Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 4:53 AM
90 online now:
frako, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 86 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,830 Year: 25,436/21,208 Month: 1,063/2,338 Week: 184/450 Day: 4/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   NEPHILIM mYsteries
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 106 of 134 (315216)
05-26-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by ReverendDG
05-19-2006 3:13 AM


Says you. I see no indication at all the sex was somehow bad. The book of Enoch isn't bible. Part of inspiration comes in God helping man to pick what to put in the bible. He did. Enoch washed out. Sorry. Therefore it may be true, or it may be somewhat less than hotly inspired.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ReverendDG, posted 05-19-2006 3:13 AM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ReverendDG, posted 05-26-2006 12:56 AM simple has responded
 Message 110 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 4:24 PM simple has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 107 of 134 (315217)
05-26-2006 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-18-2006 9:50 PM


Why not? What was wrong with fooling around, where does this idea come from? Says who? Adam fooled with Eve. Every great man of God fooled with at least one woman, some with a lot more! Where do you get the idea angels marrying women was bad?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 9:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 4:32 PM simple has responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1668 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 108 of 134 (315224)
05-26-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by simple
05-26-2006 12:06 AM


Says you. I see no indication at all the sex was somehow bad. The book of Enoch isn't bible. Part of inspiration comes in God helping man to pick what to put in the bible. He did. Enoch washed out. Sorry. Therefore it may be true, or it may be somewhat less than hotly inspired.

so you suddenly gained the ability to cherry pick what the bible is?, there are tons of versions of the "bible". just because its not in *yours* doesn't mean its not in a bible.
the ethiopian church considers it inspired as much as any part of the "bible"
anyway, part of the reasons for the condemming of the angels was because of the children they produced as i said, would you want monsters running around eatting people?
it was also what the angels taught man
nothing about the bible is inspired by god it is all the work of man, and his beliefs about god
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by simple, posted 05-26-2006 12:06 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by simple, posted 05-29-2006 11:11 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 134 (316039)
05-29-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by LudoRephaim
05-25-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Big Saul
n Message 35 I quoted a source that showed it

ah, i see. it was basically what i quoted.

nd showed in messages 34-35 that 5'3 to 5'7 was the average height of the hebrews during the time of Saul, not the limit.

it sounds reasonable, but i'm not totally sure i trust the source.

giant brad pitt.

oxymoron. :D

There is no way to read a ultra-figuro-read-between-the-lines interpretation into the text.

it's kind of an ambiguous phrasing. i would imagine there is a way, considering that lifting up one's head was a common turn of phrase.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-25-2006 8:18 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by LudoRephaim, posted 08-19-2008 4:16 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 110 of 134 (316041)
05-29-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by simple
05-26-2006 12:06 AM


Enoch washed out. Sorry.

enoch didn't wash out.

it was written after the canonization of the majority of the old testament, if not all of it. the torah seems to have been solidified by about 600 bc, the nevi'im and the kethuvim still aren't totally considered solid on the same basis, and nowhere near as holy.

but enoch isn't in the hebrew bible for the same reason that matthew isn't.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by simple, posted 05-26-2006 12:06 AM simple has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 134 (316042)
05-29-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by simple
05-26-2006 12:10 AM


Why not? What was wrong with fooling around, where does this idea come from?

there's nothing wrong with sex.

in marriage.

Adam fooled with Eve.

to whom he was married. the story of adam and eve, in genesis 2, is the etiology for the origin of marriage. and anyways, some would argue that they DID sin in that manner. they ate from a tree called "knowledge" and in biblical hebrew, "to know" is a euphemism for sex. they were kicked out of the garden for it.

(i don't personally hold this belief, but i know some people read it that way)

Every great man of God fooled with at least one woman, some with a lot more!

name a great man of god who was perfect. even david, who was called perfect, messed around bathsheba and fell from grace. the overwhelming message of the bible is that humans are imperfect, and fail repeatedly.

but you're right, god doesn't seem to punish people for it. the only arguable case is sodom, but that seems to be more a treatment of guests issue. when lot leaves sodom, he and his daughters think they are the only people left, and so his daughters get him drunk and rape him. if rape was the issue in sodom, why not punish lots daughters too?

Where do you get the idea angels marrying women was bad?

in genesis 6, the connection doesn't seem to exist. god destroys man because mankind if wicked. the bit about the nephilim need not be related -- it is the book of enoch that connects the two. not the bible. and even in enoch, it's not sex that does it. it's that azazel teaches mankind to make weapons to fight the nephilim.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by simple, posted 05-26-2006 12:10 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by simple, posted 05-29-2006 11:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 112 of 134 (316119)
05-29-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ReverendDG
05-26-2006 12:56 AM


The things you mention are not in the 'holy bible'. No cherry picking needed, or adding cherries as you try to do. Other books are well and good perhaps. The inspired authority of the holy bible, as men were inspired to compile rules.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ReverendDG, posted 05-26-2006 12:56 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 113 of 134 (316120)
05-29-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by arachnophilia
05-29-2006 4:32 PM


quote:
there's nothing wrong with sex.

in marriage.



