PDA

View Full Version : Information Giants, Where did they come from?



trodder
Jun 4th 2008, 11:06 PM
I'm trying to have a discussion with a guy at work who believes that
Genesis 6: 4, "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."
Does not mean that demons mated with a race of "pre-humans" and giants appeared.
I don't know how he arrives at this conclusion and he can't really explain it except to say prove he's wrong.
Any help would be appreciated.

calidog
Jun 5th 2008, 12:18 AM
Your question is'nt clear. The verse you quote implys that demons or angels had sexual relations with humans, not "pre-humans", and their offspring were giants.

From the same book, genesis, we learn nothing about pre-humans.

trodder
Jun 5th 2008, 01:08 AM
That's my dilemma. He insists Gen. 6:4 means demons had sexual relations with a race of pre-humans and their offspring were giants.

I'm not familiar with the thought of demons having sexual relations with humans or angels for that matter, it's interesting but not what I'm after at the moment.

Let me put it this way and I'm sure I know the answer.

Was there a race of beings before Adam that demons could have had sexual relations with? and is it possible for demons to have sexual relations with a human?

calidog
Jun 5th 2008, 01:26 AM
That section of the bible is after Adam and before the flood, so there were no pre-humans, just humans. In that section of genesis we read that angels, presumably fallen in nature, took on wives of humans and their offspring were giants. These were destroyed in the flood. After the flood were giants also but no more mention of angels and humans procreating.

"Was there a race of beings before Adam that demons could have had sexual relations with? and is it possible for demons to have sexual relations with a human?"

According to the bible, no. Adam was the first human.
If you hold to the gap theory there may have been life before the creation in genesis 1:2. But that life would have been completely extinguished except for the angels.

Zack702
Jun 5th 2008, 05:45 AM
I consider that giants are simply very big humans and nothing more. There bloodline making them tall was unique but I don't see how he is throwing demons in the mix. My advise is to be wary of strange interpretations.

The part "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" I suspect these were simply great men in there time with perhaps extra special qualities.

My bible reads like this. Genesis chapter 6 verse 4
"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"

So if you follow that you see that giants were on the earth before the sons of God had offspring. I consider they were just very big humans.

trodder
Jun 5th 2008, 01:41 PM
I know it has little to do my savation but might there be a scripture(s) or commentary to refer to.

calidog
Jun 5th 2008, 02:00 PM
Here are two opposing views:

Defender's Bible Notes
Genesis 6:2 (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_submit=Search&f_context_any=any&section=bible&f_search_type=bible&f_keyword_any=Genesis+6:2)

6:2 sons of God. The identity of these “sons of God” has been a matter of much discussion, but the obvious meaning is that they were angelic beings. This was the uniform interpretation of the ancient Jews, who translated the phrase as “angels of God” in their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. The apocryphal books of Enoch elaborate this interpretation, which is also strongly implied by the New Testament passages (Jude 6, II Peter 2:4-6; I Peter 3:19,20). The Hebrew phrase is bene elohim, which occurs elsewhere only in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. In these three explicitly parallel usages, the contextual meaning can be nothing except that of angels. A similar phrase bar elohim, occurs in Daniel 3:25, and another, bar elim, occurs in Psalm 29:1 and Psalm 89:6. All of these also refer explicitly to angels. The intent of the writer of Genesis 6 (probably Noah) was clearly that of introducing a monstrous irruption of demonic forces on the earth, leading to universal corruption and eventual judgment.


Genesis 6:2 (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_submit=Search&f_context_any=any&section=bible&f_search_type=bible&f_keyword_any=Genesis+6:2)

6:2 took them wives. The “taking” of these women most likely refers to fallen angels, or demons, “possessing” their bodies. The word “wives” (Hebrew ishshah) is better translated “women.” There is no necessary intimation of actual marriage involved. By this time in history, anarchism and amorality were so widespread that these demons were easily able to take possession of the bodies of multitudes of ungodly men; these in turn engaged in promiscuous sex with demon-possessed women, with a resulting rapid population growth, Satan perhaps hoping thereby to generate a vast army of human recruits to his rebellion and also to thwart the coming of God’s promised Seed by thus corrupting all flesh.

