Nephilim

[reba]

JLB you post this passage,or one like it very often

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Are you expecting giants to be born that are part angel? Before the return of the Lord?

 

[JLB]

I quoted this from post 319. Perhaps you didn't think I read it's duplicate copy from you previous post 304?

But thank you for affirming that my position in this argument is correct. Here, I will post it for you a third time, just to make sure you get a chance to read it, you know.. just in case you missed it the other two times.

In Genesis 6, the term "sons of god" is used. In Job 1, the same term "sons of god" is used.
Because "sons of God" is accepted as being angels in Job 1, then this term must be interpreted as angels in Genesis 6.

This is where your argument hinges and without this link, your reasoning fails.

Now then, I have asked you many questions on the reasoning that surrounds your assertion. Many of them which remained unanswered. I also tried to answer your questions.

Do you have any questions on my reasoning of "sons of nobles".. Please be specific.

Please post all the scriptures from the Old Testament that contain the phrase "sons of God".

I will discuss those scriptures with you.

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

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.

Let me clarify, just in case you misunderstood me. I don't have a problem saying that people discriminate when they look at somebody who is big and get the thought in their mind that they are modern day Nephilim. I don't have a problem saying it's discrimination, because it is. If we look down on anyone because of their color, sex, height or any other physical attribute, that's discrimination.

Do we stereotype against Hitler, or do we simply say he did wicked things? You know, even Hitler believed he was "special" if you get behind his religious ideology. Study it out, you may be surprised to see how Hitler viewed himself as far as his spiritual position. Anyway, saying Hitler did wicked things is not stereotyping anymore than saying that the sons of the nobles did wicked things. Did you know that Samuel's sons did wicked things? Is scripture stereotyping the sons of the prophets? I don't think so.

Questions?

Edit: gr8grace3

Sorry, I was going to add. Do some research on Nero and how he viewed himself. Did you know they called him "the beast" because he would take young boys, have sex with them, and then mutilate them. Amazing what people think and do when they view themselves as gods...

 

[stovebolts]

Please post all the scriptures from the Old Testament that contain the phrase "sons of God".

I will discuss those scriptures with you.

JLB

You already know both of them. They are listed in Genesis and Job.

You maintain that since sons of God in Job are angels, then sons of god in Genesis are angels.

You do this by asserting or assuming that god, which is elohim in the Hebrew language points to YHVH (The LORD) in both passages.

Do you believe Elohim always points to YHVH? Or can Elohim point to something else?

 

[Sparkey]

"And they took them wives of all whom they chose."

The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. "Whom they chose," not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks.

[Quoted from Barnes' Notes on the Bible]

This same evil is happening today.

 

[JLB]

JLB you post this passage,or one like it very often

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Are you expecting giants to be born that are part angel? Before the return of the Lord?

43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. Daniel 2:43

JLB

 

[JLB]

You already know both of them. They are listed in Genesis and Job.

You maintain that since sons of God in Job are angels, then sons of god in Genesis are angels.

You do this by asserting or assuming that god, which is elohim in the Hebrew language points to YHVH (The LORD) in both passages.

Do you believe Elohim always points to YHVH? Or can Elohim point to something else?

You maintain that since sons of God in Job are angels, then sons of god in Genesis are angels.

I maintain that the sons of God in Genesis 6, are the same sons of God in Job, as my post indicates the context and language to support this.

Please show me from Genesis 5, where their was any Giants produced from the offspring of men.

Genesis 6 sets the precedent.

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. Daniel 2:43

JLB

This is simply saying that two nations will join, but they will not "cleave" because they do not have the same social structure.

To put it more simply, we have two kingdoms. One kingdom is denoted as clay while the other kingdom is denoted by iron. These two kingdoms will come together and the people will intermarry and have children, but the two nations will not stay together.

There is one race, and that is the human race. Thus, there is only one seed of man regardless of which identity (nation) it represents.

 

[JLB]

"And they took them wives of all whom they chose."

