The Nephilim

[JudaicChristian]

The fault belongs to those who have translated our scriptures. In reality there is no such thing as angels. The correct translation is messenger-s. The origin of angels comes from paganism.

 

[tim-from-pa]

[quote="tim_from_pa":268bgr3l]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.[/quote:268bgr3l]

I see. In other words, do sweep it under the rug. Just ignore it and it will go away. We're all tired now. Time for bed. Lights out. Nighty nights. (BTW, I'll also throw out the book of Jude, how dare he say something from Enoch's prophecy).

 

[tim-from-pa]

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.

Yes, I agree, and so do many Jewish/Christian commentaries. I think one thing that may be an aversion to some people regarding this belief about angels is that it's rather frightening or at the very least out of character in their own world. They look around and say, "I do not see any angels marrying women" so they assume the world as it is today is as it always was. Scientists make the same mistaken assumption when they carbon date something they assume a nice blue sky, 21% oxygen, the rest mostly nitrogen because it is that way today, so it must have always been that way. But before Noah, the atmosphere was different and a change in it is what caused the flood, and carbon dating may not be so accurate after all. It's hard to think outside the box or outside their local environment to the vast space beyond.

However, that being said, I do notice more and more reports of UFOs and paranormal events, some of which involve dark entities and may I add act inappropriately toward young women. Needless to say, the modus operandi sounds similar to Genesis 6.

Since you are from NJ, are you reasonably near Riegelsville Pa by chance? That little Pa/NJ border town is about 3 miles from me and has the reputation of being one of the most haunted towns (built on Indian burial grounds where there were Shamans). A local pastor there wrote two books about entities, some dark haunting the place. I have no doubt they are demonic in nature.

 

[change]

I'll also throw out the book of Jude, how dare he say something from Enoch's prophecy).

What does the book of Jude have to do with angels having sex with human?



Peter and Jude - an immediate reply to the Enochites
If we were going to look for a negative comment by Peter and Jude, where should we look for it? The obvious answer is immediately before and immediately after their references to "angels that sinned." Rule number one of Bible study is: always read the context. Yet most Christian readers of the "angels that sinned" read only the angels-flood-Sodom sequence in II Peter 2:4-8 (or the Sinai-angels-Sodom in Jude vv. 5-7) without noticing what proceeds and follows.

We already saw how Peter precedes his mention of angels that sinned (II Pet. 2:4) with "exploit you with stories that they have made up" (2:3 NIV). This is a perfect lead in to an argument of logical fallacy: "If God did not spare angels when they sinned...if this is so then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment" (II Pet. 2:4,9 NIV).

"Why bother to chain these angels if, as one Jehovah’s Witnesses publication contends, they can still ‘exercise dangerous power over men and women’?" (Wrested Scriptures p. 180, 1c)

This was the best answer to the "angels that sinned" myth in Peter’s time, and it is still the best answer today. If the "angels marrying" part of the Book of Enoch is true, then why not the part about the angels are been chained in Tartarus by the archangel Raphael? If they are chained in Tartarus, then, as Peter says in 2:9, they aren’t a threat to anyone are they?

Of course people are very imaginative and will find ways around Peter’s argument. Jehovah’s Witnesses will usually assert that there "must have been" other falls, and other angels ("the ones that got away"). The response to Peter’s point was more sophisticated in his day: it was then said that, True, the Book of Enoch has the angels in chains, but the immortal spirits of their giant offspring survived the flood to become the demons of New Testament times. But neither of these "explanations" is an answer to Peter’s fundamental point which is -- even if Enoch is true, the book itself shows that God knows how to deliver the godly from temptation, thus He is not subjecting the godly to such a trial (2:9). This is one of the clearest verses against angelic, or diabolic, temptation in the New Testament.

It is interesting that Jude, despite following Peter almost word for word in this section, chooses to omit Peter’s comment on "stories they have made up." Instead, Jude inserts a new example, the destruction of many of the children of Israel in Sinai (Jude 5). Perhaps Jude wanted to include a specifically historical example for the benefit of those under the influence of the false teachers, or perhaps he was echoing I Corinthians 10:5. Either way the lesson which Jude supplies, which the examples of Sodom and the flood do not, is how even the elect may also be punished if they go astray.
Blaspheming against celestial beings

The main argument against the false teachers and the Book of Enoch is found in the sections immediately following mention of the angels that sinned.
A. Jude 8, II Peter 2:10 -- the false teachers blaspheme celestial beings.
B. Jude 9, II Peter 2:11 -- but angels, although much greater (than the teachers), do not dare bring an accusation against such (celestial) beings.
C. Jude 10, II Peter 2:12 -- so the false teachers, and the Book of Enoch, blaspheme things they do not understand (or beings they do not know).


