They are mutually exclusive.
Pre-Wrathers keep referring to the "Celestial disturbance event" as if there is only one. Revelation has multiple celestial disturbance events, and Pre-Wrathers claim to like me interpret Revelation Chronologically, or at least that the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls are successive judgments not different looks at the same thing like Post-Tribbers tend to.
They want to see references outside Revelation to the Moon being darkened as being the Sixth Seal, even though the Moon isn't darkened there. Later the Sun, Moon and Stars are partially darkened by the 4th Trumpet event, then for 40s days the sun, moon and stars are fully blacked out in the 5th Trumpet event by the smoke. Then later the Fifth Bowl of God's Wrath is what I believe Isaiah 13 means by the Sun and Moon not giving their light at the time Babylon falls in Revelation 18.
Every Pre-Wrather I know is against the Blood Moon theory, Chris White's debunking of it I've recommended repeatedly. Yet they use the modern Scientific explanation for what a Lunar Eclipse is to justify saying the Moon being like Blood and not giving light are the same.
During a Lunar Eclipse the Moon is darker then usual but it is giving light, it is only on a Solar Eclipse or New Moon (day before the Biblical New Moon) that the Moon gives no light, if you want to look for a normal astronomical event for that.
If the Moon has any color at all it is by definition giving light. There is no Color without light.
Here is the thing though, Blood is actually a very bright red. And when I was observing the last of the overly hyped Tetrad a few days ago I kept feeling it was not a shade of Red I'd describe as like Blood at all.
What's funny is the Full Moon a month prior to this, at the end of August looked inexplicably Red, and I know others observed the same thing. That was a shade of Red I'd consider Blood Red, but there was no Lunar Eclipse that day. I still don't understand what caused that.
If there is a naturalistic explanation at all for what happens to the Sun and Moon in the Sixth Seal it is probably ash entering the air form a Volcanic Eruption, which has been documented to cause the Moon to look bright Red in the past. The reason that happens is all about the light the Moon is giving. And Joel 2's account of this event clearly alludes to Volcanoes.
But even accepting that flawed logic for saying a Blood Moon could be a darkened moon. That doesn't change that there are other places in Revelation far more explicitly about the Moon being darkened. Yet Pre-Wrath and other mistaken views are dependent on insisting that the Moon being darkened in Matthew 24 can ONLY correspond to the Sixth Seal.
This post is elaborating on things I said in my first Sixth Seal post. And also ties into this post.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
A Problem with some Preterist views of Matthew 24
This argument won't effect the standard more well known 70 AD preterism, I've dealt with that elsewhere. At least not as obviously relevant anyway, depends on how you define "yet".
I have seen people argue that everything Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was fulfilled only three and a half or seven years after the Crucifixion.
I can sympathize with aspects of that view, I am now convinced the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. But what Matthew 24 describes is clearly End Times and clearly has not yet already happened.
Now to the point of this post.
I want to remind people what Jesus said in verse 6, during what I and Chuck Missler like to call the non signs.
But there was no point in Jesus saying that if the end He meant was going to happen in only a few years.
There is no point in telling people not to consider something a sign the end is near, if the end is already near when you're talking to them.
I have seen people argue that everything Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was fulfilled only three and a half or seven years after the Crucifixion.
I can sympathize with aspects of that view, I am now convinced the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. But what Matthew 24 describes is clearly End Times and clearly has not yet already happened.
Now to the point of this post.
I want to remind people what Jesus said in verse 6, during what I and Chuck Missler like to call the non signs.
"see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."That is why I disagree with trying to use these things as End Times signs at all.
But there was no point in Jesus saying that if the end He meant was going to happen in only a few years.
There is no point in telling people not to consider something a sign the end is near, if the end is already near when you're talking to them.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Possible Psalm 81 Retraction
In my main Seventh Trumpet post I had cited Psalm 81 as evidence for affiliating Yom Teruah with Trumpet sounding. And my overall point in that post remains regardless of the relevance of this Psalm. But it turns out there are possible translation issues with that verse.
I had cited the KJV rendering, as is usually my default, of verse 3.
There are a few issues I have since discovered. Which I found looking into why many modern Bibles replace "in the time appointed" with Full Moon.
1. The Hebrew doesn't use the usual Hebrew phrase for Appointed Time, Mowed, but rather Keceh, which the Strongs says means full or fullness.
