Nephilim

[agua.]

Seems we agree. I don't know that I'd go as far as saying, "It was the likely reason," but have no problem with others who conclude this. The entire matter would be settle for us had Jude not been so terse. He didn't say precisely, did he? We know they left their first estate but we are not told the details.

It's reasonable to suggest they could have left their first estate because they saw the fair women, I'd guess? But then the whole discussion about angels in heaven not having gender comes into it. Now we have some kind of thinking that suggests that angles have a choice of remaining in heaven where there is no giving or taking in marriage or departing and somehow then being given the apparatus or method necessary for sexual reproduction all the while retaining their title "Sons of God". I don't know this. I don't think it has been proven conclusively and both sides fail to actually prove what so often is presented as dogma.

No wonder Jude didn't say, right?

Yeah the discussion about angels not having gender is also interesting because they're only ever described as male. :D It's possible Jude didn't go into details because it was common knowledge but you're right that we aren't dealing with proofs here and many doctrines fall into the same category.

 

[agua.]

If I were to get nasty or disrespectful of others and post in a manner that went against the Terms of Service, I would expect to be reported, would further expect reprisals, including dismissing me as a Moderator.

Being as I am a contributor to this thread, I hesitate to place my Moderator hat on, and for this particular thread consider myself to be a "guest moderator" only - meaning that others would have to commit flagrant violation before I'd act. As to the limits of the discussion? The Terms of Service are very clear. I'm available to you or others in a private conversation if need be.

But yes, "no reply" is an option. Another option is to write in a Word document then copy and paste here. Some find that to be helpful.

Cordially,
Sparrow

I was addressing what you personally feel is appropriate disagreement presentation among the Body. I know the TOS ( well most of it lol )

It's okay (to me) to acknowledge that others differ while expressing a well formed opinion. Why argue about things that don't matter? Does a lion roar in the thicket when it has no prey? I just don't see the point.

Do you think argument on this subject is pointless ?

 

[Sparkey]

A good friend of mine spoke confidentially to me once giving his observation that angels are like kittens in that they are very curious about things. Now, that idea was a foreign one to me but I've read Scripture that confirms the essence, saying things like, "Angels want to look into these things." I wouldn't call them "kittens" because really? We are told to take care when we speak of things we do not understand.

Here's the reference, Peter again (2Peter, chapter 2):

For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a reviling judgment upon them before the Lord.​

We might see a connection there again between our subject (angels) and the flood - because they are mentioned together; they are mentioned under the caption of "those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion" but I think this applies to porn addicted professors of Christ more-so than it may apply to angels. God sees secrets. The reason that I think it applies to me more than to angels is simple. I can do something about the one, but nothing about the other.

But that aside, I've always wondered about angels. We are told to be kind to strangers because some have met angels unawares. We are told to consider them and to show our submission to authority (covering our head or uncovering as the case may be) for their sake. It seems that angels are curious about flesh, knowing it to be lower than them, yet also knowing the promise of God so that we may become like Jesus - and then? Paul directly tells us that we shall judge angels.

What is the plan of God for us? Can we become more than what has entered into our minds? What do angels see when they see a sinner repent and spontaneously erupt in adoration of God and His great mercy?

There are many mysteries that call us closer to Him. We are invited to continue with God and as we do, allowed to see the good result and real consequence of who we are and who we are becoming. To me, your prayer for my benefit is much more vital than who's right about angelic sexual reproduction. Maybe you are right? I'm uncertain. No, it's not "pointless" but it does come secondary to the command to continue in the unity of the faith.

 

[agua.]

Oky doky Sparrow ta. Yes it is secondary to the unity of the Brethren let me know if I become dis-unifying I'll give myself an uppercut.

 

[jasonc]

It wasn't only angels who were made example of it was the whole world aside from 8 but yes the principle is universal. Follow Yahweh or die.

do yourself a favor. go the messianic jews and ask them why they don't call the YHWH "Yahweh". I cringe at that name used in the manner you do. its not known what the vowels were after the first. that is why I use the tetragrammation. or Heshem once in a while. Jehovah, btw is the Germanic translation of that Yahweh name.

but keep in mind its just a preference. I seldom will say or post or call God, Jehovah nor Yahweh as that is what the Jehovah's witnesses did. I came out of that and don't like that usage. they are valid according to scholars.

 

[jasonc]

StoveBolts aleph beith means great house, it wasn't the name El Shaddai. I stand corrected.

 

[stovebolts]

If you go to the concordance, it takes you to the same exact definition for the term "sons of God" for both passages.

We must have different concordances. I just looked in my Cruden's complete concordance and when I search of "sons of god", it simply gives me the passages that were translated with that word. I have a program called Sword Searcher, and if I search on the words "sons of god", it basically gives me the same results. You must have a better concordance than I do because my concordance doesn't give a definition. It only lists passages where a word or phrase is present.

