# The Soteriological Status of the Nephilim?



## TryingToLearn (Apr 8, 2021)

I was just thinking about this today; I understand there's different views on who the Nephilim are (I personally think Genesis intends to say that while the Nephilim were giants, not all giants were conceived by demons), nevertheless, most will accept that Genesis does say that at least some demons fathered human children. My question is, has anyone ever thought of the implications of this upon the soteriological status of the Nephilim? Since they weren't conceived by human fathers (like Jesus), wouldn't they have no original sin and not be considered to be under the covenant of works (thought some think they possessed male bodies in order to do this, so if so I guess that wouldn't count)? Could any Nephilim even be saved? I understand these are speculative questions that we probably won't know the answers to until Heaven, but I was wondering if anyone's ever thought through this?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 8, 2021)

There are two different lines of thought on this:

1) It appears on some readings that Joshua's invasions targeted cities that were largely controlled by the Nephilim. I'm not ready to throw my weight behind that. If it is true, then Rahab might have had 1/4 Nephilim blood.

2) Intertestamental thought (up to Josephus and Origen) held that demons were the disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim.

I don't say "demons" fathered children, since the text doesn't say that. It says "sons of God," what the literature at the time understood to be Fallen Watchers.

I'm only answering your question. I'm not (at least not at this point) advancing my own thesis. In a bit I will point you to the leading literature on the topic.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 8, 2021)

Whatever they were, they all drowned. That may say something about their salvation status. I've heard people say that Jesus wasn't conceived from a human father because that's were we get original sin from. But I don't know about that. The chalcedonian creed is excellent and helpful. However, the birth of Christ is still very misterious and better to be left with the creed in fear of speculation and heresy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Whatever they were, they all drowned. That may say something about their salvation status. I've heard people say that Jesus wasn't conceived from a human father because that's were we get original sin from. But I don't know about that. The chalcedonian creed is excellent and helpful. However, the birth of Christ is still very misterious and better to be left with the creed in fear of speculation and heresy.



They were not all drowned. Joshua, Judges, and par of Samuel indicate that they survived and fought against Israel. Israel was scared to enter the promise land the first time because "the descendants of the Nephilim were there."


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Israel was scared to enter the promise land the first time because "the descendants of the Nephilim were there."


You're sure you're reading that right? Remember who is saying this and why. (Numbers 13)


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> You're sure you're reading that right? Remember who is saying this and why. (Numbers 13)



I'm reading it correctly, since Moses reaffirms that in Deut. 2:10ff (and the Emim, Anakim, Rephaim are all related to the Nephilim). The Amorites are described as really tall (Amos 2:9).

The Giant clans are all related back to the Nephililm through the Anakim/Rephaim. We are specifically told that King Og was the last descendant of the Rephaim (Deut. 3:11; Josh. 12.4).

And of course, there is Goliath and the other giant clans who were exterminated by David's mighty men. My take is that what we call the Nephilim were likely wiped out, not in the flood, but in David's lifetime.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 9, 2021)

How did the Nephilim survive the flood?

My guess is that they didn't, but they "re-emerged" again some time after Noah. Genetic mutations? Perhaps. 

Genesis is clear that every living thing on Earth was wiped out by the flood, except the inhabitants of the Ark.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They were not all drowned. Joshua, Judges, and par of Samuel indicate that they survived and fought against Israel. Israel was scared to enter the promise land the first time because "the descendants of the Nephilim were there."


You mean survived the flood? Genesis and St. Peter say otherwise....


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> You mean survived the flood? Genesis and St. Peter say otherwise....



And Joshua and Judges imply they do. The texts clearly say the descendants of the Nephilim were around. I'm simply noting what the texts say.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How did the Nephilim survive the flood?
> 
> My guess is that they didn't, but they "re-emerged" again some time after Noah. Genetic mutations? Perhaps.
> 
> Genesis is clear that every living thing on Earth was wiped out by the flood, except the inhabitants of the Ark.



Both propositions can be logically true. Mutations via genetic splicing by the archons/kosmokratoras. That could be the phenomena behind "alien abduction/Deep State experiments."


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And Joshua and Judges imply they do. The texts clearly say the descendants of the Nephilim were around. I'm simply noting what the texts say.


8 people survived. Peter under the inspiration of the HS says so


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> 8 people survived. Peter under the inspiration of the HS says so



Sure. I'm just taking the entirety of Scripture into account.

There is a key verse in Gen 6:4: and also afterwards.

2 Peter says the angels/Watchers who sinned were chained in gloomy darkness. That says nothing about the giant offspring.

2 Samuel 21:18​After this there was again war with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph, who was one of the descendants of the giants.

Deuteronomy 2:11​Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.

2 Samuel 21:16​And Ishbi-benob, one of the descendants of the giants, whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of bronze, and who was armed with a new sword, thought to kill David.

Deuteronomy 9:2​A people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’

In the above passage, Moses himself verifies the report in Numbers 13, which means we can take the Numbers 13 report at face-value.

Joshua 14:15​Now the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath-arba. (Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim.) And the land had rest from war.

