Pastor Larry DeBruyn has written a reply in response to my defense of Tom Horn and Chuck Missler which he posted at his own website here and at the herescope site here. I respect him as servant of the Lord, as well as the folks at Herescope who usually seem to be well intended. I have no personal axe to grind but I will call it like I see it. The original article entitled “Doomsday Datesetters 2012” is hyperbolic and inaccurate as both Missler and Horn are outspoken against date setting. I find this unfortunate as I have admired the work of Sarah Leslie in the past.
DeBruyn’s essay is well written and reflects more serious scholarship than the previous offering. While he acknowledges that the “sons of God” are certainly to be understood as supernatural beings, he advocates an odd non-contingent interpretation of the Nephilim’s relationship to the “sons of God.” His interpretation lacks force as no ancient commentator nor modern Hebrew scholar I can find agrees with it. Exegesis is about getting to what the original author meant, not simply offering possible readings. This was all addressed thoroughly enough in my original post (refer to the quote form the Word Biblical Commentary). Scholarship aside, I find his essay objectionable because DeBruyn has quoted me out of context, appropriating the same misleading methodology as Gaylene Goodroad. DeBruyn writes:
Based upon this interpretation, this critic of the Herescope post cavalierly dismisses Mrs. Goodroad’s alternative interpretation “as an example of very poor exegesis” and that “there really is no valid scholarship to suggest otherwise”?[4] Condescendingly, he asserts that Mrs. Goodroad’s take is “histrionic” (i.e., meaning “excessively emotional or dramatic”).[1]
While it is easy to burn straw men, it doesn’t advance the discussion. This is a demonstrably unfair and inaccurate presentation of my criticism. I certainly did call her exegesis poor and her criticism histrionic but he has taken it out of context. I wrote “she seems histrionic in her assertions:” punctuated with a colon in specific reference to her accusation that the majority opinion amongst scholars (the supernatural offspring view) is a “scheme to downplay the importance of the incarnation…it takes away from Christ’s uniqueness, virgin birth, atonement” and that it “diminishes the Gospel!”[2] I wonder if she will also accuse Francis Schaeffer of “scheming to downplay the incarnation.” It is histrionic and patently absurd. My original criticism is actually quite generous. DeBruyn continues:
In his fine commentary on Genesis, Allen Ross notes “four predominant interpretations of the ‘sons of God’: they are
- the line of Seth, the godly line;
- fallen angels;
- lesser gods; or
- despots, powerful men.”[6]
As evidenced by reading both the Horns’ and Goodroad’s interpretations, both fall within the interpretative options Ross lists; the Horns identifying with number two, and Goodroad with number four. Obviously, if Goodroad’s interpretation falls within the fourth category, it is unfair to call her understanding “poor” and “histrionic.”
Again “histrionic” only seems unfair divorced from the context I offered it in. Why does he resort to such misleading antics? It is also important to note that the fact that a commentary lists four views says nothing about their validity. As my original post documented Hebrew Bible scholars are in wide agreement that the text means the Nephilim were the offspring of the fallen angels and human women. The commentary I quoted presented textual and historical evidence. Proper exegesis is to interpret a passage on its own terms interacting with the original languages. The goal is the author’s intent. Neither Goodroad nor DeBruyn are doing that in my opinion. They are relying on English translations and seem to have a preconceived agenda. That her exegesis was poor is also evidenced by her referring to the term “Watchers” as some sort of apocryphal device when it is used by the prophet Daniel in canonical scripture (Dan 4:13, 17, 23). Not to mention, that she argues the Nephilim were simply “big bullies” rather than supernaturally endowed. DeBruyn presents a slightly better argument by G. Charles Aaslders:
It has been correctly pointed out that the text establishes no causal connection between these two historical phenomena. In fact, the text specifically states that the giants were already present when the “sons of God” produced children by the “daughters of men.”[3]
If this is so, I wonder why the vast majority of Hebrew scholars see it otherwise. This is where exegesis comes into play. Using the Hebrew/English reverse interlinear in my logos bible software I quickly see that the Hebrew text of Genesis 6:4 reads:
The key term here אֲשֶׁר, rendered “when” in English also carries the meaning of “because.”
