Nephilim

[Sparkey]

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)?

Well said.

Thank you.

 

[Sparkey]

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

I've not heard of any requirement that one person must have the same opinion as another in all things. If there is a difference in opinion can one say that this demands unbelief of the opposition without the inference that they themselves are infallible? What I have heard, and this from one who has earned tremendous respect and has authority to say it is, "Now we see through a glass, darkly."

Who here has never made a mistake? Let that one cast the first stone so that we may all may marvel at their self-proclaimed omniscience.

Even chess masters know when to work for a draw.

~Sparrow

 

[Deborah13]

I've not heard of any requirement that one person must have the same opinion as another in all things. If there is a difference in opinion can one say that this demands unbelief of the opposition without the inference that they themselves are infallible? What I have heard, and this from one who has earned tremendous respect and has authority to say it is, "Now we see through a glass, darkly."

Who here has never made a mistake? Let that one cast the first stone so that we may all may marvel at their self-proclaimed omniscience.

Even chess masters know when to work for a draw.

~Sparrow

"Even chess masters know when to work for a draw."

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

 

[stovebolts]

and some Angels are men... we can find scripture to support Son's of God as men, and Son's of God as Angelic beings.

But I asked, what does "Image" mean?
How can we see this "likeness".
How can we identify with it?

By the reasoning you put forth, you state:
Angels are only angelic beings.
Angels have the form of man
Angels are created in the image of God.

Your logic doesn't hold up. Being in the likeness is not the same as the image.
With that logic, God would look like man.
But we know that God is a spirit.
So, to say that Angels are created in the image of God because Angels look like men, is the same as saying that God looks like man because man was created in the image of God. This is simply... well, I think you get my point.

So let us try this again.
In the creation account, what does "Image" mean?




Ok, and Jacob had 12 sons... what's your point? Why use the offspring of the daughters of Lot?
And why does it feel as if you're dodging my questions?

JLB
I don't want to misunderstand your reasoning. Are you open, honest discussion?

 

[Sinthesis]

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

But I do believe what the bible states in Gen 6 & 7, I just don't agree with your interpretation.

The consequences of believing that our neighbors, whom we as Christians are to love as ourselves, could somehow be less beloved of God based solely on their supposed heredity, are ugly. God destroyed the world in flood because of moral iniquity, not genetic.

Gen 6:5¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heartwas only evil continually.

 

[stovebolts]

But I do believe what the bible states in Gen 6 & 7, I just don't agree with your interpretation.

The consequences of believing that our neighbors, whom we as Christians are to love as ourselves, could somehow be less beloved of God based solely on their supposed heredity, are ugly. God destroyed the world in flood because of moral iniquity, not genetic.

Gen 6:5¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heartwas only evil continually.

I agree and echo this sentiment.
But what I noticed in Genesis 6:5, was that mans wickedness was wrapped around his imagination... and it resulted in evil.
One could ask, "What is evil", and I believe people would say it's when people do terrible and hurtful things and to their point, I wouldn't disagree. However, evil takes on other personas and what one doesn't do, or fails to do can be as evil, sometimes more evil than what they actually did.

It's not so much as thinking there are modern day nephilim around us, but it's the lack of seeing humanity within every living soul on this earth. Funny, in school we called this stereotyping... and it can be very discriminating.

 

[JLB]

I've not heard of any requirement that one person must have the same opinion as another in all things. If there is a difference in opinion can one say that this demands unbelief of the opposition without the inference that they themselves are infallible? What I have heard, and this from one who has earned tremendous respect and has authority to say it is, "Now we see through a glass, darkly."

Who here has never made a mistake? Let that one cast the first stone so that we may all may marvel at their self-proclaimed omniscience.

Even chess masters know when to work for a draw.

~Sparrow

Sparrow,

Do you honestly believe that Godly men had relations with the daughters of men and there offspring were giants?

And that these Godly somehow survived the flood by hanging on to the Ark....

Is that what you believe ?

