Angels in heaven both fallen or unfallen are not incorporeal spirits

[GodsGrace]

The Scripture reveals a lot about angels, but it must be deduced just as many doctrines are also inferred from Scripture.

To me the scriptures are like a picture puzzle, each bit of information is a uniquely shaped piece. If one assembles the puzzle correctly, the true picture will be seen.

If the pieces are forced to fit together, the picture will be incorrect.

I agree with the above.
But I also know that God has not told us everything and we cannot interject our own ideas into scripture.

 

[Free]

Protestants continue to propagate Catholic error till this day, confusing disembodied spirits with angels still corporeal in the dimension of heaven:


The argument is a massive hasty generalization fallacy that lumps into one basket Angels still corporeal in heaven (Rev. 12:7-9) and the "spirits of demons" (Rev. 16:14) who wander the earth desperately seeking corporeality possessing insects (2Kings 1:2), animals and men (Lk. 8:27-32; Compare "nakedness" 2 Cor. 5:2-4).

Whenever Scripture depicts angels eating and drinking (Gen. 18:8) cognitive dissonance hides the revelation, the text is veiled by a theory angels materialize physical forms when entering our realm. That theory is a massive violation of Occam's razor, not a hint of its truth can be found in scripture. Rather than a change in corporeality, there is an "opening", some kind of vortex or portal one must step through to traverse the realms:








Although the angel of the LORD was cloaked with invisibility when He stepped into our realm to sit under a tree, nothing suggests a change in corporeality:


Angels war among themselves (Jdg. 5:20; Dan. 10:13, 20; Rev. 12:7), use weapons to kill (2 Chron. 32:21), (Num. 22:23) and fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21). Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do.

Our LORD sits in heaven in resurrected humanity (Heb. 8:1), how then can any Christian doubt one can be physical in heaven? Christ "stood in their midst" (John 20:19-20, 26-27) without passing through doors or walls like a spirit. To prove corporeality Christ commands they touch His body, declares He has flesh and bones and then even eats a fish (Luke 24:36-43). If Christ "materialized a physical form" He deceived them, it was not truly His hands nor the print of the nails (John 20:25-27). As Christ never deceives anyone, its possible to be physical in the TELEIOS "heavenly realm".

Yet, you have argued elsewhere:

'Its obvious YHWH wants to experience life as His creatures do, in verse 8 God manifest as a man eats food Abraham cooked for Him:

1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
4 "Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
5 "And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant." They said, "Do as you have said."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes."
7 And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it.
8 So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate.
(Gen. 18:1-8 NKJ)'

https://christianforums.net/threads/god-of-the-bible-is-not-all-loving.98799/page-7#post-1831607

You also stated similar HERE.

Additionally, you have argued:

'I don't believe it was symbolic, the pre-incarnate Christ aka "angel of the LORD" Jesus Christ wrestled with Jacob "as a man" so He had no physical advantage.'

https://christianforums.net/threads/jacob-wrestles-with-god.93112/#post-1709147

The point is, these other posts completely undermine your entire position as stated in this thread. You have stated that God, who is spirit, can manifest in a physical body and eat and drink and wrestle. Yet, you claim that angels must be corporeal on the very basis that they can eat and drink, which is something spirits cannot do.

You can't have it both ways. Either God necessarily has a body (supposedly) like angels, or angles don't necessarily have bodies and, in specific circumstances, either manifest physical forms themselves or God does it for them to accomplish his purposes (being his ministering spirits).

There is absolutely no need to go beyond that and start seeing spaceships and vehicles and talking about portals and vortexes. You have clearly violated your own argument to Occam's Razor by going beyond what Scripture states and making numerous baseless assumptions about angels and other things in Scripture. We should not be basing doctrine on speculation.

 

[Free]

Not really. Bible is sufficient, but not exhaustive, according to the bible itself:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. (Jn. 21:25)

My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother; (Prov. 1:8)

“Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:30-31)

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not going to discuss this further.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Jesus never taught that, he taught that "angels of God in heaven" don't marry, both good and evil ones. You inserted "good" in it. Just because the evil ones overstepped their proper domain doesn't mean they were suddenly able to marry and reproduce.