Joshua 11:22​There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the people of Israel. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did some remain.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 9, 2021)

"to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built In it only a few people, *eight in all were saved through water" *1 Peter 3:20

It's ok to be wrong

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> "to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built In it only a few people, *eight in all were saved through water" *1 Peter 3:20
> 
> It's ok to be wrong



I never denied that. In fact, I more or less agreed with it in #10. True, in #4 I did say not all of them were drowned. I realize the tension. I'm simply quoting all of the relevant data.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I never denied that. In fact, I more or less agreed with it in #10. True, in #4 I did say not all of them were drowned. I realize the tension. I'm simply quoting all of the relevant data.


Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 9, 2021)

I think the reason you're talking past each other on this thread is the misconception stated in the OP that "most will accept that Genesis does say that at least some demons fathered human children." Most don't accept that, because Genesis says no such thing. Some do believe that, and those of us who have been reading the board for a while know that includes Jacob (though he may quibble at using the word demons), but I'd imagine it's a fringe viewpoint, at least in Reformed circles.

(Edit: I see, after having read too fast, the Jacob clarified his view in post #2)

I don't really see why it's a problem to believe that there were giants in the earth before the flood, and also after the flood. Those before the flood were of course wiped out by the flood, and there were others after (clearly not descended from those before). The hang-up some people have of insisting that the giants were man-demon hybrids is what causes the confusion about how there came to still be giants after the flood. Genesis 6:4 clearly states that the giants were men.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I think the reason you're talking past each other on this thread is the misconception stated in the OP that "most will accept that Genesis does say that at least some demons fathered human children." Most don't accept that, because Genesis says no such thing. Some do believe that, and those of us who have been reading the board for a while know that includes Jacob (though he may quibble at using the word demons), but I'd imagine it's a fringe viewpoint, at least in Reformed circles.
> 
> (Edit: I see, after having read too fast, the Jacob clarified his view in post #2)
> 
> I don't really see why it's a problem to believe that there were giants in the earth before the flood, and also after the flood. Those before the flood were of course wiped out by the flood, and there were others after (clearly not descended from those before). The hang-up some people have of insisting that the giants were man-demon hybrids is what causes the confusion about how there came to still be giants after the flood. Genesis 6:4 clearly states that the giants were men.


Point of clarification: I don’t believe the beney ha Elohim were demons. A demon is just an unclean spirit


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 9, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I think the reason you're talking past each other on this thread is the misconception stated in the OP that "most will accept that Genesis does say that at least some demons fathered human children." Most don't accept that, because Genesis says no such thing. Some do believe that, and those of us who have been reading the board for a while know that includes Jacob (though he may quibble at using the word demons), but I'd imagine it's a fringe viewpoint, at least in Reformed circles.
> 
> (Edit: I see, after having read too fast, the Jacob clarified his view in post #2)
> 
> I don't really see why it's a problem to believe that there were giants in the earth before the flood, and also after the flood. Those before the flood were of course wiped out by the flood, and there were others after (clearly not descended from those before). The hang-up some people have of insisting that the giants were man-demon hybrids is what causes the confusion about how there came to still be giants after the flood. Genesis 6:4 clearly states that the giants were men.


The original question was about the status of their Salvation. I said they all drowned so that may show it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2021)

My goal is to introduce people to the relevant literature on the topic. All of it is peer-reviewed and has passed muster at the highest of academic levels. I would rather people work through the literature than repeat what they believe their tradition says.

Reicke, Bo. _Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter 3:19 and Its Context (Acta Seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis 13; Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1946; reprinted by Wipf and Stock, 2005)_.

_Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible_ (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999). I know, it's from Brill. Nothing we can do about that.

Guy Williams, _The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles_ (FRLANT 231; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009)

Ronn Johnson, “The Old Testament Background for Paul’s Principalities and Powers,” (PhD Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004)

David E. Stevens, “Daniel 10 and the Notion of Territorial Spirits,” _BibSac_ 157 (2000): 410-431

Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the domain of the powers: Stoicheia as evil spirits in Galatians 4: 3, 9,” _Novum Testamentum_ 38, no. 1 (1996): 55-76

John C. Collins, “Watcher,” in _Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible_, 2nd ed. (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1999)

Richard J. Bauckham, _2 Peter, Jude_ (Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, 1998). MUST READ

Amar Annus, “On the Origin of the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” _Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha_19.4 (2010): 277–320. This is the most important article written on the topic.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 9, 2021)

Question: If demons are the spirits of the dead Nephilim, then how did Papua get so many evil spirits? Do they cross land and see to conquer new lands?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Apr 9, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know, it's from Brill. Nothing we can do about that.


Hey now, I've been published by Brill! Don't throw stones at all of us...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 9, 2021)

kainos01 said:


> Hey now, I've been published by Brill! Don't throw stones at all of us...


I think he just means that Brill is usually outrageously expensive, which proved true in this case, as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 9, 2021)

It is not expensive if you are a brillionaire!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 9, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> It is not expensive if you are a brillionarie!


----------



## Steve Curtis (Apr 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think he just means that Brill is usually outrageously expensive, which proved true in this case, as well.


Oh, I know.
But that shouldn't deter researching the content.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm reading it correctly, since Moses reaffirms that in Deut. 2:10ff (and the Emim, Anakim, Rephaim are all related to the Nephilim).


Please demonstrate how the Emim, Anakim and Rephaim are "related to the Nephilim."


BayouHuguenot said:


> The Amorites are described as really tall (Amos 2:9).


So...?


BayouHuguenot said:


> My take is that what we call the Nephilim were likely wiped out, not in the flood, but in David's lifetime.