834 אֲשֶׁר, בַּאֲשֶׁר, כַּאֲשֶׁר, מֵאֲשֶׁר [’aher /ash·er/] . A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); TWOT 184; GK 889 and 948 and 3876 and 4424; 111 occurrences; AV translates as “which”, “wherewith”, “because”, “when”, “soon”, “whilst”, “as if”, “as when”, “that”, “until”, “much”, “whosoever”, “whereas”, “wherein”, “whom”, and “whose”. 1 (relative part.). 1a which, who. 1b that which. 2 (conj). 2a that (in obj clause). 2b when. 2c since. 2d as. 2e conditional if. [4]
That definition surely supports a causal relationship. I will be the first to admit that I am not a Semitic languages scholar but Dr. Michael Heiser, the academic editor for logos bible software, is a recognized authority. I emailed him the above argument by Aaslders that there was no causal connection and that the Nephilim were already present. He wrote back,
“I know of no grammatical possibility for this – ask him to produce it.”
Pastor DeBruyn, that is an invitation from Dr Heiser to mount an argument from the Hebrew grammar that supports a non-causal interpretation. As far as DeBruyn’s view that there was nothing genetic going on with the Nephilim he contends,
Via the mating process, the “sons of God” appeared to have transgressed the created order of life, terrestrial and extraterrestrial, by infusing the “the daughters of men” with supernatural powers that they in turn, and in an occult way, passed on to the nephilim-gibborim, powers that might be compared unto those that will belong to the “man of sin” at the end of the age,[5]
While this is an interesting theory and likely has truth to it, I don’t understand the pressing need to divorce the account of any space-time material substantiality. Angels manifest as physical beings in the bible, for instance the “men” that visited Abraham come to mind (Gen 18). The men of Sodom surely had little doubt about their material potential (Gen 19:5). But DeBruyn concludes,
In short, the Genesis record does not support the fantastic construct that the change in the nephilim was physical. When the sons of God took the daughters of men to wife, the nephilim were already giants.[6]
Again a quote from a dated commentary will not suffice. This is not supported by exegesis and it doesn’t make much sense logically. The text connects them firmly to the offspring of the angels (Gen 6:4). While I don’t know if it was genetic or purely supernatural, I suspect it was both. How can anyone say that there was no genetic component? Giantism is a genetic condition and the biblical text also supports further evidence of mutations,
And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.(2 Sa 21:20)
That sure sounds physical to me!
[1] Larry DeBuryn, “Demons, Daughters and DNA,” http://guardinghisflock.com/2011/06/22/demons-daughters-and-dna/ (accessed 6/24/2011).
[2] Gaylene Goodroad, “DOOMSDAY DATESETTERS 2012,” http://herescope.blogspot.com/2011/06/doomsday-datesetters-2012.html (accessed 6/24/2011).
[3] G. Charles Aalders, Genesis: Bible Students Commentary, Volume I, and William Heynen, Translator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981): 156. [As quoted by Deburyn]
[4] James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), H834.
About Cris Putnam
I would take what Dr. Michael Heiser say’s and teaches and know’s over most anyone on this subject.
He is professional, does not cut corners, tells it like it is or isn’t, if he does not know he will say. He is Very well versed in his field and knowledge of the ancient languages[smeitic] as is said here. Mr.Missler also knows what he is speaking as he also researches and he is a brilliant man. Mr. Tom Horn has also spent time in researching this subject. I believe God has put the supernatural in this world for a reason and it takes teachers/researcher’s to bring out the awesome way God has designed all this. Better than any Science Fiction. Love these subjects. David Flynn also speaks of this. Blessings to all these men for showing us God’s plan from the begining.
Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; **and also after that** when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men..
I just thought I’d point that out.
Using the Hebrew/English reverse interlinear in my logos bible software I quickly see that the Hebrew text of Genesis 6:4 reads:
The key term here אֲשֶׁר, rendered “when” in English also carries the meaning of “because.”
