One theory I've heard is that one of the wives of Noah's sons, possibly Hams, carried the Nephilum gene onto the ark. Maybe one of the reasons Hams son was cursed to the degree he was by Noah.
Not my theory, just something I've read.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Adam & Eve Are Not The Parents of All the Races
- Status
Not my theory, just something I've read.
Which would mean that God failed - he wiped out the entire human race to, in part, get rid of those genes - yet let them get through anyway. This theory accuses God of incompetence. I find it unlikely.
Where does it say the flood had something to do with the Nephilim?
That would be assuming that His intent was to completely eradicate that gene, not just remove the majority of it. Disobedience, Idol worship, and corruption were the main reasons to cleanse the earth. We can't understand all of the factors. This theory would make as much sense as Yah allowing the angels to mate and produce more Nephilim/giants after the flood. Either way the gene was allowed to continue in some form. We know there were giants after the flood and we know there were races that the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry and have sex with.
Genesis 6:1-7. The Nephilim are mentioned in v4 as immediate preceding context to v5, which describes the wickedness God sought to remove through the flood. It's pretty clear that the writer of Genesis considered them to be relevant, hence why they are described here.
But recall that I said the flood was only "in part" due to this. This is just one example of the wickedness of man - and the problem was all wickedness, which included a whole lot more than this.
Hence why I only said "I find it unlikely", and did not claim to have completely disproved it through my brief reasoning. Logic draws me towards other conclusions, that is all.
In other words, God.
Actually Moses. God is the author, Moses the writer.
But more likely this was all revealed to Moses in a vision.
Edit: So Moses would, at least to a certain extent, be the one emphasizing what he viewed to be relevant in the vision / revelation God had given him.
Moses wrote down exactly what God told him to write. I personally believe word for word.
Perhaps. Many places in the Torah are just Moses writing down what God told him. Would you carry that belief over to all of the writings of the prophets and New Testament elders?
Yes. I believe the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was inspired and the very words of God, word for word, in the original autographs. In other words when Moses’ writing instrument hit whatever he was writing on, those words were inspired, word for word as God intended.
Translators can make errors and manuscript copies can contain errors, but what was originally written down was perfect. What we have now is accurate representations of the originals through translation.
Last edited:
In every translation?
Verse 7 is what you’re looking for.
Any translation that is faithful to the originals through the vast manuscript evidence that we have available to us today can rightly be called the Word of God. This is what the KJV translators said in their preface to the KJV. Translators are not inspired. Translation work is not perfect work, but the message of God comes through loud and clear in every major evangelical committee based translation. I say committee based, because any translation done by one man (such as The Message or The Living Bible), has too many biases to be reliable.
There are bad translations that have intentionally corrupted the Word of God. I am not talking about those.
I wish.
True
The idea that every word of King Jim is God-breathed is its own form of legalism.
You’d be surprised the amount of people who believe the KJV was re-inspired, is greater than the original Greek, and won’t touch another translation. These people exist.
I know, that’s what I was addressing.
It's not surprising, it's sad. But I know what you are saying and I've had to deal with some of them.
These days I start such conversations by singing the merits of the Geneva bible, then immediately having to explain what it is and the fact it was actually made by the Reformers (as most people haven't heard of it). I point out how much of the KJV is word-for-word copied from it, and that despite being older it's actually more readable modern English (albeit spelled weirdly) as it doesn't have the archaic terms that were intentionally reintroduced into the KJV. And point out that many of the Puritans wouldn't use the KJV as a tool of empire but held to the Geneva as the true word of God.
This basically shakes the foundations of their worldview - which is fundamentally the false idea that the KJV is the first complete English translation and therefore inspired by God largely because it was first - and gives a more complete historical understanding of the history of English translations and the political context in which they were made. It shows the issue is more nuanced, and gets them asking questions, opening them up to a more profitable discussion.
I actually just had that conversation with my grandfather yesterday...
Excellent advice. Thank you Samuel.
- Status