 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > OV Mysticism or Objective Physical Word | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/13/2004 8:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Laika,
When I stated that I had a "weird" idea I wasn't speaking of the idea that I have concerning my belief that the gospel is the only way to life and truth. I would like to think that you understood this. I have a weird idea concerning the exegesis of Genesis 6:3 and its implications for an objective revelation. The gospel is not dependent on this idea, as John makes it extremely clear that the incarnation of the Word of God was objective and in the flesh.
Ignoring the context of my request you take the following statement instead, implying that I believe it to be weird, which I do not.quote:
Statement of Spen: The gospel is the source of truth and life.
Laika's statement regarding Spen's claim that the gospel is the source of life and truth. quote:
Wrong. Jesus is the source of truth and life. The gospel is only the story of Jesus.
Laika quotes Romans 1:25 in support of this, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."
Lastly, Laika accuses Spen of idolatry, a serious sin indeed.
quote:
You're worshipping the creature, the gospel, as your source of life, NOT the Creator.
I never stated that the gospel WAS Jesus, but that the source of truth and life. It is the source because it is about Jesus who IS the "way the truth and the life." If not for men and their writings that we now have in Scriptures, we would not know of this objective Jesus. The gospel is more than a story, it is a factual historical record. This record is not the "common revelation" spoken of in Romans. Without men speaking it in words, writing, and possibly even in icons/visual communications (I am going to be blasted for saying it), we would not know it. Thus the historical record of objective fact is definitely the only source of truth and life because that is the only way that you can learn of Him. This is why it was so important and why it was preached. God entrusted this message to men to communicate to the world. The Holy Spirit inspired men to communicate it to other men. While an angel visited Cornelius, it was a man, Peter, that brought the gospel and through believing it Gentiles found truth and life. There is no other source of life and truth but the gospel, the historic record that the Holy Spirit makes alive - finding Truth and Life in the objective Jesus.
The following passages demonstrate the importance of the Objective Historical Gospel.
Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”"
Romans 16:25, "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;"
1 Co 4:3, "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
Eph 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory."
Col 1:21, "And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister"
2 Thess 2:14, "It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Tim 1:8, "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher."
1 Peter 4:6, "For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God."
1 Peter 4:17, "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/14/2004 3:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Laika,
When I stated that I had a "weird" idea I wasn't speaking of the idea that I have concerning my belief that the gospel is the only way to life and truth. I would like to think that you understood this.
I did. I was just using your "technique". I'm trying to point something out to you.
The cartoon was an attempt as well. You just don't get it.
When you say the gospel has the power of life, I know what you mean. I understand the reasoning behind it, the gospel message if accepted and applied to lives has the power of life. So I applied your "technique" of ignoring the meaning behind it and ONLY taking it at it's shallow surface value and "found" a verse that refuted you. Your technique.
Thus when Boyd talks about a young child being told he's "bad" and later having a healing by having Jesus tell him he's "good" you ignore the entire context and meaning of what is going on. And you moronically turn this into a theological discussion of sinful nature, pulling out some unrelated verses about man's developed sinful nature.
Did you even "get" the joke of the cartoon? You NEVER call your children "good" because that is giving them righteousness outside of Jesus' salvic work? Were your kids "bad" before they believed in Jesus, did you constantly reprimand them "BAD BOY", "BAD GIRL" because outside of Christ they are "lost and deserving of wrath"?
Don't you see how moronic and harmful that can be?
You did this with the Nephilim, too.
There were Nephilim before the flood, there were Nephilim after the flood.
In fact, thousands of years after the flood, when Israel entered the land, there were Nephilim.
Yet, you link the limitation on length of life to 120 years, immediately post-flood, to the disappearance of the Nephilim, who are still around thousands of years later!
With absolutely NO PROOF!
Then you use this unproved link as the basis for an attack on "Seeing is Believing".
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/14/2004 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
Thank you for returning to the original thread in your edit. You state:
quote:
You did this with the Nephilim, too.
There were Nephilim before the flood, there were Nephilim after the flood.
In fact, thousands of years after the flood, when Israel entered the land, there were Nephilim.
Yet, you link the limitation on length of life to 120 years, immediately post-flood, to the disappearance of the Nephilim, who are still around thousands of years later!
With absolutely NO PROOF!
Then you use this unproved link as the basis for an attack on "Seeing is Believing".
