PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Sons of God/daughters of man/Nephillim and more thoughts



Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 05:52 PM
I'm seeing something i have not seen before, and it is quite simple.

Cain and Abel are the simple examples of one whom walks with God and one who doesn't. In other words one (Abel) is the son of God (her seed) while Cain is the son of man (your seed=the adversary's seed) who goes on to take a wife after his heart producing more of his kind. (Nephillim=Bullies) Abel had the Spirit of God while Cain rejected the Holy Spirit, and due to his sin of killing his brother was sent away and went out of the presence of God, and thereby lost all chance for salvation, though i'm sure he could have accepted Him after repenting.

I see the enmity between "her offspring, and his offspring" being those children of Adam and Eve that learn His ways and those that refuse to.

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him."

Eve was appointed another like Abel and she now recognized that. She also now knew that Abel was saved where as Cain was not though she initially said about him:
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
(what this tells me that all children come from God regardless and that regardless of the parenting one gets one has a choice to make either for or against God)

From what i can understand now, is that Cain loved the praise of men/his parents/family more than the praise of God. That's why he wasn't doing well because he was giving his offering to the Lord not because of love for Him, and therefore his offering was not accepted. He wanted to look holy but his heart was lacking.....

Now this is where the a more distinguished separation occurs. Cain moves on and settles taking a woman that also lacks the Spirit. And when the Sons of God (Those with the Spirit) come into the daughters of man the mixture really makes for a mess and for great evil. (goes to show why we should not mix ourselves with the opposites)

The lineage that then is mentioned in Genesis 5 likely includes only those who had the Spirit, which shows that the number of righteous versus unrighteous was quite unequal.

Just my shared thoughts on what i'm learning today.

I do not think at all anymore that angels were involved. The nephilim or giants were just simply evil puffed up vain people, who bullied and acted much like cavemen.

I find it interesting too that Cain's lineage pretty much lines up with the evolution of man theory..... those that made iron and bronze tools, those that played instruments...tent dwellers.. etc

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.
Gen 4:22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Shalom,
Tanja

ananias
Jul 13th 2008, 06:28 PM
I'm seeing something i have not seen before, and it is quite simple.

Cain and Abel are the simple examples of one whom walks with God and one who doesn't. In other words one (Abel) is the son of God (her seed) while Cain is the son of man (your seed=the adversary's seed) who goes on to take a wife after his heart producing more of his kind...

... Cain moves on and settles taking a woman that also lacks the Spirit. And when the Sons of God (Those with the Spirit) come into the daughters of man the mixture really makes for a mess and for great evil. (goes to show why we should not mix ourselves with the opposites)...

... I do not think at all anymore that angels were involved. The nephilim or giants were just simply evil puffed up vain people, who bullied and acted much like cavemen...

I find it interesting too that Cain's lineage pretty much lines up with the evolution of man theory..... those that made iron and bronze tools, those that played instruments...tent dwellers.. etc

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.
Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.
Gen 4:22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Shalom,
Tanja

I find those closing thoughts very interesting - never thought of it that way. With regard to the first part of your post, I agree with you:

Genesis 3: Fall of man.
Genesis 4: Cain's murder of Abel, and Cain being cursed and sent out from the presence of God. Also the genealogical line of Cain ("the sons and daughters of men").
Genesis 5: Seth;s geneaological line ("the sons of God").
Genesis 6: The two lines become mixed.
Genesis 7: Judgment (the Flood).
Genesis 8: a New Begining: the ark resting on Mt Ararat, etc.

Genesis 9: Canaan cursed because his father Ham's sins.
Genesis 10: The Table of nations.
Genesis 11: The descendants of Shem, ancestor of the Israelites.

Compare Gen.5: 3 with Gen.1: 26:

"And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and fathered a son in his own likeness, after his own image. And he called his name Seth." (Gen.5: 3). THIS WAS NOT SAID ABOUT CAIN.

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth." (Gen.1: 26).

"The sons of God" were the sons of Seth, and "the daughters of men" were the daughters of Cain.

The 1st-century Jewish philosopher, Philo, who mixed pagan Greek mythology and religious ideas with Judaism, was possibly the first person to come up with the idea that "the sons of God" referred to "fallen angels" - Greek mythology and thinking was full of myths about the gods impregnating human women - it's just one short step from there to "fallen angels" impregnating human women - BUT NO A BIBLICAL CONCEPT.

Philo's writings obviuously influenced the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote in his "Antiquities of the Jews" that "the sons of God" referred to "fallen angels". But the idea is refuted by most Orthodox Rabbis even today - simply because the Bible makes it so obvious that "the sons of God" were the sons of Seth.

ananias.

Zack702
Jul 13th 2008, 07:39 PM
Hey thanks that was thought provoking.

Here is what I think about it.
Cain was the older brother right? I think Cain was just mad because of envy. And instead of rejoicing in Able he ended up killing him probably because of envy.

