BTW, some commentators think that the cedar/tail thing may have actually been a description of an elephant’s trunk. I don’t know enough about Hebrew to know how supportable that is, but I do know the interpretation exists.
Thanks D/C Yeah, I remember that now…I got kinda sidetracked from the OP somewhere.
I did find this cite (for kids I think) http://www.larriveehardware.com/furniture_styles.html
That way they won’t get kicked outta church for asking intelligent questions.
I’ve read the Bible a few times myself (KJV included) I didn’t recall any dinos either. But you never know with these newfangled versions. My ancient Hebrew is a little rusty too.
So, these Nephilim…is that like cyclops, Medusa, and that half horse/man ie: Greek kinda thing.
http://diskbooks.org/dino.html
try that link again…too slow to preview
My initial argument when questioned about that statement contained quotes from the KJV. It is not my problem that people felt that other versions could be used interchangeably or misunderstood what I stated. This had nothing to do with a “thread hijack”. My statement as stated was perfectly true and was on topic. People disagreeing is what turned it into this. Since they were disagreeing with my post specifically then you need to look to my post to see if you are arguing against claims that I have actually made.
I don’t care about the history of the Bible for the purposes of this discussion. You are beginning to appear dense. I am going to break down this whole canon thing a little simpler for you since it is still a problem apparently.
Let’s pretend that Genesis tells us that Noah died but says nothing else. Someone then claims that “We don’t how old Noah was when he died.” However, (again, we are still pretending) in the book of Exodus it says “Noah died when he was 900 years old”. I could then say, “Yes, we do know how old Noah was when he died, it was at the age of 900” and I could cite the Exodus reference. Then let’s say that someone else comes along and says "No, it says here in my book about Noah published in 1994 and authored by John Q. Bible that Noah was 840 when he died. Now, who would be right? Me or John Q. Bible? And why would I be right? Because Exodus is canonical and John Q. Bible’s book is not. I am not going to explain this to you again. Oh, and BTW, recent fictional works do not have to have the same author to be part of a canon. I already cited the Friday the 13th movies reference. Just as many authors as there are movies. You could say the same for the Halloween movies and the Nightmare on Elm Street movies.
See? I knew that you weren’t paying attention. My claim was that the Books of Ezekiel and Isaiah are canon, not that the Lucifer translation is “canon”. That wouldn’t even make sense to say that.
Poetic references? What does poetic have to do with it? There was a specific cherub/angel mentioned that was in the Garden of Eden until iniquity was found in him. Whether it is poetic or not, these are specific details. When did this angel hang out in the Garden of Eden? And which highest up angel was found with iniquity? You are denying the obvious here.
I never said that either one was describing a dinosaur. You have me confused with someone else apparently. The only thing I said conclusively on the subject was that neither seemed like a description of any animal that exists today.
Wow, that site almost reads like a parody of itself. I love the all caps GOD DID IT! as the answer to any question.
As to the nature of the nephilim, this is one of those things that no one really knows for sure. It’s a strange passage in its context and the original intent of the compiler has been lost.
Since Judaism has never seemed to have shown much prediliction for fanciful creatures I doubt that the nephilim would fall into that category. The most common theories are either that they were either allegorical humans or that they were something like angels. This is one of the few Biblical passages that I don’t have smug, self-confident answer for.
Well, I’ve read lots of “theories” on the Nephilim and their offspring. Sounds like another thread though and it’s too late to start now.
I’m going to bed, y’all have fun…
Nephilim were the result of when the “Sons of God” came in unto the “daughters of men”. The “Sons of God” in the Old Testament is a reference to angels. KJV describes the offspring as “giants”.
I’m not sure what is so complicated about that…
But before I go…
sons of GOD
I thought he had ONLY ONE, and that my friends IS another debate…g~nite
That really isn’t a debate. "Sons of God is used in reference to angels in the Old Testament:
Angels are being referenced in those verses from Job.
I am glad that you are going to stop “explaining” this, since you are demonstrating either incredible ignorance or incredible dishonesty with your position. Ezekiel is all poetic discourse and has nothing to say regarding the facts of the story of Genesis 1. Claiming that you can wedge in your weird interpretation because it is all part of the “canon” is nonsense. Being canonical does not make everything magically line up according to the whims of your interpretation. The books of Kings and Chronicles have several points in direct conflict for the identical story. Nothing about their canonicity suddenly makes them reconcile those conflicting points, because the theological motivations behind them are not harmed by the conflicts of facts. The letters of James and of Paul to the Romans even have a theological conflict that does not magically disappear simply because they are both in the canon.
Certainly the presence of different books in the canon indicates that the compilers of the canon believed that different books might shed light on the theological implications of other books, but your attempt to wedge invented pieces of narrative into totally different books is not supported by any meaning of the word canon.
