Jesus was tempted in all points like as we. We are tempted to commit illicit sex, including adultery (in a man's case, sex with a married woman). Jesus must have been tempted to commit adultery. But Jesus said looking on a woman lustfully in one's heart (which is to say, being tempted to commit adultery) IS adultery. So ... Jesus committed adultery (in his heart)? Or he wasn't tempted with adultery (which invalidates the premise that he was tempted IN ALL POINTS like as we)?
In Genesis 36:31 we read: "These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned."
Pay close attention to those last five words. Do they not presume that this is being written at a time AFTER there were kings in Israel? How could Moses have written that? Moses died centuries before Israel had a king. Why would he write "before any Israelite king reigned" when no Israelite king reigned until he was long dead?
Miscellaneous comments. It takes the right kind of personality, to wake up one fine morning, find everything one believes is just plain wrong, or unexplainable.. and end up playing nice in this existence..
Other than that. What is the possibility that one can get even with the Whole Universe?
Jesus was tempted in all points like as we. We are tempted to commit illicit sex, including adultery (in a man's case, sex with a married woman). Jesus must have been tempted to commit adultery. But Jesus said looking on a woman lustfully in one's heart (which is to say, being tempted to commit adultery) IS adultery. So ... Jesus committed adultery (in his heart)? Or he wasn't tempted with adultery (which invalidates the premise that he was tempted IN ALL POINTS like as we)?
IIRC,
a guy we call Raf once made the point that Jesus was using a legitimate figure of
speech- exaggeration- to make his point about adultery, which his audience understood.
(He wasn't literally telling people to forgive exactly 490 times, either.)
Regarding cities, I've seen the "mid-cities" of Texas between Dallas and Ft Worth.
They're considered "cities" but I'd consider them something more like big towns.
(I consider all of them collectively to make a "mid-city" but that's just me.)
Technically, they are cities, just not on the scale I am used to.
Cain was sentenced to be a wanderer and alone. Eventually, he tried to
cancel that out, and he did so by building a big place and trying to get people
to come to him instead of the other way around, as I see it.
a guy we call Raf once made the point that Jesus was using a legitimate figure of
speech- exaggeration- to make his point about adultery, which his audience understood.
(He wasn't literally telling people to forgive exactly 490 times, either.)
Ah, yes. That seemed to be a perfectly valid explanation. But I had failed to consider that coveting your neighbor's wife is itself a sin (the only sin in the Ten Commandments 1.0 that didn't actually involve DOING anything, just wanting. Thous shalt not WANNA). So Jesus' statement on adultery, by itself, may have made more sense as an example of hyperbole, but you have to ignore an actual (non-obscure, right there in the Big 10) commandment to posit that Jesus was employing a figure of speech here. If you can break one of the 10 Commandments without sinning, it's not much of a commandment, is it?
Regarding cities, I've seen the "mid-cities" of Texas between Dallas and Ft Worth.
They're considered "cities" but I'd consider them something more like big towns.
(I consider all of them collectively to make a "mid-city" but that's just me.)
Technically, they are cities, just not on the scale I am used to.
And they all have a LOT of people (and by a lot, I'm being relative... A Lot, as opposed to, say, three. Or one growing family).
Cain was sentenced to be a wanderer and alone. Eventually, he tried to
cancel that out, and he did so by building a big place and trying to get people
to come to him instead of the other way around, as I see it.
They didn't NEED a city, he WANTED a city.
I guess extrapolating is okay, but the point needs to be made: you do realize that nothing in the Bible even hints at such a motive?
Ah, yes. That seemed to be a perfectly valid explanation. But I had failed to consider that coveting your neighbor's wife is itself a sin (the only sin in the Ten Commandments 1.0 that didn't actually involve DOING anything, just wanting. Thous shalt not WANNA). So Jesus' statement on adultery, by itself, may have made more sense as an example of hyperbole, but you have to ignore an actual (non-obscure, right there in the Big 10) commandment to posit that Jesus was employing a figure of speech here. If you can break one of the 10 Commandments without sinning, it's not much of a commandment, is it?
