Nephilim

[jasonc]

actually that word isn't from the word air. but lung.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pneumonia

 

[Deborah13]

actually that word isn't from the word air. but lung.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pneumonia

Yup, keep tracing that back.....
[New Latin, from Greek pneumoniā, lung disease, alteration (influenced by pneuma, breath) of pleumoniā, from pleumōn, lung; see pleu- in Indo-European roots.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pneumonia

So we're both correct.

 

[jasonc]

I was aware of that but I didn't want to spend time and derail a thread on the etymology of the words pleumon/pneuma.

when I was learning any romantic tounge I look for the greek in them and latin. easy to remember them that way. ie foto, sp for photograph . both from the greek word foto(light).

 

[JLB]

I don't actually presume to tell you that angels could not have intercourse with women. I have looked as I am able and freely admit that it is possible (although in my opinion - only remotely possible) that the term "sons of God," found in Genesis 6 could be interpreted to angels. Where is my presumption??? I presume personal ignorance and conclude that I do not know definitively.

Your question about "another incident during the time of Noah" is a question that you must ask yourself. My suggestion is that it isn't necessarily angels. Notice the focus of the text directly around the controversial passage:



The words that Peter wrote mentions the sin of the angels and God's judgment. Gen 6:5 doesn't mention angels at all but instead, men. You insist that Peter described the timeframe of angelic sin specifically (when he didn't) and that he described the exact circumstance but he didn't.

I conclude that there isn't enough Scripture here to force your conclusion on others but, and again, admit the possibility of your being correct. But the problem is that we only have your thinking to prove such things. You'll understand if I would like to wait for greater authority before I conclude the matter.

PRESUMPTION:
"an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, esp. at the start of a chain of argument or action"

Every scripture that I have given is completely conclusive to the fact that sons of God in genesis 6 is a reference to angels.

You nor anyone else have proved it otherwise.

You use no scripture in your response.

This post is the perfect example.

sons of God is a reference to beings that God creates directly.

Men reproduce men. men are referred to as sons of men, or son of man.

Men are sons of men.

Adam was created directly by God Himself. Luke 3:38

Adam is called a son of God.

the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:38

Adams offspring were his sons, and were reproduced by Adam.

Adams offspring are called sons of men, or daughters of men.

The is elementary doctrine 101.

If you didn't know this now you do.

Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.

Adam is a created son of God.

Angels are created sons of God.

Men is the new testament who are born of God, are called sons of God, but not because they were born of flesh as a human, but were re-born of God.

The term sons of God in the old testament is emphatically a term that is a reference to angels.

Unless you yourself can produce a scripture that shows us a flesh and blood man begot a son of God, then you sir are guilty of presumption.


JLB

 

[Sinthesis]

If we can accept that the term 'angel' is descriptive of purpose rather than being, then we aren't trapped into a mythological way of seeing the world. Angels are messengers, and it doesn't necessarily matter who or what they are, only that they convey a message from God. If the message is not from God, or the message is corrupt, then the messenger is 'fallen' and considered a demon.

Sons-of-God stand to inherit from the estate of God. This status is given by being associated with God's only begotten Son, Jesus. Prior to the resurrection this was evidenced by faith that God would send the Messiah; afterwards by faith that God did send the Messiah. Sons-of-God can be angels in the sense of purpose that they convey messages from God (think great commission), but Sons-of-God are only ever human: 100% human, and only in the case of Christ, also 100% God.

Heb 1:5 ¶ For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

 

[chessman]

Men reproduce men. men are referred to as sons of men, or son of man.

Men are sons of men.

Adams offspring were his sons, and were reproduced by Adam.

JLB

Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain. And she said, “I have given birth to a man with the help of Yahweh.”

Even within the passage being discussed it's obvious that God is still involved in man's creation (humankind).

Genesis 6:6 And Yahweh regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.

Hmm, who created humankind? God. And not just Adam, but Cain, etc.