************************************************** ******
JV McGee

Gen 6:1-2
CAUSE OF THE FLOOD
In chapter 6 we see not only the Flood, but also the reason for the judgment of the Flood.
This matter of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" is something that has caused no end of discussion. There are a great many good men who take the position that "the sons of God" were angels. I personally cannot accept that at all. Most of my teachers taught that the sons of God were angels, and I recognize that a great many of the present-day expositors take that position. However, I cannot accept that view, because, if these were good angels, they would not commit this sin, and evil angels could never be designated as "sons of God." Also, the offspring here were men; they were not monstrosities. I do not know why it is assumed by so many that the offspring were giants. We will look at this more closely when we come to verse Gen_6:4.
Gen 6:4
It says, "There were giants in the earth in those days," but it does not say they are the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. It does say this about the offspring: "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." These were not monstrosities; they were men. The record here makes it very clear that the giants were in the earth before this took place, and it simply means that these offspring were outstanding individuals.
Humanity has a tremendous capacity. Man is fearfully and wonderfully made—that is a great truth we have lost sight of. This idea that man has come up from some protoplasm out of a garbage can or seaweed is utterly preposterous. It is the belief of some scientists that evolution will be repudiated, and some folk are going to look ridiculous at that time.
Evolution is nothing in the world but a theory as far as science is concerned. Nothing has been conclusive about it. It is a philosophy like any other philosophy, and it can be accepted or rejected. When it is accepted, it certainly leads to some very crazy solutions to the problems of the world, and it has gotten my country into trouble throughout the world. Anyone would think that we are the white knight riding through the world straightening out wrongs. We are wrong on the inside ourselves! I do not know why in this country today we have an intelligentsia in our colleges, our government, our news media, and our military who think they are super, that somehow or another they have arrived. It is the delusion of the hour that men think that they are greater than they really are. Man is suffering from a fall, an awful fall. He is totally depraved today, and until that is taken into consideration, we are in trouble all the way along.
Then what do we have here in verse Gen_6:4? As I see it, Genesis is a book of genealogies—it is a book of the families. The sons of God are the godly line who have come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain. What you have here now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines, until finally the entire line is totally corrupted (well, not totally; there is one exception). That is the picture that is presented to us here.
I recognize, and I want to insist upon it, that many fine expositors take the opposite view that the sons of God are actually angels. If you accept that view, you will be in good company, but I am sure that most of you want to be right and will want to go along with me. Regardless of which view you take, I hope all of us will be friends, because this is merely a matter of interpretation. It does not have anything to do with whether or not you believe the Bible but concerns only the interpretation of the facts of Scripture.
What was the condition on the earth before the Flood? What caused God to bring the judgment of the Flood?

joztok
Jun 5th 2008, 02:21 PM
That's my dilemma. He insists Gen. 6:4 means demons had sexual relations with a race of pre-humans and their offspring were giants.

I'm not familiar with the thought of demons having sexual relations with humans or angels for that matter, it's interesting but not what I'm after at the moment.

Let me put it this way and I'm sure I know the answer.

Was there a race of beings before Adam that demons could have had sexual relations with? and is it possible for demons to have sexual relations with a human?
Some people see fallen angels = demons. This is not true.

Human + fallen angel = hybrid (giant/nephilim/mighty men)

Hybrid + death = Demon (disembodied nephilim)

RJ Mac
Jun 5th 2008, 05:26 PM
I always thought the Giants came from New York.

RJ Mac

Paul_born_again
Jun 5th 2008, 07:25 PM
Some people see fallen angels = demons. This is not true.

Human + fallen angel = hybrid (giant/nephilim/mighty men)

Hybrid + death = Demon (disembodied nephilim)

Very intriguing. Do you have a source to support the last part of your post?

nzyr
Jun 5th 2008, 08:20 PM
That section of the bible is after Adam and before the flood, so there were no pre-humans, just humans. In that section of genesis we read that angels...The bible doesn't call them angels (mal'ak). I think they're called bene Elohim. I was reading a bible commentary earlier today that said these were the sons of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain. And that Seth's family was very religious and Cain's family was not. Anyway the giants mentioned in Genesis doesn't necessarily mean huge. It can mean ferocious or violent. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. -Genesis 6:11 Cain's descendants were behaving just like him.

nzyr
Jun 5th 2008, 08:22 PM
Some people see fallen angels = demons. This is not true.

Human + fallen angel = hybrid (giant/nephilim/mighty men)

Hybrid + death = Demon (disembodied nephilim)Where in scripture does it say that?

JordanW
Jun 5th 2008, 08:29 PM
I've seen a video on YouTube about this subject. This is what that video says: it says that back in the days before the flood, the oxygen level was much higher that it is today, or after the flood. It's been tested, that if you grow a tomato plant in an oxygen tent that has twice the oxygen tent, the tomatoes will grow much bigger. Thus, if you apply that to humans, if we have twice the oxygen, we will grow much bigger.

