Ash on Nostr: What have I said about the Nephilim that was read far too much into the text? I only ...

What have I said about the Nephilim that was read far too much into the text?

I only referred to scripture which says they were in the land in those days and after.
Are you suggesting angels came again and took more wives *after* the flood?
If not, then it is the case that they survived the flood, as the Israelites encounter more of them in Canaan.

Or do you read the Nephilim as unrelated to Noah's story?
It's not a random interjection in Genesis. It's the beginning to the tale of Noah--the reason for the flood. This is why God deems it appropriate to flood the land in 120 years.
(More than 1000 years later, Jacob tells Pharoah that he's 130 years old when asked. When someone says the 120 years mentioned in the tale of Noah is God putting a 120-year limit on lifespan, such a claim is thus demonstrably incorrect.)

>The word translated as "generations" in the phrase you quote is not a matter of genetics but of time.
(You will go on in the next sentence to tell me that the word for genealogy is used.)
>In fact, the verse containing the quoted phrase uses two different words which are both translated "generation(s)": תּוֹלְדָה meaning genealogical descent, and דּוֹר meaning an era or the time span of a particular generation of people.

Follow your own premises here and you'll find my conclusion. As you say, the passage uses two words which have been translated as one--one word, which can mean 'time'--or *'dwelling'*, quite importantly--and one for *'genealogical descent'.*
Why mention genealogy if it's so immaterial, not consequential?
Why bring it up right after talking about angels taking wives of the daughters of Adam?

>"These are the generations(genealogy) of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations(dwelling): Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."
This makes sense after scripture introduced the issue that God is solving.

That aside, there is another Hebrew word, related, with the same consonants (important, as it was not practice to write the short vowels, so only context may distinguish between possibilities--or not, if both related words are appropriate and it's hard to determine which to use), which is דור. It means to remain, to inhabit, to circle. (Similar to the meaning of 'dwelling' the word you mentioned holds.)

So, then, also possible is:
>"These are the generations(genealogy) of Noah. Noah was perfect in his generations(circle, habitation): Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

Or look to the Septuagint--a chronologically closer translation by those who had a grasp of the now dead language Hebrew that we will never recover, from a time before now when we have to resort to writing Noah's ark was made of "gopher" wood, transliterating the word because no one knows what it means anymore. The Hebrew word that you assert means 'generation, as in time' (though it means 'dwelling' as well) was translated there as γενεά, which is a "generation" as in current iteration of a γένος (a stock, a race)'.

However you want to view it, translating two distinct words both as one word may smear the distinction in translation, but it does not nullify the point of using the distinct words in the original language. I agree with the distinction and want both words. Asserting that it is only the second word that matters, only the second that is used to justify Noah--and then limiting it to one of its meanings, discarding the other--despite the context of mixing already being set in the tale, with scripture's statement of *why* the flood was happening--does not keep its integrity.