Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The conquest of Canaan and the curse of Noah
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2024
- ABSTRACT: If we read the conquest of Canaan within its greater context in the narrative of Genesis, we find that the case for Yhwh's goodness is undermined. Instead of being a matter of the just punishment of the wicked Canaanites, it turns out that Yhwh is fulfilling a curse which the hungover Noah pronounced against his own grandson. This militates against the conviction that Yhwh, at least as presented in this portion of the Old Testament, is good.
Dr. Steven Nemes has a BA in Philosophy from Arizona State University with a minor in Religious Studies (2013), and an MDiv and PhD in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary (2016, 2021). The author of a number of articles, chapters, and books on diverse subjects in theology and philosophy, he teaches Latin at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy in Phoenix, Arizona.
Here on Dr Kipp’s recommendation. I look forward to your contribution to the discussion. Thank you for taking the time to study and share your point of view.
The discussion on Genesis 9:20-27 is fascinating. 🤔
Just combed through the index of "Crucifixion of the Warrior God" because I didn't remember Gregory Boyd addressing that in his chapters on the conquest of Canaan, and it looks like that passage isn't even mentioned.
Nice to have something new to think about on this topic!
@@bluecollarphilo
Thank you for your comment!
What do you think about a narrative-literary approach in that the text quite adamantly portrays Israel as a failure in being an instrument of judgement? They are called to holy destruction but themselves become objects of holy destruction through their actions? Like, the moral of the story comes through the whole narrative, not in isolated passages.
Also, do you hold to any eschatological view where God can give consequences to people for their lives? What might that look like?
This is the view I take.
Hi @JoelKorytko,
Thanks for your comment!
I think that reading is quite possible. I think that would make even greater the tension between the OT and the NT’s conception of God and a godly person.
As for your other question: my own eschatological views are not perfectly clear in my mind. I’d have to think about the matter some.
Good job Dr Steve!
To me the Abrahamic religion is making the statue’s of gods invisible. The psychological emphasis to transition from idol to invisible idol is what I mainly hear when reading the Gen 9 and Exodus to Canaan. Slavery, the whole story seems how to get all to enjoy slavery. Your What to do next? without saying it directly reflects imo. Your presentation is excellent and I very much enjoyed it.
Nice video. In my opinion, Marcion was, in fact, generally right. One can certainly discuss the details, but the general direction of the his argument was entirely logical and consistent.
I’m not sure if Marcion was correct in his conclusions, but he definitely identified a very real problem - that Jesus is not consistent with the way that God is portrayed in parts of Tanakh.
Is it possible to stick with Marcion's position without getting entangled in the mysteries of Gnosticism?
In fact, as far as I know, Marcion is generally not considered a Gnostic precisely because he doesn’t have an elaborate creation mythology. For him, the Father of Jesus has nothing to do with the creation of the material world.
I do think there are notable similarities, however.
The view first seen in Bullinger makes better sense to me, I.e., those tribes were demonized. There’s evidence to show the “sons of the Rapha”: Rephaim, Anakim [sons of Anak], Zuzims, Emim, Hittites, Perizzites, Amorites, Girgashites, Jebusites are descendants of the Nephilim, aka Giants procreated by fallen angels (cp.Gen 6).
NOTE the Targums and LXX calls them “giants”: Gen 14.5, 20; 15.19-21; Deut 2.10-11 (Emim); 3.11 (King Og); Deut 7; 20.17; Ex 3.8, 17; 23.23; Num 13.33 (sons of Anak); Amos 2.9 (Amorites); Josh 12.4, 8; 13.12 (gigantes, LXX); 2 Sam 5:18, 22 (“valley of the Titans,” LXX; Josephus, “valley of the Giants,” alt. “Titans,” AJ 71).
* Amalek: Ex 17; 1Sam 15.
Also, after the flood giants settled in the promised land, Deut. 7.1-16:
* v2, 16 “must destroy them without mercy,” “devour/consume”;
* v5, Asherah fertility goddess, “Easter.”
* 9.1 “fortified cities & walls reach the sky/heavens”
* v2 Anakites are “great and tall.”
Cp. Num 13.1-2, 28-33:
* V32-33: “The giants [Nephilim] were cruel, spoiled and killed one another and those that came to them.” Geneva Study Bible
Giants in the Land: Deut 20:10-15
* v10 cities outside the Land show leniency, IF they submit, and take them as “slaves.”
