Nephilim

[notyou2]

I went to school in Grays. It is a dull part of Essex whose only merits are that it is nicer than (a) Basildon, where i lived, or (b) Tilbury, where my father worked.

Tilbury.....didn't they demolish that hamlet to make way for a new super-bypass?

On a Thursday too. I could never get the hang of thursdays.

I believe it was a Thursday, maybe. Thursday's are difficult to get a proper handle on.

Pub anyone?

[b.k. barunt]

B.K.? Can you come up with a theory on grays?

I knew a couple of guys in Air Force Intel when i was in the service. Both told me the same story, the long and short of which was that the whole Roswell alien thing was concocted by the government to distract attention away from secret government projects. Neither of these guys were prone to making things up or repeating bullshit. I myself saw technology in the military in 1969 that the public is still unaware of. Given that, and the fact that i've seen no credible evidence of aliens, i have to say that i'm unconvinced at this point that there is such a thing.


Honibaz

[Lionz]

Would the Roswell thing being concocted by US government necessarily mean that grays themselves are make believe? Maybe it would make sense if there has been conditioning to try to get people used to seeing them.

How many people have given testimonies having to do with them? I myself drew images when I was a very little boy that show gray looking beings and I drew one that has a title of Jacob Stuckhouse (Cage) or at least something like that perhaps. I'm Jacob by the way. An image that is an attempt to portray three beings behind jail cell bars and a door with a round window Maybe.

[Lionz]

Maybe I have said gray and grays instead of grey and greys in error.

[b.k. barunt]

Would the Roswell thing being concocted by US government necessarily mean that grays themselves are make believe? Maybe it would make sense if there has been conditioning to try to get people used to seeing them.

How many people have given testimonies having to do with them? I myself drew images when I was a very little boy that show gray looking beings and I drew one that has a title of Jacob Stuckhouse (Cage) or at least something like that perhaps. I'm Jacob by the way. An image that is an attempt to portray three beings behind jail cell bars and a door with a round window Maybe.

I've seen people conditioned to see and/or believe things in many different ways. I myself have been conditioned to do such in the past and so am wary of accepting what i have not proved beyond reasonable doubt. You might say i'm a skeptic. I've seen a movie of Sasquatch that looks real. I've seen things in the deep woods and swamps that could be attributed to such and yet i've never seen one, nor have i spoken with anyone whom i trust absolutely who has. So i accept Sasquatch as a possibility but not as a fact. I've seen much more evidence of Sasquatch than i have of any grays.


Honibaz

[Lionz]

You and I are skeptical individuals whether in a very different sense or not maybe, but it might be likely that you and I would think someone was guilty of murder if they were convicted of murdering someone on the 50 yard line of a football field and 100,000 people came forward and told us they saw it occur right in front of them. And how many have given testimony of having seen greys?

[Lionz]

This suggests greys are not shown in one or more image referred to earlier maybe, but there might be some odd earth history having to do with beings from the heavens and nephilim and elongated looking skulls and pyramids and ancient flight.

[b.k. barunt]

You and I are skeptical individuals whether in a very different sense or not maybe, but it might be likely that you and I would think someone was guilty of murder if they were convicted of murdering someone on the 50 yard line of a football field and 100,000 people came forward and told us they saw it occur right in front of them. And how many have given testimony of having seen greys?

Not a real good analogy there for a number of reasons. At first glance it appears to be, but then when you look at the variables it's not at all.

First of all there's never been 100,000 gray viewers - or even 100 - who saw the same thing at the same time in the same place. Secondly the 50 yard line of a football field in a stadium filled with people is a lot different from the isolated locations where most gray viewers come from. I could go on but just those two oughta do it.

Your Egyptian hieroglyphic "grays" do not look like any depictions of grays that i've ever seen before - they look like Egyptians with big heads. With all the inbreeding in the royal family who knows? Probably a depiction with religious connotations though, or it could be that the artist was just having fun. If you were an archaeologist 3,000 years into the future after a nuclear holocaust that left few records of this time and you came across a Picasso painting . . .

Sorry, i've seen quite a bit of "evidence" because the subject does interest me, but i found "Crash Go the Chariots" more convincing than "Chariots of the Gods".


Honibaz

[Lionz]

Quite a number of individuals have been decieved into thinking they saw beings they did not see or have lied about seeing the same type of make believe beings or both if grays are make believe perhaps. Also, there might have been some nephil inbreeding in Peru and Egypt and other places... maybe artistic license won't do much to explain actual skulls and there's even evidence that a gray has been mummified before. Maybe I messed up doing uploading type stuff and other stuff for these for all I know, but there might have been some creepy stuff going down.