2. The usual word for the "new" part of New Moon, Rosh, isn't the Hebrew in the verse. Just the word Codesh which is affiliated with the Moon as well as with Months. But not the standard Hebrew word for Moon which is Yerah.
3. The reference to "solem feast day" isn't Mowed either, but chag, which unlike other words translated Feast is assumed to specifically mean a feast or festival. I've been told recently that only the pilgrimage days are feasts/festivals. Two of those happen on or right after Full Moons, and none on a New Moon.
According to Numbers 10 the Silver Trumpets are sounded on all the Appointed Times. The Hebrew here references the Shofar however. It's possible the types of Trumpets are not meant to be as distinguished from others as some insist they should be.
Modern Bibles are clearly wrong to reference the New and Full Moon both, this is a single day being refereed to according to the grammar. If it's a Solemn Feast Day that's Full Moon linked, it's either Passover of Tabernacles.
The word in question for "fullness" is only used once elsewhere in Scripture. Proverbs 7:20. There again the KJV renders it Appointed.
It is strong number 3677, but it's root is 3680. That word is taken as meaning things like cover, hide, conceal. So that sounds more like the New Moon or a solar Eclipse (the eve of the Hebrew New Moon which is the crescent) were the Moon isn't visible at all.
Numbers 10 does say to sound the Silver Trumpets on all the Holy Days, but it's usually only Yom Teruah (or Yom Kippur but only for the Jubilee) specifically associated with Trumpets. Especially the Shofar.
I still think my original view on this may be right, but that makes those who insist Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are not Feasts mistaken. Solomon's 14 day Festival went through Yom Kippur, which doesn't work if Yom Kippur is a Fast Day as tradition as convinced people.
The Septuagint agrees with the KJV on this verse, I have major issues with the Septuagint, but those come down to how it's used against the KJV, and the Masoretic text in general, here I'm simply wondering how to interpret what the Masoretic text says. And I do think now the KJV and LXX are both mistaken in exactly how to express the verse, but possibly closer to the correct intent then the Full Moon view.
Thing is this would be the only verse in The Bible making the Full Moon significant, (with only one other mentioning it at all, based on the same word). Certain Feast Days happen to occur near the Full Moon, but it's how long after the New Moon they are counted. And saying the 15th of each month is the Full Moon is a mistake based on a wrong understanding of the Biblical New Moon. The Full Moon is actually the 14th more often then not.
I always find it significant when God does the opposite of The Pagans. The Full Moon is constantly significant to Pagans, but The Bible seems to be more focused on New Moons.
This PDF argued in-favor of the Full Moon interpretation. But in doing so reveals how that interpretation has it's roots in the opinions of the Pharasitic Rabbis of the first and second centuries, who went on to influence Jerome. I give Jerome credit for being the first "Church Father" to use Hebrew rather then the Septuagint for the Old Testament, but he should have sought his advice from Kariates rather then Rabbis.
And that PDF's argument against the "covering" interpretation seems overly technical for a word that is used only twice.
My hunch now is that this refers to when the Moon comes out of hiding, the Biblical New Moon.
This is an issue I'm gonna to dig deeper on.
On a side note, tonight is the Blood Moon (but in Kariate Biblical reckoning it's not Tabernacles after all, Tabernacles starts tomorrow night). Here is Chris White's refutation of that again.
He could have added that it's barely visible in Israel, this last one being the only one visible there at all.
I'm gonna put Rob Skiba's recent longer video here too, though he says plenty I don't agree with (like on the Flat Earth).
I had cited the KJV rendering, as is usually my default, of verse 3.
Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.Yom Teruah is the only day that is both a New Moon and one of the Leviticus 23 Feast Days.
There are a few issues I have since discovered. Which I found looking into why many modern Bibles replace "in the time appointed" with Full Moon.
1. The Hebrew doesn't use the usual Hebrew phrase for Appointed Time, Mowed, but rather Keceh, which the Strongs says means full or fullness.
2. The usual word for the "new" part of New Moon, Rosh, isn't the Hebrew in the verse. Just the word Codesh which is affiliated with the Moon as well as with Months. But not the standard Hebrew word for Moon which is Yerah.
