The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
I too received this booklet from my local JW. I was pleased to find this response chapter by chapter as I have agreed to discuss it with her (in a friendly way!) and wanted an example of a Christian response. I'll bookmark your blog so I can read this while reading the booklet.
Thanks for taking the time to do this; it's a very useful resource.
It's from a cult. Don't read the booklet - it's filled with all kinds of spurrious teachings that takes the Bible out of context. I'm all for respecting individuals that do good services and good works, but not when it works against the Holy Spirit.
I'd be very interested to see if it's possible to find out whether this was also a reaction to the way that America tend to do things with regards to holidays and festivals, Halloween being a prime example.
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
The traditional view on the Nephilim is that they were the descendants of the union between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" referred to later in Genesis 6:4. The text doesn't actually say that they were the descendants, but it is a view that makes sense. The only other mention of Nephilim in the Bible is in Numbers 13:33. The giants in the land of Canaan that terrorised the soon-to-invade Israelites were descended from these Nephilim.
If that is the case, we can consider the two most frequently held views on "sons of God" and "daughters of men". Most modern commentators take the view that the sons of God were angels appearing in human form. The Watchtower takes that view as well, but adds the additional detail that the angels concerned were fallen, were trying to mislead the human race, and that the flood was God forcing the angels to abandon the bodies they had assumed and return to a spirit-state so that they do less damage. Those additional details are pure speculation.
However, if we take the view that the sons of God were angelic beings, the Nephilim then become hybrid beings - half angel, half human. That starts to create problems when you consider that they were still around in Numbers 13. This is quite a while later. We've moved from what is often termed "pre-history" or "primeval history" that is found in Genesis 1-11 to the history of the people of Israel. That doesn't mean that Genesis 1-11 is any less historical. It just means that we are past the age of events that set the course for the whole human race - global flood, people living for 800+ years, the arrival of linguistic variation, and so on. Once you get to Genesis 12, the human race has settled down. If we still have these hybrid beings in place by Numbers 13, that would suggest they could still exist today. That has all kinds of implications for the uniqueness of the human race as image-bearing, physical creatures. There is also the problem that Jesus said the angels don't marry and are not given in marriage.
Instead, take the view that I hold, that the sons of God are Seth's descendants, and the daughters of men are Cain's. I may be wrong to hold this view. I am in a minority amongst modern commentators. However, it is my view that it fits the flow of Genesis much better.
1. Genesis is concerned with the development of two lines of "seed" or offspring. Cain's descendancy is charted in chapter 4, Seth's in chapter 5. The reason for this interest is the promise that the woman's seed will crush the serpent's seed. The marks of the serpent seem to live on in Cain's line, and the offer of hope has just been introduced in Seth's with the arrival of Noah, the one who might bring rest (Genesis 5:29).
2. Genesis is concerned with human sin, and with God holding us responsible for that. To introduce the idea that angels did something unacceptable in Genesis 6:4, having spoken of the depths of depravity of the human race in 6:2-3 and 6:5-7 would make 6:4 stand alone as saying something unrelated and totally different. If 6:4 is about the depravity of the human race, it fits much better.
3. The biggest objection raised to this view is that Genesis 6:1 speaks of men spreading and having daughters, and therefore 6:4 naturally refers to the same daughters of men. The burden of proof is on those who would argue that the daughters of men in 6:4 has a narrowed reference to the descendants of Cain only. However we could reply that Genesis 6:1 is a new beginning, as the genealogy of chapter 5 breaks off. "Daughters of men" refers to the same group through 6:1-4, but this is consistently Cain's line.
That makes the Nephilim the offspring of the intermingled lines. This has two effects on the plot of Genesis.
1. It warns us that the rest (Noah) that we hope for at the end of chapter 5 may not come. The line of Seth is not wholeheartedly devoted to God. There is sin even in the godly line, and rest does not come too easily. Put on guard, we read the flood narrative with some trepidation, and this is born out when we get to the end of chapter 9.
2. The very group that caused Israel so much heartache during the conquest of Canaan were the result of her ancestor's failure (in the line of Seth) to remain pure. Israel's downfall in the desert, and living in the land, would in part be intermarriage. This has a long pedigree, going right back this far.
At the end of the day, though, we have to say that we can't be sure who the Nephilim were and why they are in Genesis. Nothing we might say would seriously change the course of the message of the book of Genesis.
The traditional view on the Nephilim is that they were the descendants of the union between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" referred to later in Genesis 6:4. The text doesn't actually say that they were the descendants, but it is a view that makes sense. The only other mention of Nephilim in the Bible is in Numbers 13:33. The giants in the land of Canaan that terrorised the soon-to-invade Israelites were descended from these Nephilim.
