The discussion on Facebook from the post on Headcoverings made me remember this gem of a cartoon. I contacted the cartoonist and asked permission to use it, pointing out that the context would be different since here it would be more about modesty rather than culture, as he wrote it. He very kindly allowed us to post it, so here it is! The original artist is Malcolm Evans and the title of the cartoon is Cruel Culture from January 6, 2011.
I was going to say something about this, but Stuart Wall, with his gift for words, said it perfectly:
The article: Hot New Christian Trend: Wife-Swapping for Jesus on AddictingInfo.org
Rabbi Asher Meza says that as long as someone is Torah-observant and follow Halakha, they should not be rejected as Jewish.
My question would be does he consider Karaism heretical? I suspect he does since he repeatedly refers to Halakha, but if Karaites are also not rejected from Judaism, then what of a Torah-observant non-Halakhic Messianic?
Either way, this is a big step for a Rabbi to say that Torah observance is what really matters, not whether someone believes YHVH had a body or is a unity of constituent parts.
Video: The Exodus Based on the Sources Themselves
This is Richard Friedman at UCSD’s recent Out of Egypt: Archaeology, Text & Memory conference
The whole matter of end times Nephilim and those of other associated times primarily hinges upon Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah and its future implications, does it not?, bearing in mind that in all things He should have pre-eminence. In accepting that and proceeding to seek interpretation on that basis we must therefore consider His statement in its entirety and all such questions as may arise from its sum total. For the sake of brevity I will take one of the two instances of this in the Gospels, Luke 17:26,27.
Verse 26, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man.” Here Jesus likens one historic set of days to another in the future and ascribes to himself the title “Son of Man” as distinct from other non-human “sons”. Why should he emphasise this difference? There is more detail further along in the next verse.
Verse 27, “They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.” There are a couple of differences here which are obvious. The “Son of Man” did not marry and was not destroyed in the flood. So let’s examine the other attributes of these other “sons”.
- The very first word in Luke 17:27 is “they”. Who were “they”? Why are they seemingly lacking specific identity? Did they abandon it, was it taken from them or were they never assigned any identity? Were they once “sons of God” as distinct from the “Son of Man”? We could deduce that at this point, but let’s continue.
- “They did eat, they drank”. Why is this emphasised? It is certainly a given factor in sustaining human life and was notably chronicled in regard to the Nephilim tribes in Canaan through which an exceedingly fruitful land was unable to sustain itself. “And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is A LAND THAT EATETH UP THE INHABITANTS THEREOF; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.” Numbers 13:32. Are there any other types of being by which it would be remarkable that they ate and drank? Yes there are such in the class of angels which visited Abraham in humanoid form prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. “ And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, AND THEY DID EAT.” Genesis 18:8. There are possibly other types of angels which could also eat and drink in physical manifestation but this one is certain.
- “They married wives”. An unremarkable human activity in any generation to date but which would be a remarkable activity among formerly non-physical entities.
- “They were given in marriage”. Now here is a very specific emphasis, relating in all cases to the act of covenant between a bride’s father and a bridegroom. It was an unremarkable given (no pun) in human marriage at that time, so why emphasise this? Does it contrast with any other kind of marriage seen in scripture? It certainly does and it can be found in Genesis 6:2 where the sons of God “took wives of all whom they chose”, in absence of any consent or covenant from the “wives” or their fathers.
- “Until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all”. That’s a pretty comprehensive statement, indicating that all the previously described activity continued unabated, specifically throughout Noah’s lifetime until the flood when “they” all perished.
Jesus does not waste words on stuff that’s already well understood and let’s remember that he is the light of the world, the revealer, to those with an ear to hear, of things hidden or undocumented and previously misunderstood or misinterpreted. His words concerning the end of the age and the days of Noah must therefore be revelatory in every respect.
He describes a class or classes of being who obtained covenant consent from human fathers to marry wives on earth in the days of Noah as opposed to the sons of God of Jared’s day who took wives without consent. The only exception to this prior to the flood was the marriage of Adam to Eve who was flesh of his flesh in the first place and therefore belonged to him by right through the specific purpose of God.
