Month: October 2017

In view is the “in those days, and also afterwards” portion of the Bible’s Genesis ch. 6 text. Of course, delving into the minutia of this text would take us far and beyond the confines of one article thus, let us quote the relevant portion and focus on the incursion issue.

This is Genesis 6:1-5 from the NASB:
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

The Nephilim were 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.

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The aforementioned minutia gets into who are the sons of God, the daughters of men, the Nephilim, the mighty men of old renown, etc. For our purposes we will assert that the sons of God are divine or heavenly beings; some term them “angels” but this seems restrictive; for example, keep in mind that satan is not a fallen angel but a fallen cherub they most certainly are not humans and may very well just have been the category of being known as angels (sorry for the complication but it is meant to elucidate some fine points; keeping in mind that in Job 1:6 and 2:1 the sons of God appear before YHVH along with satan and cherubim are not a kind of angel; cherubs, angels, seraphim, etc. are different categories of being). The daughters of men are human women. The Nephilim is another name (an aka) for their offspring; the mighty men of old renown.

A fellow assertion is that the great deluge, the worldwide flood was to deal with the actions not of the sons of God but of the Nephilim/mighty men of old renown. The reasoning here (much of which is borrowed from extra-biblical texts aka commentaries, histories, etc.) is that they were giants who first consumed humanity’s resources, then consumed humans and finally each other—big appetites to fuel big bodies.

It is, indeed, specified that “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever” and that “the wickedness of man was great…evil continually” but on this view this is not problematic as the Nephilim are, after all, referred to as “men” as in “mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”

You see how the debates about these various issues can be cumbersome—important and yet, outside the context of this article.

So, if the flood was due to the Nephilim’s actions, then how is it that they were “on the earth in those days” but “also afterward”; were they not gotten rid of via drowning in the flood? In fact, whether the flood was due to their actions or those of humanity is irrelevant, regarding their deaths, as either way; they, as a whole, drowned to death. But the follow up question is when is “afterward”; is it after the flood or after the described event which is when they actually were birthed; the event took place in the days of Jared whilst the flood took place in the days of Noah, “Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch” (Genesis 5:18).

There are basically two views with regards to the specific issue of “and also afterwards”: 1) There was one incursion (as it has been termed) by the sons of God.

2) There were multiple incursions by the sons of God.

However, this is not entirely accurate as the discussions on this specific point are generally termed one incursion or multiple incursions. Yet, view 1) consider that there were more than one incursion but that however many there were all took place pre-flood. Multiple implies one or more pre-flood and another of many more post-flood.

Thus, let us term the two basic views as Pre-Flood Incursionism and Pre and Post-Flood Incursionism both, generally, hold that the flood was due to the Nephilim and both ask of each other how it is that the flood did away with them and yet, they reappeared.

Pre-flood incursionists assert that while Noah himself was “perfect in his generation” his sons and daughters-in-law were not and so they carried the Nephilim genetic material into the ark with them and thus, ended up birthing (diluted) hybrids post-flood. Thus, the post-flood return of giants was not due to a post-flood incursion of sons of God but due to the expression of Nephilim genes.

The issue is that perfect is the same term used for the physical unblemished perfection (physical but not genetic; Was Noah genetically “perfect in his generation”?) of the animals to be sacrificed and so this leads to the view that he was not tainted by Nephilim genes.

Multiple incursionists assert that, as the term multiple incursion implies, after the flood the sons of God did it again (one more or many more times).

Pre-flood incursionists and Pre and Post-flood incursionists ask each other how the other’s position makes any sense. After all pre-flood incursionism has the Nephilim getting one over on YHVH, as it were, by making it through the flood via genetics. And the Pre and Post-flood incursionism has the Nephilim getting one over on YHVH, as it were, by making it through by simply doing it again.

In other words; they both have some ‘splainin to do. That is to say that the texts must be elucidated as neither side can trump the other via taunts.