This was the beginnings of the dealings between them and the Lord. I think that the whole thing was a way that we would find out who we are and what we are capable of. And in time it is shown that we are capable of being violent and wicked. And then comes the word to show us that we are also capable of being peacemakers and pure. The choice is before us always.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 13th 2008, 08:23 PM
The 1st-century Jewish philosopher, Philo, who mixed pagan Greek mythology and religious ideas with Judaism, was possibly the first person to come up with the idea that "the sons of God" referred to "fallen angels" - Greek mythology and thinking was full of myths about the gods impregnating human women - it's just one short step from there to "fallen angels" impregnating human women - BUT NOT A BIBLICAL CONCEPT. I didn't know that about Philo, but i agree i don't find this angels mixing with man a biblical concept either.
Thanks for your input :hug:

Shalom,
Tanja

1of7000
Jul 14th 2008, 03:30 AM
God made things to reproduce after there own kind, angels are not of the same genus as man. so the union could not produce viable progeny there fore it would not be a biblical concep-tion

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 09:00 PM
God made things to reproduce after there own kind, angels are not of the same genus as man. so the union could not produce viable progeny there fore it would not be a biblical concep-tion
That's probably the most plain way to put this.

Thanks for sharing,
Tanja

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 09:30 PM
Here is what I think about it.
Cain was the older brother right? I think Cain was just mad because of envy. And instead of rejoicing in Able he ended up killing him probably because of envy.

I'm sure envy figures into the whole drama that lead up to the sin Cain comitted killing his brother.

What your post did is remind me that all the sins opposed in the 10 Commandments were comitted in the first sinful episode by all parties involved

I believe all ten comandments were broken. I'm still mulling this over some more.

Shalom,
Tanja

ananias
Jul 14th 2008, 09:49 PM
I think it's very, very good to study the book of Genesis this way. The book of Genesis is the basis of understanding the rest of the Bible - even the book of Revelation. In fact, I've heard it said that Revelation actually COMPLETES Genesis, and the rest is parenthetic. For example, Nimrod is the first antichrist, and his kingdom (Gen.10: 10-12) was a global village where all nations existed in unity - but in defiance of God. Babylon means "gate of God" - but Jesus is the gate of God.

But that's another subject which I shouldn't have even mentioned here - because I'm hijacking your thread now!

Shalom,

ananias.

ananias
Jul 14th 2008, 09:52 PM
PS I LOVE your signature - it really speaks to my heart.

ananias.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 14th 2008, 10:14 PM
I think it's very, very good to study the book of Genesis this way. The book of Genesis is the basis of understanding the rest of the Bible - even the book of Revelation. In fact, I've heard it said that Revelation actually COMPLETES Genesis, and the rest is parenthetic. For example, Nimrod is the first antichrist, and his kingdom (Gen.10: 10-12) was a global village where all nations existed in unity - but in defiance of God. Babylon means "gate of God" - but Jesus is the gate of God.
That is my hunch.... i see a glimpse of it, but i know i need more of that foundation which is called the Torah.


PS I LOVE your signature - it really speaks to my heart.
I'm thrilled i picked scriptures that speak to you. :hug:

Tanja

Stefen
Jul 15th 2008, 04:52 PM
The same hebrew word that is used in Genesis for the sons of God is also used in Job and Daniel, and it is refering to angels.

Job 38

6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

By the way, Greek and Roman mythology could have been a disguuise for Satan.

Rev 2

To the Church in Pergamum

12"To the angel of the church in Pergamum write:
These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13I know where you live—where Satan has his throne.

Pergamon or Pergamum, was the Roman capital for Asia minor. This happens to be where the alter and throne of Zeus was during the time of this church. It is also in the Pergamon Meusem in Germany. Wasn't Zeus the god of gods, in Roman mythology? Isn't he the leader of the fallen messengers? I wonder if the fallen angles have been posing as gods to men since the ancient civilizations. There might be a little more to mythology.

ananias
Jul 15th 2008, 06:06 PM
The same hebrew word that is used in Genesis for the sons of God is also used in Job and Daniel, and it is refering to angels.

Job 38

6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?



Hi, Stefen.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." (Prov.8: 22-31).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (Joh.1: 1-3).

In Genesis 1 and throughout the Bible, only God the Father, Word and Holy Spirit are depicted as being present at the time of the creation.

In the Hebrew of Job.38: 7, "sons of God" is in the singular - ben elohiym - and so is the reference to the morning star (only one morning star - the king of Babylon was satyrically referred to as the morning star in Isa.14: 12-15, because he purposed in his heart to "rise above the stars of God", yet was brought low. Jesus rose above "the stars of God" when He rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven, gherefore He calls Himself the morning star in Rev.22: 16).

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job.1: 6).

"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." (Rev.12: 10).

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job.1: 6).

"Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD." (Exo.23: 17).

