[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles

Title: Who Were the Nephilim?
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/
Published: Feb 13, 2018
Author: Bodie Hodge
Post Date: 2018-02-13 12:22:03 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 1130
Comments: 33

Genesis 6:1–6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (bene Elohim) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God (bene Elohim) came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.1 Number 13:30–33 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 (pre-Flood and post-Flood) list the term “Nephilim” that has been the center of discussion for many years. At this point, the identity of the Nephilim and the sons of God is still being debated in Christian circles.2 There is a popular unbiblical view that the Nephilim are space aliens. Of course, most creationists rightly reject this particular view for multiple reasons, but that is not for the discussion in this chapter.

Of the views with some biblical support, some believe that fallen angels bred with women and resulted in giants called Nephilim. Some believe the sons of God were the result of fallen angels who overtook ungodly men to breed with women.

THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION OVER THE WORD NEPHILIM. NO ONE TODAY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS. Some believe they were the Sethites (descendants of Adam’s son Seth). There are some minor views as well, such as kings, rulers, or heads of leading family groups as being godly from Psalm 82. This view has many similarities to the Sethite view but eliminates many of Seth’s descendants and merely keeps with the leaders/kings (as well as some other leaders of other tribes) as godly. So, I will now leave this minor view out and discuss the Sethite view, which should encompass it for the most part. Another variation of the Sethite view is that these godly men had relations with ungodly women, and the offspring followed after other “gods” as opposed to God—and “fell away” in tremendous ways. This is called the “fallen men” view. There are other minor views as well as other minor non-biblical views but these are the primary ones I will discuss.

There is a great deal of confusion over the word Nephilim. No one today really knows what it means. It is related to the verb series “to fall” (naphal) in Hebrew, which is why some direct this to fallen angels or more appropriately, the offspring thereof. However, this also gives strong support to the view that men had fallen away from God. It was these two concepts that helped give rise to the various views mentioned above.

Many have associated the Nephilim with giants. Giant traits may not have been limited to Nephilim alone: Goliath, a giant, was not considered Nephilim. As mentioned, the term Nephilim is unclear in definition. It is related to the verb “to fall” and the King James Version translates it as giants from the influence of the Latin Vulgate’s (early Latin translation by Jerome) term gigantes as well as the context from Numbers 13. The context of Genesis 6 does not reveal they were giants. There may have been some influence on the Latin Vulgate by the Septuagint’s (Greek translation of the Old Testament about 200–300 years before Christ) use of Greek word gigentes.

Here is a table with a brief summary of the four popular views discussed:

Many respected Christians have commented on this topic over the years, and their work is to be highly regarded. This discussion is not to impugn their work in any way, but to build on it in iron-sharpening-iron fashion. In fact, in writing this, their research has provided great insights into what I now personally believe about the sons of God and the Nephilim, and I commend them for their work.

As a ministry, Answers in Genesis does not officially take a specific stand regarding these four major views. It is not crucial to biblical authority, since each side in this debate, for the most part, is using the Bible as authoritative to make their case.

The Fallen Angels View Sons of God: Fallen angels Nephilim: Mix of human and angel This is one of the most popular views. It stems from angels being called “sons of God” or interpreted as such in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. In fact, if the Nephilim were indeed half human/half fallen angel then it would give great understanding to the many ancient religious views after Babel and demi-gods. As pointed out, Nephilim is related to the verb series “to fall” in Hebrew, giving support to the view that this is related to fallen angels. So, it does hold some status among biblical scholars.

Defenders of this view also find support in two key New Testament passages. In 2 Peter 2:1–11, the Apostle wrote:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. Before commenting on this passage, we need to look at Jude 4–8.

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. These verses do not specifically mention the Nephilim, nor do they clearly state that fallen angels had sexual relationships with women. However, they do place “the angels who sinned” (2 Peter 2:4), “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode” (Jude 6), in the same context as Noah. Both passages seem to compare the sin of these angels with the sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah who had “in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). Genesis 19:5 reveals that the men of Sodom lusted after the two angels who had gone into Lot’s house. It is important to understand that while these verses seem to lend strong support to the fallen angel view, they do not make a watertight argument for it.

