variant 13

You had mare.
~~~~

Look, you have no evidence, it's pure guess work based on stories.
We could do the same with vampire myths or any other myth for that matter.


But more importantly you completely ignored other religions and myths where people have supposed to have interacted with gods and other spiritual beings after the time frames you mention. Islam or Norse myths spring to mind (though I may be wrong with the norse one). And lets not forget hinduism (SP?), they always get left out for some reason.

Hope this helps.

Mageth

As I alluded to in my prior post, the biggest weaknessess in your theory are that it is not supported by one bit of real evidence (e.g. there have never been remains or other artifacts of "Giant Nephilim" found), is counter to known science (e.g. the physical limitations on size for the human body that makes the existence of a race of "giants" beyond a certain limit highly unlikely if not impossible), lacks any sort of explanation for a mechanism as to how spiritual beings can have sexual relations with humans and produce offspring (again, contradicting science, where the reproductive process is well-known and doesn't allow for some spiritual being fertilizing a human woman, or vice versa!).

All it's based on are some mythical accounts of Nephilim in a book written thousands of years ago, which are mixed with other stories (e.g. the Creation account and the Genesis Flood account) which we now know are mythical.

Further, for what it's worth, most mainstream theologists I've heard totally discount the interpretation of the Nephilim accounts as being factual stories of some kind of spiritual beings (angels, demons, or whatever) breeding with humans to produce Nephilim, instead claiming that it's talking about humans (for example, descendents of Cain) breeding with other humans.

Bottom line: the myth of spiritual beings breeding with humans to produce Nephilim was made up by humans. Even most theologians recognize this as a myth, that the original accounts were notdescribing spirits breeding with humans, and that this is a mistaken interpretation of the Scriptures introduced at a later date.

Doctor X

Keith:

Okay, now that I understand where you are coming from. . . .

Well that does not work. You have Moses writing about his death and afterwards. You also have him writing two different versions of his exodus. Anyways, that is basic OT scholarship. I would strongly recommend that you avail yourself of the very readable Who Wrote the Bible? which explains the basics of why scholars have known for centuries that Moses could not have written the texts, and why scholars recognize multiple authors. Friedman's text is pretty basic, readable, and uncontroversial save for his dating and identification of the authors or "schools" of each author.

Check out the Recommended Reading List for books that demonstrate the current state of archaeology. If no Exodus-Conquest ever happened, for example, that will sink "factually accurate" right there.

There is no tradition of "inspiration" in the OT, frankly. This is later apology which would be unacceptable to the authors of the texts--any fool can say he is "inspired." "Inspired" is a different concept than what it is now. Nevertheless, whether you agree with that or not, you will have to deal with major contradictions and "unpleasantries" such as the requirement for child sacrifice.

No, I think the texts represent the development of myths and political and theological argument. However:

you can only make reasonable conclusions if you have reasonable assumptions. Do not take my word for it; if you wish to maintain Mosaic authorship, for example, then you have to show why scholars such as Friedman are wrong. I do not like the fact we cannot travel faster than the speed of light which limits my chances of reaching the nymphomaniacs of Nimbus 9, but my "dislike" means nothing to physics! If I want to prove "Einstein wrong" I have to confront him and later theorists/scientists and, unfortuately, the evidence.

What is the "odd event?"

The book above will demonstrate that quite well.

This thinking is problematic. It reminds me of "chisters" who believe in an all pervasive "life-force" that they can use to--I am not making this up--deflect knife attacks . . . but . . . for some reason . . . modern science [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] cannot detect! I do not intend to ridicule your beliefs, just demonstrate that you assume the reason no scientific evidence exists to justify your assumptions means we just have not looked hard enough!

Use another example: if you are correct did not Zeus become a swan and shag Leda, thereby resulting in the Trojan War? By what criteria does one myth become "true" and another "false?"

I am unaware of any factual evidence that has been cited thus far.

--J.D.

Keith Jentoft

I agree with Mageth that the physical evidence of actual bones and DNA is currently lacking. There is evidence of multiple huminoid species co-existing such as cro-magnon and the neanderthals. I don't see these fossils as representing my understanding of what a Nephilim skeleton would look like. The evidence I look to it textual and archeological in the legacy of early civilizations that left us their understandings of their universe. Perhaps the various themes and similarities are "chance" or hard-coded in our DNA. Howver, this record is some evidence though not the tangible smoking gun of a skeleton or the actual DNA.