[bradleybadly]

I don't recall any "good debate" with daddygringo. I recall him repeating a jejune opinion which he refers to as "scholarly" and i refer to as theological pap. He finally resorted to playing fast and loose with the translation - pretty shoddy.

The word "nephilim" means "giant" in Hebrew. There were 3 races of giants before the flood, the Emims, the Zamzummins and the Anakhim. After the flood only the Anakhim are mentioned. Goliath and the other giants in Canaan were Anakhim or "sons of Anak".

According to Genesis 6:4, these giants were produced by angels who mated with women. The same reference is found in pagan mythology re the "titans", who were the offspring of "gods" and mortals.


Honibaz

Ok, I'm fascinated with this subject. I had to use the advanced search to find the previous conversation. I'm not one to believe everything in the Bible, and I think I've found a flaw here. It's been gnawing at me and I wanted to get your take on it.

If the Anakhim were a race of giants that existed before the flood, didn't the flood destroy all mankind? I looked it up in Genesis chapter 7:

"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind"

How the hell could Goliath be a descendant of the Anakhim if all mankind was killed off by the flood? Did these Anakhim people have special powers to survive the flood because technically they weren't part of mankind? That's the only way I could see it making sense.

[2dimes]

If Anakhim means sons of Anak and Anak is an angel, he'd survive the flood. Just need to find a new woman or some new women.

[AAFitz]

Would the Roswell thing being concocted by US government necessarily mean that grays themselves are make believe? Maybe it would make sense if there has been conditioning to try to get people used to seeing them.

How many people have given testimonies having to do with them? I myself drew images when I was a very little boy that show gray looking beings and I drew one that has a title of Jacob Stuckhouse (Cage) or at least something like that perhaps. I'm Jacob by the way. An image that is an attempt to portray three beings behind jail cell bars and a door with a round window Maybe.

I've seen people conditioned to see and/or believe things in many different ways. I myself have been conditioned to do such in the past and so am wary of accepting what i have not proved beyond reasonable doubt. You might say i'm a skeptic. I've seen a movie of Sasquatch that looks real. I've seen things in the deep woods and swamps that could be attributed to such and yet i've never seen one, nor have i spoken with anyone whom i trust absolutely who has. So i accept Sasquatch as a possibility but not as a fact. I've seen much more evidence of Sasquatch than i have of any grays.


Honibaz

Absolutely. People have proven since the dawn of time to be capable of believing a great many things that simply have not been true. They have killed, died, sacrificed their families and themselves in beliefs that are quite obviously not true.

People believing things is simply never, ever, ever proof of anything other than the fact that they believe those things. Further, people will go to insane extremes for just a little attention, that making up an alien encounter is perhaps the most benign form of it, and quite frankly, I hope the crazies who need attention this bad, stick to making up consciously, or unconsciously these beings.

Certainly, it is worth looking into if a bunch of people see something, especially if they arent living in a trailer with no job and have been eating doritos for 5 years, but since even human sight can be so affected by other factors, especially at night, eye witness accounts simply are not reliable.

So, what you have done lion, is given weight to the fact that so many people claim to have seen grays. Now, if one has, its likely many have, which means a great many people have had to have seen them, but this also means that with this many encounters it is almost statistically guaranteed that there would be some kind of hard evidence produced already. Sure, no doubt much would be suppressed by the grays, or the government, but there is simply no way to completely hide this kind of thing completely. In fact, they dont exist, and it still isnt covered up, and people talk about it all the time and there are people who have devoted their lives to it, shows are made about it, and countless internet sites are devoted to it...so, either the grays dont care about being caught, or, they simply dont exist, because if they existed, and there was real evidence, it would have been exposed, or, they would suppress much more of the fake evidence that is out there. It is absolutely an insane thought to think they have only suppressed the fake evidence and only take action against the really concrete evidence. If they found a way to get to earth, they simply have to be smarter than that...though...perhaps coming here wasnt all that smart.

[AAFitz]

You and I are skeptical individuals whether in a very different sense or not maybe, but it might be likely that you and I would think someone was guilty of murder if they were convicted of murdering someone on the 50 yard line of a football field and 100,000 people came forward and told us they saw it occur right in front of them. And how many have given testimony of having seen greys?

If 100,000 people came forward to say they saw it all at one time, that would indeed be worth looking into. however, since most reports are by individuals, with individual incidents, your analogy is completely backwards. What you must then compare, are all the eyewitness accounts of murder, and all the ones that were wrong, or even made up. The number of incorrect eyewitness accounts is absolutely staggering, even when there are 100000 people in one place, they invariably see something different.

