Nephilim

[Edward]

I was pulling your chain Edward. A concordance is simply a reference where a particular word is used in scripture. They don't list a definition. With today's software, we can search for words or phrases more easily than a concordance ever could.

As far as Strongs, it is not a concordance. Actually, it's not much more than a listing of how a particular word was translated in most cases. As well, it is biblically biased in that it limits it's definitions to fit how the translators decided to translate a particular word. If you want a little more on a words meaning, you won't ususally find it through strongs but instead, you'll need a good lexicon. Persus tufts is a great site that specializes in the greek and has two very good online lexicon's for comparison which includes a bit of etymology for an even fuller picture on how a word came about.

What? Strongs is not a concordance? That's news to me brother. It says right on the cover "Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" So...What am I to think here? While it may be true the the concordance part is a listing of all the passages that the word appears in, it does in fact have a Greek and Hebrew dictionary in it also which defines the word.
I'm not sure how to take your post. It sounds like you're simply refusing to accept what the scripture says.

View attachment 4223 If the "red berries" were in fact strawberries, then the text would certainly say "strawberries" would it not? That there is something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads. Those who close their minds to the possibility of "red berries" being strawberries should not speak of their open minds.

The phrase found in Genesis could apply to angels (certainly it does elsewhere); it could also apply to other creatures who are also elsewhere called the sons of God. How can an open minded person insist that all others are wrong?

Wow, you too huh? Your analogy is flawed. There are cherries which are red berries, and many other types of red berries on the planet that I have seen but don't know the name of them. I do think it's kind of hard to say that sons of God are actually men based on accepted scripture and definitions. I'm not saying you're wrong brother, I'm saying give me something besides flawed analogies to back yourself up.

 

[JLB]

View attachment 4223 If the "red berries" were in fact strawberries, then the text would certainly say "strawberries" would it not? That there is something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads. Those who close their minds to the possibility of "red berries" being strawberries should not speak of their open minds.

The phrase found in Genesis could apply to angels (certainly it does elsewhere); it could also apply to other creatures who are also elsewhere called the sons of God. How can an open minded person insist that all others are wrong?

Well that makes sense.

Please share with us the "elsewhere" and the other creatures that "sons of God" could be a reference to.

If the "other creatures" mentioned "elsewhere" are human creatures then that certainly would not fit in the genesis 6 scripture, since we have ruled that out with the understanding that all flesh was destroyed in the flood, and more specifically all men.

as the scriptures teach -

Genesis 6:

4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Genesis 7:

13] On the very same day Noah and Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark--

17] Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

20] The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

21] And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.


There was no flesh on the earth no men, except Noah and his family, after the flood.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

JLB, we are talking about men of renown and/or mighty men. We are told they were on the earth both prior and after the flood. You state they MUST be the product of angels and women? Why?

Because there are no known children of men and women who could be called 'men of renown' or 'mighty men'?

 

[Sparkey]

If the sons of God were in fact only men, then the text would certainly say sons of men, or simply men, would it not? That there was something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads.

View attachment 4224 If the "red berries" were in fact strawberries, then the text would certainly say "strawberries" would it not? That there is something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads. Those who close their minds to the possibility of "red berries" being strawberries should not speak of their open minds.

The phrase found in Genesis could apply to angels (certainly it does elsewhere); it could also apply to other creatures who are also elsewhere called the sons of God. How can an open minded person insist that all others are wrong?

Wow, you too huh? Your analogy is flawed. There are cherries which are red berries, and many other types of red berries on the planet that I have seen but don't know the name of them. I do think it's kind of hard to say that sons of God are actually men based on accepted scripture and definitions. I'm not saying you're wrong brother, I'm saying give me something besides flawed analogies to back yourself up.

Edward: "If the sons of God were in fact only men,"
Analogous statement: "If the red berries were in fact only cherries,"

Edward: "then the text would certainly say sons of men"
Analogous statement: "then the text would certainly say cherries,"

Is that better?

It seems you have proven my case.

Romans 8:14 For all those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

This much seems almost a given from the way this text reads. Unless, of course, your opinion differs from the way it reads and you're never 'wrong'.

 

[JLB]

JLB, we are talking about men of renown and/or mighty men. We are told they were on the earth both prior and after the flood. You state they MUST be the product of angels and women? Why?

Because there are no known children of men and women who could be called 'men of renown' or 'mighty men'?

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

The way Giants were produced is when the sons of God went into the daughters on men.


The only way Giants were on the earth after all the Giants were wiped out in the flood, was because the sons of God were not affected by the flood, and continued to produced Giants when they came into the daughters of men, after the flood.

The reason the sons of God were not affected by the flood is because they were angels, and not human.


