PDA

View Full Version : The Giants of Genesis



Ascension
Apr 18th 2009, 10:01 PM
Can anyone tell me who the giants are in Genesis 6:4, Num13:33, Duet 2:11, 2:20, 3:11, 3:13, ?

markedward
Apr 18th 2009, 10:13 PM
In Genesis 6.4, the term used is the Hebrew word nephilim. It does not mean "giants". It comes from the Hebrew word naphal, which means "to fall". The word nephilim, then, means either "fallen ones", which points to their inherent wickedness and violence of these men, or it means "fellers", that is, they "fell" [killed, slayed, etc.] other men with their violence.

These nephilim were not a "half-demon" race of men... they were entirely men, they were simply wicked, violent "men of fame". This is why nephilim were seen later on, because they were also wicked, violent men. They were not literally "giants", this is simply hyperbole used to describe just the largeness of these men; they're warriors, of course they're going to be large.

There is an inherent problem with the claim that the nephilim were actual giants, or that they were a "half-demon" race of men conceived as fallen angels' offspring: God sent the flood because of the wickedness of mankind, particularly because of the nephilim. If God sent the flood to exterminate a race of giants, or a race of half-demon-men, because nephilim are seen after the flood. Did God fail at exterminating them? Did God allow mutant-offspring of humans and angels happen a second time? The answer to both questions is irrelevant, because the nephilim are not an actual race of "giants", nor are they the offspring of fallen angels... they're just God-less warriors who were huge compared to the average person.

Ethnikos
Apr 18th 2009, 10:14 PM
I always like to look at the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary to see what they have to say, because they are pre-modernest and do not get caught up in all the more recent philosophy that has infiltrated all thinking today. Here is their quote:
4. giants-The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide.It is more fun to go with the idea of the cyclops and such but if you watch History Channel, you see that it comes from the Greeks trying to figure out fossils of mammoths.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 02:10 AM
In Genesis 6.4, the term used is the Hebrew word nephilim. It does not mean "giants". It comes from the Hebrew word naphal, which means "to fall". The word nephilim, then, means either "fallen ones", which points to their inherent wickedness and violence of these men, or it means "fellers", that is, they "fell" [killed, slayed, etc.] other men with their violence.

These nephilim were not a "half-demon" race of men... they were entirely men, they were simply wicked, violent "men of fame". This is why nephilim were seen later on, because they were also wicked, violent men. They were not literally "giants", this is simply hyperbole used to describe just the largeness of these men; they're warriors, of course they're going to be large.

There is an inherent problem with the claim that the nephilim were actual giants, or that they were a "half-demon" race of men conceived as fallen angels' offspring: God sent the flood because of the wickedness of mankind, particularly because of the nephilim. If God sent the flood to exterminate a race of giants, or a race of half-demon-men, because nephilim are seen after the flood. Did God fail at exterminating them? Did God allow mutant-offspring of humans and angels happen a second time? The answer to both questions is irrelevant, because the nephilim are not an actual race of "giants", nor are they the offspring of fallen angels... they're just God-less warriors who were huge compared to the average person.

So, whose offspring were they? Were they the offspring of Cain?

How did they get so big?

David Taylor
Apr 19th 2009, 02:18 AM
So, whose offspring were they? Were they the offspring of Cain?

How did they get so big?

The same way Shaq, Yao Ming, Robert Wadlow, and Goliath the Philistine did...hypertrophy of the pituitary gland and/or genetics.

Definition not Demonic/Human physical intercourse and Proceation myths and pagan fables.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 02:23 AM
The same way Shaq, Yao Ming, Robert Wadlow, and Goliath the Philistine did...hypertrophy of the pituitary gland and/or genetics.

Definition not Demonic/Human physical intercourse and Proceation myths and pagan fables.

Shaq doesn't come from a "race" of giants....It comes from his individual genetic makeup. The nephilim were a people who were defined by gigantism, so then, whose offspring were they?

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 19th 2009, 02:24 AM
Ok
Conjure up another answer to this.
The sons of God take the daughters of men all that they chose, and their sons became the mighty men of old, and men of fame.
Why the sons only, and not their fathers, the sons of God.
There WAS something different about the sons of the sons of God that set them apart. Their fathers were not the mighty men of old and men of fame because they were NOT men.

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 03:38 AM
Shaq doesn't come from a "race" of giants....It comes from his individual genetic makeup. The nephilim were a people who were defined by gigantism, so then, whose offspring were they?They were humans...

Scripture doesn't say they had "gigantism", just that they were large.

Look at this way: my fiancee's father and mother are both under 5'5". As a result, all four of their children (including my fiancee) are under 5'5".

People who are short and have children together are likely going to have short children. If this continues on for several generations, all of the descendents of that family tree will be short.

Hence, in the assumption that all of the nephilim were even blood-relatives to each and every other nephilim, it is perfectly reasonable for the nephilim to be from a tribe of men who were taller than average, and they passed those tall genes on to each of their children, until you have a whole clan of men who are huge.

Black people have black children. Blue-eyed people have blue-eyed children. Tall people have tall children. The nephilim could simply fall under this last group. It doesn't make them a completely different race of beings apart from "regular" men, and it doesn't make them mutant-offspring of fallen angels.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 03:50 AM
Black people have black children. Blue-eyed people have blue-eyed children. Tall people have tall children. The nephilim could simply fall under this last group. It doesn't make them a completely different race of beings apart from "regular" men, and it doesn't make them mutant-offspring of fallen angels.

Yes -- I think we've clarified that they were not angel-human hybrids. So, then, back to the question-at-hand.

Doesn't the Bible seem to indicate that, as a race of people, they were much larger than normal? From what I understand, they were enormous. Your explanation that they interbred and became taller and taller makes sense. So, then, my next question is -- who are these sons of God that the Bible says they were descended from?

Were they descendants of Cain?

Also, why does the Bible distinguish between the men and the women here? Why are the men called sons of God, while the women are called daughters of men? If they were humans, wouldn't they also be sons of men?