JLB

 

[JLB]

I agree and echo this sentiment.
But what I noticed in Genesis 6:5, was that mans wickedness was wrapped around his imagination... and it resulted in evil.
One could ask, "What is evil", and I believe people would say it's when people do terrible and hurtful things and to their point, I wouldn't disagree. However, evil takes on other personas and what one doesn't do, or fails to do can be as evil, sometimes more evil than what they actually did.

It's not so much as thinking there are modern day nephilim around us, but it's the lack of seeing humanity within every living soul on this earth. Funny, in school we called this stereotyping... and it can be very discriminating.

Evil is angels taking wives of the women and producing Giants, Nephilim.

That is why God flooded the earth.

JLB

 

[JLB]

I agree and echo this sentiment.
But what I noticed in Genesis 6:5, was that mans wickedness was wrapped around his imagination... and it resulted in evil.
One could ask, "What is evil", and I believe people would say it's when people do terrible and hurtful things and to their point, I wouldn't disagree. However, evil takes on other personas and what one doesn't do, or fails to do can be as evil, sometimes more evil than what they actually did.

It's not so much as thinking there are modern day nephilim around us, but it's the lack of seeing humanity within every living soul on this earth. Funny, in school we called this stereotyping... and it can be very discriminating.

Did you notice that The scriptures defined how the giants were produced.

The scriptures say the sons of God took wives of the daughters of men.

The scriptures say Nephilim were produced when the sons of a God came into the daughters of men.

Please don't disregard what the scriptures teach.

Please use scripture in your answers, not just your opinion.

JLB

 

[JLB]

But I do believe what the bible states in Gen 6 & 7, I just don't agree with your interpretation.

The consequences of believing that our neighbors, whom we as Christians are to love as ourselves, could somehow be less beloved of God based solely on their supposed heredity, are ugly. God destroyed the world in flood because of moral iniquity, not genetic.

Gen 6:5¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heartwas only evil continually.

Why did God decide to flood the earth and kill all the neighbors, whom the bible calls Nephilim.

These same giants were destroyed by the children of Israel.

God stopped the sun so they could in fact be killed.

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

Evil is angels taking wives of the women and producing Giants, Nephilim.

That is why God flooded the earth.

JLB

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

When I read the above passage, it reads to me as if man was so wicked, that he let his imagination get the better of him and the outcome was evil.
And what is evil? Evil is when one fails to do what is right and good.

I know you probably won't understand this concept, but stealing isn't evil.... Hear me out on this. Stealing is the absence of working for what you have and sharing it with others. The evil is in not sharing what you have, not what you take. Taking is wrong so we can be clear about that, but to not give when another is in need is evil. Evil is the failure to do the good you were created to do because when you fail to do the good God created you to do, evil is what fills that void.

Verses 6 and 7 read:
6. And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.ו. וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהֹוָה כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ:
7. And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

I don't read anything in any of these passages that say God flooded the earth because Angels had sex with women. Clearly, God regretted he had created man. A simple question that I know you won't answer, but if God saw the wickedness of the Nephlim, then why did he destroy man? Why not just wipe out the Nephilim? I mean, according to your reasoning, you say that the Nephilim survived the flood, but all men were destroyed except those on the arc. Why would God punish all of humanity for the actions of (as you say) fallen angels?

 

[stovebolts]

Did you notice that The scriptures defined how the giants were produced.

The scriptures say the sons of God took wives of the daughters of men.

The scriptures say Nephilim were produced when the sons of a God came into the daughters of men.

Please don't disregard what the scriptures teach.

Please use scripture in your answers, not just your opinion.

JLB

I am reading the same passages you are. Indeed, Nephilim were the product of sexual relations between sons of elohim (god) and daughters of men.

Where we disagree, is that sons of God were fallen angels. I contend that "sons of God" were "Sons of Nobles". Do some research and you'll see that every great King declared himself as God. Pharaoh declared himself God, as did many of the other Ancient Near Eastern kings. Even Cesar declared himself as God. Would you like me to find you sources to verify my claim or do you take me at my word? I can produce them with a simple google search if you feel the need for me to do so.

