Nephilim

[King James]

These are all of the Bene Elohim sons of god in the bible.
Different source versions of Genesis 6:1-4 vary in their use of "sons of God". Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have emendations to read "sons of God" as "angels". Codex Vaticanus contains "angels" originally. In Codex Alexandrinus "sons of God" has been omitted and replaced by "angels".[23]

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

Genesis 6:4
4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Job 1:6-7
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

Job 2:1-2
2 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”

Job 38:7
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalms 29:1
Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings,[a]
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.
a. Psalm 29:1 Hebrew sons of God, or sons of might

 

[JLB]

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Did all flesh include Noah?

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. How?
Gen 6:9 . . Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Noah's father Lamech of the lineage of Jesus died five years prior to the flood, and Noah's grandfather Methuselah died the year the flood came. These were antediluvian sons of God. Were there other sons of God taken in the flood? To me it would surely be speculative. Thanks.

Eugene, is it your belief that men in the lineage of Jesus Christ, specifically Noah's Father and Grandfather, produced giants upon the earth called Nephilim?

Why would the offspring of these God fearing men, produce monsters called nephilim?

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 6:2-4

Do you see anything in these verse's that indicates that Nephilim were a Godly race?

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.

This phrase here in verse 4 states that when the sons of God had sexual relations with women the produced Nephilim.

Notice that this phrase doesn't indicate that sometimes the offspring were Godly and sometimes the offspring were nephilim.

23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, 27 the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:23-38


Do you see any Nephilim in this lineage?


JLB

 

[Edward]

Where is any scripture that shows creation to be a son? Below we see the process of becoming as Jesus. Their nakedness was covered by the shedding of blood.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take

Did even Satan ever claim to be as God? Isa 14:13-14 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Thanks.

I agree with Timothy Unruh's comments on Genesis 6:1-9: “The first matter of understanding regarding this amazing portion of Scripture beyond its plain contextual intent turns quite obviously to the Hebrew meaning of the phrase "sons of God" (bene elohim).”[1] With this in mind, I would like for us to do an etymological study of the phrase “Sons of God” so that we might come to a better understanding of just who these individuals were.


We will start with the original Hebrew word translated “son.”[2] According to Jeff Brenner, the Hebrew word for “son” is (ben) and appears as in the pictographs of the ancient Hebrews. Here, the first letter[3] is ; which is the symbol for “b.” This is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is named “beyt,” and is pronounced like the "b" in ball. The pictograph () is a picture of a Hebrew tent looking down from above. The tent is divided into two parts, one side for the males of the household and the other for the females. A wall separates the two sides with an opening in the back allowing for passage between the two sides. The entrance into the tent is on the male side, as seen at the top left of the pictograph. The meaning of this letter is “tent,” “house” and “family.”


The second letter, (n) is a picture of a germinating seed. This is the Hebrew letter "nun" which is pronounced "n" as in no. A seed is the offspring of the previous generation, which grows producing seeds for the next generation. This concept of perpetuit, or continuance is the meaning of this letter. When these two letters are combined the parent root “nb” (ben) is formed, with the original Hebraic meaning being “the house that continues.” The function of a “son” is to continue the family line to the next generation.[4]


The Hebrew word “ben” is often prefixed to other words to render “the son of…” For example, “Ben-hesed,” which means the "son of kindness" is found in 1 Kings 4:10 where it is translated “The son of Hesed.” Jacob’s youngest son was named Benjamin, which is a combination of “Ben” (son) and “Yamiyn” (hand) and means “son of (the) right hand.”


Jeff Brenner commenting on “ben” says that, “In the plural form this word is written as Mynb (beniym).” He adds that a “grammatical rule when dealing with possessives is if the word in the possessive [as is “sons of God”] is written with the masculine plural suffix, My (iym), the M (m) is dropped.” So we would expect that “sons” would be “beniy” or “beni” (pronounced “bā'nē”) and in fact, Answers.com tells us that “Beni Israel” is Hebrew for “sons of Israel.”[5]Likewise, Bible Wiki, in thier on-line article, titled “Tribes of Israel,” document Israel’s captivity in Egypt. They say that the tribes of Israel were called "Beni Israel” that is the “sons of Israel.”[6]The word “beni” is sometimes rendered “bene” for reasons that I am not able to explain other then this rendering more accurately represents the English pronunciation. Again, for reasons that I am unable to explain, Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries provides the singular “ben” as the translation of “sons”[7] And never appears to address the plural. If you understand the reason for this, please let me know.