How did they survive the flood? That seems to me a slight hurdle in your theory.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My goal is to introduce people to the relevant literature on the topic. All of it is peer-reviewed and has passed muster at the highest of academic levels. I would rather people work through the literature than repeat what they believe their tradition says.



I'm not anti-intellectual, far from it. I do think though when it comes to theology and interpretation of Scripture, being peer-reviewed and passing muster at the highest of academic levels are vastly overrated credentials.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I'm not anti-intellectual, far from it. I do think though when it comes to theology and interpretation of Scripture, being peer-reviewed and passing muster at the highest of academic levels are vastly overrated credentials.



Perhaps, but these guys are working with the languages, the texts, thought-patterns of the ancient world. Scripture didn't descend from heaven in a Platonic vacuum. Background studies are very important. Academic works are needed. There is a reason why G. K. Beale's commentary on Revelation is superior to mere "sermonic/application" commentaries on Revelation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

The texts I've quoted connect the Anakim with the Nephilim. Numbers 13. It doesn't matter that the sinful Israelites quoted it, since Moses verified their report in Deut. 1-3

As to surviving the flood. That's literally what the text says. Genesis 6:4 says they were on the world _afterwards as well_.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The texts I've quoted connect the Anakim with the Nephilim. Numbers 13. It doesn't matter that the sinful Israelites quoted it, since Moses verified their report in Deut. 1-3
> 
> As to surviving the flood. That's literally what the text says. Genesis 6:4 says they were on the world _afterwards as well_.


BH,

Not sure why you keep qouting genesis 6:4. That verse is before the flood. Genesis 7 says everything on earth died during the flood. Peter confirms that. You're contradicting yourself for no reason.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> BH,
> 
> Not sure why you keep qouting genesis 6:4. That verse is before the flood. Genesis 7 says everything on earth died during the flood. Peter confirms that. You're contradicting yourself for no reason.


I take the phrase afterward. Also the passages in Joshua and Deut


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2021)

Here is what the NET Bible (2nd ed.) says in its notes:

*Gen. 6:4* The Nephilim[1] were on the earth in those days (and also after this)[2]...​​[1] The Hebrew word נְפִילִים (_nᵉfilim_) is simply transliterated here, because the meaning of the term is uncertain. According to the text, the Nephilim became mighty warriors and gained great fame in the antediluvian world. The text may imply they were the offspring of the sexual union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humankind” (v. 2), but it stops short of saying this in a direct manner. The Nephilim are mentioned in the OT only here and in Num 13:33, where it is stated that they were giants (thus KJV, TEV, NLT “giants” here). The narrator observes that the Anakites of Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim. Certainly these later Anakite Nephilim could not be descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim (see also the following note on the word “this”).​​[2] This observation is parenthetical, explaining that there were Nephilim even after the flood. If all humankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, died in the flood, it is difficult to understand how the postdiluvian Nephilim could be related to the antediluvian Nephilim or how the Anakites of Canaan could be their descendants (see Num 13:33). It is likely that the term Nephilim refers generally to “giants” (see _HALOT_ 709 s.v. נְפִילִים) without implying any ethnic connection between the antediluvian and postdiluvian varieties.​
This explanation seems reasonable to me. I know the NET Bible is not an in-depth scholarly resource, but it is a valuable set of notes written and compiled by high-caliber scholars who are recognized and credentialed experts in their particular fields in biblical studies. Here is a list of scholars who produced the Pentateuch:

Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D. (Dropsie College)​Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D. (Dallas Theological Seminary)​Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D. (Dallas Theological Seminary)​Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D. (Columbia University)​Allen P. Ross, Ph.D. (Cambridge University)​


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I take the phrase afterward. Also the passages in Joshua and Deut


Doesn't say after the flood. Not that hard.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 10, 2021)

TryingToLearn said:


> I understand these are speculative questions that we probably won't know the answers to until Heaven, but I was wondering if anyone's ever thought through this?


It might be as well to remember the end of the original post. These are speculative matters that build inferences upon specific interpretations of obscure texts. Jacob's position is not without its supporters, but there are plenty of alternative interpretations of the passages that don't require anyone outside the ark to survive the flood (and even if the flood was believed to be local rather than universal, it's unclear why the "Fallen ones" (which is literally what _nephilim_ means) would have been able to survive it). I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

Just a thought; this discussion illustrates why authoritative commentary on controversial passages like Genesis 6:4 should be left to faithful, Reformed, recognized theologians that hold to confessional standards, love God’s word and his church, and fear the Lord. We naturally want to make such passages fit our own preconceived prejudices.

There are plenty of resources on this passage from such men. John Gill for one, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/genesis-6.html

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> It might be as well to remember the end of the original post. These are speculative matters that build inferences upon specific interpretations of obscure texts. Jacob's position is not without its supporters, but there are plenty of alternative interpretations of the passages that don't require anyone outside the ark to survive the flood (and even if the flood was believed to be local rather than universal, it's unclear why the "Fallen ones" (which is literally what _nephilim_ means) would have been able to survive it). I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture.


