SeaAndSky
Senior Registered
Hi Ken,
We looked into the Nephilim somewhere earlier in this enormous thread. I don't think they fit either chronologically or in terms of the salient characteristics for the "sun gods" as described by John, though they definitely constitute an interesting and controversial subject area. (The JW site you linked hits some of the usual characteristics recited for the Nephilim (though there is also dispute here)).
In any case, I think the beings described by John have more in common with the type of being described in Ezekial 28: 11-15:
"11 The word of the LORD came to me:
12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “ ‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."
I.e, these were very high and exalted beings in terms of their wisdom, beauty, etc. prior to the great rebellion. A fairly standard exposition of this chapter, if you are interested, can be found here: https://www.christianity.com/theology/theological-faq/how-did-lucifer-fall-and-become-satan-11557519. The picture of Satan at the top is also standard though not Miltonian (which I think would be closer to the truth in this context). I think it can safely be ignored.
However, though the article I have linked provides some background, I am obviously approaching the matter in a "non-standard" way. It would be hard to do anything else given the data John provides. So, I don't necessarily consider myself bound by prior interpretations.
In terms of "the fleas of a 1000 camels . . ." that hardly seems to be BB's style. His style of rhetoric is not our own, but it is clear that he is deadly serious, and that the enmity between these two "factions" as I have politely (and sensitively) put it, is obviously very great.
Cordially,
S&S
We looked into the Nephilim somewhere earlier in this enormous thread. I don't think they fit either chronologically or in terms of the salient characteristics for the "sun gods" as described by John, though they definitely constitute an interesting and controversial subject area. (The JW site you linked hits some of the usual characteristics recited for the Nephilim (though there is also dispute here)).
In any case, I think the beings described by John have more in common with the type of being described in Ezekial 28: 11-15:
"11 The word of the LORD came to me:
12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “ ‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."
I.e, these were very high and exalted beings in terms of their wisdom, beauty, etc. prior to the great rebellion. A fairly standard exposition of this chapter, if you are interested, can be found here: https://www.christianity.com/theology/theological-faq/how-did-lucifer-fall-and-become-satan-11557519. The picture of Satan at the top is also standard though not Miltonian (which I think would be closer to the truth in this context). I think it can safely be ignored.
However, though the article I have linked provides some background, I am obviously approaching the matter in a "non-standard" way. It would be hard to do anything else given the data John provides. So, I don't necessarily consider myself bound by prior interpretations.
In terms of "the fleas of a 1000 camels . . ." that hardly seems to be BB's style. His style of rhetoric is not our own, but it is clear that he is deadly serious, and that the enmity between these two "factions" as I have politely (and sensitively) put it, is obviously very great.
Cordially,
S&S