Giants = Nephilim

[Hockeycowboy]

You seem to have missed my post about different meanings for the same word.

We are told the angels are the servants/stewards of God, and "bene ha-Elohim" in a heaven setting, can be translated Servants/Stewards of God.

So, Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the servants/stewards of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

The verses you folks are discussing are more logically meaning humans. Fallen humans - that are men of renown = known fierce Kings, warriors, etc. In this story, - descended from a fallen Ham, = all the peoples warring with the Israelites. And going against their laws, - the women are mating with men from those fallen nations, or they are just taking the women in wars, etc.

I have also read one interesting idea on this (Job 2:1) that says - The sons of God are the Human magistrates, leaders, etc., that have gathered in a normal setting, with God above judging as usual, and Satan representing adversity in life, testing, - which is sent to test Job, - who is one of the gathered leaders/sons.

Jude is Christian and has no bearing on this discussion.

*

Why would it say specifically, "sons of God", if referring to humans, yet then go on to specifically state, "daughters of men"?


http://www.2001translation.com/NOTES.htm#_227.

There's no sense in further hashing this out. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Take care.

 

[Ingledsva]

...The more educated a population becomes the greater the decline in its church attendance. Do you think these two are connected?

Probably correct. Why do you see this as a problem?

Nephilim’
This word is not in the KJV. It first appeared in the New Revised Standard Version of the bible
whose entire purpose was to contort bible translation into gender-neutral language

The KJV is translating it as giants, - but the word in the Hebrew is -nephı̂yl. It is # H5303 in your Strong's.

...It first appeared in the New Revised Standard Version of the bible
whose entire purpose was to contort bible translation into gender-neutral language.

"The mandate given the NRSV committee was summarized in a dictum: 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary.'
The NRSV adopted a policy of inclusiveness in gender language.
According to Metzger, “The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.

What they are saying sounds good to me. Why use, "the men were gathered" - if we know it is just patriarchal language of the past, and it was a whole town, including women, gathered.

It says - "..without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.

In other words - if it is actually a male speaking, or being spoken to, it will not be changed.

I think this is good, - as mistakes are made by wrong understanding.

For instance the Sodom and Gomorrah story has become all the men gathered and wanted to rape the angels.

However, the word used included women - the whole town, - so the rape idea comes into question. Why would the gathered women want the men to rape strangers? Then we have to rethink the word used, - that is being translated with a sex connotation. Yada has other meanings which make more sense in the story.

Since it is already a translation, - you might as well translate it with the correct meaning.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Why would it say specifically, "sons of God", if referring to humans, yet then go on to specifically state, "daughters of men"?


http://www.2001translation.com/NOTES.htm#_227.

There's no sense in further hashing this out. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Take care.

One of the Jewish sites I posted earlier said, in that verse, the Sons of God were the elect of the Israelites, and they started to take foreign wives, - which they were not supposed to do. Apparently resulting in the dilution of their blood pool, and learning to follow other Gods, = idolatry.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

One of the Jewish sites I posted earlier said, in that verse, the Sons of God were the elect of the Israelites, and they started to take foreign wives, - which they were not supposed to do. Apparently resulting in the dilution of their blood pool, and learning to follow other Gods, = idolatry.

*

I had to reply to this, because the timeline wouldn't be right. There were no Israelites before the Flood. That could not be the reason it differentiates sons of God, from daughters of men.

No, the sons of God were angels, the more i think about it, the more it makes sense. It explains why the Bible portrays the situation as so bad, and why God stepped in to the degree He did.

It also explains the origin of ancient legends.

 

[Thief]

The female has something that a male needs to survive. Given before birth.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Adam does not mean male, - it means first human, - which appears to be male and female in this story.

Gen 1:27 So God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thus we have a - turn one hermaphrodite, - which is both male and female, - into two separate humans - story, so they can procreate.

Gen 2:22 And the rib (half), which the LORD God had taken from Adam (first human being), made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

That word for "rib" usually means a HALF. ribs of a boat, door posts, etc.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

That can be read as - This was once selfsame...

One of the now split halves needs a new designation, - 'ishshâh - translated woman.

In this story neither would have a navel, as no umbilical cord.

*

my copy reads different......

Let us make Man in our own image

that would be a spiritual image

but the trick is to form a unique spirit

splitting a spirit in two is cloning without form
image in this case means nothing of body

like God is said to be everywhere at once.
if He can do that .....he could have a conversation with Himself
but He would hear only the Echo of His own Voice

so here we are .....becoming spiritual....
and doing so in this physical form

chemistry has rules.....God made the rules
Man was created male and female .....Day Six

Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One

 

[Thief]

Genesis 6:4...."sons of God", is the same Hebrew phrase, bene ha-Elohim,

as in Job 2:1....."sons of God", definitely speaking of angels.

The NT writers confirm that angels "sinned", Jude saying they "forsook their proper dwelling place." - Jude 1:6

His words would have no meaning, were it not for Genesis 6:4.

Throughout the entirety of human history according to the Bible, God never changed the path human civilization took (except when protecting His chosen people); it would have to be something drastic, for Him to step in then!