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 03:54 AM
I would say the "sons of God" were Godly men.


Contextually, the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are men. Here is a rundown of Genesis 6:


Men multiply and fill the earth (6.1)
God's Spirit will not "contend" with man forever (6.3)
Man's life-time limit is set for 120 years (6.3)
There were mighty men in that time, called nephilim (6.4)
God saw man's wickedness (6.5)
God was sorry he made man (6.6)
But Noah was a righteous man (6.8-9)

Contextually, the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are men, not angelic beings; nothing in the text refers to angels, everything in the text refers to men. So, it depends entirely on the context:

If we read the Torah, the "sons of God" consistently refer to Godly men, not angelic beings. Passages to take in context of each other: Genesis 6 (again, not the specific statement that God makes, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever"), Deuteronomy 14.1 and Deuteronomy 32.8.

Other books also shows that the phrase "sons of God" can be used to refer to Godly men and not angelic beings (Hosea 1.10, Matthew 5.9, Luke 20.36, Romans 8.19, Romans 9.26, Galatians 3.26) so this makes it all the more possible/probable that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to men.

Especially note Romans 8.14: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." This is directly in line with the statements made between Genesis 6.1-2, in which the "sons of God" are spoken of, then immediately following in 6.3 God says "My Spirit will not contend with man forever." This, I believe, is a strong point of evidence that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 are man who are "led by the Spirit of God", and God is lamenting that "My Spirit will not contend with man forever", which is immediately followed by a description of violent, unGodly men.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 04:02 AM
I would say the "sons of God" were Godly men.

That makes sense. So, then, were the women not Godly?

THOM
Apr 19th 2009, 04:16 AM
So, whose offspring were they? Were they the offspring of Cain?

How did they get so big?

I really should have given MarkEdward a chance to answer your question, but I think I know what he's trying to figure out right about now.:idea:

He has told you correctly (for the most part). There are not, and never has been any HALF-men, HALF-angels, HALF-gods, HALF-man, or anything else for that matter, etc (nor any fractional part thereof).

For all of our Hebrew scholars, Hebrew words always reveal action, state of being, and/or perception, before they reveal just a name. They're physical and tangible (something one can readily identify with and to), and then Spiritual and intangible.

In ALL of Scripture, the only reference that is made to "the sons of GOD (note the initial lower case 's' in 'sons')", refers to them as originally made/Created by GOD Physically, or currently, made/Re-Created by GOD Spiritually (via "the new birth"). In other words, "the sons of GOD", were either Physically made that way (because they had/have no biological/human Father), or they are Spiritually made that way (because GOD has now become my ["ABBA FATHER"] DADDY).

When "the sons of GOD. . .took them wives of all which they chose" (because of their own "pecking order" status and/or longevity, living like Adam for 900+ years), from among" "the daughters of men (their off-springs', off-springs', off-springs', etc.), who's going to stop them?

Remember, "the sons of GOD", they're the original 'Big Daddies', 'Big Papas', 'Sugar Daddies', etc. They're now impregnating "the daughters of men" with Babies.

And what you have is like, me (one of "the sons of GOD"), [an example ONLY] impreganating markedward's (a son, of a son, of a son, etc., of one of "the sons of GOD") daughter (one of "the daughters of men"); and based on the "pecking order" and me being an "Alpha male" in my part of "the earth", who's gonna stop me. . .other than GOD? See, I'm the "Big Kahuna (as a result of being one of 'the sons of GOD')", and I call the shots (". . .have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."). . .and, as the saying goes, "like father, like son": so we now have some bullies, tyrants (which is what the word, "nephilim" means), and/or "giants in the earth in those days". . .because that is how all the rest of Creation perceived them to be.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 19th 2009, 04:24 AM
They had to be human. Brian Urlacher descends from them.

There's really no way to know; the text is quite obscure (possibly on purpose). The term can refer to literal giants, that is, people who were the offspring of demons and women or it can refer to men of great prominence who descended from kings.

To take an absolutist stance on either side is difficult to do considering it could refer to either or neither. :)

I, for one, take the view that they were descendants of kings and were men of great strength, but who abused their strength.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 04:33 AM
Were angels even given the ability to procreate? If not, then how can this verse possibly infer that these sons of God were angels?

THOM
Apr 19th 2009, 04:43 AM
They had to be human. Brian Urlacher descends from them.

Great point.


There's really no way to know; the text is quite obscure (possibly on purpose). The term can refer to literal giants, that is, people who were the offspring of demons and women or it can refer to men of great prominence who descended from kings.Sure there is; and this is why we must always line ALL Scripture up with ALL other Scripture and/or refer to ALL other Scripture regarding the same or similar matters.

In Hebrews 1:5, the author ask the question, "For unto which of the angels said HE at any time, THOU art MY SON, this day have I begotten THEE? And again, I will be to HIM a FATHER, and HE shall be to ME a SON?" This eliminates them being 'angelic'.

Genesis 1:26 makes them nothing else but "man[kind]", because this is all (for now) that we deal with from Genesis 1:26 to Genesis 6. . .and even farther.


To take an absolutist stance on either side is difficult to do considering it could refer to either or neither.And to NOT "take an absolutist stance", is to go against ALL that GOD IS: ABSOLUTE!

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 04:50 AM
That makes sense. So, then, were the women not Godly?In the words of my OT professor, "the authors of the Old Testament were sexist men." Not that I believe they were sexist, as in, discriminatory, but it was a strongly patriarchal society, and and emphasis was usually placed on men in the texts.


Were angels even given the ability to procreate? If not, then how can this verse possibly infer that these sons of God were angels?I would say it's strongly doubtful, according to Scripture. Christ said that angels "do not marry" and "nor are they given in marriage". Procreation, within humankind at least, is strictly reserved for marriage. If the angels don't marry, nor are "given in marriage", and while procreation within marriage is explicitly a human "thing" to do, what reason do we have to believe that God would have created angels with the ability to procreate at all when no Scripture depicts them as doing such, and they are not marrying beings? (Unless, of course, one were to interpret Genesis 6 as the one and only example of them doing as such.)

