How could Noahs family be the only survivors?

[Richca]

I was reading the thread on Gods promise to Noah and it got me thinking about how the bible says Noah and his family were the ONLY people to survive, but in another verse, regarding the Nephilim, it says they were on the earth before AND AFTER the flood, so, which is it?

** I want to point out, I do not wish to discuss what the Nepilim actually were, whether they were just normal men (like many on here believe) or something else, too many threads on that already, Im just trying to find out how its possible ‘someone’ other than Noahs family could live on to be there after the flood.

For the sake of this thread, lets assume the Nephilim were just regular men.

I believe the Nephilim in the Bible refers to a race of giant or tall people which before the flood would have been descended from Adam and Eve, the first parents of the human race. I see no reason why after the flood that a race of giant or tall people could have descended from Noah’s family.

 

[mikekle]

I believe the Nephilim in the Bible refers to a race of giant or tall people which before the flood would have been descended from Adam and Eve, the first parents of the human race. I see no reason why after the flood that a race of giant or tall people could have descended from Noah’s family.

Yes, thats what I believe too, they were actually half human, half demonic manifestation, but many people think they were just regular human men, I was trying to avoid that debate, as there are many threads on that already, I was really just trying to figure out how ANYONE, no matter what they were could have lived on, that were NOT part of Noahs family, as the bible says both, it says in one verse Noah and his family were the only survivors, but in another it says the Nephilim were here before AND after the flood…so unless there was a male and female Nephilim within Noahs immediate family, it doesnt make sense.

 

[Richca]

Yes, thats what I believe too, they were actually half human, half demonic manifestation, but many people think they were just regular human men, I was trying to avoid that debate, as there are many threads on that already, I was really just trying to figure out how ANYONE, no matter what they were could have lived on, that were NOT part of Noahs family, as the bible says both, it says in one verse Noah and his family were the only survivors, but in another it says the Nephilim were here before AND after the flood…so unless there was a male and female Nephilim within Noahs immediate family, it doesnt make sense.

I did not say that the Nephilim were half human and half demonic manifestation. They where human but a tall race. If what you say is actually in the Bible, I don’t think we have to understand it as you are implying. Nephilim, I think, simply refers to a tall or giant people. So, if what you say is actually in the Bible, the Nephilim before the flood would have died out during the flood. After the flood, another race of giant or tall people, which the Bible refers to as Nephilim, could have descended from Noah’s family. This race of tall people would not have been directly descended from the Nephilim before the flood.

 

[Tim_D]

Yes, thats what I believe too, they were actually half human, half demonic manifestation…

Nonsense.

 

[ericc]

Yes, thats what I believe too, they were actually half human, half demonic manifestation, but many people think they were just regular human men, I was trying to avoid that debate, as there are many threads on that already,

How did you come to that conclusion? Back it up.

I was really just trying to figure out how ANYONE, no matter what they were could have lived on, that were NOT part of Noahs family, as the bible says both, it says in one verse Noah and his family were the only survivors, but in another it says the Nephilim were here before AND after the flood…so unless there was a male and female Nephilim within Noahs immediate family, it doesnt make sense.

Where was that verse that says Nephilim survived the Flood? You need to provide chapter and verse so that we can have the same reference point. I asked in a prior post #57 but did not get a reply. Perhaps you missed it. Let me reproduce it for you.

The Nephilim was mentioned in 2 verses, Gen 6:4(before Flood) and Numbers 13:33(after Flood). There is nothing to to link the Nephilim of Numbers to the Nephilim of Genesis. If you are alluding that the Nephilim of Numbers is the same as that of Genesis, then you need to provide the evidence to support it.

Gen 9:18-19 says plainly that after the Flood, the sons of Noah peopled the earth. Either this is true or it is not. Then which verse from the whole Bible would you choose to believe is true and which is not? On what basis?

 

[mikekle]

How did you come to that conclusion? Back it up.

Where was that verse that says Nephilim survived the Flood? You need to provide chapter and verse so that we can have the same reference point. I asked in a prior post #57 but did not get a reply. Perhaps you missed it. Let me reproduce it for you.