(And I never claimed that modern fiction had to have the same author to be part of the canon–only that the canon represents the view of an original author, although that can be nodified over time.)
It is your problem in that no other person (aside from a few cronies of Jack Chick) would ever try to use a single translation of Scripture to make a point about what “Scripture” said, when other versions and translations might oppose that view. You have a solipsistic view of Scripture that is out of line with any scholar or theologian and inserting your strange notions into this thread without first making clear that you operate in an alternate reality has caused a lot of confusion up to this point.
What is this nonsense? Are you trying to preach to me? I am talking about a collection of stories under one cover and you are going into what? Theology? Preach to someone else. Ezekiel mentions a fallen angel which once resided in the Garden of Eden. Guess what? That is where the Creation accounts of Genesis take place. Oh yes, how foolish of me to make a connection. Hmm…Garden of Eden in Genesis, Garden of Eden in Ezekiel. You’re right, probably two different Gardens. I don’t care if it was poetic or not. It doesn’t render it a complete fabrication in the context of the Bible. David’s writings were purely poetic also, doesn’t mean that he was just making stuff up.
Quit harping on the word canon. It means the books are considered to be part of the Bible, period. If you think that a reference to the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel must mean something completely different than the references to the Garden of Eden in Genesis then I don’t know what to tell you.
Who in the blue hell is Jack Chick?
Actually, for the 6th or 7th time, I used a single translation to make a point about a single translation.
The confusion is your own fault. I am treating The Bible like I would any other collection of works that go together (it doesn’t get any better than KJV for style either) and you are treating it like…well, what are you treating it like?
No it isn’t.
“Sons of God” in Hebrew idiom was used for anyone who who was favored or chosen by God or who was especially righteous. Several humans are called sons of God in Hebrew scripture. It doesn’t mean “angels.”
The nephilim passage in Genesis is very debatable. Do not make the mistake of assuming that your own poorly informed understanding of a flawed and outdated translation of the Bible is somehow definitive or ends the conversation.
I’ve always thought there was a Leviathan/Tiamat link. You know, in both cases, the giant dragon/serpent who controls the chaos of the ocean, until it’s defeated by God/Marduk, who then creates the world.
You’re talking about a specific translation of that collection. A translation which contains a lot of errors and is which is not considered to be reliable for serious scholarly research. The OP asked a question about what the Bible says. You have been making unfounded and unsupportable assertions about the what the Bible says and you’re attempting to buttress your assertions with a bad translation. I’ll say this again: The KJV is NOT THE BIBLE. It’s only a translation of the Bible and it’s not a very good one.
Ezekiel uses Eden as a poetic metaphor for the once exalted status of the king of Tyre. It is not meant to be taken literally. Neither is it meant to be taken literally that the King was a “cherub.” Should I post the definition of “metaphor” again?
This makes no sense at all. Ezekiel references genesis to make an allegorical point about a human king. It is pretty common in English idiom to talk about being in “heaven” or to call real places “paradise.” That’s what Ezekiel is doing. It’s an allegory. It uses Gensesis to evoke a certain image and moral tone. It is not offering supplementary information about the creation. That would be an absurd inference to make.
David doesn’t have any writings but I assume you mean Psalms. Psalms is a compilation of songs by many different writers. They are all use poetry, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, etc. They may occasionally reference something vaguely historical but they cannot be read as historically informative in any meaningful sense.
If you don’t understand how the image of Eden can be referenced metaphorically to make a point about a human king then I don’t know what to tell you.
Which makes your argument completely solipsistic and meaningless.
Like each book should be read on its own. Your “canon” does not magically grant any automatic thematic or historical unity to those books. Saying that Genesis and Ezekiel are part of the same canon does not mean that Ezekiel can now be used as a supplement to the Genesis creation story. They are completely different works from different authors at different times in different genres with different intentions. Furthermore, you’re using a flawed translation and asserting for some weird reason that you have no real point to make about the Bible but only about that translation. What exactly are trying to accomplish in this thread? Perhaps you’ve already accomplished it?
Then you have been unclear from the beginning, because you originally said “if you read the entire bible” rather than saying “if you read the KJV as a single work.” Oh, yes, you mentioned briefly in an early post that you were taking your material from the KJV, but we all make reference to specific translations when we are quoting, simply to make it easier for others to cross-check out references. This leads to the following error:
You brought up the issue of the canon and now you want to run away from it? That would be in keeping with the rest of your presentation.
Your whole approach has been not to treat the bible as a collection of works (which could easily contradict each other or say things that were irrelevant to other works) but to assert that the very existence of a canon made all the works contained within magically assume the appearance of a single whole. Note your reference to “the Bible” with no clarification that you meant “the KJV”:
In point of fact, Genesis was written as a work wholly separate from Ezekiel. It makes a nice exercise to go back and use Ezekiel to wedge information into Genesis, but that is not how the books were written and your claim that theologians agreeing which books to treat as divinely inspired (which is what the word canon means when discussing religious literature) does not somehow turn them into a single, integral work.
