There be GIANTS

[teddyv]

Just curious about Dr. Heiser as he's been brought up many times in this thread. I have not read his books but have seen they are quite well regarded. I know a little about what he's writing about as I've come across it before. I guess the question is: when he reconciles/explains some these Ancient Near East myths and legends within the Biblical framework, is he more about helping us 21st century people understand the imagery and religious framework the Bible and ANE or is he making the case for the actual reality of it?

I don't know if I clearly stated what I'm asking...

[Justin Adams]

4 hours ago, teddyv said:

Just curious about Dr. Heiser as he's been brought up many times in this thread. I have not read his books but have seen they are quite well regarded. I know a little about what he's writing about as I've come across it before. I guess the question is: when he reconciles/explains some these Ancient Near East myths and legends within the Biblical framework, is he more about helping us 21st century people understand the imagery and religious framework the Bible and ANE or is he making the case for the actual reality of it?

I don't know if I clearly stated what I'm asking...

Dr Heiser is getting a supernatural Divine Council worldview back into the church. Without the Deut 32 worldview, much of what the scriptures tell us is misunderstood.

For so long we have all been misled by most of what the seminaries peddle. The supernatural has been strip-mined out of the church. Dr Heiser suggests we look at scriptures in the CONTEXT of the writers and original readers.

[Speks]

One of the most interesting and balanced treatments of this general subject comes from Dr Peter Gentry in his video "Who Were the Nephilim?" It's worth searching for and listening to, in my opinion.

Another video "Is the Fall of Satan Really Described in the Bible?" is worth thinking over too. At the end of this video he wisely says, "There are many people who would like to fill in the gaps."

[Dennis1209]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Just curious about Dr. Heiser as he's been brought up many times in this thread. I have not read his books but have seen they are quite well regarded. I know a little about what he's writing about as I've come across it before. I guess the question is: when he reconciles/explains some these Ancient Near East myths and legends within the Biblical framework, is he more about helping us 21st century people understand the imagery and religious framework the Bible and ANE or is he making the case for the actual reality of it?

I don't know if I clearly stated what I'm asking...

Morning there teddyv,

To piggyback a bit on what Justin said: When you understand the "global" ancient myths, extra biblical texts, Greek gods and Titans, demi-god's, Mesopotamian literature, what the Jews knew, understood and believed, the glimpses and references we get from scripture, etc.; the clearer worldview we get of history, and what was believed during that time period. It's best if we drop the way our western modern minds think and try to put on a Jewish mindset of the time. The Jews didn't need any elaboration on what Genesis 6:1-4 meant, or what Peter and Jude briefly referenced, because they already knew well the full story. 

Here's but one of many examples of a mystery not explained in our Bible, Jesus' transfiguration: All of a sudden Jesus departs Magdala, East of the sea of Galilee, and only takes His inner circle of disciples [John, James and Peter]. They travel way out of their way through the middle of nowhere in the wilderness, 30 miles as the crow flies, to go to Caesarea Philippi for a single important purpose. Jesus' purpose was strictly for His transfiguration and not to visit and preach the Gospel message there. 

Jesus immediately took Peter, James and John up a high mountain part [Mount Hermon] to a certain spot to poke Satan in the eye. When you understand the history of Mt. Hermon, what was there [a cave] that is still there today; what the Jews back then and even today believe about that mountain and the things that happened there, and were there. Then take what Jesus asked Peter and Peter's response; 2+2 begins to add up. Hint: That 'rock' was not Peter and the Catholic Church!

Heiser's scholastic peer reviewed research and work is outstanding [although I disagree with a couple of his beliefs]. In language layman can understand, he connects all the dots that fill in many pieces of a puzzle we wonder about. 

[Dennis1209]

12 minutes ago, Speks said:

One of the most interesting and balanced treatments of this general subject comes from Dr Peter Gentry in his video "Who Were the Nephilim?" It's worth searching for and listening to, in my opinion.

Another video "Is the Fall of Satan Really Described in the Bible?" is worth thinking over too. At the end of this video he wisely says, "There are many people who would like to fill in the gaps."

Acts 17:11 (KJV) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Say if Peter and Jude point something out to the reader [such as the book of 1 Enoch]. Do we go check it out?

