Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,930,909 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The craziest thing is the way so many "believers" have different interpretations. From the most extreme fundamentalists who think the whole story is literal from the beginning of the book, to the "semi-fundamentalists" who think it's a literal story, but with slightly more realistic elements. You would think that people who "believe" the story might have some kind of a common revealed knowledge about what it all means, since they are part of the same brotherhood from on high. The whole story is just so weird.
Most believers are aware that the NT books were not written in the order that they are presented, but what few realize, the same is strongly indicated by biblical scholars of the OT. There is a strong indication that Numbers and Deuteronomy were written first, and Exodus much later to try and fill in the "history" of the Israelites.
Somebody goofed, and forgot about the flood thing, and put the Nephilim in both scenarios.
But it is more fun watching biblical literalists twist and turn and try and explain it away.
The bible is one confused piece of literature, isn't it?
Consider the Nephlim.
Who are they? Giants. Or, maybe not. God's sons (you see, Jesus was NOT his only begotten one) came down to earth...
They meant "begotten" in the sense of "directly implanted into a surrogate" but used it to connivingly mean "only legitimate son" although Kind David was called a son of God and Kings standing against the Church might claim they were children of God too deserving special treatment since all people were purported to be "children of the Father" but the King was the strongest. The priests would than say that Their Appointer and Direct Contact is the King of Kings, only legitimate son of God, God himself.
They use the word "begotten" to trick you and protect their weak idea. It's a trick that they learned form their desperate investigations into rhetorical sophistry from the University System they Stole from the Zoroastrian Mythraists who had stolen it from the Buddhists. Begotten can mean just "created" or something more specific, it is a purposefully vague term so that you stop where ever you would like it to be.
In their sense, the Nicene Creed was about the idea that Mary only carried and gave birth to him (lucky for her own grace and so forth), but was not his "real biological" mother (i.e. he wasn't a demigod). His only "parent" in their view, was Yahweh, the only Theos, just like the Jews said (Yahweh in the name of Theos replace believe that Unconquerable Sun was the Best Theos, who had himself replaced, Ju the Heaven Father, Jupiter who had been the Highest Theos) and Jesus was the only one of Yahweh's direct "creation or auto-coexistence" who this one and only Triune Theos had put in the uterus of a human female and made into a human form from his divine form. Therefore, God's children are angels and special men, and only Jesus was "begotten" directly by God (Him being the Father, and Mary being the surrogate mother).
Their purpose was that this new idea separated them from Pagans and United all Christians again under a core belief (and now it was a free-far-all to kill the heretics and blasphemers claiming to be Christians but not agreeing with the findings from the Oligarchic Bishops who went to Nicene likely on payment from Rome's government).
Nephilim is probably what ancient Jews called other "Claiming Independence" gods who are supposed to be weaker than their special first and strongest God, Yahweh (sometimes given the name of the First God of the Mesopotamians, El).
Quote:
Nephilim
of uncertain etymology; much disputed. The only obvious meaning of this Hebrew term is "fallen ones" -- perhaps, those who have come down from the realm of the gods; but then the word might conceivably reflect an entirely different, un-Hebraic background. [Robert Alter, "The Five Books of Moses," 2004]
The Israelites had an ORAL RELIGION long before the Babylonian and Zoroastrian influenced Judeans came back to Minister from their Exile with their "correct writings" proving their legitimacy as descendants of those taken as prisoners to Babylon from the rebellious yet conquered sections of Judea.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-10-2015 at 01:17 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,930,909 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
...................
They use the word "begotten" to trick you and protect their weak idea. It's a trick that they learned form their desperate investigations into rhetorical sophistry from the University System they Stole from the Zoroastrian Mythraists who had stolen it from the Buddhists. Begotten can mean just "created" or something more specific, it is a purposefully vague term so that you stop where ever you would like it to be.
The only problem is that Zoroaster had the Avesta "revealed" to him by Ashura Mazda as much a millennium before Buddha is said to have been born.
Also, Mithraism, as practiced by the Persians (note, the Roman Mithraism is similar, but not the same) likely came before Zoroaster, as he denounced the killing of the bull.
Of much more interest is that Darius was the one who promoted Zoroastrian during his reign. Almost like Constantine did Christianity. The importance of this is even reflected in the OT, and as such, it is clear the impact Zoroastrians had on the Jews.
A long, but well written article on Zoroastrian , Judaism and Christianity, is this one.
Funnily enough, there was a PBS documentary last night on this very subject. Seems they have found clay tablets describing a flood and most of the film was spent trying to re-create the "ark" that they describe.
No one believes that the flood covered the whole earth - that is nonsense - but apparently there is a valley in Iraq that had terrific floods every year and this is where they think some huge floods happened, which were the origin of this legend. It was really an interesting documentary.
That would be that religious State where the adulteress and much divorced Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license for a same sex couple? Or that con artist Ken Ham wants to put up a model of the ark, but tries to do it as a religious building rather than a commercial entity?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
Quote:
Wonder where Ham was going to display the Nephlim? Inside or outside? Maybe Ham has an explanation how they came about post flood? I mean, no god genes involved, right?
The Nephilim weren't on the ark. They weren't a race of people or animals. They were not a half-breed of angels and man or gods and man. The Bible doesn't teach that.
The craziest thing is the way so many "believers" have different interpretations. From the most extreme fundamentalists who think the whole story is literal from the beginning of the book, to the "semi-fundamentalists" who think it's a literal story, but with slightly more realistic elements. You would think that people who "believe" the story might have some kind of a common revealed knowledge about what it all means, since they are part of the same brotherhood from on high. The whole story is just so weird.
Maybe it's because the story is not an essential aspect of the faith. I have no problem disagreeing with someone and still calling them a Christian.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,930,909 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why are you trying to change the subject?
Me? It was YOU who brought up Kentucky and their marriage habits.
Quote:
The Nephilim weren't on the ark. They weren't a race of people or animals. They were not a half-breed of angels and man or gods and man. The Bible doesn't teach that.
So what WERE the PreFlood (PF) Nephilim? If not hominoids, where they demi-gods? After all, the PF ones were the offspring "sons of god" and the "daughters of men".
Me? It was YOU who brought up Kentucky and their marriage habits.
But I didn't mention a county clerk. That was all you.
Quote:
So what WERE the PreFlood (PF) Nephilim? If not hominoids, where they demi-gods? After all, the PF ones were the offspring "sons of god" and the "daughters of men".
We can deal with the AF Nephilim later.
They were large people. That's it. They were human beings that grew large. Maybe a pituitary disorder...maybe just large people. Maybe the genetic trait for gigantism eventually got weeded out in the human race for the most part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
