The Nephilim

[tim-from-pa]

I've updated my blog with a piece on the Nephilim. All comments are welcome.

http://wonderfultruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/the-nephilim-giants-in-the-bible/

Very nice Blog and very well presented. I'm glad that more and more people are seeing the truth regarding these creatures these days. I've always extrapolated on this subject, and this is where the idea of alien abductions and poltergeists and other paranormal activity (incubus and succubus legends) come into play. Their modus operandi is similar to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. Even mythology, such as giant cyclops stories have their basis in fact and one has to wonder where cross-cultural and stories throughout history all came from if there wasn't something to it.

 

[westtexas]

I've updated my blog with a piece on the Nephilim. All comments are welcome.

http://wonderfultruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/the-nephilim-giants-in-the-bible/

Let me ask you a question NJBeliever, even though I think I know what your response is going to be. First let me say that I believe that the sons of God refers to the Sethites, and I am sure that neither of us will change the others mind, and lets go from there.

I read your blog and it refers to the Gen. 6 verses and then to the flood and to Noah. Your blog states that Noah was saved because he and his lineage was 100% human and unblemished with Nephlim (blood or traits, I forget what word was used) If this was the case what scripture do you use to justify more angel inbreeding so that we have Anak, Goliath, etc.?

Westtexas

 

[NJBeliever]

Can angels marry humans?
Option #1 - Angels married humans

The term "sons of God" is used in Scriptures of both man (Romans 8:14,19, Galatians 3:26, 1 John 3:2 KJV) and angels (see Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 in most translations except NIV). There is no indication in the Bible that angels can have sexual relations... quite specifically God says that they do not marry (Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:37). Granted theses passages speak of heavenly angels, but it appears that they were created without the need/ability (see also Luke 20:35-36), so there is no reasonable extension to say that fallen angels somehow acquired it. You have to insert a lot of unsupported speculations into Scriptures to say that this references to angels, even fallen ones.

Okay first off, this argument is mostly irrelevant because it is dealing with New Testament phrases. The basic position on the Nephilim uses Old Testament terms, specifically "sons of god" in HEBREW not Greek. Sons of god or B'nai Ha Elohim is ONLY used in reference to angelic beings in the Old Testament.

Knowing this -- when we read "Genesis 6: 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. " We are not inserting unsupported speculation into The Word at all. We are reading the text properly and plainly.

Option #2 - Seth's line was intermarrying with Cain's line

Because God determined that the Messiah would come through Seth's line, and Noah (the only righteous man left on earth [Genesis 6:9]) was his descendant — who God foreordained would be the one whose descendants would repopulate the earth — it could be argued that the "sons of God" were descendants in Seth's line whom were intermarrying into godless lines [i.e. of Cain]. BUT, again, some has to be read into Scriptures to get there. For example, where in the Bible were Cain's descendants explicitly banned from marrying any of Adam's other descendants? While it is not directly stated, it can be held to be implicit based on later teachings for Israel and the church. This is not as great a stretch as the first speculation about angels though. Since Cain "went out from the presence of the Lord (Genesis 4:16)," it makes sense that his offspring would be godless, not knowing the Lord. More directly "sons of God" would reference all who followed the Lord with the implication that "the daughters of men" were of those who did not. God appears to have always opposed mixed marriage (see 2 Corinthians 6:14, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, 1 Kings 11:1, Ezra 9:1-2) and it would be no surprise that consequences would result from them [Genesis 1:3-4].

There is no mention of Seth in Genesis chapter 6 and the phrase B'nai Ha Elohim does not support Seth (who is a man) and his descendants being the subject here. Furthermore, it does not explain why their offspring would be giants. And why these giants were such a threat that they had to be completely exterminated. There were mixed marriages and mixed offspring all through the Old Testament (even with Abraham!) and yet no giants were birthed as a result.

Option #3 - Marrying too many wives.