[Starise]

For me so far....

Everything points to a union of both human women and fallen entities, both before and after the flood

Full world flood I feel is confirmed.

The theory of Ham isn't substantiated enough for me. So I'll call it  theory. A shaky one at that.

The fact that there were giants after the flood does not demand an explanation to be true. Neither does the apparent lack of something because it wasn't mentioned mean it didn't exist.

I agree, the Bible as we have it now is sometimes a mish mash of information on some subject matter. Not always the whole story, sometimes more or less, the version is responsible. This is why in depth study is important. Then there is the way the jew interpreted the information as opposed to how we sometimes see it.

For me the two largest hurdles so far, and I'll admit somewhat concerning because many are stating  as factual without any proof of it in any text is the Ham theory and the demon theory. Neither is confirmed .

The demon theory being we have demons from dead hybrids. No substantiation. Looks good on paper. Explains a lot, but no proof for it.

The Ham theory, No way to ever know. Doesn't seem plausible in light of the fact that if one of the purposes of the flood was to wipe out any trace of these hybrids, there just happened to be a person on the ark with giant DNA? Doesn't add up for me. The main goal of the flood was to eradicate  evil men....and whatever else was there.

Things we can be pretty sure about- The fallen ones were way above normal humans in every way. Intelligence  included. Their leader is the prince and power of the air. There are ancient drawings of airships. This is a shaky theory of mine. No doubt they could fly ( had airships). I mean WE can, they are SO much better at it than we are. There really isn't much else to say. If they could sustain flight they could escape the flood. 

Too much proof of giants to discard everything as a photo shop hoax. Anyone who has really looked into it can't be this dismissive.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Starise

[Marathoner]

The key to understanding the euphemism regarding Ham can be found in the book of Leviticus. While it's true that the Law hadn't been given during the days of Noah the book of Genesis was written after the Law; therefore, the vernacular is the same. What did it mean to uncover the nakedness of one's father?

You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. (Leviticus 18:7-8)

A husband and wife are one flesh (Genesis 2:24). 

[Marathoner]

The 18th chapter of Leviticus pertains to laws forbidding immoral relations which is the context underlying Ham's actions. It's most beneficial to read the entire chapter because the Lord commanded Israel to abstain from the customs and habits of those living in Egypt and Canaan; immorality was commonplace in those lands. 

Some may also perceive the many-layered meaning inherent in God's words, referring to individuals while also addressing polities of different or even many individuals. Ham, the father of Canaan, was immoral and committed an act of immorality... was it as simple as viewing his father unclothed? Such a thing can occur accidentally in the course of daily life. A child can stumble upon their mother or father unclothed. Is the child therefore guilty of an immoral act?

Consider a father or a mother who dresses and bathes their child... this is indeed a matter of common sense. 

Leviticus 18 in its entirety explains the euphemism so we might understand that what Ham committed wasn't such a thing but rather, something immoral. It's also worth remembering the spirit of the letter of the Law, of which the apostle Paul explained to us in Romans and also Galatians. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Marathoner
clarity

[leah777]

i think the punishment of Ham wasnt due to seeing his father unclothed, it was the way he dealt with it, showing disrespect for his father. He didnt honour his father.

[Marathoner]

16 hours ago, Episcopius said:

OK - the LAW wasn't come yet - but still, we have Shem and Japheth acting to cover Noah's nakedness without looking at him -  as to why Canaan gets the curse, I dunno

That other people besides Adam and Eve were on earth is seen in that Cain says "everybody who says me will kill me" and he gets a MARK so that wont happem

also Cain gets a wife, whether that is a sister or not

I await the videos

all of this is non-essential stuff

 

 

The 18th chapter of Leviticus addresses the euphemism and the reason why Ham was cursed by his father. I pointed out that Noah lived before the Law only in relation to the penalty assigned therein; Ham still incurred a penalty which was the curse of his father. It's also worth remembering that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and therefore, the euphemisms of his day apply. 

You're free to declare these matters as non-essential but truly, is any effort to study the scriptures frivolous? Each of us knows only in part and when we come together as we have in this topic, we edify one another which is pleasing to the Lord. If you deem this as unessential, you're free to abstain from participating.