3. The reference to "solem feast day" isn't Mowed either, but chag, which unlike other words translated Feast is assumed to specifically mean a feast or festival. I've been told recently that only the pilgrimage days are feasts/festivals. Two of those happen on or right after Full Moons, and none on a New Moon.
According to Numbers 10 the Silver Trumpets are sounded on all the Appointed Times. The Hebrew here references the Shofar however. It's possible the types of Trumpets are not meant to be as distinguished from others as some insist they should be.
Modern Bibles are clearly wrong to reference the New and Full Moon both, this is a single day being refereed to according to the grammar. If it's a Solemn Feast Day that's Full Moon linked, it's either Passover of Tabernacles.
The word in question for "fullness" is only used once elsewhere in Scripture. Proverbs 7:20. There again the KJV renders it Appointed.
He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed.Other translations also say "full moon" instead of "day appointed' here.
It is strong number 3677, but it's root is 3680. That word is taken as meaning things like cover, hide, conceal. So that sounds more like the New Moon or a solar Eclipse (the eve of the Hebrew New Moon which is the crescent) were the Moon isn't visible at all.
Numbers 10 does say to sound the Silver Trumpets on all the Holy Days, but it's usually only Yom Teruah (or Yom Kippur but only for the Jubilee) specifically associated with Trumpets. Especially the Shofar.
I still think my original view on this may be right, but that makes those who insist Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are not Feasts mistaken. Solomon's 14 day Festival went through Yom Kippur, which doesn't work if Yom Kippur is a Fast Day as tradition as convinced people.
The Septuagint agrees with the KJV on this verse, I have major issues with the Septuagint, but those come down to how it's used against the KJV, and the Masoretic text in general, here I'm simply wondering how to interpret what the Masoretic text says. And I do think now the KJV and LXX are both mistaken in exactly how to express the verse, but possibly closer to the correct intent then the Full Moon view.
Thing is this would be the only verse in The Bible making the Full Moon significant, (with only one other mentioning it at all, based on the same word). Certain Feast Days happen to occur near the Full Moon, but it's how long after the New Moon they are counted. And saying the 15th of each month is the Full Moon is a mistake based on a wrong understanding of the Biblical New Moon. The Full Moon is actually the 14th more often then not.
I always find it significant when God does the opposite of The Pagans. The Full Moon is constantly significant to Pagans, but The Bible seems to be more focused on New Moons.
This PDF argued in-favor of the Full Moon interpretation. But in doing so reveals how that interpretation has it's roots in the opinions of the Pharasitic Rabbis of the first and second centuries, who went on to influence Jerome. I give Jerome credit for being the first "Church Father" to use Hebrew rather then the Septuagint for the Old Testament, but he should have sought his advice from Kariates rather then Rabbis.
And that PDF's argument against the "covering" interpretation seems overly technical for a word that is used only twice.
My hunch now is that this refers to when the Moon comes out of hiding, the Biblical New Moon.
This is an issue I'm gonna to dig deeper on.
On a side note, tonight is the Blood Moon (but in Kariate Biblical reckoning it's not Tabernacles after all, Tabernacles starts tomorrow night). Here is Chris White's refutation of that again.
He could have added that it's barely visible in Israel, this last one being the only one visible there at all.
I'm gonna put Rob Skiba's recent longer video here too, though he says plenty I don't agree with (like on the Flat Earth).
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Was Yom Kippur fulfilled on The Cross?
I wish I'd made up my mind and posted this before this year's Yom Kippur.
It's popular to say that since the Spring Feasts were fulfilled "on the day" of those feasts, that the Fall Feasts which we always assume are about the Second Advent will be as well. And I have argued strongly on this Blog for The Rapture happening on Yom Teruah.
The problem is that in The Book of Hebrews chapters 8-10, Paul argues that Jesus fulled the Day of Atonement on The Cross.
I've already argued on this blog that Barabbas can be seen as the Azazel Goat, while Jesus is the Sin Offering.
And the Viel to the Temple being torn can be seen as having Yom Kippur significance.
Now I remain unconvinced of Ron Wyatt's claim about where The Ark is, that is now strongly supported by Michael Rood, and I've seen mentioned by Kent Hovind. I however have long been convinced of Bob Conruke and Graham Hancock's theory.
