Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Author Interview: Tim Chaffey on the Sons of God and the Nephilim
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2021
- Rev Reads interviews Tim Chaffey the author of Fallen to discuss fallen angels and their gigantic offspring. We discuss why the sons of God in Genesis 6 are fallen angels and numerous topics on giants. What does Nephilim mean? Who are the giant races in the Bible? How big were giants? What do the stars hint about giants? How do giants fit in Joshua's conquest of the Promised Land?
Purchase Fallen by Tim Chaffey at amzn.to/3NSQgq5
Go to risenmin.com for more details on Tim's writing ministry.
Dr Chaffey is awesome person and excellent researcher. His topics on Genesis and Creation are a eye opener to so many topics others either avoid many more topics. God Bless Dr Chaffey and Rev Reads for this presentation of this topic. The Bible teaches and speaks the truth to us at times we encounter topics that seem hard to understand yet things that are not revealed. However, its all in Divine Plans God has made for us today and our Forever Home. God Bless Dr Chaffey and others whom present topics that we as Christians may want to look deeper into the Bible.
Reading the book now, LOVE it so far!
Tim's the best. Glad you are loving it.
Here because Mondo Gonzalez recommend reading this book...good interview...
Thank you
Wow what a great topic and intreview!
Thanks, Tim is the best. One of my favorites.
As Gary Wayne put it, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.).
I love Tim's book. Helped me hold this position more firmly than unseen realm which actually caused more questions than answers.
Side note. It's funny that Christians can say well that's weird and sounds crazy about Angels impregnating women but don't even bat an eye at a virgin giving birth to God's seed. Just saying 😌
43:23 "Men, women, and children." - I'm curious as to whether we have indications to believe that the Nephilim reproduced, or if any were female. I'm a layman and haven't read much from those books in the Bible, so I'm just noting some thoughts I had as I listened.
The short discussion on the constellations, Orion, and the book of Job had me reflecting on a video I watched a long time ago titled "Why Moses' Version of the Flood is the Most Reliable Ancient Account" from the CZcams channel "Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace."
At 23:37 in the video, he touches on the verses in Job that mention the constellations. He doesn't relate it to the flood, Nephilim, or Babel. But he does bring up some scientific discoveries about those constellations, and how it relates to what God is saying about those constellations in those verses.. It struck myself as being profound.
Just thought you might find it interesting as well, if you weren't already aware of it: czcams.com/video/XMnjX-VgPMk/video.html
There is no female angels. They're all masculine. Women was made only for a man.
I have a theory about the giants serving and like to share with you. The earth has many underground caverns which when earth was Flooded had large air pockets. Could they and there wilves and other wicket people survived underground and when the waters went back underground the giants just came out and may still live in caves unnoticed
Will this be on audible?
Really long post based on ideas I've been studying the last few years (including being in Dr Michael Heiser's classes before he passed.)
I've been thinking a lot about Answers in Genesis' non-position, position on Gen 6... and I think it indicates an embarrassing weakness/flaw in their interpretation (not in the infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible).
I kept trying to think why it's so uncomfortable especially for their ministry to address this passage especially since they are so focused on Gen 1 - 9 being scientific. It's that they are having a debate with secular scientists and suddenly there's this divine-human hybrid story popping up in the middle and now they have to address a "science-fiction" story and are then being laughed at by people who don't believe in the supernatural...
My suggestions are that AiG is using a wrong definition for inspiration and inerrancy and a wrong context... Yeah, I'm not going to convince Ken Ham (who I immensely respect and think I even met one time. I grew up listening and reading his books and watching his videos).
First, in some ways I take the Bible MORE seriously than someone taking it "literally"... because the Bible is always taken selectively literal by EVERYONE. I was taught that you should interpret the Bible "normally/literally" unless it's obviously metaphorical. That people only take "clear" things symbolically/ metaphorically because they are trying to explain away their lack of faith in the Bible saying something supernatural. I don't think that's true anymore. It definitely isn't true for me. In fact I'll argue for the supernatural without shame in places where other Christians are uncomfortable.
As I've learned more about how humans process language it turns out that metaphor is essential to comprehension and new ideas require connections or a comparison to existing ideas. It's only been since the Enlightenment that in the West we've attempted to think of everything from a left-brain logical/scientific/materialistic viewpoint. That's not necessarily bad, but it's actually not as powerful as whole brain thinking like a story can evoke.
What if "inspiration" (which isn't spelled out how it works in the Bible) is divine preparation since childhood for writing scripture vs being zapped with word-for-word dictation (like how the Mormons and Muslims believe they received their books).
The Bible is a divine-human book but often the human authors and how they thought and wrote is considered irrelevant by most Christians. Dr Michael Heiser wrote about this view of interpretation in several of his books. I recommend everything he wrote before he died so I won't bother finding which books besides the three "Brief Insights on Mastering ..." series.