An often unconsidered third option exists for this passage. It can be directly understood that because man was living so long, they were taking multitudes of women as wives — note the plural! Here it is expressing God's displeasure over his people taking multiple "daughters" as wives, ignoring His expressed desire and intent for marriage (Genesis 2:24). Therefore God was now limiting their life span to 120 years (Genesis 6:2). This is the most direct sense of the passage, without reading in extra speculations. Proverbs 29:16 says "When the wicked increase, transgression increases" (NASU). Simply put, God was then limiting how many transgressions could occur by limiting the number of wives and offspring. Imagine how many kids you could have with multiple wives in 900 years or so!
Apart from other clarifying texts, some Bible passages are occasionally more difficult to understand. Adding extra-biblical speculation to those texts is dangerous and, in effect, is adding to Scriptures. As with the second option above, wherein an appeal is made to implicit teachings of Scriptures, this must be acknowledged. Preferable to all implicit interpretation, or at least complimentary to it, any direct sense of the passage should be a primary foundation of our understanding. Beware of adding to Scriptures by speculations.

So again this does not explain why all men would be referred to as "sons of god" when they are never referred to that way anywhere else in the Old Testament. Secondly, it also does not explain the giants. And it would not explain God's absolute revulsion with the situation. God repents of ever making ANY creature (including animals). We are specifically told that ALL flesh (including animals) were defiled as a result of the evil that took place during this time. Not to mention that violence and evil greatly increased.

And The Lord specifically gave the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" before and after the flood. So logically, this argument fails too.

I don't think these three options really address what is textually stated on any substantive level.

 

[NJBeliever]

I've updated my blog with a piece on the Nephilim. All comments are welcome.

http://wonderfultruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/the-nephilim-giants-in-the-bible/

Let me ask you a question NJBeliever, even though I think I know what your response is going to be. First let me say that I believe that the sons of God refers to the Sethites, and I am sure that neither of us will change the others mind, and lets go from there.

I read your blog and it refers to the Gen. 6 verses and then to the flood and to Noah. Your blog states that Noah was saved because he and his lineage was 100% human and unblemished with Nephlim (blood or traits, I forget what word was used) If this was the case what scripture do you use to justify more angel inbreeding so that we have Anak, Goliath, etc.?

Westtexas

That's a very good question. There are 2 explanations:

1. Noah was perfect in his lineage. That would include he and his children. Yet it would not necessarily include his daughter in-laws who were on the ark as well (Genesis 7).

2. Other sons of God could have tried to reproduce with women one more time.

Either way, the Bible makes it clear that giants existed after the flood. I don't think there's enough Scripture to be dogmatic about how precisely it happened again (at least from what I've searched) but I believe the aforementioned explanations are very sound.

 

[tim-from-pa]

If this was the case what scripture do you use to justify more angel inbreeding so that we have Anak, Goliath, etc.?

NJbeliever:

Let me chip in to help answer the above question. The bible does say:

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.

After what time? Ans: After the flood.

What happened? Ans: when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.

 

[tim-from-pa]

quite specifically God says that they do not marry (Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:37)

That's the gut reaction one gets when we read this, but it does not say they can't procreate, rather that they should not.

Proof of what I am saying comes from the book of Enoch that says the same thing, and maybe Jesus was even alluding to it for all we know. Yet, the very same text of Enoch clearly says that they did procreate. Now, if the book of Enoch said the same thing that Jesus did, and that supposedly means they can't procreate, then it is a contradiction. Further reading of the text indicates that they are not suppose to marry and procreate with mortal women but as Jude said they "left their first estate". As a matter of fact, the book says how Enoch tried to interceded for these fallen angels before the Lord, but the Lord said that he was not to do so. Their fate was sealed.

 

[NJBeliever]

If this was the case what scripture do you use to justify more angel inbreeding so that we have Anak, Goliath, etc.?

NJbeliever:

Let me chip in to help answer the above question. The bible does say:

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.

After what time? Ans: After the flood.

What happened? Ans: when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.