When I have some time, I can look into the phrasing.
What we're thinking of as "coveting" (looking at her with desire)
might not be what they thought as "coveting."
I'll know better after I look things up.
(They might have meant EXACTLY what we mean, which would be inconvenient for me,
but at least I'd know.)
I guess extrapolating is okay, but the point needs to be made: you do realize that nothing in the Bible even hints at such a motive?
The question isn't "would he make a city?" but "WHY would he make a city?"
Here's what we have, courtesy the NASB: Genesis 4:12-17.
"12 When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear! 14 Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.
16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17 Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son."
So, we have that he made the city, which was VERY peculiar at the time.
Without a specific verse saying "therefore he made a city", we look at his mindset at
the time, his goals, his obstacles, and his life in general. We have very little to
work with.
What we have is
1) he won't be a successful farmer henceforth (he had been a farmer)
2) he will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the Earth, adrift, without a home (this troubled him to a degree)
3) the Presence of God would be hidden from Cain (which troubled him to a degree)
4) Cain thought whoever found him would kill him like he killed Abel (God addressed that one)
So, with #4 no longer a concern, we have 1-3. Cain's reason would likely be one, two, or all of them.
(I have no guarantee of this, but if I were a profiler, I'd be working from this as my speculative model.)
Cain was hidden from the Presence of God- which could make him feel lonely, adrift.
Cain was pronounced to be a vagrant and wanderer, a loner-which could make him feel lonely, adrift.
Cain would need another way to get food or income other than farming- like raising cattle or
taking up a trade depending on how many customers he could find.
Despite the pronouncement, Cain was not forced to walk the Earth indefinitely, and was permitted to
make his own choice, pick a spot of land, and settle down. To a degree, this would aid his attempt
to do a job requiring a location-like raising cattle, farming (which he can't do himself), or
practicing a crafting trade.
Frankly, why WOULDN'T he pick a spot and settle down? He was already outside God's good graces,
and starting up some kind of town would alleviate problems 2 & 3.
I have no guarantee they're why he did it, but humans haven't changed so much in the intervening
So lusting after another man's wife may not meet the threshold of coveting, in other words. Yeah, that would work.
Cain building a city makes no sense on any level, unless we're going to severely dilute the definition of city. Just seems odd to build something that implies a growing society when the number of people on earth is, at most, in the double digits -- and none of the other people want anything to do with you. But okay.
So lusting after another man's wife may not meet the threshold of coveting, in other words. Yeah, that would work.
Remind me to actually check at some point.
Cain building a city makes no sense on any level, unless we're going to severely dilute the definition of city.
Or look at it the other way-
why didn't we come up with new names for where people live when we're talking MILLIONS,
but rather used the same name for what was used for THOUSANDS?
We can't ask people in the past to retroactively use a different name, but we can ask
the current people to use a new one. References written in the 19th and 20th century
to envelopes shipped are "mail", after all, not "snail-mail" even though we've started
calling it that now....
Just seems odd to build something that implies a growing society when the number of people on earth is, at most, in the double digits -- and none of the other people want anything to do with you. But okay.
"If you build it, they will come."
I really am not privy to what other people were like around Cain over the years.
I do know that people will try new things if they think there's a benefit-
or can be convinced there's a benefit. Lacking any details about Enoch City,
I have no certainity as to WHY anyone would have moved there. I think it's
logical people moved there because they visited there and decided to move there.
Why did they decide to move there based on a visit? There was some advantage-
whether economic (trade is easier), social (all the entertainment and interaction
is here), or some other kind. Besides, I think you're thinking of both a modern-sized
city sprung up all at once, and a busy month or something, when I expect this took
decades and produced something they considered a city but we wouldn't by current
standards. I think they went from a few people to dozens to hundreds to over 1000,
in steps and with things being expanded periodically.