Hell, in sports all will see an event and due to bias, angle, and perhaps eyesight, some will argue to their dying day that completely different versions happened. Further, upon remembering it, the memory can very easily be manipulated on purpose or by accident, very, very easily.

Eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable piece of evidence there is. People lie, imagine, can be bribed, and simply make mistakes all the time. Its why hard evidence is far more preffered.

Further, 100000 is not a lot of people. Millions of people have believed a great number of conflicting things throughout history, and have literally fought wars over them. Human beings simply cannot be trusted.

[AAFitz]

I don't recall any "good debate" with daddygringo. I recall him repeating a jejune opinion which he refers to as "scholarly" and i refer to as theological pap. He finally resorted to playing fast and loose with the translation - pretty shoddy.

The word "nephilim" means "giant" in Hebrew. There were 3 races of giants before the flood, the Emims, the Zamzummins and the Anakhim. After the flood only the Anakhim are mentioned. Goliath and the other giants in Canaan were Anakhim or "sons of Anak".

According to Genesis 6:4, these giants were produced by angels who mated with women. The same reference is found in pagan mythology re the "titans", who were the offspring of "gods" and mortals.


Honibaz

Ok, I'm fascinated with this subject. I had to use the advanced search to find the previous conversation. I'm not one to believe everything in the Bible, and I think I've found a flaw here. It's been gnawing at me and I wanted to get your take on it.

If the Anakhim were a race of giants that existed before the flood, didn't the flood destroy all mankind? I looked it up in Genesis chapter 7:

"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind"

How the hell could Goliath be a descendant of the Anakhim if all mankind was killed off by the flood? Did these Anakhim people have special powers to survive the flood because technically they weren't part of mankind? That's the only way I could see it making sense.

Thats what you think doesnt make sense??....the fact that a giant should have been killed off with the dinosaurs and every living thing, except for the ones on an ark, that in 6000 years were able to populate the world with the millions of species that we have today.

But, if the giant died....it all makes sense?

[bradleybadly]

Thats what you think doesnt make sense??....the fact that a giant should have been killed off with the dinosaurs and every living thing, except for the ones on an ark, that in 6000 years were able to populate the world with the millions of species that we have today.

But, if the giant died....it all makes sense?

I don't believe it anyway. I'm just pointing out the flaw that a giant named Goliath could have been a child of Anak if this supposed flood killed every living creature, including the race known as Anakhims when it was unleashed according to the story. You can't have a pre-flood race of giants exist, then a flood kills them, but somehow there's one of them left to fight a little kid later on.

No, it doesn't all make sense just because the giant died.

[daddy1gringo]

Here's the reference to the debate. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=92261&start=15 Judge for yourself if it was a good debate, and who was being more reasonable, and more thoroughly supporting the argument with scripture and reason.

Incidentally, I wasn't saying that only my interpretation was "scholarly". I meant both mine and BK's. The statement was something like "I gave a different scholarly opinion." It was a clumsy shorthand was of saying that some Biblical scholars take the one view, others take the other.

Anyway, I think the "Seth/Cain lines" interpretation accords better with scripture, reason, and archaeology. It also answers bradley's question.

[jonesthecurl]

Would the Roswell thing being concocted by US government necessarily mean that grays themselves are make believe? Maybe it would make sense if there has been conditioning to try to get people used to seeing them.

How many people have given testimonies having to do with them? I myself drew images when I was a very little boy that show gray looking beings and I drew one that has a title of Jacob Stuckhouse (Cage) or at least something like that perhaps. I'm Jacob by the way. An image that is an attempt to portray three beings behind jail cell bars and a door with a round window Maybe.

I've seen people conditioned to see and/or believe things in many different ways. I myself have been conditioned to do such in the past and so am wary of accepting what i have not proved beyond reasonable doubt. You might say i'm a skeptic. I've seen a movie of Sasquatch that looks real. I've seen things in the deep woods and swamps that could be attributed to such and yet i've never seen one, nor have i spoken with anyone whom i trust absolutely who has. So i accept Sasquatch as a possibility but not as a fact. I've seen much more evidence of Sasquatch than i have of any grays.


Honibaz

Absolutely. People have proven since the dawn of time to be capable of believing a great many things that simply have not been true. They have killed, died, sacrificed their families and themselves in beliefs that are quite obviously not true.

People believing things is simply never, ever, ever proof of anything other than the fact that they believe those things. Further, people will go to insane extremes for just a little attention, that making up an alien encounter is perhaps the most benign form of it, and quite frankly, I hope the crazies who need attention this bad, stick to making up consciously, or unconsciously these beings.