Teke
Jun 5th 2008, 09:30 PM
I'm trying to have a discussion with a guy at work who believes that
Genesis 6: 4, "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."
Does not mean that demons mated with a race of "pre-humans" and giants appeared.
I don't know how he arrives at this conclusion and he can't really explain it except to say prove he's wrong.
Any help would be appreciated.

The Greek Septuagint renders this term gigantes, which actually means "earth-born."

I posted more in post 6 of Matthew94's thread on the Nephilim. Here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1662443&postcount=6) is the link.

trodder
Jun 6th 2008, 02:12 AM
Thanks for the information, plenty to chew on for a while.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 6th 2008, 04:34 AM
Genesis 3:15 – “I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Most people see this as the first prophecy of Jesus the Messiah and I have to agree. What most people do not realize, however, is that this is also most likely the first prophecy of Satan’s “son” as well. I’ll explain:

In Galatians 3:16 we read this familiar verse – “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”

This is referring to a promise made by God to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, 13:15, and 24:7 that the Promised Land would be given to Abraham’s “seed” or offspring. This will ultimately be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom through Jesus Christ, Abraham’s “seed”. The Hebrew word in the three Genesis references is “zera’ “. In Genesis 3:15, the reference to “your offspring” also uses the same Hebrew word, “zera’ “, which is referring to Christ as I mentioned above, but the serpent’s offspring is also with the same Hebrew word – “zera’ “. So if the woman’s and Abraham’s offspring/seed is singular and refers to Christ as explained by Paul, wouldn’t the same word in referring to the serpent’s offspring also be singular? If this is the case, then we have the offspring of the woman/Abraham, which is Jesus, facing off against the offspring of the serpent/Satan, which would seem to be the child of Satan’s as well.

Now before you wave this off in disgust, let me point out Genesis 6:1-2 – “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.”

The Hebrew for “sons of God” is “Bene elohim”. This term occurs four times in the Old Testament and its meaning is always used as angels of God, never of humans. Most scholars believe this event describes a union between fallen angels who cohabitated with human females. This unnatural occurrence of combining two different species resulted in an offspring that is called “giants” in the King James and NKJ version and “Nephilum” in the New American Standard, and the English translation of the Jewish Masoretic text. I would even propose that this explains the origin of the “gods” of Greek, Roman, and German mythology, among other cultures with similar mythology.

The most common objection to this line of reasoning is that angels do not reproduce sexually as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 22:30 – “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”. However if we look at the verse more carefully we see Jesus stating that the angels of God in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. He gives a specific location, which gives us only two alternatives. Either because of where they are located it is a functional impossibility, or Jesus is referring to only the angels that obey God do not marry. Either way it leaves open the possibility of this occurring on Earth and with the fallen angels that are disobedient to God.

What Matthew 22:30 does specifically say is that angels do not marry. Marriage was given to generate new offspring. Angels do not have the ability to procreate among their own species. They may or may not be sexless, although when they are not in an invisible spirit form they are pictured as male, with male names like Michael & Gabriel. They are also called sons of god, not daughters. When they become visible they will usually appear as young men. God made an innumerable number of angels simultaneously, he does not continue creating them, so they never increase or decrease in number.

We find in the scriptures that angels have the ability to appear as men even though they are spirit creatures. They are able to perform numerous human functions such as eating food as in their encounter with Abraham in Genesis 18. They are able to perform other bodily functions as well, they can walk and talk among us in such a way that we may not be aware of them unless they reveal themselves. Hebrews 13:2 – “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.”

The angels that came to warn Lot were mistaken for men and were sought out for homosexual use by the men of Sodom. Angels are also able to carry out God’s plans on Earth by supplying food for man such as in 1 Kings 19:5-7 & Matthew 4:11. They are able to execute God’s judgment Revelation 7:1, 14:17, inflict punishment upon man Ezekiel 9:1-8 & Acts 12:23. There seems to be some change of substance that takes place on Earth that they can become physical, contrary to their original nature. So if they are able to possess a body of a man and can eat and carry out other functions then why not other abilities?

One thing that should be clarified further is the Hebrew phrase “Bene elohim” and how we can reach an objective conclusion about what it really means:

“Bene” means “sons”. It could refer to a human offspring or even an animal’s offspring. By itself it carries no connotation of angels whatsoever.