God can and does refer to all His creatures as Sons of God. That is, when they act like they are.

Romans 8:14 For all those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Act like the Devil, God calls you of the Devil.

1 John 3:8-10 The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this reason the Son of God was revealed: in order to destroy the works of the devil. Everyone who is fathered by God does not practice sin, because his seed resides in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are evident:

What's that? Other humans besides Adam have God as their father? Hmm.
Acts 13:10 and said, “O you who are full of all deceit and of all unscrupulousness, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness! Will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord!

This was not a tall man that Paul spoke to.

Genesis 6:5 And Yahweh saw that the evil of humankind was great upon the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was always only evil.

 

[JLB]

Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain. And she said, “I have given birth to a man with the help of Yahweh.”

Even within the passage being discussed it's obvious that God is still involved in man's creation (humankind).

Genesis 6:6 And Yahweh regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.

Hmm, who created humankind? God. And not just Adam, but Cain, etc.

God can and does refer to all His creatures as Sons of God. That is, when they act like they are.

Romans 8:14 For all those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Act like the Devil, God calls you of the Devil.

1 John 3:8-10 The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this reason the Son of God was revealed: in order to destroy the works of the devil. Everyone who is fathered by God does not practice sin, because his seed resides in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are evident:

What's that? Other humans besides Adam have God as their father? Hmm.
Acts 13:10 and said, “O you who are full of all deceit and of all unscrupulousness, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness! Will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord!

This was not a tall man that Paul spoke to.

Genesis 6:5 And Yahweh saw that the evil of humankind was great upon the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was always only evil.

Of course God is involved in the reproduction of Mankind.

Hear the first words ever spoken to Mankind -

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Genesis 1:28

Never the less, men begot the sons of men and the daughters of men.



JLB

 

[Sparkey]

The is elementary doctrine 101.

If you didn't know this now you do.
JLB

The simple way to avoid being labeled presumptuous is to avoid speaking in this tone. Now you're just being provocative. Let me ask you, do you persuade many to your thinking in this manner?

Chessman has already replied and contrary to your false statement I have referenced many scriptures in this discussion. JLB, I've never tried to convince you that you were wrong, not going to start now. Return the favor and tone it down a notch or two, will ya?

 

[Edward]

From Dictionary.com
Concordance:
an alphabetical index of the principal words of a book, as of the Bible, with a reference to the passage in which each occurs.

What you have is a concordance which Strongs put together and then they added their "Strongs dictionary" and a few other things. Again, a concordance isn't a dictionary, it's simply a reference to where a particular word is located within a body of work. The dictionary is separate. You wouldn't call a dictionary a concordance and you wouldn't call a concordance a dictionary. But you can have a dictionary in a concordance and that's basically what you have. See, you learned something today

Now then, as far as Strongs, it is not much more than how a word within the Bible was translated, which makes it a very poor dictionary and more like a concordance in that it compiles the list of english words that were used when translating a particular word from the original texts. This in itself makes Strongs biased toward a particular translation and as such, it brings a very limited understanding of how the original language could have been used and what the original word could have meant from a larger perspective.

Before you get the wrong idea, Strongs has it's place, but it has it's limitations. I even use is, but I know how far to push it.

Smarter people than you or I put together that Strongs dictionary brother! It's what the Lord put in my hand years ago and I've always used it. You are the only person that I've ever heard denounce it as a study tool. I use the dictionary part a lot more than the concordance part. If it's not to be used, then I notice your lack of referral to a better tool/dictionary?

That said, brother, I am going to continue to use it and have faith in it. Is e-sword bad also?

 

[Sparkey]

Have you tried Young's Analytical concordance? I like using both Young's and Strong's Exhaustive, have them both in print. I also like and own Vines, Matthew Henry's commentary, and Vincent's Word Studies in the NT and a bunch of others. They are all good tools. Some excellent work has gone in to these books and they do help.