If I failed at pointing this out before, I apologize.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

No, I understood that you presume that giants are the offspring of angels. The conclusion that you attempt to prove is included in the proof itself.

You say "Only angels may father giants"
You go on to say, "Giants exist after the flood"
and conclude "Only angels may father giants"

Presumably because no "sons of God" could exist after the flood *if not angelic*. Could it be that there were others who could be called "sons of God" after the flood that came through Noah and his line? The bible clearly states this to be the case. I'm not convinced that Giants is the preferred translation (over mighty men or men of renown) any more than I am that Angels must be the only creatures called the "sons of God".

I didn't mistake you and you have not failed to point this out before. I get the sense that the reasoning is conclusive in your mind.

 

[JLB]

No, I understood that you presume that giants are the offspring of angels. The conclusion that you attempt to prove is included in the proof itself.

You say "Only angels may father giants"
You go on to say, "Giants exist after the flood"
and conclude "Only angels may father giants"

Presumably because no "sons of God" could exist after the flood *if not angelic*. Could it be that there were others who could be called "sons of God" after the flood that came through Noah and his line? The bible clearly states this to be the case. I'm not convinced that Giants is the preferred translation (over mighty men or men of renown) any more than I am that Angels must be the only creatures called the "sons of God".

I didn't mistake you and you have not failed to point this out before. I get the sense that the reasoning is conclusive in your mind.

The bible clearly states this to be the case?


The scripture itself teaches us how Giants came to be.


There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

There is zero evidence of there being any sons of God mentioned or any Giants mentioned in the genealogy from Adam to Noah.

1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. 9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. 10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died. 12 Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died. 15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died. 18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died. 21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. 25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died. 28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed." 30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died. 32 And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Genesis 5:1-32

There were no sons of God begotten from men, in the genealogy from Adam to Noah.

There were no giants begotten from men, in the genealogy from Adam to Noah.


JLB




JLB

 

[agua.]

agua.



I'm glad you see that there are textual differences. I do hope that you'll see the contextual differences as well. I am also you used the word "Seems" in reference to my explanation being a 'red herring'. But to address that suggestion, it is simply part of exegesis because proper exegesis understands the context from which it derives. To be clear, sons of God in Job is in regard to them presenting themselves to God, and Satan just happens to show up as well. sons of God in reference to Genesis 6 has to do with the sons of god procreating and Nephilim are the offspring.

Yes indeed but the sons of God in Job are angels regardless of the context. i understand you are attempting to distance the Job references from Gen 6 and that's ok it's a good debate tactic. I'm willing to disregard Job and move on to what the Author intended to convey in Gen 6.

Job is about a gentile suffering and finding his way to God and the very nature of God. Genesis 6 is about the wickedness of humanity and their distruction with the exception of one man who found favor and his family was included. Contextually, these to stories are miles apart as is their intent. I don't see how that's a red herring as it adds to the discussion because we are looking at what the text actually says before we decide what it means.

Yes but the context doesn't remove the definition. It's almost like an attempt to reduce the credibility of the Job account. Do you agree the sons of God in Job refers to angels ?

It may be a stretch and I claim no authority on my opinion, but there isn't anything wrong with assigning a motive. Every writer in the Bible had a motive... some event that urged him to write what the Holy Spirit gave them to write. Historical evidence can often shed light on what motivated a writer to write what he wrote. Historically, we have many leaders from Pharaoh to Cesar who claimed they were God incarnate and I can provide a page of references if you so desire. Just give the word and I shall start posting them.

Assigning motive is ok so long as you don't do it with the sole intention of supportive argument. I don't think we need to guess why Moses used the term but simply accept that he did.

The Sanhedrin had the last say when it came to Torah... Oral tradition is nothing other than commentary and the commentary back then is as broad as it is today, both in Christian circles as it remains in Jewish circles. But if we want to talk authority, then we've got to introduce what the Sages had to say on the matter, and you will find that the Jews also have their own "dictionary" which defines words so I assure you, sons of god being translated into english as nobles is no modern idea. Rashi, whom I left a link of his commentary was from 1040 AD and is recognized for staying very true to the text. Ramban on the other hand used more of the "Oral traditions" to comment on the text. So, while you may find Jewish commentary stating that sons of god in Genesis 6 were angels, is it supported by the Sages and if so, what do the Sages say on the matter? Here is a red herring if you wish to chase it, but wold we follow a Hebrew commentary that brought us back to Lilith through the interpretation of Genesis 6 being about Angels? In other words, who's right in their interpretation and what criteria is used to discern who's credible and who's not?