Of course, again, it's all my thinking, but I think it's not unsound or unreasonable at least.
I just finished reading The First Fossil Hunters by Adrienne Mayor (Princeton University Press, 2000). In it, Mayor examines the impact that fossils made as part of culture in antiquity. The first part of the book shows how people in antiquity interpreted the protoceratopsian fossils of the Gobi Desert as griffins. She shows how their observations were more scientific than anything that was done before the nineteenth century, given the cultural paradigms of the time.
After that, she goes into the geology and archaeology of the Mediterranean, comparing modern findings with those of antiquity. Due to a number of factors, the fossilized bones that turned up around the Mediterranean were not predominantly dinosaur fossils, but the remains of later mega mammals like mammoths, giant giraffes, rhinocerii, etc. And their skeletons were not likely to be preserved complete, but rather in assemblages of bones like the femurs and skulls, which look remarkably like their human counterparts.
So the ancients interpreted the fossils as the remains of heroes (NOT gods) and giants who had perished in the Gigantomachy or as a result of Deucalion's flood. They gave the fossils reverent reburials, or displayed them as relics in the temples.
It was common knowledge, all around the Mediterranean, that there had been giants in the past who had become extinct, because their bones were being exposed by erosion or plowing or other excavation on a regular basis.
Mayor concerns herself with the references in Graeco-Roman sources to fossils, and how they were regarded. She does not mention Genesis 6:4a, "There were giants in the earth in those days," but it's easy to see why the writer would put it in the Bible... it was common knowledge! EVERYBODY knew it! Genesis would seem pretty doofus if it didn't include the explanation for what the peasants and well diggers were coming up with!
Your questions would make a lot of sense, Raf, if the Bible were the kind of Post-Reformation/Enlightenment document that systematic theology, especially Fundamentalist/Evangelistic theology, makes it out to be. And Wierwille's "fits like a hand in a glove" system was blinder than most.
Mayor concerns herself with the references in Graeco-Roman sources to fossils, and how they were regarded. She does not mention Genesis 6:4a, "There were giants in the earth in those days," but it's easy to see why the writer would put it in the Bible... it was common knowledge! EVERYBODY knew it! Genesis would seem pretty doofus if it didn't include the explanation for what the peasants and well diggers were coming up with!
(snip)
Or, you know,
the well-meaning but none-too-smart King James staff mucked it up again.
Where they put "giants," most translations leave it "nephilim".
Literally, "fallers", but,as Strong's Concordance could tell you,
properly translated "bully" or "tyrant".
The KJV guys mangled a translation of a word, and someone came along and
made all sorts of doctrines about it. This is the same bunch who translated
"hagios" as "holy thing" in one place instead of "holy one" like in other
places and then vpw came along and formed a whole doctrine around it.
Then again,
maybe the KJV folks figured the translation had to be fantastical to
account for the bones you mentioned, since they were sure those were
giant bones and so that justified a fantastical translation of a rather
The fossilized bones Steve just mentioned. I was taking it as a given that they existed
and were found and discussed as he said. Was that an unwarranted assumption?
(snip)
After that, she goes into the geology and archaeology of the Mediterranean, comparing modern findings with those of antiquity. Due to a number of factors, the fossilized bones that turned up around the Mediterranean...
Ok, it took me a few readings to understand both what Steve is saying and what the author he cited is saying.
No one is saying that the bones of nephilim were found either recently or in antiquity. Mayor posits that the ancients found fossilized bones and interpreted them incorrectly, assuming because of some superficial similarity to human bones that these were the bones of giants.
Look carefully at what Steve says:
Due to a number of factors, the fossilized bones that turned up around the Mediterranean were not predominantly dinosaur fossils, but the remains of later mega mammals like mammoths, giant giraffes, rhinocerii, etc. And their skeletons were not likely to be preserved complete, but rather in assemblages of bones like the femurs and skulls, which look remarkably like their human counterparts.