But if you believe that theory, it makes Nisan 14 30 AD a fulfillment of Yom Kippur even more. Because that Holy Day is when Blood of The Sin Offering is placed on The Mercy Seat.
I think the Tenth of Tishri could still have Eschatological significance in terms of the Jubilee being fulfilled after The Millennium and Gog and Magog. But using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, Yom Kippur strictly speaking was fulfilled the same day Passover was.
It's popular to say that since the Spring Feasts were fulfilled "on the day" of those feasts, that the Fall Feasts which we always assume are about the Second Advent will be as well. And I have argued strongly on this Blog for The Rapture happening on Yom Teruah.
The problem is that in The Book of Hebrews chapters 8-10, Paul argues that Jesus fulled the Day of Atonement on The Cross.
I've already argued on this blog that Barabbas can be seen as the Azazel Goat, while Jesus is the Sin Offering.
And the Viel to the Temple being torn can be seen as having Yom Kippur significance.
Now I remain unconvinced of Ron Wyatt's claim about where The Ark is, that is now strongly supported by Michael Rood, and I've seen mentioned by Kent Hovind. I however have long been convinced of Bob Conruke and Graham Hancock's theory.
But if you believe that theory, it makes Nisan 14 30 AD a fulfillment of Yom Kippur even more. Because that Holy Day is when Blood of The Sin Offering is placed on The Mercy Seat.
I think the Tenth of Tishri could still have Eschatological significance in terms of the Jubilee being fulfilled after The Millennium and Gog and Magog. But using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, Yom Kippur strictly speaking was fulfilled the same day Passover was.
The Millennium and Tabernacles
I've talked before about how I think many passages people assume are The Millennium are really the New Heaven and New Earth. Mainly Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 40-48 and Psalm 48.
I have decided one Old Testament passage I think is definitely The Millennium. The end of Zachariah 14.
That only Tabernacles is mentioned here I find interesting. I doubt it'll be the only of the Feast Days kept at this time, but it may be the only one that God will require the Gentiles to come to. Ezekiel 45 has Passover/Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles still being kept, but not First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah or Yom Kippur.
You may be thinking, "having a required pilgrimage for the Jews is one thing, but do you really think the whole world's population is gonna fit in Jerusalem?" Well what Zechariah 14 says is focused on the Nations, not on individuals. It may be each nation will send representatives there, or that the leaders are supposed to go there.
It is my view that the Fulfillment of Tabernacles is after the Millennium and the Gog and Magog war. While Yom Teruah is fulfilled at The Rapture.
I have decided one Old Testament passage I think is definitely The Millennium. The end of Zachariah 14.
And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.This theme of punishing Nations I don't see happening in the New Creation. This fits my suspicion that The Millennium is not going to be as Utopic as everyone assumes. The passages I disagree with seeing as The Millennium are about the Gentile Nations enthusiastically worshiping Yahweh.
That only Tabernacles is mentioned here I find interesting. I doubt it'll be the only of the Feast Days kept at this time, but it may be the only one that God will require the Gentiles to come to. Ezekiel 45 has Passover/Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles still being kept, but not First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah or Yom Kippur.
You may be thinking, "having a required pilgrimage for the Jews is one thing, but do you really think the whole world's population is gonna fit in Jerusalem?" Well what Zechariah 14 says is focused on the Nations, not on individuals. It may be each nation will send representatives there, or that the leaders are supposed to go there.
It is my view that the Fulfillment of Tabernacles is after the Millennium and the Gog and Magog war. While Yom Teruah is fulfilled at The Rapture.
September 11th 3 BC Birth-Date Theory
What happened on this date with Jupiter and Regulus I still view as vital to understanding the Star of Bethlehem.
There are people out there however obsessed with thinking the vision seen in Revelation 12 is about this date and the Birth of Jesus. There are major problems with that.
First off regardless of if the Birth of Jesus is what Revelation 12 symbolically represents, those signs are not seen in the Heavens until after the Seventh Trumpet is sounded. These signs I believe are what Jesus meant by "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" in Luke 21 and "Sign of the Son of Man" in the Olivite Discourse.
But I have shown that I don't think Revelation 12 is depicting the Birth of Jesus at all, but the Resurrection and Rapture of The Church.
