PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion on the Nephiyl in Genesis chapter 6?



Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 05:42 AM
In Genesis chapter 6, the sons of God were breeding with the daughters of men and producing nephiyl (giants).

So were the sons of God Angels, or just a large race of Men? And were their offspring the Nephiyl half Angel/half Man, or just large heroic men who were great and feared in battle?

What's your take on this?

nzyr
Jul 26th 2008, 05:56 AM
I believe all involved were human. The 'giants' were wild men who were descended from marriages between the descendants of Seth and Cain.


Anyway this has been discussed here many, many, times. Do a search and you may be reading all day.

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 06:20 AM
Anyway this has been discussed here many, many, times. Do a search and you may be reading all day.

Ok, thanks for the heads up.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 26th 2008, 06:28 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 conclusive. There is nothing that expressly says the “sons of God” is to be taken as descendants of Seth. In addition, 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?

Here is a more literal and exact translation of 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?”

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 26th 2008, 11:10 AM
I did a thread on that not too long ago :

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=131890

I hope this helps you.

Tanja