6,000 Years?

[Job 33:6]

Obviously someone from the ark

Interesting. Were there nephelim on the ark?

 

[Job 33:6]

Moses wrote Genesis and the rest of the Law....its written in the same manner throughout is the point.....and Genesis and the rest of the Law is not written rhetorically.

Ok so if it's written the same way throughout, then why can Joshua include rhetorical language but not Genesis?

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's take a look at the flood account:
Genesis 7:20-21 ESV
[20] The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. [21] And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.

But all mankind didn't die. Noah was spared. That's an example of rhetorical language.

Genesis 8:4-5, 9 ESV
[4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. [5] And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
[9] But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.

Another example. The waters could not be on the face of the whole earth if the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat and the tops of the mountains were seen.

Again, that's rhetorical language.

The Genesis flood account does this repeatedly. And it's not that the flood account is contradicting itself. Rather, the flood account is just using rhetorical language.

There were not stow-away nephelim hiding in the ark behind the lions cage.

 

[Platte]

Let's take a look at the flood account:
Genesis 7:20-21 ESV
[20] The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. [21] And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.

But all mankind didn't die. Noah was spared. That's an example of rhetorical language.

Genesis 8:4-5, 9 ESV
[4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. [5] And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
[9] But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.

Another example. The waters could not be on the face of the whole earth if the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat and the tops of the mountains were seen.

Again, that's rhetorical language.

The Genesis flood account does this repeatedly. And it's not that the flood account is contradicting itself. Rather, the flood account is just using rhetorical language.

There were not stow-away nephelim hiding in the ark behind the lions cage.

Silly - and none of that are examples of rhetorical writing.

 

[tampasteve]

Let me state that I largely am on your side, but these two would have rebuttals.

Interesting. Were there nephelim on the ark?

One argument is that the people on the Ark could have carried the genetic materials for Nephilim. Alternatively, as I ascribe, the terms "giants" and "Nephilim" are used for unions of men/women using wicked methods with demonic entities, so they could be "created" again using those methods later. This isn't a super common belief in the West, but it is more common in Orthodox circles.

Ok so if it's written the same way throughout, then why can Joshua include rhetorical language but not Genesis?

The "Law" is the Torah, the 5 books of Moses. Joshua is not a part of the Torah but is part of the Tanakh. When he says "Moses wrote Genesis and the rest of the Law....its written in the same manner throughout is the point.." he means the Torah.

 

[Job 33:6]

Silly - and none of that are examples of rhetorical writing.

Actually they are. Do you not know what rhetorical language is? We can consult a dictionary if you would like. It is known as "hyperbole" for those who recall grade school English class.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let me state that I largely am on your side, but these two would have rebuttals.


One argument is that the people on the Ark could have carried the genetic materials for Nephilim. Alternatively, as I ascribe, the terms "giants" and "Nephilim" are used for unions of men/women using wicked methods with demonic entities, so they could be "created" again using those methods later. This isn't a super common belief in the West, but it is more common in Orthodox circles.

Sure, I don't subscribe to that interpretation of the text. The idea that perhaps demons returned and had more nephelim children after the flood. Or that maybe Noah was part-nephelim or that his children were, as if Noah had bred with the nephelim.

Maybe it's just my western theology, but I find those ideas to be a bit strange.

 

[Job 33:6]

The "Law" is the Torah, the 5 books of Moses. Joshua is not a part of the Torah but is part of the Tanakh. When he says "Moses wrote Genesis and the rest of the Law....its written in the same manner throughout is the point.." he means the Torah.

I would just point out my post above. I'm not sure how you guys can deny rhetorical language in the text. The alternative would be textual contradictions.

 

[Platte]

Sure, I don't subscribe to that interpretation of the text. The idea that perhaps demons returned and had more nephelim children after the flood. Or that maybe Noah was part-nephelim or that his children were, as if Noah had bred with the nephelim.

Maybe it's just my western theology, but I find those ideas to be a bit strange.

There are a lot of others that share your opinion and theology on Bible topics...they preach hyperbole and rhetorical on things clearly understood...then circle back to literalness on things that are not so clear. You do that often. There is nothing genuine in what you are saying when you approach God's Word that way.