Dr. Duguid, thanks for this comment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Just a thought; this discussion illustrates why authoritative commentary on controversial passages like Genesis 6:4 should be left to faithful, Reformed, recognized theologians that hold to confessional standards, love God’s word and his church, and fear the Lord. We naturally want to make such passages fit our own preconceived prejudices.
> 
> There are plenty of resources on this passage from such men. John Gill for one, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/genesis-6.html



Since I am not a Roman Catholic, I don't believe in an "authoritative commentary." As to making the text fit our own presuppositions, I can literally say you are doing the exact same thing. By itself that line means nothing. Now on to Gill:

He doesn't even make an argument. He just lists some options and chooses one. He should have mentioned that the beney elohim are also found in Psalm 89 and Job 1-2. How he missed that is beyond me, since he was a decent Hebraist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Doesn't say after the flood. Not that hard.



Then you will have to explain what the Nephilim were doing in Num 13.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

Jacob, faithful, Reformed, confessional pastors and teachers in the church speak for Christ, and the cumulative teaching from those men over the centuries on these issues are the authoritative teaching I mean. It is authoritative for the visible church, insofar as it’s thus far the teaching of the church on the subject. Sure, there can be private speculation on the part of individuals. If a private person, or even a minister of the gospel, has good reason to believe the Reformed commentators have been wrong, then it should remain a matter to be explored within the teaching office of the church. My opinion.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

Jacob, in thinking about this, do you hold to a worldwide flood of such depth that it completely covered the highest elevations? Or do you perhaps hold to localized flooding?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jacob, in thinking about this, do you hold to a worldwide flood of such depth that it completely covered the highest elevations? Or do you perhaps hold to localized flooding?



I assure you I will answer that question in an upcoming book review on John Walton's _The Lost World of the Flood_. Expect it early next week. Let's assume I hold to a worldwide flood. Here is the problem: the texts I am quoting unequivocally say the descendants of the Nephilim are still around. This isn't a Jacob problem. This is what the Bible is actually saying.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Jacob, faithful, Reformed, confessional pastors and teachers in the church speak for Christ, and the cumulative teaching from those men over the centuries on these issues are the authoritative teaching I mean. It is authoritative for the visible church, insofar as it’s thus far the teaching of the church on the subject. Sure, there can be private speculation on the part of individuals. If a private person, or even a minister of the gospel, has good reason to believe the Reformed commentators have been wrong, then it should remain a matter to be explored within the teaching office of the church. My opinion.



A Baptist minister has no authority over me If he did, he would discipline me for baptizing my daughter (or having a minister baptize her, to be more specific). Gill offers no argumentation for his position.

I understand that it is your opinion that disagreeing with the Reformed commentators should be explored within the church. It's just an opinion, though. And I am sure I can find Reformed commentators of the 20th century who agree with me, but that's not how truth is determined.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I assure you I will answer that question in an upcoming book review on John Walton's _The Lost World of the Flood_. Expect it early next week. Let's assume I hold to a worldwide flood. Here is the problem: the texts I am quoting unequivocally say the descendants of the Nephilim are still around. This isn't a Jacob problem. This is what the Bible is actually saying.


Jacob,

Humility is a good thing. You have an OT Proffessor on this thread agreeing that the Scriptures show you are wrong. Plus what I already said. You don't want to accept other people's commentary but you want us to except yours. A little charity would be nice.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A Baptist minister has no authority over me If he did, he would discipline me for baptizing my daughter (or having a minister baptize her, to be more specific).


No pastor or teacher has authority over our private opinions. We are free to hold them and free to be wrong. But we’re not free to espouse unbiblical doctrines to other member of Christ’s body. We get away with it, but that doesn’t mean we should do it. 


BayouHuguenot said:


> And I am sure I can find Reformed commentators of the 20th century who agree with me, but that's not how truth is determined.


The truth is determined by God’s word, which is exposited by faithful men called to the teaching office of the visible church. If you have a novel view that falls outside the confessional and Reformed teaching that has thus far been given to the church, you could perhaps get with such men and present it for their consideration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Humility is a good thing. You have an OT Proffessor on this thread agreeing that the Scriptures show you are wrong. Plus what I already said. You don't want to accept other people's commentary but you want us to except yours. A little charity would be nice.



I am not being arrogant. I don't know how you got that. Actiually, Prof Duguid said he wasn't at that point in his commentary. I am simply asking everyone's systems to take the entirety of verses into account. That's all.

As to Gill:

We do not have to run any disagreement with any single verse in a past commentary through our church. No one seriously acts like that. Now, if I were teaching Neo-Arianism, for example, like those with Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, then the teaching office of the church should be involved.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> No pastor or teacher has authority over our private opinions. We are free to hold them and free to be wrong. But we’re not free to espouse unbiblical doctrines to other member of Christ’s body. We get away with it, but that doesn’t mean we should do it.
> 
> The truth is determined by God’s word, which is exposited by faithful men called to the teaching office of the visible church. If you have a novel view that falls outside the confessional and Reformed teaching that has thus far been given to the church, you could perhaps get with such men and present it for their consideration.



My view was the view taught in the church until Simplicius, Victorinus, and Augustine. Just read Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and Tertullian (though I really dislike Tertullian). Origen also agrees with me, though I hesitate to use him for obvious reasons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We do not have to run any disagreement with any single verse in a past commentary through our church. No one seriously acts like that.


No, we are free to disagree, as I said above. However, we should maintain those disagreements privately and carefully. 


BayouHuguenot said:


> Now, if I were teaching Neo-Arianism, for example, like those with Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, then the teaching office of the church should be involved.


