Angels Do Not Have Sex

[JLB]

JLB
KJV
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
H5303 -
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.
YLT
Gen 6:4 The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them--they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.

KJV
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
H5303 -
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.
YLT
Num 13:33 and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.'

So first we have established that it is the exact same word, H5303 - nephil, used in both Gen.6:4 and in Num. 13:33.

Do you agree?

I agree Nephilim is used in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33

 

[Sparkey]

Brother I'm not sure where you read into my posts that I ever said that Angels were created in the flesh?

Edward, I quoted your reply to Lewis W. Did I misquote? Here it is again:

FWIW, the word study I did awhile back concluded the term 'sons of God' to mean a directly created being from the Lord. Angels are, Adam was, we are sons of men.

Plus, keep in mind that the fallenones left their own habitation (bodies) so who knows what where to or what was possible after that.
(emphasis mine, Sparrow)

You have said, " the fallenones left their own habitation (bodies)... "
You then make the point that no one knows ... what, where to, or what was possible (after they left their bodies).

I don't see any ambiguity in your declaration. If you didn't mean to say that angels left their own bodies (habitation) you might consider a retraction or make your meaning more clear because it sounds like you said, "the fallenones left their own habitation (bodies)..."

Also we have a habit of poor communication because we disagree on our terms and word meanings again. I agree with the plain Scripture about 'the Sons of God' but maintain that angels are not the only ones who may be called this. You seem to have inserted an equality where "Sons of God = Angels" and "Angels = Sons of God" and insist that any thought other than yours is incorrect.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

I will appreciate your effort to convince me that only angelic creatures may be termed 'Sons of God' but I don't see a convincing argument for your assumption.

 

[Sparkey]

God: "One million years to me is a second."
Man: "What about one million dollars, my Lord?"
God: "A penny."
Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?"
God: "No problem, just a second."

Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Angels cannot fornicate nor reproduce with women. Angels are spirit beings:

But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool"? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:13-14)

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? The question all but demands agreement.

 

[JLB]

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

.

This verse teaches us that angels are not begotten sons of God.

This verse does not teach that angels are not sons of God.

nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:36

Angels are sons of God, they are not begotten sons of God.


JLB

 

[Edward]

Thank you for taking a look at them but I was hoping that you would comment on what you saw in them. His_Nee made a post of Bullinger's view of Genesis 6, which were not the scriptures I had asked you to review. They were from Genesis 10, Deut, and Numbers.

The scriptures you have posted are scriptures to support your view which have been presented many, many times in these threads. I would like to study some other scriptures that have never been used that I can remember and some that have been.
Although I do have a view I am trying to set that aside in the favor of looking at the scriptures with an open mind.

So I asked one question in post # 323. agua gave his answer and I've been waiting to allow for other answers rather like a Bible study if you will.
If we can agree to what is in post 323 then we can move on, if not then there is no agreement to be found because it is the simplest of agreements.

Oh I'm sorry sister! Please forgive me. I did not answer your specific question.

So first we have established that it is the exact same word, H5303 - nephil, used in both Gen.6:4 and in Num. 13:33.

Do you agree?

Yes it is the same word. it takes us to the very same word in the Strongs. I agree.

 

[Edward]

Edward, I referred simply to present, current, today :
as in "are", not "will be" (very rare on earth, so few. almost no examples to point to, to show to edify and encourage and direct).
true, the physical 'body' we still wear, the earthy 'tent' is not the permanent one, we have to endure to the end,

Oh i see. Yes, as believers we are referred to as sons of God, but I do believe that is is in a spiritual sense because of the scripture in John where it says to as many as believed, to them he became the power to become the sons of God. So while we may be called sons of God in a spiritual sense, we have not become sons of God in a physical sense yet.

 

[Edward]

Thank you for taking a look at them but I was hoping that you would comment on what you saw in them. His_Nee made a post of Bullinger's view of Genesis 6, which were not the scriptures I had asked you to review. They were from Genesis 10, Deut, and Numbers.