As far as thinking Virgo has something to with Revelation 12. I am definitively convinced the Seventh Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah, and I'm very compelled by the Gospel in The Stars theory. So I have looked into speculation about Virgo and Revelation 12.
But there is still no Biblical proof it has anything to do with Virgo. And even if it does I still think it may be futile to look for it on Stellerium. I think this is probably ultimately a completely supernatural occurrence, like what God did with the Sun for Joshua or Hezekiah.
The Moon being under Virgo's feet while the Sun is in Virgo happens every year, sometimes twice a year. The requirements for this vision are not rare in any way.
Rob Skiba likes to say it has to be a New Moon to fit this so he can say September 11th 3 BC was the only 80 Minutes in history this happened. But nothing in the text of Revelation 12 says it has to be the New Moon, I have other reasons for believing on or near the New Moon is when this happens, but the Greek text does not say that, it's just the standard Greek word for Moon. Exact same word used in Revelation 6, which I believe will happen on or soon after a Full Moon.
At any-rate I think there might be a New Moon under Virgo's Feet on October 7th 21 AD.
But I no longer favor that End Times model. I now have a theory Revelation 12 could be fulfilled on September 26th 2033 AD.
The Romans would not have made all of Judea have to travel longs distances to their family homes only two weeks before Tabernacles. Tabernacles was a pilgrimage festival were all the Jews had to be in Jerusalem for the entire week. Preparations for that would have to begin more then 2 weeks in advance. So I'm sorry but Jesus simply could not have been born on one of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.
I have shown elsewhere that Jesus was born on December 25th after all.
And all his talk about all the Sun gods being born on December 25th is wrong. The Winter Solstice was affiliated by Sun worshipers with Death and Resurrection not birth. Apollo and Dionysus Birthdays were originally in Spring. But Augustus changed it to his Birthday September 23rd which happened to be near the Autumul Equinox.
There are people out there however obsessed with thinking the vision seen in Revelation 12 is about this date and the Birth of Jesus. There are major problems with that.
First off regardless of if the Birth of Jesus is what Revelation 12 symbolically represents, those signs are not seen in the Heavens until after the Seventh Trumpet is sounded. These signs I believe are what Jesus meant by "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" in Luke 21 and "Sign of the Son of Man" in the Olivite Discourse.
But I have shown that I don't think Revelation 12 is depicting the Birth of Jesus at all, but the Resurrection and Rapture of The Church.
As far as thinking Virgo has something to with Revelation 12. I am definitively convinced the Seventh Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah, and I'm very compelled by the Gospel in The Stars theory. So I have looked into speculation about Virgo and Revelation 12.
But there is still no Biblical proof it has anything to do with Virgo. And even if it does I still think it may be futile to look for it on Stellerium. I think this is probably ultimately a completely supernatural occurrence, like what God did with the Sun for Joshua or Hezekiah.
The Moon being under Virgo's feet while the Sun is in Virgo happens every year, sometimes twice a year. The requirements for this vision are not rare in any way.
Rob Skiba likes to say it has to be a New Moon to fit this so he can say September 11th 3 BC was the only 80 Minutes in history this happened. But nothing in the text of Revelation 12 says it has to be the New Moon, I have other reasons for believing on or near the New Moon is when this happens, but the Greek text does not say that, it's just the standard Greek word for Moon. Exact same word used in Revelation 6, which I believe will happen on or soon after a Full Moon.
At any-rate I think there might be a New Moon under Virgo's Feet on October 7th 21 AD.
But I no longer favor that End Times model. I now have a theory Revelation 12 could be fulfilled on September 26th 2033 AD.
The Romans would not have made all of Judea have to travel longs distances to their family homes only two weeks before Tabernacles. Tabernacles was a pilgrimage festival were all the Jews had to be in Jerusalem for the entire week. Preparations for that would have to begin more then 2 weeks in advance. So I'm sorry but Jesus simply could not have been born on one of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.
I have shown elsewhere that Jesus was born on December 25th after all.
And all his talk about all the Sun gods being born on December 25th is wrong. The Winter Solstice was affiliated by Sun worshipers with Death and Resurrection not birth. Apollo and Dionysus Birthdays were originally in Spring. But Augustus changed it to his Birthday September 23rd which happened to be near the Autumul Equinox.
Sethite View and the Nephilim
The Sethite view is easily refutable, the Pastor I do not like to name none the less holds it to be true.