The angels married women, so again, what was so wrong?
quote:
to whom he was married. the story of adam and eve, in genesis 2, is the etiology for the origin of marriage.
Call it what you like. They had no marriage papers.
quote:
they ate from a tree called "knowledge" and in biblical hebrew, "to know" is a euphemism for sex. they were kicked out of the garden for it.

(i don't personally hold this belief, but i know some people read it that way)


A common misconception, I know. I have heard it lots. Mostly from churches that think sex is sin in some sad way, or evil.

quote:
name a great man of god who was perfect. even david, who was called perfect, messed around bathsheba and fell from grace. the overwhelming message of the bible is that humans are imperfect, and fail repeatedly.
True. But their shortcomings are usually not sex. David did more than boff the girl, he had her husband killed.

quote:
the only arguable case is sodom, but that seems to be more a treatment of guests issue
The guests were only there to see if the sodomy was so prevalent it needed wiping out!
quote:
and so his daughters get him drunk and rape him. if rape was the issue in sodom, why not punish lots daughters too?

Female male sex was not the issue, forced or not. We know what the daughters did was wrong. Not as wrong as men with men.
quote:
in genesis 6, the connection doesn't seem to exist. god destroys man because mankind if wicked. the bit about the nephilim need not be related -- it is the book of enoch that connects the two. not the bible. and even in enoch, it's not sex that does it. it's that azazel teaches mankind to make weapons to fight the nephilim.

OK. Great, then sex is fine, and what was going down was not because some man or angel got some. I agree.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 4:32 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 12:19 AM simple has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 114 of 134 (316457)
05-31-2006 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by simple
05-29-2006 11:21 PM


The angels married women, so again, what was so wrong?

yes, good eye. but again: the connection between the angels marrying human women and the flood is nonexistant in genesis. it never once said that there was anything wrong with it.

Call it what you like. They had no marriage papers.

not what *i* like, what the bible says:

quote:
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

the story is the reason men and women get married. i've even heard this verse read at a wedding. the very next verse says:

quote:
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

the bible calls adam and eve "man and wife." it does so again in genesis 3:

quote:
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

quote:
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife...

quote:
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

quote:
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

i think it's fairly safe to say they were married.

they ate from a tree called "knowledge" and in biblical hebrew, "to know" is a euphemism for sex. they were kicked out of the garden for it.

(i don't personally hold this belief, but i know some people read it that way)

A common misconception, I know. I have heard it lots. Mostly from churches that think sex is sin in some sad way, or evil.

it's only a misconception because it can be read that way. לָדַעַת (ladat, or yada- conjugated) can be read as "to know" as in knowledge, or "to have sexual intercourse" as a common euphemism. i won't quote very many verses to demonstrate this; i'm sure you can find a ton. but here's one to further illustrate my above point:

quote:
וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ

v'ha-adam yada et-chavah ishto

and-the-man knew (d.o.)-chavah woman(his)

and the man "had sex with" "eve", his wife


True. But their shortcomings are usually not sex. David did more than boff the girl, he had her husband killed.

yes, also true. like i said, god rarely punishes sex alone. even in a rather prominent case of god killing someone for a sex-related sin:

quote:
Gen 38:9-10 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

god kills onan because wasn't fulfilling his family duty, not because of the sexual issue.

Female male sex was not the issue, forced or not. We know what the daughters did was wrong. Not as wrong as men with men.

now, this is another common misconception. (actually, maybe even the one before it, too)

quote:
Gen 19:4-5 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

the bolded word, "men," is הָאֲנָשִׁים, ha-anashim. now this is a peculiar quirk of hebrew, but we happen to have carried this over to english quite literally.

in hebrew, feminine singular nouns tend to end in a heh ה or tav ת. everything else tends to be masculine. feminine plurals tend to in -ot ות and masculine plurals tend to end in -im ים.

the word for man is 'ish: איש
so the the word for woman is 'ishah: אישה

now, the plurals for men and women are weird. this isn't important to the point, but just recognize that these are abnormal plurals.

a group of all men is anashim: אנשים
a group of all women is nashim: נשים

(instead of ishim and ishot. i'm not sure WHY, that's just how it is). now here's the important part. what if we have a group of both males and females? or if we don't know the gender of the group?. gender reverts to the masculine plural.

so a group of both men and women, or indeterminant gender, is anashim: אנשים. our bolded word above.

