Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK Genius, how do you explain these questions?

So Nephilim is the "obvious" answer? That takes more than genius. It takes information that we do not have.

And that is my point. You are insisting on an answer without evidence of it at all.

And, btw, I actually did provide one plausible explanation. And it is the existence of some people who clearly stand out as remarkably taller than others whose very presence scared the spies.

And to someone who had lived among "normal" people for years and had never seen anyone over 6 feet tall and was suddenly standing in the proximity of someone who was clearly 7 feet tall and the consideration was going to was against them, you don't think there would be some trepidation in them?

I don't need to prove any particular version of how it came to be. You need to prove how your singular answer is simply true. I did not say it could not be true — only that there was no actual evidence that it is, therefore only a possible answer.

You are getting your panties in a wad over my lack of simply taking the knee-jerk reaction that some provide — and without evidence. But it looks like you have taken it as simply true because it COULD explain things.

Do you have anything that actually makes Nephilim among the Canaanites true? If not . . . .

[Ohio]

The quote button is not working.

So Nephilim is the "obvious" answer? That takes more than genius. It takes information that we do not have.

And that is my point. You are insisting on an answer without evidence of it at all.

I wouldn't say that. I am posting my understanding based on all the information I have. Others, as in the posted link, have expressed similar views.

[TLFisher]

For years I have been bothered by the footnote of James 4:17

"A concluding word to all the charges in the preceding verses. It says that if the recipients of this Epistle are helped by James's writing and yet will not do as he wrote, to them it is sin."

The author of the footnotes implies James 4:17 "Therefore to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." is conditional and optional.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Terry

For years I have been bothered by the footnote of James 4:17

"A concluding word to all the charges in the preceding verses. It says that if the recipients of this Epistle are helped by James's writing and yet will not do as he wrote, to them it is sin."

The author of the footnotes implies James 4:17 "Therefore to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." is conditional and optional.

What is it that bothers you?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

For years I have been bothered by the footnote of James 4:17

"A concluding word to all the charges in the preceding verses. It says that if the recipients of this Epistle are helped by James's writing and yet will not do as he wrote, to them it is sin."

I'll postpone my rant for now, but limiting my post to the James 4:17 footnote, I disagree with the footnotes author. It's not a matter of whether the recipient of James' epistle is helped or not.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 2 Timothy 3:16

If we believe all scripture is God breathed, then we believe James epistle is God breathed. Whether one thinks James lines up with God's Economy is irrelevant.
There's a verse from the Old Testament that pairs up with James 4:17.

"Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt. " Leviticus 5:1

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Others, as in the posted link, have expressed similar views.

Others with similar views is not the same as evidence.

Reminds me a little of an infectious disease doctor who does a podcast on supplements, complimentary and alternative medicines (SCAMs . . . his statement, not mine) in which he periodically notes that the plural of anecdote is not "data." Or an alternative way of putting it is that just because something could possibly be the cause does not make it the cause. Real facts need to be considered.

And since I am not going to look at the link right now, can you assert that the links provide more than supposition (even if reasonable supposition) and not just a presumption that it is a plausible explanation?

I'm not "calling you out." I'm just noting that we got where we were in the LCM by taking the fact that someone said something as if true without evidence that it was actually true. All of us. Me included. It sort of puts my guard up when anyone makes those kinds of statements and I have no basis to take it as true. And I note that it still infects those of us who are trying to get rid of that garlic room.

Do the people who say that it is Nephilim say that it is possible, likely, definte? and if more than possible, do they provide any actual reasons other than a chain of suppositions?

At some level, unless we are convinced that both Nee and Lee were simply charlatans fleecing religious people, they were no different. They thought they saw something and decided it had to be true, so it was. Eventually they even declared that their preferred status before God made it so. Lee was more direct in his declarations (eventually) but Nee was really little different other than the obtuse way he went about declaring himself the most spiritual person in any room.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do the people who say that it is Nephilim say that it is possible, likely, definte? and if more than possible, do they provide any actual reasons other than a chain of suppositions?

It is possible.

There are infact three possibilities.
“In respect to the Bne Elohim, we find three principal views: 1. they are filii magnatum puellas plebeias rapientes; 2. they are angels; 3. they are the pious, that is, the Sethites, in contrast with whom the “daughters of men” denote Cainitish women." (Lange, on Gen. 6:1-8). You can install e-sword with the relative modules and read a detailed and very long dissertation on the subject. I personally believe the second one is more plausible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

It is possible.

There are infact three possibilities.
“In respect to the Bne Elohim, we find three principal views: 1. they are filii magnatum puellas plebeias rapientes; 2. they are angels; 3. they are the pious, that is, the Sethites, in contrast with whom the “daughters of men” denote Cainitish women." (Lange, on Gen. 6:1-8). You can install e-sword with the relative modules and read a detailed and very long dissertation on the subject. I personally believe the second one is more plausible.

Not helpful.

First, most of it is unexplained non-English. You can't just post a bunch of Hebrew, Greek, or any other language an leave it at that.

Second, we are not talking about before the flood but at the time of the spies going in among the Canaanites to see if they thought they could take it.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not helpful.

First, most of it is unexplained non-English. You can't just post a bunch of Hebrew, Greek, or any other language an leave it at that.

Second, we are not talking about before the flood but at the time of the spies going in among the Canaanites to see if they thought they could take it.

True. From now on I'll try to post only in English (or to provide the translation). Just forget about the previous one.