Yes and this is why we shouldn't be concerned with anything aside from the intention of the Author. I think Jude eg. knew the passage referred to angels and this is what I'm investigating. We also know Jude possibly quoted the Book of Enoch and it's interesting the very descriptive account of the passage there.

 

[agua.]

View attachment 4223

The phrase found in Genesis could apply to angels (certainly it does elsewhere); it could also apply to other creatures who are also elsewhere called the sons of God. How can an open minded person insist that all others are wrong?

Sparrow do you place this charge also against the people who claim the term can not mean angels because I've only seen these type of slights towards the yay camp ?

 

[JLB]

The bible clearly states this to be the case?


The scripture itself teaches us how Giants came to be.

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

There is zero evidence of there being any sons of God mentioned or any Giants mentioned in the genealogy from Adam to Noah.

1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. 6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. 9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. 10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died. 12 Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died. 15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died. 18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died. 21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. 25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died. 28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed." 30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died. 32 And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Genesis 5:1-32

There were no sons of God begotten from men, in the genealogy from Adam to Noah.

There were no giants begotten from men, in the genealogy from Adam to Noah.


JLB

Could it be that there were others who could be called "sons of God" after the flood that came through Noah and his line? The bible clearly states this to be the case.

Simply put there is no biblical evidence that "states clearly" your presumed theory.

The only origin of Giants [Nephilim] is through the union of sons of God and daughters of men.

Noah, nor his family line produced any Nephilim.

Why would the union of Godly men and women produce Nephilim, we certainly have no precedent for this, nor do we have any reference to this elsewhere.

Nephilim are unique to the phrase sons of God and daughters of men.

We don't find Nephilim being conceived any other way in scripture.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

Simply put there is no biblical evidence that "states clearly" your presumed theory.

Lol - right back at ya with that one.

Your presumption includes as a fact that God equipped angels in such a way as to allow them to have sexual intercourse with women.

 

[JLB]

Lol - right back at ya with that one.

Your presumption includes as a fact that God equipped angels in such a way as to allow them to have sexual intercourse with women.

Your presumption includes the fact that it is impossible for angels to leave their own habitation, and sin, and that the sin did not involve interbreeding with the daughters of men.

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned , but cast them down to hell , and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly... 2 Peter 2:4-5


Peter clarifies this matter for us.

Unless there is another incident during the time of Noah that Peter is referring to?



JLB

 

[Sparkey]

I don't actually presume to tell you that angels could not have intercourse with women. I have looked as I am able and freely admit that it is possible (although in my opinion - only remotely possible) that the term "sons of God," found in Genesis 6 could be interpreted to angels. Where is my presumption??? I presume personal ignorance and conclude that I do not know definitively.

Your question about "another incident during the time of Noah" is a question that you must ask yourself. My suggestion is that it isn't necessarily angels. Notice the focus of the text directly around the controversial passage:

[Gen 6:5-7 ESV] 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

The words that Peter wrote mentions the sin of the angels and God's judgment. Gen 6:5 doesn't mention angels at all but instead, men. You insist that Peter described the timeframe of angelic sin specifically (when he didn't) and that he described the exact circumstance but he didn't.

I conclude that there isn't enough Scripture here to force your conclusion on others but, and again, admit the possibility of your being correct. But the problem is that we only have your thinking to prove such things. You'll understand if I would like to wait for greater authority before I conclude the matter.

PRESUMPTION:
"an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, esp. at the start of a chain of argument or action"

 

[Sparkey]

I hesitate to pronounce judgment against angels, it's true. But that's because I am in flesh and lower than them. There are things that I don't understand and I don't pretend otherwise. By the way, one of the reasons that I hesitate (and can become unwilling if pressed) is that God's plan for us includes bringing us to a place where we will judge the world. We will judge angels. I read that as future tense. I tremble at the thought of taking on more than what will please God in this matter. Just because they are bigger than me. But if God is for me, who can stand against me -- it is good for me then to wait until I hear the Lord speak in this matter.

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

It is better for me then to exercise my judgment in matters of the world and refrain from the attempt to bring accusation against those that I am not able to comprehend. But there will come a time where we will see face to face. We don't know what we will be but we are promised that we will be like Jesus. But even in matters of the world, I fail (at times). Don't look to me as the font of Wisdom. I've seen what I've done and must continue to recall that I am flesh, that I depend on the Holy Spirit and on Jesus who shall judge all, including me. It is His goodness, not my rationale that I trust. If the Lord has shown you the truth of the matter and you, in your good conscience are able to declare it? I would like to presume this to be the case and give you the benefit of my doubt. But I also notice from experience that the Lord confirms truth in others. JLB, I am not able to confirm what you have stated as fact.

