Nephilim

[agua.]

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.

Sure Stove this may explain the textual differences between Job and Genesis but it doesn't shed any light on the meaning of "sons of God " and that in Job the term does specifically apply to angels. Are you suggesting because Job has a different style of writing that Job 1:6 is not referring to angels? I'm not sure what your intention is here it seems to be an attempt to suggest "sons of God" is merely an invented poetic term not to be taken at face value. Sorry mate this seems like a bright red herring because you have no textual comparisons as evidence.

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

It's a long stretch suggesting Moses used "sons of God" knowing gentiles would misunderstand it and falls into the same red herring. I'm not going to invite a motive you will assign to Moses here. I don't accept that because the Rashi commentary suggests the "sons of God" are nobles that this is correct. Notice that the CJB isn't a literal translation, and this doesn't necessarily imply it's inaccurate; but it does imply a thought bias. The loose connection to Moses being a god to Pharaoh is inconclusive considering we have a direct comparisons of the use of this term in both Job and the NT. The Jewish Fathers believed angels procreated with women and I'm assuming this was not only gleaned from Gen 6 but also oral tradition which places them in a mindset closer to the intention of Moses. It's somewhat of a modern idea that the "sons of God" in Gen 6 means nobles.

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.

2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

Is this the scripture you're referring to ? If you suggest this is about the angels of Sodom what evidence do you have that these particular angels sinned ? Here is why Sodom was destroyed.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

This example seems to lend weight to the perverse sexual activities which may have include angels procreating with women. The idea that the angels of Sodom sinned is new to me and you must admit it isn't presented in the Bible. So far the only exegesis you've presented is concerning the definition of "sons of God".

Let me present a summary for my position..

Jud 1:6-7 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Notice the word "habitation" is used only twice in scripture which is here in Jude 6 and in 2Cor 5

2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

Habitation/house ( oiketerion ) is only used twice in scripture and it refers to our new spiritual bodies we will receive at the resurrection in 2 Cor:5. Similarly this word describes the "house" the angels who sinned left.


2Pe 2:4-5 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Peter suggests the time that the angels that sinned was in the days of Noah.

Jude suggests the angels that sinned left their correct estate and compares their sin ( "even as" ) to the fornication of S & G.


Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:

It's interesting, but not conclusive, that this charge of "folly" is used in Genesis 34:7, Deuteronomy 22:21, Judges 19: 22-23, 2 Samuel 13:10-12 to show sexual impropriety.

cont...

 

[agua.]

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.

I don't see how any Christian could seriously prejudice tall people because of this doctrine and if they do they should self examine. Jesus told us to love our enemies. I don't accept this is a valid reason to dispute the veracity of the doctrine because some people create prejudice at will.


So far stove the only exegesis you have presented is that concerning the "sons of God" in the OT which is good but not conclusive.

 

[agua.]

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?

Not really :D

John 1:2, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1&2.

 

[agua.]

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.

Gday Jasonc,

Yes I understand your preference thanks. I've never been told of any offense personally from Jews for me using Yahweh. I know many will not speak the word as you say but I've not heard of any offense caused by non Jews using it.

 

[jasonc]

Gday Jasonc,

Yes I understand your preference thanks. I've never been told of any offense personally from Jews for me using Yahweh. I know many will not speak the word as you say but I've not heard of any offense caused by non Jews using it.

they don't even say it. that is why I know that when I see anyone post that Name they aren't into messianic judiasm or a jew. they will say Heshem or G-D. Yahweh in usage amongst jews isn't even heard of. they wouldn't as well they speak Hebrew. and that is close to YHWH thus my point.

 

[Sparkey]

... it is an obscure term, now isn't it?

Not really :biggrin

John 1:2, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1&2.

If we are thinking about the concept (which is, to me, more relevant) then you're right. But the exact phrase, upon which the teaching of angelic sexual reproduction hangs, is obscure indeed.

I appreciate you saying this. It indicates (again, to me) that an evenly balanced scale is in your hand. My understanding doesn't go as far as to rule angels out as "sons". Indeed they are and I'd say they are more qualified because they are created spirit beings (God is Spirit) and we are created from dirt and have sinned. Angelic beings are sons of God, that is not in dispute (so far).