I came to that conclusion after much reading on the subject and asking the senior priest at my parish, he has a PHD in history, Up until adulthood, and going all thru catholic school, I had never once heard the term ‘Nephilim’, Once learning about it, I became very interested.

The senior priest basically explained they were satans attempt to corrupt the human ‘seed’, so Jesus could not be born to a human female, but since he came thru a virgin birth, the whole attempt was in vain, it failed and of course, Satans greatest trick was and is to convince mankind he does not even exist, so it should not be a surprise that the story of the Nephilim is sort of ‘erased’ or hidden away, mired in controversy.

There is a verse ( I will look for it later today and post, going to work here soon), it talks about how the Nephilims ‘memories’ (their history/ story) were to be erased and hidden from mankind.

Regarding them being here after the flood…

Genesis 6:4…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the** sons of God **came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Numbers 13:33 tells us they were something much larger than normal men, as ‘we’ seemed like grasshoppers to them and us to them.

Also notice ‘sons of God’, in the bible this ALWAYS refers to angels/ fallen angels, the verse also makes the distinction between them and the daughters of men, this is how we can know for a fact it was indeed fallen angels engaging in a ‘sex act’ with human females, now keep in mind, many say this isnt possible, but other verses, when angels take the form of a man/woman, they do engage in other human activities, like eating, drinking, etc.

Im not claiming to understand the logistics or details on how fallen angels were able to produce hybrid beings, that is knowledge we just cant know or even understand, it would sort of like the question of what happens to the actual food/drink when the angels in human ate or drank them, those types of details are just beyond our understanding.

 

[Richca]

I came to that conclusion after much reading on the subject and asking the senior priest at my parish, he has a PHD in history, Up until adulthood, and going all thru catholic school, I had never once heard the term ‘Nephilim’, Once learning about it, I became very interested.

The senior priest basically explained they were satans attempt to corrupt the human ‘seed’, so Jesus could not be born to a human female, but since he came thru a virgin birth, the whole attempt was in vain, it failed and of course, Satans greatest trick was and is to convince mankind he does not even exist, so it should not be a surprise that the story of the Nephilim is sort of ‘erased’ or hidden away, mired in controversy.

There is a verse ( I will look for it later today and post, going to work here soon), it talks about how the Nephilims ‘memories’ (their history/ story) were to be erased and hidden from mankind.

Regarding them being here after the flood…

Genesis 6:4…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the** sons of God **came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Numbers 13:33 tells us they were something much larger than normal men, as ‘we’ seemed like grasshoppers to them and us to them.

Also notice ‘sons of God’, in the bible this ALWAYS refers to angels/ fallen angels, the verse also makes the distinction between them and the daughters of men, this is how we can know for a fact it was indeed fallen angels engaging in a ‘sex act’ with human females, now keep in mind, many say this isnt possible, but other verses, when angels take the form of a man/woman, they do engage in other human activities, like eating, drinking, etc.

Im not claiming to understand the logistics or details on how fallen angels were able to produce hybrid beings, that is knowledge we just cant know or even understand, it would sort of like the question of what happens to the actual food/drink when the angels in human ate or drank them, those types of details are just beyond our understanding.

The “Sons of God” in Genesis 6: 1-4 does not necessarily mean angels. Ancient Judaism and early ecclesiatical writers such as Clement of Alexandria, St Justin Martyr, and Tertullian interpret “Sons of God” here to refer to angels. But, later fathers such as St Augustine, St John Crysostom, Julius Africanus, Theodoret, interpret “Sons of God” here to refer to the descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” to refer to the descendants of Cain. In the genealogies of Seth and Cain, the biblical author represents the Cainites as a wicked race of men, whereas the descendants of Seth are those who call upon Yahweh and from which Noah is descended from and eventually the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Jesus Christ himself.