If that is the case, we can consider the two most frequently held views on "sons of God" and "daughters of men". Most modern commentators take the view that the sons of God were angels appearing in human form. The Watchtower takes that view as well, but adds the additional detail that the angels concerned were fallen, were trying to mislead the human race, and that the flood was God forcing the angels to abandon the bodies they had assumed and return to a spirit-state so that they do less damage. Those additional details are pure speculation.
However, if we take the view that the sons of God were angelic beings, the Nephilim then become hybrid beings - half angel, half human. That starts to create problems when you consider that they were still around in Numbers 13. This is quite a while later. We've moved from what is often termed "pre-history" or "primeval history" that is found in Genesis 1-11 to the history of the people of Israel. That doesn't mean that Genesis 1-11 is any less historical. It just means that we are past the age of events that set the course for the whole human race - global flood, people living for 800+ years, the arrival of linguistic variation, and so on. Once you get to Genesis 12, the human race has settled down. If we still have these hybrid beings in place by Numbers 13, that would suggest they could still exist today. That has all kinds of implications for the uniqueness of the human race as image-bearing, physical creatures. There is also the problem that Jesus said the angels don't marry and are not given in marriage.
Instead, take the view that I hold, that the sons of God are Seth's descendants, and the daughters of men are Cain's. I may be wrong to hold this view. I am in a minority amongst modern commentators. However, it is my view that it fits the flow of Genesis much better.
1. Genesis is concerned with the development of two lines of "seed" or offspring. Cain's descendancy is charted in chapter 4, Seth's in chapter 5. The reason for this interest is the promise that the woman's seed will crush the serpent's seed. The marks of the serpent seem to live on in Cain's line, and the offer of hope has just been introduced in Seth's with the arrival of Noah, the one who might bring rest (Genesis 5:29).
2. Genesis is concerned with human sin, and with God holding us responsible for that. To introduce the idea that angels did something unacceptable in Genesis 6:4, having spoken of the depths of depravity of the human race in 6:2-3 and 6:5-7 would make 6:4 stand alone as saying something unrelated and totally different. If 6:4 is about the depravity of the human race, it fits much better.
3. The biggest objection raised to this view is that Genesis 6:1 speaks of men spreading and having daughters, and therefore 6:4 naturally refers to the same daughters of men. The burden of proof is on those who would argue that the daughters of men in 6:4 has a narrowed reference to the descendants of Cain only. However we could reply that Genesis 6:1 is a new beginning, as the genealogy of chapter 5 breaks off. "Daughters of men" refers to the same group through 6:1-4, but this is consistently Cain's line.
That makes the Nephilim the offspring of the intermingled lines. This has two effects on the plot of Genesis.
1. It warns us that the rest (Noah) that we hope for at the end of chapter 5 may not come. The line of Seth is not wholeheartedly devoted to God. There is sin even in the godly line, and rest does not come too easily. Put on guard, we read the flood narrative with some trepidation, and this is born out when we get to the end of chapter 9.
2. The very group that caused Israel so much heartache during the conquest of Canaan were the result of her ancestor's failure (in the line of Seth) to remain pure. Israel's downfall in the desert, and living in the land, would in part be intermarriage. This has a long pedigree, going right back this far.
At the end of the day, though, we have to say that we can't be sure who the Nephilim were and why they are in Genesis. Nothing we might say would seriously change the course of the message of the book of Genesis.
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
The JW's remark was on men who make mistakes, that is all of us. Your comment moved on to ask about women who are mistreated by their husbands, which is a more particular concern, and then moved on further still to ask about abused women, which is a tighter subgroup again. Re-reading that chapter of WDTBRT, it doesn't seem to me that they are addressing the question of abuse. So, no, I wasn't saying that it is biblical to allow the abuse of women.
As I said earlier on, I was not assenting with every statement in that chapter, but rather saying this is a chapter that I don't have major issues with. Your comment prompted me to re-read it, and the silence on the question of abuse is one matter that does concern me. (There is anecdotal evidence out there (for what it's worth) that suggests we would be right to be concerned about silence at this point.) Talking about separation and divorce, page 139 reads: "Only fornication by one of the marriage mates provides Scriptural grounds for divorce." Without wanting to get into an extended discussion on divorce, Exodus 21:10-11 leads me to believe that abuse is also legitimate grounds.
So this chapter contains comparatively little to disagree with. But that's not to say that everything in the chapter is biblical, and you've put your finger on one such issue
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
Yet you suggest it is a fine summary of much biblical material.........
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
What I was doing was reading the booklet that the JW folk gave to me to read, and seeking to identify those points where the teaching within it departs substantially from Scripture. Within that context, the question to ask is: "Are the JW's seriously suggesting that a wife should view...?" I don't believe that they are. If they were, then that would be a substantial departure from Scripture.