For example, expositor Dr John Gill clarifies with regards to Jude 6:3

Ver. 6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, &c.] Or “principality”; that holy, honourable, and happy condition, in which they were created; for they were created in perfect holiness and righteousness, stood in the relation of sons to God, and were, for the lustre of their nature, comparable to the morning stars; they were among the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; were a superior rank of creatures to men, and who beheld the face, and enjoyed the presence of God; but this estate they kept not, for being mutable creatures, one of them first sinning, the rest were drawn into it by him, and so were not what they were before, nor in the same estate, or place. but left their own habitation; by attempting to rise higher; or by quitting their station and posts of honour, being unwilling to be subject to God, and especially to the Son of God, who was to assume human nature, and in it be above them, which they could not bear; and by gathering together in a body, in another place, with Satan at the head of them; though this may be considered as a part of their punishment, and they may be said to do what they were forced to; for they were drove out of their native habitation, heaven; they were turned out of it, and cast down to hell; see 2 Peter 2:4. And this their habitation, which they left, or fell from, or they were cast out of, is by the Jews frequently called the place of their holiness, or their holy place. He hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness; by these “everlasting chains” may be meant the power and providence of God over them, which always abide upon them; or their sins, and the guilt of them upon their consciences, under which they are continually held; or the decrees and purposes of God concerning their final punishment and destruction, which are immutable and irreversible, and from which there is no freeing themselves, the phrase, under darkness, may refer to the chains, as in 2 Peter 2:4; where they are called “chains of darkness”; either because the power, providence, and purposes of God are invisible; so the Syriac version reads, “in unknown chains”; or because horror and black despair are the effects of sin, and its guilt, with which their consciences are continually filled: or it may denote the place and state where they are, either in the darkness of the air, or in the dark parts of the earth, or in hell, where is utter darkness, even blackness of darkness; or that they are under the power of sin, which is darkness, and without the light of God’s countenance, or any spiritual knowledge, or comfort: and they are “reserved” in these chains, and under this darkness; or “in prison,” as the Arabic version renders it; which denotes the custody of them, and their continuance in it, in which they are kept by Jesus Christ, who can bind and loose Satan at his pleasure; and it shows that they are not as yet in full torment, but are like malefactors that are kept in prison, until the assize comes: so these are laid in chains, and kept in custody. Gill continues in verse 7:

in like manner giving themselves over to fornication; not as the angels, who are not capable of sinning in such a manner; though the Jews make this to be a sin of theirs, and so interpret Genesis 6:2,4, but rather the Israelites, among whom this sin prevailed, 1 Corinthians 10:8; though it seems best of all to refer it to the false teachers that turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, and were very criminal this way; and then the sense is, that in like manner as they, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, gave themselves over to the sin of fornication; wherefore these men might expect the same judgments that fell upon them, since their sin was alike; which sin is a work of the flesh, contrary to the law of God, is against the body, and attended with many evils; exposes to judgment here and hereafter, and unfits for the communion of the saints, and for the kingdom of heaven. and going after strange flesh; or “other flesh”; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do, as among the Papists and Mahometans; and arose from idleness and fulness of bread in Sodom, and was committed in the sight of God, with great impudence: their punishment follows. The context is discussing ungodly people who have crept into the church and a warning about their future. Such sin and unrighteousness is nothing new:

When the Israelites fell away from Him in the desert after Moses brought them out of Egypt, God destroyed them. When the angels rebelled, God bound them to eternal darkness. In a similar fashion to how the Israelites were adulterous to God and sought after other gods; Sodom and Gomorrah were seeking after inappropriate flesh. God will destroy those who are ungodly and creep into the Church, just as He did the other ungodly people and angels mentioned. Their condemnation will be the same. This type of logical thinking would also apply to 2 Peter 2. Gill discusses this in his commentary in a similar fashion.

Of course, being one of the more popular views, it also comes with more criticisms. One of the prime arguments against this view is that angels are spiritual and don’t have DNA to combine with a woman’s DNA.

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

More at source

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

There is a great deal of confusion over the word Nephilim. No one today really knows what it means.

Pictographically, the word is a sentence. It is NPYLYM.

It is a sequence: Seed Mouth linked to Lead linked to Chaos (or Water).

So, the "Nepylym" are the seed and mouth that leads to chaos or the flood.

The "mouth" part is clearer in the Book of Enoch - which Jude mentions by name, Peter refers to by deed (the angels who did not keep their appointed places), and Jesus quotes - the Nephilim of Enoch are giant ravenous creatures who eat up everything, all of the sustenance, and start eating men and animals.

So, the word-picture is that of the seed (the breeding of these hybrids) that produces the devouring mouth, which then leads (the letter L, "Lamed", is the "lam" - the shepherd's crook) to Mem, which is both chaos and the root of mayim - water. So, the seed of the devouring mouth leads to chaos...and to the Flood.