The biblical author is using Gen. 6: 1-4, probably taking narratives from ancient legends or stories, and transposing the stories to a theological purpose. In these verses, the biblical author is further illustrating the wickedness of men which precipitated the divine intervention of the Flood. The “Sons of God,” that is, the descendants of Seth also become wicked by their intermingling with “the daughters of men”, that is, the women of the descendants of Cain.

As the theology of the angels and of their immateriality developed in the doctrine of the Church, from the fourth century onwards, the fathers of the Church commonly take the Sons of God to refer to the descendants of Seth and the daughers of men to refer to the descendants of Cain. Angels do not marry or are they given in marriage as Jesus says in Matt. 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

 

[mikekle]

The “Sons of God” in Genesis 6: 1-4 does not necessarily mean angels. Ancient Judaism and early ecclesiatical writers such as Clement of Alexandria, St Justin Martyr, and Tertullian interpret “Sons of God” here to refer to angels. But, later fathers such as St Augustine, St John Crysostom, Julius Africanus, Theodoret, interpret “Sons of God” here to refer to the descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” to refer to the descendants of Cain. In the genealogies of Seth and Cain, the biblical author represents the Cainites as a wicked race of men, whereas the descendants of Seth are those who call upon Yahweh and from which Noah is descended from and eventually the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Jesus Christ himself.

The biblical author is using Gen. 6: 1-4, probably taking narratives from ancient legends or stories, and transposing the stories to a theological purpose. In these verses, the biblical author is further illustrating the wickedness of men which precipitated the divine intervention of the Flood. The “Sons of God,” that is, the descendants of Seth also become wicked by their intermingling with “the daughters of men”, that is, the women of the descendants of Cain.

As the theology of the angels and of their immateriality developed in the doctrine of the Church, from the fourth century onwards, the fathers of the Church commonly take the Sons of God to refer to the descendants of Seth and the daughers of men to refer to the descendants of Cain. Angels do not marry or are they given in marriage as Jesus says in Matt. 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, lets say the sons of God were descendants of Seth, these men then created offspring with the daughters of men…this still means, at least 2 of these descendants survived the flood…?

 

[Tim_D]

The “Sons of God” in Genesis 6: 1-4 does not necessarily mean angels. Ancient Judaism and early ecclesiatical writers such as Clement of Alexandria, St Justin Martyr, and Tertullian interpret “Sons of God” here to refer to angels. But, later fathers such as St Augustine, St John Crysostom, Julius Africanus, Theodoret, interpret “Sons of God” here to refer to the descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” to refer to the descendants of Cain. In the genealogies of Seth and Cain, the biblical author represents the Cainites as a wicked race of men, whereas the descendants of Seth are those who call upon Yahweh and from which Noah is descended from and eventually the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Jesus Christ himself.

The biblical author is using Gen. 6: 1-4, probably taking narratives from ancient legends or stories, and transposing the stories to a theological purpose. In these verses, the biblical author is further illustrating the wickedness of men which precipitated the divine intervention of the Flood. The “Sons of God,” that is, the descendants of Seth also become wicked by their intermingling with “the daughters of men”, that is, the women of the descendants of Cain.

As the theology of the angels and of their immateriality developed in the doctrine of the Church, from the fourth century onwards, the fathers of the Church commonly take the Sons of God to refer to the descendants of Seth and the daughers of men to refer to the descendants of Cain. Angels do not marry or are they given in marriage as Jesus says in Matt. 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

An excellent post!

 

[ericc]

Genesis 6:4…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the** sons of God **came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Unfortunately the “afterward” does not necessarily refer to after the Flood. The “afterward” refers to the mating with the daughters of men.

Numbers 13:33 tells us they were something much larger than normal men, as ‘we’ seemed like grasshoppers to them and us to them.

The key word is “we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers”. That does not establish that the Nephilim of Numbers is the same as that of Genesis. We must be wary not to link verses together just because on the surface it “seems” to be the same. However we know that the Bible stated clearly that the world was populated from the children of Noah and not from other survivors. When one has to make an assumption about anything but that would cause an error or inconsistency in another place, that would not be a good assumption to make. The better assumption is one that does not violate existing knowledge but creates an even better fit or better explanation of the data available.