Dominion and glories

In the parallel verses labeled (A) above, heavenly powers are mentioned twice in different words "government" and "dignities" (KJV), or "authority" and "celestial beings" (NIV). These words are literally "dominion" and "glories" in Greek, and both are associated with heavenly things.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, "dominion" is always associated with heavenly "principalities and powers" (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16). "Dignities" literally means glories. Like "dominion," it is a rare term and is used in this sense only by Peter and Jude in the New Testament. In I Peter 1:11, Peter uses the plural form in regard to the future glories of Christ. In the Greek Old Testament, the word describes the glory surrounding God: "Who is like unto thee among the gods O Lord? Who is like unto thee, glorified in holiness, marvellous in glories (plural), doing wonders?" (Exo. 15:11).

It is also used in this sense in other first-century Jewish literature: Philo, On the Special Laws 1.45 writes, "Moses said .. I am not able to bear the visible appearance of your form but I ask you that I may behold the glories (plural) that are around you." In Test Judah 25:2 we read, "And the Lord blessed Levi; the Angel of the Presence blessed me; the powers of glories (plural) blessed Simeon, the heaven blessed Reuben; the earth blessed Issachar…"

That "dominion" and "glories" mean more than just human dignitaries is confirmed by Peter’s next verse: "Whereas angels, which are greater in might and power (i.e. greater than the false teachers) bring not railing (i.e. "slanderous") accusations against them" (i.e. against the glories) (II Pet. 2:11).

Slandering celestial beings

These verses, parallel in II Peter and Jude, are the key to understanding both letters. Both writers state twice that the false teachers were slandering celestial beings, namely angels. "Slander" implies two conclusions; (a) that they were accusing the glories of wrongdoing, (b) that their accusations were unfounded. Surprisingly the obvious impact of the verses, that the false teacher’s allegations were lies, is often glossed over.

The impact of what Peter and Jude are saying is clearer in the NIV: "This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord" (II Pet. 2:10-11 NIV). And Jude 8 reads: "In the very same way these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings."

If the allegations (specifically of angels having sex with women) were "slanderous accusations," then it can hardly be used as proof that the accusations were true. If the "slander" consisted of allegations that angels rebelled, descended to earth and fathered demons, then Peter and Jude’s evidence must be taken to mean that no such thing happened, and that it is not acceptable to believe or teach such things in the church.

It would be possible to go on in detail but the above arguments -- the immediate context before and after the "angels that sinned" passages should be enough to prove our objective -- that the reference to the Jewish fable is negative.

 

[tim-from-pa]

LOL. Jude still quoted Enoch, who in turn said that angels married women. No matter how long and entertaining song and dance and dissertation we are able to do, that basic fact remains the same. You can't get away from what Enoch stated, and you can't get away from the fact that Jude quoted from him. If what Enoch said was irrelevant and heretical, then I have faith enough in Jude that he would not bother quoting Enoch.

Now, I'll make a wager that the moderators will lock this thread soon as some of them do not like this subject either and can't deal with it. But I won't say anything else. I made my indisputable points. :yes :D

 

[watchman F]

LOL. Jude still quoted Enoch, who in turn said that angels married women. No matter how long and entertaining song and dance and dissertation we are able to do, that basic fact remains the same. You can't get away from what Enoch stated, and you can't get away from the fact that Jude quoted from him. If what Enoch said was irrelevant and heretical, then I have faith enough in Jude that he would not bother quoting Enoch.

Now, I'll make a wager that the moderators will lock this thread soon as some of them do not like this subject either and can't deal with it. But I won't say anything else. I made my indisputable points. :yes :D

lol indisputable points? The book of Enoch is a fairy tale. That is what is indisputable.

 

[change]

Explain why Satan and the other demons are not breeding with human today.

 

[watchman F]

Explain why Satan and the other demons are not breeding with human today.

That is the crazy thing change, they think they are. Like in the days of Noah so shall it be in the days of the Son of man. They think that satan and the demons are going to inter-breed with humans again and the human race is going to be attacked by giant Nephylim ....lol. It is mind boggling that someone holds this belief, but they do.

 

[NJBeliever]

Explain why Satan and the other demons are not breeding with human today.

Because as Jude and 1 Peter state, those angels have been locked away in hell.

The rest of Satan's minions are roaming the Earth under his direction. Just like satan himself is.

 

[change]

You still haven't explain why Satan is not breeding with human today.

 

[JudaicChristian]

The book of Enoch is a fairy tale. That is what is indisputable.

The Book of Enoch states that it is a parable. In other words, Enoch is not Enoch but the unknown prophet speaking. It was the Catholic Church that decided the book of Revelation and Enoch should not be included in the bible.

 

[JudaicChristian]

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/

I think you need to restudy the subject. The word Nephilim means "the fallen ones." In other words, people of a very low moral grade. Also, if the word "angel-s" was translated into English it would be "messenger-s." Angels are from the Pagan religion.

You are referring to the Greek translation of the word angel. The basis of my blog is not the term angel or the term "nephilim" it's the term "sons of god" or B'nai Ha Elohim in Hebrew. I think if you look at the Biblical use of the word as explained in my blog, it's clearly not a reference to human men.