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 04:52 AM
I would say it's strongly doubtful, according to Scripture. Christ said that angels "do not marry" and "nor are they given in marriage". Procreation, within humankind at least, is strictly reserved for marriage. If the angels don't marry, nor are "given in marriage", and while procreation within marriage is explicitly a human "thing" to do, what reason do we have to believe that God would have created angels with the ability to procreate at all when no Scripture depicts them as doing such, and they are not marrying beings? (Unless, of course, one were to interpret Genesis 6 as the one and only example of them doing as such.)

So, then, how did the idea come about that this passage was referring to angels -- and how did it become so widely accepted?

THOM
Apr 19th 2009, 05:04 AM
So, then, how did the idea come about that this passage was referring to angels -- and how did it become so widely accepted?

I'm certain now that :idea:markedward:idea: will provide you with the answer. . .but please allow me to throw in my 2 cents: It has "come about" by the same one who inspired the statement, "Ye shall not surely die."

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 05:07 AM
I can't say for certain.

Probably the same way some Bible teachers think Adam could fly because he had "dominion" over the birds of the sky... their reasoning? "You can't have dominion over something unless you can do what it can do." Hence, Adam can fly because he has "dominion" over animals that can fly.

So... I'd say it's just poor hermeneutics that lead to such conclusions.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 05:27 AM
I can't say for certain.

Probably the same way some Bible teachers think Adam could fly because he had "dominion" over the birds of the sky... their reasoning? "You can't have dominion over something unless you can do what it can do." Hence, Adam can fly because he has "dominion" over animals that can fly.

So... I'd say it's just poor hermeneutics that lead to such conclusions.

I know that Satan was the one who said "Ye shall not surely die" (as Thom pointed out), but who was Hermeneutics? Was he a theologian?!




















































Okay, bad joke!!! I'm sorry

apothanein kerdos
Apr 19th 2009, 07:26 AM
Were angels even given the ability to procreate? If not, then how can this verse possibly infer that these sons of God were angels?

Scripture never really addresses the issue. :)


Great point.

Sure there is; and this is why we must always line ALL Scripture up with ALL other Scripture and/or refer to ALL other Scripture regarding the same or similar matters.

In Hebrews 1:5, the author ask the question, "For unto which of the angels said HE at any time, THOU art MY SON, this day have I begotten THEE? And again, I will be to HIM a FATHER, and HE shall be to ME a SON?" This eliminates them being 'angelic'.

Genesis 1:26 makes them nothing else but "man[kind]", because this is all (for now) that we deal with from Genesis 1:26 to Genesis 6. . .and even farther.

And to NOT "take an absolutist stance", is to go against ALL that GOD IS: ABSOLUTE!



It's still not as clear cut as you want it to be. The Hebrew word is very spurious in its translation. Likewise, taking NT passages (I don't see how Hebrews 1:5 applies) and applying it to this situation is equally troubling as there isn't much relation.

Also, God is absolute in His knowledge - we are not. We are finite. To take an absolutist stance on everything is arrogance, not siding with God. :)

To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of interpreting the passage as dealing with men. However, some can reasonably interpret it another way - though I think the evidence isn't in their favor. In either regard, it doesn't provide a major change to doctrine.

Bliz
Apr 19th 2009, 07:15 PM
Hi All,

Someone sent me this article a long time ago in reference to the views on this topic. Here is an except from it for all to review.

I attach it as food for thought, as each of us needs to study the Scriptural account, and come to our own conclusions based on what the Scriptures teach us.

The article was written by Chuck Missler on the topic...

__________________________________________________ _________________________

"Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.

However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)

Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be," it becomes essential to understand what these days included.

Origin of the Sethite View

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah." Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.

The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.

The Biblical term "Sons of Elohim" (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God." The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God. Being born again of the Spirit of God, as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels. The very term oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed.

The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform Biblical usage of the term.

2. The Daughters of Cain

The "Daughters of Adam" also does not denote a restriction to the descendants of Cain, but rather the whole human race is clearly intended. These daughters were the daughters born to the men with which this very sentence opens:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1,2
It is clear from the text that these daughters were not limited a particular family or subset, but were, indeed, from (all) the Benoth Adam, "the daughters of Adam." There is no apparent exclusion of the daughters of Seth. Or were they so without charms in contrast with the daughters of Cain? All of Adam's female descendants seem to have been involved. (And what about the "sons of Adam?" Where do they, using this contrived dichotomy, fit in?)

Furthermore, the line of Cain was not necessarily known for its ungodliness. From a study of the naming of Cain's children, many of which included the name of God, it is not clear that they were all necessarily unfaithful.

3. The Inferred Lines of Separation

The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11, five chapters later. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later. Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.

4. The Inferred Godliness of Seth

There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were from the line of Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation 'Sons of God' is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose sonship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation."

The "Sons of Elohim" saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them wives of all that they chose. It appears that the women had little say in the matter. The domineering implication hardly suggests a godly approach to the union. Even the mention that they saw that they were attractive seems out of place if only normal biology was involved. (And were the daughters of Seth so unattractive?)

It should also be pointed out that the son of Seth himself was Enosh, and there is textual evidence that, rather than a reputation for piety, he seems to have initiated the profaning of the name of God.

If the lines of Seth were so faithful, why did they perish in the flood?

5. The Unnatural Offspring

The most fatal flaw in the specious "Sethite" view is the emergence of the Nephilim as a result of the unions. (Bending the translation to "giants" does not resolve the difficulties.) It is the offspring of these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood.

Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, or unnatural, children! It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.

The very absence of any such adulteration of the human genealogy in Noah's case is also documented in Genesis 6:9: Noah's family tree was distinctively unblemished. The term used, tamiym, is used for physical blemishes.

Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.

A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned. (Was there a chromosome deficiency among the Sethites? Were there only "Y" chromosomes available in this line?)