Folks with PHd still need to have their theories poked at and substantiated before one allocates time to consider their proposal. Frankly speaking more paper qualifications does not create more evidence for the Nephilim. Book of Enoch has something on Nephilim but unfortunately this book is not regarded credible for various reasons.

 

[ericc]

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, lets say the sons of God were descendants of Seth, these men then created offspring with the daughters of men…this still means, at least 2 of these descendants survived the flood…?

The only survivors were Noah and his family and his animals. For discussion sake, you need to provide substantiation that there were other non-Noah survivors. Without that evidence, it is difficult to have that discussion which in your mind the evidence exist but not in ours. But I think we will gladly pore over any evidence that you may have to continue that discussion.

 

[The_Serpent]

A good case can be made that there were more than eight people on Noah’s Ark. Sem a son of Noah fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood. But the genealogy lists in the Bible lists other sons before this birth! Thus more than eight.
Read more at this link: carllebron.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-than-eight-survived-flood-of-noah.html

Further the visionary Anne Katherine Emmerich claimed there were many workers and grandchildren in the Ark

tanbooks.com/index.php/life-of-jesus-christ-and-biblical-revelations-from-the-visions-of-ven-anne-catherine-emmerich.html

:grouphug:

 

[ericc]

A good case can be made that there were more than eight people on Noah’s Ark. Sem a son of Noah fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood. But the genealogy lists in the Bible lists other sons before this birth! Thus more than eight.
Read more at this link: carllebron.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-than-eight-survived-flood-of-noah.html

Further the visionary Anne Katherine Emmerich claimed there were many workers and grandchildren in the Ark

tanbooks.com/index.php/life-of-jesus-christ-and-biblical-revelations-from-the-visions-of-ven-anne-catherine-emmerich.html

:grouphug:

Excuse me, you are quoting an occult blog?

If the blogger is relying on this statement

“These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.” (Genesis 11:10) Wait a minute! If he fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood. Then it follows that Elam and Assur were born before the flood! They must be on the ark somewhere."

His conclusion is that Elam and Assur were born ahead of Arpachshad. But Genesis never listed the DOB of Elam and Assur. So that was an assumption that Elam and Assur were older than Arpachshad. Assuming that were to be true (although I try to avoid making such assumptions since I couldn’t sway opinions using silence as an argument), the timing does not negate that it is possible that Elam/Assur were born after the Flood. Elam could have been born right after the Flood (8.5 months in the womb while momma was in the Ark) and Assur a year later. Or even Elam/Assur could have been twins. All within the 2 year period. After all, they have been blessed by God to multiply and populate the earth. Why would a blogger jump to such a conclusion while not considering other possibilities? The agenda is to cast doubt on to shaky believers.

But seriously, an occult blog??? tsk tsk, you shouldn’t be there unless your faith is super strong. I was lead astray previously by dabbling and reading to much of such stuff.

 

[The_Serpent]

Excuse me, you are quoting an occult blog?

If the blogger is relying on this statement

“These are the generations of Sem: Sem was a hundred years old when he begot Arphaxad, two years after the flood.” (Genesis 11:10) Wait a minute! If he fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood. Then it follows that Elam and Assur were born before the flood! They must be on the ark somewhere."

His conclusion is that Elam and Assur were born ahead of Arpachshad. But Genesis never listed the DOB of Elam and Assur. So that was an assumption that Elam and Assur were older than Arpachshad. Assuming that were to be true (although I try to avoid making such assumptions since I couldn’t sway opinions using silence as an argument), the timing does not negate that it is possible that Elam/Assur were born after the Flood. Elam could have been born right after the Flood (8.5 months in the womb while momma was in the Ark) and Assur a year later. Or even Elam/Assur could have been twins. All within the 2 year period. After all, they have been blessed by God to multiply and populate the earth. Why would a blogger jump to such a conclusion while not considering other possibilities? The agenda is to cast doubt on to shaky believers.

