Nephilim

[Sinthesis]

I think this is about the fifth or so post you have made, with No Scriptures.

You refuse to address the scriptures that I have given.

Just saying "no you are wrong" is not really a biblical position.




JLB

That is because I agree with the scriptures you have given, I just disagree with the way you interpret them. [edit] meaning in the words, context, and patterns of scripture [edit by mod]

How then are we to judge between competing interpretational narratives? One way is to examine their fruit. Biblical interpretation that promotes a paranoid xenophobic world view is suspect when we are meant to engage the world in the love and confidence of Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

PLEASE be careful about personal observations about other peoples abilities.

Not directed at anyone in particular. Just a reminder at this point.

 

[JLB]

Sinthesis said -

Biblical interpretation that promotes a paranoid xenophobic world view is suspect when we are meant to engage the world in the love and confidence of Christ.

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


As I have shown, the only times the phrase sons of God was used in the Old Testament, it referred to angels.

So, that is a competent interpretative method to determine that sons of God as used in Genesis 6, also refers to angels.

In addition, there are no giants mentioned in the genealogy that is described in the previous chapter, which is genesis Chapter 5, from Adam to Noah.

Only sons of God produced the Giants, through there forbidden relationship with the daughters of men.

This is written about in 2 Peter 2:4-5

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

Peter clearly associates the angels who sinned, with the flood of the ancient world in Noah's day.

Finally, the phrase in Genesis 6:4 states -
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.

Shows that the sons of God were not drowned but continued afterward to produce Nephilim, even until the days of Moses.

These sons of God that were unaffected by the flood, because they were not human, continued afterward.


Rather than show us your scriptures that will substantiate "your" interpretation, [edited by mod]


I believe it is clear for all who have read this thread that the evidence is clear.

JLB

 

[stovebolts]

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 t

So, that is a competent interpretative method to determine that sons of God as used in Genesis 6, also refers to angels.

In addition, there are no giants mentioned in the genealogy that is described...

Finally, the phrase in Genesis 6:4 states -
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.

Shows that the sons of God were not drowned but continued afterward to produce Nephilim, even until the days of Moses.

These sons of God that were unaffected by the flood, because they were not human, continued afterward.

JLB

I understand your reasoning and I am beginning to understand the methodology your applying.

I read chapter 5 as a genealogy to honor select lines of biblical importance ( not even Pharohs name is captured because his name bears no biblical significance. You will also find that the names of those most wicked as re not given the honor of having their names recorded)...

Chapter 6 starts with a recap of 5. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them.

Do we see this in chapter 5? Yes we do. Clearly chapter 5 is a select list of both godly and wicked men who both married daughters of men and had children. How else would men multiple if they didn't take the daughters of men as wives and produce more men... Who took the daughters of men and men just kept multiplying.

4. There were giants in the earth in those days.

What days? The days outlined in chapter 5. Perhaps a clear way to say it would be there were giants through the generations leading up to Noah.

And also after that.

After what? You point post flood with your methodology. I point to Noah's generation. This is why the story starts again in verse 9.

From a textual perspective, I believe what I've outlined is a solid way to read the text.

 

[JLB]

Stovebolts said -

Chapter 6 starts with a recap of 5. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them.

Do we see this in chapter 5? Yes we do. Clearly chapter 5 is a select list of both godly and wicked men who both married daughters of men and had children.

Thank you for seeing this truth in the scriptures, as it is unmistakable!

The glaring truth that we learn from Genesis Chapter 5, is there are no Giants produced in the lineage of man, from Adam to Noah.

The giants are produced when the sons of God, who are not mentioned at all in this lineage which is clearly and unmistakeably outlined for all to examine in Chapter 5, came into the daughters on men.

The Giants are clearly associated with the sons of God.

The Giants, nor the sons of God are mentioned in the genealogy of Genesis 5.

One would have to presumptuously insert into the text, something that the text itself does not contain.

The text of Genesis 5 does not contain the words sons of God, nor does the text of Genesis 5 contain the word Giants [Nephilim].

The sons of God continued after the flood, to produce giants as offspring.

The sons of God were unaffected by the flood.


JLB

 

[stovebolts]

JLB

Do me a favor and tone down your rhetoric, please.

You can certainly read the text the way you are reading it. But to do so is to insert an idea that is foreign to the text itself as well as the pattern for Jewish writing.

There isn't a break in thought between chapter 5 and 6. Man put those in place not to divide thought, but to ease navigation.

When we look plainly at the text it is simple to see that the pattern follows as such.