So the ancients interpreted the fossils as the remains of heroes (NOT gods) and giants who had perished in the Gigantomachy or as a result of Deucalion's flood.
Emphases mine.
I dispute the word choice Steve's next comment:
It was common knowledge, all around the Mediterranean, that there had been giants in the past who had become extinct, because their bones were being exposed by erosion or plowing or other excavation on a regular basis.
It was not "common knowledge." It was widespread myth, based on the misinterpretations of the excavated bones.
So maybe Cain was just building different edifices where he and his family could accomplish different tasks, and the Biblical writer chose a word, "city," in a very, very loose manner. You and I would probably say he built a farm, and recognizing that he would need more than one or two people to work on it, built other houses to lure his nephews and nieces to help him out. Viola (sic)! A city!
So maybe Cain was just building different edifices where he and his family could accomplish different tasks, and the Biblical writer chose a word, "city," in a very, very loose manner.
Theoretically possible, but nobody's claiming that one.
Cain set out specifically to make a place for as many people as he could convince to congregate.
This has never been an impossible task in history, so the question as to if it would work
in THIS place and time would be if he had what it would take to attract them to the location,
and the materials and help to put it in place.
The word "city" wouldn't have been used in "a very, very loose manner."
It would have been used in the manner it had been at the time, and only the last few
centuries have caused the word to mean something different now-
something many times bigger and more crowded than it used to mean.
It would have been easily the biggest congregation of homes and businesses at the time,
and could have set the standard for later "cities" to build upon.
"Even within the English-speaking world there is no one standard definition of a city: the term may be used either for a town possessing city status; for an urban locality exceeding an arbitrary population size; for a town dominating other towns with particular regional economic or administrative significance."
If you take a look, even in modern practice, in several countries, the words "city" and "town" are used
interchangeably in practice. In fact, in the US of A, the "town" of Hempstead, New York has a population
(2004 census figure) of 755,785, and the "city" of Cary, North Carolina has a population (2000 census figure)
of 296.
I don't see it as a jump that Cain would set himself a long-term task of making a large settlement,
and eventually getting more than 296 permanent residents.
You and I would probably say he built a farm, and recognizing that he would need more than one or two people to work on it, built other houses to lure his nephews and nieces to help him out. Viola (sic)! A city!
No, I'd say he set out to build a "town" (as I envision a "town"), and eventually succeeded
in building the needed parts (I have no background in civil engineering nor town planning,
so I don't know what it would entail now nor then.) During that time, he set about making
it something to attract others to visit, then settle in.
Decades later, a city. (Or "town", as you and I picture it.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
14
14
5
Popular Days
Jan 15
11
Jan 16
11
Jan 17
5
Jan 9
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
Steve Lortz 14 posts
Ham 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 15 2014
11 posts
Jan 16 2014
11 posts
Jan 17 2014
5 posts
Jan 9 2014
4 posts
Raf
Jesus was tempted in all points like as we. We are tempted to commit illicit sex, including adultery (in a man's case, sex with a married woman). Jesus must have been tempted to commit adultery. But Jesus said looking on a woman lustfully in one's heart (which is to say, being tempted to commit adultery) IS adultery. So ... Jesus committed adultery (in his heart)? Or he wasn't tempted with adultery (which invalidates the premise that he was tempted IN ALL POINTS like as we)?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In Genesis 36:31 we read: "These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned."
Pay close attention to those last five words. Do they not presume that this is being written at a time AFTER there were kings in Israel? How could Moses have written that? Moses died centuries before Israel had a king. Why would he write "before any Israelite king reigned" when no Israelite king reigned until he was long dead?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, there ya go.....thinkin' again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe we are caught in some kind of time trap. Like.. Castrovalva.
the books are indeed very old, and they chronicle the rise of civilization to this very day..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Shardovan could perceive the recursive occlusion in his philosophy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
There is something amiss with the map..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Miscellaneous comments. It takes the right kind of personality, to wake up one fine morning, find everything one believes is just plain wrong, or unexplainable.. and end up playing nice in this existence..
