Nephilim

[reba]

IF the angels were not 'fallen' would they have 'went' 'lusted ' married the women? maybe i dont understand what you mean by the use of the word fallen...
I understand fallen to mean sinful.

 

[JLB]

IF the angels were not 'fallen' would they have 'went' 'lusted ' married the women? maybe i dont understand what you mean by the use of the word fallen...
I understand fallen to mean sinful.

These were angels that saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful.

The left their own abode, and had sexual relations with human women.

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

The New Testament links these angels with the activities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[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

These were angels that saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful.

The left their own abode, and had sexual relations with human women.

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

The New Testament links these angels with the activities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I am confused

 

[JLB]

I am confused

No comment.


JLB

 

[reba]

No comment.


JLB

 

[JLB]

 

[Sparkey]

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.

It's very difficult for me to listen past your comparison of this "issue" (which is really a non-issue) and the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Pardon, but I stopped reading after you did that. You lost me right there.

 

[Sparkey]

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.

I didn't want to leave it at that and went back to read what you also said. But (and again) there is really no comparison between this reference and the numerous, clear, undisputed word about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

Leaving that aside, you mention Giants. You also speak of "men of renown" and/or "mighty men." Further, you mention "nobles" in your preface when you depart on your stated mission of finding any other reference for support of your notion.

Deuteronomy 9 speaks of a people "great and tall". Your comment, "Hmm," is very vague. Have you nothing to say about the children of Anak? Seems to me that Anak is a man and not an angel. Can you show me otherwise?

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!

Have a blessed day in the Lord brother.

You've rested your case upon your view of the Scripture you provided, the children of Anak. Let's examine the Scripture of your choice. My position is that Anak was a man, not an angel. His children were human, not angelic hybrids.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Sparkey]

Another thing for your "open mind" to consider is the reassurance of Jesus after his resurrection:

While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be to you." But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. (Luke 24:36-40)

Jesus reassures his disciples by asking them to touch him physically, stating "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." There must therefore be some difference between touchable, risen Jesus and that of a "spirit" else his invitation would be meaningless. Such a manifestation (the untouchable spirit being) would be incapable of impregnating a human female.

 

[Sparkey]

Unfortunately, the phrase "sons of God" appears in only five verses from only two books of the Old Testament. Two verses are found in the Genesis 6 flood account. The other three verses are found in the book of Job. From the book of Job, the context clearly indicates that "sons of God" are angelic beings, since they enter directly into God's presence or existed before the creation of the earth.

The rare use of the term admits some ambiguity, I'll admit. It does nothing to prove a specific view, especially when, at your suggestion, we examine other Scripture on the subject. Although the phrase "sons of God" does not to reference human beings in the Old Testament in every single instance (it does mention a connection to *mighty men* -and- *men of renown*) similar phrases, such as "sons of the Most High" and "sons of the living God" do make reference to godly human beings. In the New Testament "sons of God" always refers to redeemed human beings. It seems unlikely that ungodly demons would ever be referred to as "sons of God."

I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Psalms 82:6)

Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God." (Hosea 1:10)

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)

for neither can they die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:36)

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26)

Pay careful attention to Luke (quoted above) and take note of the distinction made between the "sons of God", the resurrected humans that Jesus spoke of, and angels. There is a clear distinction made. On what basis may we dismiss this distinction?

 

[agua.]

IF the angels were not 'fallen' would they have 'went' 'lusted ' married the women? maybe i dont understand what you mean by the use of the word fallen...
I understand fallen to mean sinful.

Here Reba let me try ! The angels that sinned were still angels ie devils are still angels.

Rev 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,

Also the angels would be legitimate sons of God, if you insist they must be approved, before they sinned. ie. Genesis 6 could be indicating angels, sons of God, sinned.

 

[JLB]

Sparrowhawk said -

The rare use of the term admits some ambiguity, I'll admit. It does nothing to prove a specific view,

To distinguish if these "sons of God" in Genesis 6, were either human or angel, we should examine the context of the scriptures before and after the verse that contain this term to evaluate which of the two choices that Genesis 6 is referring to.

The first thing I see is the contrasting use of the phrases "sons of God" and "daughters of men".

To me, this is a dead give away as to whom is being referred to here; "sons of God" are in stark contrast to the descriptive language of "daughters of men".