 

[Edward]

We turn now to “elohim.” We have looked at this Hebrew word in a previous study. But we will briefly recap now. In our study of Genesis 1, we saw that the word “God” was the translation of the Hebrew word “elohiym.” We said that “elohiym” is the plural form of “el'oah.” Recall that “iym” is a masculine plural suffix. “El'oah” means “one of power and authority who yokes himself to another.” The word "el" simply means “one of power and authority”[8] and is really a generic term often, but not always, translated “God.”



Recall that, in Hebrew thought, plurality is not always indicative of quantity, as it is in English, but can describe quality.[9] It is incorrect to understand “elohiym,” as used in Genesis 1, to mean “gods” as some have translated it. Rather, in the Hebrew mind “elohiym,” as used in Genesis, means “the one of the greatest power and greatest authority which yokes himself in the most significant way to another.” There is none greater; none more powerful; none higher; none mightier; none more excellent then the One, the Only, “Elohiym.”


The Hebrew form of the phrase “sons of God” is actually “benei ha-elohim” though many commentators have the variation “bene elohim.” However, the latter rendering leaves out an important little word. It is the word “ha.” This is the Hebrew definite article[10] similar to our “the.”[11] So in Genesis 6:2, these are not merely the sons of any god but the sons of “the God.” The definite article is used before both singular and plural nouns and refers to a particular member of a group. So we are not talking about just any god but “the God.”


The actual expression "sons of God," (“benei ha-elohim”), occurs explicitly three other times, all in the very ancient book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7), and in each case the term refers indisputably to angelic beings.[12]



Many scholars believe the phrase “benei ha-elohim” is a technical term used of those who could be said to be a direct creation of God. For example, James Montgomery Boice says that what distinguishes Adam (but not Eve) and the angels from all other beings in the universe “is that each is directly created by God. Adam clearly was. So were the angels.”[13]



Timothy Unruh points out that the concept of a spiritual relationship like that of children to a father is found in the Old Testament (Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 32:5; Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:6). He goes on to say that, “However, none of these examples use the same phrase as Genesis 6:2, 4; furthermore, in each case the meaning is not really parallel to the meaning given in Genesis…In context, such a meaning would be strained, to say the least…”[14]


The phase “sons of God” is in contrast to “the daughters of men.” As Unruh says, “the ‘sons of God’ are plainly distinguished from the generations of Adam.” If God had intended to reference “the sons of men” He would have used that phrase. He did not. Instead, he used a phrase that clearly identified a different group who were not the prodigy of men as the daughters were but were, instead, a direct creation of God as was Adam.


Some have pointed to the fact that in John 1:12, the Apostle wrote that “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God…” In Romans 8:14 Paul makes a similar reference. However, Pastor Jeff Brown points out that “John 1:12 is simply stating that receiving the Messiah results in life from God.” This does not involve being “directly created by God.” Albert Barnes says that in John 1:12 “as many as received him” become “Children of God by adoption.”[15]So, what John is saying is that “as many as received him” were redeemed from their sins resulting in life. That is, the penalty for sin which is death was paid for by the Messiah. Therefore, “as many as received him” were freed from the penalty, adopted into the family with the privileges of a son, and thus became “sons of God.” This is different from being “directly created by God. Adam clearly was. So were the angels.” (Boice)

 

[Edward]

In Luke 3:38 we are told that Adam only was “the son of God.” While Adam was a direct creation of God and made in God’s image (Gen 1:27;2:7), when Adam “begat a son” that son was “in his own likeness, after his image.” (Gen 5:3) Cain, Able and Seth were not “sons of God” rather they were “sons of Adam.” All of the men born after Adam were the “sons of men” and not the “sons of God.” As Timothy Unruh points out “Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom God had directly created (Psalm 148:2-5:Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1:16).”