Let us take a step back to note that, with some Hebrew words placed into the English translation, the Nephilim portion of the text reads, “Those were the gibbowr who were of old, men of renown.” Gibbowr or Gibor is Strong’s #H1368 and does, indeed as the English translation denotes, 1) strong, mighty (adj) 2) strong man, brave man, mighty man (nm). It is an intensive from of the primitive root gabar (Strong’s #H1396): 1) to prevail, have strength, be strong, be powerful, be mighty, be great, etc.

Genesis 10 notes that Noah’s son Ham fathered Cush and that, in turn:
Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.”

Two things to note; became is began to be and what Nimrod became/began to be is a mighty one which in Hebrew is gibbowr. So that he was a mighty hunter, was a gibbowr tsayid. It may be of interest to note that term/name Nimrod (Strong’s #H5248 Nimrowd) means “rebellion” or “the valiant.”
Keep in mind that Nimrod spearheaded (pun intended; get it, hunter, spear…okay, no more punishment, even though it was very punny) the building of the Tower of Babel.

Clearly, in and of itself the term gibbowr/gibor denotes nothing more than might as in Deuteronomy 10:17 which states:
For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty [gibbowr], and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

Thus, it is also used of anyone or anything that is mighty: lions (Proverbs 30:30), soldiers (Jeremiah 51:30), leaders in general (Daniel 11:3), the aforementioned hunter(s), etc. (and even comic book characters).

Due to the issues relating to the Nephilim as mighty/gibbowr men of old renown we get the concept of the Giborim—a “race” of giants. Yet, context determines meaning and the context is that these particularly gibbowrim, the Nephilim, were the sons of God (as defined above) and were of old which refers to very, very ancient times (old here being ‘owlam Strong’s H5769).

Let us end here by providing some food for thought: the gibbowr Nimrod was directly related to Noah. Assuming (and some would think this to be quite the assumption) that his being a gibbowr refers to him not only being generically mighty but genetically mighty (as in giant) then how did he become one—via Noah’s wife’s, his son’s or his daughter-in-law’s genes?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

It is difficult to decide whether the New Atheism is refreshing, terrifying, or both. Of course, the New Atheism is nothing new but basically refers to plagiarizers of 19th century anti-theists (as I was noted here). I suppose that it is refreshing because atheists have come right out and exploited every possible form of media in order to push their agenda. Their message is clear and the same as always: they are right and everyone else is wrong.

On the other hand, as will be made clear in a near future post about James Randi “The Amazing Randi” (see here) in certain disagreements such as the atheism theism polemic some people can only sustain a pleasant and intellectual faa&#a7;ade for a short amount of time only to have their honest and emotionally spiked belligerence surface. The new atheists see no need to tone down the rhetoric since they represent the one true position and they are, after all, jousting with theists who are simpletons, superstitious and ignorant.

One time atheist, C. S. Lewis, made an interesting suggestion as to atheism’s concept of being right while everyone else is wrong:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.

When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.1

Is it any surprise that atheism is attempting to infiltrate our homes, our families, our parental duties, our very children? Let us see what they have to say for themselves:
Tufts University professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett wrote (who snafued here):

On the one hand, many declare, there is the sacred and inviolable right of life…On the other hand, many of the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be indoctrinated or brainwashed or otherwise psychologically abused by those parent, who have the right to raise the child with any upbringing they choose, short of physical torture.

Let us spread the value of freedom throughout the world-but not to children, apparently.2

“the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be…psychologically abused” this coming from a supposed professor of philosophy, mind you; misosophy is more like it.

Prof. Richard Dawkins:

“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”3

In his article Now Here’s a Bright Idea, Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote:

A phrase like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should clang furious bells of protest in the mind…Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can’t vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society’s impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We’d be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn’t it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow, where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighborhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?

Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder. Everybody’s consciousness should be raised to this level…children should hear themselves described not as “Christian children” but as “children of Christian parents.” This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means ‘same beliefs as parents’. I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.