You probably won't want to grasp the severity of the situation: humans as slaves to more-powerful overlords, only to produce beautiful women as sex objects for "Zeus", having offspring like "Hercules".

that drastic Day is....... Day Eight
note that creation stopped on Day Seven.......no more would be created
THEN Chapter Two
a story of manipulation

Man was altered in body and spirit
whole new direction

 

[socharlie]

I said it is NOT giants - other then in the great warriors, etc., sense.

In Tanakh - "Fallen" evil humans ARE "inferior" to the followers of YHVH, - called sons of YHVH.

*

Like in Job 12:3 " But I have intelligence as well as you; I am not inferior to you. And who does not know such things as these? "
Inferior - no·fel. Backhanded said, makes sense, also he said that The sons of God are Adam, Seth and Enosh. They were real special God's handiwork.

 

[Ingledsva]

I had to reply to this, because the timeline wouldn't be right. There were no Israelites before the Flood. That could not be the reason it differentiates sons of God, from daughters of men.

No, the sons of God were angels, the more i think about it, the more it makes sense. It explains why the Bible portrays the situation as so bad, and why God stepped in to the degree He did.

It also explains the origin of ancient legends.

You are hanging up on a name, - you know exactly whom is meant. We are talking Tanakh - and a people that consider themselves God's people - no matter the name changes throughout history.

In this story, - clear back to human Cain and Able, - we have a fallen human. Cain that goes off to father the so-called fallen people. After the flood it tells us Ham fell - and fathers fallen nations, including the Canaanite. Obviously the idea is that these stories create an "other" to work off of. The chosen humans start mating with the fallen humans, creating their ideas of evil, the upright humans mixing with the fallen evil humans, and turning to their Gods - which is idolatry, reasons for war, and taking of land, etc.

SO - the problem is not angels, but the mixing of the human groups and resultant "evil" and idolatry.

And it definitely - does not - explain the origin of ancient legends. The writers of Tanakh seem to have taken their stories FROM the far older ancient writings of other societies.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are hanging up on a name, - you know exactly whom is meant. We are talking Tanakh - and a people that consider themselves God's people - no matter the name changes throughout history.

In this story, - clear back to human Cain and Able, - we have a fallen human. Cain that goes off to father the so-called fallen people. After the flood it tells us Ham fell - and fathers fallen nations, including the Canaanite. Obviously the idea is that these stories create an "other" to work off of. The chosen humans start mating with the fallen humans, creating their ideas of evil, the upright humans mixing with the fallen evil humans, and turning to their Gods - which is idolatry, reasons for war, and taking of land, etc.

SO - the problem is not angels, but the mixing of the human groups and resultant "evil" and idolatry.

And it definitely - does not - explain the origin of ancient legends. The writers of Tanakh seem to have taken their stories FROM the far older ancient writings of other societies.

*

Believe what you want, but to me, the Bible is recounting history, actual events, not its brand of mythology.
iIts too accurate in discussing place-names and locations, providing exact details regarding certain events.

Mythologies don't.

The Bible's Authenticity

 

[Ingledsva]

Believe what you want, but to me, the Bible is recounting history, actual events, not its brand of mythology.
iIts too accurate in discussing place-names and locations, providing exact details regarding certain events.

Mythologies don't.http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_1

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_1

Baloney! Mythologies often have history mixed in with the myth.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Baloney! Mythologies often have history mixed in with the myth.

*

Really? Then name some exact details in a mythology, comparable to what the Bible reveals.

 

[74x12]

Good grief you guys. David was a shepherd, and the idea of a shepherd here is just people in charge of the human flock.

There is absolutely no question here that they mean the flesh and blood David.

Eze 25:8 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because that Moab and Seir do say, Behold, the house of Judah is like unto all the heathen;
*
Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Eze 34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

Eze 34:5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.

Eze 34:22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.

Eze 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.

Eze 34:24 And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.
*
Eze 35:1 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Eze 35:2 Son of man, set thy face against mount Seir, and prophesy against it,

Eze 35:3 And say unto it, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O mount Seir, I am against thee, and I will stretch out mine hand against thee, and I will make thee most desolate.

Eze 35:4 I will lay thy cities waste, and thou shalt be desolate, and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.

Mount Seir was mentioned as partner with Moab in (Eze_25:8).

You folks are trying to turn all these stories about King David's battles, - into Jesus predictions.

Verse 34:2 makes it clear that there are many shepherds, but King David is chosen as YHVH's shepherd in 34:23.

*

Impossible. Ezekiel was not a contemporary of king David. This is a Messianic prophecy.

 

[74x12]

You folks seem to be of the erroneous opinion that the Bible is the oldest of these stories.

That is not correct. More than a thousand years before Tanakh was compiled, we have The Epic of Gilgamesh on clay tablets of ancient Sumer, - that is over four thousand years ago.

Tanakh seems to have gotten it's stories from these far older texts. They even have the original flood and so-called "Noah's ark" story.

Moses wrote Genesis. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't drawing on sources more ancient than the epic of Gilgamesh. Frankly, Moses was under inspiration from God. There is nothing out there exactly like the Hebrew scriptures. They're amazing when compared to the other writings of the time.