I've never heard of anything that suggests that angels can repent. I've not heard, and do not know, if they are allowed grace to depart from sin or have their sins covered. It seems they can't or if they can, we are not told about it in the Bible. But we can repent. God has made provision for us, that we may become like Jesus. See 2Tim 2:25 I have heard that angels will be judged, judged by those who continue in Christ. 1Tim 5:21 speaks of "chosen" or "elect" angels. We also are the "chosen" of God. See 2Thess 2:13 and Eph 1:4-5 We are chosen for redemption.

~Sparrow

 

[agua.]

If we are thinking about the concept (which is, to me, more relevant) then you're right. But the exact phrase, upon which the teaching of angelic sexual reproduction hangs, is obscure indeed.

I appreciate you saying this. It indicates (again, to me) that an evenly balanced scale is in your hand. My understanding doesn't go as far as to rule angels out as "sons". Indeed they are and I'd say they are more qualified because they are created spirit beings (God is Spirit) and we are created from dirt and have sinned. Angelic beings are sons of God, that is not in dispute (so far).

I've never heard of anything that suggests that angels can repent. I've not heard, and do not know, if they are allowed grace to depart from sin or have their sins covered. It seems they can't or if they can, we are not told about it in the Bible. But we can repent. God has made provision for us, that we may become like Jesus. See 2Tim 2:25 I have heard that angels will be judged, judged by those who continue in Christ. 1Tim 5:21 speaks of "chosen" or "elect" angels. We also are the "chosen" of God. See 2Thess 2:13 and Eph 1:4-5 We are chosen for redemption.

~Sparrow

We also are a directly created spirit being I think Sparrow. imo.

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Before this point we don't have the spirit of Christ. I haven't seen evidence to show that an angel can repent either.

 

[Sinthesis]

If an angel can fall, couldn't he also be redeemed?
Would he be redeemed without repentance?

 

[agua.]

If an angel can fall, couldn't he also be redeemed?
Would he be redeemed without repentance?

The only thing that strikes me as logical that may imply why some angels wont repent or be redeemed is that they willingly decided to leave their proper position.

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

I try to imagine our new spiritual body and state at the resurrection and ponder this is similar to what the angels that sinned gave away. Can you imagine this.

Now back to our regular viewing " The Land of the Giants " :D

 

[Sparkey]

You are correct to say that there is no redemption without repentance. But repentance isn't all that is required. God is just. Can angels die? That was the sentence for man's sin: death. Jesus, our kinsman redeemer paid the price required by justice for our sin. I've not heard of a redemption plan for angels but if there were, it would require more than mere repentance, else we would not have needed Jesus.

 

[Edward]

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.

Try Strongs or E-Sword.

I like sword searcher.

 

[Edward]

Stovebolts posted a couple thoughts about exegesis and redaction. I had to go and make sure that I knew what the word meant. Here's the quick of it:
I was used to the term meaning to go through a written work and "redact" in order to obscure the meaning - often by crossing out critical sections. But that is not the sense of what Stovebolts used it for.

Redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly to make a single document. Often this is a method of collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive and coherent work.

The method that has been suggested here is that of looking at a couple uses of a single phrase in order to come up with a definitive meaning (giving preference to one of many possible) is suspect. The phrase was used in two books by two different authors. Moses did not necessarily mean the exact same thing as Job did. Look at Post #428 again.

Even if (and that's a big IF) we accept the formula "Sons of God" equals "Angels" we are still left with the conflicting idea of unfallen angels mentioned in Job as sons of God compared with the strange notion of angels who fornicate with "daughters of men" that some suppose were mentioned by Moses. There is no consensus among scholars for the true meaning (as understood by the original source).

Insisting that we have a way to determine a precise meaning for a word or a phrase that is seldom used must be held suspect simply due to a lack of data. Further, the fact that the subject isn't cohesively dealt with suggests that the doctrine isn't critical to the central theme of the Bible. For instance, the "unity of the saints" and "coming together in one spirit" and "as much as possible continue in peace with all men" take priority.

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.

~Sparrow

I'm not sure what you mean, no point? This is a thread about Nephilim. Should we not post on the topic and consider the idiosyncrasies of the text? To throw the topic out the window because some do not agree, or are unwilling to look at it with open mindedness is not fruitful.

If the sons of God were in fact only men, then the text would certainly say sons of men, or simply men, would it not? That there was something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads.

 

[stovebolts]

Try Strongs or E-Sword.

I like sword searcher.

