Greek mythology?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by LorrieAB, Dec 24, 2005.

  1. LorrieAB

    LorrieAB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wonder what some of you might think about the idea that Greek mythology stems from the "Son's of God" in Gen. 6, the giants, nephilim, fallen ones... Could this be where some of these stories of half man half gods etc. came from?
     
  2. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, no, the spectre of Gen 6 looms over us once again! :eek:

    Ha, just kidding, Lorrie. ;) I hear so many half-baked ideas all based on the supposed teaching in Gen 6, which actually is a very unclear passage. I personally think that the nephilim were just unusually tall people. I do not think angels can breed with human women -- Jesus said that angels "do not marry nor are given in marriage" which strongly indicates they cannot have intimate relations or reproduce.

    Are you saying did figures from Greek mythology stem from actual weird creatures wandering the earth who resulted from the union of fallen angels and human women? If so, I would have to say no.
     
  3. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lorrie, in the mid 1800's a fantastic bit of lingustic research and research into the history of mythologies was done by a man named Hislop. His eventual book "Two Babylons" traces most of the mythologies we are aware of back to the time of Nimrod. Take the time to read the introduction and the first couple of chapters and you will see where the idea of the half-man half-horse came from, as well as many of the other symbols whose roots are largely forgotten today. It is fascinating reading. It is on line here:
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/The%20Two%20Babylons/two_babylons_contents.htm
     
  4. mountainrun

    mountainrun
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe Jesus said "the angels in HEAVEN do not marry."
    The angels in Heaven refrain from many things that the fallen angels {demons} on the earth undertake.

    Whether the passage in Genesis refers to angels or not is unclear, but I, being half-baked do not mock the possibility. As I read and ponder it, as we are told to do by the Lord, it seems that the "sons of God" and "men" are not the same thing.

    It also says absolutely nothing about weird creatures, Marcia, resulting from these unions of nephilim and women. It clearly says children, nothing more. Except that these children were exceptional men. Nothing about tall, though.

    If these were angels, this may have been the sin for which they are imprisoned in Hell, see 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude, while other fallen angels are still allowed their freedom.

    I try to keep an open mind about things which God has not fully explained.

    Marcia may be correct.

    MR.
     
  5. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    There would be a definite DNA problem between angels, if they have any, and humans! The Bible defines 'sons of God' as believers several times. One of the consistent themes in the Bible is that believers need to separated from unbelievers. This was a national, physical separation in the Israeli theocratic law. But it was evidently known before that as Abraham not only married his half-sister, but insisted his son have a wife from the family unit as well. In the New Testament, believers are not to be in partnership with unbelievers. There is no reason to suspect this constraint was not also evident in the antediluvian times.

    In addition, I think if you read Genesis 6 carefully, you will find simply that the nephilim were contemporaneous (lived at the same time) with the marriages of the sons of God and the daughters of men (unbelievers). We see the results of this type of union several times in the Bible -- think of Samson and Delilah, for example. But I don't think you will find any indication that the nephilim were either the results of the ungodly unions or partners in them.
     
  6. LorrieAB

    LorrieAB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, this really ties into the thread on the Apocrapha as well, but here goes.
    Before I get too much into this and forget, thanks Helen for the lead on the Two Babylons; I downloaded the whole book as I've been meaning to check it out in our library but have been reading others so hadn't gotten around to it. MR haven't been able to e-mail you back again the second time as I guess I don't understand their mail system, keep getting an error message about HTML flag(s). So here that is (maybe I could get your e-mail address so I don't have to do it this way?): Maybe you could move back here when they open up the new gasline (haha). As you can see from the direction of this thread, yes what you mentiond is what I was talking about. I know these things would have had to happen before the start of the Greek mythologies as they would have had to to be carried on. Seems that all myths, legends, wives-tales... have some basis in fact (right or wrong, pagan or not).

    Now back to the thread. Helen, you mention probems with DNA with the angels and the woman then go on to say "if they have any" (please excuse if this isn't an exact quote as I'm off line due to the length); that's one possibility and another is that the DNA "pool" was not "corrupt" yet at this point as we know there was inbreading; as you mentioned Abraham and let's not forget Noah and his 3 sons who repopulated the world, not to mention starting out with only Adam and Eve to begin with. So I don't think I can accept that as a reason this couldn't be. Also you mention "sons of God" as meaning I think (again I'm off line) believers yet Strong's shows this to mean son (a builder of the family name). It is imm. after this "the sons of God took the daughters of men (which why differentate if they were just men) 6:2 that God said His spirit would not always strive with man and that his days would be 120 years (cut WAY back from the 300-900+ years known previously) 6:3. Then in 6:4 we see there were giants in those days AND AFTER THAT, WHEN the sons of man came into the daughters of men and bore children. This is when it repented and grieved the Lord that He had made man 6:6. Imm after this we are told that God will destroy man and enter Noah and the arc 6:7,13, and 14...

    But we don't see the last of the giants here ("and after that" 6:4), as we again see them in Deu 2:10 and 21+ , 3:11 and 9:2+ with the last one being Og the last of the remnants of the giants. MR, they are discribed as tall in all these verse with 3:11 actually giving the size of Og's bed (9 cubits (13.5 feet)). So obviously some of this "blood line" if you will must have made it through the flood since this happened long after the flood (about 1000yrs or so according to Gidion's timeline?); but after never the less. BTW, if you do a word study on giant (H7497 in Deu 3:11) you will run across Rapha (God has healed) and Rephaim (a race of giants in Palestine before the time of Abraham). We know from our more recent history to have giants though not to the same degree.

