Putting to Test the Recovery Version

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not buying your premise that "giant" people are called nephilim for no other reason other than their size. Both instances of the word in scripture indicates an actual race of giants, which the Lord God saw fit to judge, first by a vast flood, and then by a great army.

If all giant guys were called nephilim, then why is there no mention of Goliath being a nephilim?

The funny thing is that there is nothing specifically indicating that nephilim is anything other than giants. Yes, it is part of the description of the sad state of affairs in Genesis, but without explanation. There is no further indication of why they were giants, or why they were included without explanation among the problems of the day (in Genesis).

But we have this burning desire to make more out of things than what is actually stated. I will admit that there was a problem and that their existence was somewhat hinted at as being generally part of it. But why do we insist on unstated facts beyond the description provided (giants)? Isn't it enough to note what is written without adding what is not?

We could presume a lot. Maybe those that were somehow born extremely large did a form of pre-historic genetic engineering by procreating with others of similar size. That would be something that could be understood as done with a goal to producing a race of people who would be capable of conquering others and ruling over them.

But we throw the word "Nephilim" around as if it is synonymous with "demon spawn" or something like it. The record is too bland to arrive at that kind of analysis — especially as the analysis. And as at least one Bible dictionary asserts, one of the tribes of the Canaanites was called "Nephilim" so referring to them in Numbers is not unexpected. And fear of them is likely to be expected from any who do not respect the power of the one true God.

And that Bible dictionary did not infer anything on the Nephilim other than size.

[OBW]

And as to your question about Goliath, maybe it was because they translated the word rather than just transliterating it. Or another word for giant was used. And even if another word was used, it does not infer special meaning to the other.

Just think of all the analysis of Christian writings in English a few hundred years from now when the language has either significantly changed or is little-used. They will start finding the two words "bible" and "scripture" and despite the fact that we use them as virtual synonyms, they start trying to further differentiate them beyond what we actually mean. And imbue one with special meaning and the other as simply "book."

Or pick another set of nearly synonymous words and think about what someone 2,000 years from now will make of it when we switch them at will but they presume major differences in meaning.

I am not saying that there is absolutely nothing to Nephilim. But there is not much actual evidence of what it is. Anything beyond "giant" is little more than speculation.

[Ohio]

The funny thing is that there is nothing specifically indicating that nephilim is anything other than giants. Yes, it is part of the description of the sad state of affairs in Genesis, but without explanation. There is no further indication of why they were giants, or why they were included without explanation among the problems of the day (in Genesis).

That's not true. Read Genesis 6 again, especially verse 4. Or perhaps you don't believe the flood ever happened?

But we have this burning desire to make more out of things than what is actually stated. I will admit that there was a problem and that their existence was somewhat hinted at as being generally part of it. But why do we insist on unstated facts beyond the description provided (giants)? Isn't it enough to note what is written without adding what is not?

That is not true. Putting the Bible verses together in order to understand God's judgments of old is the proper study of the scriptures. I have only used what is written.

Sounds like perhaps you've never done this before, otherwise you would not attempt to disparage me for doing so.

[testallthings]

I find the topic of the Nephilim, or giant, a very interesting topic indeed. Many students of the Bible, Jews and Christians as well, have written so much on it. On the other hand so little, in comparison, has been written about the RcV and its footnotes. That's why the topic of this thread.

So far I have introduced two footnotes. Regarding the first one, if Rebekah was or wasn't a Gentile woman, there were different points of view. On the second, regarding the supposed mistake that the magi committed in going to Jerusalem, and the alleged mistake of the chief priest and scribes in not going to see the new born King, some have stated that these are only conjectures of the writer of the footnote.

I would like to voice my opinion (just take it as simply as that) on the matter. It seems to me that in most cases when a person or an angel makes a mistake, there is usually a rebuke made by God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), by angels, and/or by man (prophet, man of God, seer, apostle....). Examples abounds in the Old and New Testament as well. So, if there is not explicit condemnation regarding a supposed mistake, I am not prone to strongly affirm that someone were mistaken.

Second, it was the magi that saw the star, not others. Like the shepherds who were told by the angel to go to Bethelem to see the baby Savior, Christ the Lord. So they did. Luk 2:15 "And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us." The vision was for them. After that Luk 2:17 says, " And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. Luk 2:18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds". Did “all they that heard it” go to see the baby. We do not know.

Seeing the little child, and recognize Him as the Savior, was permitted to very few people, Simeon and Anna being among them. I wonder if they went to Bethlehem, too. Rather the opposite is mentioned in the Gospels. The Savior went to them.

The chief priest and scribes did not go, though. But, it is true that starting with the appearing of John the Baptist, and from the baptism of the Lord Jesus, they were very much interested in knowing who the Baptist was (Joh 1:19 " And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? Joh 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. Joh 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Joh 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? Joh 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. Joh 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. Joh 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?") as well who the Lord Jesus was (scribes and Pharisees followed Him everywhere to find out if He was the Messiah. Even in the last hours of His earthly life He was asked, Mat 26:63 "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Mat 27:41, "Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, Mat 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.") They didn't believe. But to say that they were not interested it is not true. They could ask (and see all the miracles the Lord Jesus did) and decide to believe or not. Even if they went to see the baby Jesus they would not been able to ask Him anything.


