Nephilim

[th1b.taylor]

I'm sorry you're offended. I know I've offended you before, but here I just want to know what details someone else is willing to accept in order to hold on to an idea that can't be proven right or wrong, yet has troubling spiritual ramifications if promoted as the Christian truth.

But our model to follow is Jesus. In the Jewish Bible, Jesus did not fight useless fights, He opened the ground and swallowed some, rained Hell Fire and Brimstone on some but never in the Old or the New did He pick fights, He either killed them or He taught them.

We are not to kill them and that leaves teaching them. What you have done here is very much like the Radical Left Wing Profs. do in their class rooms to the Christians, so I ask, do you think this is what God wants from us? When I was first saved I did just as you are doing and my efforts bore "some" fruit but it was the fruit Bill Taylor bore, not the fruit of God. Since that time I have not been able to count the fruit God has born using me as His tool.

Hoping God blesses your efforts more than He did mine.

 

[Sinthesis]

But our model to follow is Jesus. In the Jewish Bible, Jesus did not fight useless fights, He opened the ground and swallowed some, rained Hell Fire and Brimstone on some but never in the Old or the New did He pick fights, He either killed them or He taught them.

We are not to kill them and that leaves teaching them. What you have done here is very much like the Radical Left Wing Profs. do in their class rooms to the Christians, so I ask, do you think this is what God wants from us? When I was first saved I did just as you are doing and my efforts bore "some" fruit but it was the fruit Bill Taylor bore, not the fruit of God. Since that time I have not been able to count the fruit God has born using me as His tool.

Hoping God blesses your efforts more than He did mine.

I don't consider these debates useless. There are real world destructive consequences to incorrect ideas promoted as Christian. Ultimately our beliefs reflect our faith which by its nature cannot be proved. However, alternatives to destructive beliefs should be presented for the sake of others.

 

[JLB]

Yet you are not talking about angels as the host of heaven, instead you are equating the sons of God with fallen angels, and angels only fall when they can no longer fly. Can you site any instance in the bible in which satan or his demons are able to fly? Yet, flying to wherever is not protection from a global flood, which is why Noah brought along birds.

Please provide scripture to show that demons can manifest as human. We know that spirits don't have flesh from Luke 24:39.

When were the fallen angels placed in chains? Is it recorded in the bible? If they are in chains then why are you still wary of nephilim?

Wrong!

I have said and will continue to say that the sons of God are angels.


JLB

 

[JLB]

I'm sorry you're offended. I know I've offended you before, but here I just want to know what details someone else is willing to accept in order to hold on to an idea that can't be proven right or wrong, yet has troubling spiritual ramifications if promoted as the Christian truth.

What would certainly be "troubling", is to promote the idea that the sons of God refers to Godly men, and that Godly men and women together would produce giants called nephilim.

That would be a serious stain on Christianity.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow this is interesting. Doctrines are formed based upon reasoned application of scripture. OSAS, the many rapture doctrines, etc. So far concerning the Nephilim there has been presented a line of reasoning and the scriptures which lend to this reasoning. So far in opposition to this the refutation is
Matthew 22:30 etc . and the inference from this that angels couldn't reproduce. So can you also say, in fairness, that anyone presenting the opposite view as fact is also a problem ?

Keep up the good work Brother !

No, actually I'm not trying to say that the presentation of a view makes the presenter a "problem". But instead, that problems may arise when we demand that our inferences are based on things we assume to be fact.

Your case in point regarding angels and the Matthew scripture. I have no problem with someone stating that it seems to say that they can not reproduce. It does seem that way (to some) but to categorically state that angels may not reproduce under any circumstance, does not give any credence to the other side whatsoever.

My point is one mans opinion is as worthy as the next. But neither opinion form a factual basis of truth. For this we need revelation from God.

I take "I'm not certain" positions on many things like "OSAS" and Eschatology doctrine because I can see both sides. Maybe what I'm saying is that while we are looking through a glass darkly, it's okay to say, "Hey, I don't think I see this as clearly as I'd like to."

~Sparrow

 

[King James]

These are all of the Bene Elohim sons of god in the bible.
Different source versions of Genesis 6:1-4 vary in their use of "sons of God". Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have emendations to read "sons of God" as "angels". Codex Vaticanus contains "angels" originally. In Codex Alexandrinus "sons of God" has been omitted and replaced by "angels".[23]
Genesis 6:2
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

Genesis 6:4
4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Job 1:6-7
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

Job 2:1-2
2 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

Job 38:7
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalms 29:1
Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings,[a]
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.
a. Psalm 29:1 Hebrew sons of God, or sons of might

Can anyone tell me that you can honestly call the sons of god in this quote in Job and Psalms are humans? They are the same sons of god in Genesis. These verses are the only sons of god like this in the bible translated from Bene Elohim. Please my friends lets keep in mind that the bible wasn't written in English.

