Inconsistency in Placing Blame? (page 2)

Liberty

Does the Watch Tower Society accept the book of Enoch as an inspired part of the "real Bible"? If not, then thier extra-biblical speculations on the "sons of God" story's meaning is even worse. Not that the story makes any logical sense no matter how you slice it anyway.

aSphereisnotaCircle

Secondly, if they really were angels then God has some serious problems with how He creates spirit beings and boundery issues. To me the story couldn't possibly be true because I am not sexually attracted to insects and yet I am from birth just an imperfect sinner living in the same physical realm as the insects. Since I have no interest in "getting it on" with insects I can't imagine how spirit beings (angels) second only to God, who is said to have created the Universe, would be attracted to smelly ape-like humans from another realm of reality in the first place. Sure, I was programmed to be sexually attracted to females of my own kind and stink. I think human females of breeding age look great but male ants think the same thing of the hormone spurting huge quivery white queen ants ten times the males size. Not to mention just how a "spirit being" angel could have any sexual feelings at all since they are asexual and made up of spirit? The whole concept is absolute nonsense and sounds like a myth or legend created by human beings and not a revelation from God

Amen, even as a little kid, I couldn't figure out why Jah made the angels "without gender", but horny.

Leolaia

snowbird....If you are referring to the Jewish Sepher ha-Yashar, this is an Early Modern haggadaic text which should not be confused with the biblical Book of Jashar alluded to in the OT.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_haYashar_%28midrash%29

It should also not be confused with even later Book of Jashar published by Pseudo-Alcuinus in 1751 which is nothing more than a modern hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_%28Pseudo-Jasher%29

There were at least 7 other books that went by this name in the Christian era alone.

Liberty...No, the Watchtower Society does not accept it as inspired even though the Bible itself does (note that it is quoted as "prophecy" in Jude 14-15, which is necessarily inspired according to the biblical concept of inspiration). I have a full discussion in my own thread on the subject: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85223/1.ashx. The problem with the Watchtower speculation (such as on the origin of the demons) is that they interpret the biblical texts apart from their original intellectual context. What I am trying to point out is that there was an broader context that these references belonged to, which illuminate what is described. Of course, the reference to the angels that sinned in Jude is connected to this context because the author practically quotes word-for-word from 1 Enoch. So without the cultural knowledge that everday Christians and Jews would have had in the first century, the Society can make mistakes like claiming that the demons are depicted as the angels that sinned before the Flood, when the actual belief was that the demons were originally the offspring of the angels, not the angels themselves.

snowbird

Book of Jasher (Paperback) by J.H. Parry (Author)
Key Phrases: dwelt securely , savory meat , Lord God , Seir the Horite , Reuel the Midianite ( more... )
The above is the one I'm reading. I understand the other books are highly questionable. I like this one because it illuminates some of the more obscure stuff in Genesis and Exodus.
Snowbird

OnTheWayOut

I did not enjoy the basic touch of reality in the words Liberty used to describe
"spirit beings (angels) ...attracted to smelly ape-like humans from another realm
of reality..." Even though I was a bit put off by the words, the idea had truth in it.

If I might answer as a JW, then give my real thoughts, it might help me and others.
A JW would say: God created man in his image, first he created angels even more
so in his image. God and the angels are masculine. The scripture doesn't even
mention female angels taking men from the earth. We see from Adam's reaction
to the creation of Eve, and from men today reacting to the beauty of women, that
women are truly remarkable to behold. If women were created for men, created in
God's image, then God must have found them remarkable, and therefore the angels
in God's image found the women remarkable. They knew better than to materialize
in human form and do this wrong act, but they were bad. As far as materializing
in sterile form, well- they just did not do so. Perhaps they wanted sons to bully the
puny earthlings, as continuation of one's lineage is a natural male inclination also.

Now, answering for real- mythology from prior to Bible writing included many examples
of the Gods (or the lesser gods) coming to earth and taking women for themselves,
often impregnating them and creating legendary men.

In actuality, if there were any truth to it, the angels would have avoided getting the
women pregnant because they wouldn't want some celestial court saying they had to
visit the children and participate in their growing up. The problem is that, other than
the pulling out method or the use of a thick prophilactic, the writers of this story only
knew that sexual intercourse leads to women having babies. There is no way they were
going to write that these 'angels' pulled out, or used protection. That's not a very good
story. Plus they needed a reason for the earth to get so violent, so a flood was needed.

Mum

Wow, you guys have expanded enormously on my original issue. Thanks for all of the references and insights.

Regards,

SandraC

snowbird

The Book of the Watchers reports that 200 angels descended on Mt Hermon during the days of Jared and changed themselves into human form. They then copulated with women and produced the Nephilim. Was this rape or was it consensual?

The Bible states that they took wives for themselves - all whom they wanted. Multiple wives, perhaps?

Whatever the case, my take is that the women had little say in the matter. How could they be blamed?

Snowbird

Mum

:How could they be blamed?

Well, snowbird, what were they wearing? How much cleavage, how much ankle was revealed? Were they outside walking alone and unescorted? Did they smile coyly at the good-looking materialized beings? Did they give the impression that they "wanted it"?

Heard it all,

SandraC

snowbird

Heard it all,
SandraC

I am so sorry. Shame, shame, shame on them.

Snowbird

Narkissos

snowbird,

On the "Book of Jasher" you are reading see http://www.answers.org/bible/jasher-book-of.html.

In Biblical Hebrew "to take a woman / women for oneself" (lqch l- ishshah / nashim) is a common idiom for "marriage" (whether polygamous or monogamous). E.g. Genesis 4:19, "Lamech took two wives" (wayyiqqach lô lemech shete nashim); 7:29, "Abram and Nahor took wives" (wayiqqach 'abram wenahor lahem nashim). There is nothing extraordinary in the wording of chapter 6 in this respect.

Inconsistency in Placing Blame?

Share this