that means that there is no way to tell that it was a group of all men on this word alone. it also means that the citizens of sodom probably didn't know the gender of lot's visitors. but even more importantly, genesis 19:4 has this phrase:

quote:
כָּל-הָעָם, מִקָּצֶה

kol-ha-am m'qatzeh

all-the-nation from-border


or, "all the people for area." the word specifically refers to the people as a whole, including the women. so even presuming that the "yada" in this passage means sex, there is still very little way to read this passage as about butt-sex.

rather, it's about treatment of guests. sodom was destroyed inhospitality, or even trying to rape visitors, if you like.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by simple, posted 05-29-2006 11:21 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by simple, posted 05-31-2006 12:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 115 of 134 (316460)
05-31-2006 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by arachnophilia
05-31-2006 12:19 AM


quote:
yes, good eye. but again: the connection between the angels marrying human women and the flood is nonexistant in genesis. it never once said that there was anything wrong with it.

My point exactly.
quote:
i think it's fairly safe to say they were married.
Of course they were. It was sex, and agreement to God, not some church that made it so.

quote:
it's only a misconception because it can be read that way. לָדַעַת (ladat, or yada- conjugated) can be read as "to know" as in knowledge, or "to have sexual intercourse" as a common euphemism. i won't quote very many verses to demonstrate this; i'm sure you can find a ton. but here's one to further illustrate my above point:



Kind of like having phone sex with the devil. they listened to him. That was a crime.
quote:
god kills onan because wasn't fulfilling his family duty, not because of the sexual issue.

He wasted the seed, I think, was the bad thing.

quote:
or, "all the people for area." the word specifically refers to the people as a whole, including the women. so even presuming that the "yada" in this passage means sex, there is still very little way to read this passage as about butt-sex.

rather, it's about treatment of guests. sodom was destroyed inhospitality, or even trying to rape visitors, if you like.


Well, women can be lesbians too. If they get this above normal desire for men, it is the same thing, really. Butts are not really the only end of the arguement here. Men working that which is unseemly with men, receiving in themselves the recompense of their reward seems to include more than that. It is a spiritual thing, which woman can do as well. The result of thiese demonic desires or unnatural if you will, is no kids, like Onan. But men with men seems particularly abhorant to God. No use argueing this. The new testament clinches the deal here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 12:19 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 3:12 AM simple has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 116 of 134 (316487)
05-31-2006 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by simple
05-31-2006 12:42 AM


Of course they were. It was sex, and agreement to God, not some church that made it so.

if that should say "agreement OF god" then i agree with half of it. i'm not sure that sex defines marriage. (quite the opposite, if you ask married couples...)

Kind of like having phone sex with the devil. they listened to him. That was a crime.

yes, the sin was listening to the snake instead of obeying god.

He wasted the seed, I think, was the bad thing.

no, read it again. onan's brother died, and it was his duty to father an heir for his brother's line. (this much is explained by the bible.) because he knew that his child would not be his, he pulled out. enjoyed the sex, without following through on his duty.

it has nothing to do with waste.

Well, women can be lesbians too.

genesis 19 is specifies no gender. it is not about which gender was having sex with which gender. it was about rape and inhospitality.

But men with men seems particularly abhorant to God. No use argueing this.

leviticus particularly calls it an abomination. also included as abominations are graven images, eagles (our national graven image), crustaceans (red lobster), and pigs (ham and cheese on unlevened bread is right out).

The new testament clinches the deal here.

and the new testament seems to be referring to a particular KIND of homosexuality, pederasty, which was common in the greek-speaking world. (in fact, apparently every instance of the word paul uses in other greek literature refers to such relationships).

i think we can ALL agree that pederasty is icky, as are all other forms of child molestation.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by simple, posted 05-31-2006 12:42 AM simple has not yet responded

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 2556 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 117 of 134 (316489)
05-31-2006 3:23 AM


The Nephilim were Giants?
I think that the Nephilim mentioned in the Torah are kind of a Canaanitic/Israelitish equivalint to the Titans of the Greek traditions; Men of strength and stature, born of the gods, and were heroes of the ancient world before "the flood."

It is known that the name, 'Rpum', has been found in the Ras Shamra tablets of Ugarit which dated to the 1200's bc. These were warrior gods who traveled by chariot to attend feasts of El in Syria.

When the earliest traditions of the Torah were first written down between 900's and 700's bc in the Israelite and Judean courts, the Nephilim and Rephaim were obviously names which envoked the idea of superhumans or gods/demi-gods. The name Rephaim was used to describe ancient heroes and tribes whose mysterious origins and legendary attributes were unrivaled.

Were the Nephilim giants? It seems the Hebrew chroniclers felt that they were, but vaguely so. They used the name "Nephilim", similarly how a Greek would use the word "Titan" to convey an idea of strength and power, and this would coincide with great stature aswell.