That's what the word "Nephilim" means. It is a pictographic anagram, a picture sentence of what these things are and do.

So is the word "AL", which we say is "El", and the base word for God. It's a picture of an ox head - the strong leader, and Lam, the shepherd's crook. So "El", pictographically, is "The lord, my shepherd".

Normally God is a plural word in Hebrew: Elohiym, which is ALHYM. That is to say, in pictographic sequence: "The Lord, my shepherd, whose breath/spirit and mighty hand are upon the chaos/waters". That's why "Elohiym" "MEANS" it's an anagram. We translate the word as "God" and that's fine, but a translation is but an echo.

I saw what Too Conservative had to say about my "bat shit crazy" thoughts on the Scriptures and religious things. The above is all an example of this.

I don't write to him about them. I did respond to you this time with them. Now, if you also think this is all worthless storytelling, tell me so and I won't bother anymore. The pictographic letters are the ACTUAL SCRIPTURE, of course, but if one does not accept that they convey meaning beyond what some translators think, there's no need to insult me like Too Conservative feels the need to. Just let me know "No thanks", and I'll drop out of the conversation.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   13:16:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Who Were the Nephilim?

I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

"Of the views with some biblical support, some believe that fallen angels bred with women and resulted in giants called Nephilim. Some believe the sons of God were the result of fallen angels who overtook ungodly men to breed with women.

Super natural flying beings coming to earth to knock-up the women......who then push out giant babies.....

Sounds like the plot of a bad 1970's movie.

It's a crock, James.

I believe that the majority of the old-testament fables were made-up in an effort to answer the questions and doubts of the general population, who could not read, write, or even understand much of what was going on around them. This was done in an effort to "control the masses"

I believe that Jon Lovits would have fit right in with the "intelligent and educated" of that period of time.

JMHO

Personally, I'm a big fan of Jesus and I try to follow his teachings as a roadmap for my life.

I fail most of the time........

Jameson  posted on  2018-02-13   13:57:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Jameson (#2)

I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

They way I look at the Nephilim, and Noah's Ark, and other ancient stories, is like this:

God exists, so maybe those things literally are true.

Nature is God's opinion, and those things certainly are not in the normal course of Nature, so maybe they are not literally true.

The stories contain no pragmatically useful information for my life either way, so it DOESN'T MATTER to ME, from a religious standpoint, whether they are true or not. I've spoken with God, experienced miracles, and there are miracles such as the Shroud of Turin that prove the Jesus resurrection part is literally true, and that's really the only one of the set of miracles and stories in the Bible that ultimately MATTER. The rest is interesting.

That said, this allows me to have two complete cosmologies in my head, happily coexisting. One is the Creationist/Biblical account, which leads to one interesting place. The other is the naturialistic, evolutionary account. These two very different accounts can live happily side by side precisely because they don't really make any difference to me. They are interesting, neither is vital to my existence.

Which do I think is literally true - if I got into a time machine what do I think I'd see? Not quite either. And the reason for that is that there really is a SCRIPTURAL account, in Hebrew, of what happened. It is in Genesis 1, in particular, and NONE of the standard English translations get all that close to what the text actually SAYS, when the pictographic phrasing is considered. What is ACTUALLY in the Scriptures is not the Creationist story, but something much more open-ended, a blanker slate with much going on simultaneously, and no precise concept of time.

The naturalistic account fits within that.

But Christians go mental if you even attempt to discuss that. And given that these stories don't practically matter to me much at all, I'd rather just keep the peace and not discuss it, then to have a bunch of people who are quite ignorant of what the text really SAYS, in Hebrew, hollering at me and abusing me.

By the complex nature of the information, God certainly DID inspire that text, and it can be read, and wondered at - for it is a wonder. But the text that people are reading in English is simply not what that text says. It's sort of a caricatural sketch, really, a wooden surface translation.

What one gets out of reading it as written and meant is that it leaves open the tableau of creation without filling in inaccurate details.

But you can't see that without doing a tremendous amount of hard work. And that's not really necessary. Certainly that sort of work takes a long time, and doesn't lend itself to fierce debate,

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   15:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited)

THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION OVER THE WORD NEPHILIM. NO ONE TODAY REALLY KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS.

The word is so unknown that it is merely directly transliterated from the Hebrew. We can little more about it. This is not unique in scripture; there are other words whose meaning has been entirely lost to us.

As a ministry, Answers in Genesis does not officially take a specific stand regarding these four major views.