One thing I have learnt, as I've read their material is that the book doesn't tell you everything that they think. This is what they have decided to present to people as their primary doorstep text. Push behind some of the stuff within it and you start to find that there is less common ground than this particular tract might suggest. At this point, I have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know enough about the JWs to be able to say what they would say in response to your question. Next time you're talking to one (or two), why not ask them, and post the answer you get on here?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
Are you seriously suggesting that a wife should view being mistreated by her husband as a mistake that she should tactfully suggest he should rectify? How many abused women have you ministered to?
I too received this booklet from my local JW. I was pleased to find this response chapter by chapter as I have agreed to discuss it with her (in a friendly way!) and wanted an example of a Christian response. I'll bookmark your blog so I can read this while reading the booklet.
Thanks for taking the time to do this; it's a very useful resource.
Blessings,
Lucy
It's from a cult. Don't read the booklet - it's filled with all kinds of spurrious teachings that takes the Bible out of context. I'm all for respecting individuals that do good services and good works, but not when it works against the Holy Spirit.
I'd be very interested to see if it's possible to find out whether this was also a reaction to the way that America tend to do things with regards to holidays and festivals, Halloween being a prime example.
Not surprised that they don't mention the Spirit, given that they believe that it is God's power given to us, not one of the Trinity.
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Just a thought, but wouldn't the Nephilim be wiped out by the flood, regardless of whether they were angel-human hybrids or just a collective noun for offspring of Cain and Seth's descendants? So either way we have problems with it's use in Numbers.
That said, I suppose if it were to be referring to those of the "chosen" line who had become impure through marriage/breeding or actions (after all, Noah and his offspring were considered good by God, hence being saved) then it explains the recurrence of the term. However, that still wouldn't explain why the term appears to disappear after that.
Add it to the list of things to ask God when we see Him face to face I guess!
Hi Phil - welcome to the blog!
The answer is - probably, yes.
The traditional view on the Nephilim is that they were the descendants of the union between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" referred to later in Genesis 6:4. The text doesn't actually say that they were the descendants, but it is a view that makes sense. The only other mention of Nephilim in the Bible is in Numbers 13:33. The giants in the land of Canaan that terrorised the soon-to-invade Israelites were descended from these Nephilim.
If that is the case, we can consider the two most frequently held views on "sons of God" and "daughters of men". Most modern commentators take the view that the sons of God were angels appearing in human form. The Watchtower takes that view as well, but adds the additional detail that the angels concerned were fallen, were trying to mislead the human race, and that the flood was God forcing the angels to abandon the bodies they had assumed and return to a spirit-state so that they do less damage. Those additional details are pure speculation.
However, if we take the view that the sons of God were angelic beings, the Nephilim then become hybrid beings - half angel, half human. That starts to create problems when you consider that they were still around in Numbers 13. This is quite a while later. We've moved from what is often termed "pre-history" or "primeval history" that is found in Genesis 1-11 to the history of the people of Israel. That doesn't mean that Genesis 1-11 is any less historical. It just means that we are past the age of events that set the course for the whole human race - global flood, people living for 800+ years, the arrival of linguistic variation, and so on. Once you get to Genesis 12, the human race has settled down. If we still have these hybrid beings in place by Numbers 13, that would suggest they could still exist today. That has all kinds of implications for the uniqueness of the human race as image-bearing, physical creatures. There is also the problem that Jesus said the angels don't marry and are not given in marriage.
Instead, take the view that I hold, that the sons of God are Seth's descendants, and the daughters of men are Cain's. I may be wrong to hold this view. I am in a minority amongst modern commentators. However, it is my view that it fits the flow of Genesis much better.
1. Genesis is concerned with the development of two lines of "seed" or offspring. Cain's descendancy is charted in chapter 4, Seth's in chapter 5. The reason for this interest is the promise that the woman's seed will crush the serpent's seed. The marks of the serpent seem to live on in Cain's line, and the offer of hope has just been introduced in Seth's with the arrival of Noah, the one who might bring rest (Genesis 5:29).
2. Genesis is concerned with human sin, and with God holding us responsible for that. To introduce the idea that angels did something unacceptable in Genesis 6:4, having spoken of the depths of depravity of the human race in 6:2-3 and 6:5-7 would make 6:4 stand alone as saying something unrelated and totally different. If 6:4 is about the depravity of the human race, it fits much better.
3. The biggest objection raised to this view is that Genesis 6:1 speaks of men spreading and having daughters, and therefore 6:4 naturally refers to the same daughters of men. The burden of proof is on those who would argue that the daughters of men in 6:4 has a narrowed reference to the descendants of Cain only. However we could reply that Genesis 6:1 is a new beginning, as the genealogy of chapter 5 breaks off. "Daughters of men" refers to the same group through 6:1-4, but this is consistently Cain's line.