While there are only hundreds of years between the flood and when Israel entered the land, this isn't the main point. In God at War Dr Boyd uses the concept of hybrid Nephilim to support his theories. I do as well. It is not unique to claim that Abraham interacted with God objectively. Dr. Boyd also believes this. I even believe that Dr. Boyd would agree with me that there are no Nephilim now. I offered a possible reason why. As far as I know he has offered no other competing reason, and may not even care. Answering "why the Nephilim no longer exist" is not necessary for the statements that I made above concerning proposing delusion as a comforting alternative of the objective work of Christ.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/14/2004 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Laika,
Thank you for returning to the original thread in your edit. You state:
quote:
You did this with the Nephilim, too.
There were Nephilim before the flood, there were Nephilim after the flood.
In fact, thousands of years after the flood, when Israel entered the land, there were Nephilim.
Yet, you link the limitation on length of life to 120 years, immediately post-flood, to the disappearance of the Nephilim, who are still around thousands of years later!
With absolutely NO PROOF!
Then you use this unproved link as the basis for an attack on "Seeing is Believing".
While there are only hundreds of years between the flood and when Israel entered the land,
Flood, circa 2390 B.C.
http://www.bibletruthforum.org/chronology/ottable1.htm
David kills Goliath, (was Goliath even the last of the Nephilim? probably not)
circa 1025 B.C.
http://www.carm.org/bible/chronologyot.htm
2390
- 1025
------
1365 years
One thousand, three hundred, sixty five years after the flood, David is killing a Nephilim. But I guess thousands are made up of hundreds.....
The point being, your ONLY proof that the limitation of 120 years, post-flood, being tied to the discontinuation of the Nephilim is the proximity of the two events!!!! And that proximity is, best case, thirteen HUNDRED years apart. 
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/14/2004 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I don't think that it is clear from the text that the sons of Anak are descendents of the Nephilim because they are "part of," or they are the actual Nephilim themselves. The argument has been that the Nephilim themselves (which means fallen) were the fallen angels and that the giants were "Nephilim-like" because they were descendents. In any case, with either option, they exist post-flood with descendents continuing to the reign of David.
That's the ENTIRE basis of your argument, though. That because the limitation of 120 years, post-flood, and the non-continuation of the giants were proximate in time, they are related. Which they weren't.
Either way, you have no agrument:
1. The discontinuation of the giants and the end of the flood were NOT proximate in time (at least 1300 years apart)
Even if they were:
2. The twin towers fell in September, 2001. I was alive in September, 2001. Despite the proximation in time of those two facts, that's NOT a proof that they are inter-related.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 4/27/2004 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake - interesting theory, never heard it before. There is another thread you might check out - you can find my position there. Some of the same issues came up there.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2219
Question: on what basis do you read the word "afterward" in Gen 6:4 as "after the flood"? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 4/27/2004 8:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen Lake – You opened this thread with an invitation to whack. I’d like to whack with you for a whack or two if you’re still open to it. I like playing Devil’s Advocate.  And all in good fun!
To start with, you might answer my question as to the basis of your statement that the word “afterward” in Gen 6:4 means “after the flood” as opposed to “after those days” - that is, after the days in which the sons of God came into the daughters of men.
You said, “Ultimately, in all of the "sons of God = line of Seth and daughters of men = daughters of Cain" interpretations, the main argument against the literal interpretation seems to be " why then and why not now?" I believe that the 120 years argument that I put forth answers this.”
I see this question as irrelevant. No matter what position one takes the question is answered. Your position answers it. One could also say that it doesn’t happen now because, as I said in the other thread, “God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment…” Without getting into whether Genesis 6 has anything to do with 2 Peter 2:4 (I’m accepting the connection for the sake of argument) notice the angels who sinned are “kept until the judgment.” That would mean that their copulating-with-human-women-days are over, wouldn’t you say?”
My position answers it: The bloodline – the genetic pool - of Cain has been completely eradicated from the earth. ANYBODY that is human post-flood descends from Seth through Noah.
The main questions you need to answer for me concern verse 4:
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and the bore children to THEM.”
1) I maintain the antecedent of “THEM” is “the sons of God.” You say the antecedent of “THEM” is “the Nephilim.”
2) I say this verse distinguishes between the Nephilim and “the sons of God.” These are two completely different groups. And so the “them” that the daughters bore children to, would be the same “them” that came into the daughters.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/28/2004 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
quote:
Jef,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jef says: I'm with you on your interpretation of Genesis. After all, God's Spirit caused Mary to conceive Christ. That settles the fact that it is possible for a spirit to produce physical offspring as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to be clear that what I am stating makes Jesus "unique" and not another Nephilim. If what I have written is true, then the Nephilim were not "miracles" but the hybrids resulting from the acts of tangible beings. Their mothers were not "virgins." This is dramatically different in that Mary didn't have sex with the Holy Spirit and Jesus wasn't a hybrid of half man/half God. Jesus was ALL MAN and ALL GOD. If spirits could sexually interact directly with women now then there would be additional Nephilim, which is what we don't find.