As far as New Testament verses referring to Believers and Adam as Sons of God. I have shown that we are not actually Sons of God strictly until the Resurrection. When we become like The Angels and like Adam was before The Fall.
The Pastor I do not like to name used a verse from Hebrews to try and prove Angels can't be called Sons of God. That passage was about how Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, (John 3:16). This same Pastor never brought up Job at all, besides the beginning of Job, in verse 38:7 God says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" in a Context talking about Creation. Before Adam was Created.
Before 30 AD the only Sons of God were The Angels.
Thing is, I have become skeptical of the traditional Angel-Human Hybrid view. I accepted it for the longest time. I argued against Rob Skiba about second incursions once. And I still stand by what I said there that the Angels falling out of Lust for Women has continued post-Flood.
I still believe Sons of God refers to Angels, and I still believe the word Nephilim probably refereed to the Angels not the Mighty Men offspring.
Here is the thing, all of the New Testament verification that Angels fell to marry women in II Peter and Jude, and also Paul in 1 Corinthians when he talks about head coverings. Never confirm the angels were the fathers of any children.
The text of Genesis 6 as it's usually translated has insertions. In Verse 4.
Genesis 21:1-3 says.
As far as Rob's interpretation of the "And also after that", it's already at the 120 years left point this happens the first time.
A lot of people believing the Hybrid view make that their only apologetic answer to the issue of the apparent commands of Genocide from God in The Old Testament. That is very dangerous, to allow yourself to think Genocide is ok if you become convinced some group of people are Nephilim.
Lots of Christians have dealt with the issue in more natural ways. The Tirbalouge Blogspot blog is Clainvist which means I object to much of their theology. And they support the Sethite view. But they do a good job archiving answers to this Genocide issue without needing to bring any Science Fantasy into it. Whatever the reasons, those kinds of things don't apply on this side of The Cross.
In the case of the Amalekites, God explains why this command is being given, nothing about them being less Human.
The Reason for the Flood is always given as the people's sinful and violent nature. Not that their DNA had been corrupted.
Rob Skiba while promoting his bizarre Nephilim theory decided to try and de-mystify the Giant issue by showing a video talking about how Lygers grow very large just from how their cross bred. Well he overlooked something, that refutes the idea of needing unnatural crossbreeding altogether, Lions and Tigers are of the same Kind, they're Cats, they had the same ancestors on Noah's Ark.
So everyone in the past who's mocked the idea of interbreeding causing Giants, well it does have a scientific basis, the Genetic potential just no longer seems to exist among the remaining descendants of Noah. The last Biblically documented giant was before 1000 BC.
That's just one fact to point out, meanwhile it's highly possible Angels themselves could sometimes manifest as Giants. William Schneoblen tell a story of seeing a Giant Angel guarding a house he was in after praying for protection. Biblically one Angel killed the entire Assyrian army by himself.
At any-rate, none of the three words translated giant mean that, the ones described as Gigantic are all post Flood. However The "Fossil Record" seems to indicate that most everything was a lot bigger before The Flood.
What about the Anakim? They are defined as being of the Nephilim. Maybe they were fallen angels themselves, not hybrids. Maybe "Children of Anak" is like a poetic title and not really an identifier of an ancestor. Arba, founder of Hebron and namesake of it's prior name is called both a great man among the Anakim and the father of Anak. Seems contradictory unless the descriptions are poetic in some way.
Or maybe I'm wrong about what Nephilim means, if it does mean Giant then it just means the Anakim were for some reason Gigantic.
I'm just saying I'm unsure. The Holy Spirit has been convicting me lately about how this Nephilim issue seems to be a gateway drug into a lot of Occult Neo-Pagan weirdness. My advice is to at least be very careful looking into this area of research.
But don't let aversion to the weirdness scare you into to accepting the Sethite view which ties into Racism. My issue with Skia is he rejects the Sehtite view but gives his version of the Nephilim story the exact same issue I have with the Sethite view. By tying it into vilification of Ham's descendants.
As far as New Testament verses referring to Believers and Adam as Sons of God. I have shown that we are not actually Sons of God strictly until the Resurrection. When we become like The Angels and like Adam was before The Fall.