But seriously, an occult blog??? tsk tsk, you shouldn’t be there unless your faith is super strong. I was lead astray previously by dabbling and reading to much of such stuff.

The genealogies in the Bible trace the first born line in the lists, and then add the next sons. This supports the view Elam and Assur were born before Arpachshad. Most people space the children apart. But there is no way to know if he did or did not. Either way that’s one more on the ark, even if it’s a new born.

 

[ericc]

The genealogies in the Bible trace the first born line in the lists, and then add the next sons. This supports the view Elam and Assur were born before Arpachshad.

I can concede that is the norm and that elder brothers are mentioned preceding the younger .

Most people space the children apart. But there is no way to know if he did or did not.

Most people do not come off the ark and populate the earth. And since you do not know, how do you know one or more was born on the ark?

Either way that’s one more on the ark, even if it’s a new born.

The new born was after they came off the Ark. I don’t think you count those still in the belly. Scenario 1:

After the Flood: Month 1 Elam : Month 12 Asshur : Month 24 Arpachshad

Scenario 2 : Elam/Asshur twins

In either of these scenarios there is no need to assume that any one of them was born on the Ark. And yet no evidence has been presented to say that grand kids were born on the ark.

In fact the Bible says it explicitly Gen 10:1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth;, sons were born to them after the flood.

1 Peter 3:20 " …eight persons, were saved through water"

2 Peter 2:5 “Noah…with seven other persons…”

The evidence to support 8 persons is clear. It is surprising that one would want to stretch something which is not there through supposition. Now , if you can provide the evidence that Noah had a grandchild on the ark, bring forth your proof. Otherwise all you are banking on is the information that Arpachshad was born 2 years after the flood which contribute zero evidence that one or both of his older brothers were born on the ark.

 

[The_Serpent]

I can concede that is the norm and that elder brothers are mentioned preceding the younger .

Most people do not come off the ark and populate the earth. And since you do not know, how do you know one or more was born on the ark?

The new born was after they came off the Ark. I don’t think you count those still in the belly. Scenario 1:

After the Flood: Month 1 Elam : Month 12 Asshur : Month 24 Arpachshad

Scenario 2 : Elam/Asshur twins

In either of these scenarios there is no need to assume that any one of them was born on the Ark. And yet no evidence has been presented to say that grand kids were born on the ark.

In fact the Bible says it explicitly Gen 10:1 These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth;, sons were born to them after the flood.

1 Peter 3:20 " …eight persons, were saved through water"

2 Peter 2:5 “Noah…with seven other persons…”

The evidence to support 8 persons is clear. It is surprising that one would want to stretch something which is not there through supposition. Now , if you can provide the evidence that Noah had a grandchild on the ark, bring forth your proof. Otherwise all you are banking on is the information that Arpachshad was born 2 years after the flood which contribute zero evidence that one or both of his older brothers were born on the ark.

Okay, I will try to improve the case for more on the Ark.
In scripture Noe was 500 years old (Genesis 5:31) when he begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth. He was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6) when the flood occurred.
This allows plenty of time for them to have fathered children before the flood.
Your calculations based on Arpaxads birth need … stretching. Modern science allow for woman to conceive after a birth, around 21 days or roughly a month.
Arpaxad was born 2 years (24 months) after the flood, so subtract 10 months. At 14 months Asshur is born, leaving 4 months. Elam was 5 months in the womb, on the Ark.
Again this is assumming a tight planning of births. Scripture doens’t mention dates for the other two sons of Noe, to calculate their children.
But, they also could have had children before the flood.
The historian Josephus had the same problem with these calculations that you have. In his Anitquties of the Jews Chapter 6, section 5, line 150, he changes scripture!
He states that Arphaxad was born 12 years after the flood. He knew there were sons born before him, and couldn’t reconcile the genealogy, so he changed the time to 12 years instead of 2!