Then what use are they, huh? They demonstrate the same mealymouthed courage as Catholic.com.     : )

For example, expositor Dr John Gill clarifies with regards to Jude 6:3

Gill is still a treasure. It took him 50 years to write that commentary. During his time, Calvin's own commentary was highly praised with some noted figures claiming it was the most valuable thing ever written, next to the Bible itself. But I always like Gill's later commentary better. Gill really researched and knew a very wide variety of ancient sources like no one else of his era. Peshitta, Persian, Syriac, Egyptian, various ancient Jewish and Christian sources both canonical and apocryphal and heretical, the church fathers, he really tried to explain them all or use them to clarify certain passages. He didn't always succeed as later scholarship showed that he simply could not know what was not known at the time. Yet his approach of learning from ancient Jewish sources was sound. Some of his language sounds too stiff to us, and some of his terms are dated. Like when he refers to Jarchi so often as an authority. Jarchi is now known as Shlomo Yitzchaki or just as Rashi. He lived in the twelfth century and had an influence on Jewish scholarship almost beyond compare. Only Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon) could be said to be more influential as he was a physician/astronomer famous in the Jewish circles and to Islam as well as being the foremost rabbi of all time, even more than the ancient rabbi Akiba.

At any rate, Gill did a good (but not perfect) job in handling these ancient sources and his work still generally holds up pretty well. He was a workman in scholarship but he had pronounced biases on theology and reading scripture. Gill was the direct predecessor of the greatest Baptist preacher of all time, Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon was the better preacher (brilliant at brief and sweet but punchy doctrinal sermons) but Gill was by far the better scholar.

As for Jude, I don't blame Luther (much) for demoting its position in the canon. Jerome didn't like it. Neither did Eusebius or Origen. So Luther was not in bad company. A book of the New Testament (Jude) should not quote approvingly from a book (Enoch) explicitly rejected from both the Christian bible and the Jewish scriptures. Jude just doesn't belong but those darned Eastern Orthodox had had it in their possession for decades and once they set their teeth on something, it's like a Rottweiler has locked its jaws on something. You can't talk them out of it.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   15:49:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jameson (#2)

Super natural flying beings coming to earth to knock-up the women......who then push out giant babies.....

Sounds like the plot of a bad 1970's movie.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   16:01:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Tooconservative (#4)

We can little more about it.

We can read it as the letter-picture-phrase that it was written as, and gain insights therefrom.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   16:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#4)

explicitly rejected from both the Christian bible

It is not explicitly rejected from the Bible. Enoch is part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, and the Ethiopian Orthodox did not separate from the Catholic Church, nor were they pushed out, on that basis. The Ethiopian Orthodox are not rejected from the Oriental Orthodox Communion, or by the Eastern Orthodox, on that basis either.

And Jesus used the terminology of Enoch quite a bit.

Of course it's not in the CHRISTIAN Bible, now that the use of that word "Christian" means Protestant.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   16:05:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#0)

I suppose there must be a point to this but it eludes me

paraclete  posted on  2018-02-13   16:28:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

I don't intend to start up with you again on this thread.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   16:34:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Who Were the Nephilim?

I dunno.  But their rhythm section needs a lot of work.


====================================
MASSIVE ANNOUNCEMENT!
So here it is! On Sunday 25th March we will be supporting Official Twister at the O2 Academy Newcastle! We are honestly so hyped for this show and we want to see each and everyone of you there! Standard tickets are £10 and VIP tickets are £15!

https://www.facebook.com /OfficialNephilimBand/

VxH  posted on  2018-02-13   16:35:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#9) (Edited)

I don't intend to start up with you again on this thread.

Then leave.

See, I can be a classless troll too. Perfectly capable of it. It's kind of fun swearing at people all the time. Calling them names. Ridiculing them. Going from thread to thread and shitting all over everybody and everything.

That's what this site needs, more of THAT.

Reap some of what you sow - I don't have to be polite either. I have been in the past, but I'm done with being shit on by ignoramuses and fanatics.

Now, we COULD all just decide to hit the reset button, all go away and cool down, come back to our senses and TRY AGAIN.

But if you don't want to talk with me on this thread, then shut the fuck up and leave it. I'm staying.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   16:43:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

IOW, you want me to kick your ass again.

Nope. Not gonna.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   16:54:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13, tooconservative, liberator, vxh (#1) (Edited)

Of course, being one of the more popular views, it also comes with more criticisms. One of the prime arguments against this view is that angels are spiritual and don’t have DNA to combine with a woman’s DNA.

