Did the Bible Rewrite an Older Giant Mythology?

Here is the book referenced within-

The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel

I look forward to reading it very much.  I've touched on the mythology of the Giants a bit already.  As Prof Doak discusses there is a very much obscured tradition behind the OT's occasional mention of the Giants.  And the Book of the Giants is one of those legendary lost texts we dearly wish we had.

Prof Doak got his PhD at Harvard and is professor of biblical studies and faculty fellow in the William Penn Honors Program at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon.  There's so much evangelistic and occult nonsense out there folks.  Stick with the actual scholars. 

When you say ...the unknowable God is not completely unknowable. It is known to be good, but in a superlative way that shares something in common with what we know about goodness but also beyond our ability to describe or quantify or fully comprehend...  I think this is going to be true of any notion of a transcendent God.  Not just an apophatic deity. By definition any transcendent God will have aspects that are beyond comprehension on the part of the devotee.  Historically Christianity acknowledges this by it's very concept of revelation.  God must condescend to humanity otherwise we will have no hope. From our vantage point we are simply unable to "get it" without God's self-revealing.   I guess I've always considered the apophatic God to be the One Who Will Not Condescend.   

God is not personal, but a Person. Not loving, but Love. Exists, Interpersonal, Just, etc.

Ok now this is closer to Hart's conception of God.  Of course he approaches it ontologically.  God is not a "being".  He is "being itself".   My problem with this is that I don't really know what it means.   I suppose I've read too much Wittgenstein. What can "love" mean apart from acts of love.   And what is "being itself"?  What we have access to are beings that resemble each other.   These abstractions rest on a long intellectual tradition and on assumptions that some philosophers (and yes, some theologians) have been critiquing for the last century. (Perhaps in the end it's better to talk not of the "death of God" but the "death of Plato".) 

And what really surprises me about this approach is how often it comes from the mouths of Christians like Hart.   My claim is that it is incoherent to claim to "believe" in the God that is Being Itself.   

Once you’ve had a loving relationship with someone, someone for whom you’ve easily and happily sacrificed so much, it’s hard to imagine no longer having a loving relationship with that person, harder still to imagine that person as never having existed at all. I don’t know much sense that makes, but it feels real. It’s as if God has left a God-size hole in your heart that can never be forgotten.

Yes, it makes perfect sense.  There are some bonds that cannot be completely broken.  For my people Jesus was the center. Not so much God the Father. The Holy Spirit somewhat although we were extremely leery of what we called "emotionalism".   I was taught to talk to Jesus the way you talk to a constant companion, the deepest friend, with you always.  I felt the loss of that.  The sudden loneliness. What assuaged for me the loss of the Jesus of Faith though was the discovery of the Jesus of History.  I remain absorbed and fascinated.  That's what Prof Ehrman's first book, Apocalyptic Prophet, did for me.  It gave me back a connection I had lost.  Now I have something infinitely more profound than a personal savior. 

What had a much more lasting effect on me was the loss of an intimate community.   I spent a lot of time looking for a substitute.  Eventually I realized that you're either born into that or not at all.  There is always going to be some sadness there.  I'm one of those folks whose life was bifurcated.  For my first two decades I lived on a different planet.  My third decade was a voyage through space. Since then I have lived on this planet, wherever this is. 

Robert said
I will answer you only when you've told me how you would behave differently if you were not an atheist. Metaphors are real, emptied out in coffeespoons.
  

How would you behave differently if you were not an atheist? The alternative to atheism is not limited to a fundamentalist Christian worldview, nor to any specific form of Christianity.

Sorry, I missed your original question in Tjalling's departure. 

Well as I said my belief is based on how a proposition directly affects my life.  I would not be an atheist if I believed in some sort of god.  How my life would actually change though would depend on his/her/its nature and what it required of me, based on the consequences of that belief.   (Just because some sort of deity existed wouldn't automatically mean that I approved of it.  It's possible Satan suffers from bad press.)  

This is precisely why I don't think there is any difference between the "unknowable god" and no god at all.   Because it has no influence on how I live my life.  

I'm not sure if I answered your question. 

Metaphors are real

That they are.

It brings to mind Lakoff's book: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....We_Live_By

What you find is that the idea of evolution was not invented by Charles Darwin.  What CD did, his true genius, was to figure out the mechanism , natural selection, by which it occurred.  (And this without any idea of genetics!) I didn't have Huxley's kind of facepalm moment, "Why didn't I think of that?" but I remember being amazed by its simplicity and elegance.  "Of course! That makes perfect sense!"  That after someone actually explained it to me.  The sad part is that didn't happen until I went to college. I got all the way through High School without having it properly explained!  Friends that was child abuse.  I had been raised having so much nonsense pumped into me by people who had no clue.  Done not out of malice but from love. 

