PDA

View Full Version : As it was in the days of Noah!



kenrank
Dec 14th 2008, 06:57 AM
We came across an interesting thought today, one I hadn't considered before. I would like any feedback on this.

Yahushua (Jesus) said concerning his return....

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So the return of Messiah will be like those days. But here is the thing, if I asked you why God destroyed the earth in Noah's day, what would your answer be? People were not righteous? There was a lot of sin? What if I said it was because the fallen angels had taken human wives and were having mixed seed children of reknown? Would you say I was crazy? Let's look at the scripture....

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 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. Gen 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.
Gen 6:5 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.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 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.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

The son's of God (the fallen one's) had taken human wives and gave birth to great and mighty men of reknown. (Maybe the mythological Greek gods?)

Regardless, in those days, when a man slept with a woman she became his wife. Messiah likened his return to those days...COULD (not saying it is) it be that the fallen ones will or already are mixing with human woman again?

Again..I am NOT saying this is the case. But the similarities between Messiah's sayings and what happened in Noah's day was more than just interesting, so I thought I would share it.

Peace.
Ken

ross3421
Dec 14th 2008, 10:18 AM
What if I said it was because the fallen angels had taken human wives and were having mixed seed children of reknown? Would you say I was crazy? Let's look at the scripture....

It would be fallen angels (spirits) indwelling human men which in turned had offspring with human women. The husband was demonically controlled and trained up his family in those ways. Aborations must have occured into giants and perhaps those which ruled atlantis ect... I do believe that animals also had aborations perhaps seen in the dinosours.

Likewise, this demonic indwelling occurs again just before Christ returns as senn in the 5th trumpet and the 5th vial. As in the days of Noah.

Mark

kenrank
Dec 15th 2008, 05:10 AM
It would be fallen angels (spirits) indwelling human men which in turned had offspring with human women. The husband was demonically controlled and trained up his family in those ways. Aborations must have occured into giants and perhaps those which ruled atlantis ect... I do believe that animals also had aborations perhaps seen in the dinosours.

Likewise, this demonic indwelling occurs again just before Christ returns as senn in the 5th trumpet and the 5th vial. As in the days of Noah.

Mark

I thought the Genesis verses were pretty clear. If there are verses that said the fallen ones dwelled IN humans before "taking the woman as wives," please share it. I am unfamiliar with it. (Thanks)

As for Messiah's return...Paul said, "at the last trumpet." Most versions use the word "trump" and I don't know why. The word is the same translated as "trumpet" throughout the NT. The return is at the END of the tribulation as seen in Matt 24. Also....you might want to consider this Mark....Noah got in the Ark and the wrath was poured out. Noah wasn't removed from the earth...just protected. Lot was removed from the eath...just from that city...and "the day" he came out of Sodom, the wrath fell. Both examples are used concerning his return.

Peace.
Ken

obeytheword
Dec 15th 2008, 05:03 PM
We came across an interesting thought today, one I hadn't considered before. I would like any feedback on this.

Yahushua (Jesus) said concerning his return....

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So the return of Messiah will be like those days. But here is the thing, if I asked you why God destroyed the earth in Noah's day, what would your answer be? People were not righteous? There was a lot of sin? What if I said it was because the fallen angels had taken human wives and were having mixed seed children of reknown? Would you say I was crazy? Let's look at the scripture....

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 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. Gen 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.
Gen 6:5 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.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 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.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

The son's of God (the fallen one's) had taken human wives and gave birth to great and mighty men of reknown. (Maybe the mythological Greek gods?)

Regardless, in those days, when a man slept with a woman she became his wife. Messiah likened his return to those days...COULD (not saying it is) it be that the fallen ones will or already are mixing with human woman again?

Again..I am NOT saying this is the case. But the similarities between Messiah's sayings and what happened in Noah's day was more than just interesting, so I thought I would share it.

Peace.
Ken

Just for the record - your interpretation (which I share) of the Genesis account was very widely believed until the 5th century or so, at which time the sons of Seth / Daughters of Cain interpretation surfaced) Many of the current churches tend to frown (quitely in some cases) on the idea of Angels marrying human women.

While I do not think Scripture precludes the possibility of that specific interpretation of "how" things get so messed up, and necessitate the end - I believe the thrust of the passage is talking about the sudden nature of the flood - compared to the sudden nature of the end times.

People (unsaved) will be doing their thing, completely oblivious - and BAM! - here comes the judgements, etc. This fits with 1 Thes 5:3 and others.

The scripture you might take a peek at and throw into the mix is 1 Cor 11:7-10 (verse 10 mainly) This may indicate that angels taking women was still possible perhaps? Anyway, that is another that could perhaps lend itself to your inquiry :)

Be Blessed!

kenrank
Dec 15th 2008, 05:13 PM
Just for the record - your interpretation (which I share) of the Genesis account was very widely believed until the 5th century or so, at which time the sons of Seth / Daughters of Cain interpretation surfaced) Many of the current churches tend to frown (quitely in some cases) on the idea of Angels marrying human women.

While I do not think Scripture precludes the possibility of that specific interpretation of "how" things get so messed up, and necessitate the end - I believe the thrust of the passage is talking about the sudden nature of the flood - compared to the sudden nature of the end times.

People (unsaved) will be doing their thing, completely oblivious - and BAM! - here comes the judgements, etc. This fits with 1 Thes 5:3 and others.

The scripture you might take a peek at and throw into the mix is 1 Cor 11:7-10 (verse 10 mainly) This may indicate that angels taking women was still possible perhaps? Anyway, that is another that could perhaps lend itself to your inquiry :)

Be Blessed!

NO doubt...I have always looked at the Lot and Noah references as a "in the day we come out the wrath falls" type of scenario. Those two references and some others put a halt to my believing in a pre-trib rapture. But I found the "what they were doing" interesting as well. Like I said, I didn't necessarily believe what I was writing...just that God destroyed the earth then because of the mixing of seed...and posing the question....is it possible again?

Peace.
Ken

Rullion Green
Dec 15th 2008, 06:09 PM
God destroyed the earth then because of the mixing of seed...and posing the question....is it possible again?

Peace.
Ken

Judge for yourself ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/hybridembryos_1.shtml

Rookie78
Dec 15th 2008, 06:39 PM
Jude 1:6

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.

This verse must be talking about the angels who committed this offense. Even satan is not bound till the 2nd coming.

Now does this deter other demons from committing this offense again?!? Who knows.

RogerW
Dec 16th 2008, 02:37 AM
We came across an interesting thought today, one I hadn't considered before. I would like any feedback on this.

Yahushua (Jesus) said concerning his return....

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So the return of Messiah will be like those days. But here is the thing, if I asked you why God destroyed the earth in Noah's day, what would your answer be? People were not righteous? There was a lot of sin? What if I said it was because the fallen angels had taken human wives and were having mixed seed children of reknown? Would you say I was crazy? Let's look at the scripture....

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 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. Gen 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.
Gen 6:5 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.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 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.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

The son's of God (the fallen one's) had taken human wives and gave birth to great and mighty men of reknown. (Maybe the mythological Greek gods?)

Regardless, in those days, when a man slept with a woman she became his wife. Messiah likened his return to those days...COULD (not saying it is) it be that the fallen ones will or already are mixing with human woman again?

Again..I am NOT saying this is the case. But the similarities between Messiah's sayings and what happened in Noah's day was more than just interesting, so I thought I would share it.

Peace.
Ken

Greetings Ken,

Are you sure you have the proper understanding of the sons of God and daughters of men in the Genesis passage? These two verses liken the resurrection to the angels of God in heaven, and says that in the resurrection we will be like the angels of God, who do not marry, and are not given in marriage.

Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mr 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

"Sons of God" is reference to the Godly line of Seth, and "daughters of men" to the ungodly line of Cain. Just as in the days of Noah the Godly line was corrupted through ungodliness, so too in the last days this corruption will continue and become common place, and even greater. Much like we see today, and throughout redemptive history how many believers give little thought in marriage and become unequally yoked together with unbelievers.

Many Blessings,
RW

SIG
Dec 16th 2008, 04:19 AM
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage...

I see you focusing on the marrying part, and I see why. But why leave out the "eating and drinking" part?

My take on this verse has been that Jesus was saying it was business as usual, and people were focusing on worldly things (even though Noah was warning them of the coming destruction). Same as today--people have been warned, but most choose to focus on this life, rather than the life to come.

As for why the flood occurred--it was a picture (type) of things future, in this case, the Second Coming of Christ.

kenrank
Dec 16th 2008, 04:51 AM
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage...

I see you focusing on the marrying part, and I see why. But why leave out the "eating and drinking" part?

My take on this verse has been that Jesus was saying it was business as usual, and people were focusing on worldly things (even though Noah was warning them of the coming destruction). Same as today--people have been warned, but most choose to focus on this life, rather than the life to come.

As for why the flood occurred--it was a picture (type) of things future, in this case, the Second Coming of Christ.

I realize the point of the reference to Noah, and Lot for that matter. Again, I said I didn't necessarily believe my intial point, just that it came up in discussion and was worth consideration. Could it happen? I don't want to sound off the wall...because AGAIN (just wanting to be clear) I am not saying I believe this. It is just conversation...but in our society we have accounts of woman who claim to have been abducted by aliens (not from Mexico either), impregnated, only to have the baby removed later. Could aliens, if they even exist, be fallen ones doing, in another manner, what they did back then? It is interesting to think about even if lacking merit and hardly proveable.

Ken

Thaddaeus
Dec 16th 2008, 05:26 AM
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

you added angels be careful about adding to the word of God this is all about the blood line it had to be protected Noah was not perfect in his way but his generations
Ge 6:9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.sons of God are the ones God had chosen, and son of men were the gentiles, very simple the Blood line could not be tainted

kenrank
Dec 16th 2008, 05:38 AM
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

you added angels be careful about adding to the word of God this is all about the blood line it had to be protected Noah was not perfect in his way but his generations
Ge 6:9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.sons of God are the ones God had chosen, and son of men were the gentiles, very simple the Blood line could not be tainted

Thaddaeus...I added nothing. The "sons of god" that took the daughters of men were the fallen ones. They mixed seed and men of reknown were born from them. The giants (the nefeel) were also in the world at the time. (Interestingly, the giants survived the flood...seeing only Noah and his family are said to survive the flood, the giants were either angels in human form or the offsrping of the mix)

Enoch is quoted 23 times in the NT, once by name. That tells me that Enoch was probaby accepted as scripture at some point in the past. In any event, the book of Enoch records this mix in detail. I have a copy I can e-mail you if you would like to read it.

As for Noah being perfect? The Hebrew word is tawmeem, it means upright, just, complete, etc. Since we know ONLY God is "perfect," we see using that word wasn't a good decision by the translators.

peace.
Ken

Thaddaeus
Dec 16th 2008, 06:07 AM
you are very unscriptural pplease be careful,

Ge 7:23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
every living substance included the gaints, and this is reaffirmed in the testament also

1pe 3:20 (http://bibleforums.org/1pe+3:20)Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT souls were SAVED by water.2pe 2:5 (http://bibleforums.org/2pe+2:5)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;

matthew94
Dec 16th 2008, 06:23 AM
I agree with some of the above posters that the parallel being made is the flood in its suddenness. Before it happens, things will be ' business as usual' so to speak.