How big were these giants? Within some of the ranks of a tribal army, there would undoubtedly have been some big and highly respected warriors who may have even formed special fighting units. If you had several families who had a genetic average stature of 6'to 6'6 for men, and they all served in the same division these men would almost certainly have been feared by a regular platoon of soldiers.

The average stature of the ancient Israelites has been reliably estimated at around 5'5 for men and 5' for women. Since Goliath was 2 meters tall, or about 6 feet 7 (according to DSS)and may have weighed 250 or 300 lbs, this fits quite well with the height range I described.

In 2 samuel 23:21 there is also mention of an Egyptian 5 cubits tall, who was slain by one of David's mighty men. 5 cubits is about seven feet six.

The WWE has atleast six men who could really be considered gigantic even by modern standards: The Great Khali, 7'3 420 lbs, Big Show, 7' 500 lbs, Kane 6'9 326lbs, Undertaker 6'9 320 lbs, and Mark Henry 6'1 400 lbs.

If these modern wrestlers were introduced to the ancient Israelites 3,000 yeears ago, I could almost bet you that legends would be born not unlike those of Goliath.

Acromegaly is a rather rare disease affecting 1 in several thousand people, but Gigantism is far rarer, perhaps affecting 1 in half a million or more. The earth's population at the time of King David was about 70 to 100 million people, and maybe only 300,000 living in Palestine at his time. Yet this does make it statisticaly possible for "pathological" giants to exist in Palestine at the time.

However, the likliest explanation is that these giants described in the bible refer to men who were constitutionally taller than average men, and perhaps a few were affected by gigantism or Acromegaly.


Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 3:42 PM John Williams has not yet responded
 Message 120 by LudoRephaim, posted 06-19-2006 7:57 PM John Williams has not yet responded
 Message 121 by LudoRephaim, posted 06-19-2006 8:02 PM John Williams has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 118 of 134 (316635)
05-31-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by John Williams
05-31-2006 3:23 AM


Re: The Nephilim were Giants?
It is known that the name, 'Rpum', has been found in the Ras Shamra tablets of Ugarit which dated to the 1200's bc. These were warrior gods who traveled by chariot to attend feasts of El in Syria.

that is very interesting and helpful information.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by John Williams, posted 05-31-2006 3:23 AM John Williams has not yet responded

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 2556 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 119 of 134 (316678)
05-31-2006 5:33 PM


Archaeological evidence for the Nephilim?
Trying to find archaeological evidence for the Nephilim is about as realistic as trying to find evidence of the Greek Titans, Hercules or any other hero.

Whatever the case, it is evident the Hebrew scribes of around 900 bc retained ancient traditions concerning the tall and mighty warriors who lived in Palestine from the times of Moses to David.

Gath has been identified at Tel es Safi. A pot shard has been discovered with the name "Rpa" inscribed, also more recently a shard has been found here which dates to 900 bc and retains the names "Alwt and Wlt" inscribed. These names are somewhat similar to the name Goliath.

In 1902-1909 At Gezer, RAS Macalister did excavate several male skeletons who ranged in height from 1.8 to 2 meters tall (The average male inhabitant of Gezer was about 1.7 meters)

In 1985 at Tell es-Saidiyeh, Jordan, The British Museum unearthed over half a dozen skeletons of tall men and women ranging from around 1.8 to 2 meters tall who lived around 1200 bc. Some other skeletons in this same height range have been found at Bab Edh-dra near the Dead sea.

In June 1994 it was reported that an underwater tomb was uncovered near Atlit in N. Israel, which contained the body of a 2 meter tall Neolithic man who lived some 8,000 years ago.

In 1979, a first century tomb at Jericho revealed the name "Goliath" inscribed on an ossuary which contained the bones of a man 1.9 meters tall. Evidently Goliath was his nickname, as he would have stood much taller than average men of the time.

As can be seen from just a few of these known archaeological discoveries, there were some ancient people with a genetic stature of 1.8 to 2 meters living in Palestine over a wide range of time, and it can be further extrapolated that there would have been occasional 7 footers among an already tall tribe or family group whose genetic average height is 6' to 6'6 for men.


    
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 120 of 134 (323529)
06-19-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by John Williams
05-31-2006 3:23 AM


good post
hey John Williams :)

Youre two posts are quite interesting, but There is so much on them that I cant respond to all that you wrote. But kudos on them. Good job!

John Williams writes:

The average stature of the ancient israelites has been reliably estimated at aroung 5'5 for men and 5' for women.

This this estimate for the time of Saul and David, or just the average height over the span of Old Testament Hebrew history? Either way it seems to agree more or less with the sources I quoted. Could you direct me to yoursource? I'm not being sarcastic or smug like many who ask that question on evc, I just want to look at it.

BTW: Glad you mentioned those WWE Wrestlers. THe Great Khali kicks BUTT!!


"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by John Williams, posted 05-31-2006 3:23 AM John Williams has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017