That is the clear teaching in these verses, angels took human wives = strange flesh, for immoral acts:


that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. (Gen. 6:2 NKJ)

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
(Jude 1:6-7 NKJ)

 

[Alfred Persson]

"Sons of Anak" are the same kind of giants went by another name. Moses sent the twelve spies to gather intel from the land of Canaan, they all spotted these giants. We wouldn't have known what "Nephilim" means if not for the reports from these spies. That's the "afterwards" in Gen. 6:4, which clearly indicated that such "Nephilim" would still hang around after the Flood.

Incorrect, the text specifies what happened after the Nephilim fallen angels appeared:

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-- and also afterward-- when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Gen. 6:4 NIV)

Genesis 7:21-23 emphatically states "every living thing" on land perished, which would include the Nephilim. So what are we to make of Deuteronomy 13:33 "the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim"?

32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.
33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Num. 13:32-33 NIV)

If the Nephilim survived the flood it contradicts Genesis. But perhaps the writer is explaining the argument cowardly spies made, that it was an exaggeration.

It is described as a "bad report" which Caleb disagreed with. He later expelled these alleged Nephilim, so the claim they were unbeatable was a lie (Judge 1:20). Moreover, the children from the tribe of Anak were descendants of Arba "the greatest MAN among the Anakim" (Joshua 14:15).

I maintain scripture never contradicts itself, therefore I interpret the spies were exaggerating the size of the men, just as they did the cities "with walls up to the sky" (Deut. 1:28).

They were big and feared by all but still men, not Nephilim.

The Land of Promise was a good land, a gracious gift of the Lord. By speaking evil concerning the land, the faithless spies were speaking evil of him. At this point their words became exaggerations and distortions. The Anakites (who were of large size) were now said to be Nephilim, the race of giants described briefly in the mysterious context of the cohabitation of the sons of God and the daughters of men (Gen 6:4). The use of the term Nephilim seems to be deliberately provocative of fear, a term not unlike the concept of bogeymen and hobgoblins. The exaggeration of the faithless led them to their final folly: “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
We have noted the possible use of rhetorical exaggeration, hyperbole, in the numbers of the tribes of Israel—power numbers to bring encouragement to the nation in the confidence they must have in the fulfillment of the promises of God (see Introduction, sections on large numbers). In the report of the evil spies, we see that rhetorical exaggeration can work both ways. By describing themselves as mere grasshoppers in the sight of the fabulous Nephilim, they frightened the sandals off the people and led a nation to grievous sin of unbelief against their caring God.-Allen, R. B. (1990). Numbers. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Vol. 2, p. 812). Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I agree with the above.
But I also know that God has not told us everything and we cannot interject our own ideas into scripture.

There is a difference between "injecting our own ideas" and making elementary deductions. For example, if I saw you in a car, I could deduce you opened the door and sat down in it. I wouldn't be "injecting my ideas" into the context.

Scripture often "implies" truth expecting readers will "get it" without expressly stating the premise. For example:

44 `The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool "'?
45 "If David then calls Him`Lord,' how is He his Son?"
46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. (Matt. 22:44-46 NKJ)

The implication is the Messiah is more than human descendent of David. But that must be deduced, its not stated.

If anyone can show where a deduction of mine was "injecting my ideas into the text", I would repent. I love scripture, not my ideas about scripture.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Yet, you have argued elsewhere:

'Its obvious YHWH wants to experience life as His creatures do, in verse 8 God manifest as a man eats food Abraham cooked for Him:

1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
4 "Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
5 "And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant." They said, "Do as you have said."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes."
7 And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it.
8 So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate.
(Gen. 18:1-8 NKJ)'

https://christianforums.net/threads/god-of-the-bible-is-not-all-loving.98799/page-7#post-1831607

You also stated similar HERE.

Additionally, you have argued:

'I don't believe it was symbolic, the pre-incarnate Christ aka "angel of the LORD" Jesus Christ wrestled with Jacob "as a man" so He had no physical advantage.'

https://christianforums.net/threads/jacob-wrestles-with-god.93112/#post-1709147

The point is, these other posts completely undermine your entire position as stated in this thread. You have stated that God, who is spirit, can manifest in a physical body and eat and drink and wrestle. Yet, you claim that angels must be corporeal on the very basis that they can eat and drink, which is something spirits cannot do.

You can't have it both ways. Either God necessarily has a body (supposedly) like angels, or angles don't necessarily have bodies and, in specific circumstances, either manifest physical forms themselves or God does it for them to accomplish his purposes (being his ministering spirits).