I disagree on your interpretation of Genesis 6. I think the whole context dictates that it was a holy line mixing with a pagan line. But even if I agreed with your fallen angel theory I would say that was the direct cause of the flood. 6:5 directly says that the cause was the sin of mankind in general, not necessarily any particular sin. What's more, the blame was on the sin of mankind, not angel-human hybrids.

kenrank
Dec 16th 2008, 02:49 PM
you are very unscriptural pplease be careful,

Ge 7:23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
every living substance included the gaints, and this is reaffirmed in the testament also

1pe 3:20 (http://bibleforums.org/1pe+3:20)Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT souls were SAVED by water.2pe 2:5 (http://bibleforums.org/2pe+2:5)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;

I was about to give you the verses, but I decided against it. You accuse me of adding to the word of God...which I explained in my last post. Now I am "very unscriptural." So, you do some work Thad, grab your concordance or use your bible search tool if you have one, and look up the word "giant." You'll find that giants appear both before and after the flood. You'll see them in the first few verses of Genesis 6, you will find them in Numbers.

The word for giant is nephel, which is the root of nephyleem, you may have heard of them.

mizzdy
Dec 16th 2008, 08:26 PM
Ken,

Have you ever read any of Michael Heiser's work on this subject? Here's a a link to one of his articles http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nephilim.pdf Very interesting stuff. I have studied this subject, nephilim, fallen ones and the sons of God quite a bit. Gen. 6 talks about the sons of God which I have taken to calling them divine beings, less controversial I think. They are the watchers in Enoch. If you search out Psalms 82 and elsewhere, the same phrasing is used, elohim being singular and plural. I am not by any means knowledgeable in hebrew but this is what I have been able to figure out. I am one who believes these divine beings came and took wives, had children and were punished for their sins with the flood. There are many writings in Urgartic for instance that tell of the giants and what they did on the earth. And from what I understand it was a belief in very early jewish beliefs. There are many many instances in the bible where we can read about the gods and sons of gods.

There are many who believe that these 'giants' in some form or another will be present on earth before Christ returns. It seems some scientist want to take the dna of these mummies and skeletons and try and recreate them. Certainly satan can try and raise himself a large 'supernatural' army through human means. As far as the days of Noah goes I think we may see those 'giants' coming back but also the rampant growth of the perversions, false teachings and the like are all part of it also. :2cents:

kenrank
Dec 16th 2008, 08:54 PM
Ken,

Have you ever read any of Michael Heiser's work on this subject? Here's a a link to one of his articles http://www.michaelsheiser.com/nephilim.pdf Very interesting stuff. I have studied this subject, nephilim, fallen ones and the sons of God quite a bit. Gen. 6 talks about the sons of God which I have taken to calling them divine beings, less controversial I think. They are the watchers in Enoch. If you search out Psalms 82 and elsewhere, the same phrasing is used, elohim being singular and plural. I am not by any means knowledgeable in hebrew but this is what I have been able to figure out. I am one who believes these divine beings came and took wives, had children and were punished for their sins with the flood. There are many writings in Urgartic for instance that tell of the giants and what they did on the earth. And from what I understand it was a belief in very early jewish beliefs. There are many many instances in the bible where we can read about the gods and sons of gods.

There are many who believe that these 'giants' in some form or another will be present on earth before Christ returns. It seems some scientist want to take the dna of these mummies and skeletons and try and recreate them. Certainly satan can try and raise himself a large 'supernatural' army through human means. As far as the days of Noah goes I think we may see those 'giants' coming back but also the rampant growth of the perversions, false teachings and the like are all part of it also. :2cents:

Greetings Mizzdy. If you read my posts in this thread I am sure you have gotten my view. 1, I don't necessarily believe there will be mixing again, 2, I don't necessarily believe aliens, if there are any, are fallen ones. Though to be frank, if there are any, I think it likely that are indeed fallen ones. I read an account one of a Christian who was "supposedly" abducted. He came back with a story about "them" showing him what amounted to a movie of Messiah walking on earth. He said "they" claimed, he was one of them and the did this to steer society. I don't buy that, >>IF<< by any stretch of the imagination any of that is true, I see it rather as an attack on the true faith, an attempt to pull us away from God.

I think the context in Genesis 1 and Enoch are absolutely clear, the "sons of god" spoken of there is clearly the fallen ones....ok....divine beings. God didn't destroy the earth "only" because nobody walked righteously, aside from Noah, but also to eradicate the mixed seed.

Talk to you soon.
Ken

mizzdy
Dec 16th 2008, 09:21 PM
Greetings Mizzdy. If you read my posts in this thread I am sure you have gotten my view. 1, I don't necessarily believe there will be mixing again, 2, I don't necessarily believe aliens, if there are any, are fallen ones. Though to be frank, if there are any, I think it likely that are indeed fallen ones. I read an account one of a Christian who was "supposedly" abducted. He came back with a story about "them" showing him what amounted to a movie of Messiah walking on earth. He said "they" claimed, he was one of them and the did this to steer society. I don't buy that, >>IF<< by any stretch of the imagination any of that is true, I see it rather as an attack on the true faith, an attempt to pull us away from God.

I think the context in Genesis 1 and Enoch are absolutely clear, the "sons of god" spoken of there is clearly the fallen ones....ok....divine beings. God didn't destroy the earth "only" because nobody walked righteously, aside from Noah, but also to eradicate the mixed seed.

Talk to you soon.
Ken


I don't believe in aliens, little green men and all that. I also do not believe anyone has ever been abducted by the 'greys'. I believe its all about deception and misdirection. As you say to pull us away from God. I know some christians who do believe in all of that stuff and will argue heatedly their proof. I have read and watch enough stuff to believe this is a man made issue, satanic to be sure but perpectuated by man. I myself don't really think they will be physically mixing with humans myself but I suppose it could be possible. :dunno: They don't really need to if it is true about all of the genetic mixing of animals and of the dna of the mummies they have found. Just think if they can do that we may have a wooly mammoth running around soon enough. :eek: Though the ten toes mixed with miry clay some claim means just that, the mixing of the two again. I also firmly believe God caused the flood for that reason alone, why would he destroy the plants, animals if man was the only reason.

Thaddaeus
Dec 16th 2008, 11:17 PM
Interestingly, the giants survived the flood...

I showed you scriptures where no man

Ge 7:4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

matthew94
Dec 16th 2008, 11:27 PM
That there were giants both before and after the flood in no way implies that some of the pre-flood giants survived the flood. If you take the view that angels had sex with human women and that THIS produced the giants, it is quite possible that this happened again after the flood without being mentioned. If, rather, you take the view that holy people had sex with un-holy people and that there were, at the same time, giants on the earth, then they developed naturally and could do so again after the flood via regular genetics. In either case, it is not necessary to posit that giants survived the flood.

Walstib
Dec 16th 2008, 11:52 PM
I just wanted to throw in the mix here that I think the giants were hero's. Big strapping men, no angelic influence, no specific bloodline, other than tall and strong DNA. Big warriors that won battles kind of thing.

Their genes passed on through some wives of Noah's sons, Noah's wife, Noah himself. I never got this bloodline stuff. Still around without any special powers other than their size after the flood from what I understand.

And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." (Num 13:32-33 NKJV)

I thought that is where Goliath and his brothers got their size.

Now it happened afterward that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant. Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant. So when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David's brother, killed him. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants. (2Sa 21:18-22 NKJV)

Makes more sense to me than angelic hybrids or perverted bloodlines. Some giants today might have the gene way back in there somewhere. And nothing stopping them from being saved. How I see it now.

Peace,
Joe

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 12:26 AM
Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mr 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

These verses are always used to show that angels do not have children. And as far as I know, there are no other verses that touch on the subject in the Word as we have it.
In context, however, these verses have nothing at all to do with children, or the ability of angels to bear children. In context, the question was who would be the husband of a woman who was married to seven brothers consecutively. Jesus merely answered that there is no marriage in heaven, stating that the angels in heaven to not marry.
Another point to look at is the fact that Jesus specifically referenced angels IN HEAVEN, and said nothing at all about those fallen ones on the earth.
In Gen 6, we see these sons of God having children by women. Yet, it does not say or explain exactly HOW that was accomplished.
Today, women having invitro fertilization is a rather common thing. No miracle required.
Today, men are manipulating the genes of various creatures, and we now have pigs with human hearts, etc.
If we can do these things, how difficult thing would it be for fallen angels?

Further, the term 'sons of God', bene elohiym, occurs in only five places, in the old testament, and of course not at all in the new testament.
Each place in the OT besides Gen 6, the context is clearly referring to angels.
In the NT, of course, there are several occurances (6) of the term 'sons of God', but in a different language (teknon theos). In each of those cases, the term is clearly referring to those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Thus, apart from language difference, and testament difference, there is clearly a difference in the understanding of who is being referred to.

It is clear from the flood account that ALL of those died in the flood. But if you look at Gen 6, you will see that it says 'There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that...'. After what?
'In those days' refers of course to the preflood time period. 'and also after that' would obviously refer to after those days, or, after the flood.
Yet, we do see the nepalim reappear in the land of Canaan. They were there at the time of Abraham.
So it seems plausible to suppose (guess, speculate.........) that either the same group of fallen angels, or perhaps a second group, committed the same act.
Sons of God being the children of Seth? Unequally yoked? Why would that be such a horrendous act to bring about judgment upon the entire earth?
It says that Noah was perfect in his generations. It does not say Noah was perfect, and we can see that he was not, because the first thing he did after leaving the ark was to plant a vinyard and get drunk and naked!
But he was 'perfect' in his generations. What does that mean? That means that Noah's parents had not been corrupted, and thus he was an uncorrupted individual. Why is this important?
Man, and Satan, knew the prophecy of the coming Seed of the Woman, the One Whom would take away the sins of the world, and crus the head of the serpent. Satan of course did not desire to have his ugly skull smashed. Thus, he tried, over and over and over again, to prevent the coming of this Seed. Corrupting the blood of humanity was his first attempt. If all humans became corrupt, the Seed of the Woman could NOT come. And he nearly succeeded. All but one. Noah.
And how did he do this corrupting? By compelling his fallen cohorts to fertilize the human race with fallen angelic seed. And they appararently did not stop with just humans, because Gen 6 tells us that ALL flesh had corrupted itself, and thus ALL flesh must die. (Apparently the fish were not included?????)
To suppose that the corruption resulted in the cohabitation of Seth's children and Cain's children would be to suppose that Seth's children were somehow pure and perfect, which they clearly were not, for THEY ALL DIED in the flood. They were ALL corrupt, except Noah. They had ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There were none good, no not one.
And certainly, if the sin of marrying an unbeliever was so terrible a sin as to cause God to destroy all flesh, why is He not doing so now? And why would Paul tell us not to divorce from an unbeliever because our example may save them?

The nephalim after the flood were giants. Literal giants. Goliath was one. And it seems that there were several different 'families' of them. The nephalim, rephaim, zuzim, emim, and perhaps others. And they lived in the land of Canaan, and were the ONLY people on the planet that God had NO MERCY on, but commanded that they be utterly wiped out.
Nuff for now....... I'll probably regret opening my mouth....heh

RogerW
Dec 17th 2008, 12:32 AM
Ge 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.

Giants - nef-eel' from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

5307 - naphal - a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):--be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

These giant mighty men of renown may also be a judgment from God because the Godly line became polluted through disobedience. These giants are the sons of Anak, a Canaanite. Canaanites are descendents of Ham, the fallen son of Noah. The Canaanites became a thorne to Israel because they failed to utterly drive them out of the promised land as God had commanded, therefore Israel was always fighting against these giant, men of renown, like Goliath.

