Bullinger reduced the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three by equating "doctrine" with "instruction in righteous". Wierwille reduced the number from four to three by twisting Ricker-Berry's interpretation from "for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness" to "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness."
interestingly, when Paul wrote that to Timothy, it was refering to the Tanak(Torah/Pentetuch, Nephilim/prophets and history, and Ketubim/Psalms/Proverbs/Song of Solomon/Ecclesiates), not the New Testament gospels, Acts, epistles, or Revelation which he, Peter, James, and John saw only as commentary and not equal to the Old Testament.
interestingly, when Paul wrote that to Timothy, it was refering to the Tanak(Torah/Pentetuch, Nephilim/prophets and history, and Ketubim/Psalms/Proverbs/Song of Solomon/Ecclesiates), not the New Testament gospels, Acts, epistles, or Revelation which he, Peter, James, and John saw only as commentary and not equal to the Old Testament.
Thomas,
Some of what you posit might be the case, but not necessarily all. Peter (if he can be trusted...) thinks that Paul's writings were Scripture and on the same par as that "other" stuff (see 2 Peter 3:16) and Paul seems to be already quoting one of the Gospels in Timothy as if they were Scripture as well. The Tanakh, BTW, contains the "Law (Heb - torah), and the writings (Heb - kethubim)" as Jesus rightly points out, but the Prophets are the (Heb - nebiim) , not (OMG) Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known.
Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known.
Where is their end documented?
Genesis 6:4 says that the Nephilim were on earth both before "and after" the flood. If the Nephilim mated with "daughters of men" before the flood, then it's reasonable to assume that they did so after the flood, as well.
(Incidentally, the offspring that the Nephilim produced together with the daughters of men, grew to become "heroes" and "men of reknown". So I don't know if "worthless" is a proper characterization.)
Continuing on, Numbers 13:33 tells us that the Nephilim were reported in "the land from the Desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath." And "up through the Negev" and "Hebron", where "Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai...lived." (Numbers 13:31)
Their complete destruction is never ascertained. "No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive." (Joshua 11:22)
So, as far as I can tell they are probably still around.
Some of what you posit might be the case, but not necessarily all. Peter (if he can be trusted...) thinks that Paul's writings were Scripture and on the same par as that "other" stuff (see 2 Peter 3:16) and Paul seems to be already quoting one of the Gospels in Timothy as if they were Scripture as well. The Tanakh, BTW, contains the "Law (Heb - torah), and the writings (Heb - kethubim)" as Jesus rightly points out, but the Prophets are the (Heb - nebiim) , not (OMG) Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known.
RE
Robert , thanks for the correction. Remember that the Gospels were written later from about 75 AD on, after the Epistles, then Acts(which may have been mergered with Gospel of Luke).
Genesis 6:4 says that the Nephilim were on earth both before "and after" the flood. If the Nephilim mated with "daughters of men" before the flood, then it's reasonable to assume that they did so after the flood, as well.
(Incidentally, the offspring that the Nephilim produced together with the daughters of men, grew to become "heroes" and "men of reknown". So I don't know if "worthless" is a proper characterization.)
Continuing on, Numbers 13:33 tells us that the Nephilim were reported in "the land from the Desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath." And "up through the Negev" and "Hebron", where "Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai...lived." (Numbers 13:31)
Their complete destruction is never ascertained. "No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive." (Joshua 11:22)
So, as far as I can tell they are probably still around.
Oh, I didnt't say they were not around...
Robert , thanks for the correction. Remember that the Gospels were written later from about 75 AD on, after the Epistles, then Acts(which may have been mergered with Gospel of Luke).
Thomas,
I don't agree that the "Gospels were written later" or "after the Epistles" though some do. But it is hard to date things. At least there is some chronology in Acts, eh?
You said, "Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known."
The implication from your statement is that they were finished off.
So...if their "end is known" please educate me: what is it?
Soul,
It's a kinda now/ not yet thing (like our own salvation). We have it ("saved" from the lake of fire). I can't say the same for the Nephilim or the other beings that will experience that fun place.
It's a kinda now/ not yet thing (like our own salvation.
I think I know where you're coming from (though I don't necessarily agree with it).
I only brought it up because I'm sort of interested in this story, mostly from a narrative perspective. And I guess my point is that it is not clear in Genesis 6 that the Nephilim were evil or were directly responsible for man's wickedness.
Personally (and for whatever that's worth), I believe that the "Nephilim" were no greater in stature than any normal human (as in "Giants") nor do I believe that they are/were the Angels that fell from grace. I believe they were humans only. I've never gotten into the incubus/succubus teachings, and believe that the angels in prison, fallen angels, have little to do with the "nephilim' of Genesis. There isn't enough in what is written to suppose otherwise unless you make some rather large leaps past logic.
Most of those 'blanks' have been filled in by extra-biblical interpretation and teachings over the years.