WE HAVE NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT OF FALLEN ANGELS EVER APPEARING AS MEN OR OF HAVING PHYSICAL DNA. Though this can be argued because angels did take on the appearance of men such as Gabriel (Daniel 9:21; Luke 1:11–20) and the two angels sent to destroy Sodom (Genesis 19:1–13), to assume these angels had reproductive capabilities is another issue. Also, these angels that appeared as men were not the fallen ones. We have no biblical support of fallen angels ever appearing as men or of having physical DNA.

The spiritual can produce physical offspring, as witnessed by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. However, the Holy Spirit is the Creator and has that power (Psalm 104:30). Do fallen angels? The Bible simply doesn’t reveal this.

While many commentaries, as well as the Alexandrinus manuscript of the Septuagint, refer to the sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 as angels, this may not be the best argument for Genesis 6 for two reasons, and some commentaries leave open the possibility that these could be referring to godly men and/or magistrates on earth, who were human.4

The author of Job was aware of the term used for angel (Kalm mal’ak), as Eliphaz the Temanite used it in Job 4:18. So, if the sons of God were referring to angels, then why not say it? It may be too much to say for sure that these two verses early in Job are referring to angels, but even so, it wouldn’t be referring to fallen ones. There are no other instances in Scripture that refer to fallen angels or demons as sons of God to verify this in Job.

Sometimes we fall into the mistake of assuming one name or phrase in a portion of Scripture is the same thing/type as another portion of Scripture. Though this may be the case, one shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. For example, the Hebrew lbb (0894) for Babel or Babylon is referring to two distinct empires. If we find lbb referring to Nebuchadnezzar, we shouldn’t assume it is the Babel that followed soon after the Flood.

Regardless though, Job 38:7 is an excellent example of angels being termed sons of God. However, this is referring to angels during the Creation Week, before any of them fell (which would have to be after God’s declaration that everything was “very good” in Genesis 1:31). So this doesn’t give much support to fallen angels being called sons of God.

Another argument in opposition to this view is that godly men were sometimes called son(s) of God such as Adam in Luke 3.

Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Other passages also confirm that Christians are called this:

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Romans 8:14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus Although each of these is in Greek and the “sons of God” for Genesis 6 is in Hebrew, they are both rendered correctly as “sons of God.” Luke 6:35 renders the term “sons of the Most High.” Also, Psalms 82:6 has “sons of the most high” and renders correctly that godly humans can be called sons of God in another language. Hosea 1:10 points out that people will also be called “sons of the living God” (note the added descriptor living) in Hebrew:

Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place where it is said to them, “You are not My people,” It will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.” Again, this is not identical to the Hebrew in Genesis or Job but still renders that humans can be called sons of God in another format. So, we have instances where humans are called:

Sons of God (5 times in Greek) Sons of the Most High (1 time in Greek; 1 time in Hebrew) Sons of the Living God (1 time in Hebrew) Why is “sons of God” in Hebrew suddenly off-limits to refer to humans when God has already used similar formats for calling godly men by such a godly title? It seems unlikely that God would put fallen angels in a class with un-fallen angels, Israelites (God’s chosen people), and Christians (the bride of Christ). I doubt that God would want confusion with fallen angels with his bride! Some dismiss this verse in Hosea out of hand, but it shouldn’t be neglected. Other verses point out that men can be children of God, such as Psalm 73:15 and Deuteronomy 32:5. Thus God-fearing men can also rightly be called sons of God.

I’ve heard the response that the reason Adam and Christians were called son(s) of God was because they were made directly by God in one fashion or another—Adam from the dust by God’s hand and Christians will be made new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). Along with this then, angels, who were directly created by God during creation week, could also hold to this title.

However, there are other direct creations by God, such as sea creatures, land animals, and so on. Are these also sons of God? Few would say they are. Also, godly men of the Old Testament would one day be new creations in Christ and, by the foreknowledge of God, could easily have been called “sons of God.” So, this argument really doesn’t make a case exclusively for the angelic view, but could also be used for godly men as well.

Also, in Hebrew, we find sons of Israel (bene Yisra’el) used of descendants of Israel who were not his direct sons (Exodus 6:6, 6:11, and so on.) Therefore, there is no reason to assume that sons of God couldn’t be referring to men, since they are descendants of Adam, who was a son of God. To clarify, this is not to be confused with the only begotten son of God, Jesus Christ, who was the unique and perfect Son of God.

