MuttleyLaff:
Talk to the hand

MuttleyLaff:
Smh.

Ihedinobi3:

I appreciate what you said about the giants being descendants of Anak and not Nephilim. I must apologize for not acknowledging that earlier, but sometimes, I am just being efficient in my responses, so I don't address or acknowledge everything in a given post or comment.

I don't really know that the Anakites came from Ham. I don't see that in the Bible just yet, but I do know that the Philistines came from Ham through Mizraim, and Goliath and his brothers were all Philistines.

As for giants existing after the Flood, that was what I meant by "abnormally sized human beings." The Rephaim including Og of Bashan were giants just like Goliath, but like you said, they were not Nephilim. The Nephilim were not giants. They were angelic hybrids, that's all. My comment was concerned with your speculation that the Nephilim strain was preserved through members of Noah's family. That is not true. Nothing Nephilic survived the Flood.

As for Ham, I did think that he was the middle child too, but Genesis 9:24 seems to me to settle the matter, unless it was a matter of translation. I will try to confirm about that, but in two of the best translations I know, the verse calls him the youngest.

MuttleyLaff:

"Now I am claiming as my own sons these two boys of yours, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born here in the land of Egypt before I arrived.
They will be my sons, just as Reuben and Simeon are. "
- Genesis 48:5

The misunderstanding comes from connecting and joining the wrong dots, hence getting an outlined wrong picture. The explanation regarding this is, it is Canaan in that narrative that is referred to as the youngest in Genesis 9:24. I am sure Genesis 48:5 above, will help in getting an understanding of this

missjojo and Ihedinobi3 dont be in the habit of reading bible verses in isolation or just by themselves. Read contextually up on to the "interested-in" verse, and the surrounding after the "interested-in" verse in order to get a proper handle and way of understanding what is really going on in the narrative.

missjo:
Here is something i just came across regarding this. Tell me what you think, it's new to me especially the Canaan part.

http://www.blackhistoryinthebible.com/the-hamites/ham-the-father-of-africans/

MuttleyLaff:
"We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim!
We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight, and we must have seemed the same to them!”"
- Numbers 13:33

missjojo, the bible verse Numbers 13:33 above disagrees with you that the giants after the flood were not Nephilim. Numbers 13:33 even has it saying in black and white that, the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim. Now if you had earlier sussed out that the Nephilim gene survived through being dormant in one of the wives of Noah's son, then by deductive reasoning and knowing how good you are at this, we know who this son is, wink, wink

Goliath was abnormally sized and so a giant

Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakims and other terms are names that giants are/were known as and interchangeably used to describe them. The Nephilims and/or Rephaims and whatnot, definitely werent angel hybrids stock (i.e. they certainly weren't part-angel part human at all)

"Now I am claiming as my own sons these two boys of yours, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born here in the land of Egypt before I arrived.
They will be my sons, just as Reuben and Simeon are. "
- Genesis 48:5

The misunderstanding comes from connecting and joining the wrong dots, hence getting an outlined wrong picture. The explanation regarding this is, it is Canaan in that narrative that is referred to as the youngest in Genesis 9:24. I am sure Genesis 48:5 above, will help in getting an understanding of this

missjojo and Ihedinobi3 dont be in the habit of reading bible verses in isolation or just by themselves. Read contextually up on to the "interested-in" verse, and the surrounding after the "interested-in" verse in order to get a proper handle and way of understanding what is really going on in the narrative.

MuttleyLaff:


Noah is a righteous man, now you woudnt expect him to unrighteously curse Ham, if it was Canaan who did the deed, would you now missjojo, hmm?

missjo:
Lol, I am still looking into it. 'Younger son' could very well mean it was Canaan being referred to and not Ham.
After all the verse did say, cursed be Canaan and not cursed be Ham.