The teaching office of the church is involved in every doctrinal matter. This is a doctrinal matter.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not being arrogant. I don't know how you got that. Actiually, Prof Duguid said he wasn't at that point in his commentary. I am simply asking everyone's systems to take the entirety of verses into account. That's all.
> 
> As to Gill:
> 
> We do not have to run any disagreement with any single verse in a past commentary through our church. No one seriously acts like that. Now, if I were teaching Neo-Arianism, for example, like those with Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, then the teaching office of the church should be involved.


Apparently you also have a problem reading things correctly. You're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.

"I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, *but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture." *DR. D


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> No, we are free to disagree, as I said above. However, we should maintain those disagreements privately and carefully.
> 
> The teaching office of the church is involved in every doctrinal matter. This is a doctrinal matter.



Okay. Well, I've covered my ground on that. I actually introduced my pastor to Michael Heiser and he had no problem with it. Very open, actually. And I don't consider this a first-order doctrinal matter. But even if it were, my view was the original view by authoritative figures like Irenaeus.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Apparently you also have a problem reading things correctly. You're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.
> 
> "I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, *but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture." *DR. D



I see. We are talking past each other. I never denied a worldwide flood. I literally just quoted Bible verses that said the descendants of the Nephilim were still around.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see. We are talking past each other. I never denied a worldwide flood. I literally just quoted Bible verses that said the descendants of the Nephilim were still around.


Ha...ok.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I assure you I will answer that question in an upcoming book review on John Walton's _The Lost World of the Flood_. Expect it early next week. Let's assume I hold to a worldwide flood. Here is the problem: the texts I am quoting unequivocally say the descendants of the Nephilim are still around. This isn't a Jacob problem. *This is what the Bible is actually saying.*


Jacob, I think you've done to much study in this area to really mean that statement in such sweeping terms. The only two texts that speak about Nephilim (both of which are somewhat cryptic) can easily be understood in a different sense (probably several different senses). Numbers 13:33 does not necessarily say that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim: it says they were "of the Nephilim" (_min hannephilim_), which is the classic way to describe members of a class (see e.g. Lev. 1:3, 10 etc). That is, they shared the characteristics of the Nephilim in being extremely tall and terrifying. "Descended from" typically uses the pual of _yld _(2 Sam 21:20, 22), a point that is all the more relevant since your theory (though not all scholars) wants to connect the _rephaim_ mentioned in these verses with the _Nephilim_. See Timothy Ashley in the NICOT for a similar view.

So it would be more accurate to say, "according to some interpretations of the data, this is what the Bible is saying". It's true that there are some scholars who agree with you, but it isn't simply "a plain reading of the text" (whatever that may be).

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Apparently you also have a problem reading things correctly. You're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.





Romans830 said:


> Ha...ok.


Brother, these comments are unhelpful.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Jacob, I think you've done to much study in this area to really mean that statement in such sweeping terms. The only two texts that speak about Nephilim (both of which are somewhat cryptic) can easily be understood in a different sense (probably several different senses). Numbers 13:33 does not necessarily say that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim: it says they were "of the Nephilim" (_min hannephilim_), which is the classic way to describe members of a class (see e.g. Lev. 1:3, 10 etc). That is, they shared the characteristics of the Nephilim in being extremely tall and terrifying. "Descended from" typically uses the pual of _yld _(2 Sam 21:20, 22), a point that is all the more relevant since your theory (though not all scholars) wants to connect the _rephaim_ mentioned in these verses with the _Nephilim_. See Timothy Ashley in the NICOT for a similar view.
> 
> So it would be more accurate to say, "according to some interpretations of the data, this is what the Bible is saying". It's true that there are some scholars who agree with you, but it isn't simply "a plain reading of the text" (whatever that may be).





Taylor said:


> Brother, these comments are unhelpfu





Taylor said:


> Brother, these comments are unhelpful.





Taylor said:


> Brother, these comments are unhelpful.


Ok, how? Notice what Dr. D said and then look at how Jacob try to present it. I'm note sure why you are defending him. It's obvious he needs a lesson in humility. Not my problem.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Jacob, I think you've done to much study in this area to really mean that statement in such sweeping terms. The only two texts that speak about Nephilim (both of which are somewhat cryptic) can easily be understood in a different sense (probably several different senses). Numbers 13:33 does not necessarily say that the Anakites were descended from the Nephilim: it says they were "of the Nephilim" (_min hannephilim_), which is the classic way to describe members of a class (see e.g. Lev. 1:3, 10 etc). That is, they shared the characteristics of the Nephilim in being extremely tall and terrifying. "Descended from" typically uses the pual of _yld _(2 Sam 21:20, 22), a point that is all the more relevant since your theory (though not all scholars) wants to connect the _rephaim_ mentioned in these verses with the _Nephilim_. See Timothy Ashley in the NICOT for a similar view.
> 
> So it would be more accurate to say, "according to some interpretations of the data, this is what the Bible is saying". It's true that there are some scholars who agree with you, but it isn't simply "a plain reading of the text" (whatever that may be).



Thank you. I understand the nuances. Others in this thread just ignored those passages for the most part.