Nu 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Zec 14:21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

Not unholy, fallen spirit beings, but human beings, considered giant men of renown, or men who had made a great name for themselves; for example the Philistines.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Dec 17th 2008, 02:00 AM
Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mr 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

These verses are always used to show that angels do not have children. And as far as I know, there are no other verses that touch on the subject in the Word as we have it.
In context, however, these verses have nothing at all to do with children, or the ability of angels to bear children. In context, the question was who would be the husband of a woman who was married to seven brothers consecutively. Jesus merely answered that there is no marriage in heaven, stating that the angels in heaven to not marry.
Another point to look at is the fact that Jesus specifically referenced angels IN HEAVEN, and said nothing at all about those fallen ones on the earth.
In Gen 6, we see these sons of God having children by women. Yet, it does not say or explain exactly HOW that was accomplished.
Today, women having invitro fertilization is a rather common thing. No miracle required.
Today, men are manipulating the genes of various creatures, and we now have pigs with human hearts, etc.
If we can do these things, how difficult thing would it be for fallen angels?

Where might we find confirmation of these fallen angels? It is true that the devil and his messengers were cast out of heaven to the earth at the beginning of the universal church era, however I find no Scripture that shows these messengers of the devil are fallen angels.



Further, the term 'sons of God', bene elohiym, occurs in only five places, in the old testament, and of course not at all in the new testament.
Each place in the OT besides Gen 6, the context is clearly referring to angels.
In the NT, of course, there are several occurances (6) of the term 'sons of God', but in a different language (teknon theos). In each of those cases, the term is clearly referring to those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Thus, apart from language difference, and testament difference, there is clearly a difference in the understanding of who is being referred to.

So "sons of God" is reference to believers in the New Testament, but because there is a language difference in the Old, "sons of God" does not mean believers?

Sons of God in the OT is translated children of the Almighty, and sons of God in the NT is translated child(ren) of the Supreme God...but there is a difference....how do you determine this?



It is clear from the flood account that ALL of those died in the flood. But if you look at Gen 6, you will see that it says 'There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that...'. After what?
'In those days' refers of course to the preflood time period. 'and also after that' would obviously refer to after those days, or, after the flood.
Yet, we do see the nepalim reappear in the land of Canaan. They were there at the time of Abraham.
So it seems plausible to suppose (guess, speculate.........) that either the same group of fallen angels, or perhaps a second group, committed the same act.

Suppose, guess, speculate??? This is not a very sound way to interpret the Bible.



Sons of God being the children of Seth? Unequally yoked? Why would that be such a horrendous act to bring about judgment upon the entire earth?

Because the entire population (except Noah, who found grace from God) of the earth in that time had become polluted through these ungodly marriages. Even the line of Noah, from whom Christ came, might have become polluted if God did not intervene and destroy every man. God separated the Godly line of Seth from the ungodly line of Cain when He set a mark upon him and Cain went out from the presence of the Lord. The LORD drove Cain away, and God was forever hidden from him. Cain represents the ungodly line from whom none of the sons (children) of God were to marry.

Ge 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Ge 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.



It says that Noah was perfect in his generations. It does not say Noah was perfect, and we can see that he was not, because the first thing he did after leaving the ark was to plant a vinyard and get drunk and naked!
But he was 'perfect' in his generations. What does that mean? That means that Noah's parents had not been corrupted, and thus he was an uncorrupted individual. Why is this important?

It is important because it is through the line of Noah that Christ would come. If no Godly line were left then Christ could not be born without sin. God saw the wickedness of man, all man, even Noah was great in the earth, so no, Noah was not perfect in the way we understand perfection. But Noah was declared perfect by God because Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Therefore Noah was seen as perfect by God because God extended grace to Noah, thereby Noah was made to believe (given the gift of saving faith) God, being made perfect.

Ge 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.



Man, and Satan, knew the prophecy of the coming Seed of the Woman, the One Whom would take away the sins of the world, and crus the head of the serpent. Satan of course did not desire to have his ugly skull smashed. Thus, he tried, over and over and over again, to prevent the coming of this Seed. Corrupting the blood of humanity was his first attempt. If all humans became corrupt, the Seed of the Woman could NOT come. And he nearly succeeded. All but one. Noah.

Satan uses humans to accomplish his purposes. Just as he used Job. The devil is the god of the ungodly line of Cain, so he inticed the sons of God through the beauty of unholy women. This is how Satan was able to corrupt every man in his attempt to keep the Messiah from being born. Noah was just as corrupt as every other human, but the difference between Noah and the rest of mankind is that he was given God's grace instead of His judgment and wrath. Why Noah? Because he was God's elect vessel from whose line Messiah would come. Therefore God made Him perfect through the promise of Christ, and without sin.

Ge 6:2 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 how did he do this corrupting? By compelling his fallen cohorts to fertilize the human race with fallen angelic seed. And they appararently did not stop with just humans, because Gen 6 tells us that ALL flesh had corrupted itself, and thus ALL flesh must die. (Apparently the fish were not included?????)
To suppose that the corruption resulted in the cohabitation of Seth's children and Cain's children would be to suppose that Seth's children were somehow pure and perfect, which they clearly were not, for THEY ALL DIED in the flood. They were ALL corrupt, except Noah. They had ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There were none good, no not one.
And certainly, if the sin of marrying an unbeliever was so terrible a sin as to cause God to destroy all flesh, why is He not doing so now? And why would Paul tell us not to divorce from an unbeliever because our example may save them?

No man born in Adam is pure and perfect. But every man born in Adam is corrupt, hence the reason that Christ must come. Noah was no exception, except for the fact that God gave him grace.

God will not again destroy every man until His Kingdom is complete. When the last of His elect people becomes saved, then He will come again, and every unbeliever will be destroyed. Why do you suppose that Christ warns us not to be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever?

Many Blessings,
RW

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 03:24 AM
Where might we find confirmation of these fallen angels? It is true that the devil and his messengers were cast out of heaven to the earth at the beginning of the universal church era, however I find no Scripture that shows these messengers of the devil are fallen angels.
What praytell else would these messengers be if not fallen angels? If you are trying to argue that 'angels' means 'messenger' I am aware of that. So if you want to say 'fallen messengers' that's fine by me, but they're one and the same.
Jude 1:6
6 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.
2 Peter 2:4
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.






So "sons of God" is reference to believers in the New Testament, but because there is a language difference in the Old, "sons of God" does not mean believers?

Sons of God in the OT is translated children of the Almighty, and sons of God in the NT is translated child(ren) of the Supreme God...but there is a difference....how do you determine this?



I determine it by the context of scripture. You make search them out yourself. In fact, I suggest you do that very thing. ALL of the OT scriptures refer to angels, and ALL of the NT scriptures refer to believers. The fact that there is a language difference may or may not have anything to do with it. Just pointing it out.


Suppose, guess, speculate??? This is not a very sound way to interpret the Bible.


Yep, you are right. It is equally not very sound interpretation to speculate that the 'sons of God' in Gen six is anything other than fallen angels. That's why I was openly admitting that I was speculating, and not stating a provable fact, so that no one would be misled.


Because the entire population (except Noah, who found grace from God) of the earth in that time had become polluted through these ungodly marriages. Even the line of Noah, from whom Christ came, might have become polluted if God did not intervene and destroy every man. God separated the Godly line of Seth from the ungodly line of Cain when He set a mark upon him and Cain went out from the presence of the Lord. The LORD drove Cain away, and God was forever hidden from him.
All of this is true.

Cain represents the ungodly line from whom none of the sons (children) of God were to marry.
This is speculation, that unsound method of interpretting scripture. Please show me where it is says Seth's children were not to marry Cain's children, show me where Cain's children were any worse than anyone else at that point. And, try not to ignore the fact that God does not hold the children accountable to their father's sin.



It is important because it is through the line of Noah that Christ would come. If no Godly line were left then Christ could not be born without sin. God saw the wickedness of man, all man, even Noah was great in the earth, so no, Noah was not perfect in the way we understand perfection.
Yes, I said all this.

But Noah was declared perfect by God because Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Not quite right. God did not declare Noah perfect. He was perfect IN HIS GENERATIONS. But yes, Noah found grace, you know, that UNMERRITED FAVOR, of God.

Therefore Noah was seen as perfect by God because God extended grace to Noah, thereby Noah was made to believe (given the gift of saving faith) God, being made perfect.
Where does it say Noah was made perfect? God's grace does not equal perfection. It means his sinfulness is overlooked.



Satan uses humans to accomplish his purposes. Just as he used Job. The devil is the god of the ungodly line of Cain,
Yes

so he inticed the sons of God through the beauty of unholy women.
Speculation

This is how Satan was able to corrupt every man in his attempt to keep the Messiah from being born. Noah was just as corrupt as every other human, but the difference between Noah and the rest of mankind is that he was given God's grace instead of His judgment and wrath. Why Noah? Because he was God's elect vessel from whose line Messiah would come. Therefore God made Him perfect through the promise of Christ, and without sin.
Where does it say God made Noah perfect? And, Noah without sin? The same Noah that later got drunk and naked?



No man born in Adam is pure and perfect. But every man born in Adam is corrupt, hence the reason that Christ must come. Noah was no exception, except for the fact that God gave him grace.
True


God will not again destroy every man until His Kingdom is complete. When the last of His elect people becomes saved, then He will come again, and every unbeliever will be destroyed. Why do you suppose that Christ warns us not to be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever?

Do you think that if a Christian marries an unbeliever, that Christian loses his salvation and will be destroyed?
What are your thoughts about Paul's exhortation to those who were unequally yoked, not to divorce?

Many Blessings,
Kahtar

Brother Mark
Dec 17th 2008, 12:05 PM
Further, the term 'sons of God', bene elohiym, occurs in only five places, in the old testament, and of course not at all in the new testament.
Each place in the OT besides Gen 6, the context is clearly referring to angels.
In the NT, of course, there are several occurances (6) of the term 'sons of God', but in a different language (teknon theos). In each of those cases, the term is clearly referring to those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Kahtar,

What software tool are you using to search for two Hebrew words consecutively?

Thanks!

Mark

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 01:44 PM
Kahtar,

What software tool are you using to search for two Hebrew words consecutively?

Thanks!

MarkThat would be E-sword. You can search for any words, all words, or exact phrase.

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 02:17 PM
Further, the term 'sons of God', bene elohiym, occurs in only five places, in the old testament, and of course not at all in the new testament.
Each place in the OT besides Gen 6, the context is clearly referring to angels.
In the NT, of course, there are several occurances (6) of the term 'sons of God', but in a different language (teknon theos). In each of those cases, the term is clearly referring to those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

HI Kahtar,

I think I found all five. with my e-sword ;) The other three in Job if we are on the same page.

I was thinking how you were fine with the meaning changing within a different section of the bible, different root language. But why not different authors within the same language in a different book? I'm not trying to sow confusion here but I think there is room Job meant something different.

I agree it would be hard to argue Job is not speaking of angels. But to me Job is speaking of "good" angels. And these "fallen angels" needed to create angel human hybrids would may not fit the context in Job. Just as a second thought. I trust you don't consider this to unsound a platform to discuss.

And just a question as I value you opinion. Why do you this these passages in Gen 6 are the direct need for the flood? That seems to me to be part of your stance. Fair to say?

No need for regrets ;) I should look into this whole Seth Cain thing.. any good threads you would recommend around here?