Is it okay for me to hesitate or even become unwilling to presume to judge angels? Do you know of any Scriptural directives about this? Are those who bring railing accusations against angelic beings on solid ground? What does the Bible say? Blessed are the peacemakers. How can my admission of ignorance in this matter become a call to arms? There are too many good things to focus on, why waste time in argument regarding something that can only be settled later?

 

[Deborah13]

@Sparrowhawke

 

[stovebolts]

What? Strongs is not a concordance? That's news to me brother. It says right on the cover "Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" So...What am I to think here? While it may be true the the concordance part is a listing of all the passages that the word appears in, it does in fact have a Greek and Hebrew dictionary in it also which defines the word.
I'm not sure how to take your post. It sounds like you're simply refusing to accept what the scripture says.

From Dictionary.com
Concordance:
an alphabetical index of the principal words of a book, as of the Bible, with a reference to the passage in which each occurs.

What you have is a concordance which Strongs put together and then they added their "Strongs dictionary" and a few other things. Again, a concordance isn't a dictionary, it's simply a reference to where a particular word is located within a body of work. The dictionary is separate. You wouldn't call a dictionary a concordance and you wouldn't call a concordance a dictionary. But you can have a dictionary in a concordance and that's basically what you have. See, you learned something today

Now then, as far as Strongs, it is not much more than how a word within the Bible was translated, which makes it a very poor dictionary and more like a concordance in that it compiles the list of english words that were used when translating a particular word from the original texts. This in itself makes Strongs biased toward a particular translation and as such, it brings a very limited understanding of how the original language could have been used and what the original word could have meant from a larger perspective.

Before you get the wrong idea, Strongs has it's place, but it has it's limitations. I even use is, but I know how far to push it.

 

[stovebolts]

agua.

Yes indeed but the sons of God in Job are angels regardless of the context. i understand you are attempting to distance the Job references from Gen 6 and that's ok it's a good debate tactic. I'm willing to disregard Job and move on to what the Author intended to convey in Gen 6.

First off, I'm not posturing for position nor am I employing any particular tactic looking for an edge up in this discussion because I'm not viewing our discussion as a debate to be won, but rather as an honest and open discussion. Though not a tactic, it has been my attempt to have Genesis 6 stand on it's own which is always the entry point to textual exegesis, and I have already explained this.

Yes but the context doesn't remove the definition. It's almost like an attempt to reduce the credibility of the Job account. Do you agree the sons of God in Job refers to angels ?

The context defines the definition... Earlier I used the greek word nooma in John 3 as an example. The word just like it's Hebrew counterpart can be translated as either Spirit or Wind. I use John 3 as an example because the word is used in the same paragraph, but it has been translated differently per it's context and to your point, the context doesn't remove the definition. Rather, the context defines the definition.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the nooma.6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the nooma gives birth to nooma.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’8 The nooma blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the nooma.”

Assigning motive is ok so long as you don't do it with the sole intention of supportive argument. I don't think we need to guess why Moses used the term but simply accept that he did.

I think the why is as important as the what and for me it is difficult to separate the two. It's kind of like intellect and emotion. You want a healthy balance of both IMHO. It keeps scripture living and active, in and able to cut through bone and marrow kind of way.

Yes and this is why we shouldn't be concerned with anything aside from the intention of the Author. I think Jude eg. knew the passage referred to angels and this is what I'm investigating. We also know Jude possibly quoted the Book of Enoch and it's interesting the very descriptive account of the passage there.

There is a reason why Enoch isn't part of the cannon and why Genesis falls under the authoritative umbrella of Moses. Whenever I read outside sources to help me better understand the biblical text, I sort and sift, sort and sift. Generally, I use it to bring out what has already been established through scripture and I tread very lightly trying to use outside sources to define what's inside of scripture.

With that, lets put on the brakes for now and reserve further discussion for our one on one if that's ok with you.

Thanks,

 

[stovebolts]

Can you provide links to this Stove. You've made the claim so it's up to you to provide the evidence mate I'm not going to do your homework. I haven't seen, or heard of, any christian being prejudiced against tall people but because a Christian may have a bigoted prejudice doesn't mean a Biblical position is incorrect.

It's not my homework and I'm not a liar. If you can provide evidence that I'm a liar, then I shall produce evidence showing that I am telling the truth. I am not saying this in a mean or hostile manner but the burdon is not mine to provide evidence in this matter unless you have evidence otherwise. I can point you to the Bible Study forum, as well as the Lounge if you wish to do a search on your own. In short, you asked me a question, and I answered it as honestly as I could.

 

[jasonc]

pneuma. that is how its spelled as in pneumatic

 

[Deborah13]

pneuma. that is how its spelled as in pneumatic

You're such a Guy,

or as in "pneumonia"