Nephilim

[bradleybadly]

Thank you daddy1gringo

[jonesthecurl]

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?

Ooh, oooh, can I play? How 'bout angels don't have sex in heaven, but they can on earth?

[PLAYER57832]

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?

Ooh, oooh, can I play? How 'bout angels don't have sex in heaven, but they can on earth?

Sure! Just mention the theologic reference for this idea.

[jonesthecurl]

they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven

ie angels don't have sex in heaven.

the bit about heroes being of sons of God and daughters of men

But they can with humans on earth.

[daddy1gringo]

Ooh, oooh, can I play? How 'bout angels don't have sex in heaven, but they can on earth?

they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven

ie angels don't have sex in heaven.

But they can with humans on earth.

Yeah, I noticed that little semantic loophole too. I doubt that was what he meant though.
Then again, maybe that's how those who hold to the angel/human copulation view deal with this quote.
@players: I know you posted first, but your answer will take longer.

[bradleybadly]

Too bad we couldn't get an explanation from barunt, himself.

[Lionz]

Angel view is backed up by 1 Enoch and the Antiquities of the Jews and the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Giants and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs maybe. Also, angels came to earth from the heavens and had children with women maybe.

[daddy1gringo]

Angel view is backed up by 1 Enoch and the Antiquities of the Jews and the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Giants and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs maybe.

I wouldn't use the term "backed up." These documents may take that viewpoint, and though they may be interesting religious or historical documents, nobody is claiming that they are the inspired Word of God, so they don't constitute evidence that it is true. (I'm aware that for many who are reading this, they wouldn't constitute evidence even if they were accepted as inspired scripture, but I'm coming from the viewpoint that there is such a thing as an inspired word of God, because as far as I know, Lionz shares that premise.)

Also, angels came to earth from the heavens and had children with women maybe.

Well, obviously, that's what we're talking about: the idea that angels did that. My point is that according to what Jesus said, angels DON'T do that.

The idea that angels, or "gods" go around on earth copulating with humans to create heroes is the stuff of pagan mythology.

The one time in the Bible where a spirit caused his child to be born of a human being, it was a very big deal, a very big exception, for a special purpose, and sex was not involved.

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

[b.k. barunt]

Too bad we couldn't get an explanation from barunt, himself.

Explanation for what?

Daddygringo claims to believe in an "inspired Word of God" but if he's in danger of losing an argument then that "inspired Word" may be mistranslated at times. Convenient.


Honibaz

[PLAYER57832]

Angel view is backed up by 1 Enoch and the Antiquities of the Jews and the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Giants and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs maybe.

I wouldn't use the term "backed up." These documents may take that viewpoint, and though they may be interesting religious or historical documents, nobody is claiming that they are the inspired Word of God, so they don't constitute evidence that it is true. (I'm aware that for many who are reading this, they wouldn't constitute evidence even if they were accepted as inspired scripture, but I'm coming from the viewpoint that there is such a thing as an inspired word of God, because as far as I know, Lionz shares that premise.)

Also, angels came to earth from the heavens and had children with women maybe.

Well, obviously, that's what we're talking about: the idea that angels did that. My point is that according to what Jesus said, angels DON'T do that.

The idea that angels, or "gods" go around on earth copulating with humans to create heroes is the stuff of pagan mythology.

The one time in the Bible where a spirit caused his child to be born of a human being, it was a very big deal, a very big exception, for a special purpose, and sex was not involved.

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

I agree with this. Except, how do you explain the term "sons of God" and the children of the "sons of Gods" and "daughters of man" that "were the heroes of old"?

(and if you already explained, I apologize... I missed it, but a link would do OK)

[Lionz]

Gringo,

What makes a letter from Paul His Word and 1 Enoch not His Word if that's the case and something makes that the case? Is 1 Enoch not quoted in Jude regardless of what we consider His Word?

We should be careful about adding and taking away from things maybe. When has He said that angels haven't come from the heavens to earth and had children with women on earth?

Do you have an example of anyone who had a view that nephilim were simply the offspring of two groups of humans before the 4th century?

[2dimes]

Don't some claim the "Rothchilds" trace their roots back to Nephilim?

[Timminz]

Honestly. We would prefer if you would all keep a little quieter on this. It's none of your god-damned business where I, or anyone else, is descended from.

[bradleybadly]

Too bad we couldn't get an explanation from barunt, himself.

Explanation for what?

Your explanation for how a race of pre-flood giants could have produced someone named Goliath. If every living thing was killed off by the flood how could Goliath have come from these Anakhim?

[AAFitz]

Gringo,

Do you have an example of anyone who had a view that nephilim were simply the offspring of two groups of humans before the 4th century?

Is an example of someone who had a view of something relevant in any way or is it just a view maybe, perhaps?

[Lionz]

We can learn about what is meant by ancient texts by trying to determine where ancients stood in regards to things in ancient texts maybe. Were there not texts on earth a couple thousands years ago that no longer exist and would it not make sense if Yahushua (sp?) taught followers of Himself stuff having to do with nephilim that was later passed down to early Christians? If you can't find a name of someone who apparently had a view of that before the 4th century, is that not at least evidence that a view of that came to exist less than 2,000 years ago?

[b.k. barunt]

Too bad we couldn't get an explanation from barunt, himself.

Explanation for what?

Your explanation for how a race of pre-flood giants could have produced someone named Goliath. If every living thing was killed off by the flood how could Goliath have come from these Anakhim?