Peace,
Joe

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 02:38 PM
HI Kahtar,
I think I found all five. with my e-sword ;) The other three in Job if we are on the same page. Four actually, but yes they are all in Job.


I was thinking how you were fine with the meaning changing within a different section of the bible, different root language. But why not different authors within the same language in a different book? I'm not trying to sow confusion here but I think there is room Job meant something different. A worthwhile thought. Unfortunately, we have only the one mention in Genesis to compare to Job.
Another thing to consider is the opinion of those the language belongs to.
The general belief of the Hebrew speaking people is that the Gen six 'sons of God' are fallen angels. Along with that, there is the testimony of Enoch, whom Jude quoted so many times. It is clear that at that time, it was understood to be fallen angels.


I agree it would be hard to argue Job is not speaking of angels. But to me Job is speaking of "good" angels. And these "fallen angels" needed to create angel human hybrids would may not fit the context in Job. Just as a second thought. I trust you don't consider this to unsound a platform to discuss. Not all of Job's angels were good. He speaks of Satan coming before the Lord also. But for the most part I think yes, he is speaking of 'good' angels.


And just a question as I value you opinion. Why do you this these passages in Gen 6 are the direct need for the flood? That seems to me to be part of your stance. Fair to say?Fair. The Word states that the corruption of man, and indeed ALL flesh, was the reason for the flood. It further points out specifically the uncorrupted parentage of Noah. Noah was a sinful man, same as all men, but the one thing he had going for him was the fact that he had not been corrupted. He was a purebred, if you will. I would point out that ANY of Seth's children were candidates for the lineage of Christ. Noah was chosen, and given grace (not needed if he were perfect) because he was not corrupted, and all others were.


No need for regrets ;) I should look into this whole Seth Cain thing.. any good threads you would recommend around here?Besides the five listed at the bottom, I could only say do a search. I appreciate your pleasant attitude and sincerety in your desire to learn.
I would recommend not just taking my or anyone's word for it, but studying the whole thing out, including the lineage of the nephalim. Very interesting study, and answers some questions about God's apparent hatred of this group of people.

divaD
Dec 17th 2008, 02:58 PM
Should plain ole' common sense be applied when interpreting Scriptures? If not, then why do we even have common sense to begin with? That's what I want to know? For some time I somewhat believed the angels interpretation, that was until I started applying common sense to it.

If these were literal angels in Gen 6, then apparently these were the stupidest angels to have ever existed. I would have thought that any angels
would have been highly superior in understanding and intelligence. It just seems strange if these were angels, why they didn't take God's warning to destroy the earth with a flood to heart. Any angel would have known that God was serious, fallen angel or not. I wonder why these assumed angels didn't try to mess God's plans up in some manner or another, perhaps like trying to stop Noah from building the ark? We don't see anything like that in this chapter.

As a matter of fact, all we see is humans going about their business, not caring nor even believing that a flood is soon to come and wipe them out. If these were angels, these angels would have known this was for real, and they would have taken this very seriously.

IF I'm to believe that these are angels in Gen 6, not only do I need to believe that they were capable of having sex with women, thus producing offspring, I also have to believe that these angels also took the time to marry these women, vows and all.


Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Verse 37 and 38 are directly linked to Gen 6. I don't see how anyone could deny that. Verse 38 specifically states that they were marrying and giving in marriage. I would have thought, that since these were supposed to be fallen angels, that they would have simply forced themselves upon the earth women. But that's not what we see in verse 38. Matthew 24:38-39 makes it clear that these folks simply went about their business as if there was no end in sight, even tho they were warned about one. I would have thought angels would have been a little wiser than that.

obeytheword
Dec 17th 2008, 03:40 PM
Should plain ole' common sense be applied when interpreting Scriptures? If not, then why do we even have common sense to begin with? That's what I want to know? For some time I somewhat believed the angels interpretation, that was until I started applying common sense to it.

If these were literal angels in Gen 6, then apparently these were the stupidest angels to have ever existed. I would have thought that any angels
would have been highly superior in understanding and intelligence. It just seems strange if these were angels, why they didn't take God's warning to destroy the earth with a flood to heart. Any angel would have known that God was serious, fallen angel or not. I wonder why these assumed angels didn't try to mess God's plans up in some manner or another, perhaps like trying to stop Noah from building the ark? We don't see anything like that in this chapter.

As a matter of fact, all we see is humans going about their business, not caring nor even believing that a flood is soon to come and wipe them out. If these were angels, these angels would have known this was for real, and they would have taken this very seriously.

IF I'm to believe that these are angels in Gen 6, not only do I need to believe that they were capable of having sex with women, thus producing offspring, I also have to believe that these angels also took the time to marry these women, vows and all.


Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Verse 37 and 38 are directly linked to Gen 6. I don't see how anyone could deny that. Verse 38 specifically states that they were marrying and giving in marriage. I would have thought, that since these were supposed to be fallen angels, that they would have simply forced themselves upon the earth women. But that's not what we see in verse 38. Matthew 24:38-39 makes it clear that these folks simply went about their business as if there was no end in sight, even tho they were warned about one. I would have thought angels would have been a little wiser than that.

While I do appreciate the idea of bring "common sense" into the argument, there is a rather fatal flaw in what you have presented.

I believe it is generally understood that a third of the angels rebelled and joined Satan. Would not their superior "intelligence and understanding" shown them this was a rather foolish thing to do?

The thing is, their pride and arrogance got in the way. With humans anyway it is rather apparent that Lust is just as powerful of a driving force as Pride. It also has at least an equal level of power to deceive. I see no reason to believe it would be any different for angels.

As for them knowing what would happen prior to it happening? God can show or hide whatever he wants from anyone at any time. And if God did not wish them to be given the power to hinder Noah, then they could not hinder him.

Also - when did God warn anyone what he would do prior to doing it - other than warning and preparing Noah? Guess it is possible I missed it, but I am thinking he only told Noah his plans.

Be Blessed!

Prophet Daniel
Dec 17th 2008, 04:05 PM
Luke3:38
....which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God kjv

Seth was the son of a son of God. Seth replaced Abel which according to Hebrews was justified by faith. This means Seth was the replacenment to be justified by faith. If a dog has a offspring it is called a dog when it is grown up. Seth was the son of the son of God. When he grew up to be mature and justified by faith he must surely be called a son of God like his dad.

Cain was not justified by faith and earthly. But you can find very beutiful descendants from which bore the spiritual mark God gave Cain and his descendants.

Jesus said " they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven... Mat22:30

Thus sons of God= sons of God (Seth descendants)
Woman of the earth= earthly not justified line possibly Cain's descendants

jesuslover1968
Dec 17th 2008, 04:12 PM
Once the angels fell, it was too late for them already. The whole point of their corruption of the seed was to ruin the bloodlines and cause the humans to bring about destruction...just a thought.
The Bible does speak of giant men, even giving descriptions of their size, and defects, to a point. ( huge bed, etc...6 fingers and toes...)2 Sam. 21:20, 1 Chronicles 20:6 1 sam. 17:4 2 Sam. 21:19, 1 Chron. 20:5 Btw, I am pretty sure Goliath, the giant that David slew, was a Philistine...
Duet. 3:11-13, Joshua 12:4, 13:12

I also haven't seen anyone mention Daniel 2:43 as of yet...
Daniel 2:40-45

40And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

divaD
Dec 17th 2008, 04:20 PM
Would not their superior "intelligence
and understanding" shown them this was a rather foolish thing to do?



I don't disagree with this reasoning, but in Gen 6, God clearly made His plans known. Any angel would have taken this seriously, but from Gen 6, it's apparent that the only ones who took this threat seriously were Noah and his family. Everyone else disregards this.




And if God did not wish them to be given the power to hinder Noah, then they could not hinder him.

Again, I won't argue with this reasoning, but that still doesn't mean that they couldn't have tried.





Also - when did God warn anyone what he would do prior to doing it - other than warning and preparing Noah? Guess it is
possible I missed it, but I am thinking he only told Noah his plans.



Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Since it states that the coming of of the Son of man be will be like in the days of Noah, let's apply that to these days. Wouldn't you agree that basically the world has been warned time and time again that Christ is returning? Does everyone take that to heart or even care? Isn't life just basically going on as usual, even tho the return of Christ is drawing nearer?

Verse 39 states that they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away. This doesn't imply that they had no prev knowledge of this flood. Apparently these folks went about their business, not caring one way or another about a flood, until it actually caught them by suprise, but then it was too late. From what I derive from Scriptures, God never does anything without first giving ample warning. These people knew about the flood. They just didn't care, and apparently they didn't even believe it.

jesuslover1968
Dec 17th 2008, 04:24 PM
Luke3:38
....which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God kjv

Seth was the son of a son of God. Seth replaced Abel which according to Hebrews was justified by faith. This means Seth was the replacenment to be justified by faith. If a dog has a offspring it is called a dog when it is grown up. Seth was the son of the son of God. When he grew up to be mature and justified by faith he must surely be called a son of God like his dad.

Cain was not justified by faith and earthly. But you can find very beutiful descendants from which bore the spiritual mark God gave Cain and his descendants.

Jesus said " they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven... Mat22:30

Thus sons of God= sons of God (Seth descendants)
Woman of the earth= earthly not justified line possibly Cain's descendants


why did God give Cain a physical mark to protect him from being killed? ( the mark was undoubtedly physical for men and animals could not detect a spiritual mark...another danger of symbolizing all of scripture...)
Also saying that Seth is in Jesus line doesn't prove that cain's children were not of God...
yes, Jesus did say the angels of God in Heaven. He did NOT say they couldn't have sex...they weren't even talking about sex...they asked Him about marriage...Jesus said they neither marry or are given in marriage in heaven. He didn't say anything about the angels that fell nor did He say they couldn't have sex...meaning they were not capable...we just add that because it is too much for our sensitive sensibilities to believe that there are evil beings out there that did what they did. it's much easier to explain it away...

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 04:25 PM
Luke3:38
....which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God kjv

Seth was the son of a son of God. Seth replaced Abel which according to Hebrews was justified by faith. This means Seth was the replacenment to be justified by faith. If a dog has a offspring it is called a dog when it is grown up. Seth was the son of the son of God. When he grew up to be mature and justified by faith he must surely be called a son of God like his dad.This actually is the best argument against the 'fallen angel' understanding I have heard yet. Thank you. I still don't agree, but it certainly merits consideration.

Rookie78
Dec 17th 2008, 04:49 PM
In the old testament, I think the term "sons of God" means beings that were all created by God. Every single angel was created by God, whereas only one man was directly created by God (daughters of men).

In the new testament, when one becomes a follower of christ, you are born again, thus the term "sons of God" in the new testament can refer to believers as well.

Just my take.

RogerW
Dec 17th 2008, 05:25 PM
Luke3:38
....which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God kjv

Seth was the son of a son of God. Seth replaced Abel which according to Hebrews was justified by faith. This means Seth was the replacenment to be justified by faith. If a dog has a offspring it is called a dog when it is grown up. Seth was the son of the son of God. When he grew up to be mature and justified by faith he must surely be called a son of God like his dad.

Cain was not justified by faith and earthly. But you can find very beutiful descendants from which bore the spiritual mark God gave Cain and his descendants.

Jesus said " they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven... Mat22:30

Thus sons of God= sons of God (Seth descendants)
Woman of the earth= earthly not justified line possibly Cain's descendants

This is a good point, and to further demonstrate that Cain is of the earth and not justified by faith or of the Godly line we read simply that he is "a man from the LORD." Because Cain killed his brother Abel, he is specifically "cursed from the earth",

Ge 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Ge 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Ge 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Ge 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

But through the line of Seth, (the son appointed by God instead of Abel whom the LORD had respect) came Enos, and "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD."