I am intrigued with the reference to the serpent's seed and Revelation. I believe that Judas was a man. Regarding the Beast, I am less certain. He is described as coming up out of the sea in Revelations 13:1, which was a bad place in the OT. The name "beast" is perhaps something different than a common man? There is a second beast that comes up from the earth in 13:11. I am not a scholar on Revelations and this goes over my head. It is weird, that's all I can say. If someone can help explain this, they are welcome. I know that there are scholars that link the locusts that come out of the pit in Revelations 9 with the fallen angels that Peter and Jude speak of. These could possibly be linked to the Nephilim if what I have stated is true.
What about this possibility? Maybe the "seed of Satan" is an actual hybrid of Satan and a human woman, but he will not be a giant because the life-span decrease has, indeed, precluded that kind of hybrid from occurring. What do you think?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/28/2004 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Spen,
quote:
Jef,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jef says: I'm with you on your interpretation of Genesis. After all, God's Spirit caused Mary to conceive Christ. That settles the fact that it is possible for a spirit to produce physical offspring as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to be clear that what I am stating makes Jesus "unique" and not another Nephilim. If what I have written is true, then the Nephilim were not "miracles" but the hybrids resulting from the acts of tangible beings. Their mothers were not "virgins." This is dramatically different in that Mary didn't have sex with the Holy Spirit and Jesus wasn't a hybrid of half man/half God. Jesus was ALL MAN and ALL GOD. If spirits could sexually interact directly with women now then there would be additional Nephilim, which is what we don't find.
I am intrigued with the reference to the serpent's seed and Revelation. I believe that Judas was a man. Regarding the Beast, I am less certain. He is described as coming up out of the sea in Revelations 13:1, which was a bad place in the OT. The name "beast" is perhaps something different than a common man? There is a second beast that comes up from the earth in 13:11. I am not a scholar on Revelations and this goes over my head. It is weird, that's all I can say. If someone can help explain this, they are welcome. I know that there are scholars that link the locusts that come out of the pit in Revelations 9 with the fallen angels that Peter and Jude speak of. These could possibly be linked to the Nephilim if what I have stated is true.
What about this possibility? Maybe the "seed of Satan" is an actual hybrid of Satan and a human woman, but he will not be a giant because the life-span decrease has, indeed, precluded that kind of hybrid from occurring. What do you think?
I think that this begins to be a little wierd and speculative. I can see a way that the beast and prophet of Revelations are some kind of super-men. One comes from the sea/abyss (Rev 17:8; 15:2) and one from the earth (Rev 13:11). I think of wierd things like cloning, rebuilding a DNA from the body of someone from this time that was mummified, etc. This is speculation and I would not teach it because it is too weird. What is certain is that the revealed objective Christ will return bodily and deal with the situation. The beast and prophet, whatever they are, will be thrown into the lake of fire as its first guests (Rev 19:20).
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 4/29/2004 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | spenlake - So are you going to answer my question?
What is the basis of your statement that the word “afterward” in Gen 6:4 means “after the flood”?
Can you not refute my position that "Nephilim" and "sons of God" are different catagories? And that the antecedent to "them" is "sons of God" and not "Nephilim"?
You said,
I put some legitimately weird ideas here for discussion. Why doesn't anybody "whack" them? I really am interested in Scriptural "whacks" and why you believe them to be feeble.
I'm trying, spen, but it should work both ways, don't you think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/29/2004 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
spenlake - So are you going to answer my question?
What is the basis of your statement that the word “afterward” in Gen 6:4 means “after the flood”?
Can you not refute my position that "Nephilim" and "sons of God" are different catagories? And that the antecedent to "them" is "sons of God" and not "Nephilim"?
You said,
I put some legitimately weird ideas here for discussion. Why doesn't anybody "whack" them? I really am interested in Scriptural "whacks" and why you believe them to be feeble.
I'm trying, spen, but it should work both ways, don't you think?
Hobbes,
I am not ducking the question. The link that I posted did a much better job of the major exegetical options and the reasons for them than I could. While I may think I might understand a little Hebrew, I am not eneough of a scholar to do justice to your question. I appreciate your question and acknowledge it as a "whack" and an honest one. The 6 pages on the link explains the issues you raise better than me, that is all. Perhaps the easiest issue to address is the "afterward" in which we see the Nephilim mentioned in Numbers 13, which is afterward. I think that this is literal and clear, apparently you disagree. I could say the same thing regarding the 120 years. How do you know that they meant the flood? If they did refer to the time of the flood, why do these Nephilim appear again later? Where are they now? Interesting, Dr. Boyd uses the "angels" interpretation to defend his book God at War. I have used this same interpretation to question his beliefs in mysticism.