Other than that. What is the possibility that one can get even with the Whole Universe?
Very good questions, Raph..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
IIRC,
a guy we call Raf once made the point that Jesus was using a legitimate figure of
speech- exaggeration- to make his point about adultery, which his audience understood.
(He wasn't literally telling people to forgive exactly 490 times, either.)
Regarding cities, I've seen the "mid-cities" of Texas between Dallas and Ft Worth.
They're considered "cities" but I'd consider them something more like big towns.
(I consider all of them collectively to make a "mid-city" but that's just me.)
Technically, they are cities, just not on the scale I am used to.
Cain was sentenced to be a wanderer and alone. Eventually, he tried to
cancel that out, and he did so by building a big place and trying to get people
to come to him instead of the other way around, as I see it.
They didn't NEED a city, he WANTED a city.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ah, yes. That seemed to be a perfectly valid explanation. But I had failed to consider that coveting your neighbor's wife is itself a sin (the only sin in the Ten Commandments 1.0 that didn't actually involve DOING anything, just wanting. Thous shalt not WANNA). So Jesus' statement on adultery, by itself, may have made more sense as an example of hyperbole, but you have to ignore an actual (non-obscure, right there in the Big 10) commandment to posit that Jesus was employing a figure of speech here. If you can break one of the 10 Commandments without sinning, it's not much of a commandment, is it?
And they all have a LOT of people (and by a lot, I'm being relative... A Lot, as opposed to, say, three. Or one growing family).
I guess extrapolating is okay, but the point needs to be made: you do realize that nothing in the Bible even hints at such a motive?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When I have some time, I can look into the phrasing.
What we're thinking of as "coveting" (looking at her with desire)
might not be what they thought as "coveting."
I'll know better after I look things up.
(They might have meant EXACTLY what we mean, which would be inconvenient for me,
but at least I'd know.)
The question isn't "would he make a city?" but "WHY would he make a city?"
Here's what we have, courtesy the NASB: Genesis 4:12-17.
"12 When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear! 14 Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.
16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17 Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son."
So, we have that he made the city, which was VERY peculiar at the time.
Without a specific verse saying "therefore he made a city", we look at his mindset at
the time, his goals, his obstacles, and his life in general. We have very little to
work with.
What we have is
1) he won't be a successful farmer henceforth (he had been a farmer)
2) he will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the Earth, adrift, without a home (this troubled him to a degree)
3) the Presence of God would be hidden from Cain (which troubled him to a degree)
4) Cain thought whoever found him would kill him like he killed Abel (God addressed that one)
So, with #4 no longer a concern, we have 1-3. Cain's reason would likely be one, two, or all of them.
(I have no guarantee of this, but if I were a profiler, I'd be working from this as my speculative model.)
Cain was hidden from the Presence of God- which could make him feel lonely, adrift.
Cain was pronounced to be a vagrant and wanderer, a loner-which could make him feel lonely, adrift.
Cain would need another way to get food or income other than farming- like raising cattle or
taking up a trade depending on how many customers he could find.
Despite the pronouncement, Cain was not forced to walk the Earth indefinitely, and was permitted to
make his own choice, pick a spot of land, and settle down. To a degree, this would aid his attempt
to do a job requiring a location-like raising cattle, farming (which he can't do himself), or
practicing a crafting trade.
Frankly, why WOULDN'T he pick a spot and settle down? He was already outside God's good graces,
and starting up some kind of town would alleviate problems 2 & 3.
I have no guarantee they're why he did it, but humans haven't changed so much in the intervening
centuries that his motives would be alien to us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So lusting after another man's wife may not meet the threshold of coveting, in other words. Yeah, that would work.
Cain building a city makes no sense on any level, unless we're going to severely dilute the definition of city. Just seems odd to build something that implies a growing society when the number of people on earth is, at most, in the double digits -- and none of the other people want anything to do with you. But okay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Remind me to actually check at some point.