Another theological problem presents itself for the fallen angels view if we take a closer look at the Anakites (descendants of Anak), descendants of the Nephilim according to Numbers 13:33. The Anakites were not completely wiped out by Joshua. Joshua says:

Joshua 11:22 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive The Bible never records their line ending. Thus, there is no reason to assume the descendants of Anak are not still living today. In fact, they have probably interbred with many other people groups since then.

This theological problem has been challenged, though, and rightly so because Numbers 13:33 is part of a bad/evil report spread among the Israelites. But was the information false about the Anakites being Nephilim? Let’s take a look:

Numbers 13:30–33 Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” So, was the report of the Anakites being Nephilim accurate or inaccurate, as even falsehoods often contain some aspects of truth. For example, we know that Anakites were indeed in the land, as Joshua went to war with them later. So, what aspects of this report were false and which were true? We get a clue when Caleb and Joshua answer the congregation who was grumbling about the bad report in Numbers 14:6–9.

Numbers 14:6–9 Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will swallow them up. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.” The following table breaks down the bad report and analyzes what was false and what was not challenged.

Bad report indicates Was this challenged by Joshua and Caleb? The land devours its inhabitants. Challenged: The land was exceedingly good, flowing with milk and honey, according to Joshua and Caleb. All the men were of great size; the spies seemed very small in their sight (like grasshoppers). Challenged: Joshua and Caleb told them not be afraid of the people of the land. They didn’t comment on the size, but many may have been giants, since they do point out that people were afraid of them. Anakites were there. Not challenged Nephilim were there. Not challenged Anakites were descendants of the Nephilim. Not challenged Anakites were only a part of the Nephilim. Not challenged So, it may not be the best argument to say that the false report meant that the Anakites were not Nephilim, since this point (nor other aspects of the report mentioned above) was never addressed as being false. Thus, the argument stands that Nephilim were the descendants of Anak and were around post-Flood. This also reveals that Nephilim can exist without being offspring of “sons of God,” as they are only listed as being descendants of Anak.

Interestingly, Moses, who penned Genesis, said that the Nephilim were on the earth pre-Flood and also afterwards:

Genesis 6:4a The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards (emphasis added) Some translations say “and after that,” and one could argue that this was still referring to a pre-Flood time. However, it makes much more sense that this phrase refers to this post-Flood event, especially since Genesis 6 was penned by Moses.

Acts 17:26 indicates all nations are of “one blood” or “one man.” If some nations are a combination of angelic blood and Adamic blood, as the Anakites would have been in this view as well as the Nephilim pre-Flood, then there is a major problem—Acts 17:26 would be wrong. The Anakites were still living and breeding with many other people groups during Paul’s time. Thus, it presents a problem to say angels bred with women. Another problem presents itself from the rest of Genesis 6:4:

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men (vya ‘iysh) of renown. In Genesis 6:4, the phrase “men of renown” uses the Hebrew word iysh. This term is used consistently as “man” or descendants of Adam—even Adam used it of himself in Genesis 2:23, yet it is never used of fallen angel, demons, or of Satan. It was used for some unfallen angels when they took the form of a man, though. If the Nephilim were crossbreeds between men and fallen angels, then why did the Bible use the term men (iysh) as opposed to something that would lead us to believe they were not fully men?

If we follow the context of iysh into the following verses in Genesis 6, we find:

Verse 4: Nephilim are men of renown Verse 5: wickedness of man great Verse 6: God sorry He made man on earth Verse 7: Blot out man from earth Verse 8/9: Noah found favor with God and was a righteous man The context reveals that Noah was compared with and amongst the men being discussed in Genesis 6, yet unlike them he was righteous (Genesis 6:9). There is no mention of Noah being fully human and other men being half-breeds, but merely that he was righteous among them. Having Noah be righteous among his generations is slight support for the view that sees the sons of God as human.

One early argument against this angelic view was that angels didn’t marry in heaven according to Jesus (Matthew 22:30). This has been responded to many times and it is rightly pointed out that this is referring to angels in heaven, not fallen angels. So, the option was left open that fallen angels may very well do this. However, a new problem now arises. Moses points out that the sons of God took wives (ishshah wife/women) (Genesis 6:2). Never once have I found a verse in the Bible where wife, wives, husband, husbands, or marriage was anything other than between a human male and female. If these were marriages between fallen angels and women, then it opens up the possibility of marriages that are not limited to man and woman, when the Bible is clear on this subject.