Please go out and work at raising people’s consciousness over the words they use to describe children.”

Please do not think that this is merely an intellectual exercise. I have personally had the displeasure of having an atheist accuse me of brainwashing and abusing my children. Actually, they made quite an odd statement-they made their statement thusly: you abuse your kids, but I’m not going to call the authorities.Very odd indeed.

I, employing a perfectly calm and rational demeanor, invited them to report me to the authorities. I asked them to consider what sort of person they were since they know that children are being abused but they refuse to do anything about it. Such is the disconnect between an idea that seems good when you are discussing it with people with whom you agree and actually attempting to implement such an idea. This is head-in-the-sand-well-within-the-box-group-think-atheism. But then again, Prof. Richard Dawkins does envisage “society stepping in.”

Atheists, the belligerent activist sorts, do not seem to understand, or do not seem to consider, or do not seem to mention out of fear of discrediting their own arguments, that theists, in this case we will speak specifically of Christians, agree with much of their criticisms of “religion.” Yet, Christians do so by appealing to Biblical standards while atheists do so by stating their personal opinions in the form of emotive assertions based on arguments from outrage and arguments for embarrassment or by borrowing the Christian ethos.
In this particular instance we will comment on the issue of referring to children by their parents’ religion. This issue is not as simple as it is made to seem. For instance, Jewish parents have Jewish children because Judaism is more than a religion; it is a people group. Roman Catholicism and Islam have a strong sense of their religion also being their culture. Moreover, Judaism and Christianity have Bar / Bat Mitzvahs and Confirmation when a child is viewed as being cognizant enough to decide to take on the theological aspect of the culture.

But what about good old fashioned Bible-believing-fundamentalist-orthodox-traditional-Christians? I am afraid that here I must be somewhat subjective and speak of that which I know well: the personal experience of myself and those who are close to me. In my circles being called “religious” is tantamount to a put down. This is because we know what “religion” is like and that it is a major factor in people not coming to know God personally. When people think that the way to please God is to jump through the hoops of ritual and to conduct a sacramental song and dance they are missing the point. No atheist could ever come close to being as anti-religion as the Bible.

The sort of Christians that we are discussing here would never imagine that their children are Christians, that they are believers and would most certainly never refer to them as such. No one is born a Christian because becoming a Christian requires a decision which is why Jesus refers to being born again (John ch. 3).Following the teaching of the New Testament such Christians would not baptize their infants since getting wet has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin. When baptism is correlated with salvation in the New Testament it is made very clear that the issue is not getting wet and thereby cleaning your flesh but it is a conscience decision, one which an infant obviously cannot make.

“There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1st Peter 3:21)

This is why denominations that baptize infant have someone speak for the infant by proxy. Logically fallacious as it is; it does demonstrate that they see the problem but rather than give up their traditions they have attempted to create a loop-hole. The bottom line in all New Testament passages regarding baptism is succinctly summarized in Acts 18:8 which states:

“Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

Why where they baptized? Because they heard, they believed and only then were they baptized. If they could not hear and understand enough to believe then they could not be baptized.

But the atheists that we have been discussing are not so much interested in such factual and logical superficialities. What they oppose is that, for instance, even if your children are baptized in their early or late teens when they would be fully capable of understanding and explaining what they are doing it would be presupposed that they are doing so because their parents have been brainwashing / abusing them all along. We must also empathies with even the most belligerent atheists for the fact that there certainly is much brainwashing / abusing rightly associated with “religion.”

But will these atheists establish 1-800 hotline numbers for children to inform on their parents for the crime against the new atheist world order? One can only wonder how these atheists conceive of enforcing such Gestapo-like tactics-ya vol!