The epic of Gilgamesh is old but it's interesting how the idea of Gilgamesh fits in so well with Genesis 6 and how the verse clearly mentions the children of the BeneHaElohim becoming "mighty men of old" "men of renown". That word "old" means these stories of these "mighty men, men of renown" are indeed ancient at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis. Otherwise the writer would not call them "men of old". It's not well known but Gilgamesh was indeed a giant. As was his hairy friend. Even Hercules was probably a giant. The idea that the sons of Seth had children with the daughters of Cain and their children were just somehow famous and powerful ... for no apparent reason is what I find odd. Yes it is describing a mingling of earthly and heavenly seed. Just as the pagan cultures around Israel described the same thing but from another perspective.

Secondly, the Tanakh did not need to get the story of Genesis from the Sumerians. We don't know that Moses ever went to Sumer at all. If he was just making history up then his history should be based on Egyptian and possibly Midianite histories. If Moses never existed at all as some people insist then Hebrew history should be based on Amorite or Canaanite histories. However it's simply not the case. Although there are many significant similarities; this is to be expected if the Bible is true. Because we would not expect everyone in the middle East to simply completely forget their own history.

 

[Ingledsva]

Really? Then name some exact details in a mythology, comparable to what the Bible reveals.

Troy would be one such.

The Tanakh was not written as it happened. It was written after the history took place. It is a later book including some of their actual history, a one sided view of their history, teaching stories, metaphor, and mythology.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Moses wrote Genesis. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't drawing on sources more ancient than the epic of Gilgamesh. Frankly, Moses was under inspiration from God. There is nothing out there exactly like the Hebrew scriptures. They're amazing when compared to the other writings of the time.

The epic of Gilgamesh is old but it's interesting how the idea of Gilgamesh fits in so well with Genesis 6 and how the verse clearly mentions the children of the BeneHaElohim becoming "mighty men of old" "men of renown". That word "old" means these stories of these "mighty men, men of renown" are indeed ancient at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis. Otherwise the writer would not call them "men of old". It's not well known but Gilgamesh was indeed a giant. As was his hairy friend. Even Hercules was probably a giant. The idea that the sons of Seth had children with the daughters of Cain and their children were just somehow famous and powerful ... for no apparent reason is what I find odd. Yes it is describing a mingling of earthly and heavenly seed. Just as the pagan cultures around Israel described the same thing but from another perspective.

Secondly, the Tanakh did not need to get the story of Genesis from the Sumerians. We don't know that Moses ever went to Sumer at all. If he was just making history up then his history should be based on Egyptian and possibly Midianite histories. If Moses never existed at all as some people insist then Hebrew history should be based on Amorite or Canaanite histories. However it's simply not the case. Although there are many significant similarities; this is to be expected if the Bible is true. Because we would not expect everyone in the middle East to simply completely forget their own history.

Moses did not write Genesis. It is attributed to him.

Gilgamesh fits well because the Bible writers used its, and other religions', stories.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Moses wrote Genesis. But, that doesn't mean he wasn't drawing on sources more ancient than the epic of Gilgamesh. Frankly, Moses was under inspiration from God. There is nothing out there exactly like the Hebrew scriptures. They're amazing when compared to the other writings of the time.

The epic of Gilgamesh is old but it's interesting how the idea of Gilgamesh fits in so well with Genesis 6 and how the verse clearly mentions the children of the BeneHaElohim becoming "mighty men of old" "men of renown". That word "old" means these stories of these "mighty men, men of renown" are indeed ancient at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis. Otherwise the writer would not call them "men of old". It's not well known but Gilgamesh was indeed a giant. As was his hairy friend. Even Hercules was probably a giant. The idea that the sons of Seth had children with the daughters of Cain and their children were just somehow famous and powerful ... for no apparent reason is what I find odd. Yes it is describing a mingling of earthly and heavenly seed. Just as the pagan cultures around Israel described the same thing but from another perspective.

Secondly, the Tanakh did not need to get the story of Genesis from the Sumerians. We don't know that Moses ever went to Sumer at all. If he was just making history up then his history should be based on Egyptian and possibly Midianite histories. If Moses never existed at all as some people insist then Hebrew history should be based on Amorite or Canaanite histories. However it's simply not the case. Although there are many significant similarities; this is to be expected if the Bible is true. Because we would not expect everyone in the middle East to simply completely forget their own history.

I enjoyed your post!

I think (hope) you will appreciate this website:

The Bible's Internal Proofs of Authenticity

**It's not really 'internal proofs'..... that makes it sound like it's based on circular reasoning; the list of subjects provides secular evidences from other sources, that corroborate the holy writings.**

Enjoy!

 

[74x12]

I enjoyed your post!

I think (hope) you will appreciate this website:

The Bible's Internal Proofs of Authenticity

**It's not really 'internal proofs'..... that makes it sound like it's based on circular reasoning; the list of subjects provides secular evidences from other sources, that corroborate the holy writings.**

Enjoy!

Interesting. I'll check it out. Thanks.