There is absolutely no need to go beyond that and start seeing spaceships and vehicles and talking about portals and vortexes. You have clearly violated your own argument to Occam's Razor by going beyond what Scripture states and making numerous baseless assumptions about angels and other things in Scripture. We should not be basing doctrine on speculation.

Your objection ignores I never liken God to angels. With God anything is possible, not so with angels.

"To whom then will you liken Me, Or to whom shall I be equal?" says the Holy One. (Isa. 40:25 NKJ)

"To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? (Isa. 46:5 NKJ)

God can create bodies for a theophany, angels cannot. It requires creative power to "make alive", something God alone has:

39 `Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; (Deut. 32:39 NKJ)

One of those men was Yahweh the Son, the other two were angels.

So it was our preincarnate LORD Jesus who wrestled with Jacob. Not an angel.

24 Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day.
25 Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob's hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him.
26 And He said, "Let Me go, for the day breaks." But he said, "I will not let You go unless You bless me!"
27 So He said to him, "What is your name?" He said, "Jacob."
28 And He said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed."
29 Then Jacob asked, saying, "Tell me Your name, I pray." And He said, "Why is it that you ask about My name?" And He blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:24-30 NKJ)

 

[GodsGrace]

There is a difference between "injecting our own ideas" and making elementary deductions. For example, if I saw you in a car, I could deduce you opened the door and sat down in it. I wouldn't be "injecting my ideas" into the context.

Scripture often "implies" truth expecting readers will "get it" without expressly stating the premise. For example:

44 `The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool "'?
45 "If David then calls Him`Lord,' how is He his Son?"
46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. (Matt. 22:44-46 NKJ)

The implication is the Messiah is more than human descendent of David. But that must be deduced, its not stated.

If anyone can show where a deduction of mine was "injecting my ideas into the text", I would repent. I love scripture, not my ideas about scripture.

It is known that Jesus is a relative of David.
He had to come from the line of the Davidic Kingdom.

Angels are messengers.
Angels could look human, as in Genesis - different places.
Angels, as far as I know, do not have a gender.
There is no marriage in heaven.

I don't know what the sons of God that married the daughters of men could possibly be.
It's conjecture. We cannot know for sure.

If you want to discuss this, it's fine with me.
I really cannot remember if I was even referring to a specific belief or just making a general comment.

It IS incorrect to inject our own beliefs into any scripture (that cannot be demonstrated to be true).

 

[Alfred Persson]

It is known that Jesus is a relative of David.
He had to come from the line of the Davidic Kingdom.

Angels are messengers.
Angels could look human, as in Genesis - different places.
Angels, as far as I know, do not have a gender.
There is no marriage in heaven.

I don't know what the sons of God that married the daughters of men could possibly be.
It's conjecture. We cannot know for sure.

If you want to discuss this, it's fine with me.
I really cannot remember if I was even referring to a specific belief or just making a general comment.

It IS incorrect to inject our own beliefs into any scripture (that cannot be demonstrated to be true).

If you want to discuss it, reply to the OP. I stated why I believe angels are physical like humans, resembling us enough so they can pass for human and we wouldn't know it:

Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels. (Heb. 13:2 NKJ)

I did a thorough study of Genesis 6:1ff and conclude the Nephilim were Satan's angels he cast to the earth after Adam and Eve fell, during his "war on the woman's seed". He doesn't know the future, so he would assume the Messiah would come soon after Adam's sin:

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." (Gen. 3:14-15 NKJ)

So Satan cast fallen angels (Nephilim) down to the earth, to corrupt mankind. The "sons of God" or "watchers" were sent to counter their evil work among men, but then were seduced to commit sin with human wives (Gen. 6:1-4).

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads.
4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. (Rev. 12:3-4 NKJ)

Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Gen. 6:9), not defiled with angelic DNA so his descendants could sire the Messiah in truly human flesh (Lk. 3:23-38).

But the same is not said for all those with Noah, a wife of one of his sons evidently had some angelic DNA giving rise to giants after the flood killed all the Nephilim.

 

[Free]

Your objection ignores I never liken God to angels. With God anything is possible, not so with angels.