6. New Testament Confirmations

"In the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare Scripture with Scripture. The New Testament confirmations in Jude and 2 Peter are impossible to ignore.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [Tartarus], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5
Peter's comments even establishes the time of the fall of these angels to the days of the Flood of Noah.

Even Peter's vocabulary is provocative. Peter uses the term Tartarus, here translated "hell." This is the only place that this Greek term appears in the Bible. Tartarus is a Greek term for "dark abode of woe"; "the pit of darkness in the unseen world." As used in Homer's Iliad, it is "...as far beneath hades as the earth is below heaven`." In Greek mythology, some of the demigods, Chronos and the rebel Titans, were said to have rebelled against their father, Uranus, and after a prolonged contest they were defeated by Zeus and were condemned into Tartarus.

The Epistle of Jude also alludes to the strange episodes when these "alien" creatures intruded themselves into the human reproductive process:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6,7
The allusions to "going after strange flesh," keeping "not their first estate," having "left their own habitation," and "giving themselves over to fornication," seem to clearly fit the alien intrusions of Genesis 6. (The term for habitation, oivkhth,rion, refers to their heavenly bodies from which they had disrobed.)

These allusions from the New Testament would seem to be fatal to the "Sethite" alternative in interpreting Genesis 6. If the intercourse between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were merely marriage between Sethites and Cainites, it seems impossible to explain these passages, and the reason why some fallen angels are imprisoned and others are free to roam the heavenlies.

7. Post-Flood Implications

The strange offspring also continued after the flood: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that..." The "Sethite" view fails to meaningfully address the prevailing conditions "also after that." It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.

8. Prophetic Implications

Another reason that an understanding of Genesis 6 is so essential is that it also is a prerequisite to understanding (and anticipating) Satan's devices and, in particular, the specific delusions to come upon the whole earth as a major feature of end-time prophecy.

In Summary

If one takes an integrated view of the Scripture, then everything in it should "tie together." It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text, corroborated by multiple New Testament references and was so understood by both early Jewish and Christian scholarship; the "Sethite View" is a contrivance of convenience from a network of unjustified assumptions antagonistic to the remainder of the Biblical record."

__________________________________________________ __________________________

I hope that this helps in bringing some honest questions to the table regarding this topic.

Although the Book of Enoch is an apocryphal book, it is quoted from by Jude verbatim in his epistle. If you take the time to read it, it certainly falls in line with the Angel view. Some seminaries teach the Angel view in light of the belief that Satan and his fallen angels will again try to enter into the world in order to breed an army to fight Christ at His return.

After all, strategically, he is outnumbered 2 to 1 with regard to the heavenly hosts...

I find it staggering to say the least, to even contemplate that this attack would be attempted by mere humans.

Also, "sons of God" is indeed a term used of Angels in Job 1:6 for whoever discounted this possibility based on what they quoted in Hebrews...

Chew on this awhile, and... Be Blessed!

In light of seeking for answers to this topic years ago... , I had thought about a Scripture passage which had confounded me for years.

(See 1Corinthians 11:10)

It certainly left me wondering...

Blessings to all who are seeking truth!

Bliz
Carpe Logos!

markedward
Apr 19th 2009, 08:04 PM
The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.This is misleading, because "in the Old Testament" the phrase "sons of God" is only found in Genesis 6, and in Job. Since there's no reason to assume these were authored by the same people, and that the two authors used the phrase in the same manner, is not a solid argument.

The article takes a specific aim at the Seth/Cain theory... not the general theory that the "sons of God" refers to Godly men.


And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text? The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural support.The "primary thrust" of God sending the flood is because of sinful mankind... the idea that fallen angels were the ones in the wrong, and that God instead punishes mankind for the sins of the fallen angels is completely backwards. On the other hand, the nephilim are directly shown to be a cause of violence and wickedness, and the text consistently focuses on the sinful actions of mankind, not angels.


Why were the offspring uniquely designated "mighty" and "men of reknown?" This description characterizing the children is not accounted for if the fathers were merely men, even if godly.They were warrior-peoples. Again, the nephilim are seen after the flood; do we assume God failed in preventing a half-race of demon-men from being born a second time? Yet the description of the nephilim later on is consistent with the original description; that of warrior-peoples.


A further difficulty seems to be that the offspring were only men; no "women of reknown" are mentioned.Because... women were discouraged from being warrios in that culture.


It offers no insight into the presence of the subsequent "giants" in the land of Canaan.Again, if the nephilim are just warrior-peoples, then this has already been addressed.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 19th 2009, 09:38 PM
I read another article by Dr Missler online sometime ago regarding these offspring that are referred to in Gen. 6.

He basically argued that these angels took the daughters of men, and had offspring that lacked human spirits (since they themselves were not created in the image of God, and lacked this aspect of the human trichotomy). He referenced Ecclesiastes 12:7, which states that upon death, the spirit shall return to God who gave it.

From what I recall, he presented the argument that, because the nephilim had no spirit by which to return to God, that their souls still roam the earth, and harass believers. When they lived on earth, they had body and soul, but no spirit.

I really hope that I'm remembering correctly, because it's been a while since I've read it, but that was basically the jist of it -- that the nephilim were not human, because they lacked spirits....but they will be judged along with the fallen angels.

I really didn't know what to make of this article -- I was pretty skeptical, although some of it was convincing. If these hybrid offspring were not the product of 2 humans, then they naturally would not be in the image of God.

One interesting thing that I noticed is that he brings up the same point I did -- why would the women and the men be distinguished according to their heritage (daughters of men, and sons of God), although Mark already clarified that.

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 20th 2009, 08:57 PM
Thom,
Now I know you're really not answering for markedward when you say

"He has told you correctly (for the most part). There are not, and never has been any HALF-men, HALF-angels, HALF-gods, HALF-man, or anything else for that matter, etc (nor any fractional part thereof)."

Because if he were to say so, and you were to agree with him, then you'd both be dead wrong.
There's not even an argument!