A genealogy of both godly and not so godly men are listed.
One can say that men are multiplying in chapter 5, and they are doing so with the daughters of men. This only requires a simple understanding of how children are born to understand that a man has sex with a woman and that woman can either have a boy or a girl as a child. If it is a girl, scripture calls them daughters of men. Not because men bore them, but because genealogy is recorded threw the men's line, not the woman's as affirmed by what we read in chapter 5.

In those days (genesis 6:4a) simply points back to the generations as recorded in chapter 5. We seen this style of writing clearly in genesisn1 and 2 and that shouldn't need further discussion.

And after that (genesis 6:4b) simply points to the generation of Noah. This is why verse 9 picks up saying these are the generations of Noah. Note: chapter 5 ended with Noah but chapter 6 begins with a summary of those spoken abou nin chapter 5. Verse 9 is really where the story of Noah starts.

So we can see that these giants were present both in the generations before Noah, and Noah's generation and a simple reading of the text supports this statement.

Edit to add:
If we followed the line of textual exegesis you are suggesting , Adam (Genesis 2:7) would not be the one mentioned in Genesis 1:27 and we know that leads right into the doctrine of serpent seed.

 

[JLB]

Stovebolts said -

So we can see that these giants were present both in the generations before Noah, and Noah's generation and a simple reading of the text supports this statement.

We can?

Please show us the scriptures that teaches us Giants were in the genealogy of Genesis 5.

Please show were the phrase "sons of God" or Giants are in the bible before Genesis 6.

I see the words men, and woman, daughters and sons.

These are the words that define humans.

Why would sons of God be used to define angels in Job, but in Genesis 6 it means something entirely different?

Why would the sons of God be unaffected by the flood of those days?

Why does Peter and Jude refer to them as angels?

Why would the union between two human beings produce 12' tall giants with six fingers and six toes?

You just don't have any scriptures to validate your "theory".


JLB

 

[stovebolts]

Jlb,

Please try to understand what I am saying before putting upn your defences. Are you a brother in Christ? Then let us reason together and not become each otheres nemesis.

Hear me out. If we followed your line of textual exegesis, then genesis 2:7 is not pointing to genesis 1:27.

Luke has a writing style that we can follow and we can infer things in Luke based on his writing style in Acts. Moses is the same way in that we see a writing style aka pattern in the way Moses writes. This is clear in Genesisb1 and 2 and we see this also in 5 and 6 and we see it in his other 4 books.

I am not fighting you and saying you are wrong. However, I am asking you to drop your battle ax and see if you can see what I see and why I see it the way I do.

Again, not asking you to agree, but can you see how I view 4a as pointing to those listed in chapter 5 and 4b those in Noah's generation (genesis 6:9).

If you cannot see what I am trying to articulate, then we are both wasting our time.

 

[JLB]

Jlb,

Please try to understand what I am saying before putting upn your defences. Are you a brother in Christ? Then let us reason together and not become each otheres nemesis.

Hear me out. If we followed your line of textual exegesis, then genesis 2:7 is not pointing to genesis 1:27.

Luke has a writing style that we can follow and we can infer things in Luke based on his writing style in Acts. Moses is the same way in that we see a writing style aka pattern in the way Moses writes. This is clear in Genesisb1 and 2 and we see this also in 5 and 6 and we see it in his other 4 books.

I am not fighting you and saying you are wrong. However, I am asking you to drop your battle ax and see if you can see what I see and why I see it the way I do.

Again, not asking you to agree, but can you see how I view 4a as pointing to those listed in chapter 5 and 4b those in Noah's generation (genesis 6:9).

If you cannot see what I am trying to articulate, then we are both wasting our time.

I am not saying that the sons of God were not in the earth, during the lineage of Genesis 5, as they were most likely present since the creation of the world.

I am saying that the lack of Giants being included in the genealogy of Genesis 5, is clear evidence that Giants were unique to the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

By excluding the term "sons of God", as well as "Giants" from the genealogy in Genesis 5, what is the Spirit of God showing Moses about them?

Moses was called to lead and teach the children of Israel to eradicate these Giants from the earth.

What are we ourselves to learn from this.

No reference to Giants or the sons of God in the genealogy of the human race, from Adam to Noah.

What does this teach us?


JLB

 

[stovebolts]

I understand and thank you for loosing some brashness. It is appreciated.

What I would like to ask you is if you can see the method in which I am interpreting the passage. 4a as a reference to gen 5 which would support your thought that these giants were around with those generations to 4b in reference to the generation of Noah.