That makes the Nephilim the offspring of the intermingled lines. This has two effects on the plot of Genesis.
1. It warns us that the rest (Noah) that we hope for at the end of chapter 5 may not come. The line of Seth is not wholeheartedly devoted to God. There is sin even in the godly line, and rest does not come too easily. Put on guard, we read the flood narrative with some trepidation, and this is born out when we get to the end of chapter 9.
2. The very group that caused Israel so much heartache during the conquest of Canaan were the result of her ancestor's failure (in the line of Seth) to remain pure. Israel's downfall in the desert, and living in the land, would in part be intermarriage. This has a long pedigree, going right back this far.
At the end of the day, though, we have to say that we can't be sure who the Nephilim were and why they are in Genesis. Nothing we might say would seriously change the course of the message of the book of Genesis.
Hi Phil - welcome to the blog!
The answer is - probably, yes.
The traditional view on the Nephilim is that they were the descendants of the union between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" referred to later in Genesis 6:4. The text doesn't actually say that they were the descendants, but it is a view that makes sense. The only other mention of Nephilim in the Bible is in Numbers 13:33. The giants in the land of Canaan that terrorised the soon-to-invade Israelites were descended from these Nephilim.
If that is the case, we can consider the two most frequently held views on "sons of God" and "daughters of men". Most modern commentators take the view that the sons of God were angels appearing in human form. The Watchtower takes that view as well, but adds the additional detail that the angels concerned were fallen, were trying to mislead the human race, and that the flood was God forcing the angels to abandon the bodies they had assumed and return to a spirit-state so that they do less damage. Those additional details are pure speculation.
However, if we take the view that the sons of God were angelic beings, the Nephilim then become hybrid beings - half angel, half human. That starts to create problems when you consider that they were still around in Numbers 13. This is quite a while later. We've moved from what is often termed "pre-history" or "primeval history" that is found in Genesis 1-11 to the history of the people of Israel. That doesn't mean that Genesis 1-11 is any less historical. It just means that we are past the age of events that set the course for the whole human race - global flood, people living for 800+ years, the arrival of linguistic variation, and so on. Once you get to Genesis 12, the human race has settled down. If we still have these hybrid beings in place by Numbers 13, that would suggest they could still exist today. That has all kinds of implications for the uniqueness of the human race as image-bearing, physical creatures. There is also the problem that Jesus said the angels don't marry and are not given in marriage.
Instead, take the view that I hold, that the sons of God are Seth's descendants, and the daughters of men are Cain's. I may be wrong to hold this view. I am in a minority amongst modern commentators. However, it is my view that it fits the flow of Genesis much better.
1. Genesis is concerned with the development of two lines of "seed" or offspring. Cain's descendancy is charted in chapter 4, Seth's in chapter 5. The reason for this interest is the promise that the woman's seed will crush the serpent's seed. The marks of the serpent seem to live on in Cain's line, and the offer of hope has just been introduced in Seth's with the arrival of Noah, the one who might bring rest (Genesis 5:29).
2. Genesis is concerned with human sin, and with God holding us responsible for that. To introduce the idea that angels did something unacceptable in Genesis 6:4, having spoken of the depths of depravity of the human race in 6:2-3 and 6:5-7 would make 6:4 stand alone as saying something unrelated and totally different. If 6:4 is about the depravity of the human race, it fits much better.
3. The biggest objection raised to this view is that Genesis 6:1 speaks of men spreading and having daughters, and therefore 6:4 naturally refers to the same daughters of men. The burden of proof is on those who would argue that the daughters of men in 6:4 has a narrowed reference to the descendants of Cain only. However we could reply that Genesis 6:1 is a new beginning, as the genealogy of chapter 5 breaks off. "Daughters of men" refers to the same group through 6:1-4, but this is consistently Cain's line.
That makes the Nephilim the offspring of the intermingled lines. This has two effects on the plot of Genesis.
1. It warns us that the rest (Noah) that we hope for at the end of chapter 5 may not come. The line of Seth is not wholeheartedly devoted to God. There is sin even in the godly line, and rest does not come too easily. Put on guard, we read the flood narrative with some trepidation, and this is born out when we get to the end of chapter 9.
2. The very group that caused Israel so much heartache during the conquest of Canaan were the result of her ancestor's failure (in the line of Seth) to remain pure. Israel's downfall in the desert, and living in the land, would in part be intermarriage. This has a long pedigree, going right back this far.
At the end of the day, though, we have to say that we can't be sure who the Nephilim were and why they are in Genesis. Nothing we might say would seriously change the course of the message of the book of Genesis.