America: Flirting With Tyranny

Dant01

Dant01

Well-known member
.
• Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to
them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

One of the Bible's Hebrew words for "giant" is rapha' (raw-faw') which appears in
numerous places throughout the Old Testament and typically always indicates
brutish people of large physical stature. But that's not the word for giants here.
Instead it's nephiyl (nef-eel') which appears in only two verses in the entire Old
Testament; one here and the other in Numbers 13:33.

The word is somewhat ambiguous, but in this context it pertains to bullies:
especially to men famous for tyranny, e.g. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito
Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe,
Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un.

The ambition of nephiyl is to quite dominate others. Those kinds of men don't just
want power: they want to own your soul.

Men who seek to dominate others are often the least suitable to do so; and back
there in Noah's day that was certainly true. The spiritual quality of the world built
by the governance of the nehiyl was so poor that the situation required God to step
in and do something about it.

• Gen 6:5 . . And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and
every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.

That's pretty much the end result of tyranny because in order for the nephiyl's
management practices to succeed; any and all moral values but their own have be
suppressed. We don't have to look very far in our own time to see that in action;
for example Communist China's hostility towards Falun Gong.

NOTE: There is currently a really informative series on NetFlix called "How To
Become A Tyrant". It's chilling to see just how many things going on right now,
right here in the USA, are in accord with the Tyrant's playbook. The last twenty-one
months in my country have been disturbing; and to think there are yet twenty
seven more to go with the current administration.

Let me say just say this: Folks who don't think tyranny can't happen in the USA are
like a frog boiling to death by bringing its water temperature up gradually so the
poor stupid critter doesn't become alarmed.
_
 
Dant01 said:
The word is somewhat ambiguous, but in this context it pertains to bullies:
especially to men famous for tyranny, e.g. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito
Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe,
Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un.
Click to expand...
So, all you have to do now is to show that the mothers of those named here were human, while their fathers were "the sons of God". If not, then those men are not who Genesis was referring to.

Do you have such evidence about Joe Biden's father? If not, than again your claim here is not relevant.

Anyway, I thought that Jesus was meant to be the only son of God. Was I wrong to think that?
 
Dant01 said:
.
• Gen 6:4 . .There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward,
when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to
them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

One of the Bible's Hebrew words for "giant" is rapha' (raw-faw') which appears in
numerous places throughout the Old Testament and typically always indicates
brutish people of large physical stature. But that's not the word for giants here.
Instead it's nephiyl (nef-eel') which appears in only two verses in the entire Old
Testament; one here and the other in Numbers 13:33.

The word is somewhat ambiguous, but in this context it pertains to bullies:
especially to men famous for tyranny, e.g. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito
Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe,
Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un.

The ambition of nephiyl is to quite dominate others. Those kinds of men don't just
want power: they want to own your soul.

Men who seek to dominate others are often the least suitable to do so; and back
there in Noah's day that was certainly true. The spiritual quality of the world built
by the governance of the nehiyl was so poor that the situation required God to step
in and do something about it.

• Gen 6:5 . . And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and
every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.

That's pretty much the end result of tyranny because in order for the nephiyl's
management practices to succeed; any and all moral values but their own have be
suppressed. We don't have to look very far in our own time to see that in action;
for example Communist China's hostility towards Falun Gong.

NOTE: There is currently a really informative series on NetFlix called "How To
Become A Tyrant". It's chilling to see just how many things going on right now,
right here in the USA, are in accord with the Tyrant's playbook. The last twenty-one
months in my country have been disturbing; and to think there are yet twenty
seven more to go with the current administration.

Let me say just say this: Folks who don't think tyranny can't happen in the USA are
like a frog boiling to death by bringing its water temperature up gradually so the
poor stupid critter doesn't become alarmed.
_
Click to expand...
The identity of the sons of God was non human angels in G.6. They mated with human females and produced hybrid offspring. It goes to the book of Enoch and is supported in the New including Paul. Enoch was not considered scripture but probably was by many 2nd temple Jews. Certainly influential and referenced by both the New Testament and early Christian writings. Jude and 2nd Peter are examples. Women covering their heads because of the angels are examples. Note G.6 was prior to the flood so it sounds like the catalyst for the flood was the events depicted in G.6. Also note the father of Jesus was nonhuman. Same with Adam and Eve.

…''being the early church’s staunchest defender of 1 Enoch’s inspiration. For example, in his On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Chapter III, he calls 1 Enoch “Scripture” and defends its status using 2 Timothy 3:16:
------------------------------------

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that

Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity.

Heiser, Michael S.. Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (p. 136). Kindle Edition.
 