There are terms similar to “benei ha-elohim” used in Scripture. Again, Timothy Unruh writes that a phrase very similar to “benei ha-elohim” of the “form bar elohim is used in Daniel 3:25, and refers either to an angel or to a theophany[16]. The term ‘sons of the mighty’ (bene elim) is used in Psalm 29:1 (“ye mighty”) and also Psalm 89:6 (“the sons of the mighty”), and again refers to angels. The sons of Elohim the mighty Creator are confined to those creatures made directly by the Divine hand, and not born of other beings of their own order. Hence, in Luke's genealogy of our Lord, Adam is called a son of God (Luke 3:38), and, so also Christ is said to give to them that receive Him power to become the sons of God (John 1:12).”


Some commentators point to Hosea 1:10 to claim that Israel was refereed to as “the sons of God.” Hosea 1:10 reads: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” However, the phrase in Hosea is “sons of the living God,” which in the Hebrew is "benei chay el." I contend, as do others, that the phase “benei ha-elohim” is a technical term used of the direct creation of God and not of the metaphorical “sons” such as Israel. Commenting on this same verse, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible say that Israel became “the sons of God, not by nature, as Christ; nor by creation, as angels…” Well, in what way did they become “benei chay el?” The Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament commenting on this verse answers the question: “the whole nation was called and elevated into the position of sons of Jehovah, through its reception into the covenant with the Lord.” Note they became “sons of Jehovah” through “reception into the covenant” and not through any divine creative act.


The phrase “benei ha-elohim” is a technical term used of those who could be said to be a direct creation of God. This term can only be applied to angles and to Adam. No one claims that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 is Adam. Therefore, all reasonable doubt insofar as the context, language, and plain exegesis of Genesis 6:1-4 is concerned, is removed regarding the intent of God to convey the concept of angels, fallen angels no doubt, acting in opposition to His will. This understanding was the meaning placed on the passage by the Greek translators of the Septuagint, by Josephus, by the writer of the ancient apocryphal book of Enoch, and by all the other ancient Jewish interpreters and the earliest Christian writers. Who were the “benei ha-elohim?” They were the fallen angels of Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4.

http://www.gbchr.org/content/who-are-“benei-ha-elohim”

 

[Sparkey]

From what I understand, a more accurate translation of benei elohim is not Angel, but rather a direct creation of God, which Angels are, which Adam was, but no man since Adam. To us he gave the power to become the sons of God.

Also scripture is very clear that the Nephilim are the children of the fallen ones and the daughters of men. Seems to be some confusion going on here about that.

Word studies show that the Hebrew word is based (has a root word) that contains the meaning of "fall" <---- that's true enough. But that is a far cry from saying, "Scripture is very clear that..."

For instance, the English word ambulance is based on the root word ambul - which carries the meaning, "To Walk" so what can you make of the fact that I once took an ambulance to the hospital? Did I walk? There are thousands and thousands of such examples that could be used to illustrate this.

It is good to seek answers but our process MUST include seeking God for Revelation.

 

[gr8grace3]

Where is any scripture that shows creation to be a son? Below we see the process of becoming as Jesus. Their nakedness was covered by the shedding of blood.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take

Did even Satan ever claim to be as God? Isa 14:13-14 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Thanks.

A direct creation of God called a son.

Luke 3:38 (KJV 1900)
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.....Adam was a direct creation of God.

In Luke 3:38 we are told that Adam only was “the son of God.” While Adam was a direct creation of God and made in God’s image (Gen 1:27; 2:7), when Adam “begat a son” that son was “in his own likeness, after his image.” (Gen 5:3) Cain, Able and Seth were not “sons of God” rather they were “sons of Adam.” All of the men born after Adam were the “sons of men” and not the “sons of God.”

The phase “sons of God” is in contrast to “the daughters of men.” “the ‘sons of God’ are plainly distinguished from the generations of Adam.” If God had intended to reference “the sons of men” He would have used that phrase. He did not. Instead, he used a phrase that clearly identified a different group who were not the prodigy of men as the daughters were but were, instead, a direct creation of God as was Adam.http://www.gbchr.org/content/who-are-“benei-ha-elohim”

 

[Sparkey]

The term Elohim is literally the plural of ‘god’.
Note: …the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality. Something that is of great size or stature can be written in the plural form and in this case, God, as the great strength and authority is frequently written in the plural form elohiym.” (Jeff A. Benner, ancient-hebrew.org)

We know the words of Jesus, found in the 10th chapter of the Gospel of John while he confronted the unbelief of the Jews,

"The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),…

Pardon me for what seems to be "cherry picking" certain quotes because it seems that I'm trying to prove a point -- and that much is true enough, but the point that I'm trying to make isn't that the term can not refer to angels, but only that we don't have enough information to make definitive statements.