I was pulling your chain Edward. A concordance is simply a reference where a particular word is used in scripture. They don't list a definition. With today's software, we can search for words or phrases more easily than a concordance ever could.

As far as Strongs, it is not a concordance. Actually, it's not much more than a listing of how a particular word was translated in most cases. As well, it is biblically biased in that it limits it's definitions to fit how the translators decided to translate a particular word. If you want a little more on a words meaning, you won't ususally find it through strongs but instead, you'll need a good lexicon. Persus tufts is a great site that specializes in the greek and has two very good online lexicon's for comparison which includes a bit of etymology for an even fuller picture on how a word came about.

 

[stovebolts]

I don't see how any Christian could seriously prejudice tall people because of this doctrine and if they do they should self examine. Jesus told us to love our enemies. I don't accept this is a valid reason to dispute the veracity of the doctrine because some people create prejudice at will.


So far stove the only exegesis you have presented is that concerning the "sons of God" in the OT which is good but not conclusive.

You may not see how any Christian could seriously be prejudice against somebody tall, but search this site on the topic and you'll find it...
As far as doctrines go, we know good doctrines by what Paul wrote to Timothy. If you are calling this theory a doctrine, then I would love to see how it fits in with "good doctrine" according to the NT.

I have not heard you refute any of the exegesis I have provided by directly refuting what I have written. You, and others have tried to refute what I've written by poor redaction but I've not seen any argument where I've failed to produce a good exegesis.

If you would like to start with a textual exegesis on both the term sons of god from Genesis 6, and then again on Job 1 and 2, I would really like to see what you can produce. Bring in the historical aspect on how the original reader would have understood the term and then tie the two pieces together coherently and then we'll have a goo discussion. As it sits, the only thing I've seen is somebody say, "It means this here, so it has to mean that there". That's simply asserting one's opinion.

I know you've written a few comments on my other posts, and I've not really had a good deal of time to really read them fully, so if you've provided said request, then I'll back pedal and you can forget I wrote this. I've been extreemly busy and I'll try and read the other posts you've written later and respond accordingly.

Thanks!

 

[stovebolts]

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

contextually compatible? Please explain.
Also, you state that Genesis and Job are from the same historical time frame. Please explain that as well. I mean, did both events occur withing a historical proximity, or were they both written withing the same historical time frame. Please site your sources so we may know how you came to this understanding.

 

[stovebolts]

agua.

Sure Stove this may explain the textual differences between Job and Genesis but it doesn't shed any light on the meaning of "sons of God " and that in Job the term does specifically apply to angels. Are you suggesting because Job has a different style of writing that Job 1:6 is not referring to angels? I'm not sure what your intention is here it seems to be an attempt to suggest "sons of God" is merely an invented poetic term not to be taken at face value. Sorry mate this seems like a bright red herring because you have no textual comparisons as evidence.

I'm glad you see that there are textual differences. I do hope that you'll see the contextual differences as well. I am also you used the word "Seems" in reference to my explanation being a 'red herring'. But to address that suggestion, it is simply part of exegesis because proper exegesis understands the context from which it derives. To be clear, sons of God in Job is in regard to them presenting themselves to God, and Satan just happens to show up as well. sons of God in reference to Genesis 6 has to do with the sons of god procreating and Nephilim are the offspring.

Job is about a gentile suffering and finding his way to God and the very nature of God. Genesis 6 is about the wickedness of humanity and their distruction with the exception of one man who found favor and his family was included. Contextually, these to stories are miles apart as is their intent. I don't see how that's a red herring as it adds to the discussion because we are looking at what the text actually says before we decide what it means.

It's a long stretch suggesting Moses used "sons of God" knowing gentiles would misunderstand it and falls into the same red herring. I'm not going to invite a motive you will assign to Moses here. I don't accept that because the Rashi commentary suggests the "sons of God" are nobles that this is correct. Notice that the CJB isn't a literal translation, and this doesn't necessarily imply it's inaccurate; but it does imply a thought bias. The loose connection to Moses being a god to Pharaoh is inconclusive considering we have a direct comparisons of the use of this term in both Job and the NT.

It may be a stretch and I claim no authority on my opinion, but there isn't anything wrong with assigning a motive. Every writer in the Bible had a motive... some event that urged him to write what the Holy Spirit gave them to write. Historical evidence can often shed light on what motivated a writer to write what he wrote. Historically, we have many leaders from Pharaoh to Cesar who claimed they were God incarnate and I can provide a page of references if you so desire. Just give the word and I shall start posting them.