 

[Deborah13]

We share what we believe the Lord has shownus and our interpretation of the Word. I don't believe that anyone is this discussion is deliberately trying to lead anyone astray or into false teachings.
Some people don't do well with debates for different reasons. Others can debate for hours on end.
Personally, I've learned more on this site then I ever learned in any one church. Some of it I have kept for my own but not all of it.

 

[jasoncran]

Can anyone tell me that you can honestly call the sons of god in this quote in Job and Psalms are humans? They are the same sons of god in Genesis. These verses are the only sons of god like this in the bible translated from Bene Elohim. Please my friends lets keep in mind that the bible wasn't written in English.

adam would be called bar elohim. therefore because we are from him we are ben elohim. see how that can be?

 

[reba]

Thread is reopened.....

 

[n2thelight]

Who were the "sons of God?".Fallen angels? Why would demons do such a thing?Were the demons attempting to pollute the human blood line to prevent the coming of the Messiah?Apparently the were a race of giants.
They were one of the primary reason for the great flood.

That would be correct,pollution of the bloodline.........

 

[digging]

If humans are able to change the DNA of creation why do we think it would be impossible for fallen angels to try the same thing?

Digging

 

[agua.]

No, actually I'm not trying to say that the presentation of a view makes the presenter a "problem". But instead, that problems may arise when we demand that our inferences are based on things we assume to be fact.

Your case in point regarding angels and the Matthew scripture. I have no problem with someone stating that it seems to say that they can not reproduce. It does seem that way (to some) but to categorically state that angels may not reproduce under any circumstance, does not give any credence to the other side whatsoever.

My point is one mans opinion is as worthy as the next. But neither opinion form a factual basis of truth. For this we need revelation from God.

I take "I'm not certain" positions on many things like "OSAS" and Eschatology doctrine because I can see both sides. Maybe what I'm saying is that while we are looking through a glass darkly, it's okay to say, "Hey, I don't think I see this as clearly as I'd like to."

~Sparrow

I also didn't mean that the problem was the person but reading back that's what I wrote lol. Opinions are fine as you say; we all have them and, like noses, some smell better than others. :D

I think in the case of the Nephilim the data points strongly towards angel hanky panky but the interesting thing for me is ramifications of believing this. Do you think there's anything which could cause harm from this doctrine aside from incorrect interpretation of scripture?

I agree it's best not to be overly dogmatic in most areas aside from the truth of the Gospel of Christ of course.

 

[Guap]

the word nephilim comes from the word, 'fall'. Literally, nephilim, are 'fallen ones'. What does that mean? There are a number of different interpretations.
The expression, 'son of' in the bible can be literal or it can be used metaphorically. Metaphorically it means, that you take on the characteristics of the thing of the person is said to be a son. For example, In Mark 3:17, James and John are called 'sons of thunder'. They aren't literally born from thunder, Jesus is saying they are like thunder - perhaps loud.
Does God have sons? He has Jesus. Jesus is the only one of a kind, son of God.
We are 'sons of God' when we follow Jesus, but not in the same sense. It is an adoptive sense. But it also means we should take on some of the characteristics of God.
In Gen 6, 'sons of God' are contrasted with 'daughters of man'. It is a bit strange to think that 'sons of God' are literally sons, being Jesus is really the only 'divine' son of God.
Are they angels? Perhaps, but it they are 'evil' angels, then they can't really be called 'sons of God', can they? Does God have 'evil children'?
To say that people are 'sons of God' might mean that they are godly people. This is contrasted with daughters of men ('fallen men'?). This is one interpretation.
Kings are also called 'sons of God' (Ps 2). This might be contrasted with ordinary men. This is another interpretation.
The real full interpretation of this passage is now lost. People can speculate. But how helpful is it? Does it bring anyone closer to Jesus? Isn't this the sort of thing Paul warned Timothy against (1 Tim 1:4)?

 

[Sinthesis]

Wrong!

I have said and will continue to say that the sons of God are angels.


JLB

I agree that the Sons of God are angels, but only in the sense that angels can be any messengers of God, and therefore may or may not be human. In this case I believe they are Godly human men who made the poor decision to take pagan wives, resulting in offspring who were raised in a way that left them 'ethically challenged', and who rejected the faith of their fathers in a world they dominated and completely corrupted. The flood wiped these ancient people out, but the same scenario occurred again much later in Canaan. However this time, instead of a flood, God judged the corrupted inhabitants of the promised land though the sword of the Israelites.

 

[Sinthesis]

What would certainly be "troubling", is to promote the idea that the sons of God refers to Godly men, and that Godly men and women together would produce giants called nephilim.

That would be a serious stain on Christianity.