A simple lesson in history bears this out and a simple word search on god (elohim) bears this out. god (elohim) is not always God (elohim).

Simply put, son' of God doesn't have to be interpreted as son's of YHVH.

But to that point, God does declare Israel as his son... Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
How is Israel YHVH"s firstborn if sons of God came before Israel?

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow,

Do you honestly believe that Godly men had relations with the daughters of men and there offspring were giants?

And that these Godly somehow survived the flood by hanging on to the Ark....

Is that what you believe ?

JLB

Let's play a game. I'll try to illustrate what I mean.
It's a math game. I'll give you a series of three numbers and you can guess my rule.
I just played the game with my son on the phone and came right here to share it with you.
He told me his first three numbers were "2, 4, 8"
Then he asked me to continue by giving him one number at a time and he would say if my next number followed his rule or not.

I speculated that since the numbers doubled we would be guessing the powers of 2 and guessed 16? He said, "Yes, that follows my rule." I guessed, 32? and was right in that too.

2^1=2, 2^2=4, 2^3=8, 2^4=16. <---- I was on to something but he said, "You don't know my rule."

So I checked, "Would 3, 6, 9, 27, 81... follow your rule?" and he replied, "Yes"
I said, "How about 5, 25, 125..." or 10, 100, 1000, 10,000..." and he replied, "Yes they follow my rule," then he asked, "Would you like to guess my rule?"

I said, "Sure." Then I guessed "f(x)=a^x"

He said, "This is not my rule."

I said, "Sure it is. You might be saying it differently than I am because you don't know functions but you're talking about a rule that describes the powers of numbers."

"No, I'm not."

I got frustrated with him then. He was playing with me. Toying with me, it seemed. When he gave me another series of outputs "5,7,13" and I had to admit, I didn't know his rule. It seemed like he has arbitrarily changed his rule so now he was talking about prime numbers!

"That's not fair!", I said. I actually went as far as to say, "You're wrong!"

But when he told me his rule I understood that I had been "thinking inside a box of my own making" and had been striving to convince that I was right and not examining the possibility of me being wrong.

What was his rule?

Any child could tell you --> his rule is "Numbers got to get bigger," nothing more than that.

That's what I believe. It's okay to think outside of the "I must be right" box. One can actually collect more information when they try to prove themselves wrong.

If I was being very careful and actually checked what I said when I made a mistake while trying to list the powers of 3 as "3, 6, 9, 27, 81" --- I would have seen that my thought was wrong. The number 6 just didn't belong in there if my rule was correct. He gave me the right answer according to HIS rule, but I didn't notice.

Why is that?

 

[agua.]

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

Ta for the explanation Sparrow I think Solomon will agree with you. ^5 Brother. As you may have noticed I believe satan has his claws deep in this World but like you I want all people to come to Jesus.

I also know how difficult it is to remain neutral when I have a strong opinion. :D

 

[gr8grace3]

I am reading the same passages you are. Indeed, Nephilim were the product of sexual relations between sons of elohim (god) and daughters of men.

Where we disagree, is that sons of God were fallen angels. I contend that "sons of God" were "Sons of Nobles". Do some research and you'll see that every great King declared himself as God. Pharaoh declared himself God, as did many of the other Ancient Near Eastern kings. Even Cesar declared himself as God. Would you like me to find you sources to verify my claim or do you take me at my word? I can produce them with a simple google search if you feel the need for me to do so.

A simple lesson in history bears this out and a simple word search on god (elohim) bears this out. god (elohim) is not always God (elohim).

Simply put, son' of God doesn't have to be interpreted as son's of YHVH.

But to that point, God does declare Israel as his son... Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
How is Israel YHVH"s firstborn if sons of God came before Israel?

While pagan kings were referred to as sons of a foreign deity, no Israelite king was so designated. True, nobles and those in authority were occasionally called ‘gods,’ but not the ‘sons of God.’ This definition chooses to ignore the precise definition given by the Scriptures themselves.