Regarding the myths raised by Jmebob, the Norse and Hindu myths are very old. The historical record of Islam is outside of the time frame that my premise covers. I am aware of interaction with angels in Islam but not familiar enough to comment more. In any case, I am unaware of Islam claiming there were Nephilim contemporary with Mohammad.

Keith Jentoft

The issue of authorship was given as an assumption. While we apparently disagree, this is not the point of my premise. The bulk of your response centered on something that we both have agreed to disagree upon.

The "odd event" is the claim from many sources including Genesis that there were hybrid spirit/human creatures existing on the earth at one point in time. This claim made by many civilizations was not limited to Moses. You explain all of these claims as "fancy" and dismiss them outright.

I am not claiming to be able to "prove" which myth is actual and true. I simply believe that there was a factual basis for them and this is why we find the similarities. I cannot vouch for Zeus, I simply find it intriguing that "hybrids" exist and the Greek myths claim that Zeus fathered sons with human women as stated in Genesis 6:4.

Though I have provided you with my assumptions, the factual evidence that I present are the myths themselves, and Genesis in particular, regardless of its author.

Kosh

Tell that to Billy Graham!

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates 2 dimensional thinking" - Mr. Spock, Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan.

Doctor X

Keith:

Unfortunately, the issue of authorship is central to your premise.

"Agree to disagree" never works in scholarship. Either something is justifiable by evidence, or it is not. "Agree to disagree" implies that both viewpoints have validity.

Well . . . I think it should be "Romeo and Julian" the great homoerotic romp . . . unfortunately, the evidence indicates otherwise. In order for you to responsibly disagree you have to demonstrate why the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong.

Demonstrate evidence that they are not fancy.

That becomes your hypothesis. In order for it to move forward it has to survive comparision to the evidence we have and it must be supported by the evidence we find. You hypothesis fails right at the beginning.

Another example: quite a few cultures have a flood myth. Indeed, the Genesis and Exodus myths come from the Babylonian/Assyrian which came from the Sumerian. So . . . by your above argumet, there must have been a "factual basis" for a global flood.

Unfortunately, science demonstrates otherwise. Period. Johnny, tell them about their wonderful consolation prizes! Rice-a-Roni, that San Franscisco treat! A year's supply of Turtle Wax! The Hermeneutical Homegame! [Stop it!--Ed.]

With anthropomorphic deities, it is not such a suprise. Kings claimed descent from the gods--gave them legitimacy. This is not evidence that such happened.

yet that is not "factual evidence" any more than Douglas Adams is "factual evidence" that we are sitting on a large computer in danger of being removed for a hyperspacial bypass or that Sherlock Holmes currently enjoys keeping bees in his retirement--for he has clearly never died, since, as supporters patiently explain, his obituary has never appeared in The Times. You can write to him at 22B Baker Street and his secretary will send you a very nice reply.

Where do we stop? Does a "primordeal sea" exist in space that the Earth floats in? Did the Elohim separate the dome of heaven from the earth? Did the universe come from the guts of a serpent hewn by a god? YHWH parrallels the Marduk-Tiamat story with his fight against the sea . . . did that happen?

It is perhaps a bit more scientific to understand the sources of the texts--which makes appreciation of multiauthorship necessary--to determine why the authors wrote what they wrote.

--J.D.

Amlodhi

Hello Keith Jentoft,

I think that most people that have studied the OT (especially those who have studied ancient mythology as well) have found themselves to be intriqued by the enigmatic reference to the bene Elohim cohabiting with the daughters of men.

One blank spot in your speculation is your presupposition that the bene Elohim were spirit only. My studies lead me to believe that the "spirit only" concept was a later development.

With that in mind, a much more plausible and detailed scenario can (and has been) suggested. To wit: that these bene Elohim were interstellar travelers who genetically enhanced the intelligence level of an existing homo species in order to render them more efficient as servants.

Using this (scientifically plausible) presupposition as a starting point, I am capable of arguing some rather startling connections to many of the stories found in ancient "mythology".