One of the reasons that I like Young's (together with Strong's) is that in the back there is an appendix, the Index-Lexicon to the Old Testament. That "tool within a tool" easily shows rare words, occurring once or twice, and, therefore, often of doubtful meaning, so that they may be recognized. It categorizes according to the original not just the translated English term.

By the way, Stovebolts is right to say that concordances have their use but they are tools and have their limits too. That's not a denouncement.

 

[agua.]

It's not my homework and I'm not a liar. If you can provide evidence that I'm a liar, then I shall produce evidence showing that I am telling the truth. I am not saying this in a mean or hostile manner but the burdon is not mine to provide evidence in this matter unless you have evidence otherwise. I can point you to the Bible Study forum, as well as the Lounge if you wish to do a search on your own. In short, you asked me a question, and I answered it as honestly as I could.

Hmmm this is interesting Stove because I'm simply asking you to provide what you claimed and since you've seen the posts it surely will be easier for you to locate. If you don't want to that's ok but it strikes me as strange why you'd take offense to this. I have never heard of nor seen any such discrimination against tall people because of this Nephilim doctrine.

No offense intended mate and if you state something in any debate don't be surprised if you're asked for validation especially if it's more than a generalization.

 

[agua.]

agua.


First off, I'm not posturing for position nor am I employing any particular tactic looking for an edge up in this discussion because I'm not viewing our discussion as a debate to be won, but rather as an honest and open discussion. Though not a tactic, it has been my attempt to have Genesis 6 stand on it's own which is always the entry point to textual exegesis, and I have already explained this.

I agree.

The context defines the definition... Earlier I used the greek word nooma in John 3 as an example. The word just like it's Hebrew counterpart can be translated as either Spirit or Wind. I use John 3 as an example because the word is used in the same paragraph, but it has been translated differently per it's context and to your point, the context doesn't remove the definition. Rather, the context defines the definition.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the nooma.6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the nooma gives birth to nooma.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’8 The nooma blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the nooma.”

Yes but again you're entering territory not required because you haven't presented an alternative definition to "sons of God" in Job and how it fits the context. Do you agree the "sons of God" in Job refers to angels ?

I think the why is as important as the what and for me it is difficult to separate the two. It's kind of like intellect and emotion. You want a healthy balance of both IMHO. It keeps scripture living and active, in and able to cut through bone and marrow kind of way.

Yeah ok I get ya and partly agree. It's shaky ground though sometimes especially when we have no conclusive evidence.

There is a reason why Enoch isn't part of the cannon and why Genesis falls under the authoritative umbrella of Moses. Whenever I read outside sources to help me better understand the biblical text, I sort and sift, sort and sift. Generally, I use it to bring out what has already been established through scripture and I tread very lightly trying to use outside sources to define what's inside of scripture.

With that, lets put on the brakes for now and reserve further discussion for our one on one if that's ok with you.

Thanks,

Yeah this is true and we must be careful of how we use extra Biblical sources. Sometimes we get corroboration through several which agree with the Bible and the Book of Enoch does have some interesting similarities to both the Bible and other outside sources. I must warn you Stove that I will be asking for sources, of course

 

[jasonc]

yet enoch isn't even canon , not even to the kabbalistic , Talmudic jews. and they use an extra book called the Zohar which according to them cant contradict the torah. genesis 6 is part of the torah. hmm interesting.

 

[gr8grace3]

Hmmm this is interesting Stove because I'm simply asking you to provide what you claimed and since you've seen the posts it surely will be easier for you to locate. If you don't want to that's ok but it strikes me as strange why you'd take offense to this. I have never heard of nor seen any such discrimination against tall people because of this Nephilim doctrine.

No offense intended mate and if you state something in any debate don't be surprised if you're asked for validation especially if it's more than a generalization.

I have Asked 2 times for the whereabouts of these post and have received the same response.I have looked all over and can't find them. I would also like to see them.