Updated: 1:14 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2004In Minnesota, pigs are being born with
human blood in their veins.

In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human.

In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing
inside their skulls.

These are not outcasts from "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the 1896 novel by
H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal
and part human. They are real creations of real scientists, stretching the
boundaries of stem cell research.

Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras, after the mythical Greek
creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. They are
the products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to
developing animal fetuses.

Living test beds
Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent
human cells and organs mature and interact not in the cold isolation of
laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are
already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward
new medical treatments.

But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above
the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules
should kick in?

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has
been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February. Yet
the range of opinions it has received so far suggests that reaching
consensus may be difficult.


Fossil may show ape-man ancestor

During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as
whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in
an animal's womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a
brain made of human neurons.

"This is an area where we really need to come to a reasonable consensus,"
said James Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health's Stem Cell
Task Force. "We need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what the
scientific community ought to do and ought not to do."

Beyond twins and moms
Chimeras (ki-MER-ahs) meaning mixtures of two or more individuals in a
single body are not inherently unnatural. Most twins carry at least a few
cells from the sibling with whom they shared a womb, and most mothers carry
in their blood at least a few cells from each child they have born.

Recipients of organ transplants are also chimeras, as are the many people
whose defective heart valves have been replaced with those from pigs or
cows. And scientists for years have added human genes to bacteria and even
to farm animals feats of genetic engineering that allow those critters to
make human proteins such as insulin for use as medicines.

"Chimeras are not as strange and alien as at first blush they seem," said
Henry Greely, a law professor and ethicist at Stanford University who has
reviewed proposals to create human-mouse chimeras there.

But chimerism becomes a more sensitive topic when it involves growing entire
human organs inside animals. And it becomes especially sensitive when it
deals in brain cells, the building blocks of the organ credited with making
humans human.

In experiments like those, Greely told the academy last month, "there is a
nontrivial risk of conferring some significant aspects of humanity" on the
animal.

Greely and his colleagues did not conclude that such experiments should
never be done. Indeed, he and many other philosophers have been wrestling
with the question of why so many people believe it is wrong to breach the
species barrier.

Does the repugnance reflect an understanding of an important natural law? Or
is it just another cultural bias, like the once widespread rejection of
interracial marriage?

Many turn to the Bible's repeated invocation that animals should multiply
"after their kind" as evidence that such experiments are wrong. Others,
however, have concluded that the core problem is not necessarily the
creation of chimeras but rather the way they are likely to be treated.

Imagine, said Robert Streiffer, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at
the University of Wisconsin, a human-chimpanzee chimera endowed with speech
and an enhanced potential to learn what some have called a "humanzee."

"There's a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal
is bad," Streiffer said. "But if you did it, and you gave it the protections
it deserves, how could the animal complain?"

Unfortunately, said Harvard political philosopher Michael J. Sandel,
speaking last fall at a meeting of the President's Council on Bioethics,
such protections are unlikely.

"Chances are we would make them perform menial jobs or dangerous jobs,"
Sandel said. "That would be an objection."

A research breakthrough
The potential power of chimeras as research tools became clear about a
decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments by Evan Balaban, now at
McGill University in Montreal. Balaban took small sections of brain from
developing quails and transplanted them into the developing brains of
chickens.

The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to
quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the
neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that
complex behaviors could be transferred across species.

No one has proposed similar experiments between, say, humans and apes. But
the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998 allowed researchers to
envision related experiments that might reveal a lot about how embryos grow.

The cells, found in 5-day-old human embryos, multiply prolifically and
unlike adult cells have the potential to turn into any of the body's 200
or so cell types.

Scientists hope to cultivate them in laboratory dishes and grow replacement
tissues for patients. But with those applications years away, the cells are
gaining in popularity for basic research.

The most radical experiment, still not conducted, would be to inject human
stem cells into an animal embryo and then transfer that chimeric embryo into
an animal's womb. Scientists suspect the proliferating human cells would
spread throughout the animal embryo as it matured into a fetus and integrate
themselves into every organ.

Such "humanized" animals could have countless uses. They would almost
certainly provide better ways to test a new drug's efficacy and toxicity,
for example, than the ordinary mice typically used today.

But few scientists are eager to do that experiment. The risk, they say, is
that some human cells will find their way to the developing testes or
ovaries, where they might grow into human sperm and eggs. If two such
chimeras say, mice were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a
mouse.

Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.

"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental
biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no
human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply
die, she told the academy. No harm done.

But others disagree if for no other reason than nothing else out of fear
of a public backlash.

"Certainly you'd get a negative response from people to have a human embryo
trying to grow in the wrong place," said Cynthia B. Cohen, a senior research
fellow at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics and a member
of Canada's Stem Cell Oversight Committee, which supported a ban on such
experiments there.

How human?
But what about experiments in which scientists add human stem cells not to
an animal embryo but to an animal fetus, which has already made its eggs and
sperm? Then the only question is how human a creature one dares to make.

In one ongoing set of experiments, Jeffrey L. Platt at the Mayo Clinic in
Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding
human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both
pig and human blood in their vessels. And it's not just pig blood cells
being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have
merged, creating hybrids.

It is important to have learned that human and pig cells can fuse, Platt
said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig
organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig
viruses getting into patient's cells. Now scientists know the risk is real,
he said, because the viruses may gain access when the two cells fuse.

In other experiments led by Esmail Zanjani, chairman of animal biotechnology
at the University of Nevada at Reno, scientists have been adding human stem
cells to sheep fetuses. The team now has sheep whose livers are up to 80
percent human and make all the compounds human livers make.

Zanjani's goal is to make the humanized livers available to people who need
transplants. The sheep portions will be rejected by the immune system, he
predicted, while the human part will take root.

"I don't see why anyone would raise objections to our work," Zanjani said in
an interview.

Mice and men
Perhaps the most ambitious efforts to make use of chimeras come from Irving
Weissman, director of Stanford University's Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell
Biology and Medicine. Weissman helped make the first mouse with a nearly
complete human immune system an animal that has proved invaluable for
tests of new drugs against the AIDS virus, which does not infect
conventional mice.