What’s so important about this difference in the terms of activity and the respective fates of the “sons” involved? The answer can be found in Genesis 1:26, where God decrees before the heavens that the will of mankind has dominion, and therefore power of veto, in all the earth from the day that man was created. “ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and LET THEM HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Man was created a free agent and ruler over the affairs of earth according to the decree in this verse.
The sons of God in Genesis 6:2 blatantly transgressed this decree and are described in Jude as being imprisoned on death row until the day that their full judgment is executed. “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 1:6. The “sons” of Noah’s day, described by Jesus, gained covenant permission from mankind for their procreative activities which continued until their destruction in the flood. They exploited a “legal loophole” for a time, avoiding transgression of Genesis 1:26 but were destroyed in the flood, having committed themselves to mortal physical form.
“And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my covenant,which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.” Genesis 9:12-17
In consideration of God’s promise never to send another all consuming flood upon the earth, there is therefore good reason to believe that further “sons of God” might be encouraged to pursue further procreative activities with the covenant permission of whoever might be deceived into giving daughters for this purpose after the flood. By this calculation they would also avoid transgression of the Genesis 1:26 decree, knowing that the means by which they were previously thwarted would not be employed against them again. All they would need would be willing participants from mankind in this venture, but who might be willing and for what reason?
God had already forseen this eventuality and taken all possible measures against those who had been preserved in the flood from falling into such temptation. “AND GOD BLESSED NOAH AND HIS SONS, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Genesis 9:1. His blessing was upon the whole family who had survived the flood. They would prosper and multiply with no need to take recourse to “assistance” from elsewhere. Throughout scripture we read that men of God took responsibility to ensure that such a blessing would be passed to their subsequent generations. It would be a hedge of Godly favour around them which would be difficult to breach.
Difficult but not impossible and tragically we read how the potential for this blessing was taken from Canaan, Noah’s grandson. “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, CURSED BE CANAAN; A SERVANT OF SERVANTS SHALL HE BE UNTO HIS BRETHREN. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; AND CANAAN SHALL BE HIS SERVANT. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; AND CANAAN SHALL BE HIS SERVANT.” Genesis 9:20-27.
(I have heard and seen mention on numerous occasions that “Noah was a drunkard”, citing this incident as an example. It should be considered that the post flood atmosphere of the earth was considerably less rich in oxygen than before the flood and would have had the effect of increasing the alcohol content in the fermentation process of wine. It is therefore likely that Noah’s first batch would have taken him unaware of its increased alcoholic strength in this instance.)
So Noah cursed Canaan into humiliating subservience while hung over from drinking wine. Ham had offended Noah but Noah couldn’t curse him because God had already blessed him. He did the next thing possible in his angry hung over condition. He denied the course of God’s blessing upon his descendants through Canaan. Subservience would follow his generations unless they could find a way to reverse their fortunes. Would they seek the Lord God after His blessing had apparently departed from them? History would indicate that they did not but that they sought to other means to elevate themselves and what more tempting a way than to become generations of “mighty men” in the earth?
This is exactly what the Israelites encountered when they entered the land of Canaan after their exodus from Egypt. The genetics of the inhabitants of the land was so corrupted with Nephilim seed that the Israelites were instructed to completely wipe out the inhabitants of the land, man,woman, child and beast. They were also commanded not to serve the gods of the land by which such corruption had been invited and by no means to take wives of its inhabitants. The names of the tribes in Canaan reflected their various kinds of non-human mutation. The Israelites were under no illusion as to why the land needed to be purged. It must have resembled a combination of Gondor and Narnia in their worst excesses!
I have based this post entirely on biblical scripture and connective thought without the need for recourse to the extra-biblical texts of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees, to which many other commentators refer. It has been my observation that few if any such commentators take account of the transgression of the Genesis 1:26 decree in their presentations and many, with the exception of LA Marzulli, fail to examine the whole of Jesus’ statements referring to the days of Noah. Their subsequent speculations engender much controversy on the subject.
There is no record of any specific decree by God against the congress of angels with human women per se. They were not created for that purpose but were clearly deceived in that they “saw” that the daughters of men were fair, i.e. physically desirable, in the same way that the woman “saw” that the tree was good for food, and desirable to make one wise. The deceptions of the nachash are in evidence here.