MuttleyLaff:
"Now I am claiming as my own sons these two boys of yours, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born here in the land of Egypt before I arrived.
They will be my sons, just as Reuben and Simeon are. "
- Genesis 48:5

The misunderstanding comes from connecting and joining the wrong dots, hence getting an outlined wrong picture. The explanation regarding this is, it is Canaan in that narrative that is referred to as the youngest in Genesis 9:24. I am sure Genesis 48:5 above, will help in getting an understanding of this. It gives a precedence of a patriarch claiming his son's son as his (i.e. the younger)

missjo:

Here is something i just came across regarding this. Tell me what you think, it's new to me especially the Canaan part.

http://www.blackhistoryinthebible.com/the-hamites/ham-the-father-of-africans/

Ihedinobi3:

I have a few things to say both about the link and about Bible interpretation in general:

1. About the link, it is of very little value. It does excellently in showing that what happened did not involve sex of any kind, as some crazy people like to claim. Ham only saw his father naked and thought it was something funny to talk about. That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself, although we must be aware that there is such a thing as "cursing by association" as much as there is "blessing by association," the first of which is exemplified by God's cursing of the earth in association with Adam's disobedience and the other of which is exemplified by His blessing of the world in association with Abraham's obedience. Another example is God's killing of David's first son by Bathsheba for David's double sin of adultery and murder. We may consider such things as unjust of God, but we are not qualified to judge God. However, it is clear that it is still judgment upon the sinner when God strikes something that is dear or necessary to them - the earth, in the case of Adam, and David's child, in David's case.

The rest of the article focuses on issues of race. That is really of no value whatsoever. It is true that some misguided people take the curse on Ham's son to mean that God cursed all Africans. That is obviously false, since the curse was specifically meant for Canaan and his descendants. That is another thing that the article got right, but as for who was black and who wasn't, that was a waste of print in the article.

About general interpretation, I have suggested before to you that the right thing to do is to stick with what the Bible actually says. It is always a bad idea to extrapolate, especially when you can't pin your extrapolations to anything actually written in the Bible.

jamesid29:

These are very wrong connections to make

jamesid29:
As a follower of Jesus, this is a wrong statement to make. You might not have gone through the hardship of being treated as less than human because of the color of your skin but many brothers and sisters have had to live with this reality. How do you think someone who has been taught from a very young age that they are under a curse from the God for something they cannot change feel and what type of relationship do you think such a person would have with God. The bible teaches us that love is the greatest commandment we have from God and one of the hallmarks of love is empathy. Empathy has to do with putting yourself in others shoes and understanding their pain . The race angle of the article might not be of importance to you but it definitely is ,for a whole lot of people and if all the article was able to achieve was to lighten the load some people are carry due to false teaching, then it's of immense value. It would have been better not to say anything than to trivialize the burdens others are carrying.
Just to be clear I only speak of that one article as I have read no other article on the site and know nothing about it.

jamesid29:
It's always a good idea to be cautious when taking the moral high ground because we might be guilty of the same things we point at.

jamesid29:
On this thread, you talked about how the nephilim didn't survive the flood and the spies in Numbers 13 we're just lying. That's quite a plausible opinion and quite a popular one but the problem is that's not what the text says.

The actual word "nephilim" was used only twice In the entire hebrew bible and both times don't support your opinion without you adding things to the text that it doesn't have.

1)The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Genesis 6:4 ESV
Remember the Genesis account was written after the flood, so the part "and also afterwards" lends to the fact that the nephilims somehow appeared after the flood.

2)And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."
Numbers 13:33 ESV
°Note that the word here is "saw" and there is nowhere in the entire scriptures bible that says the spies were lying about what they saw out of fear and we find no passage where Moses, Joshua or Caleb called out the spies for lying about the nephilim as surely it would have been news to them if they believed the nephilim were extinct.

°Again note that the author of Numbers links the the sons of Anak to the nephilim, letting us the reader know how they came to be(This is partially where the thinking of nephilims as gaints come from and this thinking goes all the way back to second temple period and even the septuigent renders the word as giants. It is not a 21st century idea as lot of people tend to think).

So from reading the text in any language, there's no way of saying the the spies simple lied without adding words into the scriptures.

jamesid29:
You also talked about how Noah's family was saved because of Noah's righteousness and purity of their origins but that is also adding things to the scriptures.
The bible only says was righteousness and blameless man and he found grace in the eyes of God. The bible doesn't talk about the purity of Noah's wife, his sons and his daughter in-laws. Again that's adding things to the scriptures.

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord . These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
Genesis 6:8‭-‬9 ESV

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 7:1 ESV

We all have to be cautious and mindful as we run this race. Enjoy the rest of your day sir.

Ihedinobi3:

A man once asked the Lord Jesus to prevail upon his brother to share the inheritance with him. Your argument here would make the Lord Jesus's response out to have been insensitive and uncaring about any injustice - .