 

[stovebolts]

do yourself a favor. go the messianic jews and ask them why they don't call the YHWH "Yahweh". I cringe at that name used in the manner you do. its not known what the vowels were after the first. that is why I use the tetragrammation. or Heshem once in a while. Jehovah, btw is the Germanic translation of that Yahweh name.

but keep in mind its just a preference. I seldom will say or post or call God, Jehovah nor Yahweh as that is what the Jehovah's witnesses did. I came out of that and don't like that usage. they are valid according to scholars.

No worries, I knew you knew that. I get mixed up sometimes myself.

 

[stovebolts]

No point?

Just as in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the son of Man...

I do believe we can see there was some very peculiar things going on the moved God to destroy the inhabitants of the earth with water, in Noah's day.

Man was given authority and dominion on the earth, to deal with the rebellion of spirit beings, and simply allowed them to take over, and to take wives of the daughters of men.

I think we can learn from this if we choose to see what happened and not "explain it away".

JLB

Nobody is trying to explain anything away. You study the things of this world and things of exterior. We study the deep secrets contained within by looking deeper.

 

[jasonc]

No worries, I knew you knew that. I get mixed up sometimes myself.

wrong post? aleph beit is the one I retracted.

daleth according to the midrash looked like the delta shape that the greeks used.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks again Stove mate. I'm curious as to why you suggest the term "sons of God " in Job and Gen 6 cannot be linked considering what you've correctly said about plausible redaction and cultural significance. Do you agree Moses penned both Job and Genesis and, culturally, he would have similar insights into both ?.

Hi again Aqua,
Yes, I do believe that Moses penned both Job and the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy). From a textual perspective, you can see the continuity contained within the Torah as the Torah was written by a Jew for Jews, yet Job does not hold a textual continuity with Torah on many levels. I have this book on Job http://www.amazon.com/Iyov-Job-Translation-Commentary-Anthologized/dp/0899060153 which I will quote from page 2, commentary on verse 1, chapter 1 which may shed some light on this conundrum.

Would we not have expected a parable, thought out by Moses, to be constructed quite differently? There is one thought which might eliminate much of this difficulty. Bava Basra 15b teaches that the main thrust of the prophecy of Iyov and that to his friends was directed to the gentile nation. [... the main portions of the prophecies of (the other prophets) was directed to Israel. but hte main portions of the prophecy (of Iyov and his friends) was directed to the nations of the world.] the commentators are silent on this issue an ddo not explain why the main portions of this book, which is part of (jewish letters), the holy writ is not addressed to Israel.
Perhaps, then, we are to conclude that the lessons of the book are indeed directed more t0 the nations than they are to Israel. Israel has it's Torah an dcan learn the truth concerning God's providences from it's teachings. Not so, the nations of this world. They must find their way to God along the torturous highways and byways by which Iyov eventually learned the truth. The Torah which Moses gave to Israel was the Torah which had been accepted with total unquestioning subjugation to God's will. A people with such a Torah may safely bypass Iyov's agonized searchings.
The nations, on the other hand, wanted to know, What does the Torah contain, what does it demand of us? For them, the book of Iyov is needed. It teaches that God can be found through search and struggle.
If this is indeed so, then we can well understand why, even if Moses wrote the book, and even if it is a parable, he chose to create the background and identity of the protagonists in non-Jewish, non-Torah context. It is an abience which is most suited to the nations of the world to whome, as Bava Basra teaches, it is mainly directed.

As I stated earlier, the Hebrew language is very robust. They don't think like us. We see objects (door), they see events (swinging, for the purpose of a door is to swing). Davar (word) can mean a thing, but in Jewish thought, it is seen more as an event that is not the thing, but rather comes from a thing.

What I see in this thread are gentiles (myself incuded) struggling with a language we don't understand. Is it possible that Moses used this term "sons of God" in both places knowing that gentiles would misunderstand it? Remember what God said to Moses before Moses went in front of Pharaoh? Even God said that Moses would "be like a God" to Pharaoh. You see, Moses was no God, but I don't think you could have convinced Pharaoh of that. And so it is that many believe that sons of God are to be taken in Genesis 6 as angels when Rashi and Ramban, and basic hassidic thought interprets the passage as sons of nobles.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8171#showrashi=true
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown

The premise that the Gen 6 sons of God are angels isn't confined to that passage alone and is linked, as you know, to other scriptures concerning angels who sinned or left their proper estate. I'm not simply grabbing the term sons of God and suggesting this equates to angels procreating with women but have formed an argument based upon logical conclusions.