It would seem to me that the text would support both our views, but then you would have to show prior to gen 5 where these giants came from, since you stated you believe they existed since creation.

For me, the way I understand scripture, you would have to use gen 1:27 and 2:7 to be different events.

Is this your line of thinking?

I have to go now and won't be back for a few days. Take your time responding.

 

[JLB]

Stovebolts said -

It would seem to me that the text would support both our views, but then you would have to show prior to gen 5 where these giants came from, since you stated you believe they existed since creation.

...you would have to show prior to gen 5 where these giants came from, since you stated you believe they existed since creation.

I did not say "Giants" were around since creation, I said "sons of God" were. As I believe they were angelic beings that were here before man was created in the garden.

here is my quote -

I am not saying that the sons of God were not in the earth, during the lineage of Genesis 5, as they were most likely present since the creation of the world.

Giants were not mentioned in the genealogy of mankind, which shows the references to mankind as man, sons, daughters...

1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

These are the designations for Mankind.


Mankind:

Man = male
Woman = female
sons = male
daughters = female

There are two designations for the offspring of Mankind, they are sons and daughters.

There are no designations in the lineage of mankind that refers to Giants or Nephilim.

The designation of Giants is unique to the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men.


JLB

 

[chessman]

You missed a definition; wife!

Genesis 2:23-24 Then the man said,“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;she shall be called Woman,because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

Why would God's word call them wives ( theses daughters) if they didn't have 100% human husbands? It's not a marriage, unless it's between a man and a woman.

Furthermore,

Genesis 6:4These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

...
These are the designations for Mankind.

Man = male

JLB

By your definition the mighty men, were male, not half male half angel.

 

[JLB]

You missed a definition; wife!

Genesis 2:23-24 Then the man said,“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;she shall be called Woman,because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Genesis 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

Why would God's word call them wives ( theses daughters) if they didn't have 100% human husbands? It's not a marriage, unless it's between a man and a woman.

Furthermore,

Genesis 6:4These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.


By your definition the mighty men, were male, not half male half angel.

They were indeed male, and flesh and blood.

But they were Giants [Nephilim]!

They were not included in the genealogy of Mankind.

They were wiped out in the flood, but appeared afterward, when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men, again...

The sons of God were not affected by the flood, the Giants were.

The Giants were flesh and blood men, The sons of God were angels, who could manifest as men.

Angels have that liberty, and did so throughout the bible.

Angels that appeared as men, were called men, but were in fact angels.

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." Genesis 18:1-6

Water to wash His feet.

Food and drink to refresh the Lord and the "men" with Him.

Was The Lord a man?

Were those with Him men?

We see that they are called angels just a few verses later.

Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. Genesis 18:22

1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. Genesis 19:1


The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them as they called them men...

5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! Genesis 19:5-7


So, we see from the scriptures that angelic beings can manifest themselves as men, and appear as men.

Giants on the other hand, are unique, and are not produced except by the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

There are no Giants referred to in the lineage of Mankind of Genesis 5.

The phrase "sons of God" is a reference to angels.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

The phrase "sons of God" is a reference to angels.

Okay. The phrase "sons of God" can mean angels. You want to insist that it can carry no other meaning. The proof of such is a burden because the phrase is rarely used. Is that what Moses meant? Job used it to mean angels but did not use it to mean fallen angels. That doesn't help your case.

How many times was the exact phrase used in the Bible again? Do we have thousands of examples upon which to hang a doctrine or is the number less than that? Is the doctrine universally accepted or is it in dispute? And if there is dispute, shall I, your reader, have reason to give your opinion greater consideration than I do the opinion of others, by virtue of your having said it so earnestly?

 

[Edward]

Okay. The phrase "sons of God" can mean angels. You want to insist that it can carry no other meaning. The proof of such is a burden because the phrase is rarely used. Is that what Moses meant? Job used it to mean angels but did not use it to mean fallen angels. That doesn't help your case.

How many times was the exact phrase used in the Bible again? Do we have thousands of examples upon which to hang a doctrine or is the number less than that? Is the doctrine universally accepted or is it in dispute? And if there is dispute, shall I, your reader, have reason to give your opinion greater consideration than I do the opinion of others, by virtue of your having said it so earnestly?

Brother, there is a dispute about the entire bible. About if Jesus even died on the cross, yes? Were you there? Can you prove this for sure? Of course not, it is taken in faith and believed. That there were only a couple instances of scripture using the term sons of God as meaning angels, doesn't detract from it's validity. Is there an instance in scripture where it is used of man clearly? No. This would weaken your position in a way.SO what to do? Well we go to other scriptures which would support either view. This would seem to be the academically correct way to approach it it seems to me.