If the Bible does not attend to race, neither will I. Nothing about Genesis 9 is concerned with race, so neither am I here

I do not use the Bible to solve social problems

Now, since you appeal to the text (and I rejoice in such an appeal), clearly Genesis 6:4 does not say "and also after the Flood." As you yourself quoted, it only says, "and also afterwards." It is then a matter of interpretation what the frame of reference is. In this case, it is your interpretation that Moses meant after the Flood. The text says nothing of the sort. How then can you be sure that you are right? You claim to derive your certainty from when Genesis was written, but I don't see why the text doesn't say that the Nephilim were in the earth "to this day," for example, as it says in many other cases in the Bible. After all, Moses was writing Genesis about the same time that the spies were checking out Canaan

Furthermore, why then did the Lord flood the world? If it was merely for human wickedness, what was the point since human beings have never not been wicked. In fact, just a century after the Flood, the whole world was building the Tower of Babel in their bid to stamp out faith from the human race. Ham's behavior right after the Flood is proof that he was not very like his own father in righteousness, yet he was saved from the Flood. What then was the point of flooding the Earth if it was not to destroy the Nephilim

As for Numbers 13:33, the Bible is a faithful record of history, but why must it be held responsible for what the people it records as saying anything actually say? I mean, why must we treat something as true when somebody is recorded as saying it in the Bible? When Satan claimed to the Lord Jesus that if He threw Himself off of the Pinnacle of the Temple that angels would catch Him, should we also assume it to be true? The spies were cowards and they did not want to go to war. They saw large people in Canaan that terrified them. All this is true. But why should we assume that they were telling the truth that the people that they saw were Nephilim when we have the story of the Flood to tell us that there were no more Nephilim after the Flood

The covenant that the Lord made with Noah and his descendants also made it abundantly clear that anything that challenged human free will and attempted to cut short the full time of human testing would be dealt with most decisively by Him

In light of all this, it is more than clear that the spies were lying. There were no Nephilim in Canaan because there couldn't have been Nephilim in Canaan

As for Joshua's, Caleb's, and Moses's silence on the matter, that is a lot like assuming that because I don't respond to every lie on this board, I must agree with them.

No, the author of Numbers did not link the Anakim to Nephilim at all. Again, that is your own interpretation, and although it may be true as easily as it may be false, it is obvious too that this is merely what the spies actually said

Ihedinobi3:
I have a few things to say both about the link and about Bible interpretation in general:

1. About the link, it is of very little value. It does excellently in showing that what happened did not involve sex of any kind, as some crazy people like to claim. Ham only saw his father näked and thought it was something funny to talk about.

Ihedinobi3:
That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself

Ihedinobi3:
although we must be aware that there is such a thing as "cursing by association" as much as there is "blessing by association," the first of which is exemplified by God's cursing of the earth in association with Adam's disobedience and the other of which is exemplified by His blessing of the world in association with Abraham's obedience.

Ihedinobi3:
Another example is God's killing of David's first son by Bathsheba for David's double sin of adultery and murder. We may consider such things as unjust of God, but we are not qualified to judge God. However, it is clear that it is still judgment upon the sinner when God strikes something that is dear or necessary to them - the earth, in the case of Adam, and David's child, in David's case. So, the curse that came upon Canaan was still punishment for Ham. Additionally, although Canaan was an infant at the time, the Lord knew that the sort of thing that his father Ham did would come to characterize him and his own descendants, which is why eventually God destroyed all Canaanites. Compare God's rejection of Esau ("Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" ) in this matter.

Ihedinobi3:
So, the curse that came upon Canaan was still punishment for Ham. Additionally, although Canaan was an infant at the time, the Lord knew that the sort of thing that his father Ham did would come to characterize him and his own descendants, which is why eventually God destroyed all Canaanites. Compare God's rejection of Esau ("Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" ) in this matter.

Ihedinobi3:
The rest of the article focuses on issues of race. That is really of no value whatsoever. It is true that some misguided people take the curse on Ham's son to mean that God cursed all Africans. That is obviously false, since the curse was specifically meant for Canaan and his descendants. That is another thing that the article got right, but as for who was black and who wasn't, that was a waste of print in the article.

Still, the article got the important things right. It only subsumed those important things in a rather useless context.