More recently his team injected human neural stem cells into mouse fetuses,
creating mice whose brains are about 1 percent human. By dissecting the mice
at various stages, the researchers were able to see how the added brain
cells moved about as they multiplied and made connections with mouse cells.

Already, he said, they have learned things they "never would have learned
had there been a bioethical ban."

Now he wants to add human brain stem cells that have the defects that cause
Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and other brain ailments and
study how those cells make connections.

Scientists suspect that these diseases, though they manifest themselves in
adulthood, begin when something goes wrong early in development. If those
errors can be found, researchers would have a much better chance of
designing useful drugs, Weissman said. And those drugs could be tested in
the chimeras in ways not possible in patients.

Now Weissman says he is thinking about making chimeric mice whose brains are
100 percent human. He proposes keeping tabs on the mice as they develop. If
the brains look as if they are taking on a distinctly human architecture a
development that could hint at a glimmer of humanness they could be
killed, he said. If they look as if they are organizing themselves in a
mouse brain architecture, they could be used for research.

So far this is just a "thought experiment," Weissman said, but he asked the
university's ethics group for an opinion anyway.

"Everyone said the mice would be useful," he said. "But no one was sure if
it should be done."

2005 The Washington Post Company

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 20th 2009, 10:03 PM
As the previous post was a bit long I would suggest something to you here I have been quite interested in for many years. (I may have posted something similar several years ago)
I would propose to you that our modern technologically advanced world-wide society was really quite primitive as little as two hundred years ago.
There were only 5 major technologies in GENERAL use worldwide.
Fire, the wheel, the sail (and it's many adaptations), guns, and gunpowder. We didn't even know how to use steam 220 years ago!
Then came along the British empire spreading Her language.
You can marry the spread of the English language and the rise of a worldwide advanced technology almost exactly in your history books.
Communications! A one world language reborn after nearly 5,000 years!
No one can claim it has not become the language of the nations now.
Now, we have had the rise of said language for 200+ years and where have we come to in the affairs of humanity?
What were the Antediluvians up to in their 1656 years before the flood?
A people of such physical vitality that they lived 900+ years as a rule, what was their intellectual capacity? Might those first men in the Spring of creation have been even a little advanced over the best we see in the modern generations?
That, and a single language from the start....., unlike today.
Could such a society in their generations have played with the genetics of all creation, even to the point of it's near collapse? We are!
If it is thought impossible that such a thing could ever have happened, then I put it to you to answer this one question:
How is it, that no matter how distant from one another they were geographically, or different in the make-up of their societies, EVERY major culture able to leave us a record, at the very dawn of recorded history of what was most important to them, left an overwhelming number of representations of half men/beasts, and mixtures of beasts in unnatural combinations?
This wasn't something hidden in a corner in only one society you know, this was a facination, no, a preoccupation suggesting a great fear of such creatures across the whole spectrum of humanity.
Don't think pre-flood men enjoyed such technology?
Well, I don't believe in the classic sense of space aliens (Besides the fallen angels), so who built the ruins our astronauts (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=VO7sScixG4SotAO5nJjpAQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=astronauts&spell=1) filmed on the Moon on Apollo 16.
Posed in front of them quite subtlely too.
http://www.keithlaney.net/Apollo-digs/apollo_digs2.htm
If you don't believe what you're seeing here, go to OOPARTS.
http://s8int.com/index.html

Ever wondered about the story of the Tower of Babel?
Think it was to scatter mankind abroad over the earth?
Hey! Population was gonna do that in time anyway.
No! That was mans concern! God said exactly what his agenda was!
To confuse the language of men, so that 'all they proposed to do' (advanced technology) would be impossible for them for the next 5,000 years.
Well, we've got it back now, and humanzee is coming.
And I think he's gonna look a whole lot like a Neanderthal!

THOM
Apr 21st 2009, 04:02 AM
Thom,
Now I know you're really not answering for markedward when you say

"He has told you correctly (for the most part). There are not, and never has been any HALF-men, HALF-angels, HALF-gods, HALF-man, or anything else for that matter, etc (nor any fractional part thereof)."

Because if he were to say so, and you were to agree with him, then you'd both be dead wrong.
There's not even an argument!

Okay, let's just see; First we take the Scripture in Question:
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:1-7)"

Let see now...
. . .We've got the word, "men" and/or "man", a total of ten times;
. . .We've got the phrase, "the sons of GOD", and "the daughters of", two times each (with one extra "daughters");
. . .We've got the words, "them" and "they", eight times;
. . .And we've got the word, "angel(s)" how many times?

So then, how do "giants" figure into this equation? Here's a thought:

If "the sons of GOD (Adam's Generation)" were impregnating "the daughters of men (say maybe one of Cain's, or Seth's, or Enoch's, or Lamech's daughters)", just how messed up could that particular off-spring be and/or become? Just a thought mind you. And just look at how "the generations" are getting all out of whack?

Think about this, If Adam impregnated Jared's Sister (Mahalaleel's Daughter; Mahalaleel was Adam's Great-great-great grandson), we're talking about messing up some "generations" big time, right?

I believe these were men, and not angels or half- anything, but demonically inspired nonetheless, who ticked GOD off so much so. . ."the Flood".

And please remember, Regardless of anything else, we still all stem from Adam and Eve. . .because that's who Noah, and his three sons stem from.

BroRog
Apr 21st 2009, 04:27 AM
Also, why does the Bible distinguish between the men and the women here? Why are the men called sons of God, while the women are called daughters of men? If they were humans, wouldn't they also be sons of men?

I believe the phrase "sons of God" here indicates men of royalty and the phrase "daughters of men" indicates daughters of common folk.

We tend to put the emphasis on the contrast between them as if God was displeased with the combination. But I believe God intended to emphasize the idea that the sons took whomever they chose because they were beautiful. Placing the emphasis here, we have a situation in which powerful men of renoun were abducting women to be their wives solely based on her beauty.