The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. "Whom they chose," not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks.

[Quoted from Barnes' Notes on the Bible]

This same evil is happening today.

Were all the lineage from Adam to Noah godly?

Was Cain godly. Did Cain produce Nephilim.

And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son--Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech. 19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
Genesis 4:17-22

Sorry Sparrow, the precedent is set in Genesis 6.

Giants came from the sons of God and the daughters of men.

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

You maintain that since sons of God in Job are angels, then sons of god in Genesis are angels.

I maintain that the sons of God in Genesis 6, are the same sons of God in Job, as my post indicates the context and language to support this.

Please show me from Genesis 5, where their was any Giants produced from the offspring of men.

Genesis 6 sets the precedent.

JLB

Genesis 5 is a genealogical list and it follows suit to the pattern of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. this pattern also repeats itself in many of the writing of Moses and can be clearly seen in two known locations in Shemot (Exodus). Thus, these are the names... because Exodus is a book of names. But let's not get side tracked.

I believe your reasoning that since Genesis 5 is a genealogical list that does not include "sons of god" validates sons of God as "Angels" because the language supports "daughters of men" is flawed and shows a lack of understanding how a Jewish mind reasons and articulates.

From the time of Adam's transgression, humanity was on a crash course getting further and further and further from the Garden and big things were going to change in the days of Noah.

Now then, Nephilim is translated giants, but it means, "Those who fell" and "Those who caused others to fall" in the original Hebrew and if you don't have a good lexicon, I'm sure you can find one online. To cause others to fall, one has to have authority or reputation that others would follow you to the pits of hell. Hitler was a man people were willing to follow, and Hitler caused lots of good men to fall into his line of reasoning and thinking. Now then, just think if Hitler was successful and had children that grew up worse than him? How much sway on the population would they have? We call this systemic sin and basically, it's corruption from the top down. Noah was a remnant (bolded for theological insite) of those who remained loyal to YHVH as recorded in Genesis 5 and told about in earlier chapters.

You have not shown me that Elohim is an exclusive pointer to YHVH (The Lord) as you assert and assum.
Now, can you show me that Nephilim does not mean "Those who fell" and "Those who caused others to fall"

If Elohim can point to entities other than YHVH, then Elohim can point to nobles who viewed themselves and were referred to as gods.
If Nephilim means, "Those who fell and causes others to fall", then Nephilim doesn't have to mean the offspring of angels and women...

 

[JLB]

Genesis 5 is a genealogical list and it follows suit to the pattern of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. this pattern also repeats itself in many of the writing of Moses and can be clearly seen in two known locations in Shemot (Exodus). Thus, these are the names... because Exodus is a book of names. But let's not get side tracked.

I believe your reasoning that since Genesis 5 is a genealogical list that does not include "sons of god" validates sons of God as "Angels" because the language supports "daughters of men" is flawed and shows a lack of understanding how a Jewish mind reasons and articulates.

From the time of Adam's transgression, humanity was on a crash course getting further and further and further from the Garden and big things were going to change in the days of Noah.

Now then, Nephilim is translated giants, but it means, "Those who fell" and "Those who caused others to fall" in the original Hebrew and if you don't have a good lexicon, I'm sure you can find one online. To cause others to fall, one has to have authority or reputation that others would follow you to the pits of hell. Hitler was a man people were willing to follow, and Hitler caused lots of good men to fall into his line of reasoning and thinking. Now then, just think if Hitler was successful and had children that grew up worse than him? How much sway on the population would they have? We call this systemic sin and basically, it's corruption from the top down. Noah was a remnant (bolded for theological insite) of those who remained loyal to YHVH as recorded in Genesis 5 and told about in earlier chapters.

You have not shown me that Elohim is an exclusive pointer to YHVH (The Lord) as you assert and assum.
Now, can you show me that Nephilim does not mean "Those who fell" and "Those who caused others to fall"

If Elohim can point to entities other than YHVH, then Elohim can point to nobles who viewed themselves and were referred to as gods.
If Nephilim means, "Those who fell and causes others to fall", then Nephilim doesn't have to mean the offspring of angels and women...

