This book was truly informative, and it will be really informative for you also, even if you were already persuaded of the basic thesis. That thesis is that the sons of God in Genesis 6 who intermarried with human women were celestial beings, and not the descendants of Seth, and that the offspring of these perverse unions were cross-bred giants. If you were already persuaded of this view, you will discover that there is a lot more in the Scriptures about this issue than just a handful of passages, and you will likely also discover why this truth is not a bit of arcane trivia. It is an important issue for us in our time. In our day, prying scientists are falling into the same sins and errors that the ancients did, and Christians are not even a little bit ready.
Ryan Pitterson has an enormous amount of scriptural knowledge at his fingertips, and he is one of those writers who notices things in the text that you may have read countless times before, but did not notice the significance. But once he points it out, you can’t help but see it there, grinning up at you. Some of this is simply what gifted Bible teachers do—they point to the text, and when you come to share their view it is because you see what they are saying in the text. But another part of why this is needed is that modern Christians frequently don’t realize how deeply the modern cosmology has gotten down into our bones, and in such a way as to prevent us from seeing things the way the first generation of Bible readers would have seen them. This book will be a really helpful corrective.
In the past, when my views on Genesis 6 have come out, one of the FAQs has been this: why are Nephilim mentioned after the flood if the point of the flood was supposed to have killed them all? Reasonable question, right? The option of saying that some Nephilim survived the flood would be out because that is flatly contradicted by the scriptural account, when it says that all outside the ark perished.
So what are the three logical options for people who accept the infallibility of Scripture? One possibility is that the same sin that brought on the flood was committed again, only on a much smaller scale. In other words, the intermarriages continued. Another option is that tribes of ordinary human giants developed, the kind of people who would be playing in the NBA today, and they were called nephilim, in memory of the real antediluvian deal. The third option is that some DNA from the Nephilim survived on the ark, and that it did so through the agency of Ham’s wife.
After his drunkenness episode, it is very interesting that Noah cursed Canaan, Ham’s son, not Ham himself. All of the post-flood giants we encounter in Scripture were descendants of Canaan. There were eight people on the ark, meaning that none of Noah’s grandchildren were born until after the flood, when it would have first appeared that the flood had not successfully wiped out the strain of the Nephilim completely. There would still be giants to fight—and who were not entirely dealt with until the time of David.
If you pay close attention, you will probably be able to detect that Pitterson does not belong to the same eschatological school of thought that many readers of this blog do, but that is all right. Getting out a bit more will be good for you, and the rest of the book is really worthwhile. Highly recommended.
“After his drunkenness episode, it is very interesting that Noah cursed Canaan, Ham’s son, not Ham himself.. .”
It is interesting, but if Ham’s wife was part Nephilim, wouldn’t all Ham’s children have some Nephilim in them, not just Canaan, given that none of Ham’s sons were born at the time Noah entered the ark (So that all Ham’s children would have the same mother)?
I think the implication is that Ham’s wife was either voluntarily or involuntarily impregnated by demons, and then conceived and gave birth to the monstrosity of Canaan? She then subsequently could have had additional, normal human offspring with Ham as the father. The idea is that Ham wasn’t necessarily the biological father of Canaan?
Well, it says Ham became the father of Canaan, and Canaan was cursed as a result of Ham’s sin.
First, Noah becoming drunk on wine strongly implies he had sex with his wife before passing out. Second, the expression “Ham beheld his father’s nakedness” denotes that he copulated with Noah’s wife, not necessarily his own mother, in the immediate aftermath of his father doing the same. Besides being an unlawful (Lev. 18) attempt at usurpation, this incident is a type or shadow of the man sleeping with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians. It also conforms to Christ’s parable of the sower, sowing tares with wheat. “An enemy has done this.” The parable speaks to the commingling of seed,… Read more »
Nice way to bring this back to the topic at hand. Hopefully the hijacker-in-chief won’t derail it again.
Sounds awesome! Bought it instantly! Thanks for the recommendation.
Imagine for a moment that Covid was not a thing, that the only major respiratory illness for the 2020-21 winter was influenza. Now imagine that for one winter, the vast majority of schools closed down. Large crowded public events, especially indoor events, closed down. Tens of millions more people started working from home. Far fewer people traveled throughout the country. Imagine people gathered indoors far less, and most of the ones that did gather were wearing masks and washing their hands much more frequently. Imagine that people made an effort most of the time to stay 6 feet away from… Read more »
Dude, your spittle-flecked diatribe has nothing to do with the topic of this post.
Absolutely true. Pastor Wilson did not allow comments on the misinformation-filled post that prompted my reply.
You seem to make some interesting points about the solidarity of a conspiracy….. There is a place at the bottom of each page (“Contact Doug”) where you can write a letter to Pastor Wilson, which he seems to normally respond to in his regular (bi-weekly?) post of these “Letters” he receives…. He asks that you include the article you are referring to in your letter. I am interested to see what he says…. maybe a whole article dedicated to a response?
I have written letters to Doug many, many times. He doesn’t print them. Most of the time he only prints letters of people who agree with him, or people who look very foolish while disagreeing with him.
This week I wrote two letters, one short and one longer (the exact comment above), and he printed neither.
Oh, little boy; I’m so sorry, but this is Doug’s blog, not yours. If he wants to turn off comments for a post, that’s his prerogative. Doug created Troll Tuesday where every week you can come out from under your bridge and post all the misinformation and conspiracy theories your little heart desires.
That is absolutely his prerogative, just as it’s my prerogative to post the comment on a different day’s post and your prerogative to make snide insults and deflect from the topic whenever you lack a substantive response.
No, this is all a result of you hijacking a post. This wasn’t a long comment thread that got into different topics. Your first comment had nothing to do with the subject at hand. FP isn’t deflecting anything. He’s just pointing out your rude behavior, which has been considered bad etiquette since the earliest days of the internet. You can admit it or be a prima donna, as usual.
Urban Dictionary: Thread Hijacking
That entry refers to thread hijacking. You seem not to know what a thread is. Each new comment that is not a reply to a previous comment begins a thread. James, Corey, and myself have started 3 different threads on this post, and it is quite common for people to start threads in order to ask Pastor Wilson questions or respond to other things he’s said that have nothing to do with the current post.
If you actually hate thread hijacking, then I find it odd that you perform it so frequently in my threads.
Well this aged poorly…
Why did it age poorly? Did I miss something?
My comment was in response to the original Jonathan comment, particularly the portion where he states, “Your theory, on the other hand, is that thousands and thousands of medical professionals testing 818,939 people for the flu were engaged in a conspiracy to hide positive flu tests for unclear reasons, without a single person at any level of the conspiracy becoming a whistleblower or accidentally leaking the slightest evidence of said conspiracy. We have Fauci’s personal emails about Covid, yet we have zero evidence of this conspiracy. And you haven’t even shown WHY such a conspiracy would be necessary – since… Read more »