Last edited:
Harry Leggs said:
The identity of the sons of God was non human angels in G.6. They mated with human females and produced hybrid offspring. It goes to the book of Enoch and is supported in the New including Paul. Enoch was not considered scripture but probably was by many 2nd temple Jews. Certainly influential and referenced by both the New Testament and early Christian writings. Jude and 2nd Peter are examples. Women covering their heads because of the angels are examples. Note G.6 was prior to the flood so it sounds like the catalyst for the flood was the events depicted in G.6. Also note the father of Jesus was nonhuman. Same with Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
According to what ive read that is incorrect. The Hebrew word for Angel is not used for sons of God.
 
Faithoverbelief said:
According to what ive read that is incorrect. The Hebrew word for Angel is not used for sons of God.
Click to expand...
From wiki. It is not incorrect because there is disagreement. They would have to falsify angels. If they wished to convey human only they could have just as easily wrote sons of men.

Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.
 
Last edited:
Harry Leggs said:
From wiki. It is not incorrect because there is disagreement. They would have to falsify angels. If they wished to convey human only they could have just as easily wrote sons of men.

Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.
Click to expand...
Angel in Hebrew is mal'akh
Sons of God BENEI ELOCHIM
 
Harry Leggs said:
The identity of the sons of God was non human angels in G.6. They mated with human females and produced hybrid offspring. It goes to the book of Enoch and is supported in the New including Paul. Enoch was not considered scripture but probably was by many 2nd temple Jews. Certainly influential and referenced by both the New Testament and early Christian writings. Jude and 2nd Peter are examples. Women covering their heads because of the angels are examples. Note G.6 was prior to the flood so it sounds like the catalyst for the flood was the events depicted in G.6. Also note the father of Jesus was nonhuman. Same with Adam and Eve.

…being the early church’s staunchest defender of 1 Enoch’s inspiration. For example, in his On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Chapter III, he calls 1 Enoch “Scripture” and defends its status using 2 Timothy 3:16:
------------------------------------

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that

Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity.

Heiser, Michael S.. Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ (p. 136). Kindle Edition.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you Harry Leggs...."The identity of the sons of God was non human angels in G.6. They mated with human females and produced hybrid offspring."
Here are eight lectures from a guy named Timothy Albernio each about 10-15 min long which lays out this biblical approach.
I found them very interesting....yet didn't agree with everything.
 
glenlogie said:
Every here of an older man calling someone not physically his son "son"?
Click to expand...
So God uses words confusingly? Which meaning of "son" did God use to refer to Jesus? Are we now to take it that Jesus was not physically God's Son?

The Bible consists of words. If the words have confusing meanings, then the Bible has confused meanings as well.
 
rossum said:
So God uses words confusingly? Which meaning of "son" did God use to refer to Jesus? Are we now to take it that Jesus was not physically God's Son?

The Bible consists of words. If the words have confusing meanings, then the Bible has confused meanings as well.
Click to expand...
Such a silly comment. So you want God to dumb things down to your level.

Also you have the problem of translating from Hebrew and Greek to English
 
CrowCross said:
rossum, all this time and you still don't understand the difference between Jesus the eternal Son of God and a "creature" created by God.
Click to expand...
What I do understand is the logical incoherence of these three statements:
  • God cannot die.
  • Jesus is God.
  • Jesus died on the cross.
You appear to be trying to save the logic by having two different Jesuses:
  • God cannot die.
  • Jesus1 is God.
  • Jesus2 died on the cross.
Where Jesus1 is your "eternal Son of God" and Jesus2 is your '"creature" created by God'.

However, I'm not sure if two Jesuses is orthodox Christian theology.
 
glenlogie said:
Such a silly comment. So you want God to dumb things down to your level.
Click to expand...
Since humans are not omniscient, God has to dumb things down so mere humans can understand what He is saying. Would Moses have understood if God had spoken to him in modern Chinese?

glenlogie said:
Also you have the problem of translating from Hebrew and Greek to English
Click to expand...
Not just me. Translators, who know a great deal more than I do, also have difficulties translating. At the very least there is the problem of translating the words, or the meaning behind the words. If a story starts: "Once upon a time..." how does the translator indicate to the reader that the story is not true? The literal meaning of the words requires the correct cultural background, which readers may not have.

For example, do you know what the orchestral sneeze at the start of Kodály's Háry János suite means?
 
rossum said:
Since humans are not omniscient, God has to dumb things down so mere humans can understand what He is saying. Would Moses have understood if God had spoken to him in modern Chinese?


Not just me. Translators, who know a great deal more than I do, also have difficulties translating. At the very least there is the problem of translating the words, or the meaning behind the words. If a story starts: "Once upon a time..." how does the translator indicate to the reader that the story is not true? The literal meaning of the words requires the correct cultural background, which readers may not have.

For example, do you know what the orchestral sneeze at the start of Kodály's Háry János suite means?
Click to expand...
Now you are totally ridiculous. Language and concepts is a bad comparison
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top