“Elohim” is a name that is used too many times to count throughout the Old Testament for God. So, using Hebrew sentence structure, we have “God’s sons”, or “sons of God”. Beyond that, a lexicon will not tell you anything that leads to the conclusion regarding angels. We have to look at the context to understand what the writer is actually talking about.

There is no problem in identifying the “daughters of men” for this is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with the “sons of God.” Three major interpretations have been offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.

First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that “sons of God” meant “nobles” or “magnates.” Hardly anyone today accepts this view and indeed it seems almost impossible to give it serious consideration.

Second, some interpret the “sons of God” as fallen angels. These were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy. However, as we have already discussed, the Scriptures give us no reason to conclude that sexual relations between angels and human women are impossible. It is quite true that such activity is expressly forbidden by God, but that does not render it impossible anymore than the command not to commit murder renders murder impossible, as we see almost every night on the 10:00 news.

Third, many scholars contend that the “sons of God” are the male descendants of Seth, and that the “daughters of men” are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

“The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain.”

However, this argument is not convincing. This interpretation is pure eisegesis – reading into the text what is not there. There is nothing that expressly says the “sons of God” is to be taken as descendants of Seth. But there are indeed affirmative reasons for adopting the fallen angels suggestion as we shall see shortly.

The “sons of Seth” interpretation fails on other grounds as well. At no time, before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of “mixed marriages.” It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over!

The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” If by “sons of God” is meant “sons of Seth,” then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil. What about the daughters of Seth and the sons of Cain? This would seem to be a very large gap in the theory.

The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them – that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly “godly” sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning “mortal” or “frail.” And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself? And if these men began to call on the name of the Lord as the “sons of Seth” proponents would suggest, then where were all these “godly” sons of Seth when only Noah was found righteous among the entire human race?

Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: “Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah.” Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: “Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah.” If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non-existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer: “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12), including the “sons of Seth”. So what we actually have here is not men turning to God in faith, but rather men taking the Lord’s name in vain and either claiming it for themselves or assigning it to idols they had built with their hands, or more likely a combination thereof.

Getting back to the original subject, in the Old Testament, the designation “sons of God” (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known – angels. And the term “sons of God” applies to both good and bad angels.

The designation “sons of God” is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, “and the form of the fourth is like the son of God.” The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, “like a son of the gods.” Since Jesus had not yet become the “only begotten son” of God, this “son” would have had to be angelic.

Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the “sons of God” came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan – a further implication that the “sons of God” must have been angels. Certainly, the inclusion of Satan among these “sons of God” leaves the possibility wide open that fallen angels are a legitimate candidate for the true meaning of this Genesis 6 story.

Since the designation “sons of God” is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.

So it would seem that, based on Genesis 3:15, the offspring of Satan’s will likely be the last and the greatest of the Nephilim. Sounds pretty impressive to me. What still needs to be answered is “Who is this guy?”, “When will he appear?” and “Where will he come from?”

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 08:30 AM
I've seen a video on YouTube about this subject. This is what that video says: it says that back in the days before the flood, the oxygen level was much higher that it is today, or after the flood. It's been tested, that if you grow a tomato plant in an oxygen tent that has twice the oxygen tent, the tomatoes will grow much bigger. Thus, if you apply that to humans, if we have twice the oxygen, we will grow much bigger.


Why weren't all humans giants then?

th1bill
Jun 6th 2008, 01:26 PM
I'm trying to have a discussion with a guy at work who believes that
Genesis 6: 4, "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."
Does not mean that demons mated with a race of "pre-humans" and giants appeared.
I don't know how he arrives at this conclusion and he can't really explain it except to say prove he's wrong.
Any help would be appreciated.
... As you can see, the Demons mating with human women is a very popular misconception, even inside the Church. To deal with this error you will need to study ancient Jewish customs and the implications of their speach patterns. It takes years and you'll not have that long to deal with this gentleman on the matter and except you offer him a reasonable answer this will plague you for years to come.
... The answer lies in the fact that there were two strings of humanity at the time, the descendants of Seth (a.k.a. the Son and Daughters God,) and the descendants of Cain, the daughters of men. The men and the women of God have always been disobedient and have sought out the wrong partners to mate with. And as for the giants, they are still here. Tell him to look at any basketball team.

Teke
Jun 6th 2008, 02:51 PM
when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them – that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly “godly” sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning “mortal” or “frail.” And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself? And if these men began to call on the name of the Lord as the “sons of Seth” proponents would suggest, then where were all these “godly” sons of Seth when only Noah was found righteous among the entire human race?