Certainly, it is worth looking into if a bunch of people see something, especially if they arent living in a trailer with no job and have been eating doritos for 5 years, but since even human sight can be so affected by other factors, especially at night, eye witness accounts simply are not reliable.

So, what you have done lion, is given weight to the fact that so many people claim to have seen grays. Now, if one has, its likely many have, which means a great many people have had to have seen them, but this also means that with this many encounters it is almost statistically guaranteed that there would be some kind of hard evidence produced already. Sure, no doubt much would be suppressed by the grays, or the government, but there is simply no way to completely hide this kind of thing completely. In fact, they dont exist, and it still isnt covered up, and people talk about it all the time and there are people who have devoted their lives to it, shows are made about it, and countless internet sites are devoted to it...so, either the grays dont care about being caught, or, they simply dont exist, because if they existed, and there was real evidence, it would have been exposed, or, they would suppress much more of the fake evidence that is out there. It is absolutely an insane thought to think they have only suppressed the fake evidence and only take action against the really concrete evidence. If they found a way to get to earth, they simply have to be smarter than that...though...perhaps coming here wasnt all that smart.

By Fzsmifligig, the earthling has fathomed our plot. Now we must kill him.

[PLAYER57832]

Thats what you think doesnt make sense??....the fact that a giant should have been killed off with the dinosaurs and every living thing, except for the ones on an ark, that in 6000 years were able to populate the world with the millions of species that we have today.

But, if the giant died....it all makes sense?

I don't believe it anyway. I'm just pointing out the flaw that a giant named Goliath could have been a child of Anak if this supposed flood killed every living creature, including the race known as Anakhims when it was unleashed according to the story. You can't have a pre-flood race of giants exist, then a flood kills them, but somehow there's one of them left to fight a little kid later on.

No, it doesn't all make sense just because the giant died.

My problem is biblical. Either all living things were killed, as it says in the Bible or they were not. Some say the Bible reference meant, essentially, all living things in the world known to Noah's descendents. However there is no room for "all were killed, except Anakim". If that were the case, I believe it would have been specified.

[AAFitz]

Thats what you think doesnt make sense??....the fact that a giant should have been killed off with the dinosaurs and every living thing, except for the ones on an ark, that in 6000 years were able to populate the world with the millions of species that we have today.

But, if the giant died....it all makes sense?

I don't believe it anyway. I'm just pointing out the flaw that a giant named Goliath could have been a child of Anak if this supposed flood killed every living creature, including the race known as Anakhims when it was unleashed according to the story. You can't have a pre-flood race of giants exist, then a flood kills them, but somehow there's one of them left to fight a little kid later on.

No, it doesn't all make sense just because the giant died.

Your thoughts were well understood, I just couldnt help but have fun with the "it doesnt make sense because the giant should have died in the flood line"

[Lionz]

B.K.,

What suggests to you that there were three preflood groups called the Emims, the Zamzummins and the Anakhim? Do those not all refer to postflooders? There is one or more Greek text of the Book of Enoch that refers to three other types possibly. See a 7:11 here?

http://qbible.com/enoch/7.html

Bradley,

I'm not sure if Anakhim is supposed to refer to preflooders or not maybe, but you might bring up one or more interesting thing whether it is supposed to or not.

Certain angels came to earth and taught things to mankind and one who is or was or is and was considered their leader is known for having taught something mysteriously referred to as root-cuttings perhaps. See a left version of Chapter 8 here? Root-cuttings = gene splicing?

http://qbible.com/enoch/8.html

It might be that angels produced offspring before and after the flood. But also, there's a false deity considered the priniciple deity of the Philistines who is associated with fertility and portrayed as having a humanoid upper body and fish lower body perhaps. What if there were preflood sphinxes and centaurs and minotaurs and mermen? This might seem out there, but what if a chimera with humanoid features survived the flood underwater? One who was worshipped by Philistines and produced offspring with Philistines?

AAFitz,

Maybe it would actually make sense if individuals have purposely concocted fake evidence against themselves millions of times throughout history in order to turn it into a strawman.

What would you expect in terms of evidence if greys exist and have abducted 100,000 earthling humans in the last 20 years? Maybe you overestimate how hard it is to deceive people and suppress information.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=113989&p=2538375#p2538375

100,000 is simply a number I threw out there after considering stadiums in the States maybe. Who knows how many people have claimed to have seen greys? How many people have claimed to have had an alien encounter and not seen a grey? See a polling data section here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys

I'm not meaning to argue that grays are aliens perhaps. There might be alien angelic spirits who use gray bodies as hosts to interact with physical things, but both angelic spirits and demonic nephil spirits have used foreign bodies as hosts maybe.