Why would the Lord have Moses write such contrasting language that had never been used before, if this were the normal function of mankind, which is referenced as; -

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. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Genesis 5:3-5

Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch.

Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech.

Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed." 30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters.

The context of genesis 5, shows us the typical language of the natural order of Mankind.

So, when we see the stark contrast of "sons of God" and "daughters of men", that is used in Genesis 6, it seems clear that the lord is wanting to take notice.

Then we see that when the "sons of God" came into the "daughters of man", the result was Giants were produced.

To me, that is really all that is needed.

Next when we begin to ask the following questions, especially question, number 1...

• 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"?

JLB

 

[JLB]

Here Reba let me try ! The angels that sinned were still angels ie devils are still angels.

Rev 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,

Also the angels would be legitimate sons of God, if you insist they must be approved, before they sinned. ie. Genesis 6 could be indicating angels, sons of God, sinned.

That is definitely one way to look at it.

However, I believe they were angels. Angels of God; "sons of God".

Jude tells us their sin, which wasn't the rebellion in heaven that Lucifer and his angels were involved in.

The angels that Jude describes, "left their own abode" and as Sodom and Gomorrah, have gone after strange flesh...

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

Peter also validates this -

by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 1 Peter 3:19-20

and again -

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; 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; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-6




Their sin was not associated with Lucifer and his angels being cast out.

These angels were cast down to hell and confined to chains, because of their activity with the daughters of men.

On a side note:

These scriptures are clear, in which also should be used to dispute the false doctrine of Serpent Seed.

If Satan would have had relations with Eve, he would be down in hell in chains.

There never would have been a confrontation with the Lord in the wilderness.

Satan would not have been around to enter Judas.

He would not have been referred to as the prince of the power of the air, by Paul.

Again, the "sons of God" were angels, not fallen angels.

Although your analogy and reasoning are good, likening them to "angels" that are clearly Satan's in Revelation 12.


JLB

 

[reba]

Here Reba let me try ! The angels that sinned were still angels ie devils are still angels.

Rev 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,

Also the angels would be legitimate sons of God, if you insist they must be approved, before they sinned. ie. Genesis 6 could be indicating angels, sons of God, sinned.

classic, just like in the topic OSAS the fall back line is s/he was never really saved...

 

[stovebolts]

...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 -

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

I understand. But, prior to chapter 6, there is no mention of sons of god (as angelic beings) so we see that within the textual confines of the narrative, we seem to have a small problem. If I recall, the only other place that this term is used is in Job. Now then, I believe that Job, whom was a gentile by birth was a contemporary of Abraham, and we know that Abraham and Noah were alive at the same time, so the likely hood of them knowing each other would have been been pretty great so in essence, this could be a reason why the two terms are only used in those two places from a textual perspective.

Like yourself, I believe that the sons of god existed prior to Noah's generation. I also believe that the Nephilim existed before Noah's generation Why do I believe this, let us examine Genesis 6:4 There were giants (Nephilim) 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,

A. In those days. What does "In those days" refer to?
B. and after that,

After "those days". This shows clearly that we are talking about two different time frame. It could have been easily said, "Then, and after that time".

So we see "In those days, Nephilm are present in the earth.
After that, there were also Nephilim present in the earth.

How did this happen?
C. When the sons of God had sex with the daughter of men.

D. the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The same. These are the Nephilim
And these Nephilm became mighty men, men of renown.

So we see that these Nephilim became mighty men. And all men perished from the earth with the flood.

I believe the text also fully supports that sons of god and Nephilim existed prior to Noah's generation according to how the text reads:
A. In those days
B. and after that

Since Nephilm are the offspring of sons of god and daughters of men, then we wouldn't need the term Nephilim used in chapter 5 in order for Nephim to have existed within the biblical time frame outlined in Genesis 5 because we both agree that "sons of god" existed prior to Noah and we both agree that son's of God isn't mentioned prior to Genesis 6, although you have no supporting text. My supporting text is "In those days". Actually, if we look at Genesis 5 it only outlines the genealogy from Noah to Adam. We do not see Cain or Ables genealogical line so we don't have an account of the peoples who populated the earth outside of Noah's line, and it is from those lines I infer that "sons of god" could have been from Cain's line for all we know. But I say this not knowing nor really even caring. What we do know, is that regardless of how you interpret Genesis, the son's of god did NOT come from Noah's line.

