Subject: (urth) Original Sin and pagan gods.

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:38:52 +0000

James B. Jordan writes regarding the fallen angel origin of the Nephilim:

>Nephilim simply means  "powerful men" "great rulers,"

but isn't the word also derived from the Hebrew for "fallen"?

also he writes:

>True, "son of God" means "ruler" in the Hebrew, and is used for angels once 
>or twice, but it also >means "believer" and that is what it means here.

The beginning of Genesis 6 says:
6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the 
earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and 
they took them wives of all which they chose.

This indicates to me that the "sons of God" were not men and their 
intercourse with human women was something different from the human 
reproduction which had already covered the face of the earth. Why would God 
need to cleanse the earth of "believers" with a flood, which is described 
immediately after?

and James says:

>The sons of God who married the daughters of men because they were "good" 
>(same word used >of the fruit Eve plucked) were the Sethites who married 
>with the daughters of the Cainites. This >is clear from the context. In 
>Genesis 4-5, men of the Sethite line worshipped Yahweh

So, the forbidden fruit Eve plucked was good?  And "The serpent's job was to 
train them in wisdom". And what were these Sethite line guys doing when the 
rest of humanity was mulitplying.  Why did they only discover the daughters 
of men later? I have trouble understanding all this, especially with a more 
clear, alternate explanation available.

and lastly James B. Jordan writes:

>Without interviewing him, there is really no way to know what Wolfe might 
>be thinking about >such things, hence no way to know what his allusions 
>might be. Moreover, Wolfe may be alluding >to fantastical readings of 
>Genesis (e.g., Lilith) that he himself does not believe. So, be careful, 
>and don't over-read.

Yes, but aren't you the James Jordan who did interview Wolfe and to whom he 
explicitly stated his belief in the reality of pagan gods?  Regarding 
Lilith, yes, James Jordan and Roy Lackey had a discussion of Wolfe's use of 
this myth in regard to Copperhead about five years ago. Why would his use of 
Lilith in BotNS be surprising? And at the risk of sounding disrespectful and 
irreverent I must ask if the admonition to be careful and not over-read also 
applies to Bible reading ;-)?

-bsharp

---

From: James B. Jordan <jbjordan4 at cox.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:42:49 +0000

>but isn't the word also derived from the Hebrew for "fallen"?

         Or, those who fall upon others.
         But, for the rest, my point was that all of these things 
have multiple understandings. I don't want to be taken as "pulling 
rank" or anything, but as it happens I am the author of two books on 
the early parts of Genesis, so I'm aware of lots of views, very 
common views. I shared mine, but this is not the place to argue for 
my views. My point was that it's hard to know which of the various 
understandings of these texts are the ones Wolfe tends toward, and 
even if we did know, that would not tell us whether he might be 
employing a reading that he regards as erroneous for literary 
purposes. To wit, he may share the (most common) view that the sons 
of God are Sethites, but choose to employ the (minority) view that 
they are angels.
         I intended only a cautionary note. @>----

Pat. Nutria

>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 8/7/2006

James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32588
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20060809/17679d12/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/414 - Release Date: 8/9/2006

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:25:29 +0000

>but isn't the word also derived from the Hebrew for "fallen"?

Just wanted to throw in there that the idea of fallen angels mating with 
human females to beget giant children is not really a matter of translation, 
it's part of Jewish myth that goes back at least as far as the written text.

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:33:35 +0000

> it's part of Jewish myth that goes back at least as far as the written text.

"At least?" Now, how would we know that? The earliest place such a myth
is likely to be documented is in one Talmud, which dates to ... well, depends
on whether you're talking about Mishnah or Gemarah, but in any case, well
after the time of Christ. Figure the redaction of Genesis at the
fourth or fifth
century BC, and you've got between six and eight hundred years.

Mind, the stuff in the Mishnah was generally considered "ancient" at the time
it was compiled, but unless you know of a reference rather older than that,
I have trouble with the claim that these myths go "at least as far back as the
written text."

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.
However, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the
characters." -- Stephen R. Donaldson

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:17:47 +0000

While it's difficult to produce references from an oral tradition, granted, 
there isn't much reason to believe otherwise. As you note the stories were 
regarded as ancient, and with a consistency that tends to indicate an origin 
that was not recent at the time.

Also a useful general source (I forget who it was that was raising 
etymological points about "nefilim"):

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=24&letter=F

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:49:45 +0000

On 8/9/06, Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
> As you note the stories were regarded as ancient, and with a
> consistency that tends to indicate an origin that was not recent
> at the time.

Well, that's the rub "Not recent" at the time the Mishnah was
compiled could be any time before the Diaspora.

---

From: Bob Miller <bob_bageera at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:45:58 +0000

??? Sorry, The Book of Enoch is older and translated, several versions, 
online.  Sure read to me like giants and the children of men mated.

is likely to be documented is in one Talmud, which dates to ... well, 
depends

Mind, the stuff in the Mishnah was generally considered "ancient" at the 
time
it was compiled, but unless you know of a reference rather older than that,
I have trouble with the claim that these myths go "at least as far back as 
the
written text."

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar — get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:31:01 +0000

> online.  Sure read to me like giants and the children of men mated.

Okay, I'll have to check that out; I haven't read very much of the
apocryphal stuff except for a few Gnostic gospels. Thanks for the
pointer.