Nice package you came up with in your post, which is to large to address at one time. But, since your focus is on Noah, I believe it is relevant to point out to you that Noah was a son of Seth (from the line of Seth).

Noah's is the only family that hasn't committed spiritual adultery. He is the only one still preaching spiritual truth that is not defiled.
And this is in line with the prophecy of Seth in Genesis.

nzyr
Jun 6th 2008, 10:56 PM
Genesis 3:15 – “I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Most people see this as the first prophecy of Jesus the Messiah and I have to agree. What most people do not realize, however, is that this is also most likely the first prophecy of Satan’s “son” as well. I’ll explain:

In Galatians 3:16 we read this familiar verse – “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”

This is referring to a promise made by God to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, 13:15, and 24:7 that the Promised Land would be given to Abraham’s “seed” or offspring. This will ultimately be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom through Jesus Christ, Abraham’s “seed”. The Hebrew word in the three Genesis references is “zera’ “. In Genesis 3:15, the reference to “your offspring” also uses the same Hebrew word, “zera’ “, which is referring to Christ as I mentioned above, but the serpent’s offspring is also with the same Hebrew word – “zera’ “. So if the woman’s and Abraham’s offspring/seed is singular and refers to Christ as explained by Paul, wouldn’t the same word in referring to the serpent’s offspring also be singular? If this is the case, then we have the offspring of the woman/Abraham, which is Jesus, facing off against the offspring of the serpent/Satan, which would seem to be the child of Satan’s as well.

Now before you wave this off in disgust, let me point out Genesis 6:1-2 – “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.”

The Hebrew for “sons of God” is “Bene elohim”. This term occurs four times in the Old Testament and its meaning is always used as angels of God, never of humans. Most scholars believe this event describes a union between fallen angels who cohabitated with human females. This unnatural occurrence of combining two different species resulted in an offspring that is called “giants” in the King James and NKJ version and “Nephilum” in the New American Standard, and the English translation of the Jewish Masoretic text. I would even propose that this explains the origin of the “gods” of Greek, Roman, and German mythology, among other cultures with similar mythology.

The most common objection to this line of reasoning is that angels do not reproduce sexually as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 22:30 – “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”. However if we look at the verse more carefully we see Jesus stating that the angels of God in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. He gives a specific location, which gives us only two alternatives. Either because of where they are located it is a functional impossibility, or Jesus is referring to only the angels that obey God do not marry. Either way it leaves open the possibility of this occurring on Earth and with the fallen angels that are disobedient to God.

What Matthew 22:30 does specifically say is that angels do not marry. Marriage was given to generate new offspring. Angels do not have the ability to procreate among their own species. They may or may not be sexless, although when they are not in an invisible spirit form they are pictured as male, with male names like Michael & Gabriel. They are also called sons of god, not daughters. When they become visible they will usually appear as young men. God made an innumerable number of angels simultaneously, he does not continue creating them, so they never increase or decrease in number.

We find in the scriptures that angels have the ability to appear as men even though they are spirit creatures. They are able to perform numerous human functions such as eating food as in their encounter with Abraham in Genesis 18. They are able to perform other bodily functions as well, they can walk and talk among us in such a way that we may not be aware of them unless they reveal themselves. Hebrews 13:2 – “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.”

The angels that came to warn Lot were mistaken for men and were sought out for homosexual use by the men of Sodom. Angels are also able to carry out God’s plans on Earth by supplying food for man such as in 1 Kings 19:5-7 & Matthew 4:11. They are able to execute God’s judgment Revelation 7:1, 14:17, inflict punishment upon man Ezekiel 9:1-8 & Acts 12:23. There seems to be some change of substance that takes place on Earth that they can become physical, contrary to their original nature. So if they are able to possess a body of a man and can eat and carry out other functions then why not other abilities?

One thing that should be clarified further is the Hebrew phrase “Bene elohim” and how we can reach an objective conclusion about what it really means:

“Bene” means “sons”. It could refer to a human offspring or even an animal’s offspring. By itself it carries no connotation of angels whatsoever.

“Elohim” is a name that is used too many times to count throughout the Old Testament for God. So, using Hebrew sentence structure, we have “God’s sons”, or “sons of God”. Beyond that, a lexicon will not tell you anything that leads to the conclusion regarding angels. We have to look at the context to understand what the writer is actually talking about.

There is no problem in identifying the “daughters of men” for this is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with the “sons of God.” Three major interpretations have been offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.

First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that “sons of God” meant “nobles” or “magnates.” Hardly anyone today accepts this view and indeed it seems almost impossible to give it serious consideration.