 

[stovebolts]

While pagan kings were referred to as sons of a foreign deity, no Israelite king was so designated. True, nobles and those in authority were occasionally called ‘gods,’ but not the ‘sons of God.’ This definition chooses to ignore the precise definition given by the Scriptures themselves.

Israel was Gods first born son... thus, they are the son of YHVH. Jesus is the only begotten son of YHVH.
Sons of Nobles... Caesar considered himself a God aka deity. His offspring would be called sons of God.

Look in scripture and you will find that YHVH was the elohim above all elohim. So it is clear in scripture that other elohim are recognized... you shall have no other elohim besides me... its even noted in the 10 commandments...

 

[JLB]

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

When I read the above passage, it reads to me as if man was so wicked, that he let his imagination get the better of him and the outcome was evil.
And what is evil? Evil is when one fails to do what is right and good.

I know you probably won't understand this concept, but stealing isn't evil.... Hear me out on this. Stealing is the absence of working for what you have and sharing it with others. The evil is in not sharing what you have, not what you take. Taking is wrong so we can be clear about that, but to not give when another is in need is evil. Evil is the failure to do the good you were created to do because when you fail to do the good God created you to do, evil is what fills that void.

Verses 6 and 7 read:
6. And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.ו. וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהֹוָה כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ:
7. And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

I don't read anything in any of these passages that say God flooded the earth because Angels had sex with women. Clearly, God regretted he had created man. A simple question that I know you won't answer, but if God saw the wickedness of the Nephlim, then why did he destroy man? Why not just wipe out the Nephilim? I mean, according to your reasoning, you say that the Nephilim survived the flood, but all men were destroyed except those on the arc. Why would God punish all
of humanity for the actions of (as you say) fallen angels?

If read the context of the previous verse it might make more sense to you.

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. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6;4-5

Based on the text in Genesis 6, what is revealed is the wickedness and evil began when the Nephilim were born from the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

The wickedness of verse 5, was a result of the activity of verse 4.

Of course when you read verse 5 and 6 and 7, without the relevant context of the previous verses then one would tend to be confused.

Try to read the scripture in context and I think you will find a greater clarity of truth will be revealed to you.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Israel was Gods first born son... thus, they are the son of YHVH. Jesus is the only begotten son of YHVH.
Sons of Nobles... Caesar considered himself a God aka deity. His offspring would be called sons of God.

Look in scripture and you will find that YHVH was the elohim above all elohim. So it is clear in scripture that other elohim are recognized... you shall have no other elohim besides me... its even noted in the 10 commandments...

Israel was Gods first born son..

I disagree. The scripture says -

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

He is this verse is Jesus.


Jesus in the Old Testament is referred to as the Angel of the Lord.

He is the express Image of God.

Did you know God has wings?

Angels have wings to.

Jesus was referred to as The angel of The Lord. Angel is another word for messenger. A messenger brings a message or word.

Jesus is the Word of god. jesus is the message of God to all mankind.

Angels were created by God.

Angels were created by Jesus, He created all things.

Angels also are referred to as men in the bible.


JLB

 

[reba]

Exo_4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

 

[gr8grace3]

Israel was Gods first born son... thus, they are the son of YHVH. Jesus is the only begotten son of YHVH.
Sons of Nobles... Caesar considered himself a God aka deity. His offspring would be called sons of God.

Look in scripture and you will find that YHVH was the elohim above all elohim. So it is clear in scripture that other elohim are recognized... you shall have no other elohim besides me... its even noted in the 10 commandments...

I do like some true beliefs coming out from the other side on this and I thank you.

Just think about this for a second though, we have all these "stereo types" and "discrimination" accusations thrown at us for believing the angel theory.

These Nobles would have been human beings. Do you stereotype Nobles? Are you on the road of discriminating against Nobles? They were human you know? So you discriminate against true humans that are Noble? I know you do not, just showing how silly that argument is against us.