The scriptures you have posted are scriptures to support your view which have been presented many, many times in these threads. I would like to study some other scriptures that have never been used that I can remember and some that have been.
Although I do have a view I am trying to set that aside in the favor of looking at the scriptures with an open mind.

So I asked one question in post # 323. agua gave his answer and I've been waiting to allow for other answers rather like a Bible study if you will.
If we can agree to what is in post 323 then we can move on, if not then there is no agreement to be found because it is the simplest of agreements.

I will comment on these scriptures sister. give me a few.

 

[Sparkey]

JLB,

This verse teaches us that angels are not begotten sons of God.
This verse does not teach that angels are not sons of God.

nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:36

Angels are sons of God, they are not begotten sons of God.

JLB

Thanks for your input to the conversation. I was trying to pin Edward down because he seems to have said that angels left their habitation (bodies) and who knows what, where to, or what was possible after that.

I didn't say that angels can not properly be termed 'Sons of God,' only that they are not the only ones qualified for that appellation. Your quote further establishes my point: that angels are not the only creatures that may be called 'Sons of God'. Let's read the whole passage with this in mind, shall we?

The Sadducees had questioned Jesus about the resurrection (believing that it would not happen). They tried to convince that there was no resurrection and gave their conundrum about the 7 brothers and their offspring to Jesus. But Jesus corrected them saying that the point they used to challenge him did not apply at all because:

Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Jesus clearly mentions non-angelic beings (those humans who are resurrected) and calls them 'sons of God'. My point is that those who insist that the term is limited and can only be applied to angels are wrong.

 

[Edward]

God: "One million years to me is a second."
Man: "What about one million dollars, my Lord?"
God: "A penny."
Man: "May my Lord give me a penny?"
God: "No problem, just a second."

Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Angels cannot fornicate nor reproduce with women. Angels are spirit beings:



Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? The question all but demands agreement.

brother, your first conclusion (with all due respect) is not backed up with scripture. How do you know this as a truth? Do you have knowledge and insight into the nature of spiritual beings and their capabilities that I do not possess? Enlighten me brother. I may have missed this scripture in the bible which revealed this to you.

Ministering spirits? as in Angels of God? Certainly. I agree there.

Edit: I'm answering your other post and questions as we speak brother. Give me a few.

 

[Sparkey]

brother, your first conclusion (with all due respect) is not backed up with scripture. How do you know this as a truth? Do you have knowledge and insight into the nature of spiritual beings and their capabilities that I do not possess? Enlighten me brother. I may have missed this scripture in the bible which revealed this to you.

Ministering spirits? as in Angels of God? Certainly. I agree there.

Edit: I'm answering your other post and questions as we speak brother. Give me a few.

No problem, I'll be happy to give you sufficient time to reply. You've quoted my post about word meanings and equivocation and mention my 'first conclusion'. What specifically do you call my first conclusion? Be patient with me because we are admittedly not on the same page.

My first conclusion is that we are speaking about a Scripture that is deemed 'difficult' and/or 'controversial' by many. While addressing such topics care must be used to maintain clear and consistent meanings for our terms. We can not say or imply that angels are humans. They are not. There are many differences. Angels do not die. They, as well as the body of believers who are resurrected (see the quote that JLB mentioned), are called 'sons of God'.

Please leave room for non-angelic beings to be included in your definition of the term. Jesus did.

 

[Sparkey]

Oh, it might be worthwhile for me to state again that I am not challenging your view in order to say it is heresy. It isn't. The thought that angels could have sex with humans is only speculation. Personally, I don't think it is worthy of lengthy discussion because others have tried to resolve their differences without any degree of success. This goes back to our very first conversation, remember? There are no Scriptures that I've found that may be used to dogmatically uphold either position.

 

[Edward]

Edward, I quoted your reply to Lewis W. Did I misquote? Here it is again:


You state that, "the fallen ones left their own habitation (bodies)... "
You then make the point that no one knows ... what, where to, or what was possible (after they left their bodies).