    Anyway, didn't mean to write a book (too late I know) but back to the subject of the Apocrapha and why I was looking into it was this and the falling of Satan and being cast to earth, the use of let US make make man in OUR image after OUR likeness (Gen 1:26), and the use of the word world not meaning globe or earth as we usually use it but that of an orderly arrangement or decoration (G2889). It seems to me that there is some sort of arrangement between God and Satan that is not directly spoken of in Scriptures which is why I was looking outside it for answers (and MR as I told you, it was a spiritual nightmare for me; but what I didn't tell you was that it had the sense as though I had tried to steal something from God!!!) It was so bad that night after having read part of the Book of Enoch that I was woken up out of a sound sleep at 3:00AM with the sole thing on my heart of getting that book out of my house. If it was mine, I probably would have burned it, but it wasn't so I got dressed and took it out to my truck and gave it back to who I borrowed it from ASAP (it was the dead of winter and out of a dead sleep; MR, you know what the winters here can be like).

    Well if this doesn't get me hated/kicked off the board, I'll be surprised. Just looking for answers, Love in Christ.
     
  7. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lorrie, before you get into the Two Babylons book, please be aware that much of it has been discredited and/or refuted. This book has zero credibility for anyone who knows the problems with it. Please, please read this:

    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/hislop01.html

    An author who wrote a book based on the Two Babylons book later recanted after having discovered how much false info was in the book. I can't find the essay he wrote but I have it somewhere. I'm on an apologetics list, and this book came up recently.
     
  8. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's more on Hislop's book:
    http://www.equip.org/free/DC187.htm

    The author who did a re-working of Hislop's book and was a total believer in it, Ralph Woodrow, later retracted his support of this book:
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's an excerpt from Woodrow's statement:
     
  10. ronthedisciple

    ronthedisciple
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lorrie, it is my belief that the account we have in Genesis 6 and the Greek Mythologies probably stem from a common source. One like myself might see that the stories of the Greek heroes are veiled with as much mystery and wonder as is the stories of the Nephilim, the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men. I am not suggesting that Genesis is merely telling fantasy fables. I am suggesting that the record of what was in the human collective memory when Genesis was compiled was probably thinking upon a time from which the Greek poets were also thinking about. That none of them knew all the details is of no surprise, nor does it mean that what they recorded was false (in the case of the Genesis record). Let us remember, Genesis, indeed the whole Holy Bible, is not intended to be a history book. The Holy Bible, including Genesis, is an inspirational book, or rather collection of books, intended to relate the story of how God relates to us.
     
  11. LorrieAB

    LorrieAB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron, thank you for your input. I too obviously wonder about a connection; but my thought was the the Greek mythology may have stemed from what happened in Genesis and not the other way around. Marcia, thank you for the links.
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, this is not the first time I find myself in strong disagreement with Marcia. I have checked some of the references used in Two Babylons, in particular some of the linguistic references, and find them accurately used. With the understanding that he may have gone a little far with some of his conclusions (and even that is debatable!), what he found linguistically was entirely accurate from what I can find.

    And that, actually, is what this thread was referring to from the start.

    Here is some information from a couple of the footnotes in Two Babylons which have to do with the original questions asked:

    The name for bull or ruler is, in Hebrew without points, Shur, which in Chaldee becomes Tur. From Tur, in the sense of a bull, comes the Latin Taurus; and from the same word, in the sense of a ruler Turannus, which originally had no evil meaning. thus, in these well-known classical words, we have evidence of the operation of the very principle which caused the defied Assyrian kings to be represented under the form of the man-bull.

    Unless I am wrong, the word 'tyrant' also relates back to that original word.

    From the text itself comes another explanation, and this from the chapter "The Child in Assyria":
    There was another way in which Nimrod's power was symbolised besides by the "horn." A synonym for Gheber, "The mighty one," was "Abir," while "Aber" also signified a "wing." Nimrod, as Head and Captain of those men of war, by whom he surrounded himself, and who were the instruments of establishing his power, was "Baal-aberin," "Lord of the mighty ones." But "Baal -abirin" (pronounced in nearly the same way) signified "The winged one," and therefore in symbol he was represented, notonly as a horned bull, but as at once a horned and winged bull -- as showing not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones under his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, and to put down all opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the vast extent of his might, he was represented with treat and wide-expanding wings.

    Hislop goes on to show how this symbolism was known to the Hebrews and, indeed, shows up in their Scriptures:

    To this mode of representing the mighty kinds of Babylong and Assyria, who imitated Nimrod and his successors, there is manifest allusion in Isaiah viii. 6-8: "For as much as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong andmighty, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he shall reach even unto the neck; and the STRETCHING OUT OF HIS WINGS SHALL FILL the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel."

    Minus all paranoia about the book, I hope that helps with some of your original question, Lorrie.

    And yes, mythology DOES stem from what happened in Genesis. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. They legends and mythologies of all cultures relate back to the true and original history which we have in Genesis. This has been a field of study of mine for years and I have absolutely NO doubt about the veracity of that statement. However it is not from Genesis 6 that our mythologies arise, but from the generations immediately after the Flood.

    Out of my own curiosity, I did a quick check on one of Marcia's quoted references -- that of something round being associated with manna in Exodus 16:14. The word which the King James translates as 'round thing' is 'chacpac.' It is used once and only that time in the entire Bible. It is from an unused root meaning 'to peel'. This does NOT necessarily mean 'round'! The NIV translates the word, and more correctly, I think, as 'flakes'. There is no sense, except in the translators' minds, in which this manna is round.

    However, if we remember that the King James was translated under the auspices of a King who was head of the Church of England, which is not so very far removed from the Roman Catholic church, I think we can see why the 'round' was a preferred word -- it supported their use of the round wafer in the Eucharist (and not the other way around).

    So I definitely stand by the research in Two Babylons.
     

Share This Page

Loading...