Do I, then, believe that this is what happened? No. (But, Oh, I wanted to.)

While I will be the first to agree that it is wonderful fun to speculate on these matters. Any serious proposition will require much more than a few "could have beens".

Namaste'

Amlodhi

variant 13

First outside the timeframe? Surely if there is evidence (in myth ) of contact after you say the ability was lost it should be considered.

With Mohammad it was actually that he claimed to have got the Quran when Allah, directly.

I believe some of the Norse myths (not of creation but of contact with gods) would be relevant, though not in what you would same was an acceptible timeframe. (Can't find a timeline for them so I could be wrong, it was a long time ago)
~~~~~

You also will need to explain why people still claim to see spirits, and even aliens (their modern day counterparts.)
~~~~

I can't see how you can put a cap on when a myth will be accepted and when it will not, as you would be ignoring evidence so you can keep your premise {I haven't phrased that well but I hope you see the point}, with no good reason.

Or am I wrong?

Infidelettante

Hello Kieth, and welcome to IIDB. Others here may deal with the logic of your article. I would rather come at it from another direction if you don’t mind.

Why did your God stop the interaction? The objective/subjective, historical nature of this story is irrelevant to me. What interests me is motive.

{removed}

But why should it be one way and not the other? What happened that your God should deny us so sure a proof of the spiritual realm? Was there some reason that required your God to reveal himself to the ancients in such powerful ways? Are we less worthy of his involvement? Of his interest? Of his time?

Or was there is some condition which your God wanted desperately to keep hidden? Could it have been that, at least then, there were other Gods?

So your God was quiet for 400 years. Why? He did not speak to the Greeks. He did not speak to the Romans. He did not speak even to his chosen race the Hebrews. Why was he silent? What changed. Did he change? Did his people change? You don’t give reasons. Surely there is some explanation. Or don’t you ask your God for explanations? Perhaps you don’t question your God. Do you? Perhaps you should.

Why must your God be born of a virgin? Why must he be born at all? If he can speak universes into existence can’t he fashion a body for himself. Wouldn’t that more truly reveal his nature and remove any doubt of his origin? He revealed his existence indisputably to Abram and Moses.

The virgin birth is an unnecessary and easily avoided complication. Why should your God choose so cloudy and unclear a course of revelation? Why not something more, well, godly? Infants are cute aren’t they. Was your God cute? Sorry, that was uncharitable of me.

But, I wonder what good childhood did him. Did it make him more human? How could a childhood make an omnipotent deity more human? Did it help him better understand our sins? But how could an omniscient deity not know all about sin. After all, he knew good and evil long before he made people. It is one of the attributes of God you know. Transcendent deity as toddler. I shiver at the thought. But, I shiver only because I don’t understand the necessity.

Loaves and fishes, heal the lame, raise the dead, walk on water and change some to wine. Can’t be much more objective than that.

Why Keith Jentoft, did he leave? Why do we find ourselves in the Age of Grace rather than the Kingdom of God? Was the present time really only revealed to Paul as a mystery? No foreshadowing. No prophecy? Not good enough.

Not good enough.

Not good enough.

Not good enough.


Not good enough.

Not good enough.

Not good enough. And you don’t know why. Because some were good enough to be raised from the dead and some were good enough to see the dead raised. Some were good enough to be healed and to see healings. Because some were good enough for pillars of fire and smoke. Some were good enough to entertain angels and to wrestle gods. Some where good enough to live when all the world died. Some were good enough to see and touch and feel and smell and hear your God.

But, you are not good enough. And I am not good enough. Some saw and believed yet I can’t see and must still believe. Some heard and believed yet I can’t hear and must still believe. Some touched and believed yet I can’t touch and must still believe. Some knew and believed yet I can’t know. But, I must still believe.

Why Keith Jentoft? Are we not as sinful as Sodom? As secure as Jerico? As proud as Pharaoh? Why does your God not send fire and brimstone so we know? Why does your God not flatten our cities so we know? Why does your God not take our children so we know?

It is my one question to you. Why are we not good enough for your God to show us his power, his glory, his might? Do you ever question your God? Perhaps you should.

JT