They did two things wrong, 1) the criteria for their choice was beauty, and 2) they chose whomever they wanted. That is, they didn't respect any sort of mating ritual, courtship, bride price, or parental consent.

This was marriage by abduction and the criteria was beauty alone. And I suspect that some of these women were abducted even from their husbands.

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 21st 2009, 11:32 AM
I still don't agree with breakdown of the pronounced difference in the way the two groups are charactorized.
Sons of God fathered the mighty men of old, and men of renown, why not the fathers as well having been men of renown.
They weren't?
But we've already established the statement addressed in the first of my last two posts as being a fallacy.
Science says there are now fractional men/animals.
The testimony of the ancients couldn't be much clearer on there having been such creatures, unless you'd like to argue that all cultures everywhere made these things up on a lark. And then thought the result clever enough to plaster all over their most nationally important structures.
And we are going to see things just as horrific or worse than any si-fi writer can imagine in our near future..

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:41 AM
I still don't agree with breakdown of the pronounced difference in the way the two groups are charactorized.
Sons of God fathered the mighty men of old, and men of renown, why not the fathers as well having been men of renown.
They weren't?
But we've already established the statement addressed in the first of my last two posts as being a fallacy.
Science says there are now fractional men/animals.
The testimony of the ancients couldn't be much clearer on there having been such creatures, unless you'd like to argue that all cultures everywhere made these things up on a lark. And then thought the result clever enough to plaster all over their most nationally important structures.
And we are going to see things just as horrific or worse than any si-fi writer can imagine in our near future..

What you have laid out is creepy, but not surprising.

As far as the comparison of angel/human hybrids to animal/human hybrids, I don't really see it. Mice may have human neurons firing in their brains, and it may be grotesque, but it's still feasible, because humans and mice are both mammals.

The possibility of an angel/human hybrid is a little more far-fetched, though as AK said above, we can't be sure either way.

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:32 PM
The testimony of the ancients couldn't be much clearer on there having been such creatures, unless you'd like to argue that all cultures everywhere made these things up on a lark.

Not a lark, just a fanciful myth like Ogres, Elves, Unicorns, Dragons, and Martians.

History has always had far-fetched, untrue, mythical stories and creatures.

The Bible, however, doesn't have angel/human hybrids.

Genesis 6 solely addresses human beings.

Just take a minute to examine the context of Genesis Chapter 6.



ZERO times where angels, angels mating with humans, angel/human offspring are mentioned or the subject of conversation in Genesis 6.

76 timeswhere humans beings alone, are mentioned are mentioned or the subject of conversation in Genesis 6..

Genesis Chapter 6
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 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. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. "



So what should you do?

Follow Paul's advice and apply it to the unsound myth Angel/Human offspring from Genesis 6. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. " Romans 16:15

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:44 PM
DT,
Just fanciful myths?
You really need to do some in-depth research on the subject of myths. You may find there is more than a little grain of truth in them, and I really do think it's important for Christians to understand where these things came from, at least to begin to understand the wheat from the chaff.
If you're willing to write off these subjects as the silly notions of our early ancestors, I would remind you that 'THEY' were much closer to being contempory with those times than are you.
I am quite prepared to understand Elves and Ogres, and Grey aliens for that matter, as Satanic deceptions, they have all the footprints of such, but not Dragons nor the universal thread of 'humans and the gods' procreating. Many believe the bible says so plainly enough, and the ancients mirror it's testimony.
As far as the dragons go, our museums are full of them.
As far as Martians go, there IS an ever increasing body of evidence that 'somebody' was there. My own opinion, I don't believe in the classic alien scenerio, so that just leaves.... us. The antediluvians attempting the same things our own generation wishes to accomplish.
ECC 1: 9-10
On this note you might wish to check the above posted link to Apollo digs #2.
Our people thought them important enough to travel out of their line of march to pose in front of.
I think it is of value to us all to weigh these things in light of scripture, and our own past and recent history.

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:49 PM
DT,
Just fanciful myths?
You really need to do some in-depth research on the subject of myths. You may find there is more than a little grain of truth in them, and I really do think it's important for Christians to understand where these things came from, at least to begin to understand the wheat from the chaff.


Yes, angel/human mating is fanciful myths.

I have doen indepth researcion on that myth, and it is just that; an untrue myth that many have felt compelled to read into the Scriptures.

There is not a little grain of truth to this myth, there is no truth to it. And Christians should understand that this myth is chaff that they should discard.

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:35 PM
DT,
The term "Sons of God" as used in the old testiment, always referes to angelic beings.
As it has been pointed out, that it is hardly likely that the several usages in Job and Genesis would contradict each other.
Not until the New Testament do we ever see it's usage refer to Godly men.
You have repeatedly said that the word "Angels" does not appear in Gen 6. It does not appear in the passages in Job where Satan accuses mankind before the 'Sons of God', but we all know exactly who they are, angels...or heavenly beings... by any other name.
Not men.

Why have you omitted any reference to the passages in Job?
Don't fit very well.

THOM
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:55 PM
DT,
The term "Sons of God" as used in the old testiment, always referes to angelic beings.
As it has been pointed out, that it is hardly likely that the several usages in Job and Genesis would contradict each other.
Not until the New Testament do we ever see it's usage refer to Godly men.
You have repeatedly said that the word "Angels" does not appear in Gen 6. It does not appear in the passages in Job where Satan accuses mankind before the 'Sons of God', but we all know exactly who they are, angels...or heavenly beings... by any other name.
Not men.
Why have you omitted any reference to the passages in Job?
Don't fit very well.

DT has told you the Truth. All of the Texts clearly show that "the sons of GOD" are not angels;
But I'm curious as to what, specifically, makes you believe that Job 1:6;2:1;38:7 are about angels?