JLB

The bible is full of examples of Godly men and less-than-Godly women producing troubled offspring who have fallen from the faith of their fathers. If one can accept that the word 'giant' can indicate power or significance (renown) as opposed to mere physical size, then they are free to realize the wickedness of the nephilim was described by their beliefs and behavior rather than any coincidentally abnormal physical characteristics. I don't believe inherited physical characteristics are valid indicators of one's relationship with God.

 

[agua.]

The bible is full of examples of Godly men and less-than-Godly women producing troubled offspring who have fallen from the faith of their fathers. If one can accept that the word 'giant' can indicate power or significance (renown) as opposed to mere physical size, then they are free to realize the wickedness of the nephilim was described by their beliefs and behavior rather than any coincidentally abnormal physical characteristics. I don't believe inherited physical characteristics are valid indicators of one's relationship with God.

Is it also possible to accept "giant" implies large physical stature ?

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.

 

[JLB]

The bible is full of examples of Godly men and less-than-Godly women producing troubled offspring who have fallen from the faith of their fathers. If one can accept that the word 'giant' can indicate power or significance (renown) as opposed to mere physical size, then they are free to realize the wickedness of the nephilim was described by their beliefs and behavior rather than any coincidentally abnormal physical characteristics. I don't believe inherited physical characteristics are valid indicators of one's relationship with God.

Then you don't believe what the bible states in Genesis 6 & 7.

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 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. 3 And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 4 There were giants 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 of renown. Genesis 6:1-4

• Men

• Daughters of men

• sons of God

• giants

Giants were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The sons of God did not drown in the flood because they were angels.

And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man... Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.
Genesis 7:21,23


The sons of God were angels.

Angels who had the ability to appear as men.

Just as the angels who were with the Lord when He visited Abraham, as they came down to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.


JLB

 

[JLB]

I agree that the Sons of God are angels, but only in the sense that angels can be any messengers of God, and therefore may or may not be human. In this case I believe they are Godly human men who made the poor decision to take pagan wives, resulting in offspring who were raised in a way that left them 'ethically challenged', and who rejected the faith of their fathers in a world they dominated and completely corrupted. The flood wiped these ancient people out, but the same scenario occurred again much later in Canaan. However this time, instead of a flood, God judged the corrupted inhabitants of the promised land though the sword of the Israelites.

These sons of God were angels that were unaffected by the flood.


That is why they eventually had to be confined in chains down in hell.


JLB

 

[reba]

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

 

[Sparkey]

I also didn't mean that the problem was the person but reading back that's what I wrote lol. Opinions are fine as you say; we all have them and, like noses, some smell better than others. :biggrin

I think in the case of the Nephilim the data points strongly towards angel hanky panky but the interesting thing for me is ramifications of believing this. Do you think there's anything which could cause harm from this doctrine aside from incorrect interpretation of scripture?

I agree it's best not to be overly dogmatic in most areas aside from the truth of the Gospel of Christ of course.

agua,

When I hear your question and consider your choice of asking me what I think -- it appears obvious that you are showing your interest in my opinion on the whole matter. It's a form of respect. You're asking me (and I appreciate that). The thing that I was in reference to, when I used the word "ramifications" comes from my first exposure to the teaching here on our forum. Prior to that, my only experience was that of scratching my head and wondering why we might have a policy that prohibits talking about something that was called "Serpent Seed" or "Dual-Seed."

A little background might be in order, you see, I'm not good at all this Apologetics stuff. Sure, I've studied the basics and since I've been a Moderator the exposure to the finer details has helped but I objected when I was asked to help in the forum as a Moderator in A&T due to my ignorance.

One of the things that happened after I spoke to a fellow moderator who held an opposing view (that of angels being able to procreate) was that I prayed. I asked the Lord to help me prove my side and failing that, to help me learn what He wanted me for me to know. So I then started reading about the subject and educating myself some. As I did that I continued to watch as the thread and discussion heated up. I had thought that it was a prohibited topic and others clarified for me that the subject of the Nephilim was not the same as the prohibited Serpent Seed doctrine because SS involves Eve. They may be similar but they are not the same. So I retired any official objection that I had. At the same time, it seemed that I should take a Berean approach and try to prove what was said.

I wasn't a participant and I did ask the person with the opposing view to stop taking to me about it because it's very, very difficult to persuade me against my will. I'm just stubborn like that. They honored my request and I continued to learn and to watch. What I saw was the debate get heated to the point that there was a falling out. People had polarized their views. These people are Christians but they let their disagreement go so far as to cause a break in their relationship, their fellowship was in danger. Now, that's nothing special about this particular subject. It can happen no matter what doctrinal difference is being discussed.

So, one of the "ramifications" that I see is what I call ---> "The forest and the TREE" where the tree becomes the center point and we fail to get the idea that God does search hearts and that he DOES want us to continue to strive for the Unity of the Faith and for the good of our brothers.

I know you already know, but that's the thought behind my prior statement.

Cordially,
Sparrow