What religions will Prof. Daniel Dennett propose be taught in public schools? Surely, all of them would only be fair from Swedenborgism to J. R. Bob Dobbs’ might Church of the Subgenius who offer eternal salvation or triple your money back. I recall hearing a certain New York city radio personality who also proposed that religion be taught in public school but only the inclusive ones-any religion that was exclusivist would be, you guessed it, excluded. Atheist Nica Lalli (also mentioned here) has attempted to lay out her particular atheist ideas of what ecumenism would look like:

I am more interested in dialogue, and I hope that conversation will get us to respect and understanding. I cannot see dialogue happening with someone who tells you that your core beliefs are wrong, so I refrain from telling anyone what to believe…
With that in mind, let’s invite more of everyone to participate in the discussion…Once we start, we might see that we have more in common than we all think. Once we all agree to disagree, one we set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness, once we clarify that we are simply trying to understand each other – and then move on to other topics of common interest – then the conversation about religion and its place in our society can really begin.4

Note that this particular, and peculiar, brand of ecumenism which claims to include “more of everyone” would exclude by its “rules” anyone who is “is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness.”

But why confine one’s criticism and allegations of brainwashing and child abuse to religion?

What about raising children as carnivores? This forceful action robs them of the choice to be a vegetarian (vegan or lacto-ovo). But then again raising them as vegetarians would rob them of the choice to be a carnivore. Perhaps we should not feed children anything until there are old enough to make their own informed choice.

What about nationality? What right do parents have to force their children to grow up in a particular country, region, climate, culture?

What about language? How dare any parent force their children to speak a language just because its parents speak it? Perhaps children should have their ears plugged until they are old enough to decide what language(s) they want to learn.
Interestingly, Prof. Richard Dawkins “describes the British-born headteacher [of an ultra-orthodox Jewish school] Rabbi Gluck’s Yiddish accent as testament to the isolation of his community.”5

Although the point seems to be that the Rabbi speaks with a Yiddish accent in the midst of English-British speakers Prof. Dawkins (who speaks with a heavy British accent that demonstrates his isolation on his side of the pond) seems to overlook the fact that every single person who speaks any language speaks with an accent.

What about morals? Surely, only a brainwasher would teach a child that anything is right and wrong. Who are we to impose that on our children?

And how about simple etiquette? How could we possibly shove down our children’s throats that they should say excuse me after flatulating? Isn’t the expulsion of gastric fumes a compliment in some cultures?

What of gender? Just because of an evolutionary accident, and X instead of a Y chromosome or visa versa, a child should be forced to grow up male or female. We should place them into surgery directly after birth (or genetically manipulate them before) in order to make them androgynous, or perhaps hermaphrodites or androgynous hermaphrodites until such time as they can choose their own gender.

What about handism? Should poor little children be forced by their parents (and a genetic accident) to be right or left handed? Perhaps they should all be forced to be ambidextrous but then again they may not want to be so. Perhaps we ought to bind their hands (ala Chinese women’s feet) but they may not want that either.

Maybe children should be exposed to all ideas, although this will not happen, “all” meaning “all.” Maybe they should not exposed to any ideas until they decide what they want to be exposed to, but how will they do that?

It appears that there is still a long way to go towards realizing the dream of placing an atheist Big Brother in every home.

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

The Office: Michael Scott movie Threat Level Midnight – necrophilia, bestiality, gay & back-masking.

Learn more about the, unethical and anti-Christian, TV show “The Office” here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #TheOffice, #ThreatLevelMidnight, #movies
Facebook: #TheOffice, #ThreatLevelMidnight, #movies

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

One ubiquitously promulgated common misconception based pop-cultural talking point of a myth is that there has been an evolution of marriage so that one cannot claim that marriage between one man and one woman is traditional, normal, family value based, right, true, God given, etc.

Before thinking of an answer, or a counterargument, it is important to think about and dissect the question, the argument.

What does it mean to claim that marriage has evolved?

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

DEATH TO HOMOSEXUALS!!!

The statement I read is from homosexual activist and actor Harvey Fierstein, The New York Times Op-Ed , “The Culture of Disease,” July 31, 2013 AD, see here.

The lecture within this video is from Mike Winger’s YouTube channel:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.