Ihedinobi3:
2. About general interpretation, I have suggested before to you that the right thing to do is to stick with what the Bible actually says. It is always a bad idea to extrapolate, especially when you can't pin your extrapolations to anything actually written in the Bible. So, for example, you don't pretend, as someone with no respect for the Bible would, and has right here, that when the Bible says that Noah discovered what his youngest son had done to him, that it must mean Canaan. Obviously, Canaan was not even Noah's son, much less, his youngest. Additionally, the word was "youngest," not "younger." Even more importantly, it couldn't have referred to an infant, especially when the Bible had been talking about the adult Ham up to that point. That is all treating the Bible very disrespectfully. The Bible says what it says and means what it means. You can take it or leave it, you may not change it to suit your own whims, however noble they may seem to you.

Ihedinobi3:
3. Not everyone who handles the Bible and talks about it has any right whatsoever to teach it. Many people who aren't even believers pretend to the authority to interpret the Bible. Sometimes, they are even ridiculously vehement about their supposed authority. It would be incredibly foolish to pay such people any mind. Then there are those who may be believers but who are woefully immature because they have never taken the time to learn the Bible from a gifted and prepared Bible teacher, yet such people presume to teach the Bible to others. Timothy was warned by Paul not to give teaching authority to such people (1 Timothy 3:6). Such people often carry a wild mixture of truths and falsehoods that leave their listeners blowing in the wind with no firm foundation under their feet.

I have listened to both kinds of people in my past, and I have been the latter too. I assure you that it is an incredibly bad idea to listen to such teachers. It endangers your salvation, if you are saved at all. If you are not, it almost certainly makes your ever being saved impossible.

Ihedinobi3:
4. All I can do is offer these helps, warnings, and corrections, if you are even open to them. I cannot protect you from your own choices. It is entirely up to you what you choose to believe and do with yourself. As I said, I will keep praying for you, and I will also continue to take every opportunity available to me to help you come into the Truth, if you are at all open to my help. But that's all I can do.

Grace be with you.

jamesid29:
These are very wrong connections to make

Ihedinobi3:
I'm quite sure that you are free to reject any interpretation as you please. On the other hand, I'm quite confident that the connections are correct.

jamesid29:
You also talked about how Noah's family was saved because of Noah's righteousness and purity of their origins but that is also adding things to the scriptures.
The bible only says was righteousness and blameless man and he found grace in the eyes of God. The bible doesn't talk about the purity of Noah's wife, his sons and his daughter in-laws. Again that's adding things to the scriptures.

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord . These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
Genesis 6:8‭-‬9 ESV

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 7:1 ESV

We all have to be cautious and mindful as we run this race. Enjoy the rest of your day sir.

Ihedinobi3:
I obviously did not claim that Noah's wife, sons, and sons' wives were necessarily of the same moral character as himself. I only said that they too were purely human just as he was. It is true that the Bible testifies to both Noah's righteousness and to his full humanity, and that it says nothing about his family, but it is not "adding things to the Scriptures," because if his family had been Nephilim, they would not have gone into the Ark with him - they were all adults, after all, and one can see that they could have acted just as Lot's family later did. Also, because Noah was righteous, he would not have married a Nephiyl, assuming there were any female Nephilim. Could his sons' wives have been Nephilim? Indeed, but if they were, they too would not have got in the Ark with them. Why would they not have? Because the Nephilim were inveterate rebels against God (Genesis 6:5), so they would never have accepted His Mercy in the form of that Ark.

You are exactly right that we have to be cautious and mindful as we run this race. I've been trying to be like that my whole life. I'm not without failure in this and other regard, but I certainly have put in the effort. I don't envy other people their own experiences and journeys, and I don't pretend to be anyone's judge. But I am never going to be shy either of standing for the Bible or of protecting any believer who will accept my protection, not even if my doing so makes me look arrogant to other people.

Ihedinobi3:

I have a few things to say both about the link and about Bible interpretation in general:

1. About the link, it is of very little value. It does excellently in showing that what happened did not involve sex of any kind, as some crazy people like to claim. Ham only saw his father naked and thought it was something funny to talk about. That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself, although we must be aware that there is such a thing as "cursing by association" as much as there is "blessing by association," the first of which is exemplified by God's cursing of the earth in association with Adam's disobedience and the other of which is exemplified by His blessing of the world in association with Abraham's obedience. Another example is God's killing of David's first son by Bathsheba for David's double sin of adultery and murder. We may consider such things as unjust of God, but we are not qualified to judge God. However, it is clear that it is still judgment upon the sinner when God strikes something that is dear or necessary to them - the earth, in the case of Adam, and David's child, in David's case. So, the curse that came upon Canaan was still punishment for Ham. Additionally, although Canaan was an infant at the time, the Lord knew that the sort of thing that his father Ham did would come to characterize him and his own descendants, which is why eventually God destroyed all Canaanites. Compare God's rejection of Esau ("Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" ) in this matter.