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:34 PM
Thom,
Job? Pretty self evident, and except for here, NEARLY any other source I've found. Either on the internet or in person, and the wording of verses themselves.
Just who in the world do YOU think God was with when Satan presented himself to accuse Job?
Do you think God had gathered a group of "Godly men" to hold court with when Satan entered the scene? Can you give reference to any other examples?
I think you will find none.
The weight of evidence in both accepted scripture and the testimony of the ancients falls against you.
To continually say you're right just isn't holding up.

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 22nd 2009, 06:45 PM
Sorry brothers and sisters,
This debate is both pointless and will bear no fruit.
Nothing about men or angels of the antediluvian generations will affect our journey now.
I leave it to those who must have their point.

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2009, 07:43 PM
DT,
The term "Sons of God" as used in the old testiment, always referes to angelic beings.

Why have you omitted any reference to the passages in Job?
Don't fit very well.


Context my friend.

You are using your own circular reasoning above.

You are claiming that Genesis 6's useage of 'sons of God' = angels; therefore since Job uses the phrase 'sons of God' to denote angels, then the entire Old Testament teaches this.

But your first premise is incorrect because Genesis 6, as shown above, provides the context of the 'sons of God' in that chapter to be men...human beings. So you can't force angels into that chapter, because the context of that chapter doesn't mention angels...only men.

Yes Job uses the phrase 'sons of God' to denote angels.

But guess what....?

Job didn't write Genesis. Job wrote Job; and we aren't dealing with the same writer.

It is no different whatsoever, than the fact that all of the N.T. references of 'sons of God' refer to humans.

the phrase:

"sons of God" is used by 4 DIFFERENT biblical authors over 6 different books.

The book of Genesis writer
The book of Job writer
The Gospel of John writer
The book of Romans writer
The book of Philippians writer
The book of I John writer

Only Job uses the phrase 'sons of God' in regards to angels.
The other 5 books use it to denote human beings (in their own context)

So you are making a huge leap to say 'disregard the NT useage', and only use the OT useage.

Secondly, 37 of the OT books don't use that phrase at all.

Out of 929 chapters in the OT, 925 chapters omit that phrase entirely...so don't come across as if the OT is provide a great wealth of examples of that phrase being used to denote angels. It is only done so in Job's writing, 3 times in 3 verses.

So outside of Job's 3 examples, and the Genesis 6 account, (twice), 22,565 of the 22,570 verses of the OT DO NOT MENTION 'the sons of God' phrase.

So you again have to go back to context.

No context in Genesis 6 mentions angels or demons, or cross-species mating or hybrid creatures.

76 times however, in Genesis chapter 6, human's are presented as the subject in context.

The only time in the bible 'sons of God' is used to denote angels, is in three verses in the book of Job.

Every other useage of that phrase in every other book it is found, by every other author who uses it, uses it in the context of human beings.

That's why you should allow the context of the Bible to help you reject and abandon this fanciful myth.

As far as fruit, refuting false teaching and doctrine bears much fruit. Paul often instructed Timothy in such things. We should stand firm on the truth and the light and the wheat, and reject and expose falsehoods, darkness and chaff.

I hope you'll reconsider, and realize this view should be abandoned, because it is not grounded on a firm biblical foundation.

THOM
Apr 22nd 2009, 07:50 PM
Only Job uses the phrase 'sons of God' in regards to angels.

Hi David; I just now notice this. Could you please show me, in Scripture, how what you claim here is so? Thanks.

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2009, 08:07 PM
Hi David; I just now notice this. Could you please show me, in Scripture, how what you claim here is so? Thanks.

I will say that the chapter 1 and 2 useages are vague, and only by association with Satan is there any possible connection to angels. When re-examining those two verses, all they both really tell us (twice) is "there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them". The context for that phrase really isn't explained.

Your thoughts on those two useages?




Later however, Job does appear to be using the phrase 'sons of God' to denote angels when discussing the creation week, as having already been created prior to the 6th day of creation when humankind was created here:

38:4 (God speaking to Job) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? "

The context here appears to be God telling Job that he (or he as a personification of mankind in general) wasn't present on the day that the Lord laid the foundations of the Earth during the creation week, but the morning stars and sons of God were present.

That would be the only single biblical verse to me, that gives any weight to the phrase 'sons of God' being used to represent angels.

What's your understanding of the Job 1-2-38 useages of that phrase?

Ascension
Apr 23rd 2009, 12:49 AM
Check these giants out. Please explain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N63lhtx2q8o

THOM
Apr 23rd 2009, 05:23 PM
I will say that the chapter 1 and 2 useages are vague, and only by association with Satan is there any possible connection to angels. When re-examining those two verses, all they both really tell us (twice) is "there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them". The context for that phrase really isn't explained.
Your thoughts on those two useages?

Hey Brother; You are Deep!!! Stay strong IN THE LORD!

Most who subscribe to "the sons of GOD", in Job 1:6;2:1, being "angels", believe that this is taking place in Heaven. . .but its not; Satan is on Earth; in fact his HQ as "Lucifer" was on Earth (Ezekiel 28:13). So the scene is on Earth not in Heaven. The Second belief (Job 1:6;2:1) is that "the sons of GOD" are "fallen angels". . .but they're not; they couldn't be for the following reasons: Humans aren't even called "the sons of GOD", until after they're "chosen" and/or accepted. . .and especially NOT if they've been booted out the presence of GOD!




Later however, Job does appear to be using the phrase 'sons of God' to denote angels when discussing the creation week, as having already been created prior to the 6th day of creation when humankind was created here:
38:4 (God speaking to Job) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? "
The context here appears to be God telling Job that he (or he as a personification of mankind in general) wasn't present on the day that the Lord laid the foundations of the Earth during the creation week, but the morning stars and sons of God were present.
That would be the only single biblical verse to me, that gives any weight to the phrase 'sons of God' being used to represent angels.
What's your understanding of the Job 1-2-38 useages of that phrase?Yes, I see your point; It does seem to give a weight to "the sons of GOD" being "angels". . .provided, "the morning stars" aren't angels. . .or we're talking about two groups of "angels" here. Hmmm, I wonder which is it?

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77