Ge 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Ge 4:26 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.

Cain was cursed and cast away from the LORD, but Seth was appointed by God instead of Abel to bear Enos, who called upon the name of the LORD. Very clearly we see the ungodly line through Cain, and the Godly line through Seth. Or "sons of God" through the Godly line of Seth, and "daughters of men", who were fair/beautiful in appearance, of the seed of Cain (ungodly seed) and of the earth.

Many Blessings,
RW

divaD
Dec 17th 2008, 05:28 PM
In the old testament, I think the term "sons of God" means beings that were all created by God. Every single angel was created by God, whereas only one man was directly created by God (daughters of men).

In the new testament, when one becomes a follower of christ, you are born again, thus the term "sons of God" in the new testament can refer to believers as well.

Just my take.




It appears to me that some are simply trying to change the meaning of what the son/s of God represents. In the OT it represents any being directly created by God. In the NT it means one that literally becomes a born again believer. Why can't it just mean in both cases any being that is in the family of God? Ever wonder why in Job, that it states that the sons of God presented themselves before the Lord, and satan was also among them? Apparently satan wouldn't be a son of God, since he was no longer part of that family. But that still doesn't mean that he wasn't directly created by God, and by using the reasoning that the sons of God mean something entirely different than it does in the NT, then this would mean that Job was in error when satan wasn't identified as a son of God, since he was directly created by God, and that's what a son of God is in the OT.

I think Gen ch 4 makes it pretty clear that there was a godly line and an ungodly line. This would make sense from satan's perspective. Corrupt the godly line with the ungodly line, giving the Messiah no line to come thru, since everyone would eventually become ungodly.

When it talks of Noah being perfect in his generations, it must be talking about his moral values, etc. That's what seems to fit the context.

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 05:29 PM
Hi Khatar,

I read the book of Enoch again this morning. First I will say I don’t hold it in the same trust as the books in my bible. Hard to find the PC way of saying that. But I do find it interesting and as you said, parts are quoted in the “bible”. I’m just going to call the cannon I trust the bible so I don’t have to qualify it every time.

What I get reading it is the parables, poetry sections, are the parts that are quoted as far as I can tell. The commentary between the poetry does not seem to fit the same way. A few things lead me to believe the commentary was added to the poetry at some time. One reason being the opening poetry talks of what seems like the final destruction and the new heaven where the commentary speaks of the poetry as about the days of Noah. No sinlessness in humans after the flood but for sure in heaven, seems like a conflict that one is explaining the other.

All the references to angel hybrids I could find was in the commentary and not the poetry. And really the breeding topic is but one small section. Lots of talk of revealing secrets and perverting people, very little of cross breeding.
When I look at chapters 65 and 66… in my copy. I’ll post the words just in case… Everyone reading this is from a translation of the book of Enoch I have, not from “the bible”

Chapter 64]
1,2 And other forms I saw hidden in that place. I heard the voice of the angel saying: ' These are the angels who descended to the earth, and revealed what was hidden to the children of men and seduced the children of men into committing sin.'
[Chapter 65]
1, 2 And in those days Noah saw the earth that it had sunk down and its destruction was nigh. And he arose from thence and went to the ends of the earth, and cried aloud to his grandfather Enoch: 3 and Noah said three times with an embittered voice: Hear me, hear me, hear me.' And I said unto him: ' Tell me what it is that is falling out on the earth that the earth is in such evil plight 4 and shaken, lest perchance I shall perish with it ? ' And thereupon there was a great commotion , on the earth, and a voice was heard from heaven, and I fell on my face. And Enoch my grandfather came and stood by me, and said unto me: ' Why hast thou cried unto me with a bitter cry and weeping 6 And a command has gone forth from the presence of the Lord concerning those who dwell on the earth that their ruin is accomplished because they have learnt all the secrets of the angels, and all the violence of the Satans, and all their powers -the most secret ones- and all the power of those who practice sorcery, and the power of witchcraft, and the power of those who make molten images 7 for the whole earth: And how silver is produced from the dust of the earth, and how soft metal 8 originates in the earth. For lead and tin are not produced from the earth like the first: it is a fountain 9 that produces them, and an angel stands therein, and that angel is pre-eminent.' And after that my grandfather Enoch took hold of me by my hand and raised me up, and said unto me: ' Go, for I have 10 asked the Lord of Spirits as touching this commotion on the earth. And He said unto me: " Because of their unrighteousness their judgement has been determined upon and shall not be withheld by Me for ever. Because of the sorceries which they have searched out and learnt, the earth and those 11 who dwell upon it shall be destroyed." And these-they have no place of repentance for ever, because they have shown them what was hidden, and they are the damned: but as for thee, my son, the Lord of Spirits knows that thou art pure, and guiltless of this reproach concerning the secrets.

This section completely agrees with my current understanding of what was going on, no talk of hybrids but man heeding the advice of evil spirits instead of worshiping God. Demonic power revealed to sorcerers and the like. They could have given understanding to men on how to breed taller and stronger people. Much like we can do with breeding a giant kind of dog over time or manipulate genes for blond hair and green eyes. Corruption of soul and not blood.

So even looking at the Enoch book with an open mind, to me I think there is evidence against the Hybrid theory and possible contamination with that presupposition. Some thoughts to share from my study this morning…

I only have so much time for this, and for sure won’t take your word for it ;) as I can trust you won’t take mine. But I do trust your views on this are still open as well. I always enjoy talking with you.

Peace,
Joe

Oh Yeah… the generation perfection thing… You were talking about sevens this morning in another post I think. Why not ten being the perfect generation with Noah for God’s purpose rather than some sort of DNA corruption?

Rookie78
Dec 17th 2008, 05:53 PM
It appears to me that some are simply trying to change the meaning of what the son/s of God represents. In the OT it represents any being directly created by God. In the NT it means one that literally becomes a born again believer. Why can't it just mean in both cases any being that is in the family of God? Ever wonder why in Job, that it states that the sons of God presented themselves before the Lord, and satan was also among them? Apparently satan wouldn't be a son of God, since he was no longer part of that family. But that still doesn't mean that he wasn't directly created by God, and by using the reasoning that the sons of God mean something entirely different than it does in the NT, then this would mean that Job was in error when satan wasn't identified as a son of God, since he was directly created by God, and that's what a son of God is in the OT.

I think Gen ch 4 makes it pretty clear that there was a godly line and an ungodly line. This would make sense from satan's perspective. Corrupt the godly line with the ungodly line, giving the Messiah no line to come thru, since everyone would eventually become ungodly.

When it talks of Noah being perfect in his generations, it must be talking about his moral values, etc. That's what seems to fit the context.

The text in job doesn't discount that satan is a son of God it just is pointing out that satan was among them. If I said that my family came to visit me for christmas and among them my long lost uncle rico was among them, it doesn't mean that he is not still part of my family.

RogerW
Dec 17th 2008, 06:02 PM
What praytell else would these messengers be if not fallen angels?

Demonic messengers of the devil.



If you are trying to argue that 'angels' means 'messenger' I am aware of that. So if you want to say 'fallen messengers' that's fine by me, but they're one and the same.
Jude 1:6
6 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.
2 Peter 2:4
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Demonic spirit messengers of Satan, and messengers of God or angels are NOT one in the same. It is assumed that Satan is a fallen angel of God, but this is not biblically supported.

We first become aquainted with the devil in Genesis where he is called the serpent who was CREATED more subtil (cunning, crafty, prudent) then any other creation. But not one word about this serpent, who deceived the woman being a messenger of God.

Both Jude 1:6 and 2Pe 2:4 in context are speaking of human messengers, not spirit beings. These human messengers from the line of Seth who called upon the name of the LORD, were to bring good tidings as messengers of God, leading the people to obey God. Instead they saw the beauty of ungodly women of the world, or the line of Cain, and they took them to be their wives, polluting the Godly line through unbelief. They corrupted themselves and their offspring.

In Rev 12 the war in heaven occurs at the beginning of the universal church era, after Christ ascended to heaven from the grave. This is what Christ means when He says He must go there to prepare a place for us. This battle is spiritual, showing that Christ has defeated Satan and his demonic hosts/messengers. Not only can Satan no longer to bring accusation against the saints before the Father in heaven, he is also bound in the sense that he can no longer deceive all the nations of the world, keeping them from entering into the Kingdom. The woe is issued to the earth because the dragon and his demonic messengers are cast down to earth to persecute Christ and His church until time is fulfilled.



I determine it by the context of scripture. You make search them out yourself. In fact, I suggest you do that very thing. ALL of the OT scriptures refer to angels, and ALL of the NT scriptures refer to believers. The fact that there is a language difference may or may not have anything to do with it. Just pointing it out.

"Sons of God" is always used as the elect or believers wherever it is found in Scripture.

Note the error of what the children or sons of Israel (the Sons of God) had done here? The same error in Ge 6 when the Godly line of Seth took wives for themselves from the ungodly line of Cain.

Ezr 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Ezr 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

They had done the exact same thing Genesis 6 speaks about. They had gone after the daughters of men (unbelievers), the heathen people around them, and this was the abomination to God. Look at the language there. God says they mingled the Holy seed. Believers (Sons of God) are not to be yoked with unbelievers. They are not to take of their daughters for wives or let their sons go after these daughters. God has decreed His congregation a SEPARATE nation or family set apart from the world. That they are not to intermarry with unbelievers. This is exact same principle we have today. Although it seems the Church today has chosen to abandon God's laws concerning this precept.



Where does it say God made Noah perfect? And, Noah without sin? The same Noah that later got drunk and naked?

We are made perfect/complete or whole through Christ, not through our own deeds or misdeeds. We do not see the heart but God looking upon Noah's heart, in fact every believers heart, sees heirs of righteousness which is by faith.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Many Blessings,
RW

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 06:11 PM
Thank you Joe.
My views certainly are open. I can't count the number of times I have had to 'change my mind' about things. Just yesterday was one of those.;)

As far as the Book of Enoch goes, the integrity of what we have today is of course in question. And as such, I try not to put too much weight upon it. Personally, I'll go with what Jude quoted. I trust Jude. And his quotes support the idea of angels 'leaving their first estate' AND their habitation (two different things) and corrupting themselves.

Your point about the ten generations is a good valid point. The word 'perfect' can also mean 'complete'. With that in mind, the verse could be read 'Noah was complete in his generations' which gives us a slightly different understanding. I'll have to dig into that one a bit. Thanks.:)

Brother Mark
Dec 17th 2008, 06:15 PM
Just a thought about perfect/complete... would that not belong to Enoch, 7th from Adam? He is a type of a completely surrendered man who's character has become like God. Reaching maturity, God took him. IMO, he is what Adam was to have eventually been like, never dying but being raptured when his testing and formation was complete.

Just wanted to throw that out there. Now, back to my corner for more reading.

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 06:23 PM
Demonic messengers of the devil.


Demonic spirit messengers of Satan, and messengers of God or angels are NOT one in the same. It is assumed that Satan is a fallen angel of God, but this is not biblically supported.

We first become aquainted with the devil in Genesis where he is called the serpent who was CREATED more subtil (cunning, crafty, prudent) then any other creation. But not one word about this serpent, who deceived the woman being a messenger of God.