I believe the NT passage (1 Peter I believe) is linking the angels who smote Sodom. This is why in Jacob's dream, he sees angels accending before descending. We know why Sodom was destroyed from Ezekiel 16 and it is also why God called a great flood in the days of Noah. And so we see that Moses wasn't able to enter the promise land because he disobeyed God and hit a rock with his staff, and took credit for the water which came out. And we see the angels who smote Sodom also take credit for it's destruction, and they too paid the price for their disobedience.

Is your opposition to the Nephilim being the offspring of angels and women based solely on that we can't be sure of the meaning of sons of God ? I'd like to see your exegesis and "good redaction" showing this ta.

No offense Stove but could you keep your reply based upon the subject matter. Thanks Brother.

I will be honest with you. I had no intention of posting in this thread until a past member who we have debated this issue sent me a PM contacted me and drug me into this mess. Honestly, I don't care what you or others believe about the Nephilim. What drug me into this conversation were people who are still in opposition to the sons of God as being "nobles" that take this teaching to the next logical conclusion. As such, they reason that the Nephilim are still roaming the earth. They link Nephilim with Goliath and that Goliath had an extra digit, and was a giant, they use this to descriminate, or put into question anyone they see today, that is large in stature. They question if this large person is human, or if they are the offspring of angels and thus, not human and are to be shunned, feared and frowned upon.

 

[stovebolts]

wrong post? aleph beit is the one I retracted.

daleth according to the midrash looked like the delta shape that the greeks used.

This is a good chart Jason.

 

[jasonc]

This is a good chart Jason.

that one.lol. I have that one in a book and had it for over twenty years. I never thought to look emuch more into that. I has a different gemeria to it. tsade is where the word tzaddik comes from.

 

[JLB]

Nobody is trying to explain anything away. You study the things of this world and things of exterior. We study the deep secrets contained within by looking deeper.

By looking deeper, does that change the meaning of the phrase "sons of God' in Genesis 6 and Job to mean something "different"?

Genesis 6 and Job 1 are from the same Historical time frame and are contextually compatible.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

Quick Google search for the Book of Job gave this article of interest:

Observations on the Language of the Book of Job

by Cristian G. Rata
​

Abstract
The Book of Job is well known for the difficulty of its language from the earliest translations to modern times. The problem has given rise to a series of theories concerning its language and origin. Some of these theories and the responses to them are discussed, including attempts to analyze the language of the book in key articles and monographs. While most of these studies have concentrated on the lexical aspects, what is needed is a sustained effort to analyze the entire grammar of the book of Job. In order to understand the language of Job, it would be more fruitful to attempt a more comprehensive grammatical study, especially one that pays close attention to the verb and textlinguistic issues.

The article is 24 pages long, complete with 100 footnotes.

 

[Deborah13]

Quick Google search for the Book of Job gave this article of interest:

Observations on the Language of the Book of Job

by Cristian G. Rata
​

The article is 24 pages long, complete with 100 footnotes.

Unless one reads Hebrew and Aramaic and possible others even the words they have listed are of little value to most of us. Unless one understands the Hebrew and ancient languages grammar it's still no help.

So I think maybe you posted this with the intent to signify that we can't really understand the book of Job and that some of the words that have been translated into English may not be correct at all.
I personally was grateful for this article, I don't feel so stupid when I think how most of the time I don't get it. The only thing I ever really got was "your own right hand can't save you". And Job repented,"I knew of you but now I know you." This last one because StoveBolts pointed it out to me.

Thanks

 

[JLB]

Quick Google search for the Book of Job gave this article of interest:

Observations on the Language of the Book of Job

by Cristian G. Rata
​

The article is 24 pages long, complete with 100 footnotes.

One thing we all seem to agree on is the term sons of Job, in the book of Job is a reference to angels.



JLB

 

[Sparkey]

One thing we all seem to agree on is the term sons of Job, in the book of Job is a reference to angels.



JLB

typo? I think you mean the term "sons of God" and not "sons of Job". And yes, it is an obscure term, now isn't it?

 

[Sparkey]

Unless one reads Hebrew and Aramaic and possible others even the words they have listed are of little value to most of us. Unless one understands the Hebrew and ancient languages grammar it's still no help.

So I think maybe you posted this with the intent to signify that we can't really understand the book of Job and that some of the words that have been translated into English may not be correct at all.
I personally was grateful for this article, I don't feel so stupid when I think how most of the time I don't get it. The only thing I ever really got was "your own right hand can't save you". And Job repented,"I knew of you but now I know you." This last one because StoveBolts pointed it out to me.

Thanks

Yes, I think that the verse you point out, "I knew of you but now I know (see) you," is one of the keys thoughts of the book.

 

[JLB]

typo? I think you mean the term "sons of God" and not "sons of Job". And yes, it is an obscure term, now isn't it?

Sons of God.

Sorry typo.