Note in the "sons of Cush", there are five listed...
and then it says that "Cush begat Nimrod".
The Hebrew word for "begat" is "yalad", and means "deliver".
As a midwife would deliver a child
without being the conceiver of such child,
so Cush delivered this child from his wife.
Okay, this time let us examine yalad. Apparently, because the word yalad was used, it must mean that Nimrod was not really the son of Cush. "As a midwife delivers a child" he writes. Let's see if this is so:
Ge 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
The word yalad here was translated bare. Eve directly gave birth to Cain.
Ge 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
The word yalad was translated begat this time, and Seth directly begat Enos. He didn't adopt him.
Ge 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Appears the word begat is used when speaking of Fathers and sons, while bare is used when women are giving birth. Noah didn't "deliver" these men as a "midwife" might for a woman. He is the Father.
1Sa 1:20 Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.
The same as before. In total, that word was used roughly 403 times, and it appears the only word for begat is yalad. And from what I read of all the different examples of yalad, none of it would be relevant to the point being made. So Cush begat Nimrod, so what? Alot of people begat children. My mother and father yalad'd me! You further made it seem as if there was some significance in Nimrod being the only one to be "begat" while the other sons were simply listed. That is not proof of anything. It is more logical to conclude this was done because Nimrod was a son of note and not for any other reason. The way the scripture is written supports this, and anyone who reads it should easily acknowledge this.
This was a different wife than the mother of Cush's other sons.
It was Rhea (Damkina), that he took to wife in his old age...
unaware that she was half human, half angelic.
She later was impregnated by one of the fallen angels named Ea...
The Scripture is trying to make clear that Nimrod was a 'gibbore',
but our translation loses much meaning...
Three times in the next several verses,
the word "mighty" (gibbore) meaning "mighty one"
and used to refer to the gigantic off-spring of angels is employed.
Nimrod, ruled the earth for 185 years (Jasher 27:16)...
Was all of this in the book of Jasher? For one, this book isn't cannon. Reading the Wikipedia file on it it appears there is much reason to doubt it. Just because it is called Jasher does not mean it is Jasher. I'm reading through it right now particularly the parts regarding Nimrod... BTW, the clothes of Adam made Nimrod "mighty"? It says "And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments". Does this mean that those clothes caused giantism? If your Jasher is a book that belongs in the Bible, it contradicts your theories regarding Nimrod being a mighty giant. After all, a giant has might in himself, he doesn't become strong only after putting on magical garments from Adam. Reading further, I still fail to see any reference of Nimrod as a giant, even in this book of Jasher, nor is there anything regarding Rhea who was apparently a nephilium. Where are these other references made? (Edit: Nevermind, you were speaking of non-Biblical works.)
I think the further down I get the more it seems that much of this theology on belial is based on assumption. The bible speaks of "children of Belial". The learned Matthew Henry says that it signifies men who would "bear no yoke", who would not be disciplined, who would not obey the Lord God. Reading through the scriptures, this term is used to refer to men who are worthless, wicked, idolaters... But never used to mean that they are actually nephilium, children of an actual Belial. It is used much like the Jews used Beelzebub in the NT against Jesus. A name that signifies evil, but doesn't necessarily relate to an actual living demon. They did not believe that Jesus used the power of an actual Demon named Beezle, they simply believed he was using the power of a devil. The name of a hated god can easily be used to refer to Satan himself, or to something evil and filthy, but might not be actual proof of the existence of a demon. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" does not suggest an actual belial. He could have put the name of Apollo in there, or Zeus, and it would not have lost its meaning. And all of this begs an even further question. Where is Satan in all of this? Why does this Belial get all the glory? Sure, when you put everything together this story of Belial can seem interesting and realistic... However, when really looked into it appears to be much theology about nothing.
"He dwelt in the heart of Manasseh" (Apoc. of Isaiah 9:11),
he also inhabited Alexander the Great (according to the prophecy of Daniel).
According to the prophecy of Daniel? Where exactly? I read chapter 8 of Daniel, the prophecy of the 4 kingdoms and such, and saw no reference to possession or Belial. Not even a vague reference, like a particular animal or vision, that could be tied into a possession.
Daniel 5:10-11
"...there shall rise unto you from the tribe of Judah and of Levi,
the salvation (Yeshua) of the Lord,
and He shall make war against Belial"
I had to check about a dozen times to make sure I was looking at the correct Daniel Chapter 5 verses 10 and 11. Mine reads:
10Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed:
11There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers;
Where did you get that quote? I searched for "war Belial" and found nothing in my KJV Bible. Neither did I find a quote with Judah-Levi and salvation in it. Or even Judah and Levi that came out quite like the sentence you placed here.
Apoc. of Isa. 10:2
"Belial, the evil demon who rules this age since its inception
as the king of demons, will come from his place (the abyss)
and inhabit the likeness of man, and dwell in a lawless king..."
Okay, that's a rather direct reference. All other scriptures were simply used to assert something they didn't say. Their interpretation hinges on this one scripture. Unfortunately, I could not find the book online for me to read, nor anything discussing the authenticity of this book. I might have gotten the Apoc wrong, I think I should try apocalypse, I was trying Apocrypha. I'll try again tomorrow night after work. Probably is apocalypse, stupid me, putting in Apocrypha!
and "he that opposes and exalteth himself against all that is called God..."
Now we have another contradiction. Wouldn't that be Lucifer and not Belial? Is Lucifer really Nimrod?
nor a nay-sayer, but appear to be objectively seeking answers. I find the prospect of replying to your posts daunting though, they're so long and raise so many issues! {phew!} but... I will try to take them on a bit at a time with your patience. I will need to take your points piecemeal though, as I think its more conducive for me in this format.
