Clearly either there is clear cur understanding problem. Or this is something that would take time to resolve.
Mine in italics
On my statement that you did not search the Scriptures, you responded by asking, “Why do you presume that I have not read? I would request that you would read the first paragraph. This is a discussion, to understand perception of the topic at hand.” You observed that I accepted what you wrote in the first paragraph and answered the questions from your second paragraph of your initial posting. What is your logic in writing the above?
What is your logic? This is a forum, I can post a topic, present certain research, have some questions, see what people have their opinion based on their understanding on their scritptures, Post mine based on the same. Mutually edify/ Now I cannot make my logic more clearer than this.
To understand the perception of the topic, I asked you to search the Scriptures. If you have read the Scriptures, then tell the readers about your answer to your first question. You should read the Scriptures to search it.
I have given you the answer for this above
On your question, “Do they exist today?,” you wrote, “A question can have different answers. For example: Jude 14-15 the verse is also present in the fabled book of Enoch, and he, Jude speaks of that. Now there are multiple interpretation on the subject. I was looking at the one that is the most logical.” I did not read about any “fabled book of Enoch” in Jude 14-15 in the Bible or even in your initial posting. You did not ask anything about what is in Jude 14-15. Since you asked me about reading the first paragraph, could you show me where did you write about Jude 14-15 in your posting of 5 Mar 2016? When you have not done that, what is your ‘most logical’ justification of writing the above on 9 Mar 2016?
From your first line – You have not read. So you don’t know. I had given you an example. You don’t take it as an example. If you can utter ‘Tanak’ and considering or presuming, you are bible teacher who knows quite a lot (which I will give to you). I assumed you would know. And if you had seen or read the earlier posts you could have understood some of the context.
You wrote, “Thank you for your ‘new acquired knowledge’. But I already know the bifurcation of the ‘Tanakh’ – which is also Tenakh, Tenak, Tanach” You wrote that you already knew the “bifurcation of the Tanakh.” However, I find that there is an opportunity to educate you. You should understand the meaning of the word, ‘bifurcation.’ Could you write about this ‘bifurcation of the Tanakh?’ It cannot be “Tenakh, Tenak, Tanach.” If that is what you meant by ‘bifurcation,’ then there are four variations to consider—Tanakh, Tenakh, Tenak, and Tanach. That is not a ‘bifurcation,’ by any means. What are the bifurcation of the Tanakh, as you know?
Again – you didn’t understand. You wrote – Tanak and then I gave you the correct renditions of the word. Secondly, the ‘Tanakh’ was originally two books. Which was then sub divided into three and then more. I am sure now you will come with your own renditions based on what you understand but I don’t wish to go into the details. Because I didn’t raise the topic of Tanak – you did. Of course you will come back and say it was three cause it is ‘Tanak’ and this topic would be endless. I leave it to your preception.
On your question, “Do they always stand against God,” you wrote that it is a simple question and also that this matter is closed. How did it get closed? Did it get closed by your knowledge of some kind of bifurcation of the Tanakh into four different spelling format in English? What is your perception on your question?
Already answered you, repeating would be not fruitful.
Your next question was, “What would be the outcome for them during judgement day?” How did you connect Deuteronomy 23:3 with Nephilim? Without connecting the Ammonite or Moabite with the Nephilim, you cannot say that is your perception. You have work to do and that work is to search the Scriptures, especially in Isaiah.
It seems you really need to get a better understanding of what is written. Let me try one last time on this topic and then I will again, leave you to your understanding.
In many context, they appeared to be standing against God and Gods people. It was the same case for the Moabites and Ammonites. Therefore, a devstating curse. The connection is the grace of God. If God can show mercy even after his proclamation of curse to them. The Nephilims are eligible for this, hence I referred to one line which Rick has stated.
Once again, I do not wish to discuss this topic also. If you wish to reply to this. You can do this. But, I shall be back with some other topic for discussion. Meanwhile I would advise you would also meditate upon the ‘need’ of Isaiah in the context of Christ and his mercy for mankind.