I am tickled by a debate on a work of fiction, trying to explain its veracity. Are you still hanging onto the troof?
Genesis 6:2 - The "sons of God"
by rocketman 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
I am tickled by a debate on a work of fiction, trying to explain its veracity.
Exegesis has little to do with veracity (in the sense of historicity). Even a fictitious story has a meaning, which may change over time and with new versions of the story. That's the part of the debate I'm interested in.
-
greendawn
It had to be obvious that the sons of God were the angels because if the daughters of men were women then the men(males) would be the sons of men.
Alternatively why shouldn't the human offspring of Seth be able to marry the human offspring of Cain after many generations from Cain, who knows if they were cursed or evil for example? -
Blueblades
The question still remains with some, "Who wrote the stories in the Bible?" I am convinced that the book is noy inspired of God, that men wrote what it contains, so the question is mute.
-
Stephen John Gault
Narcosis - Alice in Wonderland has history too. How much debate is required to explore the author's meaning of each expression and how else/better it could have been stated?
Personally, I would prefer the questioner to have said: "I know this is all bulshit, but lets imagine its not and then debate it." -
M.J.
The WTS's Knowledge book states:
***kl chap. 12 p. 109 Resist Wicked Spirit Forces ***In the days of the righteous man Noah, some of these abandoned their service in heaven and took on fleshly bodies to satisfy their lust for sexual relations with earthly women. Satan no doubt influenced those angels to take that disobedient course
Interesting how they say heavenly beings can take on fleshly bodies...yet in the case of Christ, he had to will himself out of existance, have Jehovah re-create him in human form, cease to exist again, then be recreated as a spirit again. Just a side observation.
-
Leolaia
Narcosis - Alice in Wonderland has history too. How much debate is required to explore the author's meaning of each expression and how else/better it could have been stated? Personally, I would prefer the questioner to have said: "I know this is all bulshit, but lets imagine its not and then debate it."
If you take a university level English lit course, you may find indeed that many (rightly or wrongly) seek to understand and debate the expression and meaning found in works of fiction.
Considering the huge impact these OT stories have had on Western civilization, I personally find quite worthwhile to try to investigate their literary history.
-
zen nudist
Interesting how they say heavenly beings can take on fleshly bodies...yet in the case of Christ, he had to will himself out of existance, have Jehovah re-create him in human form, cease to exist again, then be recreated as a spirit again. Just a side observation.
how one can transition from spirit being to human is never spoken much by the JWs...and there is no real rational way to do it, but that does not matter..... yet, why was this sacrifice from a heavenly being to the form of a slave not worth anything of it self?
-
Narkissos
Considering the huge impact these OT stories have had on Western civilization, I personally find quite worthwhile to try to investigate their literary history.
Because of this impact it is both worthwhile and emotionally difficult.
Apparently the importance of the Bible to the American society at large, and to former JWs specifically, makes it hard or even impossible for many to step out of the dilemma: either historically true and divinely inspired or bullshit.
-
Stephen John Gault
Narcosis - Are you postulating that after the upteenth number of translated versions of manuscripts that are no longer in existence, you are attaching credence and literary value to it? Historically it is inaccuarate, so what history are you proving?
One work of fiction, supposedly referencing, confirming or contradicting another work of fiction, and you are trying to make sense of it?
Are you conceding it is bullshit, but you are just curious about why the author, obviously not Moses, may have wanted to write what he/she did? Or are you silent on that score, so that those still anchored in mysticism will be stimulated and respond?
The modern day equivalent to your debate:
Do you think the author of Little Red Riding Hood, when talking about the wolf that confronted Little Red Riding Hood, could have been talking about one of the wolves saved by Kevin Costner in Dancing with Wolves?