IF FALLEN ANGELS OR DEMONS, WHICH ARE SPIRIT, COULD MATERIALIZE, THEN THIS CALLS INTO QUESTION THE ENTIRE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. An argument in response is that ishshah could merely be used for women, not wives, and doesn’t necessarily mean they were married, but rather taken for sexual purposes outside of marriage, possibly forcibly. In light of some of these criticisms, this popular view may not be the best one, though many great scholars hold to it and it should be at least respected. I encourage deeper study in both the view and the responses as I am only touching the surface.

Perhaps the most devastating argument against this view came from Jesus Himself, though. We have no instance in Scripture where fallen angels ever materialized as previously stated. This is significant because Christ offered proof of His resurrection when the disciples questioned Him:

Luke 24:37–43 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. (emphasis added) If fallen angels or demons, which are spirit, could materialize, then this calls into question the entire resurrection of Christ. Christ says spirits do not have flesh and bones, so it would seem these entities can’t make physical bodies for themselves.

The Fallen Angels Overtook Men View Sons of God: Men overtaken by fallen angels/demons Nephilim: 100% human This view has some similarities to the previous view in that the sons of God have a relationship to fallen angels. The sons of God would be men who were overtaken by fallen angels and/or demons. Unlike the previous view, this one holds that the offspring were not a mix but completely human. Of course, some of the arguments against the sons of God being angels in the previous section apply here as well.

It is possible for men to be overcome by Satan or demons. Men can easily be overcome or influenced by Satan such as Judas in Luke 22:3. Demons have often entered into people, such as in Mark 5:15.

The question really is this: would such people who are overtaken by demons and/or fallen angels warrant the title sons of God? In gospel accounts, many people were overtaken by demons, but never were they titled sons of God. Other biblical passages do not mention people who were overcome by evil spirits or demons as sons of God either.

In this view, though, there is no problem with Nephilim appearing pre-Flood, getting wiped out, and then reappearing as this happened again. According to this view, the offspring/Nephilim are still 100% descendant of Adam and Eve, thus eligible to receive salvation if they placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The children would have been conceived in sin. But this is nothing new in light of original sin that affects us all since Adam sinned in the Garden. In fact, Psalm 51 says:

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. A problem associated with this view is this: are Nephilim still being born today? If not, then why was it no longer mentioned in the Bible after Moses? Especially with the many demon-possessed and Satanic entrances into men surrounding the time of Christ? So, by this view, any of us could potentially be Nephilim.

Also, it would seem strange that offspring by this union would require an entirely different term (Nephilim) to describe them. Although this may not be one of the better explanations, it is plausible, and I wouldn’t discount it entirely.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   17:04:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

Are you a descendant of the Nephilim?

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   17:15:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/who-were-the-nephilim/

I can scarcely find a word to disagree with. Not so surprising since I did cover much the same ground repeatedly on that other thread. Your writer, however, was a lot sweeter about it than I was.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   17:21:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Tooconservative, vicomte13 (#15)

Job 38:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   17:26:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)

Are you a descendant of the Nephilim?

Who knows?

The Basque legend about themselves is that they are - that they are descended from the giants who lived in the hills and who all disappeared (except for Olentzaro) at the coming of Christ.

That would fit with the odd blood type (Basque country appears to be the source of Rh negative blood), and the very weird Basque language, which is completely unrelated to any other on earth, and the difficulty in interbreeding with non-Basques (an artifact of the blood type).

I'm partly Basque, so if the Basque are descendants of the Nephilim, like the Anakim were, or Og of Bashan, and maybe Goliath of Gath - all of whom were killed off by the Israelites - then maybe I would be, as would all of the Basques.

It would explain our existence apparently out of nowhere, forever ago, and strange physiology and language. But proximity to Neanderthaler man might explain that too.

Who knows?

Theologically, it's not interesting. We're all descended from Adam and Eve, and Noah and Naamah, which means we're all also descended from Cain's line as far as Naamah's parents...assuming those people existed at all, of course.

We're all men.

We're all accountable for our own moral actions, and not held peronally accountable for the sins of our ancestors (though those sins and their aftermath do continue to work their poison through society and human lives for generations afterwards).

It's an interesting thought, that the Basque are descended from Nephilim. What do I personally think about it? Shoulder shrug. I don't know. I don't think it's important. It's fun to think about. It has zero spiritual relevancy. Just an interesting little sidebar.

Were the Nephilim the children of angels and men? When it read the English of Genesis, it would seem so. When I read the Hebrew, it would seem so.