 

[Job 33:6]

There are a lot of others that share your opinion and theology on Bible topics...they preach hyperbole and rhetorical on things clearly understood...then circle back to literalness on things that are not so clear. You do that often. There is nothing genuine in what you are saying when you approach God's Word that way.

But it is factually hyperbole. What other way is there to interpret it? It can't be literal or you would have contradictions.

Also, to be fair, the Bible doesn't say anything about Noah having nephelim DNA. I'm pretty sure the Bible isn't a genetics textbook.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 7:20-21 ESV
[20] The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. [21] And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.

But all mankind didn't die. Noah was spared. That's an example of rhetorical language. Noah's family was also spared.

Genesis 8:4-5, 9 ESV
[4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. [5] And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
[9] But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.

Another example. The waters could not be on the face of the whole earth if the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat and the tops of the mountains were seen.

This is rhetorical language.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, if the nephelim are offspring of demons, the why would Noah have their DNA? As though Noah himself were part demon?

 

[tampasteve]

Sure, I don't subscribe to that interpretation of the text. The idea that perhaps demons returned and had more nephelim children after the flood. Or that maybe Noah was part-nephelim or that his children were, as if Noah had bred with the nephelim.

Maybe it's just my western theology, but I find those ideas to be a bit strange.

Oh, it is strange

It isn't mainstream probably, but it checks a lot of boxes that are probably out of the scope of this thread. In particular when reading Joshua as well as some archaeological evidence.

I would just point out my post above. I'm not sure how you guys can deny rhetorical language in the text. The alternative would be textual contradictions.

I don't deny it can be rhetorical anymore, I did previously, but through more introspection, prayer and reading I am not on the YEC or Embedded age side.

 

[Platte]

Also, if the nephelim are offspring of demons, the why would Noah have their DNA? As though Noah himself were part demon?

I didn't know demons had DNA

 

[tampasteve]

I didn't know demons had DNA

At the risk of going on a tangent, how do you suppose that the Nephilim material/traits/whatever pass from the Ark to offspring? Logic would say that in that scenario it would have to be genetic. I suppose that perhaps your belief is that the Nephilim are not demons/demonic, if that is the case then what are they, in your view? The only scripture that speaks of them pre-flood heavily implies that they are some sort of hybrid, which must be passed down somehow, in your theory. If there is no angelic/demonic/whatever DNA then it would just be normal human DNA passing from the inhabitants of the Ark.

 

[davetaff]

Hi
Why speculate on something no-one can answer

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[Platte]

At the risk of going on a tangent, how do you suppose that the Nephilim material/traits/whatever pass from the Ark to offspring? Logic would say that in that scenario it would have to be genetic. I suppose that perhaps your belief is that the Nephilim are not demons/demonic, if that is the case then what are they, in your view? The only scripture that speaks of them pre-flood heavily implies that they are some sort of hybrid, which must be passed down somehow, in your theory. If there is no angelic/demonic/whatever DNA then it would just be normal human DNA passing from the inhabitants of the Ark.

I generally lean towards KJV:

4There were giants in the earth in those days; 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 mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

No mention of "The Nephilim".

when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men
Resonable meaning to me Christian men - mingling with worldy woman.

Demons having children with humans doesnt make sense to me...I don't know of any examples where demons had a physical body.

 

[tampasteve]

No mention of "The Nephilim".

The problem is that the original Hebrew uses "הַנְּפִילִ֛ים" in both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33, which is a direct translation (and reasonable pronunciation) to "Nephilim". KJV uses "giants", we could discuss what "giants" or "Nephilim" are/were, but the term is the one that should probably be used in the translation.

But I understand where you are coming from, we can't really prove this one way or another, both are fairly accepted positions to take.

 

[tampasteve]

Hi
Why speculate on something no-one can answer

Love and Peace
Dave

Because it is interesting and thinking about big questions is good for your mind. As long as it does not delve into mud slinging and arguments it is good for us to discuss in good faith and attempt to learn from one another.

For attention perhaps. Most or a lot or all is made up and passed down generation to generation without a shred of seeking truth.

I don't think any of us are seeking "attention", honestly that is offensive. If you don't care for the conversation you don't have to be a part of it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Genesis was written the same as the rest of the law...and its not rhetorical.

I know you want to believe that. But if so, then the sky is a solid dome with windows in it through which rain falls. So, I'm thinking your interpretation cannot be so.