Nephilims

[Imagican]

I don't find your refernces to be descriptive enough to make a definative decision on exactly WHO is being refered to in these passages. One may certainly 'choose' to believe that the references are to 'angels', but this is NOT clearly stated by ANY means.

Christ IS The Son of God. Those that God created ARE His sons. Whether angels are considered His sons is not a matter of 'fact' as far as scripture is concerned but more conjecture.

MEC

 

[Ambient]

I agree with Imagican.

Besides, the whole book of Job reads like an analogy, or a mythology (of sorts). The "perfect state" of Job, Satan making a wager with God (who actually goes along with it), hardships befalling Job, his friends telling him to curse God, Job questioning, God answering with "pseudo-scientific statements" (similar to what primitive man would have stated), etc.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I don't find your refernces to be descriptive enough to make a definative decision on exactly WHO is being refered to in these passages. One may certainly 'choose' to believe that the references are to 'angels', but this is NOT clearly stated by ANY means.

Christ IS The Son of God. Those that God created ARE His sons. Whether angels are considered His sons is not a matter of 'fact' as far as scripture is concerned but more conjecture.

Job.38 tells of the sons of God "shouting for joy" when God "laid the foundation of the earth". Who else was there?

 

[Imagican]

I don't find your refernces to be descriptive enough to make a definative decision on exactly WHO is being refered to in these passages. One may certainly 'choose' to believe that the references are to 'angels', but this is NOT clearly stated by ANY means.

Christ IS The Son of God. Those that God created ARE His sons. Whether angels are considered His sons is not a matter of 'fact' as far as scripture is concerned but more conjecture.

Job.38 tells of the sons of God "shouting for joy" when God "laid the foundation of the earth". Who else was there?

Brad,

We simply don't know the answer to that question. Anything that I could offer would be NOTHING but speculation.

We have NO idea if the Earth is the ONLY place that God has created life. We have NO idea if this 'same' scenario has been acted out before or MANY times before in 'different' places.

I am NOT offering that anything above is 'true', simply that we have not been offered EVERYTHING pertaining to God.

And don't forget, the Bible was piecemealed together by a 'group' of men. Interpreted by an even more diverse group of men. There is MUCH room for thoughts and ideas that may or may not have been intended.

I accept the Word as I am able to understand it and as it is openly revealed to me. I do NOT understand every thought that it offers. I have found, however, that the more I have read and studied it, the more is revealed that is NOT actually stated in any single statement.

I have often used the analogy of the Bible being as a very large and intricate puzzle. The more we begin to understand the more it's like finding those 'edges' and putting them together. When we go a little deeper we start finding the pieces of the 'same' color and able to place them together. After a while, we are able to actually have bigger and bigger 'sections' to the point that it begins to take on the actual 'flavor' of the picture that it will form when complete.

The downside to this is that quite often we find some pieces that are, let's say, red. And as we place those red pieces together, we may begin to believe that these pieces are, let's say, a fire engine. So, for a while, this thought of the fire engine has a major influence on our guess as to the actual picture that will be revealed. Only to add a few more pieces, eventually, and to our surprise, it's NOT a fire engine but a little red school house.

So, this is where we have to be extremely careful. Not to jump to conclusions and to actually KNOW what the picture is before basing our beliefs on it.

MEC

 

[sigh1]

I think that since all people are originally descended from Adam and Eve, to say that Noah was perfect because of his bloodline is silly. A better solution to the perfection of Noah is that he did what God wanted while all those around him, save his own children, were doing evil acts in Gods eyes.

As for the "giants", while true that Angels don't marry, that refers more to the ones who obey God then to the ones who joined Satan in his FALL from grace as God's chief Angel. Therefore it is completely reasonable to assume that angels are capable but simply don't out of obedience to God.

I also think that saying that early Christian leaders took from the cultures and religions of their day to form the "myth" of the Sons of God is ignoring the other option. What if all those other religions and cultures came up with those stories because Fallen angels (which to them would be like gods) were breeding with the daughters of man. Is it not possible that the heros of myth and lore; Heracles, Gilgamesh and Maui (New Zealanders will know this one) were just Nephilim, the offspring of Angel/human couplings.

It seems to me that while we may not know this until we reach Heaven, we can at least assume that a face value reading is the easiest. Sons of God could be people, but until Abraham Israel wasn't even God's chosen. It seems that since the Hebrew often calls angels "sons of God" then that is probably who genesis is talking about.

 

[Lewis]

Hmmmm' I have to come back to this one, when I get the time.