Precisely. Great breakdown of the verse.

 

[NJBeliever]

quite specifically God says that they do not marry (Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:37)

That's the gut reaction one gets when we read this, but it does not say they can't procreate, rather that they should not.

Proof of what I am saying comes from the book of Enoch that says the same thing, and maybe Jesus was even alluding to it for all we know. Yet, the very same text of Enoch clearly says that they did procreate. Now, if the book of Enoch said the same thing that Jesus did, and that supposedly means they can't procreate, then it is a contradiction. Further reading of the text indicates that they are not suppose to marry and procreate with mortal women but as Jude said they "left their first estate". As a matter of fact, the book says how Enoch tried to interceded for these fallen angels before the Lord, but the Lord said that he was not to do so. Their fate was sealed.

Yep. Jesus is referring to obedient angels. Not the disobedient fallen ones who are now chained in prison until judgment.

 

[watchman F]

Okay first off, this argument is mostly irrelevant because it is dealing with New Testament phrases. The basic position on the Nephilim uses Old Testament terms, specifically "sons of god" in HEBREW not Greek. Sons of god or B'nai Ha Elohim is ONLY used in reference to angelic beings in the Old Testament.

Untrue in genesis 6 it is not referring to angels but Godly men.

 

[watchman F]

Knowing this -- when we read "Genesis 6: 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. " We are not inserting unsupported speculation into The Word at all. We are reading the text properly and plainly.

Yes you are

 

[watchman F]

There is no mention of Seth in Genesis chapter 6 and the phrase B'nai Ha Elohim does not support Seth (who is a man) and his descendants being the subject here..

There were no chapters and verse when the Bible was written the sons of God are in context to the line of Seth running through Genesis 5

 

[watchman F]

That's a very good question. There are 2 explanations:

1. Noah was perfect in his lineage. That would include he and his children. Yet it would not necessarily include his daughter in-laws who were on the ark as well (Genesis 7).

2. Other sons of God could have tried to reproduce with women one more time.

Either way, the Bible makes it clear that giants existed after the flood.

Your problem is twofold.
#1 angels did not and cannot interbreed with humans.
#2 even if the sons of God were angels (which they are not) and did have sexual relations with human women. No where does it says that the giants were the result of these unions. It simply a parathetical phrase thrown into the text, ''and there were giants in the land'' You cannot use that obscure mentioning of giant to produce the theory you have come up with.

 

[watchman F]

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.

Here that is what I just said it doesn't say the giants were produce by the union of the sons of God and daughters of men, but the men of renown were. Giant in this text means nothing more than bully or tyrant not huge half demons person. And then men of renown were great men not necessarily men of great stature.

 

[NJBeliever]

[Your problem is twofold.
#1 angels did not and cannot interbreed with humans.

Going by the Bible. that's just what happened. B'nai Ha Elohim refers to Angelic beings, not humans. This is why the other explanations fail on their own.

#2 even if the sons of God were angels (which they are not) and did have sexual relations with human women. No where does it says that the giants were the result of these unions. It simply a parathetical phrase thrown into the text, ''and there were giants in the land'' You cannot use that obscure mentioning of giant to produce the theory you have come up with.

I don't know how you're interpreting English, but that is not a "parenthetical" phrase. Where are you getting that from??

4There 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 word when is modifying the actions preceding it. And the "them" are the "sons of god" who are angelic.

And again, Jude and 1 Peter 3 confirm that there were angelic beings who went after strange flesh, hence them being in hell already.

 

[watchman F]

4There 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
.

Yeah they bore children, but it doesn't say the giants were the children they bore.

Do you really not understand humans and angels cannot mix-breed

 

[change]

Okay first off, this argument is mostly irrelevant because it is dealing with New Testament phrases. The basic position on the Nephilim uses Old Testament terms, specifically "sons of god" in HEBREW not Greek. Sons of god or B'nai Ha Elohim is ONLY used in reference to angelic beings in the Old Testament.