The rest of the article focuses on issues of race. That is really of no value whatsoever. It is true that some misguided people take the curse on Ham's son to mean that God cursed all Africans. That is obviously false, since the curse was specifically meant for Canaan and his descendants. That is another thing that the article got right, but as for who was black and who wasn't, that was a waste of print in the article.

Still, the article got the important things right. It only subsumed those important things in a rather useless context.

2. About general interpretation, I have suggested before to you that the right thing to do is to stick with what the Bible actually says. It is always a bad idea to extrapolate, especially when you can't pin your extrapolations to anything actually written in the Bible. So, for example, you don't pretend, as someone with no respect for the Bible would, and has right here, that when the Bible says that Noah discovered what his youngest son had done to him, that it must mean Canaan. Obviously, Canaan was not even Noah's son, much less, his youngest. Additionally, the word was "youngest," not "younger." Even more importantly, it couldn't have referred to an infant, especially when the Bible had been talking about the adult Ham up to that point. That is all treating the Bible very disrespectfully. The Bible says what it says and means what it means. You can take it or leave it, you may not change it to suit your own whims, however noble they may seem to you.

3. Not everyone who handles the Bible and talks about it has any right whatsoever to teach it. Many people who aren't even believers pretend to the authority to interpret the Bible. Sometimes, they are even ridiculously vehement about their supposed authority. It would be incredibly foolish to pay such people any mind. Then there are those who may be believers but who are woefully immature because they have never taken the time to learn the Bible from a gifted and prepared Bible teacher, yet such people presume to teach the Bible to others. Timothy was warned by Paul not to give teaching authority to such people (1 Timothy 3:6). Such people often carry a wild mixture of truths and falsehoods that leave their listeners blowing in the wind with no firm foundation under their feet.

I have listened to both kinds of people in my past, and I have been the latter too. I assure you that it is an incredibly bad idea to listen to such teachers. It endangers your salvation, if you are saved at all. If you are not, it almost certainly makes your ever being saved impossible.

4. All I can do is offer these helps, warnings, and corrections, if you are even open to them. I cannot protect you from your own choices. It is entirely up to you what you choose to believe and do with yourself. As I said, I will keep praying for you, and I will also continue to take every opportunity available to me to help you come into the Truth, if you are at all open to my help. But that's all I can do.

Grace be with you.

jamesid29:

I think you should reread Luke 12:13-15 again and you would see what I pointed out and what Jesus was teaching are two different things.


I think You are missing the point I was making.
Over the ages, people have used the bible as a weapon to dehumanize their fellow human being and here comes an article that tries to set some of the records straight, but just because it's not an issue you can relate with, you conclude its of no value and a waste of ink. Like I said in my previous post, if you can't empathize with the people going through racial subjugation, it would have been better to have not said anything, rather than make light of other peoples struggles.


Yes, the bible is not some ethics manual or a rule book on societal problems but if you hold the position that the bible and the God of the bible are not concerned about the widows and the orphans, the poor and the marginalized, the segregated and the ones the society has left behind, then I'm not sure we are reading the same bible.

.

First off sir, I do not claim to have certainty over the interpretation of the text, as the text gives very little details and has been the subject of quite a lot of debates over the centuries. My point was, we should be cautious when taking the moral high ground as we can be guilty of the same things we point at. I was showing you how u also moved away from what the bible actually says to adding things that are purely opinions.
Secondly your statement of Moses writing Genesis at the same time the spies were checking out Canaan is not factual as no one knows when Moses penned down the Genesis account. All we have are opinions and speculations.
Finally,may I know your interpretation of when the "and also afterwards" part of the text could be referring to?

?

Again what does the text actually say?

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord . These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 6:5‭-‬9‭, ‬11‭, ‬13 ESV
There is no doubt the nephilim were part of the problem but what the text focuses on is, the wickedness of man and nowhere does it say it was mainly because of the nephilim the Lord flooded the earth. The text says it was because of the wickedness of man. Of course you are free to say the level of wickedness was enormous because of the nephilim but that's just opinions as the text doesn't say that.


Why should we also assume they were lying? Going that route is actually adding something to the text that cannot be backed up by scripture. Secondly where in the Bible does it say there were no more nephilim after the flood?