In summar, what we can gather from Chapter 5 is that it only pertains to Noah's line. It does not account for any other offspring between Adam or Eve.

And to belabor the cause: Chapter 6 introduces the two terms "Nephilim" and "sons of god". Because Genesis 6:4 says in those days, we can say that the text does not confine itself to the line of Noah, as listed in Chapter 5. That the two terms are not listed in Chapter 5 is only to say that no "Nephilim" or "sons of god" were from the line of Noah.

This is basic textual exegesis, and i know you rely heavily on hermenutics. What I learned a long time ago is that poor exegesis results in poor herminutics. Actually, I was taught exegisis, then redaction, then hermunitucs.

Let us dwell on the basic textual exegesis first, then we shall move to redaction and if willing, we can get to herminutics.

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

We also see the term elohim within the creation account. But interesting, we find this text:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (elohim), knowing good and evil.

This passage makes it clear that humans can seen as gods. History clearly supports this as I have outlined in previous posts.

What we can see from this passage and from history, is that man can call himself a god. Thus, to be a son of god can simply mean that one has elevated himself to 'god', and has had a son. Thus, son of god.

Once again, as far as the term Nephilim aka Giant, the hebrew word actually means, "Those who fell and caused others to fall".

Fall from what?... Fallen angels as you've suggested, or those who fell from goodness into wickedness?

 

[agua.]

classic, just like in the topic OSAS the fall back line is s/he was never really saved...

Noooo I'm saying every angel was a son of God at some stage. If the action in Gen 6 was the first sin of these angels it will be acceptable to define them as sons of God.Every fallen angel had a first sin.

Nothing like Once Said Always Said at all :biggrin

 

[stovebolts]

JLB

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

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

Ever wonder why the angels went up before they came down?... Maybe them angels back in Sodom did something that got them stuck on earth.... Did you ever think it was harsh of God to not let Moses enter into the Promise land because he struck a rock with a stick? Actually, it was because he didn't give credit to God for the water... Yup, credit where credit is due.

See if you can find something that God might have found offensive with the angels that destroyed Sodom. Maybe that can shed some light on why the angels went up... Just a thought.

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; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah,

and.

I had Peanut Butter AND Jelly
Don't drink AND drive
I like Wrestling AND Track

Angels who sinned
And
those not spared from the flood.

 

[stovebolts]

Noooo I'm saying every angel was a son of God at some stage. If the action in Gen 6 was the first sin of these angels it will be acceptable to define them as sons of God.Every fallen angel had a first sin.

Nothing like Once Said Always Said at all :biggrin

son of what god?
I only know of YHVH claiming Israel as his son in Exodus and then again in the New Testament where he claims Jesus as his son.

Oh wait, you are his son too, and reba is His daughter.

You mean people can be sons and daughters of YHVH too?

Hold on a second. Pharaoh claimed to be a god, and his firstborn was taken. Ceasar also claimed to be a god, and he had sons. Didn't you know we are sons and daughters of the one true GOD! Isn't that exciting!

The question isn't about who's the God in control, it's a matter of those who claim authority where they dont really have that authority. God even writes that he is God above all other gods, and he warred against all the gods of egypt... including Pharaoh. So we see that even God calls them gods, but YHVH establishes himself as the one true GOD.

 

[JCitoL]

the nephilim were men who became angels of satan by following great esotericism and practising deep occultism

Blessings

 

[JLB]

JLB


Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

Ever wonder why the angels went up before they came down?... Maybe them angels back in Sodom did something that got them stuck on earth.... Did you ever think it was harsh of God to not let Moses enter into the Promise land because he struck a rock with a stick? Actually, it was because he didn't give credit to God for the water... Yup, credit where credit is due.

See if you can find something that God might have found offensive with the angels that destroyed Sodom. Maybe that can shed some light on why the angels went up... Just a thought.



and.

I had Peanut Butter AND Jelly
Don't drink AND drive
I like Wrestling AND Track

Angels who sinned
And
those not spared from the flood.

Well that explains it.

Thanks brother, I see now where you are coming from. I just never had anyone explain it that way before.

You have really cleared up this matter for me.

Bless you.


JLB