There is a further possibility in the Book of Job. Job had a friend call Sophar the Naamathite(Job 2:11). A possible founder of the Naamathites is Naamah.
Josephus lists Naamah(called Noema in the Duay-Rheims), a daughter of Lamech. Thus, a sister to Noah. The Naamathites could be named after their ancestor, Naamah.
This makes 9 on the Ark, 10 if you include Elam!

 

[ericc]

Okay, I will try to improve the case for more on the Ark.
In scripture Noe was 500 years old (Genesis 5:31) when he begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth. He was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6) when the flood occurred.
This allows plenty of time for them to have fathered children before the flood.

Noah have plenty of time for a lot of things. One can do plenty with 500 years. So back to the argument.

Your calculations based on Arpaxads birth need … stretching. Modern science allow for woman to conceive after a birth, around 21 days or roughly a month.
Arpaxad was born 2 years (24 months) after the flood, so subtract 10 months. At 14 months Asshur is born, leaving 4 months. Elam was 5 months in the womb, on the Ark.
Again this is assumming a tight planning of births. Scripture doens’t mention dates for the other two sons of Noe, to calculate their children.

This is a variation of timing of my scenario 1. So you are not refuting it? How about my scenario 2?

Ancient science also allows for a woman to give birth within a month. Actually for some 2 weeks. It depends on her cycle.

But, they also could have had children before the flood.

Could have, but no names were given and they didn’t came on board the ark.

The historian Josephus had the same problem with these calculations that you have. In his Anitquties of the Jews Chapter 6, section 5, line 150, he changes scripture!
He states that Arphaxad was born 12 years after the flood. He knew there were sons born before him, and couldn’t reconcile the genealogy, so he changed the time to 12 years instead of 2!

Lucky for us he is not an inspired author of the Bible. You want to place your bet on Josephus or Moses? Would Josephus know it better than Moses? I failed to see your point. Moses wrote Genesis, not Josephus. Josephus was only a writer of history. So he must have copied it wrongly around the 1st century about events several thousand years ago. Lousy historian. The Law of Moses has been around for a long time everywhere in the temples and synagogues during his time. And he can’t even copy it right.

There is a further possibility in the Book of Job. Job had a friend call Sophar the Naamathite(Job 2:11). A possible founder of the Naamathites is Naamah.
Josephus lists Naamah(called Noema in the Duay-Rheims), a daughter of Lamech. Thus, a sister to Noah. The Naamathites could be named after their ancestor, Naamah.
This makes 9 on the Ark, 10 if you include Elam!

Can you stick with Noah and see it through before detouring? You are just introducing new suppositions. When you use language like “possible” and “could be” it only highlight that you are just conjecturing. Not a very convincing approach to persuade anyone to your pov.

What you are trying to show that it is possible that there could be more than 8 persons on the ark but that is not the hypothesis that we are trying to debunk here. Arpachshad born 2 years after the flood is not contradictory to his 2 elder brothers born after the flood too. You are trying to prove it wrong but without ensuring all other verses are valid too. It is a one-legged proof. Your algebra is just plain wrong. Proving one equation without ensuring other equations simultaneously proven also. That is not proof at all. But if you are trying to prove the Bible wrong, you need to show it is contradictory without a shadow of doubt. I have casted doubts on your hypothesis with my scenarios 1 and 2.
What is important is 8 people came on board the ark and 8 people left the ark. No more no less. You need evidence that it is a different number , not supposition.

 

[mikekle]

Unfortunately the “afterward” does not necessarily refer to after the Flood. The “afterward” refers to the mating with the daughters of men.

The key word is “we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers”. That does not establish that the Nephilim of Numbers is the same as that of Genesis. We must be wary not to link verses together just because on the surface it “seems” to be the same. However we know that the Bible stated clearly that the world was populated from the children of Noah and not from other survivors. When one has to make an assumption about anything but that would cause an error or inconsistency in another place, that would not be a good assumption to make. The better assumption is one that does not violate existing knowledge but creates an even better fit or better explanation of the data available.