What stands as a defining factor here is the decree given at the creation of man that man should rule over all the earth and every living thing in it in Genesis 1:26. This was clearly transgressed by the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 and their summary judgment is documented in Jude. The evidence of this decree is further reflected in the fact that God courts, and satan deceives the will of mankind throughout the ages. In every event, man gives consent in some form or other to the things which occur on earth, whether by faith and obedience to God or by acting in response to satan’s deception. Adherence to the Genesis 1:26 decree is further illustrated by the fact that, in God’s ultimate intervention, it was necessary that Jesus come as a man. It is also prophesied that antichrist will be manifested as a man.
On the Biblical basis expounded here, there is no necessity for any Nephilim genome to have been carried by any person on the ark and sufficient indication of repetitious procreation between “angels” and mankind in three distinct and definite historical phases. The consensus view of move-countermove within a “cosmic chess match” is also upheld, if not reinforced. We may have yet to experience the overt and widespread manifestation of a fourth and final such phase if that was what Jesus did indeed indicate in his comparative statement regarding the days before His return!
I think I am correct in assuming that the term “human being” is a relatively recent title which man has ascribed to himself. It raises certain questions in my mind in relation to scripture and, further, to modern English Bible versions.
“Being” is derived from the verb “to be”, the first person singular declination of which is “I am”. This is the name by which God identified himself to Moses at the burning bush (“I am that I am” Exodus 3:14) and by which Jesus identified himself to the Pharisees (“Before Abraham was, I am” John 8:58). This title reflects an eternal and divine existence in an unchanging present tense, beyond the bounds of the time and space continuum.
I have recently been working through Walter Veith’s 36 part series of lectures entitled “Total Onslaught”, throughout which he identifies and exposes certain false doctrines held and promulgated by the inner circles of catholicism and freemasonry, one of which is the eternal divinity of man as opposed to him being a creature of God in a fallen condition, requiring salvation and reconciliation to God.
Questions: Who first coined the term “human being” and why? Isn’t this an assertion of the lie spoken in Eden “and ye shall BE as gods” in Genesis 3:5?
I turned something up in a recent Bible study which highlighted this issue quite emphatically. A reading was taken from James 5:17 in the NIV “Elijah was a HUMAN BEING, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.” I was following this, knowing that the KJV put an altogether different dimensional meaning to the same verse. “Elias was a MAN SUBJECT TO LIKE PASSIONS as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.”
Any new Christian reading the NIV here might simply read that Elijah was a bloke, dude or geezer like us but I suspect that the NIV is using “initiate” language in its corruption of the Word of God in this verse. The lesson which the KJV seeks to give the reader is also lost. It omits completely the context of Elijah being “subject to like passions as we are” and this is the context by which a believer can gain a great deal of encouragement.
If we look at an episode in Elijah’s life, we can see such “passions” or emotional pressures coming to bear on him. In 1 Kings 18 and 19 we read of Elijah’s exploits in challenging Israel before the prophets of Baal, how he called down fire from heaven onto the altar which he built to the Lord, killed all the false prophets and demonstrated the power of God in many ways. Then, on hearing Jezebel’s threats, he runs and hides in the wilderness, wishes himself dead and sees himself as a man alone. God has to come and speak to him to correct his view of himself. This certainly reminds me of some of the episodes in my own life as a Christian, in principle but not quite to the same degree!
I hope this illustrates a point in relation to the subtlety by which the Word of God has been changed and its consequent effect of man’s view of himself, both secular and in Christian persuasions which use modern Bible translations. It should be understood that the vast majority of such translations in English published since 1910 are derived from completely different manuscript sources than the received text versions. For a detailed study of the history on this subject I would recommend viewing the following videos or, better still, following through the entire series of lectures to get the subject in the full context of the war which has been waged against the truth since Jesus ascended and up to the present day.
I have only ever experienced this phenomenon on one occasion during the mid 1980s, when I was living in a rented bedsit in North West London. It has never occurred since and probably because I instinctively dealt with it in the right way. It was not until I discovered the website http://www.stopsleepparalysis.org/almost thirty years later that I had any insight into what I had experienced or how widespread a problem this is to so many people.