VERY few people inside TWI ever knew that the paper existed.
I think it was done sometime around the reading of The Passing of A Patriarch. The Way Corps had been told that the Trustees were screwed up, but nothing specific had been brought up. Not even a breath about the adultery. Members of the Corps were just told to keep their mouths shut about anything and everything. This was at the time when NOBODY knew who was calling the shots at HQ, Martindale or Geer.
Schoenheit had made a few copies and sent them to people he knew and thought he could trust, mostly from his Corps experience. When "leadership" found out about the paper, they ordered ALL copies to be sent to HQ unread, where they were destroyed. Anybody who had anything to do with the paper was fired, even if they didn't act on what was revealed in it. This was before the practice of "mark and avoid" had been developed, but the quickest way to get "possessed" was to read the paper or talk about it. It was only after Lynn and some of the other ex-leaders went on tours around the country exposing what had happened to them, that existence of the paper became widely known among ex-wafers.
In short, leadership successfully suppressed the paper within TWI.
Love,
Steve
Not to detract from the thread (as it's now headed), but I'd like to add to what Steve said earlier. I was sent a copy of the "Schoenheit Paper" back when it came out. It was a simple "position" paper stating that adultery was wrong, and cited biblical verses to that fact. Given the reaction from all the "higher-ups" there at headquarters, you'd have thought someone stirred a stick in a hornet's nest.
It was said (from headquarters) that "Anyone who reads this paper will get possessed". Yea. Righttt!
Simply reading a piece of work will get you possessed? The Bozo's at hdqtrs were just doing the typical CYA drill.
And (by the mandate to not read it or get "possessed") only proved their desperation to coverup what had been going on for so long.
I was (at the time) an on again/ off again twig attender, but once the local leadership found out I had a copy of that paper,
all other "faithful twiggies" were told to have nothing to do with me. That was OK with me. No skin off of my nose.
What made me sad was the blind allegiance folks here had to the slightest "dictate" that emanated from Box 328 NK, Oh.
Then I realized that that was the way it had always been, and that saddened me even more.
Not to detract from the thread (as it's now headed), but I'd like to add to what Steve said earlier. I was sent a copy of the "Schoenheit Paper" back when it came out. It was a simple "position" paper stating that adultery was wrong, and cited biblical verses to that fact. Given the reaction from all the "higher-ups" there at headquarters, you'd have thought someone stirred a stick in a hornet's nest.
It was said (from headquarters) that "Anyone who reads this paper will get possessed". Yea. Righttt!
Simply reading a piece of work will get you possessed? The Bozo's at hdqtrs were just doing the typical CYA drill.
And (by the mandate to not read it or get "possessed") only proved their desperation to coverup what had been going on for so long.
I was (at the time) an on again/ off again twig attender, but once the local leadership found out I had a copy of that paper,
all other "faithful twiggies" were told to have nothing to do with me. That was OK with me. No skin off of my nose.
What made me sad was the blind allegiance folks here had to the slightest "dictate" that emanated from Box 328 NK, Oh.
Then I realized that that was the way it had always been, and that saddened me even more.
Sorry for the (slight) derail. Carry on. :)
Thanks for confirming my reconstruction of events!
"Our Contender article, “Should Women be Silent in the Church?” by John Schoenheit demonstrates through examination of the textual and cultural evidence that women’s silence is not God’s will. As John says, “The weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35, which says women should be silent and not speak in the church, was not part of the original God-breathed Word, but was written by a copyist who had strong feelings about women’s participation in Christian meetings.”....
Here is a link to a response Richard Gaffin made to a piece by another theologian concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34:
Due to viewing 1 Cor. 14:34 contextually in a way that does not prohibit women from engaging in any manner of uninspired speech (including uninspired prayer) in the churches, Gaffin's suggestion (i.e. that the prohibition might be against women participating in authoritative evaluations of prophecy) makes for a more plausible position than his opponent's.
Due to viewing 1 Cor. 14:34 contextually in a way that does not prohibit women from engaging in any manner of uninspired speech (including uninspired prayer) in the churches, Gaffin's suggestion (i.e. that the prohibition might be against women participating in authoritative evaluations of prophecy) makes for a more plausible position than his opponent's.
Maybe, but that's not the point. The point is that CES comes from a stance of bible inerrancy and that you can believe it. I don't think you can honestly make an exception and continue to maintain that the bible is inerrant. Something has to give, or I think you start down the same slippery slope that TWI took.
Furthermore, unless CES has had a huge epiphany, what they are stating in their latest Sower is not what I experienced in their practices at the home office.
Recommended Posts
Gen-2
So they rounded down, some people round up.....
"Several possibilities come to mind."
Oh yeah, and sorry about this, but,.....