834 אֲשֶׁר, בַּאֲשֶׁר, כַּאֲשֶׁר, מֵאֲשֶׁר [’aher /ash·er/] . A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); TWOT 184; GK 889 and 948 and 3876 and 4424; 111 occurrences; AV translates as “which”, “wherewith”, “because”, “when”, “soon”, “whilst”, “as if”, “as when”, “that”, “until”, “much”, “whosoever”, “whereas”, “wherein”, “whom”, and “whose”. 1 (relative part.). 1a which, who. 1b that which. 2 (conj). 2a that (in obj clause). 2b when. 2c since. 2d as. 2e conditional if. [4]
That definition surely supports a causal relationship. I will be the first to admit that I am not a Semitic languages scholar but Dr. Michael Heiser, the academic editor for logos bible software, is a recognized authority. I emailed him the above argument by Aaslders that there was no causal connection and that the Nephilim were already present.
He wrote back,
“I know of no grammatical possibility for this – ask him to produce it.”
Matt, I am not sure why you cut and pasted a chunk of my post. Did you have a comment or point to make?
I find it curious that non-LDS Christians insist that Christ taught that “they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” after the resurrection, but are angels, yet angels can fall and beget children. It’s this kind of inconsistent view that Mormons find troubling.
Excal – the text does not say “are angels” rather “like the angels” even so, are you actually claiming that unmarried folks can not procreate? Seriously? The only inconsistency is your use of term “non-LDS Christians” because there is no such thing as an “LDS Christian” Joseph Smith declared that Christianity was a false religion, you can’t have it both ways.
No, Chris, I am saying that you don’t understand. The only angels with bodies are resurrected beings, and they aren’t fornicators. The fallen angels kept not their first estate and will never have bodies, as do those who kept their first estate.
LDS-Christians are gentiles (creedal Christians mostly, but others as well), who embrace the fullness of the gospel of Christ and therefore are no longer gentiles, but of the household of God. Those gentiles (or jews) who reject the fullness of the gospel are cut off from his people, because they have broken his covenant, just as surely as an uncircumcised jew.
“The only angels with bodies are resurrected beings,” <- Nonsense, there's no biblical evidence for this, just your assertion. The resurrection occurs after Jesus returns (Rev 20). "LDS-Christians" is an oxymoron, you cannot be both. The Mormon doctrine directly contradicts the New Testament: Mormon: "Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163; Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15) Christian: "For by him [Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (Col 1:16) The Jesus of Mormonism is a false Christ and Smith was a false prophet just as we were warned to expect in the NT "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." (Mt 24:24)
The Bible teaches that Jesus was the first fruits of the resurrection, not the only fruits. After his resurrection, many more were resurrected and they continue to minister to mortals on earth, as angels, but they don’t fornicate with them.
The fallen angels cannot be resurrected, because they were never born. If they were never born, they don’t have bodies to fornicate with the women of the earth.
The Bible teaches this, but you don’t understand it, because you don’t realize what the first estate was, which the fallen angels didn’t keep. Jude understood it. He knew, as the apostle John knew, that we are all the offspring of God, but Lucifer rebelled and drew away after him, a third part of the children of God. They were cast out from the presence of God and became the devil and his angels to tempt man.
And it is necessary that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet.
This is what Jude meant when he said that they didn’t keep their first estate.
The promise of God is that they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who kept not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who kept their first estate;
The second estate, mortality, is reserved only for those who kept their first estate, and if they keep their second estate, they shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
But, as Jesus also taught, if you can receive it, Elias must come first, and restore all things, yet, Elias has come already, and the gentiles knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
That’s the purpose of the devil. Salvation is declared by the servants of God, then he comes and says to them, “believe it not,” and they believe it not, because they love Satan more than God.
Nonsense, the timing of the general resurrection of the dead is after Jesus returns and it does not apply to angels but humans. “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”(Re 20:6) Angels are NEVER mentioned in this context.
Please address the inconsistency between Mormon doctrine which claims Jesus and Satan are brothers while the NT says Jesus created all things.
Chris wrote:
You are right, I misspoke. The Bible doesn’t teach that . The doctrine of angels is different for LDS-Christians than it is for non LDS-Christians. For the saints, angels are not a different type of creature than man is, and the time-frame for the Saints is larger, extending from eternity to eternity, worlds without end.
This is because, for the saints, man and angels are simply the offspring of God, the increase of which has no end, and, on this earth, it includes those of his children that rebelled and followed the son of the morning, in their first estate, before the earth was made.
The word angel means messenger. Saint Augustine wrote: “Do you enquire the name of their nature? — It is spirit. Do you ask the name of their service? — It is angel.”