NOBILITY VIEW
From multiple sources I've found that many orthodox Jews (even today) have held to the belief that the term "Sons of God" refers to a class of nobility who took common girls as concubines and begot the Nephilim.

GODLY MEN VIEW
Another view is held by some famous people (Augustine, Calvin and others) is that the Sons of God were of the line of Seth, and that the Daughters of Men were of the line of Cain. In essence, the Nephilim were a result of the union of believers with unbelievers, or of Godly men with ungodly women.

FALLEN ANGEL VIEW
The third view (given by others here) is that the "Sons of God" were angels. This is supported by the fact that the term, "The Sons of God", first used in Genesis appears only 3 more times in the Old Testament, in Job. In each of these three cases, the term did NOT refer to fallen angels as Satan was excluded and excepted from their company.

 

[Deborah13]

YLT - Young's Literal Translation

Gen 6:4 The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them--they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.
Gen 6:5 And Jehovah seeth that abundant is the wickedness of man in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil all the day;

 

[Edward]

For any open minded ones here, here is a video which answers alot of your questions. It debunks the sethite view, the Nobility view, and explains the sons of God term, and it replete with more scriptures than you would want to research in one day. So I urge you to have pen and paper handy and give this a watch. If you want to get right to the meat of it which is pertinent to our discussion, start at the 1:00 mark.

 

[JLB]

A direct creation of God called a son.

Luke 3:38 (KJV 1900)
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.....Adam was a direct creation of God.

In Luke 3:38 we are told that Adam only was “the son of God.” While Adam was a direct creation of God and made in God’s image (Gen 1:27; 2:7), when Adam “begat a son” that son was “in his own likeness, after his image.” (Gen 5:3) Cain, Able and Seth were not “sons of God” rather they were “sons of Adam.” All of the men born after Adam were the “sons of men” and not the “sons of God.”

The phase “sons of God” is in contrast to “the daughters of men.” “the ‘sons of God’ are plainly distinguished from the generations of Adam.” If God had intended to reference “the sons of men” He would have used that phrase. He did not. Instead, he used a phrase that clearly identified a different group who were not the prodigy of men as the daughters were but were, instead, a direct creation of God as was Adam.http://www.gbchr.org/content/who-are-“benei-ha-elohim”

Well said.

 

[Free]

Word studies show that the Hebrew word is based (has a root word) that contains the meaning of "fall" <---- that's true enough. But that is a far cry from saying, "Scripture is very clear that..."

For instance, the English word ambulance is based on the root word ambul - which carries the meaning, "To Walk" so what can you make of the fact that I once took an ambulance to the hospital? Did I walk? There are thousands and thousands of such examples that could be used to illustrate this.

It is good to seek answers but our process MUST include seeking God for Revelation.

Agreed. This point cannot be overstated. It is an common exegetical fallacy to go to the root(s) of a word and think one has the "real" meaning.

 

[Edward]

So throw out the concordance? You guys are grasping at straws instead of just believing God's Word for what it says. God is not the author of confusion brothers.

 

[Free]

So throw out the concordance? You guys are grasping at straws instead of just believing God's Word for what it says.

No, of course no one is saying to throw out concordances but rather that untrained lay people need to know the limitations and dangers of using concordances and lexicons. Such an argument completely ignores the difficulties that often arise in biblical interpretation, particularly with such an obscure and difficult topic.

Read D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, or just listen to the podcast Principles for Biblical Interpretation by Dr. James Voelz, available in iTunesU for Concordia Seminary. Both state the danger of going to the root of a word since, as Sparrowhawke has correctly pointed out, the actual meaning between a word and its root can be quite different.

So, no, this very much isn't grasping at straws but rather trying to be faithful to the text without making assumptions.