As for inerrancy I recommend "Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach" for a more thorough explanation for how human language works and how God accommodated the Bible authors where they were in time and cosmological understanding in communicating what they (and we) need to know for our limited ability to sufficiently comprehend without feeling the need to correct their flawed view of a flat earth with a domed firmament cosmology. It wasn't important to Him for them to have a perfect scientific understanding.
Lastly I want to reference Dr John Walton's views on the ancient view of the creation story being not how, but why. Thinking of Genesis as scientific is missing the point of the text in the way that describing the creation of a house would be missing the point of the story of the creation of a home. Genesis 1-2 is about the creation of a temple for God not a scientific description of the mechanism that God used or even the time that it took.
This isn't an attempt to reconcile with evolution or the Big Bang. This is being faithful to how an ancient near east author would have been communicating to a pre-scientific ancient near east audience. The Bible was written FOR us, not TO us.
Again, I don't expect to convince AiG especially since they have reputation and careers that they subconsciously will defend. They've staked their lives on their specific interpretative approach to the Bible. They built an entire theme park based on it! And I believe they did it for a good purpose: to defend a high view of Scriptures in a world that is trying to dismiss the Bible and a Biblical worldview.
But I think that we can have it all. We can support the theology of Gen 1 - 2's temple creation and the Gen 6 rebellion that included supernatural spiritual beings and a flood that was sent to destroy the world with a lot of other things that we aren't told about.
We need to be more humble in thinking God told us everything and that we need to have all the answers. We know God created. We know a flood occurred.
I like the series of books that Stephen C Meyer wrote including "Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe" and "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".
These are a legitimate approach to what we can say scientifically in a way that we can have a serious conversation with scientists who can be mistaken. Remember that The Big Bang was originally a theistic argument that atheists rejected because it implies a beginning of time and the universe and they were trying to avoid an immaterial uncaused-cause and a limit for the timeframe for origin of life and then evolution to occur.
Note: I have a cousin who is an astrophysicist and beyond brilliant but his study of science caused him to abandon his Christian upbringing because the math and physics tells him that his parent's "literal" interpretation of the Genesis 1 - 2 is incorrect.
I personally think that astrophysicists have incorrectly assumed that stars are giant balls of gas. I have seen arguments that seem convincing to me that the sun and stars are liquid lattices of molten material. The scientists I follow think this because of the continuous spectrum of light vs spikes of certain frequencies like what happens when a gas burns. This is not accepted as standard but I have a feeling it will be over the next several decades to 100 years. It could take that long to change consensus.
I met William Lane Craig once when he was discussing cosmology to students at the University of Michigan and asked about Russell Humphrey's ideas about space time and a different expansion model and he wasn't convinced. I have such a small background in physics that my ability to understand the theories is insignificant (at this point).
That being said, new telescopes like the James Webb will likely shake up existing theories that are flawed. Eventually the data will force a change as some models become indefensible and new ones are proposed. The problem is that Humphrey is picking a 144hr answer and trying to find a theory that accomodates his desired answer vs testing his hypothesis against the data and being willing to have the hypothesis invalidated.
I'm OK with a different answer and my understanding of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible are not effected because I understand Biblical inspiration accurately. There is more than enough evidence just in the probability of a theistic creation vs a materialist accident that I am more than comfortable saying that I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved-see these articles for examples:
“Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy”
“Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “‘All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal’”
As for, “Answers in Genesis' non-position, position” see, my article “Answers in Genesis’ Ken Ham on Nephilim giants” and as for Tim, see my book, “Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.”
But that’s all in case you want to follow up in detail. In short, Ham and Tim in particular, teach un-biblical Nephilology.
500 pages! That’s a lot of info.
Did Dr Chaffey use the Book of Asher as a source?
Not sure
It's "Jasher" and he may have referenced it but it's a modern day hoaxed fraud. I included it as such in my book "The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts" just to deal with it's statements.
In luke 1:34 Mary asked, "how can this be?" The angel told her that the holy spirit will come upon you. So, would that practice stop if angels were familar with marrying human women? Marriage was only made for humans (Genesis 2) as part of being in the image of God. God made only "man" in his image and after his likeness and not the angels. I'm with the Sethite view as sons of God are human.
Well, "the holy spirit will come upon you" was a unique event which made Jesus God's "only begotten" Son.
Indeed, "Marriage was only made for humans" so Angels weren't supposed to marry but some did and are considered sinners for it, having "left their first estate" as Jude put it, in order to do so.
"God made only 'man' in his image and after his likeness" but we were made "a little lower" than them.
As for the Sethite view: that's a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice, and which only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
Understanding that you've taken a non position position, you mentioned idioms referencing the Fallen. That too is possible error. You are referencing the Anunnaki as zecharia sitchin quoted in his many books. I suggest you look up Anunnaki and its meaning and maybe reassess the view of Fallen.
You do you mean as a non-position? We discussed many subjects, so I am not sure what you are referencing.
So how big were the Nephilim? The ones after the flood?
It probably varied a lot but based on material in the Bible, 10-12 ft would be a good estimate.
They weren't any size because post-flood Nephilim never existed: God didn't fail when He meant to be rid of them via the flood.