Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 184

Thread: GIANTS?

  1. #21
    It is important to note that the video, which in great specificity, refutes every point you are attempting to make concerning Psalm 82. It is important to note that you are literally ignoring the specific refutations which contradict the POV you are attempting to make concerning Psalm 82. It looks as though you are ignoring the video in order to continue to push a certain mindset you have concerning this topic.

    As a matter of fact, I would strongly encourage Ezekiel to watch the video in it's entirety before attempting to debate this topic with you. I would strongly encourage anyone and everyone to watch the video, take tons of notes as it will be necessary, THEN attempt a discussion.

    You do yourself no favors by attempting to push a POV that is not biblical. All you are doing is projecting your own mindsets and the teachings of men. Literally. That is all you are doing.

    Every question anyone has should likely be answered in the video. That is why I posted it. So let's be clear. I said I wouldn't debate because I won't debate the issue....because it's literally a waste of time, for the reasons already stated. See, why on earth would I go around the block for hours and hours on a topic that is not honestly being debated? Why on earth would I go around the block for hours, days, probably weeks on end, debating a topic where every single point you are attempting to make has LITERALLY been refuted by a scholar? Not a flake. Not a fruitcake. Not a nut. But a solid theologian who understands and interprets (many) ancient languages and holds a doctorate on the topic, and wrote his doctoral thesis on Psalm 82.....why would I torment myself that way? I know....he can't possible know more than you, right?

    I won't debate points that have already been specifically addressed. That is why I posted that disclaimer from the jump. Maybe it's a prophetic gift or something.

    EVERYONE: Please watch the video before debating and commenting. In it's entirety. Take notes. Be teachable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    I thought you were not going to let yourself be dragged into a long debate about this ?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to CatchyUsername For This Useful Post:

    Ezekiel 33 (12-18-2015)

  3. #22
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    There are scholars of all kinds of persuasions including who translated the Bible. It is possible to have a discussion where one merely pits the perceived authority of one scholar against the perceived authority of an other. This is quite unuseful on a discussion forum. If you want to debate the topic then the sensible thing to do is to introduce the points made in the video in text format and then take it from there. If not then you have no reason to get angry because other posters arent doing your work for you - as in extracting points from the video in order to address them.

  4. #23
    I have no idea why you always view someone challenging you or disagreeing with you as having any emotive context. I'm not "angry" at anyone or anything. Secondly, I've viewed the video twice in it's entirety. The onus isn't on me to get into the exact contents of the video in order to prove anything to you or anyone. I don't have the time, and I couldn't care less about any of it. But if you are going to argue or debate a topic for days, weeks, and months on end, then you should at least understand the topic and understand the pov of the people that disagree with you and prove why they disagree with you.

    Again....so you understand this very clearly....I don't have THE TIME to watch the video, take notes, type up bullet points, post them, then argue with people about it.

    This all goes to the points that were made several years ago. You swear you understand the topic in detail but you have not really taken the time to actually study the topic. Because you are attempting to make points that many people (Dr. Heiser does the best job) have ALREADY refuted. Yet you act like they havn't been refuted. Then, when you are specifically told that you have not studied this topic in detail, it's because you clearly havn't. Because if you had, your points would be, "So-and-so says THIS about THIS scripture, and makes this point, but I disagree and here's why".

    So basically, you keep repeating the same talking points....ones which have been roundly refuted in great detail.

    The video refutes every point you keep making with great specificity. But the question remains. Are you as teachable as you think you are? Now that is the real question. One which I cannot answer for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    There are scholars of all kinds of persuasions including who translated the Bible. It is possible to have a discussion where one merely pits the perceived authority of one scholar against the perceived authority of an other. This is quite unuseful on a discussion forum. If you want to debate the topic then the sensible thing to do is to introduce the points made in the video in text format and then take it from there. If not then you have no reason to get angry because other posters arent doing your work for you - as in extracting points from the video in order to address them.

  5. #24
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    This is one of the reasons why it is clear to me that you are angry, whether you understand that yourself or not. Your making up lies about me :

    "you swear you understand the topic in detail"
    No, I do not swear nor think that I know the topic in detail. To the contrary, I have pointed out several times that I have not spent the months necessary to go through all the material available that deals with your view and similar views. There are several versions and it is even difficult to figure out which one is being advocated. That is why I ask questions a lot, as I have done in these two last threads. So that is a total lie and you have absolutely nothing to base that on except your own imaginations. This isnt even the first time that i have had to deal with this precise question but you keep insisting on painting me that color even so. Please refrain from posting that lie from now on.

    As for discussing the topic without having studied all the material available, no I dont think that is necessary in order to discuss this particular topic as I find that it strands in relation to a number of biblical themes before heading into any kind of detail. This is not always the case with biblerelated topics but it is often the case. With some topics, especially related to cultic beliefs like Jehovas witnesses and similar, pointing to a single verse may be sufficient to refute the whole thing, though they would like you to be an expert on their beliefs before trying to address any of it.

  6. #25
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    The notion that all the Canaanites were giants creates a lot of logistical problems.

    The Gibeonites belonged to one of the peoples that were allegedly giants. Some of them pretended to be from a distant land and tricked Joshua into entering into a non-negotiable pact with them. This would have been impossible if they had displayed any giant features, even to mild degree. These giants were supposed to have been 10, 15 or even 20 feet tall whereas the average israelite was more like 5'3.
    The same goes for Solomon and his foreign wives who are also listed as being from alleged giant peoples. No sane king used to having the beauties of Israel as his wives would have married a woman having the features of a giant to any degree.