Let’s take this one step at a time.
The canon refers to the collected books selected by the religious leadership that they hold to have been divinely inspired. (Students of literature have borrowed that word to mean those works that are internally consistent with each other, but that meaning is irrelevant to a study of Scripture which continues to use the older, original meaning.)
While one can look at the works found in the religious canon and try to reconcile all their discrepancies, (and certainly many religious people do so), that does not change the fact that the various works are not internally consistent in many cases and an appeal to the canon (when discussing religious works) does not magically bestow an internal consistency upon them. Those of us who typically discuss scripture on this board are in the habit of using the word canon in its original, theological meaning. To insert that word in its recent literary meaning into the discussion with no attempt to clarify your distinct usage merely introduces confusion to the discussion.
Your particular references do not, actually, say what you have attempted to have them say. The section in Ezekiel 28 is a condemnation of the King of Tyre in which he is described as having had the best of all things which he has thrown away in debauchery. The references to perfection, beauty, Eden, and Cherubs are all literary allusions to just how good the king of Tyre had it and are not references to an actual angel hanging around Eden. (The “holy mountain” on which the king walked and from which the king is driven is a standard reference to the Assyrian gods with whom the king of Tyre can be presumed, by Ezekiel, to have consorted. He is drawing on multiple images to create an impressive curse.)
In the context of Ezekiel’s God-inspired condemnations of the kings who had threatened and harmed Judah, changing chapter 28, beginning at verse 12 to a condemnation of a fallen angel is an absurd interpretation. (Why tell an angel that he has walked on the “holy mountain” that was not even created until years after he fell?) So even if we were going to allow “cross posting” from one work to another within the canon, your claim that a reading of the whole bible allows us to “fit the pieces together” does not stand up to scrutiny.
(Atr this point, re-reading what you have posted, it appears that you are not being honest on this topic, anyway. While you are now making a great show that you were only talking about the KJV when you discussed your (literary) canon, you have also made references to the dating of the original Hebrew works. If you are going to rely on the KJV as a self-contained source of information, then appealing to outside information (such as the age of the book of Job and its original creation in Hebrew) is invalid. You can use the KJV as a single, coherent source (as you have made clear far too late in the discussion*) or you can appeal to either or both religious or literary traditions and analysis. However, to appeal to outside analysis while proclaiming the single source interpretation in contradictory.)
I will admit that we among your opponents have not understood your perspective. However, you did not make your “single source” theory clear from the beginning and we are used to bringing in all the relevant information without having arbitrary filters applied to the discussion (particularly when those arbitrary filters use terms in nonstandard ways and when you took no pains to indicate your odd approach to scripture).
- The fact that you referred to the KJV early on does not give you a pass to claim that you were clearly using your single source theory. That is not how scripture is discussed in the real world and we had no way to know that you were using “canon” in a nonstandard meaning for the study of scripture.
Yes, let us get back to Behemoth, shall we? In fact, let us consider the words of someone who has studied and translated the Hebrew text of Job.
In Stephen Mitchell’s translation of the Book of Job (HarperPerennial, 1992. ISBN 0-06-096959-8), he notes on the word translated as “tail”:
Mitchell translates it as:
“His penis stiffens like a pine;
his testicles bulge with vigor.”
He [Mitchell] also notes:
In other words, CigaretteRepairman, you’re just blowing a lot of smoke. The source text of Job is of such uncertain origin that any attempt to argue the Bible’s accuracy or inaccuracy from it is an exercise in futility. Especially an attempt to do so which relies on a second or thirdhand translation such as the KJV.
Holy KJV, Batman! Looks like ol’ RoundGuy fell asleep just as the cavalry arrived!
However, even with far more intelligent, reasoned, and eloquent responses than I could ever hope to match – you seem to be no farther along than I was 12 hours ago.
{sigh}
Strange dreams last night, including, at one point, attempting to fix a broken cigarette with a small piece of duct tape…
I wonder where the hell that came from?
I’ve just gone through this thread again and I see that tomndebb has already told CRM he’s blowing smoke. Filters was a nice touch, too.
Damnit! I need to read more carefully. I need to come up with my own puns, or butt out.
Thanks for the info , FF. I had wondered about this possibility but was embarrassed to suggest it without further support. 
That making it “stiff like a tree” thing makes more sense in that context. The notes on the NET site say that the verb in question is hapas which probably means “to make stiff” in Arabic but that there is another Arabic cognate meaning “to bend” which is where the “swaying” thing comes from.
I much prefer the boner interpretation now that I’m aware of it.