Second, some interpret the “sons of God” as fallen angels. These were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy. However, as we have already discussed, the Scriptures give us no reason to conclude that sexual relations between angels and human women are impossible. It is quite true that such activity is expressly forbidden by God, but that does not render it impossible anymore than the command not to commit murder renders murder impossible, as we see almost every night on the 10:00 news.

Third, many scholars contend that the “sons of God” are the male descendants of Seth, and that the “daughters of men” are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

“The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain.”

However, this argument is not convincing. This interpretation is pure eisegesis – reading into the text what is not there. There is nothing that expressly says the “sons of God” is to be taken as descendants of Seth. But there are indeed affirmative reasons for adopting the fallen angels suggestion as we shall see shortly.

The “sons of Seth” interpretation fails on other grounds as well. At no time, before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of “mixed marriages.” It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over!

The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” If by “sons of God” is meant “sons of Seth,” then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil. What about the daughters of Seth and the sons of Cain? This would seem to be a very large gap in the theory.

The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them – that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly “godly” sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning “mortal” or “frail.” And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself? And if these men began to call on the name of the Lord as the “sons of Seth” proponents would suggest, then where were all these “godly” sons of Seth when only Noah was found righteous among the entire human race?

Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: “Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah.” Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: “Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah.” If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non-existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer: “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12), including the “sons of Seth”. So what we actually have here is not men turning to God in faith, but rather men taking the Lord’s name in vain and either claiming it for themselves or assigning it to idols they had built with their hands, or more likely a combination thereof.

Getting back to the original subject, in the Old Testament, the designation “sons of God” (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known – angels. And the term “sons of God” applies to both good and bad angels.

The designation “sons of God” is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, “and the form of the fourth is like the son of God.” The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, “like a son of the gods.” Since Jesus had not yet become the “only begotten son” of God, this “son” would have had to be angelic.

Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the “sons of God” came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan – a further implication that the “sons of God” must have been angels. Certainly, the inclusion of Satan among these “sons of God” leaves the possibility wide open that fallen angels are a legitimate candidate for the true meaning of this Genesis 6 story.

Since the designation “sons of God” is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.

So it would seem that, based on Genesis 3:15, the offspring of Satan’s will likely be the last and the greatest of the Nephilim. Sounds pretty impressive to me. What still needs to be answered is “Who is this guy?”, “When will he appear?” and “Where will he come from?”
It all has to do with context. Adam wasn't an angel. He is called a son of God in Luke... Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. -Luke 3:38 So the sons of God could be the descendants of Seth.

SourceofGod
Jun 6th 2008, 11:42 PM
I'm trying to have a discussion with a guy at work who believes that
Genesis 6: 4, "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."
Does not mean that demons mated with a race of "pre-humans" and giants appeared.
I don't know how he arrives at this conclusion and he can't really explain it except to say prove he's wrong.
Any help would be appreciated.

Your friend proboly watches the history channel. This idea comes from the book of enoch.

God kicks out satan and his fallen angels to Earth. These fallen angels started to mingle with humans. The fallen angels started to go after women and had children or huge Giants. This topic is a bit crazy and this is why the book of enoch is not in our bibles.

google reptilians

Reptilians are fallen angels. in away this topic is like a bigfoot because people claim to see these fallen angels or giant reptilians. This year there was a town and a bunch of people saw a huge reptilian or lizard men. This topic made main stream google lizard men and you might find some videos on the topic.

UFOs are the fallen angels or the Reptilians that will soon be jUDGED WHEN OUR LORD RETURNS TO OUR EARTH.

trodder
Jun 8th 2008, 03:52 AM
I have to admit I never heard any preaching, teaching or even bible study on the topic. I've not even given it any thought during my own bible reading. I guess it's because it was of little interest to me.

I may have to agree with you th1bill, it may take years to really understand the subject. ;)

Stefen
Jun 8th 2008, 01:20 PM
Some people see fallen angels = demons. This is not true.

Human + fallen angel = hybrid (giant/nephilim/mighty men)

Hybrid + death = Demon (disembodied nephilim)

This is correct.

joztok
Jun 9th 2008, 03:51 PM
Very intriguing. Do you have a source to support the last part of your post?

Well. In the Old Testamant you see that giants or the offspring of these supernatural beings were 'mighty men' or 'strong man'. They were killed by the flood. They were also killed when the Israelites came into the promised land. Now when a man dies, his spirit departs his body. It's only logical that when a supernatural being dies, they too would have a spirit that departs their body.