Both Jude 1:6 and 2Pe 2:4 in context are speaking of human messengers, not spirit beings. These human messengers from the line of Seth who called upon the name of the LORD, were to bring good tidings as messengers of God, leading the people to obey God. Instead they saw the beauty of ungodly women of the world, or the line of Cain, and they took them to be their wives, polluting the Godly line through unbelief. They corrupted themselves and their offspring.

In Rev 12 the war in heaven occurs at the beginning of the universal church era, after Christ ascended to heaven from the grave. This is what Christ means when He says He must go there to prepare a place for us. This battle is spiritual, showing that Christ has defeated Satan and his demonic hosts/messengers. Not only can Satan no longer to bring accusation against the saints before the Father in heaven, he is also bound in the sense that he can no longer deceive all the nations of the world, keeping them from entering into the Kingdom. The woe is issued to the earth because the dragon and his demonic messengers are cast down to earth to persecute Christ and His church until time is fulfilled.
"Sons of God" is always used as the elect or believers wherever it is found in Scripture. This is your interpretation, and that's fine. I don't agree. That also is okay. I'll just leave it at that.

But what you said here:


Note the error of what the children or sons of Israel (the Sons of God) had done here? The same error in Ge 6 when the Godly line of Seth took wives for themselves from the ungodly line of Cain.

Ezr 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Ezr 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

They had done the exact same thing Genesis 6 speaks about. They had gone after the daughters of men (unbelievers), the heathen people around them, and this was the abomination to God. Look at the language there. God says they mingled the Holy seed. Believers (Sons of God) are not to be yoked with unbelievers. They are not to take of their daughters for wives or let their sons go after these daughters. God has decreed His congregation a SEPARATE nation or family set apart from the world. That they are not to intermarry with unbelievers. This is exact same principle we have today. Although it seems the Church today has chosen to abandon God's laws concerning this precept.
is a good point, worthy of consideration, and I shall consider it a while. Thank you.


We are made perfect/complete or whole through Christ, not through our own deeds or misdeeds. We do not see the heart but God looking upon Noah's heart, in fact every believers heart, sees heirs of righteousness which is by faith.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.Also a true and good point.

SIG
Dec 17th 2008, 06:34 PM
Guess I'll throw another curve into the mix...

At Sodom, the citizens wanted to mate with the visitors. This sin may not have been one so much of homosexuality, but rather a desire for humans to mate with angels ("strange flesh")...

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 06:49 PM
Hi Sig,

Sodomy does not beget many children... first though. That Lot went to such great lengths to honor his guests does give more though. Why? Just to honor them or to actually protect them. Do angels really need man's protection from molesters? :hmm:

Peace,
Joe

kenrank
Dec 17th 2008, 07:06 PM
Hi Sig,

Sodomy does not beget many children... first though. That Lot went to such great lengths to honor his guests does give more though. Why? Just to honor them or to actually protect them. Do angels really need man's protection from molesters? :hmm:

Peace,
Joe

I forget the wording around that story..I need to go re-read it. But did he know they were angels? It was clear (to me) that Abraham knew one of them was God. You see him call him the all captiol letters LORD, which we know is used where the name YHWH appears in the texts...so he called one of them YHWH more than once. But, did they know the other two men were messengers?

Peace.
Ken

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 07:19 PM
Guess I'll throw another curve into the mix...

At Sodom, the citizens wanted to mate with the visitors. This sin may not have been one so much of homosexuality, but rather a desire for humans to mate with angels ("strange flesh")...Yea, a curve:lol:. Interesting point, though. And along those lines, how many other cultures and religions speak of or contain the mating of 'gods' with men? Quite a few, I'm thinking.

divaD
Dec 17th 2008, 07:24 PM
The text in job doesn't discount that satan is a son of God it just is pointing out that satan was among them. If I said that my family came to visit me for christmas and among them my long lost uncle rico was among them, it doesn't mean that he is not still part of my family.



That may be true, but I believe that it was trying to stress a point. And that point being, satan was no longer considered a son of God.

The text could just as easily have said this, then it would have been clear.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan, also a son of God, came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

But it didn't state that. I simply believe that sons of God implies anyone that is a member of God's family in good standing, be they angels, humans, or whatever. This would leave satan out, and also Cain and his lineage. What happened as a result of the flood? Cain's lineage was completely wiped out. Seth's lineage was completely wiped out except for a small remnant. Why? Because the entire world had become ungodly, except for Noah.


I can see where some might come to the conclusion that God destroyed the wicked because of angelic offspring, if this were really the case. The Bible also tells us that God will once again destroy the wicked from the face of the earth, and this time permanently. I wonder what His reason will be for doing that this time? It's 2008 and I have never heard of any case where angels have mated with women, thus producing offspring, let alone heard of fallen angels marrying women, yet for some reason, God is still going to destroy the wicked out of the land, just like He did in Gen 6, but of course not by way of water.

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 07:34 PM
I forget the wording around that story..I need to go re-read it. But did he know they were angels? It was clear (to me) that Abraham knew one of them was God. You see him call him the all captiol letters LORD, which we know is used where the name YHWH appears in the texts...so he called one of them YHWH more than once. But, did they know the other two men were messengers?I think he knew, called them lords, the interesting part of that I think is most angles always say "worship God, don't call me lord" sort of thing yet they did not. Lots of pondering today....

I know many see the three men in Gen 18 as a representation of the trinity and Abraham called all three Lord. The three seem to speak at once... But then there is a separation in the context of speaking to one of them and the others leaving. I have not wrapped my head around the whole picture there yet, not sure we can now? Make for an interesting thread of its own.

Peace indeed Ken ;)
Joe

Brother Mark
Dec 17th 2008, 07:54 PM
I have a couple of questions for each side...

1. If the sons of men mean Seth's line, and the daughter's of men mean Cain's side, then why did the union produce giants?

2. If the son's of God are referring to fallen angels, then why are the offspring referred to as "men of renoun" and called men?

Ok, I'll back out again and maybe someone can answer my questions.

Thanks,

Mark

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 08:36 PM
1. If the sons of men mean Seth's line, and the daughter's of men mean Cain's side, then why did the union produce giants? That's a good point, Mark. We don't see the unions of believers and non-believers producing giants today.
And when it says giants, it means large of stature, as in Goliath and others. It can also include the other meanings as well however.


2. If the son's of God are referring to fallen angels, then why are the offspring referred to as "men of renoun" and called men?I don't think anyone can answer this other than by speculation. My speculation would be that because they are 'part' human, they would be called human. Pretty weak speculation, but that's all I've got.:D

divaD
Dec 17th 2008, 08:47 PM
I have a couple of questions for each side...

1. If the sons of men mean Seth's line, and the daughter's of men mean Cain's side, then why did the union produce giants?

2. If the son's of God are referring to fallen angels, then why are the offspring referred to as "men of renoun" and called men?

Ok, I'll back out again and maybe someone can answer my questions.

Thanks,

Mark



1. If the sons of men mean Seth's line, and the daughter's of men mean Cain's side, then why did the union produce giants?


Does the text even imply that giants were the result of the union? According to the Hebrew Interlinear, giants are rendered as the·ones-distinguished.
It appears to me from the text, the giants were already here, and unrelated to the union.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,


Also after what?

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.

IMO, this explains the 'and also after that'.

My opinion is that the giants had some type of influence in the earth at that time, enough influence to even corrupt the godly line.


Your second question has really got me to thinking, lol. I believe that you're on to something here, but I believe the question would be more difficult to answer if it were posed such as this.

2. If the son's of God are referring to Seth's line, then why are the offspring referred to as mighty men which were of old, men of renown?

That presents a difficult position to defend, since it is because of the son's of God that the offspring end up such as this. Or is it because of the influence of the giants? the word 'old' in this verse seems to imply from forever according to the Hebrew.

I'll be honest here. Even tho I've changed my postion several times in the past few years, I'm still open minded about this.

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 08:52 PM
Hi Mark,
1. If the sons of men mean Seth's line, and the daughter's of men mean Cain's side, then why did the union produce giants?Well I'm not on this side, seems odd to me Cain's side seems to have this "inherently evil by birth" thing. I only have heard this on message boards, never saw it in scriptures myself. That is just me. Seems to go against all having the chance to know God individually. What about Abel's children, don't know he did not have any from what I can tell. Let alone Adam's other children. What "bloodline" are they? All just plain strange to me.

After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.(Gen 5:4 NKJV)
2. If the son's of God are referring to fallen angels, then why are the offspring referred to as "men of renown" and called men?

Well I'm not on this side. ;) The way I see it they were men with unknown "bloodline" other than they were a really tall family, or more than one family??

More than two sides I would say.
Peace,
Joe

Brother Mark
Dec 17th 2008, 09:00 PM
Does the text even imply that giants were the result of the union? According to the Hebrew Interlinear, giants are rendered as the·ones-distinguished.

It appears to me from the text, the giants were already here, and unrelated to the union.

Then please allow me to change the question slightly...

Then why did the union of Cain's line with Seth's line produce might men of renown? What was so special, physically, about this breeding between a spiritually minded line and a carnally minded line, that produced such mighty men?

Here's the verse I am referring to...

Gen 6:4 The Nephalim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when teh sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

It seems to me, the mighty men of renown refers to the offspring of the union.

Just askin...

Mark

Brother Mark
Dec 17th 2008, 09:02 PM
More than two sides I would say.
Peace,
Joe

Interesting. You have read into each side some of the things I have read into it as well. I am curious to what side is yours. :hmm:

Care to share?

mizzdy
Dec 17th 2008, 09:08 PM
I have a couple of questions for each side...

1. If the sons of men mean Seth's line, and the daughter's of men mean Cain's side, then why did the union produce giants?

2. If the son's of God are referring to fallen angels, then why are the offspring referred to as "men of renoun" and called men?

Ok, I'll back out again and maybe someone can answer my questions.

Thanks,

Mark

Hi,
I'm not very good at this but I will try and take a stab at it. The way I understand it is there is a difference between the angels and the sons of God. The word for angel is mal' akim and the word for God or gods is elohim with the words around it to denote if it is in the plural or singular. I am no expert in hebrew and I don't pretend to understand it all but thats what I understand. So it seems there is differences in who the 'sons of God' and angels or why else have different names for them? As for the sethite view, I tend to discount that one for one obvious reason already said here, they didn't produce giants and if it were true then giants such as the ones in scripture would still be born today. And why would God wipe out everything and everyone over a godly line gone bad?

divaD
Dec 17th 2008, 09:13 PM
Then why did the union of Cain's line with Seth's line produce might men of renown? What was so special, physically, about
this breeding between a spiritually minded line and a carnally minded line, that produced such mighty men?


Just like I stated in my prev post, that's a difficult position to defend. It certainly has me rethinking all of this. As of now, I honestly don't have a satisfactory answer.







It seems to me, the mighty men of renown refers to the offspring of the union.


I would agree. But wasn't the offspring the result of the union betwwen the sons of God and daughters of men? The text doesn't define the offspring as the giants, does it? The text seems to imply that the giants were already here, and not that they were the result of this union. If the text is defining the giants as the offspring, then apparently I'm not seeing it.

Brother Mark
Dec 17th 2008, 09:18 PM
Just like I stated in my prev post, that's a difficult position to defend. It certainly has me rethinking all of this. As of now, I honestly don't have a satisfactory answer.

