Herein continues a discussion I had with someone I will call Anon. since it was a behind the scenes discussion wherein the person offers some concerns about my views on Nephilim related issues and I am deeply appreciative to this person for raising these issues with me.
When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them here.
Picking up where we left off in the previous segment:
Oh, not at all turning this into a worldy discussion. You stated that the ONLY way I could have… here are your words: “The one and only reason that you could ever possibly state that “the implication is ‘clear’ that there were nephilim post flood” is exclusively by believing utterly unreliable people.”
I stated that was not the case (and it is simply untrue), so not sure how else to “read” your reply, AND expressely stated that “I know that is not your heart”(to call me a liar, but essentially you are saying that) …Believe me when I say that I am your “ally”. Although I don’t know you, I love you like a Brother in Christ, and I am deeply burdened for the church and only seek Her restoration…and that will require UNITY. I pray for that.
Perhaps we will have to wait for the “Elijah” to come to settle some of these matters, and bring the promised “restoration of all things.” grace and peace [ellipses in original]
I decided to plow through my messages to day so as to give everyone CHRISTmas off ;o) and I pray you and yours have a merry one.
Well sure, “The one and only reason” is to have concluded that is “by reading it (guided by the Spirit)” and believing Num 13:33 so I was just putting what I thought and what you said together—and there is nowhere else to go in the Bible for a statement that (seems to be about) post-flood Nephilim.
I will leave you with this regarding the “conquest narratives” as they are termed:
In this case, “Israel made a vow to the Lord and said, ‘If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.’ The Lord heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities” and this was because “When the Canaanite…heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, then he fought against Israel and took some of them captive.”
The Lord states, “I have given Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land into your hand; begin to take possession and contend with him in battle” and while the direct reason is not specified, the byproduct is to be that “I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”
In this case, Moses notes, “I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, ‘Let me pass through your land, I will travel only on the highway; I will not turn aside to the right or to the left. You will sell me food for money so that I may eat, and give me water for money so that I may drink…’ But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass…Then Sihon with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz. The Lord our God delivered him over to us.”
This time, “we turned and went up the road to Bashan, and Og, king of Bashan, with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Edrei…the Lord our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them” with the general reason being judgment and taking over the land: Og was the king so he was definitely the OG: Original Gansta—but I jest.
Yet, some of these are not specific examples of herem but more general references such as that which begins the next one.
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you…greater and stronger than you…you shall not intermarry with them” and why not? “For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods.”
This chapter includes the concept of herem as an object which defiled, “You shall not bring an abomination” in this case “The graven images of their gods,” “into your house, and like it come under the ban; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for it is something banned.”
Here they were to “strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” if “you hear in one of your cities…saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods.’”
This one specifies, “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace…if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it” and more specifically, “you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you” but why? “so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God.”
1 Samuel 15
In this case, “the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek’” as a comeuppance “for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.”
We now run into an example of Ancient Near East hyperbole whereby many ancient cultures would employ terms of having utterly wiped out another nation/tribe/clan when such as not the case—much like Jerry Seinfeld pointed out about standup comics who will say things such as they slaughtered the audience or mascaraed them or killed them and much as how we also described one spots team beating another.
Along these lines, Merneptah, the fourth pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt (1213-1203 BC), claimed, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not” and yet, here I still am.
So, “The Lord said to Joshua, ‘Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands; not one of them shall stand before you’” so that this is absolutely absolute, “Joshua and the sons of Israel had finished slaying them with a very great slaughter, until they were destroyed” yet, this verse continues directly with “and the survivors who remained of them had entered the fortified cities.”
Moreover, “They captured it and struck it and its king and all its cities and all the persons who were in it with the edge of the sword. He left no survivor…utterly destroyed it and every person who was in it” and yet, in Judges 1:10 they encounter “the Canaanites” again.
This one relates that Jebusites “agreed to…fight against Israel” but Israel “defeated them…they struck them until no survivor was left to them” and Judges 1:21 notes that “the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites have lived with the sons of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.”
Note that in Psalm 106, David points out “They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them.”
We will pick it up from there in the next segment.
For more details, see my relevant books.
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.