What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nephilim

Free said:
No, of course no one is saying to throw out concordances but rather that untrained lay people need to know the limitations and dangers of using concordances and lexicons. Such an argument completely ignores the difficulties that often arise in biblical interpretation, particularly with such an obscure and difficult topic.

Read D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, or just listen to the podcast Principles for Biblical Interpretation by Dr. James Voelz, available in iTunesU for Concordia Seminary. Both state the danger of going to the root of a word since, as Sparrowhawke has correctly pointed out, the actual meaning between a word and its root can be quite different.

So, no, this very much isn't grasping at straws but rather trying to be faithful to the text without making assumptions.


Of course he isn't. Be careful in quoting Scripture as though you have said something meaningful. This much abused passage is often used when one has no response except to simply disagree, presuming that it is the opposing view(s) that is confused, implying they are following the flesh or demons, instead of acknowledging the possibility of one's own lack of understanding.

I have pointed out some other problems with the fallen angels had sex with female women theory, but as far as I have seen, they have gone unaddressed.
Click to expand...

The line has been edited... i read it as a polite way calling a brother a liar. reba

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 6:4

All human life was exterminated from the earth, except Noah and his family.

The sons of God were not affected by the flood, only there offspring.

The sons of God were angels, as the the new testament writers confirm.


JLB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who here speaks ancient Hebrew?

Nobody? Okay. There are many words that have similar meaning. That's true for English too. Now think about a language that was primarily oral. When they recorded it in writing they omitted the vowel points. Now, with this in mind, consider 5 English words: bag, beg, big, bog, and bug.

Now omit the vowels. And recall that there are no spaces between words. Also it's written from left to right -- oops! I meant from right to left (sorry).

tlsnrtttlcffdrvtskmtht = that makes it very difficult to translate

This is a GB issue. Does that mean it's a BAG issue, a BEG issue, a BIG issue, a BOG issue or a BUG issue?

Okay, it's not a BUG issue, but maybe it is. The word "bug" in English has multiple meanings and doesn't necessarily translate to a type of insect. It could be a computer problem? Also word meanings change over time and with use.

Is Google making us stupid?
 
Last edited:
Sparrowhawke said:
Who here speaks ancient Hebrew?

Nobody? Okay. There are many words that have similar meaning. That's true for English too. Now think about a language that was primarily oral. When they recorded it in writing they omitted the vowel points. Now, with this in mind, consider 5 English words: bag, beg, big, bog, and bug.

Now omit the vowels. And recall that there are no spaces between words. Also it's written from left to right -- oops! I meant from right to left (sorry).

tlsnrtttlcffdrvtskmtht = that makes it very difficult to translate

This is a GB issue. Does that mean it's a BAG issue, a BEG issue, a BIG issue, a BOG issue or a BUG issue?

Okay, it's not a BUG issue, but maybe it is. The word "bug" in English has multiple meanings and doesn't necessarily translate to a type of insect. It could be a computer problem? Also word meanings change over time and with use.

Is Google making us stupid?
Click to expand...
Why would God Give us something that is very difficult to translate? Have you studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and seen their comparisons of those Ancient writings and books and our modern day original copies?They compare the discrepancies as to The Dotting of "i" and the crossing of "t". And some of those writings have this very subject in them.

I believe they were written in these languages because they were very exact languages. Not some ambiguous language that is hard to understand.

Imagine English.

We drive in Parkways and park in driveways.

We have quite a few and quite a lot.
 
gr8grace3 your questions and suggestions are rhetorical, right? I mean, do you really want me to lecture you about the Tower of Babel? You ask, "Why would God give us something that is very difficult to translate?" Greek is a very precise language. Hebrew? Not so much. I've always loved Rotherham's Emphasized because of its treatment of the Hebrew. Recently I've found one better - a translation by Everett Fox. I like it because it is the only translation that makes the effort to maintain the sound of the language. There are many sound clues that are missing in our beloved KJV.

Your examples (known by English speakers) emphasize my point. We do drive in parkways. Now try it backwards and without vowels. The way it is preserved is by the SOUND. We don't have that ability today. Nobody speaks ancient Hebrew.

You mention the Dead Sea Scrolls - so I Googled "Translation Problems for the Dead Sea Scrolls" and found this:

The translation is a problem for two reasons: a) Does the fragment 7 in which it comes belong after fragment 6? (cf. comments on misjoins above). If so probably the nasi is put to death. But if the fragment 6 really belongs after fragment 7, then the nasi would be putting someone else to death. Eisenman and Wise admit both possibilities: p. 24. b)The key verb is in Hebrew hmytw. A problem is what vowels to add?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JLB said:
At the very same, how about acknowledging the truth of what the text is saying.
...
The sons of God were angels, as the the new testament writers confirm.
JLB
Click to expand...

JLB? I am convinced that you are certain that your opinion is the truth. What man isn't? We are told to "purchase the truth and sell it not". My understanding of this text includes the necessity of keeping the big picture in mind even while we discuss the details. God was saddened and purposed to destroy His creation. Noah found favor in his sight. There is a larger truth here and frankly, I've always wondered what things like, "wear head coverings for the angels' sake" mean. Not that it matters, but I do wonder. I just don't understand some stuff. And if I think I am on solid ground -- I'm told to be careful even then, lest I fall (did you see what I did there? I used the word "fall" referring to myself - so does that make me a giant? - no, it does not).

My opinion on this matter (again) is that we really don't have enough evidence to prove conclusively and without any shadow of a doubt that our understanding of this rather obscure text is the one and only "truth" of the matter. I don't assert that I am not capable of mistake and in fact have said the opposite. That is the essence of my entire premise, that it (the term translated as "the sons of God" or "the sons of gods" or "godlings") could mean angels, but nobody alive today knows for certain. My statement (that I am not infallible) simply may not be construed in any manner to mean that I don't acknowledge the truth no matter how plain that "truth" may seem to you.
 
Deborah13 said:
Young was not untrained, he knew both Hebrew and Greek. He said in the YLT which I posted, "the fallen ones" that is what Nephilim means in the Hebrew. One's who were fallen, in some way.
Irish are called Irish because they came or live in Ireland.
It says, the Nephilim. Which would be like saying the Christians.

Now, that does not mean that "fallen ones" are fallen angels. It could mean fallen apostate men.
Click to expand...

Young also took the exact same Hebrew word that he translated into fallen ones and made into giants in Numbers. I guess he just played with the text to make it say what he wanted on the topic.
 
Gets me Deb....So many of us Christians will not accept, that we hear the Word of God, through ears full of preconceptions.
 
King James said:
Young also took the exact same Hebrew word that he translated into fallen ones and made into giants in Numbers. I guess he just played with the text to make it say what he wanted on the topic.
Click to expand...

Numbers 13:33
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

33 and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.'
 
Guess what guys.... this thread is in
Questions for Christians (Q&A)
this is not a debate forum...a couple options are open ... it can be moved .... dead threads is one option A&T another .. or i can leave it here and there will be NO debating not even a hint.

My mistake this is A&T
 
Last edited:
agua. said:
Oh here's an interesting link.

Initial DNA analysis of Paracas elongated skull released – with incredible results -

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...s-paracas-elongated-skull-released-incredible
Click to expand...

Here's another, that is not debunking but needs to be considered. What really get's me, is no scientific peer review and the DNA geneticist wants to remain anonymous? If what Forester is alleging is true, any real scientist would welcome peer review, I would think.
http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-calm-down-the-paracas-skulls-are-not-from-alien-beings-102258
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top