The Jewish Fathers believed angels procreated with women and I'm assuming this was not only gleaned from Gen 6but also oral tradition which places them in a mindset closer to the intention of Moses. It's somewhat of a modern idea that the "sons of God" in Gen 6 means nobles.

The Sanhedrin had the last say when it came to Torah... Oral tradition is nothing other than commentary and the commentary back then is as broad as it is today, both in Christian circles as it remains in Jewish circles. But if we want to talk authority, then we've got to introduce what the Sages had to say on the matter, and you will find that the Jews also have their own "dictionary" which defines words so I assure you, sons of god being translated into english as nobles is no modern idea. Rashi, whom I left a link of his commentary was from 1040 AD and is recognized for staying very true to the text. Ramban on the other hand used more of the "Oral traditions" to comment on the text. So, while you may find Jewish commentary stating that sons of god in Genesis 6 were angels, is it supported by the Sages and if so, what do the Sages say on the matter? Here is a red herring if you wish to chase it, but wold we follow a Hebrew commentary that brought us back to Lilith through the interpretation of Genesis 6 being about Angels? In other words, who's right in their interpretation and what criteria is used to discern who's credible and who's not?

 

[agua.]

You may not see how any Christian could seriously be prejudice against somebody tall, but search this site on the topic and you'll find it...

Can you provide links to this Stove. You've made the claim so it's up to you to provide the evidence mate I'm not going to do your homework. I haven't seen, or heard of, any christian being prejudiced against tall people but because a Christian may have a bigoted prejudice doesn't mean a Biblical position is incorrect.

As far as doctrines go, we know good doctrines by what Paul wrote to Timothy. If you are calling this theory a doctrine, then I would love to see how it fits in with "good doctrine" according to the NT.

I have not heard you refute any of the exegesis I have provided by directly refuting what I have written. You, and others have tried to refute what I've written by poor redaction but I've not seen any argument where I've failed to produce a good exegesis.

I don't need to refute your claims and suggested your exegesis is good, but not conclusive. To make a decision on this matter we can't simply hunt the sons of God definition because this will only provide the possibility of its usage. I'm not sure how you can suggest my redaction is poor really but I guess it's because you disagree with it.

f you would like to start with a textual exegesis on both the term sons of god from Genesis 6, and then again on Job 1 and 2, I would really like to see what you can produce. Bring in the historical aspect on how the original reader would have understood the term and then tie the two pieces together coherently and then we'll have a goo discussion. As it sits, the only thing I've seen is somebody say, "It means this here, so it has to mean that there". That's simply asserting one's opinion.

I know you've written a few comments on my other posts, and I've not really had a good deal of time to really read them fully, so if you've provided said request, then I'll back pedal and you can forget I wrote this. I've been extreemly busy and I'll try and read the other posts you've written later and respond accordingly.

Thanks!

Oky doky I'll present a sons of God exegesis soon. Remember though the argument isn't based solely upon this definition, and we both accept the term may be used to define angels, and so if I produce historical, and cultural, evidence that the term can apply to angels in Gen 6 we will need to move past this onto the other points which you haven't yet addressed.

I have a full time job too so catch ya soon God bless.

 

[JLB]

contextually compatible? Please explain.
Also, you state that Genesis and Job are from the same historical time frame. Please explain that as well. I mean, did both events occur withing a historical proximity, or were they both written withing the same historical time frame. Please site your sources so we may know how you came to this understanding.

Who do you claim wrote the book of Job?


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

If the sons of God were in fact only men, then the text would certainly say sons of men, or simply men, would it not? That there was something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads.

View attachment 4223 If the "red berries" were in fact strawberries, then the text would certainly say "strawberries" would it not? That there is something else going on seems clear from the text. This much seems almost a given from the way the text reads. Those who close their minds to the possibility of "red berries" being strawberries should not speak of their open minds.

The phrase found in Genesis could apply to angels (certainly it does elsewhere); it could also apply to other creatures who are also elsewhere called the sons of God. How can an open minded person insist that all others are wrong?

 

[chessman]

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

This much seems almost a given from the way this text reads. Unless, of course, your opinion differs from the way it reads and you're never 'wrong'.