I don't see any ambiguity in your declaration. If you didn't mean to say that angels left their own bodies (habitation) you might consider a retraction or make your meaning more clear because it sounds like you said, "the fallenones left their own habitation (bodies)..."

Also we have a habit of poor communication because we disagree on our terms and word meanings again. I agree with the plain Scripture about 'the Sons of God' but maintain that angels are not the only ones who may be called this. You seem to have inserted an equality where "Sons of God = Angels" and "Angels = Sons of God" and insist that any thought other than yours is incorrect.



I will appreciate your effort to convince me that only angelic creatures may be termed 'Sons of God' but I don't see a convincing argument for your assumption.

I did state it. Scripture states that they left their own habitation, in Jude 1: 6

Jude 1: 6
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day./(KJV)

Angels were all created by God, yes? So this must be speaking of the fallen Angels, yes? Their first estate was most certainly Heaven. So they left their own "habitation". Going to the strongs, it takes us to:

G3613
οἰκητήριον
oikētērion
oy-kay-tay'-ree-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G3611 (equivalent to G3612); a residence (literally or figuratively): - habitation, house./(Strongs via e-sword)


This is not referring to Heaven. That would be "Estate"

G746
ἀρχή
archē
ar-khay'
From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule./(Strongs)

They kept not their first "Estate" (place of rank, beginning)...but left their own "habitation"...widely held to mean the dwelling place of the spirit, or body. They left their spiritual body. The NIV translates it thusly:

Jude 1:6 (NIV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day./(NIV)

In Romans, Paul tells us that when we receive Christ that we do receive the first fruits of the Spirit, yet we groan inwardly to receive the adoption of our bodies.

Romans 8:23 (KJV)
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body./

2 Corinthians 5: 1-4 (KJV)
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life./

This is it brother. The same habitation that the fallen Angels left, is the same one that we, as believers, aspire to be clothed upon with. This is the change that is coming for us in the twinkling of an eye. The new birth into our new glorified spiritual bodies. You with me? Do you concur?

As to what where to and what was possible? Your question takes us to Matthew

Matthew 22: 30-32
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living./

This speaks of the time period of after the Messiah comes back (the resurrection), and as the Angels of God in heaven...(in service to God, brother!) It makes no mention of the fallen angels, nor does it mention that Angels have not the plumbing that would be required to copulate with women. This is an honor and a loyalty thing. We will be living in our fathers house. You bet there will be rules! Think back to your youth brother, to live in your fathers house, you had to obey his rules. Most of us at least, wanted to shed the rules of our father at some point, so we could go do what we wanted to. It will be the same in heaven as pertaining to rules.

Let's revisit Jude for a moment. (What was possible of the fallen angels you asked)

Jude1: 6-7 (KJV)

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire./

This is speaking of the fallen angels, and plainly states that they gave themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh. So we do know from this that at least this was possible. Which supports Genesis 6 also.

Have a blessed day brother.

 

[Edward]

No problem, I'll be happy to give you sufficient time to reply. You've quoted my post about word meanings and equivocation and mention my 'first conclusion'. What specifically do you call my first conclusion? Be patient with me because we are admittedly not on the same page.

My first conclusion is that we are speaking about a Scripture that is deemed 'difficult' and/or 'controversial' by many. While addressing such topics care must be used to maintain clear and consistent meanings for our terms. We can not say or imply that angels are humans. They are not. There are many differences. Angels do not die. They, as well as the body of believers who are resurrected (see the quote that JLB mentioned), are called 'sons of God'.

Please leave room for non-angelic beings to be included in your definition of the term. Jesus did.

Ok brother.
I saw this statement of your as your 'first conclusion':

Angels cannot fornicate nor reproduce with women. Angels are spirit beings:

I believe the scripture from Jude 1:7 makes this clear that they can.

I refer you to post# 335 of mine, for your request to:

Please leave room for non-angelic beings to be included in your definition of the term. Jesus did.

As well as the scripture in Matthew 22 posted above.

I appreciate your kind words brother, and your attemp to be civil and not beat me like others have done in this thread, lol. You are well spoken, and this is a good discussion. You and Deborah are the examples to follow while pursuing a touchy subject. Bless you both.