Or look at it the other way-
why didn't we come up with new names for where people live when we're talking MILLIONS,
but rather used the same name for what was used for THOUSANDS?
We can't ask people in the past to retroactively use a different name, but we can ask
the current people to use a new one. References written in the 19th and 20th century
to envelopes shipped are "mail", after all, not "snail-mail" even though we've started
calling it that now....
"If you build it, they will come."
I really am not privy to what other people were like around Cain over the years.
I do know that people will try new things if they think there's a benefit-
or can be convinced there's a benefit. Lacking any details about Enoch City,
I have no certainity as to WHY anyone would have moved there. I think it's
logical people moved there because they visited there and decided to move there.
Why did they decide to move there based on a visit? There was some advantage-
whether economic (trade is easier), social (all the entertainment and interaction
is here), or some other kind. Besides, I think you're thinking of both a modern-sized
city sprung up all at once, and a busy month or something, when I expect this took
decades and produced something they considered a city but we wouldn't by current
standards. I think they went from a few people to dozens to hundreds to over 1000,
in steps and with things being expanded periodically.
Of course, again, it's all my thinking, but I think it's not unsound or unreasonable at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I just finished reading The First Fossil Hunters by Adrienne Mayor (Princeton University Press, 2000). In it, Mayor examines the impact that fossils made as part of culture in antiquity. The first part of the book shows how people in antiquity interpreted the protoceratopsian fossils of the Gobi Desert as griffins. She shows how their observations were more scientific than anything that was done before the nineteenth century, given the cultural paradigms of the time.
After that, she goes into the geology and archaeology of the Mediterranean, comparing modern findings with those of antiquity. Due to a number of factors, the fossilized bones that turned up around the Mediterranean were not predominantly dinosaur fossils, but the remains of later mega mammals like mammoths, giant giraffes, rhinocerii, etc. And their skeletons were not likely to be preserved complete, but rather in assemblages of bones like the femurs and skulls, which look remarkably like their human counterparts.
So the ancients interpreted the fossils as the remains of heroes (NOT gods) and giants who had perished in the Gigantomachy or as a result of Deucalion's flood. They gave the fossils reverent reburials, or displayed them as relics in the temples.
It was common knowledge, all around the Mediterranean, that there had been giants in the past who had become extinct, because their bones were being exposed by erosion or plowing or other excavation on a regular basis.
Mayor concerns herself with the references in Graeco-Roman sources to fossils, and how they were regarded. She does not mention Genesis 6:4a, "There were giants in the earth in those days," but it's easy to see why the writer would put it in the Bible... it was common knowledge! EVERYBODY knew it! Genesis would seem pretty doofus if it didn't include the explanation for what the peasants and well diggers were coming up with!
Your questions would make a lot of sense, Raf, if the Bible were the kind of Post-Reformation/Enlightenment document that systematic theology, especially Fundamentalist/Evangelistic theology, makes it out to be. And Wierwille's "fits like a hand in a glove" system was blinder than most.
But it just ain't!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Or, you know,
the well-meaning but none-too-smart King James staff mucked it up again.
Where they put "giants," most translations leave it "nephilim".
Literally, "fallers", but,as Strong's Concordance could tell you,
properly translated "bully" or "tyrant".
The KJV guys mangled a translation of a word, and someone came along and
made all sorts of doctrines about it. This is the same bunch who translated
"hagios" as "holy thing" in one place instead of "holy one" like in other
places and then vpw came along and formed a whole doctrine around it.
Then again,
maybe the KJV folks figured the translation had to be fantastical to
account for the bones you mentioned, since they were sure those were
giant bones and so that justified a fantastical translation of a rather
mundane word.
When shaving, remember Ockham's Razor...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm. What giant bones?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The fossilized bones Steve just mentioned. I was taking it as a given that they existed
and were found and discussed as he said. Was that an unwarranted assumption?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Uhh, YEAH that's an unwarranted assumption!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well, I can't argue that.