Jesus was with God and help to create the angels. The creator of the angel is telling us that angels can not reproduce; how do we come to the conclusion that they can. why do we oppose Jesus?

There is no mention of Seth in Genesis chapter 6 and the phrase B'nai Ha Elohim does not support Seth (who is a man) and his descendants being the subject here. Furthermore, it does not explain why their offspring would be giants. And why these giants were such a threat that they had to be completely exterminated. There were mixed marriages and mixed offspring all through the Old Testament (even with Abraham!) and yet no giants were birthed as a result.

There is no mention of angels in the book of Genesis prior to Genesis chapter 6. The two preceeding chapters talk about the geneologies of Cain and Seth. "Men began to multiply in the earth, men started to call on the Lord." The descendants of Seth were the one calling on God. Anyone who follow God is a child of God.

So again this does not explain why all men would be referred to as "sons of god" when they are never referred to that way anywhere else in the Old Testament. Secondly, it also does not explain the giants. And it would not explain God's absolute revulsion with the situation. God repents of ever making ANY creature (including animals). We are specifically told that ALL flesh (including animals) were defiled as a result of the evil that took place during this time. Not to mention that violence and evil greatly increased.

Both angels and man are referred to "as sons of God." To say that ONLY angels are referred to as "sons of God" in the Old Testament is speculation (without proof).

The giants exist even before the 'son of God' took wife of 'the daughters of men.'

 

[tim-from-pa]

In all this back and forth debate, I'm wondering what I should do with the book of Enoch and similar apocryphal writings which show ancient Jewish thought on this subject when the preponderance of the evidence is on the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6? I can't just sweep them under the rug, and indeed I came to this conclusion (same as NJbeliever) on my own simply by doing that study. Remember, the book of Enoch is considered canon by some Christians. Mythology is replete with giant gods; something someone would not dream up on their own unless something was there.

As for what Jesus said, I answered that earlier, but the book of Enoch also said the same thing as Jesus about angels not supposed to be reproducing, that does not say they can't. So that point based on that (private interpretation) verse alone does not stand. So, if there is supposed evidence against the belief, then try another route because that statement by Jesus alone does nothing to discredit the belief.

 

[NJBeliever]

In all this back and forth debate, I'm wondering what I should do with the book of Enoch and similar apocryphal writings which show ancient Jewish thought on this subject when the preponderance of the evidence is on the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6? I can't just sweep them under the rug, and indeed I came to this conclusion (same as NJbeliever) on my own simply by doing that study. Remember, the book of Enoch is considered canon by some Christians. Mythology is replete with giant gods; something someone would not dream up on their own unless something was there.

As for what Jesus said, I answered that earlier, but the book of Enoch also said the same thing as Jesus about angels not supposed to be reproducing, that does not say they can't. So that point based on that (private interpretation) verse alone does not stand. So, if there is supposed evidence against the belief, then try another route because that statement by Jesus alone does nothing to discredit the belief.

Well once we look at the Book of Enoch (which I consider a historical book, along the lines of the writings of Jospehus), then it's obvious that angels and human women were marrying and having children.

And certainly the writings of ancient civilizations (and very advanced ones) are replete with angellic/human and angelic/animal hybrids. It just provides more confirmation of what the Bible states.

 

[change]

The Book of Enoch is a book of fairy tales.

As for what Jesus said, I answered that earlier, but the book of Enoch also said the same thing as Jesus about angels not supposed to be reproducing, that does not say they can't. So that point based on that (private interpretation) verse alone does not stand. So, if there is supposed evidence against the belief, then try another route because that statement by Jesus alone does nothing to discredit the belief.

How many biological chidren does Satan have?

 

[watchman F]

In all this back and forth debate, I'm wondering what I should do with the book of Enoch and similar apocryphal writings which show ancient Jewish thought on this subject when the preponderance of the evidence is on the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6?

Throw it out and believe the Bible.