Mythology is not disqualification for me, it is the sea in which all deep ideas swim. We bring our personal mythology (literally our story-world)* into all of our personal relationships and activities in our real life. If the God that is mediated to me through the ocean of interpersonal mythologies is real, it is still limited by my capacity to receive, experience, and relate. And it can evolve over time as we learn more about ourselves. All of our perceptions about ourselves and others can evolve over time; sometimes it can be much distorted, for example, by a malignant narcissist, or it can grow and deepen with age and maturity.

I would say that God is only real within this ocean of interpersonal mythologies.  The fact that God changes as we change is a revelation that God lives in our perceptions.  For me the apophatic God is meaningless precisely because it escapes reception, experience and relation.  Can we truly say what a thing is not if we cannot say what it is?  

The 2026 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting took place at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, from June 7 to June 10. The accompanying Pastors’ Conference took place on June 7 and 8, followed by the main convention on June 9 and 10.   

Go here for a wrap-up if you're interested.

Generally the trajectory remains rightwards.  The newly elected SBC President, Willy Rice, is positioned on the firm right wing of the SBC, who represent themselves as an insurgent faction of "reformers" who believe the denomination has experienced a "decline and drift". Rice came out of a ministry in Florida which is the state convention most sympathetic to Christian nationalist ideas. His "issues of concern" are about what you would expect:

He publicly challenged what his supporters call a "woke" drift among previous denominational leaders regarding race, gender, and immigration.  He campaigned on a promise to challenge the existing SBC institutional system rather than capitulate to shifting cultural norms. Rice holds what's called the "complementarian" view, firmly supporting a total ban on churches utilizing women as pastors.  (Such a resolution was passed enabling the convention to immediately disfellowship churches with female type pastors.) He explicitly objects to modern cultural shifts regarding gender roles, advocating for a return to strict biblical literalism. 

A bit more controversial is his stance regarding the SBC's handling of its recent sexual abuse crisis.  Rice has claimed that concerns regarding a systemic, top-level cover-up within the convention were overblown, stating that previous leadership sometimes "followed the culture more than the Bible" during reform advocacy. 

If you've got the time here is a very interesting SBC Debrief vid.  These two brothers discuss some of the issues and their perceptions of the current status of the convention.  Just be aware that they're insiders who speak the language and assume that on the part of their audience.  

My quick take for what it's worth.  Jon and David Harris are really nice guys who probably wouldn't hurt a fly.  But they've swallowed the kool-aid and inside their hermetically sealed environment they are completely divorced from reality.  Consequently they are prepared to accept really dangerous and destructive ideas with the certain faith that it's all for the best. Because it's God's Will.

Now don't be deceived.  I have no wish to correct them.  I celebrate when they double down.  The SBC is rapidly losing members. Young people especially are leaving in droves.  (One of the bros comments during the vid how nobody at the meeting seemed younger than middle-aged.)   These folks think it is "accommodation" that is causing this.  They are blind to the fact that it is their very own ideology that is driving people out.  More power to them!  

It's the usual thing.  Conservative white America, especially men(!), are under attack by people called "progressives".  These progressives are bringing in all the worldly concern for gender and race - and economic class.  Conservatives on the other hand are only concerned with ministry and reject politics!  

It's to be expected that it will be the hardcore who will hold on the longest.  If you really believe that you are doing God's Will and that compromise is defeat then you will not go easy.  It's possible there will be another Great Awakening but I think it more likely that in twenty years or so when the last of the Boomers go to their reward the bottom will fall out and the cultural and religious landscape of this country will look very different.  The demographics are in - the fastest growing ethnicity is Hispanic and young folks are the least religious group in our history. 

Steefen said
I just searched Recent Posts for "Original Sin." I didn't find anything. Google says, "Jesus did not talk about original sin because the specific term and formal doctrine did not exist during his lifetime." But Paul was the first biblical author to put that in Early Christianity. Then St. Augustine put it in his theology.
Did Paul read Genesis and Jesus didn't? What in the world is going on here?
  

BDEhrman said:

Genesis does not speak about “original sin.”

The doctrine of original sin depends in part on a particular interpretation of Genesis.

Paul’s view was not at all Augustine’s view.

Steefen:
Interesting.

Genesis has all humans outside of Eden after the knowledge-evolution phase, so we do all suffer something.

Jesus did not speak of Original Sin, so his crucifixion doesn't follow from that.