So did this one - Sorry Steve...... :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
@ Steve Lortz: nice work! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for posting that, Gen-2! That has always been one of my favorites since I first saw it on PBS in the late-'70s.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Steve,
Thx for the background and details, and soul searcher, thx for the Companion Bible link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
interestingly, when Paul wrote that to Timothy, it was refering to the Tanak(Torah/Pentetuch, Nephilim/prophets and history, and Ketubim/Psalms/Proverbs/Song of Solomon/Ecclesiates), not the New Testament gospels, Acts, epistles, or Revelation which he, Peter, James, and John saw only as commentary and not equal to the Old Testament.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Thomas,
Some of what you posit might be the case, but not necessarily all. Peter (if he can be trusted...) thinks that Paul's writings were Scripture and on the same par as that "other" stuff (see 2 Peter 3:16) and Paul seems to be already quoting one of the Gospels in Timothy as if they were Scripture as well. The Tanakh, BTW, contains the "Law (Heb - torah), and the writings (Heb - kethubim)" as Jesus rightly points out, but the Prophets are the (Heb - nebiim) , not (OMG) Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Where is their end documented?
Genesis 6:4 says that the Nephilim were on earth both before "and after" the flood. If the Nephilim mated with "daughters of men" before the flood, then it's reasonable to assume that they did so after the flood, as well.
(Incidentally, the offspring that the Nephilim produced together with the daughters of men, grew to become "heroes" and "men of reknown". So I don't know if "worthless" is a proper characterization.)
Continuing on, Numbers 13:33 tells us that the Nephilim were reported in "the land from the Desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath." And "up through the Negev" and "Hebron", where "Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai...lived." (Numbers 13:31)
Their complete destruction is never ascertained. "No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive." (Joshua 11:22)
So, as far as I can tell they are probably still around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Robert , thanks for the correction. Remember that the Gospels were written later from about 75 AD on, after the Epistles, then Acts(which may have been mergered with Gospel of Luke).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Oh, I didnt't say they were not around...
Thomas,
I don't agree that the "Gospels were written later" or "after the Epistles" though some do. But it is hard to date things. At least there is some chronology in Acts, eh?
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
You said, "Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known."
The implication from your statement is that they were finished off.
So...if their "end is known" please educate me: what is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Soul,
It's a kinda now/ not yet thing (like our own salvation). We have it ("saved" from the lake of fire). I can't say the same for the Nephilim or the other beings that will experience that fun place.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I only brought it up because I'm sort of interested in this story, mostly from a narrative perspective. And I guess my point is that it is not clear in Genesis 6 that the Nephilim were evil or were directly responsible for man's wickedness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Personally (and for whatever that's worth), I believe that the "Nephilim" were no greater in stature than any normal human (as in "Giants") nor do I believe that they are/were the Angels that fell from grace. I believe they were humans only. I've never gotten into the incubus/succubus teachings, and believe that the angels in prison, fallen angels, have little to do with the "nephilim' of Genesis. There isn't enough in what is written to suppose otherwise unless you make some rather large leaps past logic.
Most of those 'blanks' have been filled in by extra-biblical interpretation and teachings over the years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Not to detract from the thread (as it's now headed), but I'd like to add to what Steve said earlier. I was sent a copy of the "Schoenheit Paper" back when it came out. It was a simple "position" paper stating that adultery was wrong, and cited biblical verses to that fact. Given the reaction from all the "higher-ups" there at headquarters, you'd have thought someone stirred a stick in a hornet's nest.
It was said (from headquarters) that "Anyone who reads this paper will get possessed". Yea. Righttt!
Simply reading a piece of work will get you possessed? The Bozo's at hdqtrs were just doing the typical CYA drill.
And (by the mandate to not read it or get "possessed") only proved their desperation to coverup what had been going on for so long.
I was (at the time) an on again/ off again twig attender, but once the local leadership found out I had a copy of that paper,
all other "faithful twiggies" were told to have nothing to do with me. That was OK with me. No skin off of my nose.
What made me sad was the blind allegiance folks here had to the slightest "dictate" that emanated from Box 328 NK, Oh.
Then I realized that that was the way it had always been, and that saddened me even more.
Sorry for the (slight) derail. Carry on. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for confirming my reconstruction of events!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Here is a link to a response Richard Gaffin made to a piece by another theologian concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34:
http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=447
The piece to which Gaffin was responding:
http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=440
Due to viewing 1 Cor. 14:34 contextually in a way that does not prohibit women from engaging in any manner of uninspired speech (including uninspired prayer) in the churches, Gaffin's suggestion (i.e. that the prohibition might be against women participating in authoritative evaluations of prophecy) makes for a more plausible position than his opponent's.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Maybe, but that's not the point. The point is that CES comes from a stance of bible inerrancy and that you can believe it. I don't think you can honestly make an exception and continue to maintain that the bible is inerrant. Something has to give, or I think you start down the same slippery slope that TWI took.
Furthermore, unless CES has had a huge epiphany, what they are stating in their latest Sower is not what I experienced in their practices at the home office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.