To address the issue another way, perhaps I could ask you if you believe that the interactions that appear to be physical in Genesis actually were tangible and objective? Did Jacob physically wrestle with a spirit? Did God and 2 angels actually eat Abrham's food? Did men actually attempt to rape angels? Did these same angels physically grab Lot? How did Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch and Noah interact with God? Is this possible now? Why and where is your support?
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 4/29/2004 8:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake: The link that I posted did a much better job of the major exegetical options and the reasons for them than I could…The 6 pages on the link explains the issues you raise better than me, that is all.
Response: I appreciated the link, Spen, thanks for pointing me to it. It DOES support my position. And I learned a thing or two from it, and that’s a good thing!
Spenlake: While I may think I might understand a little Hebrew, I am not enough of a scholar to do justice to your question. I appreciate your question and acknowledge it as a "whack" and an honest one.
Response: Thanks – Hobbes gets 1 whack – Hobbes awaits the counter-whack! I don’t claim to be a Hebrew scholar either; I’m just going by the English. You can go by the English too, can’t you? The closest antecedent to “bore children to THEM” is “the sons of God”. It says, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…” What days? Answer: the days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. The Nephilim were also on the earth “AFTERWARD”. After when? Answer: After the sons of God came into the daughters of men. I’m getting my answers from the immediate context.
Spenlake: Perhaps the easiest issue to address is the "afterward" in which we see the Nephilim mentioned in Numbers 13, which is afterward. I think that this is literal and clear, apparently you disagree.
Response: The previous thread to which I directed you gave my reasons for saying that the “Nephilim” spoken of in Numbers 13 are NOT the same thing as the Nephilim of Gen 6, and that the statement in Numbers 13 is given in the context of an “evil report” and so it could be argued that calling the sons of Anak – who was a human being, not a fallen angel – it could be argued that calling the sons of Anak “Nephilim” is a FALSE statement. Furthermore, there is no clear reason to ASSUME “giants” as in; “Goliath” are Nephilim, or descendants of Nephilim. The Bible doesn’t call Goliath a Nephilim, but you have, and there is no textual support for it. I maintain the Nephilim didn’t have sex with ANYBODY. Nor were they the result of anybody having sex. AND - The Nephilim of Genesis 6 are nowhere spoken of as being on the earth post-flood.
Spenlake: I could say the same thing regarding the 120 years. How do you know that they meant the flood? If they did refer to the time of the flood, why do these Nephilim appear again later? Where are they now?
Response: Well Spen, to be honest, this is the FIRST time I have EVER heard that the 120 years referred to the time that was going to elapse from the sons of God marrying the daughters of men to the Flood. I always thought that it was saying that God was going to reduce the life span of men to 120 years. He later reduced it even further, to 70 years, or by reason of strength, 80 years. I don’t think this new (to me) interpretive possibility would affect my position, one way or the other. Secondly, to answer your question, the Nephilim of Gen 6 (“these Nephilim”) do NOT appear later. As far as where they are now, I haven’t a clue. They might be dead, perished in the great Flood.
Spenlake: Dr. Boyd uses the "angels" interpretation to defend his book God at War. I have used this same interpretation to question his beliefs in mysticism.
Response: I have not read “Seeing is Believing.” What I’ve seen about it doesn’t bother me. I think calling guided imagery or an active use of the imagination “mysticism” is a misuse of the term. There’s nothing mystical about it. Use of the redeemed imagination is no different than the use of redeemed intellect or logic. It’s all redeemed in Christ, and it’s all useful. This is a different subject than what I want to discuss here, which is Gen 6. I understand your problems (though I don’t share them) with “mysticism” or the use of guided imagery but attacking Greg’s book from the staging area of a highly speculative interpretation of Genesis 6 does not seem to me to be the wisest way to take issue with Boyd on the subject of the imagination, and how it should be used. Just my opinion. I know you have written in great detail against Greg’s book on other threads and perhaps your argumentation there has better foundations. I do not have the time to keep up with everything that’s going on here – I’m pretty new to this kind of thing and it’s fairly bewildering. For instance, why did the previous thread on Gen 6 just stop? It was like everybody all ran off to play somewhere else and didn’t tell me.  Wah!