I know there is no such thing as a "plain reading of the text." I was just throwing a bone out for the biblicists who might be reading this thread. I understand the difficulty with the Rephaim. In some passages, like that of Og, they are kings (albeit very large and gigantic ones). In others they take on a more sinister, underworld connotation (which fits with Ugaritic parallels). I don't really know how to connect the two, though I have some ideas.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Ok, how? Notice what Dr. D said and then look at how Jacob try to present it. I'm note sure why you are defending him. It's obvious he needs a lesson in humility. Not my problem.



Wow. This reminds me of the old Sean Gerety days on PB. As to needing humility, I actually agreed with Dr Duguid, so I am not sure what you are getting at. My arrogance might be my refusal to submit to Gill's interpretation unless I run Gill by my session, which I have no intention of doing.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps, but these guys are working with the languages, the texts, thought-patterns of the ancient world. Scripture didn't descend from heaven in a Platonic vacuum. Background studies are very important. Academic works are needed. There is a reason why G. K. Beale's commentary on Revelation is superior to mere "sermonic/application" commentaries on Revelation.


I'm not denying the value of academia and learning in the fields of study related, even tangentially, to Scripture - it is useful. That said, it is not, generally speaking, strictly necessary in order to understand the meaning of Scripture (the teaching of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of God's people, and especially in the hearts of those he has set apart to expound his word is what is necessary). Further than that, I will say that it can be positively harmful, if we apply our learning about, for example, the various beliefs and superstitions of ancient peoples as a grid to interpret Scripture with.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I'm not denying the value of academia and learning in the fields of study related, even tangentially, to Scripture - it is useful. That said, it is not, generally speaking, strictly necessary in order to understand the meaning of Scripture (the teaching of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of God's people, and especially in the hearts of those he has set apart to expound his word is what is necessary). Further than that, I will say that it can be positively harmful, if we apply our learning about, for example, the various beliefs and superstitions of ancient peoples as a grid to interpret Scripture with.



I get all of that, though the ancient people lived in an ancient context, not in a post-medieval context. That's why I try to begin with their questions.

Reformed people used to not have a problem with the "historical background" section of commentaries. That's what I am doing and pointing to.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Ok, how? Notice what Dr. D said and then look at how Jacob try to present it. I'm note sure why you are defending him. It's obvious he needs a lesson in humility. Not my problem.


I’m not defending anyone. I’m simply asking you to use more temperate speech and utilize a more cordial and meek demeanor toward your brother. You feel Jacob is being arrogant, and that is your right. However, it is not your place—nor mine, nor anyone else’s here—to “give him a lesson in humility.” You are not his pastor, and that’s not what this board is for. If you really have that much of a problem with him, or if you think he is out of place, then send him a private message, or speak with the moderators, or both. But what you’re doing right now is not moving this thread anywhere except downward.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I’m not defending anyone. I’m simply asking you to use more temperate speech and utilize a more cordial and meek demeanor toward your brother. You feel Jacob is being arrogant, and that is your right. However, it is not your place—nor mine, nor anyone else’s here—to “give him a lesson in humility.” You are not his pastor, and that’s not what this board is for. If you really have that much of a problem with him, or if you think he is out of place, then send him a private message, or speak with the moderators, or both. But what you’re doing right now is not moving this thread anywhere except downward.





Taylor said:


> I’m not defending anyone. I’m simply asking you to use more temperate speech and utilize a more cordial and meek demeanor toward your brother. You feel Jacob is being arrogant, and that is your right. However, it is not your place—nor mine, nor anyone else’s here—to “give him a lesson in humility.” You are not his pastor, and that’s not what this board is for. If you really have that much of a problem with him, or if you think he is out of place, then send him a private message, or speak with the moderators, or both. But what you’re doing right now is not moving this thread anywhere except downward.


I don't need to be his pastor in order to show him his error. Where in the bible is that? I don't need to speak with anybody. There's a moderator and member of the staff on this thread that thinks he's wrong too. What's so bad about me telling him he needs to learn humility? Not that hard to see.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wow. This reminds me of the old Sean Gerety days on PB. As to needing humility, I actually agreed with Dr Duguid, so I am not sure what you are getting at. My arrogance might be my refusal to submit to Gill's interpretation unless I run Gill by my session, which I have no intention of doing.


Which part of his statement did you agree with?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Which part of his statement did you agree with?



I agreed with him that the passages in Genesis seem to preclude outside survivors. My question was simply, "How do we integrate other passages which imply the continued existence of the Nephilim?" And Dr Duguid actually pointed towards possible answers, which was the very point of my question.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I actually introduced my pastor to Michael Heiser and he had no problem with it. Very open, actually


By the teaching office of the church I don’t of course mean session by session, but the historical positions of, again, those called men who are Reformed and confessional, and whose teaching has been approved by the Reformed and confessional visible church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> I don't need to be his pastor in order to show him his error. Where in the bible is that? I don't need to speak with anybody. There's a moderator and member of the staff on this thread that thinks he's wrong too. What's so bad about me telling him he needs to learn humility? Not that hard to see.



For the record I wasn't offended. While your statement was presumptuous, I actually thought it was funny. I chuckled. In all seriousness, I can be wrong and not "need a lesson in humility," since you haven't shown where I was high-handed or arrogant. I refuse to filter my thinking through John Gill's approval, but that hardly counts as arrogance. I agreed with Dr Dugid, so that hardly counts as arrogance. I just quoted bible verses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I agreed with him that the passages in Genesis seem to preclude outside survivors. My question was simply, "How do we integrate other passages which imply the continued existence of the Nephilim?" And Dr Duguid actually pointed towards possible answers, which was the very point of my question.