I might be able to be more motivated to debate about whether or not grays are make believe. Maybe you will already remember words of me if grays or blue eyed blondes show up publically and masquerade as savior elohim or benevolent primate evolving aliens or both. : )

Also, maybe you will ask yourself if you find it easier to believe that everyone stems from a rock than to believe that dogs stem from dogs who were on an ark less than 4,500 years ago. How many poodles or chihuahuas existed 500 years ago? Animals can bring forth variety quite quickly and evidence suggests there were even non-dinosaurs commonly thought to be extinct for millions of years conexisting on earth with humans about 2,000 years ago perhaps.

http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit57.html

Gringo,

There's one or more post here that you missed possibly.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=113989&p=2531766#p2531766

Player,

Does Genesis mean to suggest aquatic life was completely wiped from earth? Thoughts on a section called Genesis 7:22?

[bradleybadly]

Anyway, I think the "Seth/Cain lines" interpretation accords better with scripture, reason, and archaeology. It also answers bradley's question.

How 'bout just explaining it to me. I've got to read Lionz's new source called the Book of Enoch with all kinds of new angels. I'm starting to think that the pre-flood time was like Stargate, only with really cool old people that built arks and liked millions of pets.

[Lionz]

[Lionz]

I might have said this in error...

Did Justin, Cyprian, Eusebius, Josephus, Philo, and Judeaus not all consider the B'nai Elohim to be angels?

There is one or more thing that suggests a Philo and a Judeaus held to an angelic offspring view maybe, but Philo Judaeus is a name of one individual and I said stuff wrong maybe.

[daddy1gringo]

Anyway, I think the "Seth/Cain lines" interpretation accords better with scripture, reason, and archaeology. It also answers bradley's question.

How 'bout just explaining it to me. I've got to read Lionz's new source called the Book of Enoch with all kinds of new angels. I'm starting to think that the pre-flood time was like Stargate, only with really cool old people that built arks and liked millions of pets.

I'll try to "nutshell" it, but I'll be leaving out a lot of the evidence for it.

The word "nephilim" is only used two times in the Bible.

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were 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.

Numbers 13:33
"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

Most of the posting in this thread is based on an interpretation that says that the nephilim were a race of giants who resulted from fallen angels mating with humans, but there is another understanding, held by a lot of Biblical scholars.

The root of the Hebrew word "nephilim" is "naphal", "to fall". A literal translation would be "fallen ones". The translators of the King James Version in 1611 translated it "giants" because they held to the first interpretation, but there is nothing in the word itself that suggests that. The other interpretation is that these "fallen ones" are those who have fallen away from the worship of Yahweh into idolatry.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that angels, being spirits and not physical beings, don't have sex.

John 3:6
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Matthew 22:30 (also Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:34-36)
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

I think I'll stop there. Either people are interested in my defense of this interpretation, in which case they will ask or challenge, or they are not, in which case I would be wasting time and boring people (even more than usual ).

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, I think the "Seth/Cain lines" interpretation accords better with scripture, reason, and archaeology. It also answers bradley's question.

How 'bout just explaining it to me. I've got to read Lionz's new source called the Book of Enoch with all kinds of new angels. I'm starting to think that the pre-flood time was like Stargate, only with really cool old people that built arks and liked millions of pets.

I'll try to "nutshell" it, but I'll be leaving out a lot of the evidence for it.

The word "nephilim" is only used two times in the Bible.

Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were 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.

Numbers 13:33
"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

Most of the posting in this thread is based on an interpretation that says that the nephilim were a race of giants who resulted from fallen angels mating with humans, but there is another understanding, held by a lot of Biblical scholars.

The root of the Hebrew word "nephilim" is "naphal", "to fall". A literal translation would be "fallen ones". The translators of the King James Version in 1611 translated it "giants" because they held to the first interpretation, but there is nothing in the word itself that suggests that. The other interpretation is that these "fallen ones" are those who have fallen away from the worship of Yahweh into idolatry.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that angels, being spirits and not physical beings, don't have sex.

John 3:6
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Matthew 22:30 (also Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:34-36)
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

I think I'll stop there. Either people are interested in my defense of this interpretation, in which case they will ask or challenge, or they are not, in which case I would be wasting time and boring people (even more than usual ).

This is indeed interesting, but how, then do you explain the bit about heroes being of sons of God and daughters of men?