Folks with PHd still need to have their theories poked at and substantiated before one allocates time to consider their proposal. Frankly speaking more paper qualifications does not create more evidence for the Nephilim. Book of Enoch has something on Nephilim but unfortunately this book is not regarded credible for various reasons.

Im a bit stuck on the “in those days” and the “also afterward” statements, you said the event was the mating with daughters of men, but in other verses, when "in those days’ is used,it usually refers to the days BEFORE the flood or the days of Noah…right?

Kind of like how it is said the end times will be like the days of Noah.

Im finding it difficult to understand the bible, upon reading that verse, my very first thought is that it was referring to after the flood, Many other parts of the bible have had the same effect, I will read them, and will think it means this and after reading on here or other places, I come to find out it means something totally different than what I was thinking…?? If all these things are true, they sure went to great lengths to ensure the bible can either be interpreted many different ways and/or its difficult to understand/interpret at all. If it was meant to draw people to God, why write it in such in way as to confuse?

 

[boomerang]

Genesis 6:4…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Im a bit stuck on the “in those days” and the “also afterward” statements…

Im finding it difficult to understand the bible, upon reading that verse, my very first thought is that it was referring to after the flood, Many other parts of the bible have had the same effect, I will read them, and will think it means this and after reading on here or other places, I come to find out it means something totally different than what I was thinking…?? If all these things are true, they sure went to great lengths to ensure the bible can either be interpreted many different ways and/or its difficult to understand/interpret at all. If it was meant to draw people to God, why write it in such in way as to confuse?

I didn’t read every post in this thread so I don’t know if it was brought up already, but I looked up that passage in several of the older OT translations: The Septuagint, Douay Rheims and Luther’s bible. Punctuation can make a world of difference in how something is interpreted. My understanding of the Hebrew OT is that it is extremely difficult to interpret. There is no punctuation, nor vowels, nor breaks between words and sentences.

My guess is, that a correct interpretation of anything written in ancient Hebrew must come from a native speaker who is intimately familiar with the original stories, such as a rabbi in BC times would be. Those people don’t exist anymore. Modern Hebrew is nothing like ancient Hebrew. There will always be questions about the OT as it is the work of an extinct people writing in a primitive, dead language.

Septuagint

Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

Douay Rheims 1899

Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Luther’s bible 1545- English translation via Google

There were also one of the giants in the earth; So the children of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them were mighty in the world and famous men.

See the difference? Even a simple change in punctuation can change an entire doctrine. See here:

Traditional bible:

And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise. Luke 23:42-43

Jehovah’s Witness bible:

And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen. I say to you today, you shall be with me in paradise"

The traditional bible affirms that the thief will go to heaven that very day. The JW bible makes no such promise. Jesus says the thief will go to heaven, but not necessarily today. When will the thief go to heaven? Who knows. Oh, the difference punctuation makes.

 

[truetofaith]

I didn’t read every post in this thread so I don’t know if it was brought up already, but I looked up that passage in several of the older OT translations: The Septuagint, Douay Rheims and Luther’s bible. Punctuation can make a world of difference in how something is interpreted. My understanding of the Hebrew OT is that it is extremely difficult to interpret. There is no punctuation, nor vowels, nor breaks between words and sentences.

My guess is, that a correct interpretation of anything written in ancient Hebrew must come from a native speaker who is intimately familiar with the original stories, such as a rabbi in BC times would be. Those people don’t exist anymore. Modern Hebrew is nothing like ancient Hebrew. There will always be questions about the OT as it is the work of an extinct people writing in a primitive, dead language.

Septuagint

Douay Rheims 1899

Luther’s bible 1545- English translation via Google

See the difference? Even a simple change in punctuation can change an entire doctrine. See here:

Traditional bible:

Jehovah’s Witness bible:

The traditional bible affirms that the thief will go to heaven that very day. The JW bible makes no such promise. Jesus says the thief will go to heaven, but not necessarily today. When will the thief go to heaven? Who knows. Oh, the difference punctuation makes.

Man, you are so right about punctuation…I’ve had many arguments with JWs over the good thief.