Thirdly in the case of our Lord Jesus, the bible clearly states that the devil came to tempt him. The definition of a temptation is:the wish to do or have something that you know you should not do or have. In this case the bible does give us context, so u can't compare Numbers 13:33 to the temptation of Jesus.


There's nothing in the Lord's convenant with Noah that has to do with humanities free will and the nephilim. I hope you do not think that capital punishment was instituted because of the nephilim as that would be a very huge stretching of the text.


Again this is making alot of assumptions and extrapolating your own opinions into the text.


Again I brought this up as a means of asking you how u were infering from the text that the spies were lying. If you can't infer it from Moses ,Caleb or Joshua that were in the story, then from which later prophet or new testament author can you say pointed back to this passage to show that the spies were
indeed lying about seeing the nephilim. If all you can say is the spies must be lying because there's no way the nephilim strain survived ,but can't back it up scripturally, then that's basically making statements the text is not making and adding your own opinions to the text.
There's nothing wrong with having opinions and we can definitely engage others with our opinions to see if they holdup to scrutiny, but in this case, you're actually swimming against what the text actually says or can even be inferred just to hold on to idea you've already preconceived to be true.

.
I believe the bible begs to differ, except you have a bible translation that renders the text differently. I also believe you have enough bible knowledge under your belt to recognize when there's a break in the story for the insertion of the authors note, so let's not even go that route.
And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."
Numbers 13:33 ESV

Let's stop here as my aim is not to try pick apart everything wrote but I do hope you get the gist of what I was trying to convey. We are all learning and no matter how much you know, there's still a lot more out there to learn and unlearn.
As for the race part: I believe these 2 quotes embody what I was trying to convey
its more important to live the scriptures than have outstanding knowledge of the scriptures.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
1 Corinthians 13:1‭-‬8 ESV

As your last statement implied, we are all human and not without our own faults so hopefully when you also see me not to be living the scriptures, i hope u let me know.

Have a blessed Wednesday.

jamesid29:

...

missjo:

Of course i am open to your corrections, help, and warnings. I've always appreciated them.

Thank you

MuttleyLaff:
I dont see or read in the text that Ham thought it was something funny to talk about seeing his dad näked? Instead I read that Ham didnt cover up his dad, but he went to tell his brothers, period. There was nothing about funniness, about Ham finding it amusing or him laughing about it to his brothers anything said in that text. Again, it was just that he should have immediately covered his old man up before go looking for the "calvary" to tell them what's up

"The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness."
- Ezekiel 18:20

"That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself" is not in line with Ezekiel 18:20 above

It was the guilty person, Canaan, who was rightfully got pronouced a curse upon. It was Canaan who directly got cursed by Noah because Noah knew what Canaan, and not Ham, had done to him. What exactly did Canaan do to his grandfather? We'll leave that Q&A hanging in the air, lol, hmm. Suffice to say, Canaan was showing the tendencies of his future descendants, the Canaanites, lol. The Canaanites certainly inherited their predisposition from Canaan


The scripture, in Genesis 3:17, said, God told Adam that the ground will be under a curse because of what he, Adam did. What exactly did Adam do, warranting that the ground be under a curse? We'll leave that Q&A hanging in the air too, lol, hmm.

Just like to Adam's disobedience opened the door for ills to plague our world, Abraham's Genesis 22:18 et al obedience opened another door for the same ills to be countered and so we have the process and prophetic of Genesis 3:15, beginning to gradually develop

⁴Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and run it through me, or these uncircumcised men will come and run me through and torture me!”
But his armor-bearer was terrified and refused to do it. So Saul took his own sword and fell on it.
⁵When his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his own sword and died with him.
⁶So Saul, his three sons, his armor-bearer, and all his men died together that same day.
1 Samuel 31:4-6

¹³So Saul died for his unfaithfulness to the LORD, because he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,
¹⁴and he failed to inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.
- 1 Chronicles 10:13-14

Why do you say God killed David's first son Ihedinobi3 when it is obvious the kid died because he was sick? Compare 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 concerning King Saul's death

I am seeing a regular pattern forming in your submissions. I see you habitually taking the freedom to depart from logical deductive reasoning(s) and the facts of a matter to giving in to scarcely credible and fanciful over-imaginative guesswork. Take for example Ihedinobi3, I dont see nor read the text saying Canaan was an infant at time of that recorded Noah being näked incident