In the New Testament Christ talks about binding the 'strong man'. To me, he is addressing the 'demon' or 'mighty men' spirit beings that are destined to roam the earth til they are judged (they were not of God). He's talking how to deal with the demon and how to overcome them.

Now as Christian's we can tell what the Characteristics of Christ are through His Holy Spirit. We can sense the power and attributes of God through His Holy Spirit and we know that He can manifest himself.

So too can demons. We see that when Christians deliver people from such fiends that it takes many men to hold them down from a demon. These are the characteristics of the demon. The nephilim were worshipped back in ancient times as Gods and to this day, these hybrid spirits still seek such glory and like to be called Gods. They have supernatural strength as you will see.

Watch the "John Safran vs God episode 8 part 1" and all the other parts to this FINAL episode (CAUTION! Extreme excorcism! If sensitive to human suffering, do not watch.):

PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V0VgtLftvg

PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ir9L7jaSE&feature=related

PART 3!WARNING!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YajIi-UKHzM&feature=related
You will see the demon manifest here and you will see him fight against about 4-8 men (the ''mighty man).

It's a great DVD. It's quite funny and yet also offensive as this guy proves every religion is wrong. So it's quite attacking on Larson too to some extent. (I don't agree with everything Bob Larson says, but he is indeed a man of God who is given a very hard ministry-nor do I know his demon theology.) Safron is not an actor but a 'funny man'. So what you are seeing is real. That's the point of the entire series. He goes for a genuine spiritual/religious experience and then then comically makes comments on it.

I heard an interesting speaker online too that spoke on the origin of demons and it confirmed my belief and our home bible study on such issues. I'll see if I can find it PBG.

nzyr
Jun 9th 2008, 10:25 PM
Some people see fallen angels = demons. This is not true.

Human + fallen angel = hybrid (giant/nephilim/mighty men)

Hybrid + death = Demon (disembodied nephilim)
Not true. Demons are fallen or evil angels. And according to your beliefs the nephilim are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. -Jude 1:6

So aren't you contradicting yourself?

There are two types of fallen angels. Those that are in chains under darkness. And those that are not.

Zack702
Jun 10th 2008, 12:54 AM
You will see the demon manifest here and you will see him fight against about 4-8 men (the ''mighty man).


I don't want to sound offensive here but I didn't see anything but a guy screaming like a madman.
If you want to read about a real man of renown read the bible scripture about Samson starting in Judges chapter 13.

sojourner52
Jun 10th 2008, 05:54 PM
Hi, I'm new to this group - although I must have joined a couple of years ago and just cant remember!

I would like to add my penny's worth to this.

it is embarassing to some in the church to discuss this kind of thing because it sounds so outlandish and shocking.

but if you read it as it is written - the scriptures say that "sons of God" - not sons of Seth - took wives of all whom they chose.

if the sons of Seth were godly, why were they so wicked?

sons of God were created directly by God, not born. in that sense, Adam was "son of God." he had no earthly father.

Jesus Christ is the only BEGOTTEN son of God.

and angels are sons of God because they were directly created by Him.

born again believers in Jesus Christ are sons of God because of spiritual birth, not physical birth.

there were angels who fell with satan. some, according to Jude, "left their first estate." their first estate or abode is the spiritual realm.

we see in many instances that angels did appear in human form. they had physical bodies and were able to eat and drink. they still possessed superhuman strength and powers. they were able to blind the men of sodom. and when they finished their mission, they returned to the spiritual realm.

apparently, from the reading, the fallen "sons of God" left their first estate - the spiritual realm. in other words, they chose not to return.

in that case it would seem they would be able to take wives of earthly women.

I know that angels in heaven do not marry - but these "angels" were not in heaven. they had left the spiritual realm.

and since angels are superhuman, their offspring could inherit some of those qualities.

marital relations between ordinary human beings do not produce superhuman beings, as the nephilim. (nephilim are not angels - they were the offspring of these unions)

those angels who left their first estate have been bound.

not all fallen angels are bound, obviously. there are still principalities and powers and rulers of spiritual wickedness in high places. satan is the prince of the powers of the air.

Noah was righteous in all his generations. in all his generations. he had a pure lineage, no "angelic" dna.

why would God choose to destroy the entire world except this one family?
was the world so much more evil then than at any other time in history?

maybe it was to preserve the human race pure so that the only begotten Son of God could fulfill the promise.

the promise was given to Eve that a son would be born who would redeem fallen humanity, restoring relationship with God.

satan has tried from the beginning to keep that from happening.

