Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Didn't the Nephilim in Genesis 6 get wiped out in the great flood during Noah's time? Then again, perhaps Noah's family tree had some Nephilim blood in them though. Otherwise, how would the Nephilim make their reappearance in Numbers 13:33?

Good question.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good question.

Dr. E.W.Bullinger wrote on this subject in Appendix 25 contained in THE COMPANION BIBLE. I am going to post only a short part of it.

"25. THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS"
Of GEN. 6, &c.



The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Pet. 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).

But we read of the Nephilim again in Num. 13:33 : "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Gen. 6:4, where we read : "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (i.e. in the days of Noah); and also AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became [the] mighty men (Heb. gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (lit. men of the name, i.e. who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before."

If anyone is interested he can Google it. I quoted from
https://levendwater.org/companion/append25.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before."

The Lord (Yahweh/Jehovah) of the Old Testament has been bitterly misrepresented by supposed scholars who condemn the God of Israel for commanding them under Joshua's leadership to slaughter even women and children occupying the land of Canaan.

What they refuse to take into account is that these "giants" were not real humans, but mutant offspring of fallen angels currently dwelling in the land of Canaan. That's why 10 of the spies sent by Moses were so afraid, considering themselves as mere "grasshoppers" in comparison.

In this situation our God is preserving the purity of mankind, by using Israel to destroy the Nephilim completely, yet liberal "scholars" would use this to condemn God for not "saving" Nephilim women and children.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord (Yahweh/Jehovah) of the Old Testament has been bitterly misrepresented by supposed scholars who condemn the God of Israel for commanding them under Joshua's leadership to slaughter even women and children occupying the land of Canaan.

What they refuse to take into account is that these "giants" were not real humans, but mutant offspring of fallen angels currently dwelling in the land of Canaan. That's why 10 of the spies sent by Moses were so afraid, considering themselves as mere "grasshoppers" in comparison.

In this situation our God is preserving the purity of mankind, by using Israel to destroy the Nephilim completely, yet liberal "scholars" would use this to condemn God for not "saving" Nephilim women and children.

I don't think it is correct to say that all the Canaanites that were driven out/killed by the Israelites were Nephilim.

One argument I have heard against Christianity is that "Why is the Old Testament God so bloodthirsty compared to the New Testament God (Jesus) who is so loving and merciful" How would you respond?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I don't think it is correct to say that all the Canaanites that were driven out/killed by the Israelites were Nephilim.

One argument I have heard against Christianity is that "Why is the Old Testament God so bloodthirsty compared to the New Testament God (Jesus) who is so loving and merciful" How would you respond?

That was my response.

I'll go further. God definitely preserved and protected a people for the coming of His Son, and the human lineage He descended from. Perhaps the harshest punishments were reserved for those who would be used to hurt either Jesus or His ancestors.

Consider the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. The day the Lord announced to Sarah that she would have a child was the same day these cities were judged. It was not coincidence, and it was significant. Isaac was the son of the father sacrificed in type on Mt. Moriah.

Another answer would be the Law's righteous demand of blood sacrifice for sins. This always pointed to the coming Messiah, as the perfect Lamb of God. Once the demands of the Law were fulfilled on Calvary, God was free to accept all sinners in Christ. God appeared "bloodthirsty" because His throne is established in righteousness, and those legal standards had to be met.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What they refuse to take into account is that these "giants" were not real humans, but mutant offspring of fallen angels currently dwelling in the land of Canaan.

Is this a fact, or one of those possibilities that someone states as fact and we buy it as such without actually seeing that it is not simply so?

I mean, does seeing oneself as if a grasshopper really mean that extreme a difference, or were there merely a bunch of NBA-types who were so noticeably taller than ordinary folk? Based on the writings of the day, it would appear that hyperbole was almost a regular part of life then.

And they were clearly taller, as was Goliath some years later. But do we have a clear statement of their size outside of the potentially hyperbolic statements like the one about grasshoppers?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is this a fact, or one of those possibilities that someone states as fact and we buy it as such without actually seeing that it is not simply so?

I mean, does seeing oneself as if a grasshopper really mean that extreme a difference, or were there merely a bunch of NBA-types who were so noticeably taller than ordinary folk? Based on the writings of the day, it would appear that hyperbole was almost a regular part of life then.

And they were clearly taller, as was Goliath some years later. But do we have a clear statement of their size outside of the potentially hyperbolic statements like the one about grasshoppers?

OK Genius, how do you explain these questions?

[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.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Dr. E.W.Bullinger wrote on this subject in Appendix 25 contained in THE COMPANION BIBLE. I am going to post only a short part of it.

"25. THE NEPHILIM, OR "GIANTS"
Of GEN. 6, &c.



The progeny of the fallen angels with the daughters of Adam (see notes on Gen. 6, and Ap. 23) are called in Gen. 6, Ne-phil-im, which means fallen ones (from naphal, to fall). What these beings were can be gathered only from Scripture. They were evidently great in size, as well as great in wickedness. They were superhuman, abnormal beings; and their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Jehovah's Word (Gen. 3:15).
This was why the Flood was brought "upon the world of the ungodly" (2Pet. 2:5) as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 14).

But we read of the Nephilim again in Num. 13:33 : "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Gen. 6:4, where we read : "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (i.e. in the days of Noah); and also AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became [the] mighty men (Heb. gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (lit. men of the name, i.e. who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).

So that "after that", i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before."

If anyone is interested he can Google it. I quoted from
https://levendwater.org/companion/append25.html

Was there a "second irruption"? If so, I would have thought that the bible would have mentioned it.

In my earlier post, I suggested that perhaps Noah's family tree had Nephilim blood in it. That also has no basis so I do not expect it to be taken seriously. Genesis 10 does talk a little on how the Canaanites came from Noah's son.

I am mindful of 1 Timothy 1:4's warning not to get bogged down by genealogies so I am inclined to not pursue this question of where the Nephilim came from.

My view is that the Bible's teaching point is that the relevant question to ask is "What do we do to the Nephilim?", and not "Where did the Nephilim come from".

As to whether Rebekah was a gentile or not, there are websites that take the view that she is. Here are a couple of them. One can do a google search for more
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/28.cfm
http://www.rivkah.org/050519.htm

I don't think it is important to understand the definition of "gentile". My view is that the relevant question to ask is "Why did Abraham want someone from his kindred?"

I believe that Abraham wanted a daughter-in-law who was from his kindred because his kindred worshipped Jehovah while the Canaanites worshipped pagan gods. As the Old Testament stories would show, it is easy to be led astray from God if your spouse worships pagan gods.