This, then, would be the cue for Steve to support his claim or withdraw it.
Removing any reference to it, then, brings me back to my previous point
about being more concerned with sloppy translators and the simple expedient
of correcting a translation rather than some exposition circling around
a more colorful claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, it took me a few readings to understand both what Steve is saying and what the author he cited is saying.
No one is saying that the bones of nephilim were found either recently or in antiquity. Mayor posits that the ancients found fossilized bones and interpreted them incorrectly, assuming because of some superficial similarity to human bones that these were the bones of giants.
Look carefully at what Steve says:
Emphases mine.
I dispute the word choice Steve's next comment:
It was not "common knowledge." It was widespread myth, based on the misinterpretations of the excavated bones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was a poor word choice. Someone reading fast might have come away with the idea
that indisputed fossils of human giant skeletons had been uncovered and were being
found all over the place.
("All over the place" is probably an exaggeration of what happened, but that is
what Steve was saying.)
It may or may not have been BELIEVED that the fossils being found were human
giant skeletons. If the fossils were being found.
My comment was that-- if well-meaning and gullible translators thought that
giant skeletons were uncovered- that they would have mistranslated the
nephilim references because they THOUGHT the fantastical translation was
correct and referring to the fantastical remains of fantastical creatures.
Either way, I think the evidence is that the translators goofed for some reason
and ended up with a fantastical reference there rather than a more direct
translation, and gullible people ran with it.
We got the same thing when the Septuagint's "monokeros" (one-horn) was
transliterated into the Latin "unicorn" (one-horn) rather than the powerful
animal it sounded like it described- the "rhinoceros" (nose-horn.)
Then people came along and thought it was describing a horse with a horn,
and all sorts of hijinks ensued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, I apologize both to you and to Steve for misunderstanding the point you were making.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No, I think it was right to point out it was unsupported,
and the phrasing DID need work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So maybe Cain was just building different edifices where he and his family could accomplish different tasks, and the Biblical writer chose a word, "city," in a very, very loose manner. You and I would probably say he built a farm, and recognizing that he would need more than one or two people to work on it, built other houses to lure his nephews and nieces to help him out. Viola (sic)! A city!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No need to be cheeky. I'm speaking plainly here.
Theoretically possible, but nobody's claiming that one.
Cain set out specifically to make a place for as many people as he could convince to congregate.
This has never been an impossible task in history, so the question as to if it would work
in THIS place and time would be if he had what it would take to attract them to the location,
and the materials and help to put it in place.
The word "city" wouldn't have been used in "a very, very loose manner."
It would have been used in the manner it had been at the time, and only the last few
centuries have caused the word to mean something different now-
something many times bigger and more crowded than it used to mean.
It would have been easily the biggest congregation of homes and businesses at the time,
and could have set the standard for later "cities" to build upon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City#Distinction_between_cities_and_towns
"Even within the English-speaking world there is no one standard definition of a city: the term may be used either for a town possessing city status; for an urban locality exceeding an arbitrary population size; for a town dominating other towns with particular regional economic or administrative significance."
If you take a look, even in modern practice, in several countries, the words "city" and "town" are used
interchangeably in practice. In fact, in the US of A, the "town" of Hempstead, New York has a population
(2004 census figure) of 755,785, and the "city" of Cary, North Carolina has a population (2000 census figure)
of 296.
I don't see it as a jump that Cain would set himself a long-term task of making a large settlement,
and eventually getting more than 296 permanent residents.
No, I'd say he set out to build a "town" (as I envision a "town"), and eventually succeeded
in building the needed parts (I have no background in civil engineering nor town planning,
so I don't know what it would entail now nor then.) During that time, he set about making
it something to attract others to visit, then settle in.
Decades later, a city. (Or "town", as you and I picture it.)
I would expect more than 296 permanent residents.
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.