But what was his final answer? Are you rencanting your statement that not all the died in the flood?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> By the teaching office of the church I don’t of course mean session by session, but the historical positions of, again, those called men who are Reformed and confessional, and whose ministry is accepted by the Reformed and confessional visible church.



That only works on the most general level. Confessions, creeds, that sort of thing. I reject the idea that there is this pure deposit of verse-by-verse Reformed teaching. That's especially true when David Dickson preached on the Pactum Salutis, even though it wasn't codified in the WCF. That's especially true when we compare the different commentaries on eschatology and the like (I'm amil, so I am safe).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> But what was his final answer? Are you rencanting your statement that not all the died in the flood?



I'm undecided. I don't find either position fully satisfactory. If that's considered "arrogance," I give up.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For the record I wasn't offended. While your statement was presumptuous, I actually thought it was funny. I chuckled. In all seriousness, I can be wrong and not "need a lesson in humility," since you haven't shown where I was high-handed or arrogant. I refuse to filter my thinking through John Gill's approval, but that hardly counts as arrogance. I agreed with Dr Dugid, so that hardly counts as arrogance. I just quoted bible verses.





BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm undecided. I don't find either position fully satisfactory. If that's considered "arrogance," I give up.


Good.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For the record I wasn't offended. While your statement was presumptuous, I actually thought it was funny. I chuckled. In all seriousness, I can be wrong and not "need a lesson in humility," since you haven't shown where I was high-handed or arrogant. I refuse to filter my thinking through John Gill's approval, but that hardly counts as arrogance. I agreed with Dr Dugid, so that hardly counts as arrogance. I just quoted bible verses.


I'm glad you think it's funny to be unteachable.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That only works on the most general level. Confessions, creeds, that sort of thing.


I disagree. I think it holds true on all doctrinal matters. Again, we’re all free to disagree with Reformed and confessional commentaries and views, but we don’t need to be espousing views that are contrary to them. I guess the question on this thread is whether you have been espousing or not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I disagree. I think it holds true on all doctrinal matters. Again, we’re all free to disagree with Reformed and confessional commentaries and views, but we don’t need to be espousing views that are contrary to them. I guess the question on this thread is whether you are espousing or not.



Francis Turretin rejected the revered teacher Goodwin on the order of the divine decrees. That's dealing with the issue of predestination. That's huge.

WGT Shedd systematically dismantled Turretin and Hodge on the transmission of Adam's sin. That affects doctrines like imputation, covenant of works, nature of the soul, etc. That's huge.

Almost ALL Reformed teachers reject the Reformers on historicism (and rightfully so).

William Ames' reoriented Reformed epistemology away from the intellect and towards the divine will. That sounds dangerously close to Scotism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> I'm glad you think it's funny to be unteachable.



Glad I could help. I am very teachable. But I have to be shown logic and exegesis, and only Duguid has done that. I have since rejected theonomy, embraced amillennialism, and the like. I used to be hostile to guys like DG Hart and Scott Clark. Now I count Clark a dear friend and Hart's blog is one of the best.


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Glad I could help. I am very teachable. But I have to be shown logic and exegesis, and only Duguid has done that. I have since rejected theonomy, embraced amillennialism, and the like. I used to be hostile to guys like DG Hart and Scott Clark. Now I count Clark a dear friend and Hart's blog is one of the best.


There you go. So maybe Peter is using the number 8 symbolically...ha

I'm done and out. this place is not for me.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Romans830 (Apr 10, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I disagree. I think it holds true on all doctrinal matters. Again, we’re all free to disagree with Reformed and confessional commentaries and views, but we don’t need to be espousing views that are contrary to them. I guess the question on this thread is whether you have been espousing or not.


Jeri, please delete or close my account. thanks.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Ethan (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> WGT Shedd systematically dismantled Turretin and Hodge on the transmission of Adam's sin. That affects doctrines like imputation, covenant of works, nature of the soul, etc. That's huge.


Is that in his Dogmatic Theology or another writing? I’d be interested in that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Ethan said:


> Is that in his Dogmatic Theology or another writing? I’d be interested in that.



Yes. Shedd has a tendency to go overboard on some of his pet doctrines. This is one of them. It's fun reading, though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

The more I reflect on Gill, the more appreciative I am of him. He is a great Trinitarian theologian. And even in this passage, he is far more attuned to the issue than most. Moreover, he doesn't say the weaker assertions that "angels can't do that!" He never goes to that level. I disagree with his conclusion, but I think he would admit that he isn't fully developing the idea, either.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Perkins says the "sons of God" in Job 38:7 are "angels." (V:59). I find that very interesting. He doesn't deal with Gen. 6:4 in my volume, but it would be interesting if he would apply the same lexical argument.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> I'm glad you think it's funny to be unteachable.



That's a very tall horse you ride on.

Edit: I kind of had a feeling you wouldn't last long here. Ah well. May you grow in maturity.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My view was the view taught in the church until Simplicius, Victorinus, and Augustine. Just read Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and Tertullian (though I really dislike Tertullian). Origen also agrees with me, though I hesitate to use him for obvious reasons.