I would agree. But wasn't the offspring the result of the union betwwen the sons of God and daughters of men? The text doesn't define the offspring as the giants, does it? The text seems to imply that the giants were already here, and not that they were the result of this union. If the text is defining the giants as the offspring, then apparently I'm not seeing it.

To be honest, the text causes more questions for me than provides answers. It just doesn't seem to fit in any box that I can find. I do appreciate your answer.

Kahtar
Dec 17th 2008, 09:33 PM
I would agree. But wasn't the offspring the result of the union betwwen the sons of God and daughters of men? The text doesn't define the offspring as the giants, does it? The text seems to imply that the giants were already here, and not that they were the result of this union. If the text is defining the giants as the offspring, then apparently I'm not seeing it.That is certainly an interesting, and perhaps valid, way of looking at that verse.
Genesis 6:4
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.
From your view it would be like 'There were giants in the earth in those days. And also, after that (those days of the giants) the sons of God.......etc.' It more or less separates the two into two separate events. Interesting. I'll have to ponder that a while.;)

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 09:38 PM
Care to share?

Post #21 was my stab at it. I figure people bread for hight and strength, and they were great warriors, the heros of old. Not the reason for the flood, just had great influence in those days.

As there are "heros" today, whole countries even that people look to for their power and might, when Jesus in weakness *on the cross* should be their hero.

As in the days of Noah...

Peace,
Joe

mizzdy
Dec 17th 2008, 10:13 PM
I figure people bread for hight and strength, and they were great warriors, the heros of old. Not the reason for the flood, just had great influence in those days.



I would wonder where they learned how to breed people for strength and height, isn't that consider genetical manipulation in some form or another. If they had that kind of knowledge then Noah must have been really old fashioned to build the ark with out dated tools. :)

Walstib
Dec 17th 2008, 10:52 PM
Hi mizzdy,

Could have been knowledge from these fallen angels ;) My wife breeds dogs, not so hard a thing to do really, the next heat Nova has we are picking a bigger male than usual, probably will have some bigger than usual pups.

Not to mention they were building cities and working with brass and iron. Not such simpletons we may first assume. Mendel wrote allot about genetics after sitting in his patch of peas for a few years.

And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. (Gen 4:22 KJV)

Peace,
Joe

John27
Dec 18th 2008, 01:24 AM
Demons and Angels walking on earth? It is quite coinsidental that the Buddist idea of Shangrala matches that idea, and after shangrala was a reforming of the world. This might show that the flood reached further, historians believe it only to be flooding of the Dead Sea. However most all mythologies also embrace the flood.

It is quite interesting that different theologic standpoints revolved around the same principle.

However in regards to the topic, I think the flood was because of man's horrible sinning, not the hybrid angel demon thing.

Thanks

John27
Dec 18th 2008, 01:31 AM
I would wonder where they learned how to breed people for strength and height, isn't that consider genetical manipulation in some form or another. If they had that kind of knowledge then Noah must have been really old fashioned to build the ark with out dated tools. :)


Genetic manipulation has been going on for thousands of years, it is called agriculture. You breed the healthy animals and you get healthier offspring the skinny ones that can't hold weight you throw out. Look at cows in India where they do not eat cows, then look at cows in America. You'll notice amazing diferences.

Ancient Spartans bred people too, throughing out the children that were not perfect, in order to get a perfect fighter race.

Genetic manipulation has nothing to do with great technology, it just has to deal with breeding certain traits(genes). Ancient farmers learned this quite quickly.

Noah's tools were not outdated at all. Just as they knew how to genetically modify without knowing what a gene was, but instead by looking at traits they could see.

AliveinChristDave
Dec 18th 2008, 05:04 AM
I have flirted with the idea that the giants were people other than the Sons of God and Sons of Seth but the more I've studied the less I believe that's not a probability.
My view of this is the creation of Gen. 1 produced a different race than the Creation of Adam in Chapter 2.
Thus the sons of God are those from the first creation in Gen. 1.
God brought on the flood to destroy the offspring who were the result of breeding between the two lines.
I believe only Noah and his sons were pure. Their wives most likely had some mixed blood in them. Therefore there are traces of this mixed breed alive today.
We live in the days of Noah when portions of the truth and lies are incorporated into one message and most cannot tell the difference between the two.
Christ took on flesh but His blood was from His Father therefore He was a perfect sacrifice for our sins.

kenrank
Dec 18th 2008, 12:47 PM
I just wanted to share a couple of different translations of Gen. 6:4. It does give a different perspective.

Good News Bible...
Gen 6:4 In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago.

Young's Literal...
Gen 6:4 The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them--they are the heroes, who, from of old, are the men of name.

The Scriptures...
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of Elohim came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, the men of name.

Contempory English Version...
Gen 6:4 The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later.

One thing I noticed is that after the flood, giants still walked the earth. From the above versions, and reading others in that light, it is possible the giants were the offspring of the fallen ones. If true then, and knowing the fallen ones were spiritual beings who took human form, they would have survived the flood. They must have mated human woman again after the flood, for again...we see giants after the flood. See...Num 13:33, Deut. 3:11, Josh 17:15.

For your considersation.
Ken

Brother Mark
Dec 18th 2008, 01:02 PM
Another question for the fallen one's folks... if these "people" were condemned, then why are they referred to as "heroes" or men of renown in holy writ?

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 01:17 PM
The sons of God were the offspring of Seth. The daughters of men , were the offspring of Cain.

Simply, the word "giants" is a poor translation. Their stature could be and more than likely was bigger and higher than the average person at that time. But, even though their stature might have been above average, does not make them something other than what they were.

After the sons of Seth, who were the sons of God, because they called upon the name of the Lord. They saw the daughters of men, which were the daughters of Cain. Who did not call upon the name of the Lord. That they came together and this was the beginning of evil upon the earth and their imagination was very evil.

The word "giant" is the Hebrew word - "gibbor" , which simply means -- mighty , or strong. Talking about a physical appearance.

The word "renown" in Genesis 6:4, which is also the same verse that the word "giant" is in. This word - "renown" is the Hebrew word - "shem". Noah named one of his sons - "Shem" which means "renown". Renown means - famous.

What all this means, is that the influence of the daughters of men, from Cain, their offspring to become famous (renown)(shem) in their day. This influence was evil, and the acts of mankind was of their evil imaginations.

kenrank
Dec 18th 2008, 01:22 PM
Another question for the fallen one's folks... if these "people" were condemned, then why are they referred to as "heroes" or men of renown in holy writ?

That's a good question Mark. I have often wondered if the mythological "gods" like Zeus, Neptune, Apollo, et. al., were the offspring of the fallen ones. That maybe there is some fact to the myth. No way to know of course.

Peace.
Ken

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 01:50 PM
The sons of God were the offspring of Seth. The daughters of men , were the offspring of Cain.

Simply, the word "giants" is a poor translation. Their stature could be and more than likely was bigger and higher than the average person at that time. But, even though their stature might have been above average, does not make them something other than what they were.

After the sons of Seth, who were the sons of God, because they called upon the name of the Lord. They saw the daughters of men, which were the daughters of Cain. Who did not call upon the name of the Lord. That they came together and this was the beginning of evil upon the earth and their imagination was very evil.

The word "giant" is the Hebrew word - "gibbor" , which simply means -- mighty , or strong. Talking about a physical appearance.

The word "renown" in Genesis 6:4, which is also the same verse that the word "giant" is in. This word - "renown" is the Hebrew word - "shem". Noah named one of his sons - "Shem" which means "renown". Renown means - famous.

What all this means, is that the influence of the daughters of men, from Cain, their offspring to become famous (renown)(shem) in their day. This influence was evil, and the acts of mankind was of their evil imaginations.

All this is the modern understanding, which is fine. But, you have made a number of claims here without providing any scriptural substantiation for them.
For instance, you say the 'sons of God' are the children of Seth. Do you have scripture that points that out, or is this only what you are accusing the 'fallen angel' group of doing, reading more into the Word than is there?
You say that the daughters of men refers to Cain's daughters, but how do you substantiate that? What scriptural proof do you have?
And the biggy, you make the claim that fallen angels are not capable of having offspring. Where is your scriptural support, and why do you believe this?

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 02:27 PM
Here's a thought that I'd like to throw out here if I may.

The idiom "sons of God" is found to be speaking specifically of angelic beings in Job 1:6, and 2:1. My question was, "why would this idiom mean angels in one book, and people in the other?"

The other thing that I started pondering was the nature of the "Nephilim" (pre-flood) and Anakim (post flood). Various Jewish writings (to include Josephus) seem to indicate that they had no problem with the idea of a union between angelic beings and human women...

But what would be the purpose of such a union?

Here's my idea...

One of the offices filled by Jesus Christ was the office of goel (kinsman redeemer) of mankind. In order to be our goel, Jesus had to be fully and perfectly human (as well as fully God) in His incarnation in order to fulfill the precept laid out in levitical law...I think that we can all agree on this point.

Now think about this for a second: If Satan wanted to orchestrate things so that Messiah could not be born...corruption of the human bloodline would be the way to do it...If people were not "fully human" as it were, then we would no longer be of "the bloodline" of Adam; and Messiah would not be able to redeem...

If then two Satanic irruptions occurred (one prior to and one after the flood)...then it would go a long way toward explaining why God told the Israelites to wipe out entire villages and people on occasion...men, women, children, even the livestock...they were Anakim...and God was preventing the possibility of the human bloodline (preserved in Noah and his family) from being corrupted again.

It would also go a long way toward explaining why God has certain angels who "left their first estate" held in chains until judgment day...

Just a couple of thoughts here.....

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 02:30 PM
All this is the modern understanding, which is fine. But, you have made a number of claims here without providing any scriptural substantiation for them.
For instance, you say the 'sons of God' are the children of Seth. Do you have scripture that points that out, or is this only what you are accusing the 'fallen angel' group of doing, reading more into the Word than is there?
You say that the daughters of men refers to Cain's daughters, but how do you substantiate that? What scriptural proof do you have?
And the biggy, you make the claim that fallen angels are not capable of having offspring. Where is your scriptural support, and why do you believe this?
And lastly, why do you accuse your Christian brothers and sisters of 'evil imaginations'? You should not be accusing them of anything. Just state the facts, or your undertanding, and leave it at that.

Wow, I didn't expect this type of response !

I didn't accuse any of my brothers or sisters of evil imaginations. Someone, whoever that someone is, or group , imagined that there was an Easter bunny, and this is the imagination of mankind. Christians have a history of adopting and adapting their beliefs and attaching their beliefs to the traditions and evil imaginations of mankind. I do not believe that a Christian, a true Christian came up with the idea of an Easter bunny. But Christians attach their beliefs to the evil imaginations of mankind, and think nothing of it by doing so.

The sons of Seth called upon the name of the Lord, and thus they were sons of God for doing so. I could go into a long biblical explanation, but the simple explanation is the easiest and simplist to understand. We are all sons of God by faith. The offspring of Seth called upon the name of the Lord by faith. Cain's offspring did not, so it is a simple deduction as to whom the daughters of men were.

Fallen angels manifesting themselves in the flesh and then having intercourse which brings about an offspring is pure myth. There is nothing within biblical exergesis that would even give us any insight into believing such a myth.

So simply, what I explained is 'all' biblical exergesis and nothing else !

To be honest with you, I am a little surprized by your reply.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 02:30 PM
Another question for the fallen one's folks... if these "people" were condemned, then why are they referred to as "heroes" or men of renown in holy writ?