 

[Deborah13]

I agree Nephilim is used in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33

agua. Edward

So from those two verses can we then say that the Nephilim were the sons of "the sons of God" per Genesis 6 AND the Nephilim were the sons of Anak per Numbers 13 ?

If so, then who was Anak? Doing a word search I found these scriptures referring to Anak.
Numbers 13:22, 28, 33 Deut 9:2 Joshua 15:13,14 11:22 and 21:11 Judges 1:20 in the KJV and the NASB

Doing another search for 'Anakim' the tribe of the Anaks I found these scriptures again in both the KJV and the NASB.
Deut. 1:28, 2:10,11,21

Num 13:22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
Jdg 1:10 And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron: (now the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba and they slew Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai.
Jos 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.

Num 13:28 only, surely the people which is dwelling in the land is strong; and the cities are fenced, very great; and also children of Anak we have seen there.
Num 13:29 Amalek is dwelling in the land of the south, and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite is dwelling in the hill country, and the Canaanite is dwelling by the sea, and by the side of the Jordan.'
Num 13:32 and they bring out an evil account of the land which they have spied unto the sons of Israel, saying, `The land into which we passed over to spy it, is a land eating up its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in its midst are men of stature;
Num 13:33 and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.'
stature
H4060 -
middâh
mid-daw'
Feminine of H4055; properly extension, that is, height or breadth; also a measure (including its standard); hence a portion (as measured) or a vestment; specifically tribute (as measured): - garment, measure (-ing, meteyard, piece, size, (great) stature, tribute, wide.

So from these scriptures I think it is clear that all the different tribes were of great size not just the Anak. We know that Og was an Amorite and Goliath was a Philistine.


Jos 15:13 And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron.
Jos 14:15 And the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.

Arba was the father of Anak. Who was Arba? This is it. There is no further information that I can find about the Anakims, that were identified as the Nephilim in Numbers 13.

So what about identifying the Nephilim as people with six fingers?
I can't find this in scripture anywhere pertaining to the Nephilim. Does anyone have scripture that says the Nephilim had these?

 

[Edward]

So what about identifying the Nephilim as people with six fingers?
I can't find this in scripture anywhere pertaining to the Nephilim. Does anyone have scripture that says the Nephilim had these?

2 Samuel 21:19-22 (KJV)
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.

22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants./

Like this one?

So from those two verses can we then say that the Nephilim were the sons of "the sons of God" per Genesis 6 AND the Nephilim were the sons of Anak per Numbers 13 ?

That makes sense to me.

 

[Deborah13]

2 Samuel 21:19-22 (KJV)
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.

22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants./

Like this one?



That makes sense to me.

Before we try to trace Goliath's heritage maybe you can answer this question quickly.
Was Goliath an Anakim?

 

[Sparkey]

I did state it. Scripture states that they left their own habitation, in Jude 1: 6

But nowhere does it say that angels were created with physical bodies, only that they left their own habitation, something they should not have done.

Angels were all created by God, yes? So this must be speaking of the fallen Angels, yes? Their first estate was most certainly Heaven. So they left their own "habitation". Going to the strongs, it takes us to:

G3613
οἰκητήριον
oikētērion
oy-kay-tay'-ree-on
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G3611 (equivalent to G3612); a residence (literally or figuratively): - habitation, house./(Strongs via e-sword)


This is not referring to Heaven. That would be "Estate"

Edward, just as we do not know what we shall be, but only know that we shall be like Him (Jesus) -- so also, we may not pretend to know all things about what our 'new habitation' is like. We are assured of somethings though, for instance, we will no longer be subject to death. Also, and perhaps more to the point, we will not marry. Our new habitation will not include sexual activity.

They kept not their first "Estate" (place of rank, beginning)...but left their own "habitation"...widely held to mean the dwelling place of the spirit, or body. They left their spiritual body. The NIV translates it thusly:

Jude 1:6 (NIV)
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day./(NIV)

I see. You have equated "habitation" to body. Okay. I don't see it that way.