Genesis 5 does not refer to or mention the word Giants [Nephilim].

Giants do not appear until Genesis 6.

Giants are unique, in that they were produced from a union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

If you can show from the scriptures prior to Genesis 6 where there were Giants produced from the union of men and the daughters of men, then you may have a precedent, otherwise, you are wasting your breath.

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

Genesis 5 does not refer to or mention the word Giants [Nephilim].

Giants do not appear until Genesis 6.

Giants are unique, in that they were produced from a union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

If you can show from the scriptures prior to Genesis 6 where there were Giants produced from the union of men and the daughters of men, then you may have a precedent, otherwise, you are wasting your breath.

JLB

Oh, I'm not wasting my breath. I'm giving my fingers a small workout, but I'm not wasting my breath. Actually, I find this conversation amusing and I'm rather enjoying myself Your like a ball of yarn, and I'm just toying with it as it unravels lol!

What I find most hysterical is how you dodge my questions and how you are are unable to directly refute my position. It only affirms to me how limited your understanding is, otherwise you could refute where you thought my reasoning was in error. But you simply restate your position, unwilling to engage my reasoning, but only affirming yours.

For example: Stovebolts, Nephilim doesnt' mean, "Those who fell and caused others to fall", and this is why.
Or another example: Stovebolts, Elohim points to YHVH in this instance because xy and z.

But you can't refute those two points, and I just kinda think how you dodge those two questions is, well, kinda funny. :woot

 

[stovebolts]

If you can show from the scriptures prior to Genesis 6 where there were Giants produced from the union of men and the daughters of men, then you may have a precedent,

This shows a lack of understanding how the narrative is laid out. After the transgression of Adam, things headed east and kept getting further and further from how God created humanity to live. We see Adam disobeying God, and then we see his son murder his brother. This was only the beginning. You see, Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, was just the start to man's quick decline from the time Cain killed his brother. And what is it to go out from the presence of the Lord? Is it not to go about things ones own way?

But there was a remnant: Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

So we see that there are two "types". Those who call upon the name of the Lord, and those that don't. Pretty simple huh?

Do me the legwork would ya? Tell me, how many people in chapter 4 are listed in chapter 5?

Lets move this theme to chapter 6. We have two lines. One line who goes out from the presence of the LORD, and a remnant who continues to call upon the name of the LORD. Guess which line Noah is on? Guess which line was wicked?

You see, those who were wicked were not unlike others that followed post flood. When one goes out from the presence of God, they become gods to themselves, even convincing others that they themselves are a God. History bears this out and if one pattern is clear within the biblical texts, is that history always repeats its self.

I maintain that son's of god were those humans who left the presence of the LORD,and became as gods to themselves and those around them. They had children, and those children were great men by the worlds standards. Israel wanted a king, so God gave them Saul, a large, handsome man. A man the people wanted. But David was a small, unassuming man and the least in his family. How many times in scripture are we taught that what we think is important, is to remove ourselves from the presence of the LORD.. Solomon made silver as abundant as it could be and traded arms as he bought from Egypt and sold to his alliances.. all the things that make a nation great in the eyes of the world, but all the things God said he didn't want a king to do... and now I'm starting to preach, but I do hope you are able to see my point.

 

[Deborah13]

"And they took them wives of all whom they chose."

The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. "Whom they chose," not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks.

[Quoted from Barnes' Notes on the Bible]

This same evil is happening today.

StoveBolts
I have a problem with the intereptation of the word "fair" describing the women. According to Strong's that "good looks" is not the first definition of the word. It is simply "goodness". Which could be considered to be something that is a benefit to the person perceiving. It may not have had anything to do with "good looks".
StoveBolts , we know from history that when noble families only marry within the nobility they can become weak physically and well as mentally unstable.
So when these men of nobility look at the common women they may have seen that they were stronger, healthier and would be of benefit to their families, to have healthy children.
It also says that these children became men of renown. Warriors, strongmen, etc.