"To whom then will you liken Me, Or to whom shall I be equal?" says the Holy One. (Isa. 40:25 NKJ)

"To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? (Isa. 46:5 NKJ)

God can create bodies for a theophany, angels cannot. It requires creative power to "make alive", something God alone has:

39 `Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; (Deut. 32:39 NKJ)

First, it's another assumption that God hasn't given the angels the ability to appear in human form. Second, you seemed to have missed my point that God could give angels human form as necessary to accomplish his work, being that they're his ministering spirits. And, yes, Heb 1:14 does mean that angels are spirits.

One of those men was Yahweh the Son, the other two were angels.


So it was our preincarnate LORD Jesus who wrestled with Jacob. Not an angel.

Yes, that was my point.

Occam's Razor, then, would suggest that either God has given angels the ability to appear in human form as necessary for accomplishing the work he sends them to do, or he does it for them. There is absolutely no need to go any further than that.

 

[Alfred Persson]

First, it's another assumption that God hasn't given the angels the ability to appear in human form. Second, you seemed to have missed my point that God could give angels human form as necessary to accomplish his work, being that they're his ministering spirits. And, yes, Heb 1:14 does mean that angels are spirits.


Yes, that was my point.

Occam's Razor, then, would suggest that either God has given angels the ability to appear in human form as necessary for accomplishing the work he sends them to do, or he does it for them. There is absolutely no need to go any further than that.

I would love to interact with you on this, but my arguments are dismissed without any proof. So, there isn't anything to discuss, until you change that tactic. You are entitled to your beliefs, even though I documented they contradict scripture.

 

[Free]

I would love to interact with you on this, but my arguments are dismissed without any proof. So, there isn't anything to discuss, until you change that tactic. You are entitled to your beliefs, even though I documented they contradict scripture.

The problem is, you haven't actually given any proof, either in support or to show contradiction. You've given opinion based on assumptions that go beyond what the Bible says. That isn't proof and that isn't how proper exegesis is done.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The problem is, you haven't actually given any proof, either in support or to show contradiction. You've given opinion based on assumptions that go beyond what the Bible says. That isn't proof and that isn't how proper exegesis is done.

Scriptures were cited for every statement, every claim I made. You ignore them, call my claims assumptions. Dismiss them without exegesis of the scripture upon which I support my claim.

If my exegesis is flawed, prove it by superior exegesis. But you do not. You claim I made assumptions, and then state your belief as fact.

You have every right to do that, but it ends any real discussion of this subject.

 

[Free]

Scriptures were cited for every statement, every claim I made. You ignore them, call my claims assumptions. Dismiss them without exegesis of the scripture upon which I support my claim.

If my exegesis is flawed, prove it by superior exegesis. But you do not. You claim I made assumptions, and then state your belief as fact.

Anyone can cite Scripture, but it doesn't mean that they know what is stated or that a given belief is supported. I didn't dismiss them without exegesis. You are the one who has made many assumptions that simply aren't supported by the passages cited. The exegesis on my part is that there was eisegesis on your part.

Working through your OP:

Unsupported assumption: "Angels still corporeal in heaven."

Unsupported assumption: "Rather than a change in corporeality, there is an "opening", some kind of vortex or portal one must step through to traverse the realms."

Unsupported assumption: "Although the angel of the LORD was cloaked with invisibility when He stepped into our realm to sit under a tree, nothing suggests a change in corporeality."

Unsupported assumption: "Angels . . . fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21)."

Unsupported assumption: "Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do."

Unsupported assumption: "New Jerusalem . . . No doubt Angels built it (Rev. 21:10-27)"

Argument from silence (generally not a good way to argue): "Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry (Mat. 22:30), He did not say disobedient angels on earth can't marry."

Heb 1:14 is an explicit statement that angels are spirits, whose purpose is "to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation." The point is, having just stated that the Father never said to any angel, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet," that angels are inferior to the Son who is co-creator and redeemer.

Unsupported assumption: 'Paul as a "Pharisee the son of a Pharisee" believed "spirits" and "angels" are different entities (Acts. 23:6-7).'

Unsupported assumption: '"Spirits of Demons" implies these formerly corporeal spirits are now disembodied:'


You simply haven't given one verse which supports any of these assumptions. This is a dangerous way to try and understand Scripture. Please, for your sake, stick to accepted principles of hermeneutics.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Anyone can cite Scripture, but it doesn't mean that they know what is stated or that a given belief is supported. I didn't dismiss them without exegesis. You are the one who has made many assumptions that simply aren't supported by the passages cited. The exegesis on my part is that there was eisegesis on your part.