Paul's view: he made it up so he can always have all humankind as his audience--the manipulator/exploiter of the pious.

Augustine: (I have to see what he said exactly.)

=========================
1872 edition of _Origin_
https://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1872/1872-429-dns.html
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1818)
https://archive.org/details/zoonomia00darwgoog/page/395/mode/2up?q=contrivances
https://archive.org/details/zoonomia00darwgoog/page/395/mode/2up?q=BOLD
Page 395 — The contrivances for the purposes of security extend even to vegetables, as is seen in the wonderful and various means of their concealing or defending their honey from insects, and their seeds from birds.
On the other hand swiftness of wing has been acquired by hawks and swallows to pursue their prey;
and a proboscis of admirable structure has been acquired by the bee, the moth, and the humming bird, for the purpose of plundering the nectaries of flowers.
All which seem to have been formed by the original living filament, excited into action by the necessities of the creatures which possess them, and on which their existence depends.

Page 395 — From thus meditating on the great similarity of the structure of the warm-blooded animals, and at the same time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity;
and by considering in how minute a proportion of time many of the changes of animals above described have been produced;
would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind,
would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations;
and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1794) (read many 'f's as 's's)
https://archive.org/details/b28772854_0003/page/504/mode/2up?q=bold
Page 505 — From thus meditating on the great fimilarity of the ftructure of the warm-blooded animals, and at the fame time of the great changes they undergo both before and after their nativity ;
and by confidering how minute a portion of time many of the changes of animals above defcribed have been produced ;
would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, fince the earth began to exift, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the hiftory of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arifen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propenfities, directed by irritations, fenfations, volitions, and affociations ;
and thus poffeffing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down thofe improvements by generation to its pofterity, world without end?

============
Charles Darwin read Erasmus Darwin's _Zoonomia_ at-least twice.

_The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored_ (1993)
https://archive.org/details/autobiographyofc0000darw_o8r9/page/18/mode/2up?q=grandfather
Page 49 — He one day, when we were walking together burst forth in high admiration of Lamarck and his views on evolution.
I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind.
I had previously read the _Zoonomia_ of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me.
Nevertheless it is probable that the hearing rather early in life such views maintained and praised may have favoured my upholding them under a different form in my _Origin of Species_.
At this time I admired greatly the _Zoonomia_;
but on reading it a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years, I was much disappointed, the proportion of speculation being so large to the facts given.”

_Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries_ (1987, which is the same as a 2008 copy), 747pp.

https://archive.org/details/charlesdarwinsno0000paul/page/544/mode/2up?q=zoonomia
Page 544 — hours of sleep during prolonged starvation], were usually (though not invariably,) of a pleasant character, being very often about the enjoyments of feasting.’
In Erasmus Darwin 1794, 1:23, is the following penciled marginal notation made by Charles Darwin (in his personal copy of _Zoonomia_),
“This is strange as hungry men never dream of hunger’.

Reading Jewish interpretations is liberating. The presumption of Christians while telling Jews what their scriptures “really” mean is staggering.

It really is.  Perhaps, the only thing more astounding is Islam's remake of Judaism and Christianity.

Back when I was searching (rather than merely being lost)

I think all of us who were one-time Christians made an attempt to stay in one way or another. 

When I finally gave up trying once and for all, it was because of Mark 9:1 and my unwillingness to distort it to my liking.

I live in a Greek Orthodox dominated environment, and my impression is that many (most?) Greeks view the church more culturally than religiously. The difference between what is believed by the priest and the parishioner is significant, and they are not much bothered by it.  

It wound up that I was attracted by all the aesthetic aspects but repelled by the actual core of beliefs.

I enjoy certain things - lighting a candle, the stained glass windows, the architecture, and the icons.  

Could we create a religion that focused on the aesthetic parts and the community, that saw itself as some kind of communal metaphysical theater and performance art but ditched the gimcrack doctrines and the antiquated prejudices?

Not sure how accurate this observation is, but it certainly seems that as they move towards what at least I would consider enlightenment they ditch the aesthetics.

I'm rather fond of Reform Judaism (allowing a wide range of beliefs or lack of beliefs, for that matter) and so can imagine  attending services in a beautifully constructed building with stained glass windows depicting the wonderful stories, prophets, and poetry of the Tanakh. When we're back in the Twin Cities, perhaps we'll visit one. I think the only time I was ever in a synagogue was when I met with a rabbi to talk with him when I was considering a semester in Israel in the early 80s.

I rather got a kick out of reading this.