However, what he doesn’t mention is that some messengers that appear in the Bible narrative are disembodied spirits (just men made perfect, awaiting resurrection – the three persons appearing to Abraham, maybe Michael (Adam), Gabriel (Noah) and Raphael (?) , would be examples), and some are spirits who had yet to experience mortality (Christ as Jehovah, for example).
Still others in the post Jesus narrative are resurrected beings (the nameless angels in the revelation of John for example,) and some who, like Enoch and John, are translated beings, having a mortal body that has been changed, but where this change is not equal to that of the change from mortal to immortal, still to come for them.
Though the Bible doesn’t say so explicitly, the LDS-Christians know without a doubt that some faithful departed spirits have been resurrected, before the resurrection that will occur at the second coming of Christ, because several of them have administered to men in modern times (Moroni, John the Baptist, etc.)
Chris wrote:
Again, the difference between the LDS-Christian and the non LDS-Christian is that the LDS-Christian accepts the fullness of the gospel of Christ, as declared in the Book of Mormon. The fullness of the good news of Christ is that not only is he the Only Begotten Son of the Father, who suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead, with healing in his wings, so-to-speak, but also that he has been sent to accomplish the work of the Father in all things.
The work concerning the personal salvation for all mankind was finished with his suffering and death upon the cross, wherein, as he has been lifted up by men, even so shall men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before him, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
To bring this great and marvelous work to pass, the Father has directed the Son from the beginning. Jesus told the Jews that he spoke that which he had seen with his Father and that all things had been delivered to him of his Father.
In the Book of Mormon, we see this very clearly. It is the Father that led Israelites out of the holy land from time to time, and it is the work of the Father to gather them in again in the latter days, to glorify his name in their salvation. He calls this his great and marvelous work, his work, his strange work, his act, his strange act, and he commands his Son to reveal it and explain it to the house of Israel, so that they might know the mind and will of the Father concerning them, as his work commences in all the earth.
Paul spoke of this, when he explained to the gentiles the great covenant the Father made unto the Jews, when he shall take away their sins. He explained to the gentiles that the Jews are enemies concerning the gospel for their sakes, but as touching the election (that is the covenant,) they are beloved for their fathers’ sakes.
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus explains this in very vivid detail, and it has to do with America being the land of Joseph, and the location of a future city of Joseph, a holy city called Zion, the New Jerusalem, where his people will gird up their loins, looking forth for the great and dreadful day of the Lord to come.
It is as Paul explained it, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as in times past the gentiles have not believed God, yet obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Jews, even so the Jews are to obtain mercy, through the mercy of the believing gentiles.
For God hath concluded them all (both Jews and gentiles) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Of course, no one understands this better than Jesus, for he is his Only Begotten Son, and was with him in the beginning, as his Word; and as the Word of the Father, he was God. As the Word of the Father, all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehends it not.
The word which we have in the Bible is not his, but the Father’s which sent him. The Father himself loves us, because we have loved Jesus, and have believed that he came out from God. The word that the Father gave him to give to us is that, If we keep his commandments, we shall abide in his love; even as he keeps his Father’s commandments, and abides in his love.
Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Thus, we see that the gospel of Jesus Christ is that God so loved the world that he sent his Word, who is his Only Begotten Son, “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” and the fullness of his gospel includes the fact that all Israel shall be saved, for he shall bring it to pass and in that day, shall that which is written come to pass:
Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child; for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.
Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes;
For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed; neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
For thy maker, thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel—the God of the whole earth shall he be called.
For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee.
In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.
For this, the waters of Noah unto me, for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee.
For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.
O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted! Behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.
And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.
And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
In righteousness shalt thou be established; thou shalt be far from oppression for thou shalt not fear, and from terror for it shall not come near thee.
Behold, they shall surely gather together against thee, not by me; whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall revile against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
That is why they say: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings unto them, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings unto them of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion: Thy God reigneth!
I hope this helps.
Joseph Smith was a con man, this proves it conclusively: http://carm.org/book-abraham-papyri-and-joseph-smith
Think of what you are saying, Chris. You are putting your trust in the arm of flesh, while you know that “cursed is the man that trusts man.”