Jacob, maybe for completeness, it is worth clarifying this claim. By "My view" do you mean the interpretation of Gen 6 that sees the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men as involving angelic-human unions or the whole complex superstructure built on that which identifies the Nephilim in Numbers as the same as those in Genesis 6 (and suggests that it is therefore probable or necessary that some of the Nephilim survived the flood)? 

If the former is all you are saying, it is certainly true that many in the early church held such views (and others have agreed with them since); I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble in an ordination exam for a conservative Presbyterian denomination for arguing that position. But that idea isn't really what caused people to push back against you here. It is the latter idea - especially the possibility that the Nephilim somehow survived the flood - that would seem problematic since it seems to be contradicting a plain statement of Scripture in support of a particular interpretation of some extremely difficult passages. Is that specific view taught anywhere in the early Fathers? I'm not familiar with anywhere that fits that description, but you are more widely read in that area than me. I'd be glad if you can point me to anything in that direction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Jacob, maybe for completeness, it is worth clarifying this claim. By "My view" do you mean the interpretation of Gen 6 that sees the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men as involving angelic-human unions or the whole complex superstructure built on that which identifies the Nephilim in Numbers as the same as those in Genesis 6 (and suggests that it is therefore probable or necessary that some of the Nephilim survived the flood)?
> 
> If the former is all you are saying, it is certainly true that many in the early church held such views (and others have agreed with them since); I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble in an ordination exam for a conservative Presbyterian denomination for arguing that position. But that idea isn't really what caused people to push back against you here. It is the latter idea - especially the possibility that the Nephilim somehow survived the flood - that would seem problematic since it seems to be contradicting a plain statement of Scripture in support of a particular interpretation of some extremely difficult passages. Is that specific view taught anywhere in the early Fathers? I'm not familiar with anywhere that fits that description, but you are more widely read in that area than me. I'd be glad if you can point me to anything in that direction.



I had in mind the former view. I understand the problem behind saying the Nephilim survived. I do understand what you mentioned concerning the words/syntax, etc. That could work. I'll have to work through it. I didn't really see anyone else interacting with the passages I listed. That's why I kept pushing back against the push back.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 10, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps, but these guys are working with the languages, the texts, thought-patterns of the ancient world. Scripture didn't descend from heaven in a Platonic vacuum. Background studies are very important. Academic works are needed. There is a reason why G. K. Beale's commentary on Revelation is superior to mere "sermonic/application" commentaries on Revelation.



At the risk of starting a riot, the above is one reason why I do not dismiss out of hand Klinean arguments about ANE treatises. While I agree that theology is a more "democratic" subject than other academic disciplines, it is still the queen of sciences. Academic rigour is not essential to a saving knowledge of scripture, but the notion that background studies are not needed for a more precise understanding of the text is rather short-sighted. For example, the city of Rome is mentioned in the Bible. But how do we know where Rome is? We are going to have to look at a map to discover the answer to that question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> At the risk of starting a riot, the above is one reason why I do not dismiss out of hand Klinean arguments about ANE treatises. While I agree that theology is a more "democratic" subject than other academic disciplines, it is still the queen of sciences. Academic rigour is not essential to a saving knowledge of scripture, but the notion that background studies are not needed for a more precise understanding of the text is rather short-sighted. For example, the city of Rome is mentioned in the Bible. But how do we know where Rome is? We are going to have to look at a map to discover the answer to that question.



That's all I am saying. True, an English language bible will lead you to salvation. Does it then follow that we shouldn't learn Greek?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 10, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Apparently you also have a problem reading things correctly. You're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.
> 
> "I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, *but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture." *DR. D


Brother, I have been silently observing that you tend to hop in on dialogues that don't involve you, and you seem to talk past people. If you are going to involve yourself in these debates, you should give people something to interact with instead of drive-by matter-of-fact statements and take your tone down a notch.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 10, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Brother, I have been silently observing that you tend to hop in on dialogues that don't involve you, and you seem to talk past people. If you are going to involve yourself in these debates, you should give people something to interact with instead of drive-by matter-of-fact statements and take your tone down a notch.



He seems to have proverbially flown the proverbial coop. I think he was a bad actor, to be honest. I hope he gets himself together.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 10, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> He seems to have proverbially flown the proverbial coop. I think he was a bad actor, to be honest. I hope he gets himself together.


I have my theories...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 11, 2021)

As I have said before, establishing a PB Fight Club aka Reformed Trial by Combat would reduce these sorts of arguments. I'll film and charge a fee and the proceeds will help fund jungle kids.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2021)

Romans830 said:


> Jeri, please delete or close my account. thanks.



Please do not leave the board; I have enjoyed your J. C. Ryle quotes. Just try to learn not to take disagreements so personally.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 11, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> He seems to have proverbially flown the proverbial coop. I think he was a bad actor, to be honest. I hope he gets himself together.


To paraphrase Shakespeare in Macbeth act 1 scene 4, 'Nothing in his participation in this forum became him like the leaving of it.'


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 11, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Please do not leave the board; I have enjoyed your J. C. Ryle quotes. Just try to learn not to take disagreements so personally.


He did choose to leave, and I appreciate this post of yours to him. I think some may be used to participating in forums where a certain level of sarcasm and such are the norm, and maybe aren’t used to the kind of real-time and serious moderation practiced on the PB. He did make some good contributions. We should wish our brother well, as he left peaceably and voluntarily and I hope will think well of us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