God is not the author of confusion brothers.

Of course he isn't. Be careful in quoting Scripture as though you have said something meaningful. This much abused passage is often used when one has no response except to simply disagree, presuming that it is the opposing view(s) that is confused, implying they are following the flesh or demons, instead of acknowledging the possibility of one's own lack of understanding.

I have pointed out some other problems with the fallen angels had sex with female women theory, but as far as I have seen, they have gone unaddressed.

 

[jasoncran]

so an angel can take ONLY a male form but not a female form. odd yet how many in the occult have dealt with female familiar spirits?

 

[gr8grace3]

No, of course no one is saying to throw out concordances but rather that untrained lay people need to know the limitations and dangers of using concordances and lexicons. Such an argument completely ignores the difficulties that often arise in biblical interpretation, particularly with such an obscure and difficult topic.

Read D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, or just listen to the podcast Principles for Biblical Interpretation by Dr. James Voelz, available in iTunesU for Concordia Seminary. Both state the danger of going to the root of a word since, as Sparrowhawke has correctly pointed out, the actual meaning between a word and its root can be quite different.

So, no, this very much isn't grasping at straws but rather trying to be faithful to the text without making assumptions.


Of course he isn't. Be careful in quoting Scripture as though you have said something meaningful. This much abused passage is often used when one has no response except to simply disagree, presuming that it is the opposing view(s) that is confused, implying they are following the flesh or demons, instead of acknowledging the possibility of one's own lack of understanding.

I have pointed out some other problems with the fallen angels had sex with female women theory, but as far as I have seen, they have gone unaddressed.

Free,

I have not seen any posts that pointed out other problems with the fallen angels and female women theory.

I would try to address them if you could kindly point them out for me? I breezed through and didn't see any posts using scripture that flatly contradicts this theory and the scriptures used to back it up.

I just read your post that popped up while I was typing. I agree about the "root" word. However, it has been overwhelmingly shown on this particular thread that the Sons of God most likely mean angels. We even have NT Scriptures, Jude 1:6-7 and most notably 2 Pet 2:4-5 that put the angels back in the days of Noah. Jude attaches sexual sin directly to these angels.

This theory, on this forum anyway, Gets accusations thrown at it "Cult" ,"Cults always have sex at the base of it" and lots of other accusations and eluded to accusations.

We have numerous sources that believed and taught this.

Fallen angel view BC

Josephus Flavious
Book of Enoch
Traditional Rabbinical Literature
Testimony of the 12 patriarchs.
Septuagint (LXX)
Not inspired, but hardly considered a cult. Or unworthy.

Early church Fathers that taught it:

Julian
Amrose
Justin Martyr
Philo of Alexandria
Irenaeus
Athenaggoras
tertullian
Lactantius

 

[jasoncran]

how much in rabbinical lit? rashi believed it but he also taught serpent seed. ramban who basically united the rabbis under one roof and gave Judaism its cabbalah didn't believe that at all.

 

[Deborah13]

Agreed. This point cannot be overstated. It is an common exegetical fallacy to go to the root(s) of a word and think one has the "real" meaning.

Young was not untrained, he knew both Hebrew and Greek. He said in the YLT which I posted, "the fallen ones" that is what Nephilim means in the Hebrew. One's who were fallen, in some way.
Irish are called Irish because they came or live in Ireland.
It says, the Nephilim. Which would be like saying the Christians.

Now, that does not mean that "fallen ones" are fallen angels. It could mean fallen apostate men.

 

[agua.]

Young was not untrained, he knew both Hebrew and Greek. He said in the YLT which I posted, "the fallen ones" that is what Nephilim means in the Hebrew. One's who were fallen, in some way.
Irish are called Irish because they came or live in Ireland.
It says, the Nephilim. Which would be like saying the Christians.

Now, that does not mean that "fallen ones" are fallen angels. It could mean fallen apostate men.

Fallen apostate giant men ?

Num 13:32-33 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.

 

[Edward]

There's the video above also, Free. That man is more learned than you or I also. WHat ABout him? I understand he's Harvard educated, The ECO or whatever they call it for FOMOCO for theirty years and has ties to his work in the Government. How will you be able to dismiss him? With opinion?