Working through your OP:

Unsupported assumption: "Angels still corporeal in heaven."

Unsupported assumption: "Rather than a change in corporeality, there is an "opening", some kind of vortex or portal one must step through to traverse the realms."

Unsupported assumption: "Although the angel of the LORD was cloaked with invisibility when He stepped into our realm to sit under a tree, nothing suggests a change in corporeality."

Unsupported assumption: "Angels . . . fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21)."

Unsupported assumption: "Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do."

Unsupported assumption: "New Jerusalem . . . No doubt Angels built it (Rev. 21:10-27)"

Argument from silence (generally not a good way to argue): "Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry (Mat. 22:30), He did not say disobedient angels on earth can't marry."

Heb 1:14 is an explicit statement that angels are spirits, whose purpose is "to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation." The point is, having just stated that the Father never said to any angel, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet," that angels are inferior to the Son who is co-creator and redeemer.

Unsupported assumption: 'Paul as a "Pharisee the son of a Pharisee" believed "spirits" and "angels" are different entities (Acts. 23:6-7).'

Unsupported assumption: '"Spirits of Demons" implies these formerly corporeal spirits are now disembodied:'


You simply haven't given one verse which supports any of these assumptions. This is a dangerous way to try and understand Scripture. Please, for your sake, stick to accepted principles of hermeneutics.

I will reply to all you say here, later. But notice, your claim I made "unsupported assumption" isn't backed by exegesis. Exegesis is citing the scripture, expositing the word(s) and idea in context, that supports your assumption, and proves mine wrong.

Just saying its unsupported is NOT exegesis.

But I will reply in full, later. Perhaps you will expand on your reply, to include exegesis of scripture.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is the clear teaching in these verses, angels took human wives = strange flesh, for immoral acts:

That’s your own opinion, contrary to Jesus’s clear teaching that angels DO NOT marry.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It is described as a "bad report" which Caleb disagreed with. He later expelled these alleged Nephilim, so the claim they were unbeatable was a lie (Judge 1:20). Moreover, the children from the tribe of Anak were descendants of Arba "the greatest MAN among the Anakim" (Joshua 14:15).

“Bad report” is not false report, those ten spies didn’t lie, their fault was assessing the situation from a coward’s perspective and giving their unsolicited advice, causing panic and despair. All twelve spies saw Nephilim, not just “allegedly”. Later they battled with them. Goliath was a Nephilim.

 

[Free]

I will reply to all you say here, later. But notice, your claim I made "unsupported assumption" isn't backed by exegesis. Exegesis is citing the scripture, expositing the word(s) and idea in context, that supports your assumption, and proves mine wrong.

Just saying its unsupported is NOT exegesis.

But I will reply in full, later. Perhaps you will expand on your reply, to include exegesis of scripture.

With all due respect, I would address any exegesis you did, if you had done any. Exegesis is not merely citing scripture that one thinks agrees with one's beliefs. Exegesis is critical analysis or interpretation of a text, which you didn't do. It requires a lot of depth by deep searching, study, and proper application of hermeneutics.

And while exegesis can and should bring out further meaning, it should be deeper meaning, and not bringing out meanings that contradict anything else or are beyond what is stated, such as talking about ships, vehicles, portals, and vortexes. Even if those things were true, there is absolutely no way from the texts to even know they were true. That's a red flag that strongly suggests eisegesis.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Genesis 7:21-23 emphatically states "every living thing" on land perished, which would include the Nephilim. So what are we to make of Deuteronomy 13:33 "the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim"?

Either the “sons of God” did it again, or the Nephilim genome was preserved and carried through the Canaanite bloodline. As I said, “Nephilim” itself simply means “fallen ones”, that means nothing, it was linked to these sons of Anak and translated as giants only because of these later references.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Incorrect, the text specifies what happened after the Nephilim fallen angels appeared:

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-- and also afterward-- when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Gen. 6:4 NIV)

No, Nephilim appeared BOTH in those days AND afterward, i.e. BEFORE the Flood and AFTER the Flood. These Nephilim are the seeds of the serpent in enmity with the Seed of the woman.