Angels are spiritual beings. Not physical. Angels are an entirely different order of being than humans. Human beings do not become angels after they die. Angels will never become, and never were, human beings. God created the angels, just as He created humanity. The Bible nowhere states that angels are created in the image and likeness of God, as humans are (Genesis 1:26). Angels are spiritual beings that can, to a certain degree, take on physical form. Humans are primarily physical beings, but with a spiritual aspect.

In Romans, Paul tells us that when we receive Christ that we do receive the first fruits of the Spirit, yet we groan inwardly to receive the adoption of our bodies.
...

This is it brother. The same habitation that the fallen Angels left, is the same one that we, as believers, aspire to be clothed upon with. This is the change that is coming for us in the twinkling of an eye. The new birth into our new glorified spiritual bodies. You with me? Do you concur?

Men have seen the glorified body of Jesus (after His resurrection). Jesus came to Thomas and specifically showed his body to prove his resurrection. This does not mean that angels were created with bodies like as we. The second birth does not mean that we need to crawl back into the womb to be born again like Nicodemus asked. We are born again, promised new bodies and our rebirth happens here and now as we join ourselves and continue with Christ making Him to be our Lord in truth.

Let's revisit Jude for a moment. (What was possible of the fallen angels you asked)

Actually, I quoted your statement that nobody knows what could be possible. You declare that angels left their bodies and conclude: "so who knows what where to or what was possible after that."

Plus, keep in mind that the fallenones left their own habitation (bodies) so who knows what where to or what was possible after that.

Jude1: 6-7 (KJV)
...

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire./

This is speaking of the fallen angels, and plainly states that they gave themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh. So we do know from this that at least this was possible. Which supports Genesis 6 also.

Have a blessed day brother.

Jude gave a clear warning to MEN who gave themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh. His example is similar to other warnings that say that God is to be feared and that he did not withhold judgment but instead destroyed both Sodom and Gomorrah as well as other examples of His righteous judgment such as the flood.

[Jde 1:5 KJV] I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.​

Who was Jude admonishing? Men or angels?

[Jde 1:7 KJV] Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

Question: Who committed fornication and went after strange flesh?
Answer: Sodomites. Those men found in those cities and in the cities around them.

What was Jude talking about? He spoke of men "who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." He warned in no uncertain terms of men, certain men, that had crept in unawares.

 

[brother Paul]

Sons of God = Sons of Seth! Where?
Daughters of Adam = daughters of Cain! Where?

None of this is in the text...so where does it come from?

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings and welcome, brother Paul. To reply in kind:

Sons of God = Angels! (and can not possibly mean humans)
Where?

I think that both sides have made some assumptions. Neither have proven their thoughts to be the incontrovertible truth according to the Word of Truth. It's possible both ways. My opinion (for what it is worth) is that angels can not fornicate. They don't die. They don't marry. Others disagree.

You are correct when you sate that the verse cited does not mention Seth.

 

[Deborah13]

2 Samuel 21:19-22 (KJV)
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.

22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants./

Like this one?



That makes sense to me.

Thank you Edward, I do appreciate your direct responses!
agua. JLB

2Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
2Sa 21:21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him.
2Sa 21:22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
1Ch_20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

What I see here is that there was "a man" singular who had six fingers. This man is identified as being the son of a giant in Gath.
"These four were born to the giant in Gath". All were slain but only one is identified as having six fingers, correct?
H7498 - giant in these verses
Probably the same as H7497; giant; Rapha or Raphah, the name of two Israelites: - Rapha.
H7497
râphâ' râphâh
raw-faw', raw-faw'
From H7495 in the sense of invigorating; a giant: - giant, Rapha, Rephaim (-s). See also H1051.
1. giants, Rephaim
2. a tribe of giants

So the giants in these verses are not referred to, directly at least, the Nephilim but are spoken of as being Rephaim, correct?

So can we agree that there is one man mentioned with six fingers?
And can we agree that the 'giants' spoke of here are the Rephaim?