If you will study the term "Sons of God" you will find that it is applied to the Elect of mankind also.

 

[watchman F]

The book of Enoch is a fairy tale. That is what is indisputable.

The Book of Enoch states that it is a parable. In other words, Enoch is not Enoch but the unknown prophet speaking. It was the Catholic Church that decided the book of Revelation and Enoch should not be included in the bible.

I am pretty sure God had something to do with that decision.

 

[NJBeliever]

You are referring to the Greek translation of the word angel. The basis of my blog is not the term angel or the term "nephilim" it's the term "sons of god" or B'nai Ha Elohim in Hebrew. I think if you look at the Biblical use of the word as explained in my blog, it's clearly not a reference to human men.

If you will study the term "Sons of God" you will find that it is applied to the Elect of mankind also.[/quote]

Please show me that in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

 

[NJBeliever]

You still haven't explain why Satan is not breeding with human today.

Well again, the offending angels have been punished and locked away.

Additionally, it could be that God is not permitting it.

However we know, Biblically, it was still a concern in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 11: 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

 

[veteran]

I also believe, totally beyond a doubt, God's Word is saying a group of angels literally took 'wives' of the daughters of men, and their offspring were the giants mentioned in the Old Testament. Jude 1:6 shows those angels "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation". And because of what they did by leaving their first estate and their own habitation, God cast them into the chains under darkness to be destroyed. That means they somehow left their angelic estate to do that.

There's simply too many Scriptures that describe the giants as a literal race different than the rest of men, one of the main features being their great size (Og's bedsted dimensions is given in Deut.3:11). 2 Samuel 21 says the brother of Goliath has a staff the size of a weaver's beam. Numbers 13 shows when some of the Israelites went into to spy out the land of Canaan when the giants of the sons of Anak were there; they said, "we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight".

Here's another important clue:

Isa 26:14
14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast Thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
(KJV)

The word "deceased" there is actually one of several places the KJV translators didn't carry the name Rephaim into English. Rephaim was a name for the giants. In this verse it's said, "they shall not rise". It means those will not be resurrected, but instead God visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

Now no true Christian that I know of thinks the Judgment has already happenned today. It's still future to us even. And the only ones God's Word tells us that have already been judged and sentenced to perish, are Satan and his angels that rebelled. But Satan and his angels were never born in the flesh, but these Rephaim (giants) were. And already per this, those Rephaim have already been judged, sentenced, and destroyed. That alone defines the Rephaim giants as a hybrid race, just the fact they've already been judged, sentenced, destroyed, and never be resurrected from the dead. Even unjust men will be resurrected to the resurrection unto damnation per God's Word, but not these, and that automatically sets the giants apart from simply meaning a group of evil men that were "bullies".

And another thing...

Heb 13:2
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
(KJV)

No true Christian disbelieves the ability of angels to appear on earth to humans. Per that Hebrews verse, it's specific that we can't tell their features apart from any other man. It was likewise with the Sodomites who lusted after the two angels that brought Lot and his family out of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God's Word shows us many things that we might find hard to believe. Yet what is written is written for our learning and understanding, regardless if it goes against the grain of modern man's concept of science and age of reason attitude.

 

[JudaicChristian]

[quote="watchman F":27dnsh8v] The book of Enoch is a fairy tale. That is what is indisputable.

The Book of Enoch states that it is a parable. In other words, Enoch is not Enoch but the unknown prophet speaking. It was the Catholic Church that decided the book of Revelation and Enoch should not be included in the bible.

I am pretty sure God had something to do with that decision.[/quote:27dnsh8v]Does your statement mean that you agree with the Catholics?

 

[JudaicChristian]

You are referring to the Greek translation of the word angel. The basis of my blog is not the term angel or the term "nephilim" it's the term "sons of god" or B'nai Ha Elohim in Hebrew. I think if you look at the Biblical use of the word as explained in my blog, it's clearly not a reference to human men.

If you will study the term "Sons of God" you will find that it is applied to the Elect of mankind also.

Please show me that in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.[/quote]
Do you not trust the New Testament? Do your own studying.

 

[NJBeliever]

You are referring to the Greek translation of the word angel. The basis of my blog is not the term angel or the term "nephilim" it's the term "sons of god" or B'nai Ha Elohim in Hebrew. I think if you look at the Biblical use of the word as explained in my blog, it's clearly not a reference to human men.

If you will study the term "Sons of God" you will find that it is applied to the Elect of mankind also.

Please show me that in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

Do you not trust the New Testament? Do your own studying.[/quote]

LOL. Hilarious.

Again, you are failing to realize that the New and Old Testament were written in two different languages. In the Old Testament, "sons of god" only refers to angelic beings. So that renders your point irrelevant.

 

[JudaicChristian]

LOL. Hilarious.

Again, you are failing to realize that the New and Old Testament were written in two different languages. In the Old Testament, "sons of god" only refers to angelic beings. So that renders your point irrelevant.

By what you have written I see that it is a waste of time to correct you. Good bye.