I am totally and unequivocally in agreement with you on this

I dont know about extrapolations, but I do know about Proverbs 25:2 stating that: "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out" and so implies that deductive reasoning used to reach logical true conclusions are permitted

Now, fyi Ihedinobi3, the word used in Genesis 9:24 is "his son" and then to qualify it more, further used "younger" after it. Noah, claimed Canaan as his son, the same and similar way, Jacob claimed Joseph's two sons to be his

I have always maintained that if a crooked stick is put on the ground before you, you need not explain how crooked it is. Go search and come back to lay a straight one down, by the side of it, and the work is well done. Do just that and error will stand abashed from seeing how crooked and twisting your "truth" lies

Every stick has two ends. Unfortunately some of us, as opposed the right end, grab the wrong end of the stick and so end up not understanding a situation(s) correctly

I am totally and unequivocally in agreement with you on this, that what Ihedinobi3 has, are absolutely wrong connections to make, and I've already above being countering a few of them as I can time possibly do.

I am sure you are quite confident that the connections are correct. It is well.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation, as in, was righteous before God in that generation because it was only him, Noah, who did not take the daughters of men as wife. Fyi, a generation is a span of 40 years

Everyone including the Nephilims were given the opportunity to save themselves from the about to happen destruction. God allowed Noah to warn everyone by preaching for 120 years. I would say, God is fair here. None of Noah's sons and their wives were forced to enter the ark, they each were sensible enough to do, if the Nephilim were too, they would have been allowed also into the ark. Its as simple as that

Ihedinobi3:
Hello MuttleyLaff.

When I said, "So, for example, you don't pretend, as someone with no respect for the Bible would, and has right here, that when the Bible says that Noah discovered what his youngest son had done to him, that it must mean Canaan," it was you that I meant.

So, you and I will not be discussing anything here or anywhere else, unless and until I see that you will actually quit presuming to put words in God's Mouth. We do have history, you remember. I see no reason to believe that anything important has changed since the last time we discussed the Bible.

Ihedinobi3:

nijabazaar:


hmmmm.....
but if it is such an important book with lots of info , i mean terribly good info about God....why the relegation?
Are they trying to hide something from the common man? or is it, that the knowledge or context therein is too difficult for people to understand? I mean, if the Book of daniel (which i think is perplexing) and the Book of Revelation ( which is just downright Horror) is included why not Book of Enouch?

nijabazaar:
hmmmm.....
but if it is such an important book with lots of info , i mean terribly good info about God....why the relegation?
Are they trying to hide something from the common man? or is it, that the knowledge or context therein is too difficult for people to understand? I mean, if the Book of daniel (which i think is perplexing) and the Book of Revelation ( which is just downright Horror) is included why not Book of Enouch?

Suspect33:
lol revelation is horror? , it's hope for the bride of Christ

jamesid29:
It is well.

OkCornel:
Enoch 25 v 1-5;

1. And he said to me: 'Enoch, why do you ask me about the fragrance of the tree, and why do you wish to learn the truth?'
2. Then I answered him saying 'I wish to know everything but especially about this tree'
3. And he answered saying: 'This high mountain which you have seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King will sit, when He shall come to visit the earth with goodness.
4. And for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch it until the great judgment, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring everything to its completion forever.
5. It shall be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be food for the Elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King.


Revelation 22 v 1-3;
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:




Remind me again.... one book was definitely written before the other...


Cc: gobuchinny, nijabazaar, budaatum

gobuchinny:
I'm telling you brother. I have read that book twice and it still amazes me how the book encompasses genesis to revelation. I get a godly fear whenever I read it. Because it shows how great God is. You begin to wonder if it was written after the death of Christ but then you remember its Enoch

gobuchinny:
The 7th from Adam .

gobuchinny:
It speaks of everything. From the forming of the nation of Israel, the destruction of the temple, the birth of Christ, His death and glory, the 2nd coming and then judgement of The first stars that fell(satan)and the second stars that fell and corrupted the earth and judgement of sinners. We are at the end times. The very end of times. We must be vigilant for the hour is come for the Son of man to be glorified. Amen

jamesid29:


It's always a good idea to be cautious when taking the moral high ground because we might be guilty of the same things we point at.

budaatum:

I chuckle when he fails to notice his additions of his own understanding to scripture in the same post in which he accuses me of adding to scripture.

nijabazaar:
I lovveee this kinda Debate!!!

We really have intelligent Beings on this forum.