What I experienced left me with a reinforced understanding of the power that is in the very name of Jesus alone against such spiritual entities as would seek to invade our lives. For any “purists” who say that you should only use his Hebrew name, I say that the name has power in any language if you know who you are calling upon and I have proved this over time in many life situations aside from this one. It also allowed me to experience the perfect peace that our Saviour is able to to impart under such circumstances. I do not know what preempted what I experienced. There are a number of possibilities but I can only speculate.
I would recommend anyone who suffers from this phenomenon or has suffered in the past to visit the site I have indicated here and take counsel from the material within it. There are a number of accounts of personal experiences which people have posted on this site and I have recently added my own to them. What I experienced was relatively mild compared to others but real enough at the time. I would urge anyone reading this not to read such accounts out of simple curiosity if you are not a Christian or have not experienced such things but by all means consider the content of the video below.
Via Chris White on Facebook, this aligns with my understanding as well. Or maybe I’m baiting Edwin. Who can tell?
[0:03] The Lord Jesus in Matthew 12 speaks of a sin that is unpardonable. It’s amazing, to me, you know, that when people read that passage they always focus on that one little thing, the one sin that is unpardonable. I have very rarely ever seen people emphasize the context and yet the context is glorious.
[Tells story about girl]
[1:53] Why do we not emphasize the magnificence of God’s mercy and just focus on this one thing? Well, it’s because, I suppose of so many false theories that people, especially preachers, tell others that it looks like they have committed the unpardonable sin.
[2:13] Actually, the Lord Jesus was very careful in defining this sin. In the context he was referring it to the Pharisees and the sin that they had committed. These particular Pharisees, they knew, according to Nicodemus, they knew that God was with Christ. Nicodemus said, We know that thou art come from God, a teacher. We know that. No man can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him. We know that.
[2:49] And yet the Pharisees in Matthew chapter 12 deliberately attributed what they knew to be the work of the Holy Spirit, they attributed it to the Devil. And they did it for their own rotten prejudice, and their own particular, I would have to say, political or sectarian advantage. Now that’s a terrible thing. They knew this to be the work of the Holy Spirit and they attributed it to the Devil. And Jesus said, You do that, that’s blasphemy that will never be forgiven in this life or the next.
[3:35] Now when you stop to think of it, if what the Holy Ghost does is relegated to being the work of the Devil, what is there for you? The only word that can bring light to you is the word of the of Holy Ghost. The only work that can benefit you is the work of the Holy Ghost. If you have already handed it all over to the devil, there is nothing left. Jesus said, that’s the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
[4:09] Some people have gone so far as to say, and they may well be right in this, that that was a sin which could be committed only with regard to the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, because these men had seen the Son of God through whom the Spirit of God moved with such power, they had seen that. Nobody else now-a-days, for example, can see that, so some people will limit that blasphemy, that particular sin, to the days of Christ on earth. Be they right or wrong on that, certainly it is defined as the deliberate attribution to the devil of what they knew to be the work of the Holy Spirit. That is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
This new article at The Washington Post, Long-forgotten secrets of whale sex revealed, has just confirmed something Hovind has been teaching for decades:
“People that really know the reproductive biology of whales and dolphins already know and have known that these pelvic bones are an anchor point for reproductive organs,” co-corresponding author and Collections Manager of Mammalogy at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Jim Dines said. “But it’s not something that they teach you in a marine mammal class.” Outside of a small circle of experts in whale anatomy, he said, the common consensus, even among marine biologists, was that the pelvis was a useless bone — one that would disappear, given a few million years more of evolution.
Kent Hovind, has been teaching this since the 1990s, as seen in this clip from Creation Science Series, Disc 4 – “Lies in the Textbooks”:
This textbook says, “The whale has a vestigial pelvis.” ….. Now, excuse me, that is not a vestigial pelvis! Those bones are necessary because muscles attach to those bones. And without those bones and those muscles the whales cannot reproduce. It has nothing to do with walking on land. It has to do with getting more baby whales. So the author that wrote this is either ignorant of his whale anatomy and should not be writing a book about it, or he’s a liar trying to promote his theory.
He’s been widely mocked for it, but now that he’s been proven correct, the apologies will start rolling in. Right?
Read the full article at The Washington Post.