Judith, a person of faith recognizing other people of faith is not an insult. I'm surprised you thought a even a person of faith can recognize other people of faith was an insult of being dense.

How did I know you were a person of faith? 
I read your comment at the thread: Argumentation Specialist - Cases for God (Oh, God.) Let the Atheists and Agnostics Try to Win These Debates

Comment 532 by Judith June 10, 2026 - 4:36pm

Robert, why so analytical? If the way I see and believe in God now is working for me, to continue until a change feels necessary seems alright to me.

Comment 533 by Robert June 10, 2026 – 4:39pm

Sorry, Judith. I can’t help myself, but in no way was I advocating that you change in any way! I’m sure you’re perfect in every way I imagine.

Comment 535 by Judith June 10, 2026 – 4:50pm

Robert, surely after today’s comments, I would be invited in the kindest way to find a more suitable blog. Instead, you said something unbelievable. You can have no idea how difficult a time I’m having trying to manage myself with what all is going on in the world today. But thank you and thank you again.

Comment 536 by Tjalling June 10, 2026 – 4:56pm

Judith, I am new and this is not ‘my’ forum, but I think I am allowed to say you belong here as much as anyone. And I’m sorry it’s a heavy time. You are not the only one finding the world hard to carry right now. Thank you for saying it, and take good care of yourself.

Comment 537 by Judith June 10, 2026 5:12pm

Thank you.

= = = =

@Stephen

Judith is capable of recognizing people who live by faith.
@Robert calls perfect: people who live by faith at the moment, and he doesn't want them to change.

My impression is that time is short.

Thx Robert, sorry.

BJH1960 said

Paul’s later interpreters took some of the statements he made and created the doctrine. They then read it back into Paul & Genesis. Find a Jewish exposition of early Genesis. You will be surprised. Read Paul’s seven authentic letters in the context of Jewish apocalypticism.

Yes, reading the Jewish view of the story in Genesis is eye-opening.  
And although original sin is definitely the majority position in Christianity, it is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church:
https://www.stgeorgegreenville.....iginal-sin
  

Reading Jewish interpretations is liberating.  The presumption of Christians while telling Jews what their scriptures "really" mean is staggering.  

Back when I was searching (rather than merely being lost) one of the things that attracted me to Eastern Orthodoxy was its rejection of Augustine and Original Sin, an idea which still strikes me as sick. (See my Bad Ideas thread.) I also liked the eastern emphasis on theosis, divinization, becoming by grace what god is by nature.   The aspect that astounded me most when I first attended a service at a church was the utter absence of grim creepy Christs hanging on crosses.  (See any Ingmar Bergman movie.)   I was attracted by the sensuosity of the service, the light and the music.  (And the Icons.) 

I nearly took a trajectory being traced now by many jumping ship from Protestant denominations.  It is a remarkable process that is going on.  The Orthodox church in America is holding its own largely because of converts out of Protestantism. The cost of this is the, what's a word? "de-ethnicizing" of the church.   Traditionally it was associated with eastern communities but the American church is really in flux.  There is a lot of agitation as these converts do like all converts do when they come from outside the tradition.  They want to bring some of their old ideas along with them.  I guess you could say they want to practice a "Protestant" Orthodoxy.  And of course everything gets "Americanized" eventually.  But the paradox is that converts are usually super-zealous so you have this situation where they're anxious for ardent practice but filtered through their own sensibilities.   What will come of it?  

They'll encounter one of the most culturally and politically reactionary communities you'll ever see.  I said that I "nearly" took this trajectory.  Eventually the darker, more disturbing aspects of Orthodoxy presented themselves.  I heard someone boast that the church had not changed a single idea since the seventh century!  And that was to be admired.  Of course it's blatantly false but tradition is heavy.  Politically they hold on to the idea that church and state must be intimately entwined and over the years this has enabled the church to support some awful regimes.  Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is one of Putin's biggest supporters hooraying the war in Ukraine as part of the Holy War against western decadence, liberalism and satanism. 

Then there's the institutional misogyny.  And sexual attitudes little better than those of my own family. 

It wound up that I was attracted by all the aesthetic aspects but repelled by the actual core of belief. I'm like a lot of people I'm sure.  I want the magic and the gods but not the obligations.  Could we create a religion that focused on the aesthetic parts and the community, that saw itself as some kind of communal metaphysical theater and performance art but ditched the gimcrack doctrines and the antiquated prejudices?  Maybe this kind of thing already exists?   But until we can convince the folks that require order and discipline and stringent commitment to unwavering convictions that they should be content to do their own thing and leave the rest of us alone, paradise will be out of reach.