There's a linguistic-philosophical debate over this topic: Linguistic Relativity (or Sapir-Whorf) vs Universal Grammar (generally attributed to Chomsky). Though both theories are plausible, I find the Universal Grammar theory more convincing. There are good arguments on both sides.
You might find http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/whylojb.txt interesting.
This has been exactly my experience (with Korean first, then Spanish)
> Language is an artifact of the culture that created it, and it crystallizes the values and beliefs of that culture. By learning the language, you can enter into an entire other world.
A common take, although I don't know if I would take it too far. Hebrew specifically has the advantage of having been re-created from nothing only a relatively short time ago (150 years more or less), so maybe in a sense it's more explicitly codified.
I'm genuinely curious what kind of things you think that learning Hebrew shows about Hebrew-speaking culture though - I'd love to be proven wrong!
Adam means "Man" or "Mankind" in Hebrew.
"Earth" is Adama.
"Human Being" is Ben Adam, literally "Son of Adam", or "Son of Man".
"Adama" means "Land", "Earth", or "Ground".
"Adam" means "Man" or "Mankind". Adam was created by God from the ground, and "Adam" is derived from "Adama".
"Ben Adam" means "Human Being", literally "Son of Adam" or "Son of Man".
So when you say "Human Being" in Hebrew, you are directly referencing the creation of Man by God in Genesis.
Learned Spanish and was relatively easy...now learning Russian and yes...mindfuck!