Original Sin and pagan gods.

James B. Jordan · 09 Aug 2006, 15:42 · from 2006-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jbjordan4 at cox.net (James B. Jordan)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:42:49 -0500
Subject: (urth) Original Sin and pagan gods.
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F3235BD4AD0405503A709CAD7550 at phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-F3235BD4AD0405503A709CAD7550 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060809103856.03fb29c0 at cox.net>



At 06:38 AM 8/9/2006, you wrote:

>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"?

         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


>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net