Are there other supporting scriptures that these beings in Genesis 6:4 were in fact something other than men? Perhaps. First I think we could agree that if "men of renown" were in fact fully human, that they would not bear children which were out of the norm for the type of children that men and women have when they bear children? I think this is a given.

So, let's see if there are any other scriptures which may indicate that the "men of renown" were not merely nobles, or men of great wisdom. Let's see here...supposedly they Nephilim were giants, very large in size. I have heard it suggested that giants does not mean of large size, but rather nobles or men of great accomplishment. I have considered that with open mind, but over time keep finding scriptures which would indicate that they were in fact of great size. For instance:

Deuteronomy 9:1-3

Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fenced up to heaven,

2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!

3 Understand therefore this day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.(KJV)


A people great and tall. Hmm.

Numbers 13: 32-33
32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.

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./(KJV)

Of a great stature...we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight...

That doesn't seem to be describing nobles or men of great accomplishment brother. It would seem to be describing exactly what it says, men of great stature, very tall...giants. Now how in the world could regular men have children of such a great stature? It has been suggested before that we have so called men of great stature also. Men seven or eight feet tall. Ok, I understand this. But would they be of so great a stature so as to make regular men appear as grasshoppers? I think not. This seems to be talking about something else. So in my mind, these scriptures would seem to support JLB's theory of Fallen Angels making mischief with the women, and their children were the Nephilim and giants.

Ok, I have posted some other supporting scriptures which support the angel view (there are more, if you want them). I would ask at this time, if you have any supporting scriptures which would invalidate the angel view, or support your view? I am open minded, and will consider your scriptures carefully. It must be in scripture! The Lord would not lead us astray for He is not the author of confusion. I agree this is pretty twilight zoneish, but! the scriptures will indeed clear it up one way or the other. Will you my brother, consider these scriptures open mindedly, and consider the possibility of them meaning what they seem to indicate? If you think my interpretation is wrong, then I would politely ask for your alternate interpretation that would explain the confusion...

Have a blessed day in the Lord brother.

 

[Deborah13]

They were indeed male, and flesh and blood.
JLB

And if there is dispute, shall I, your reader, have reason to give your opinion greater consideration than I do the opinion of others, by virtue of your having said it so earnestly?

If the Jews from many yrs ago right up to today cannot agree on what these scriptures are talking about in their own language and writings, I don't believe we ever can either.
Why do we so earnestly desire to raise them from the dead when we don't do that with other past enemies of the Lord's, such as the Assyrians? I suppose it is the intrigue of the whole thing?

 

[JLB]

Sparrowhawk said -

Job used it to mean angels but did not use it to mean fallen angels. That doesn't help your case.

I have never stated that the sons of God were fallen angels, nor do the new testament writers.

Please review my post's, as I have always said the sons of God are angels, not fallen angels, not demons.

Angels.


JLB

 

[reba]

I have never stated that the sons of God were fallen angels, nor do the new testament writers.

Please review my post's, as I have always said the sons of God are angels, not fallen angels, not demons.

Angels.


JLB

Looking to understand... if they are not fallen then the reproduction of children is proper?

 

[JLB]

Sparrowhawk said -

And if there is dispute, shall I, your reader, have reason to give your opinion greater consideration than I do the opinion of others, by virtue of your having said it so earnestly?

I ask you to consider these questions.

• How do the sons of God survive the flood, to continue this work of reproduction after the flood, if they are indeed flesh and blood?

• Why do we not see the term, Giants [Nephilim] stated in the genealogy of Genesis 5, whereby the natural lineage of Mankind is described?

• Why would that natural union between a godly man and woman produce a massive giant with six fingers and six toes?

• Why would the term sons of God, refer to angels in Job, but refer to a godly man in Genesis?

• Why wouldn't Enoch be referred to as a son of God in Genesis, if the term son of God was a reference to a godly man?

If there ever was a godly man in early Genesis that would have the term "son of God" ascribed to him, wouldn't Enoch be described as such, if this was to be designation for a "godly man"?


I do not ask you to answer all of these questions, or any of them, but to consider them as valid questions for anyone to consider.




Thank you.

JLB

 

[JLB]

Looking to understand... if they are not fallen then the reproduction of children is proper?

Why would the offspring of angels and women be considered as proper?


JLB