Spenlake: To address the issue another way, perhaps I could ask you if you believe that the interactions that appear to be physical in Genesis actually were tangible and objective? Did Jacob physically wrestle with a spirit? Did God and 2 angels actually eat Abraham's food? Did men actually attempt to rape angels? Did these same angels physically grab Lot?
Response: Well, aside from the issue of having to accept your characterization of these incidents, my answer to all these questions would be, “Yes.”
Spenlake: Is this possible now? Why and where is your support?
Response: Yes, it is not only possible now, but actually happens - quite often. As far as support goes, ANY support that it happens NOW would HAVE to be anecdotal, wouldn’t it? I mean since the canon (which canon??) has been closed for many, many centuries, I can’t give any SCRIPTURAL support for it happening NOW, can I? And so behind your demand for support for it happening now there is a massive begging-of-the-question, can you see that? I’m assuming here, Spen, that you would only accept Biblical support, and not anecdotal support, even first-hand anecdotal support? After all, you don’t know me from Adam!
But it seems to me that your theory is that this kind of interaction between God and man ceased after the Flood, yet all your examples above are post Flood. I could also point to things like Philip being PHYSICALLY caught up in the Spirit and being instantly transported to another location. Paul said he knew a man who was caught up to the third heaven, “whether in the body or out of the body I know not” – which indicates that Paul believed that “in the body” was a viable possibility. And of course, the obvious text that we entertain angels unawares. This certainly suggests angels in PHYSICAL form. I’m sure I could come up with other examples but these are enough to make the point.
Furthermore, your concept of “tangible” and “objective” is suspect. Paul was PHYSICALLY knocked off his ass (pun intended),  he was PHYSICALLY blinded, he PHYSICALLY heard a voice speaking to him, but his companions, who PHYSICALLY saw the light, said it “thundered.” They did NOT hear the voice. What is “objective” and what is “subjective”? When Jesus came up out of the water at His baptism, the Spirit PHYSICALLY descended on Him in the form of a dove. John saw it, the people saw it. A voice from heaven spoke. Some of the people heard the words; some of the people said it “thundered.” What is “objective” and what is “subjective”? Paul had a dream that a Macedonian man was beckoning him. From this he concluded GOD WAS TELLING HIM SOMETHING. Wouldn’t you say that GOD SPEAKING, even in a dream, is “objective” since it is God Himself that is speaking? What is “objective” and what is “subjective”? What about Peter’s vision of the sheet with animals in it? No one else saw it yet he said in reference to that experience that “GOD HAS SHOWN ME that I should call no man common or unclean.” What is “objective” and what is “subjective”? You call the Bible “objective”. (My characterization of your position is probably simplistic – maybe even a caricature – bear with me please, and whack me if I need it!) Even if it is objective in the sense that you mean that, NO ONE reads it objectively. That’s impossible – by definition. Jesus was objectively showing us the Father. He was objectively working the Father’s works and speaking the Father’s words. Yet EVERYONE who PHYSICALLY heard Him and PHYSICALLY saw Him did so subjectively – by definition. There is NOTHING wrong with subjectively knowing or experiencing something – indeed, that’s all there is - for us, at this time (did I qualify that enough? ). WE are subjective beings – we are the subject – He is the object. When you speak of judging things (like Boyd’s book) by the “objective” standard of scripture -the “objective” revelation of God – you are REALLY judging by your INTERPRETATION of what that objective standard says, which is ALWAYS – by definition - SUBJECT to argument, and change.
I think the stark distinction between “objective” and “subjective” is not something that the Biblical writers had, it’s a relatively modern, and western, dichotomy. In my opinion, a false dichotomy. And so, just because Sarah overheard the messengers talking with Abraham doesn’t NECESSARILLY mean that anybody else would have heard them. It might not have been as “objective” as you think. And just because nobody else on the road to Damascus heard what Paul heard doesn’t mean that it was a “subjective” experience. And just because someone is guided, in their imagination, to resymbolize, that is, to change the way they think about, an event in their life in a manner that is consistent with God’s redeeming activity and the working out of their salvation, doesn’t mean that what happens is NOT objective.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 4/30/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Qualification: I said, "I maintain the Nephilim didn’t have sex with ANYBODY. Nor were they the result of anybody having sex."
That would be true IF the Nephilim are embodied spiritual beings. If the Nephilim are human, i.e. the "those who fall upon others" - one of the options given in the thread you sent me to - then they, being human, would be capable of sexual relations.
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/30/2004 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | It seems to me the best understanding is the "Nephilim" simply means "giants." This would apply to both the antediluvian giants as well as Goliath, and would avoid the dicey problem of how, if they were a particular tribe or ethnic group, they survived the Great Flood. | | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|