The Lord asks,
Don’t harden your heart, until it’s too late. Go and do the works of Abraham. Read the Book of Mormon for yourself. Read the Pearl of Great Price for yourself. You’ll see.
Excal did you read the link? how do you explain the overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Abraham? He said he translated it from a text which we know is the Egyptian book of the dead. This proves he was a liar and just made up his so called translation.
Chris,
I read the link. I’m very familiar with it. I have his book. I have been a subscriber to his newsletter for some time.
“The overwhelming evidence” shows that Joseph’s interpretation of the papayri is not that of the academics. This is hardly cause for alarm, now is it?
What gets me is why none of the critics deal with the actual text of the book. Why do they want to strictly deal with the methodology – If Joseph couldn’t possibly have derived the text from the facsimiles, how did he derive it?
They try to employ the same tactic with the other works of Joseph, but we really can’t know for sure how he did what he did. On the other hand, we can easily investigate what he produced. In the case of the Book of Abraham, there are many interesting aspects to investigate, but how Joseph obtained the knowledge of Abraham that he claims to have obtained is the least of them.
What the IRR has done is make a case that presents Joseph as a liar and a fraud, without ever discussing the exhibit A in the case, the actual text itself! How do we know someone has made up the “so called translation” if we never discuss that translation?
And, just like the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it all comes down to a matter of faith. An investigator must be prepared to study it out in his own mind and then ask the Lord to confirm the conclusions reached.
That being the case, why argue for decades (centuries?) over it?
I love the Book of Abraham, but I regret that we don’t have all of it yet. How much more could we learn, if we had it all?
It’s not his interpretation – he just made it up – the text was written in a language with vocabulary that has meaning, he manufactured his own meaning which is not even remotely related to the text he claimed to translate. The word for this is FRAUD.
Chris,
That is a huge problem for Joseph’s critics, don’t you see? They say that Joseph’s text is “translated” from those documents, when it’s clear that it could not have been. And that’s not all. What we have is apparently only 1/4 of what existed in the time of Joseph.
The obvious question is then where did it come from? Unbelievers say that, if it couldn’t have come from the documents we have now, he had to have made it up, but the believers cannot be convinced of this, since the whole thesis of the unbelievers argument is that Joseph was evil, that he was a deceiver, that he was constantly out to dupe and take advantage of his neighbors, that he certainly was no prophet, except in the case, where he prophesied that God had a work for him to do; and that his name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.
Well, Jesus said that by their works ye shall know them, and Moroni, who unbelievers contend never existed, but is a fictional character of Joseph’s, wrote:
Now, the following words are some of the words which Joseph wrote in the Book of Abraham, and we must judge, whether they invite and entice to do good, or invite and entice to sin and to do that which is evil continually:
Here, if Joseph made up these words, he is clearly enticing us to be “a follower of righteousness,”… “a prince of peace,”… “and to keep the commandments of God,” because these are the works of Abraham and if we are the children of Abraham, we will do the works of Abraham, as Jesus taught.
Joseph’s words continue:
Again, words that hardly invite and entice to sin.
Hi..to address the nephillim /fallen angels theory…if one look at Hebrew 1…you will see that God never called angels His sons..only humans interpret angels as sons of God…they are ministering spirits ..servants according to the word ….Hebrew 1:5…For to which of the angels did God ever say..”you are my Son; today I have become your Father….. …..question is..if God had already sons in angels…why did he created man/Adam to be in His likeness ..to be His sons and daughters..those that believe and call on Him.,angels was not formed in His likeness..thus never called sons…???…the other question is…if the giants were the nephilim/fallen angels..where are they today …according to the word there were g
iants after the flood. ..so Noah must have had a faulty gene and was not a righteous blameless man,..???.…which is not according to the word…the genealogy of the people that ..”called on the name of the Lord…Gen.4:25..Gen.5..were Seth’s..the sons of God..and was given before the account of the Nephilim…and nowhere is there mention of children born of angels…to assume that there were fallen angels which coppulated with humans..lead to a false escathology of T Horn/Missler..etc….God brought the flood because of sin..corruption and violence..nowhere is there a mentioning that the flood is because of coppulating with fallen angels…people must read what the word says and not beyond what it doesn’t say..