The Pastor I do not like to name used a verse from Hebrews to try and prove Angels can't be called Sons of God. That passage was about how Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, (John 3:16). This same Pastor never brought up Job at all, besides the beginning of Job, in verse 38:7 God says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" in a Context talking about Creation. Before Adam was Created.
Before 30 AD the only Sons of God were The Angels.
Thing is, I have become skeptical of the traditional Angel-Human Hybrid view. I accepted it for the longest time. I argued against Rob Skiba about second incursions once. And I still stand by what I said there that the Angels falling out of Lust for Women has continued post-Flood.
I still believe Sons of God refers to Angels, and I still believe the word Nephilim probably refereed to the Angels not the Mighty Men offspring.
Here is the thing, all of the New Testament verification that Angels fell to marry women in II Peter and Jude, and also Paul in 1 Corinthians when he talks about head coverings. Never confirm the angels were the fathers of any children.
The text of Genesis 6 as it's usually translated has insertions. In Verse 4.
There were Nephilim in the earth in those days; (and also after that_, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.Notice I put "to them" in italics, that isn't in the Hebrew. The text says the women the Angels married bore children, but doesn't necessarily say the fathers were the Angels.
Genesis 21:1-3 says.
And YHWH visited Sarah as he had said, and YHWH did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.It wouldn't be hard actually for a fringe theorist to suggest this passage is saying YHWH fathered Isaac. But we know from the context of Genesis 18 this is about YHWH making a barren woman fertile so He can keep His promise. Maybe what the Beni-Elohim did for the women in Genesis 6 was something similar.
As far as Rob's interpretation of the "And also after that", it's already at the 120 years left point this happens the first time.
A lot of people believing the Hybrid view make that their only apologetic answer to the issue of the apparent commands of Genocide from God in The Old Testament. That is very dangerous, to allow yourself to think Genocide is ok if you become convinced some group of people are Nephilim.
Lots of Christians have dealt with the issue in more natural ways. The Tirbalouge Blogspot blog is Clainvist which means I object to much of their theology. And they support the Sethite view. But they do a good job archiving answers to this Genocide issue without needing to bring any Science Fantasy into it. Whatever the reasons, those kinds of things don't apply on this side of The Cross.
In the case of the Amalekites, God explains why this command is being given, nothing about them being less Human.
The Reason for the Flood is always given as the people's sinful and violent nature. Not that their DNA had been corrupted.
Rob Skiba while promoting his bizarre Nephilim theory decided to try and de-mystify the Giant issue by showing a video talking about how Lygers grow very large just from how their cross bred. Well he overlooked something, that refutes the idea of needing unnatural crossbreeding altogether, Lions and Tigers are of the same Kind, they're Cats, they had the same ancestors on Noah's Ark.
So everyone in the past who's mocked the idea of interbreeding causing Giants, well it does have a scientific basis, the Genetic potential just no longer seems to exist among the remaining descendants of Noah. The last Biblically documented giant was before 1000 BC.
That's just one fact to point out, meanwhile it's highly possible Angels themselves could sometimes manifest as Giants. William Schneoblen tell a story of seeing a Giant Angel guarding a house he was in after praying for protection. Biblically one Angel killed the entire Assyrian army by himself.
At any-rate, none of the three words translated giant mean that, the ones described as Gigantic are all post Flood. However The "Fossil Record" seems to indicate that most everything was a lot bigger before The Flood.
What about the Anakim? They are defined as being of the Nephilim. Maybe they were fallen angels themselves, not hybrids. Maybe "Children of Anak" is like a poetic title and not really an identifier of an ancestor. Arba, founder of Hebron and namesake of it's prior name is called both a great man among the Anakim and the father of Anak. Seems contradictory unless the descriptions are poetic in some way.
Or maybe I'm wrong about what Nephilim means, if it does mean Giant then it just means the Anakim were for some reason Gigantic.
I'm just saying I'm unsure. The Holy Spirit has been convicting me lately about how this Nephilim issue seems to be a gateway drug into a lot of Occult Neo-Pagan weirdness. My advice is to at least be very careful looking into this area of research.
But don't let aversion to the weirdness scare you into to accepting the Sethite view which ties into Racism. My issue with Skia is he rejects the Sehtite view but gives his version of the Nephilim story the exact same issue I have with the Sethite view. By tying it into vilification of Ham's descendants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)