I can't see any basis other than gratuitous assertion to say that angels COULD NOT, or are made a certain way. None of that has been revealed, so how would anybody know either way?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   17:50:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

Anakim were, or Og of Bashan, and maybe Goliath of Gath - all of whom were killed off by the Israelites

Incorrect my friend.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   17:53:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)

Job 38:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Typically scripture refers only to Venus as the morning star. It is also a title for Jesus himself. In ancient times, there was some reference to both the planet Mercury and the star Sirius as morning stars but in my understanding, that association became far more pronounced after the era of the Old Testament. After all, they had no binoculars or telescopes in those days. With 20/20 vision, you can still see Mercury and Sirius at dawn, especially from the equatorial regions.

Some ignorant people, taken in by the literary liberties taken centuries ago by Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost as well as the (former) doctrinal teachings of a rather famous church in southern Europe, also believe it is the name for Satan under the name of Lucifer (Latin for "lightbringer"). Naturally, Satan is not given the same title as Jesus Christ anywhere in scripture. This view turns the meaning of Isaiah 14:12 on its head and makes it complete nonsense (in addition to blaspheming Christ by falsely giving one of His best-known titles to Satan).

It is useful to be cognizant of the role of astrology and astronomy in the biblical era. It was very much the rocket science of that era and earlier eras in many ancient nations.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-02-13   17:55:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

Joshua 11:22 “There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.”

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   17:57:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Incorrect my friend.

What is incorrect? Og was killed off by the Israelites. Goliath was killed in a later period by David, an Israelite.

They are described as huge men.

What is incorrect? None of us knows where these men came from, but we do know that Canaan had Nephilim, or at least their descendants, when the Israelites entered it.

Pronouncing "incorrect" is a positive assertion of fact. You don't have the basis to do that any more than I do either way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   18:01:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)

There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.”

Yes, after the Israelites wiped them out.

Note well: Og was King of Bashan, not Israel. And Goliath was Goliath of Gath, one of the places that the text you quoted specifically says still had the Anakim.

You're often far too quick on the trigger to say that I'm wrong. I don't make stuff up.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   18:03:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Incorrect my friend. What is incorrect?

I was referring to what I quoted. See my post 20 for more.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   18:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

Anakim

"only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   18:05:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)

I was referring to what I quoted. See my post 20 for more.

And so was I. Og was not in Israel at all. He was in Bashan, which is across the Jordan to the North.

Goliath was a Philistine from Gath. Goliath of Gath. Gath is one of the specific places the text you quoted in 20. says still had Anakim in it. So Goliath, the giant man, could have been - probably was - Anakim, descended from the Nephilim.

Ten foot tall Og of Bashan was probably also.

The geographic location of both of those figures does not contradict what you quoted in 20. In fact, 20 rather gives credence to the thought that Goliath of Gath was Anakim, given that Gath is SPECIFICALLY mentioned, of all of the places that could have been mentioned, and Goliath was of Gath.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   18:08:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#24)

"only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained"

Yes, but you cut off the first part of the quote:

“There was none of the Anakims left IN THE LAND OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.”

Bashan is in Jordan, not in Israel. Gath is named specifically, and Goliath was from Gath.

The Basque country is nowhere near the land of the children of Israel, obviously.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   18:10:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

Anakims

I was making a minor point that Israel did not wipe out all the Anakims.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-13   18:32:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)

I see. Ok. I took it the exact opposite.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   18:54:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#7)

" Enoch is part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, and the Ethiopian Orthodox did not separate from the Catholic Church, nor were they pushed out, on that basis. "

Just curious Vic, who wrote Enoch ? Thanks in advance !

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

Stoner  posted on  2018-02-13   19:34:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Stoner (#29)

Just curious Vic, who wrote Enoch ? Thanks in advance !

Who wrote any of it? We have only legends and traditions to say. Some say Moses wrote the Torah. Some say Enoch wrote Enoch. Others say otherwise. No way to know. That SOMEBODY wrote these books a long, long time ago is obviously true. WHO that somebody was only comes down to us through legend.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-02-13   19:48:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

this allows me to have two complete cosmologies in my head, happily coexisting. One is the Creationist/Biblical account, which leads to one interesting place. The other is the naturialistic, evolutionary account. These two very different accounts can live happily side by side precisely because they don't really make any difference to me. They are interesting, neither is vital to my existence.

Well said.

I would rather try to be better today, than concern myself with events real or imagined from the past.

Jameson  posted on  2018-02-14   7:40:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Tooconservative (#5)

Nice.

Jameson  posted on  2018-02-14   7:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: stoner (#0)

Self Ping

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

Stoner  posted on  2018-02-16   22:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com