transcends a name no name can apply to him because he is beyond our comprehension. To a scribe a name to God is applying whatever you are using as your language as the definition of God. I would also like to include that and some historical findings in pottery and other archaeological evidence. There's a few things that struck me as interesting especially in the theological dictionary of the Old testament entry for Yahweh. Out of all of the examples of the extra biblical evidence of findings and archaeological evidence there are a few things that struck me as interesting. One was four fragments found at Kuntillat 'Ajurd near the Sinai peninsula includes the letters h y t b and y h w h and the Divine name of Ba'al in Phoenician script. What I think happened was this. Jesus said to the Pharisees that their father was the devil. Around 100 AD Rabbi akiva along with other prominent rabbis who hated Jesus Christ and did not accept him as Savior changed the scriptures adding a Divine name to God. This name is not the name of God but the name of fallen entities or angels that they call upon because they are proper names. For example Yahweh Jehovah and Adonai are all used in magic circles none of these are the actual names of God they claim them to be but they are not. God does not have a name those who believe in God call him father and Lord. Jesus is the only name of salvation and his name was in the Old testament as Joshua or Yeshua. The name that the Hebrew Roots movement call upon is not Yeshua of Galilee. Many rabbis say that we want Yeshua but we don't want Jesus. This is a red flag. I would like to discuss this more with you. I pray you have a good day and you look into these things more closely especially the time period around the destruction of the temple and investigate what the anti-nicean father said about those times. The information is out there it's up to you if you believe those who were taught by the disciples or the rabbis who are giving us a name of God which the anti-nicean fathers were rebuking.