    Lets say that these giants varied enormously in features and that some of them looked quite normal at least in a lot of clothes. That could explain how the Gibeonites managed to send con men capable of disguising themselves sufficiently to trick Joshua himself.

    It does NOT explain Solomons wives. They would have sent people to inspect every inch of those women to ascertain that they appeared fully human, which would have been an extremely difficult criteria to meet for someone of giant blood but with largely human features. Now what happens when these women give birth to the kings offspring ? There would be no guarantee that the offspring wouldnt have giant features and to hideous degree. Would the king want offspring like that ? Not ! And how would a 5 foot tall giant woman with human features manage to give birth to a giant who would grow to 10, 15 or 20 feet ? The range of variation within the giant peoples would make that impossible. No, this is simply impossible. The version where every Canaanite is of giant race is simply absurd. Given the actual details of the Bible accounts.

  7. #26
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    I just watched half an hour of the video and noticed a couple of things. The scholar claims at about 23 minutes that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are not human beings NOR are they angels, they are DIVINE BEINGS. Enough said. Then he claims that Psalm 82 is a parallell to this and refers to the same divine beings. Has he ever read John 10:35 where Jesus refers to Psalm 82 and says that "those whom His Word came to are called gods" ? Not angels and certainly not DIVINE BEINGS. Human beings who were in covenant with God and who had received his Word. Jesus uses this as a foundation for justifying how he, a human being, could refer to himself as the Son of God. I wish the scholar would read his New Testament some time instead of dreaming up DIVINE BEINGS that are neither human nor angels (his words, not mine).

  8. #27
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Regarding victoryword and zekes versions where sons of God in Genesis is different to gods and children of the most high in psalm 82.

    Genesis 6 uses ben elohim. Psalm 82 calls them elohim and then ben elyown - elyown being a name for God. There is no difference beyond what can be nitpicked about. If anything, the terms used to refer to the ones the word of God came to (according to Jesus in John 10:35) are STRONGER than those in Genesis 6. They arent merely sons of Elohim, they are actual Elohim. Not only are they sons of God, they are sons of the Most High.

  9. #28
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33 View Post
    Here is what I started putting together yesterday.
    Genesis 6 involving the meaning of "the sons of God" has a 50 percent chance of referring to angels and a 50 percent chance of referring to men in covenant with God (or similar) if nothing else is taken into consideration. Angels that havent fallen, Adam and Eve before they sinned and those who are born again are all sons of God by nature. Those who believed, like Abel or Abraham were credited righteousness according to their faith and therefore also sonship.

    Just entering the old covenant of the law was sufficient to be counted as a son of God, at least if one walked accordingly :

    Deut 14:1 “You*are*the children of the*Lord*your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead.*
    2*For you*are*a holy people to the*Lord*your God, and the Lord*has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who*are*on the face of the earth.

    Ben yehovah elohim, same as in genesis 6 just with yehovah added in.

    Jude 5-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-9 are interesting. The latter may be interpreted as God judging all fallen angels in general. Even if some angels bred with humans then only a few did and the majority fell in a different way. Jude 5-7 can be interpreted the same way, as referring to angels falling in general and thereby leaving their godgiven estate and becoming perverted and doing perversions in general. The verse says that they left their estate and abode. The word for abode is used elsewhere about the body so at face value it would seem that the mentioned angels lef their godgiven heavenly bodies entirely. Exactly what that implies is not clear. Maybe there is a direct connection to the sexual sin mentioned in Sodom, maybe it isnt that direct. Again, it can go either way. The direct reference to an Enoch prophecy later in Jude I dont take seriously, it doesnt mention the book of Enoch as such and the source could be oral or anything. It doesnt verify the book of Enoch just because the book of Enoch as we know it today also contains that sentence.

    Given that evidence, there is a probability that angels somehow bred with humans before the flood though it doesnt make much sense for other reasons. It does not prove what these pre flood giants were like nor does it prove at all that the resulting giants ever, in turn, bred with men. There is absolutely no account of anything resembling this in the Bible, nor is there any account of anything that that suggest that something like in Genesis 6 happened again after the flood. Only that there were giants again after the flood, of unknown source. The man in the video points out that men were termed adam in the bible, well guess what ? One of the people descending from a people actually referred to as nephilim or rephaim (only a very few are) is referred to as an adam, a man, a human being. So there is no indication that these post flood giants were non-human, only that they were tall enough to be referred to as giants. So that is as far as I can see that this could possibly go. Any relation to the new covenant ? None. Not after the flood wiped them all out. The pre flood giants of unclear origin, that is.

  10. #29
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Could fallen angels manage to mess up humans in the end times ? I wouldnt discount the possibility, whether they did or they did not, in Genesis 6. That does not require any particular interpretation of Genesis 6. Just so that is clear.

  11. #30
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,487
    Thanked: 5793
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel 33 View Post
    In the OT God did not call any humans the sons of God. He did repeatedly refer to the angels in that way though.

    Now, when we are born again we become His sons and daughters. But when Jesus first started teaching about "Our Father in heaven" it was a foreign concept to them.


    No, it was not a foreign concept to them. Everyone who entered the covenant of the law was termed sons of God, ben yehovah elohim, employing the same words as in Genesis 6 plus 'yehovah' - a term applied exclusively to God.

    Deut 14:1 You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead,
    2 for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/inter...omy+14:1&t=kjv
    Last edited by Colonel; 12-20-2015 at 03:47 AM. Reason: Toned down a bit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Mercedes Benz. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.