* v16 “however, cities inside” the Land wipe out!
* v17 “utterly annihilate,” “completely wipe out.”
* v18 “they will teach you,” i.e., you can’t teach them!
Remnants left:
* Josh 11.10-14, 21-23 “he annihilated all.”
* 1Chro 20.4-8 “Rapha/Rephaim descendants.”
* 2 Samuel 21:15-22 “the brother of [1Chro 20.5],” or another “Goliath.”
Re this Craig is an embarrassment to scholarship. This is his worst moment.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm inclined to agree that he's not at his best on this topic.
The outlines of this subject are artificially constrained, as the whole history must be brought to bare on this question, as follows.
1) before the creation of Adam 1/3rd of angels in heaven rebelled leading to intergalactic war, where the the son of man brought the rebellion to account, destroyed the 7 princes of darkness and laid bare the entire solar system - Rahab exploded to form the asteroid belt, and earth too was severely damaged.
2) The conflict was not entirely resolved however, and God laid out an expanded added plan, calling for a new regent for planet earth. The solution was creation of Adam and Eve who has sole dominion over earth. Not long after fallen angels infiltrated earth and sinned greatly , and attempted to form their own offspring to Usurp Adam's regency. Via Enoch the Nephilim giant offspring and fallen angels were brought to account. The entire earth was destroyed leaving only Noah and his 3 sons.
3) Noah is always viewed in context of both the original rebellion, subsequent usurpation of Adam's authority, and further the Nephilim also survived the flood. Their return reintroduced the fallen angel dark trinity, substitute Baal worship, and child sacrifice. Noah's curse was in large measure rooted in antediluvian world history, where Noah's son Ham and Ham's son Canaan also followed the false gods. The Canaanites Included various groups including the return of Nephilim giants of old, and the Hebrews via Abraham were drafted into service in God, to address these outcomes.
This more ancient history cannot be ignored, which answers all the outstanding questions. The original rebellion remerged after the flood with dire consequences, bringing forth a new plan, where all would have the opportunity to chose for themselves who they would serve, and thus who would be granted entrance to heaven. Worshipping the dark trinity, denying the son of man, was a death sentence. The Philistines living in Canaan where Nephilim also dwelled (Goliath and his 4 brothers to wit), were already not eligible to be saved. Messiah's gift on the cross would later provide a solution for redemption for all mankind. The issue of God's character is not even up for discussion amid all these elements of true history. The Canaanites were properly dispensed with by the armies of the Hebrews, who had been admitted into serving God's plan for the angel rebellion and its reemergence. Noah who had saved the human remnant from the flood, understood Ham's sin and acted accordingly.
I don't agree with this. Why should anyone accept the historicity of these alleged celestial events?
Why did God allow demons to procreate with humans then but not now?
Why are there references to the nephilim after the flood if the point of the flood was to destroy the nephilim?
Although many modern Chrsitians completely write off the "apocrypha", there are good reasons to be cautious about such texts, i.e. this supposed heavenly war. This is a later Jewish development as far as I know and doesn't necessarily apply to the original context with which the flood story is written, and it entirely not necessary.
my position is that Canaan doesn't exist in P source and Ham doesn't exist in J was wondering if u had any thoughts about it
verse 18 P source
20-27 J source
(( )) indicate interpolation/addition
18 The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. ((Ham was the father of Canaan.)) 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was peopled.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And ((Ham, the father of)) Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
“Cursed be Canaan;
lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”
26 He also said,
“Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem,
and let Canaan be his slave.
27 May God make space for Japheth,[c]
and let him live in the tents of Shem,
and let Canaan be his slave.”
Ah, so your opinion is that Noah's curse is a response to something Canaan did, not Ham?
I have no way of knowing whether that's true. Like I said, I don't know enough about the critical study of the OT to have an intelligent opinion about it.
This doesn't undermine my point that the conquest of Canaan tracing back to Noah's curse, though.
@@drstevennemes Yes would be entirely on Canaan not Ham was just wondering if u had come across it before and had an opinion. really liked ur presentation got a new sub
@@manbearpig3507I’m glad you liked it. Thanks for subbing!