 

[Sinthesis]

"And they took them wives of all whom they chose."

The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. "Whom they chose," not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks.

[Quoted from Barnes' Notes on the Bible]

This same evil is happening today.

Yep! When you strip way all the extraneous details, over which we argue concerning their symbolism or reliance on mythological ideas, the underlying structure of the entire flood story is a warning against the possible consequences of being unequally yoked.

 

[Sinthesis]

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.

The angel theory does not demand discrimination, rather it allows otherwise righteous people to justify it.

The concept of nobility passed on through heredity is by nature discriminatory. "I'm better/worse than you because of who our respective parents are" is discriminatory. "I'm better/worse than you because of our respective beliefs and behavior" is a more reasonable type of discrimination. The fact that parents can affect a child's beliefs and behavior leads to a confusion of these two types of discrimination.

 

[stovebolts]

StoveBolts
I have a problem with the intereptation of the word "fair" describing the women. According to Strong's that "good looks" is not the first definition of the word. It is simply "goodness". Which could be considered to be something that is a benefit to the person perceiving. It may not have had anything to do with "good looks".
StoveBolts , we know from history that when noble families only marry within the nobility they can become weak physically and well as mentally unstable.
So when these men of nobility look at the common women they may have seen that they were stronger, healthier and would be of benefit to their families, to have healthy children.
It also says that these children became men of renown. Warriors, strongmen, etc.

Hi Deborah13

I think you were talking to Sparrowhawke
I can't speak to the word "fair", but I like your reasoning. Bad people always try to bring good people down... it's in their nature. As fair pertains to the passage at hand though, I'm not really inclined to say much about it, but what you said lends to what Sinthesis said above about being unequally yoked.

As far as the nobility and their line being weaker, I suppose it would have all been relative since folk back then were living for hundreds of years. Abram even married his sister so wouldn't Isaac be like his own grandpa lol! Just kidding, that was just a bad joke. But if it was all relative perhaps like Hitler, they sought out particular qualities in woman that "looked good" for their purposes...

I'm reminded of Egypt. It was the first Empire ever recorded. Humanity tried it once with the tower of Bable, but God confused their language. Unlike Bable, Egypt was a separate nation which set itself apart from the rest of the world. Clearly, we see this us and them mentality. But what we also see is mens imagination running wild and they start worshipping the world around them. In other words, they start worshipping the created instead of the creator. They soon start making up gods to give credit to the order of our LORD's work and before we know it, Pharaoh himself declares that he is Lord of Lords, Ra incarnate ruler of life and death and supreme elohim. We see this pattern played over and over through scripture as Empires rise and crumble, each of them with a ruler that claims he is an elohim. Each of them separating themselves as different than the rest of humanity claiming superiority, Rome included.

 

[stovebolts]

The angel theory does not demand discrimination, rather it allows otherwise righteous people to justify it.

The concept of nobility passed on through heredity is by nature discriminatory. "I'm better/worse than you because of who our respective parents are" is discriminatory. "I'm better/worse than you because of our respective beliefs and behavior" is a more reasonable type of discrimination. The fact that parents can affect a child's beliefs and behavior leads to a confusion of these two types of discrimination.

A very good observation! Thank you for your comments! I never saw that until you said it.

 

[Deborah13]

Yep! When you strip way all the extraneous details, over which we argue concerning their symbolism or reliance on mythological ideas, the underlying structure of the entire flood story is a warning against the possible consequences of being unequally yoked.

I'm coming closer to being able to accept this intereptation of being unevenly yoke. Can you tie that in with this portion of this verse?

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.

Why would spiritually unevenly yoke people, produce mighty men, men of renown?

 

[turnorburn]

Kathi said:

Was their ever such a thing?

Hi Kathi are any of these answers what you were looking for..

tob