.
According to Joh 1:31 (And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.) it was at His baptism that The Lord was to be made manifest to Israel. When He was a little child few people had the privilege to see Him as the Savior. From His baptism on He would be manifest to Israel as a whole. Today the Lord is seen and received by faith by many and maybe few in Israel. But one day (very soon, I hope) He will be seen even by those that pierced Him and so all Israel shall be saved.

[NewManLiving]

Genesis 19 gives a pretty clear picture that angels not only can appear as men but apparently can be men. They certainly have a digestive system since they partook of a meal prepared by Lot. It only stands to reason that they also (as taking on matter ) have all the "other parts" including a reproductive system, eliminatory system etc... Of course they could resemble a child's toy doll and have no genitalia at all. But to me that is absurd. From a strictly logical perspective it appears that Angels have a higher understanding and ability to use the little "atom" than we do. We can make a bomb, but they can form a body when it is required of them. Would not surprise me if some found the daughters of men quite stimulating. Interesting thoughts on the subject can be found in Pember's writings, Sauer and others

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Genesis 19 gives a pretty clear picture that angels not only can appear as men but apparently can be men. They certainly have a digestive system since they partook of a meal prepared by Lot.

They also enjoyed a meal prepared by Abraham. Obviously when these angels took human form, it was either directed or permitted by God.

Those angels, however, who rebelled against God along with Satan, apparently still possessed this ability to come to earth in human form. Jude 6-7 refers to "angels who did not keep their own position, but abandoned their proper dwelling." According to Genesis 6.2-4 these angel-sons of God desired the women on earth, and took them as wives producing half-breed Nephilim "men of renown," often glamorized in Greek mythology.

These angels are now kept in "eternal bonds awaiting judgment in that great day." It seems that once they left their abode in the heavenlies, they can not return. II Peter 2.4 repeats this judgment, adding more description, and I Peter 3.19-20 confirms that these disobedient spirit-angels were judged by God in the "days of Noah."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not true. Read Genesis 6 again, especially verse 4. Or perhaps you don't believe the flood ever happened?

That is not true. Putting the Bible verses together in order to understand God's judgments of old is the proper study of the scriptures. I have only used what is written.

Sounds like perhaps you've never done this before, otherwise you would not attempt to disparage me for doing so.

OK. I read it again. And I was already reading v 4 in the first place. It is interesting that this verse could be read as being entirely about Nephilim, or about 2 different things. But either way, God said nothing directly concerning it. He spoke concerning the wickedness of man and made no specific comment about regretting Nephilim.

And for humans, the issue is the wickedness of our own race. The fallen status of angelic beings (sons of God) and their interaction with man was not commented on — just noted as having happened.

As for disparaging, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You: "OK Genius, how do you explain these questions?"

Me: "You are getting your panties in a wad over my lack of simply taking the knee-jerk reaction that some provide"

As I pointed out above, it is not stated that the reason for the judgment of the flood was Nephilim. It was stated as because of the condition of mankind. Surely everything went in the flood. But there was no specific statement concerning judgment of Nephilim that I can find in the whole chapter, so maybe you should not disparage me by claiming that I have never "proper study of the scriptures."

And when it comes to understanding the problems with the RecV, it is the kind of extra-biblical overlays that are among the most serious issues. Lots of statements of "A means B" without ever establishing it as true. Just saying it.

[OBW]

Once again, the Quote button is not working on this particular post, those it has on others.

A few posts back, testallthings said:

I would like to voice my opinion (just take it as simply as that) on the matter. It seems to me that in most cases when a person or an angel makes a mistake, there is usually a rebuke made by God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), by angels, and/or by man (prophet, man of God, seer, apostle....). Examples abounds in the Old and New Testament as well. So, if there is not explicit condemnation regarding a supposed mistake, I am not prone to strongly affirm that someone were mistaken.

I am happy to take this as just that, his opinion. And I find little wrong with it, except to note that it should include some kind of restriction to its application to those actions, events, etc., that are recorded in scripture, not all mistakes made by man. But I think that is what he meant.

To me the real problem with so many of the footnotes of the nature that have been mentioned here are that they are so often taking a marginal or less favored position (or unique altogether) with little more than the statement that it is so. That is just too "Lee." And why did he do that? We really don't know. But it is notable that the result was that we, his followers, were sure that we had better understanding of scripture because we were sure that Lee's interpretations were spiritually superior to all others. Therefore, since only small segments of Christianity agreed on various such positions as stated in the footnotes, we were sure that we were better than all those other Christian groups.

Did Lee really believe what he wrote? Difficult to see is the mind of a dead man. But either way the result was the same. We had our own little "Lee, to whom shall we go? You have the words of Ministry."

(I feel a song coming on . . .

Lee, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of ministry
And we believe that you are
the Minister of the Age
)
Not sure of the name of the original song, but I'm sure some of you have heard it. Maybe something like "You Only."