 

[Edward]

Have you tried Young's Analytical concordance? I like using both Young's and Strong's Exhaustive, have them both in print. I also like and own Vines, Matthew Henry's commentary, and Vincent's Word Studies in the NT and a bunch of others. They are all good tools. Some excellent work has gone in to these books and they do help.

One of the reasons that I like Young's (together with Strong's) is that in the back there is an appendix, the Index-Lexicon to the Old Testament. That "tool within a tool" easily shows rare words, occurring once or twice, and, therefore, often of doubtful meaning, so that they may be recognized. It categorizes according to the original not just the translated English term.

By the way, Stovebolts is right to say that concordances have their use but they are tools and have their limits too. That's not a denouncement.

That's interesting brother. What does Youngs (and Vines) say about the "sons of God" term? Also, could I get your opinion on the limits of Strongs? I get your meaning, but not sure of what the limits would be.

I have a related question for Stove, or whoever...Where did evil spirits come from? What is their origin? They are not fallen Angels, nor are they men, this much is clear I think. They are spiritual beings, and decidedly evil.

 

[gr8grace3]

That's interesting brother. What does Youngs (and Vines) say about the "sons of God" term? Also, could I get your opinion on the limits of Strongs? I get your meaning, but not sure of what the limits would be.

I have a related question for Stove, or whoever...Where did evil spirits come from? What is their origin? They are not fallen Angels, nor are they men, this much is clear I think. They are spiritual beings, and decidedly evil.

They are fallen angels. They have positions and rank.

Eph 6:12~~For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, 1)but against the rulers, 2)against the powers, 3)against the world forces of this darkness, 4)against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

The Greek gives us more detail about this Verse. It shows that it is a "Military" lingo. It is spiritual warfare in view with combat. And Satan has 1) Ruler angels,2)demon officers(Generals),3)Demon ambassadors and 4) rank and file angels(demons)

 

[Edward]

They are fallen angels. They have positions and rank.

Eph 6:12~~For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, 1)but against the rulers, 2)against the powers, 3)against the world forces of this darkness, 4)against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

The Greek gives us more detail about this Verse. It shows that it is a "Military" lingo. It is spiritual warfare in view with combat. And Satan has 1) Ruler angels,2)demon officers(Generals),3)Demon ambassadors and 4) rank and file angels(demons)

I agree with some of what you say gr8grace3. We are indeed in a spiritual war, and wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual beings and so forth...that said, I am not convinced that the "evil spirits" spoken of in the bible are indeed fallen angels and also are the "evil spirits" that are spoken of so much in scripture. With all due respect, I will need more clarification and scripture from you to be able to accept your presumption. Copy/paste some of this Greek that you speak of which will shed more light on your position, for my consideration, ok brother?

I understand how you can come to this way of thinking from reading scripture, it would almost seem like a given in a way. But as we all know, sometimes fine detail and word study is necessary to come to the actual truth of a passage. This is what I will need to be able to consider your presumption as the truth.

 

[gr8grace3]

Just curious Edward. From my study when it comes to rational creatures, God created 2 kinds.....angels and humans. Where do you see that demons are not fallen angels in scriptures? Or where God created another thinking and reasoning creature as in the demons?

 

[Edward]

You're right, and Good question, and I do have an answer for you. But first, where does it say that God Killed any of the fallen angels yet so that they be become spirits only? I can only see that they be reserved for judgment on the day of the Lord which cometh soon. ;)

 

[gr8grace3]

You're right, and Good question, and I do have an answer for you. But first, where does it say that God Killed any of the fallen angels yet so that they be become spirits only? I can only see that they be reserved for judgment on the day of the Lord which cometh soon. ;)

I do not think that God has or ever will kill any angels. The lake of fire is their final place of existence.

We see some demons as spirits in the Bible. That does not necessarily confine them to being a spirit only and cannot manifest as something else another place. But I do believe that there are angels that can "do" more than others. So maybe a "rank and file" angel can only operate from a "spirit" perspective and other "high ranking" angels can do more.