 

[D46]

Genesis 6:4 (KJV) There were giants 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, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

This is a puzzling verse to me. I always thought angels were of a neuter gender even though some were called Michael and Raphael implying male. No female angels? Why would an angel need a reproductive system? Even so, if this verse applies to fallen angels, then I Corinthians 11th Chapter indicated the angels must have thoughts of earthly women.

1 Corinthians 11:6-10 (KJV) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

This is a hard saying. How can angels be holy if they are turned on by earthly women? Guess I'm not getting the full picture. Perhaps this is why Palestinian women cover their heads. Just guessing. I don't think anyone has come up with a satisfactory explaination of this...not here on the forum, but of scholars and commentators past and present.

In retrospect, perhaps the angels would be insulted (for lack of a better word) if being present in a worship service, saw women with their heads uncovered and perhaps showing disrespect? I don't know.

 

[Preacher Boy]

Here is an interesting teaching sermon on the subjet...

http://www.biblepreachingarchives.org/J ... 20knox.mp3

 

[Lewis]

I am going to listen to it, as soon as possible.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I was recently re-reading Numbers, and I thought about this thread when I read this verse.

Num 13:33 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.


Jos 15:13 And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, [even] the city of Arba the father of Anak, which [city is] Hebron.

The place is Hebron. Apparently Hebron has had at least three different names:

Jos 14:15 And the name of Hebron before [was] Kirjatharba; [which Arba was] a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.

Going back to Gen. 6:4

Gen 6:4 There were giants 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, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Does it appear to anyone else that the 'giants in the earth' may be a different group of people than those refered to as the mighty men of old?

 

[Lewis]

Gabby' I don't know how you did it' but thanks, because Vic and I could not find it. And plus' I had not been through with this topic anyway.

 

[Lewis]

This site is very interesting. I am going back over there and finish reading about this topic' on Nephilims. But check out this below.

TEMPTING THE ANGELS

Another New Testament verse may have bearing on Genesis 6. In 1 Corinthians 11:10, Paul instructs that a woman should cover her head as a sign of subjection to her husband, and also "because of the angels." This observation has intrigued commentators through the years. Why this sudden reference to angels? Could it be a reference to what happened in Genesis 6 where angels succumbed to the inducements and physical charm of the women of Earth? Obviously, Paul believed that an uncovered woman was a temptation even to angels. William Barclay mentions an old rabbinic tradition which alleges that it was the beauty of the women's long hair that attracted and tempted the angels in Genesis 6.

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

 

[Lewis]

ARE ANGELS SEXLESS?

Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.

Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. (17) But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.

The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are sexless. Throughout the Bible, angels are referred to only as men. Finis Drake writes: "It is logical to say...that the female was created specifically for the human race in order that it could be kept in existence; and that all angels were created males, in as much as their kind is kept in existence without the reproduction process. Angels were created innumerable to start with (Hebrews 12:22) whereas, the human multitudes began with one pair." (18)

Even in the next world, when the saints will dwell in their resurrection body and live forever, it does not imply that they will be sexless. The Bible teaches that everyone will have his own body in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-38). No suggestion is made that they will be unsexed. Furthermore, Christ remained a man after His resurrection.
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

 

[Lewis]

DEMONS AT LARGE

One other question has been raised. If the fallen angels who lusted after women of Earth in Genesis 6 have been interred in Tartarus with "everlasting chains," how does one explain the demons who have been operating since then? They seemed to have been quite active during the ministry of Jesus, and are busy again in our day. Following this reasoning, some share the conclusion of Kent Philpott:

However one might wish to interpret Genesis 6: 1-4 to link this passage with the verses in 2 Peter and Jude seems to post far more problems than it would solve. But 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6 clearly assert that the rebellious angels are being kept prisoner in the "nether gloom." If they are prisoners, they could not very well function as the demons are described as functioning in the New Testament. (19)

But Philpott failed to see that there are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer, and who are still free to torment mankind; and those who fell the second time by committing carnal acts with the daughters of men. The spirits in this second category are those chained in the nether regions.

It seems clear to me that the "sons of God" are none other than fallen angels, and, because of their further sin of lusting after the "daughters of men," many were imprisoned by God. Both the near annihilation of the human race and the incarceration of the fallen angels in Tartarus indicate the magnitude of the sin they committed. By such drastic judgment, God saved the human race from a calamity worse than the physical death originally imposed upon them.
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

 

[Lewis]

So I guess that's a wrap.