It may even be that this was a plan to mingle with the human race so that the redeemer might redeem the fallen angels, too?

who knows - but it is pretty obvious from scripture, whether we are comfortable with it or not, that fallen angels DID corrupt the human race to the point that God destroyed them all with the exception of Noah's family.

1of7000
Jun 10th 2008, 09:18 PM
did anyone else ever notice that Goliath was about the same size as a Yeti? (the "legendary" abonimable snowman)

th1bill
Jun 11th 2008, 12:48 AM
Hi, I'm new to this group - although I must have joined a couple of years ago and just cant remember!

I would like to add my penny's worth to this.

it is embarassing to some in the church to discuss this kind of thing because it sounds so outlandish and shocking.

but if you read it as it is written - the scriptures say that "sons of God" - not sons of Seth - took wives of all whom they chose.

if the sons of Seth were godly, why were they so wicked?
... I don't want to sound rude but this passage has the same problem that many of the passages of the KJV have. With this passage one needs to study the customs and speach patterns of the people of that region at the time that this event took place. The truth is that they spoke of the Godly people, whose pedigree originated from the line of Seth as the Children of Seth and of the line of Cain as the people of man. And as I stated earlier, it requires a good deql of earnest study to begin to understand.
... Oh yes, before I forget, that remark about the King James Version. It is one of my favorite versions of the scripture but the problem is one of evolution. For the life of me I do not know how the poor, deluded, evolutionist missed out on this one but the English language has evolved, a.k.a. changed. All one need do is to study the word replenish and the usage of it today as compared to it's useage in the seventeenth century and one immediately realizes that to fully understand the contextual flow of the scripture from that translation requires a continuing education in the language useage change from ancient times. Replenish in the more ancient times, before the Americans got their hands on the language, included "to fill" in it's common useage.
... Daughter, stop laughing. Ever since I met my first Brit I have felt bad about the way the US has destroied the Kings Englih. Now, let me go sit on my pitty pot and sulk. :blush:

Zack702
Jun 11th 2008, 02:55 AM
sojourner52 that is a very interesting thoughts on this.
But as far as the deeper points on it is hard to say on these things.
For example I see the wicked men such as Lamech (Cains offspring) to be the reason for the flood. Because they had no law in them. But as far as the mighty men of renown they must of had better sense else where would they be renown? So in that way I consider the renown were not the wicked. Because I do not consider the honorable to be wicked. But this is a matter of translation and so I cannot say for sure on these things it is a hard subject. But well said never the less on the deeper thoughts.

sojourner52
Jun 11th 2008, 11:26 AM
but if the sethites were so godly, why were they so wicked?

and why was it only the sons "of seth" as you say who married the daughters "of cain" and not also the daughters of "seth" marrying the sons of "cain?"

and why would their unions produce extraordinary men? (in the physical sense.)

I think we try to make the bible as down to earth as possible - but it is not an earthly book, though it is written through earthly men.

and where does it say that the sethites were forbidden to marry the cainites?

where does it say that the children of cain were worse sinners than the children of seth?

cain was forced to leave his family - and God put a mark on him so that no one would kill him. but he took a wife from somewhere and it had to be from within the family of adam and eve.

why would his family have to continually pay for his sin?

ultimately,
why cant we just take the scripture as it is written and believe?

it wont make a difference in the long run, I suppose, but there is some reason that the Lord included that story in His Word.

Teke
Jun 11th 2008, 01:23 PM
but if the sethites were so godly, why were they so wicked?

and why was it only the sons "of seth" as you say who married the daughters "of cain" and not also the daughters of "seth" marrying the sons of "cain?"

and why would their unions produce extraordinary men? (in the physical sense.)

I think we try to make the bible as down to earth as possible - but it is not an earthly book, though it is written through earthly men.

and where does it say that the sethites were forbidden to marry the cainites?

where does it say that the children of cain were worse sinners than the children of seth?

cain was forced to leave his family - and God put a mark on him so that no one would kill him. but he took a wife from somewhere and it had to be from within the family of adam and eve.

why would his family have to continually pay for his sin?

ultimately,
why cant we just take the scripture as it is written and believe?

it wont make a difference in the long run, I suppose, but there is some reason that the Lord included that story in His Word.

The genealogy and prophecies are in scripture that explain this. They've been explained in various threads on the nephilim.

All of the mighty men that descended from Seth weren't evil. Some of them were with King David, allied with him to preserve the kingdom. ie. cave of Adullam, 2 Sam. 23, three of the faithful mighty men, whereas all the men of Israel fled