"The Sons of Anak" is what the people of Moses' day called the giants. Anak was the most famous of the pre-flood giants so i guess any giants that popped up after the flood were associated with that name. There is nothing in the Scriptures that would indicate that Goliath was actually descended from Anak.
When the Israelite spies claimed to have seen the "Sons of Anak" in the Promised Land they obviously didn't check the lineage of such. To associate giants with "Anak" was a figure of speech.


Honibaz

[bradleybadly]

Too bad we couldn't get an explanation from barunt, himself.

Explanation for what?

Your explanation for how a race of pre-flood giants could have produced someone named Goliath. If every living thing was killed off by the flood how could Goliath have come from these Anakhim?

"The Sons of Anak" is what the people of Moses' day called the giants. Anak was the most famous of the pre-flood giants so i guess any giants that popped up after the flood were associated with that name. There is nothing in the Scriptures that would indicate that Goliath was actually descended from Anak.
When the Israelite spies claimed to have seen the "Sons of Anak" in the Promised Land they obviously didn't check the lineage of such. To associate giants with "Anak" was a figure of speech.


Honibaz

That makes sense. Thank you bk barunt.

[Lionz]

What suggests to you that Anak was a group of pre-flood giants BK?

[b.k. barunt]

What suggests to you that Anak was a group of pre-flood giants BK?

I was wrong on that one. I thought that i'd read about the three races of giants - Anakhim, Emims and Zamzummins - before the flood. My mistake - there's no references to such in Genesis. The Emims and Zamzummins were referred to as having existed "of old times", but that didn't necessarily mean pre-flood.


Honibaz

[Lionz]

Well women bore three races to the Watchers according to Greek texts of 1 Enoch maybe. See a 7:11 here?

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

Did you read about there being three races of giants before the flood before or have you been having past life memories of preflood times or have you been using some genetic memory or?

[b.k. barunt]

I couldn't have read about them in the chapters before the flood because they aren't there.

I was into Edgar Cayce, reincarnation and all the metaphysical mumbojumbo for a while. Probably the most convenient bit of bullshit as far as religion goes. And everyone who's into it was at least one famous person. It would get tense at gatherings sometimes when 3 Marie Antoinettes would bump into each other . . .


Honibaz

[daddy1gringo]

The idea that angels, or "gods" go around on earth copulating with humans to create heroes is the stuff of pagan mythology.

The one time in the Bible where a spirit caused his child to be born of a human being, it was a very big deal, a very big exception, for a special purpose, and sex was not involved.

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

I agree with this. Except, how do you explain the term "sons of God" and the children of the "sons of Gods" and "daughters of man" that "were the heroes of old"?

(and if you already explained, I apologize... I missed it, but a link would do OK)

Here's the link again to the other thread. -- viewtopic.php?f=8&t=92261&start=15 -- Sorry for transporting your original question from a private forum without asking; I wasn't thinking about that at the time.

BK and I went back and forth two or three times each, but it's all on two pages. It's a pretty cryptic verse, and there are a few ways you could read it, but I think the one I give there is the strongest one, and should answer your questions. If it doesn't, just let me know.

If “sons of God” and “daughters of men” do refer to the lines of Seth and Cain respectively, there could be any number of reasons why their offspring are referred to as “mighty men…” Maybe the combination of worshiping YHWH from Seth’s side and the go-getter attitude from Cain’s.

One interpretation I ran into in a commentary reads the Hebrew that “mighty men of old, men of renown” was not a good thing. Being “of renown” means being into building up your own reputation (pride) and being “mighty” just means having large armies and big building projects, as proud rulers do (Ozymandias: “Look on my works ye mighty, and despair!”). In that case, children of the men from the YHWH-worshipping line of Seth who married women from the corrupt line of Cain would fall away, be “nephilim”, as God warned the Israelites entering the Promised Land, and would begin to act this way, trying to be their own God, like Nimrod at Babel.

I take it that “nephilim”, “fallen ones” refers to Cain’s line, and “mighty…” is Seth’s. “Nephilim were on the earth in those days” doesn’t necessarily mean they were the offspring, and “these were the mighty men…” also doesn’t necessarily mean the offspring either. The usual assumption that both these refer to the offspring could be correct, but is read in.

Anyway, as I said, the verse is cryptic, and kind of weird, and I’m open to other interpretations. It wouldn’t affect the core of my beliefs.

If you believe in theistic evolution, which I gather you do, there's another possibility. According to that scenario, God set up evolution to bring homo sapiens to the point where He could “breathe in the spirit of life”(Gen 2:7), and so make man a spiritual being with whom He could have relationship. Then that first couple with whom He did that would be Adam and Eve, who brought the sin nature into their descendants by disobeying God, whether it was literally by eating fruit of a tree, or something else which it symbolizes. In that case, the descendants of Adam, who have a spirit that distinguishes them from animals, though now fallen into sin, could be the “sons of God” and the similarly evolved bodies could be the “daughters of men.”

For me that interpretation doesn’t work since I do take Genesis 1 literally. Am I “young earth”? I’m not sure. I’m not an expert on astrophysics, and even taking it literally, the length of a “day” is a bit problematic before the creation of the sun, by which we measure time, on the 4th day. I “know” nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified(1 Cor 2:2).

[PLAYER57832]

thanks daddygringo. I will take the time to look it all over

[Lionz]

No response to questions from me Gringo? And what is meant by the similarly evolved bodies? You mean to throw out a scenario of humans evolving from non-human apes and then having nephilim as children with non-human apes? Well are daughters of Adam not referred to in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4? Who besides daughters of Adam, if so? Maybe Job 1:6-7 can help people figure out who is referred to in there.