In my opinion, wE cannot construe these verses to be referring to fallien angels - the Bible is always 100% consistent with its own terminiology and symbology, and every time the term "sons of God" appears in the NEW TESTAMENT, it's referring to God's elect people.

I agree that Satan is the spirit behind Greek and Roman mythology and Hinduism - and all this mythology began as the worship of a counterfeit "seed" and "woman" at the time of Nimrod and Babel - a book titled "The Two Babylons" by the late Rev Alexander Hislop provides overwhelmingly abundant evidence of this.

But I don't believe that we should interpret the Bible in terms of pagan mythology.

ananias.

Zack702
Jul 15th 2008, 06:42 PM
The same hebrew word that is used in Genesis for the sons of God is also used in Job and Daniel, and it is refering to angels.

Yea I agree
Many people get hung up on this because they are taught that Jesus was the "only son of God". But Christ is the Messiah and the fulfillment of the covenant between God and all nations of the Earth. Jesus Christ became the true son when he fulfilled the prophesy.

However the interpretation of sons of God and of Satan and of any spirit mentioned in the bible is where many people are confounded.

Some think they are angels.
Some think they are fallen angels.
Some think they are the seed of Isaac.
Some think they are the seed of Israel alone.
Some think they are simply messengers.
Some think they are just men.

But I say they are a spirit (or spirits) working through a host.

I think that no matter how you look at it they are spirits. Being chosen messengers, seers and workers of the Lord God of Hosts. And that alone can be a hard thing to understand because of our confusion.

Even if it is speaking about the children of Israel which were the offspring of Jacob. Even his father Isaac was born of the spirit and by prophesy Isaac was. Abraham and Sarah were both to old to have children yet the lord visited them and prophesied to them that they would have a child Isaac and further more what would become of the bible.

The inter workings of God are mysterious even to prophets and saints. And just because we cannot understand something or because it seams evil to us doesn't mean it cannot be true. After all we are the ones who commit crimes and there is nothing you can blame when you commit a crime. But there is something you can claim salvation by and that is the workings of spirits and of God.

MattZab
Jul 16th 2008, 05:06 AM
Have you ever looked into the book of Enoch? This may be appropriate for another thread, and this is probably already discussed elsewhere on the boards.

While the book of Enoch is not included in the Holy Bible, Enoch is referenced in the New Testament as well as Old.
(link (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=enoch&version1=31&searchtype=phrase&sourceid=Mozilla-search))

Genesis 5:24
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.

(The following is scattered information, from memory. Don't take it as truth.)
I remember reading somewhere online about the book of Enoch, supposedly written by Enoch. It discussed the idea of the Nephilim being those who taught men how to make tools, weapons, and medicines from plants.
I can't remember where I read that though, so it has very little foundation. Just an interesting thought.

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 05:33 AM
I remember reading somewhere online about the book of Enoch, supposedly written by Enoch. It discussed the idea of the Nephilim being those who taught men how to make tools, weapons, and medicines from plants.
I can't remember where I read that though, so it has very little foundation. Just an interesting thought.

Yea I have read it it is wacky (or i have read the translations of it which seam to fill in the blanks). I think they found pieces of it around and then found some of it with the dead sea scrolls (not sure the details). Not sure if they have a whole entire original script of it or just worn fragments. Either way it's still some seriously crude writings. I read most of it and the translation I read claims that the Giants were thousands of feet tall. I couldn't get around that alone so I ended up just skimming through it trying to find solid ground. The bibles words are much more solid to me.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 16th 2008, 12:35 PM
Sometimes the scriptures have some metaphoric language or call it picturesque speech. Giants being thousands of feet tall reminds me more of the ego they may have had, and the Hebrew word stands for brute, bully, so that would fit in my mind that the thousand feet rather relates to their being puffed up and big headed.

Tanja

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 01:17 PM
Sometimes the scriptures have some metaphoric language or call it picturesque speech. Giants being thousands of feet tall reminds me more of the ego they may have had, and the Hebrew word stands for brute, bully, so that would fit in my mind that the thousand feet rather relates to their being puffed up and big headed.

Tanja

Yea I understand that there is metaphoric nature of it I'm just saying it's a little out there with its metaphoric language and picturesque speech.

Right off the bat it has people arguing over what it meant by giants being thousands of feet tall. Not that the bible doesn't do the same I'm just saying its not as complete as the bible.

Having read the real bible the Giants were not called that because of there ego alone they were the seed of a Giant who was there father. They were literally huge in size which probably caused many of them to be egotistical however not limiting them all to that stereotype.

MattZab
Jul 16th 2008, 05:38 PM
The metaphoric language used in the Bible was usually written during time periods when metaphoric language was popular in that particular time/place.

Revelations can be better understood by reading other (secular) documents that were written around the same time/place since alot of times they also use metaphoric language.

If the book of Enoch seems like it doesn't fit, then it probably doesn't. The Bible follows God's perfect truth, and anything that doesnt flow with that probably isn't actually of God.