That's an easy one. Just because they were evil doesn't mean people didn't hero-tize them. Look at the hollywood actors of today. They are not exactly what you would call holy or godly, or even trying to be, yet people call them their heroes.
They were men of renown for obvious reasons...if there were giants in our culture today, as there was then, their exploits would have been spread around, mentioned, talk at the table, in the marketplace, etc...
It isn't like God was saying they were HIS heroes...it is God saying that people treated them as heroes. They were called mighty mean for equally obvious reasons...

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 02:38 PM
Wow, I didn't expect this type of response !

I didn't accuse any of my brothers or sisters of evil imaginations. Someone, whoever that someone is, or group , imagined that there was an Easter bunny, and this is the imagination of mankind. Christians have a history of adopting and adapting their beliefs and attaching their beliefs to the traditions and evil imaginations of mankind. I do not believe that a Christian, a true Christian came up with the idea of an Easter bunny. But Christians attach their beliefs to the evil imaginations of mankind, and think nothing of it by doing so.

The sons of Seth called upon the name of the Lord, and thus they were sons of God for doing so. I could go into a long biblical explanation, but the simple explanation is the easiest and simplist to understand. We are all sons of God by faith. The offspring of Seth called upon the name of the Lord by faith. Cain's offspring did not, so it is a simple deduction as to whom the daughters of men were.

Fallen angels manifesting themselves in the flesh and then having intercourse which brings about an offspring is pure myth. There is nothing within biblical exergesis that would even give us any insight into believing such a myth.

So simply, what I explained is 'all' biblical exergesis and nothing else !

To be honest with you, I am a little surprized by your reply.


I'm not. That is exactly how your post came off. Sorry ;).
You know, you really need to be careful what you are calling myth. It IS in the Bible. There is talk of giants, and fallen angels in many places. For you to call it myth is treading very dangerous to calling God a liar, sir.
There is no biblical proof that the "good" ones are sons of seth, and the "bad" ones are sons of cain. The Bible does NOT say that. It is purely speculation. There is way more biblical proof for giants and the ungodly union than there is what you believe. If they ( the good people ) were the sons of seth, the Bible could just as easily have said so. Now I gave scripture way early in this thread talking about the union, about the giants, their characteristics, even the size of a bed...yet you still totally reject the giants...that is interesting.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 02:44 PM
Here's a thought that I'd like to throw out here if I may.

The idiom "sons of God" is found to be speaking specifically of angelic beings in Job 1:6, and 2:1. My question was, "why would this idiom mean angels in one book, and people in the other?"

The other thing that I started pondering was the nature of the "Nephilim" (pre-flood) and Anakim (post flood). Various Jewish writings (to include Josephus) seem to indicate that they had no problem with the idea of a union between angelic beings and human women...

But what would be the purpose of such a union?

Here's my idea...

One of the offices filled by Jesus Christ was the office of goel (kinsman redeemer) of mankind. In order to be our goel, Jesus had to be fully and perfectly human (as well as fully God) in His incarnation in order to fulfill the precept laid out in levitical law...I think that we can all agree on this point.

Now think about this for a second: If Satan wanted to orchestrate things so that Messiah could not be born...corruption of the human bloodline would be the way to do it...If people were not "fully human" as it were, then we would no longer be of "the bloodline" of Adam; and Messiah would not be able to redeem...

If then two Satanic irruptions occurred (one prior to and one after the flood)...then it would go a long way toward explaining why God told the Israelites to wipe out entire villages and people on occasion...men, women, children, even the livestock...they were Anakim...and God was preventing the possibility of the human bloodline (preserved in Noah and his family) from being corrupted again.

It would also go a long way toward explaining why God has certain angels who "left their first estate" held in chains until judgment day...

Just a couple of thoughts here.....

You can not say that sons of God are only angelic ! As Adam was a son of God also , and he was not an angelic being ! :o

We know, that from Adam through Seth , and through Noah, etc . came Mary, who gave birth to the Christ child. So the flesh line was preserved, but not because of the fact that angels could manifest themselves in flesh form in order to have intercourse. < This is a myth. And I believe it is time to let go of this myth.

The sons of God were from Adam to Seth and his offspring, men starting calling upon the name of the Lord, by faith - believing, is what gives them the title of being called the sons of God.

Brother Mark
Dec 18th 2008, 02:47 PM
OK folks. Let's tone it down. No calling stuff evil, preposterous or arguing. This is a place for biblechat not accusations. If you disagree, simply give the biblical reason why and move on. There is ample biblical evidence for both sides of this discussion, IMHO.

Carry on...

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 02:57 PM
You can not say that sons of God are only angelic ! As Adam was a son of God also , and he was not an angelic being ! :o

We know, that from Adam through Seth , and through Noah, etc . came Mary, who gave birth to the Christ child. So the flesh line was preserved, but not because of the fact that angels could manifest themselves in flesh form in order to have intercourse. < This is a myth. And I believe it is time to let go of this myth.

The sons of God were from Adam to Seth and his offspring, men starting calling upon the name of the Lord, by faith - believing, is what gives them the title of being called the sons of God.

Well then, please exegete for me exactly how you have arrived at the conclusions that you have.

I am especially interested in how you resolve the issues of change in the Hebrew idiom, the acceptance of Nephilim and Anakim as "unholy" progeny by the early Jews, and please show whereby it is written in the context of Genesis that calling upon the name of the Lord made one a "son of God"?

I am honestly curious as to how you have arrived at these conclusions.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 03:03 PM
OK folks. Let's tone it down. No calling stuff evil, preposterous or arguing. This is a place for biblechat not accusations. If you disagree, simply give the biblical reason why and move on. There is ample biblical evidence for both sides of this discussion, IMHO.

Carry on...


With all due respect, I haven't seen any proof for the line of seth thought...where is the scripture stating this? I gave scripture showing size of the giants, that they had six fingers and six toes, how big one of their beds were, where they lived...I even gave a scripture that could possible link them to the end times scenario and not one person on this thread responded to all that scripture. I have seen many people speculate about the line of seth, but I haven't seen not one scripture saying that it's so.

kenrank
Dec 18th 2008, 03:14 PM
OK folks. Let's tone it down. No calling stuff evil, preposterous or arguing. This is a place for biblechat not accusations. If you disagree, simply give the biblical reason why and move on. There is ample biblical evidence for both sides of this discussion, IMHO.

Carry on...

There is...as I was just reading another post, I realized I could argue either side in a debate. While son or "sons of God" are pointing to man in scripture, the context of Genesis 6:4 can be argued as speaking about the fallen ones. The other translations I share clearly speaking about the fallen ones.

Here is something for your consideration. The word translated as giants, is
Nephilim. The main root of that word is nawfal, which among it's many meanings, is: to fall, to divide, the cease, to fail, a mistake, lost, or overthrow.

Peace.
Ken

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 03:29 PM
Wow, I didn't expect this type of response !
I didn't accuse any of my brothers or sisters of evil imaginations.
My appologies if I misjudged you sir. You were saying those who believe in the 'fallen angel' interpretation were guilty of vain imaginations. There are several in this thread who lean toward that undertanding, so naturally, it would seem that you were speaking to or about them. I'll take your word for it that it was not your intention.;)


I could go into a long biblical explanation, but the simple explanation is the easiest and simplist to understand.This is fine, but, most of us in this thread do not require 'the simplist', and really DO want your exegesis on the topic. Thus the reason for my questions to you.
Without the exegesis, the scripture to back up your statements, you are doing nothing more than providing your opinion, and expecting us to simply take your word for it.
But we're not about to do that. We are all well studied here, and willing to spend some time digging into it. Also, most of us in here are open enough that were substantial evidence provided, we would look at it quite seriously.
So please, if you have such, then provide it.
This is not an 'us against them' kind of discussion. It is a serious discussion and serious examination of the scriptures.

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 03:33 PM
And the biggy, you make the claim that fallen angels are not capable of having offspring. Where is your scriptural support,
and why do you believe this?



I would like to take a shot at this, not by answering it, but by challenging it.

Can you or anyone else show anywhere in Scripture that angels have male reproductive organs enabling them to mate with humans? Can you also show in Scriptures where angels have creative powers? If a spirit can mate with a human, then obviously that spirit has creative powers in order to create a human being/demon inside the womb of the woman. And finally, can you show anywhere in Scriptures where God gave anyone permission to override his kind reproducing after his own kind? As an example, while it may be possible for a cat and a dog to have sex with one another, is it even possible for them to procreate life because of that union? Of course not! So why should we believe that an angel and a human can mate and reproduce life? A human and an angel are not of the same species are they? This would go against what is specifically stated in Gen ch 1...kinds only reproducing after their own kinds.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 03:34 PM
Well then, please exegete for me exactly how you have arrived at the conclusions that you have.

I am especially interested in how you resolve the issues of change in the Hebrew idiom, the acceptance of Nephilim and Anakim as "unholy" progeny by the early Jews, and please show whereby it is written in the context of Genesis that calling upon the name of the Lord made one a "son of God"?

I am honestly curious as to how you have arrived at these conclusions.

I noticed that you did not acknowledge that not all angelic beings are called sons or a son of God. Adam was called a son of God. Christians are called sons of God by faith. By faith men called upon the name of the Lord, and these were the sons of Seth. By faith , calling upon the name of the Lord makes them sons of God.

As far as the rest of what you said. It is in your court to bring forth accurately with biblical exergesis your beliefs about "Nephilim and Anakim", as being the offspring of fallen angels. This is your responsibility not mine.

"Nephilim" was translated three times the word "giants". Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 it was used twice. The word "nephilim" is translated - "fellers" - meaning - men.

One must also notice that these "giants" = "nephilim" were present "before" the sons of God took daughters of men as wives ! Genesis 6:4 tells us that these giants were present before . The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, became "renown", not giants ! They were might men, meaning strong <- Not giants ! These men of renown were looked up too for what they could do and perform. This was the beginning of every evil imagination of mankind before God brought on the flood.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 03:40 PM
There is...as I was just reading another post, I realized I could argue either side in a debate. While son or "sons of God" are pointing to man in scripture, the context of Genesis 6:4 can be argued as speaking about the fallen ones. The other translations I share clearly speaking about the fallen ones.

Here is something for your consideration. The word translated as giants, is
Nephilim. The main root of that word is nawfal, which among it's many meanings, is: to fall, to divide, the cease, to fail, a mistake, lost, or overthrow.

Peace.
Ken



I still don't see how you could debate on something with absolutely no proof whatsoever. You have to read into the Bible that the line of seth makes the sons of God. You don't have to read into the Bible about the giants, nephilim, fallen ones because the Bibles says it...
I used to believe the line of seth thing because that is what I had always heard about. Until I started studying it on my own. It doesn't even intimate that it is the line of seth at all.

Genesis 6


1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And 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.
4There 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.
5And 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.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And 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.
8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just

just for starters, Seth isn't even mentioned in this context at all. If it was just the sons of seth and the daughters of cain, it would just say that. Nowhere in scripture do you have another such sneaky way to say that evil people and good people ( which there aren't any ) had babies and because of this, somehow, we don't know how, they ended up being giants...this...somehow...made all the people so evil that the world and everything in it had to be destroyed...notwithstanding that if they were all godly men, they wouldn't be choosing wives from the daughters of evil wicked men, as well as the fact that the WHOLE world and everything in it was corrupted and had to be destroyed, even the sons of God? hmm...not sure how that could be because the Bible tells us continually that we ( the sons and daughters of God, in the NT, are not meant for wrath...and God does not change...) and if that isn't bad enough...God has Noah, who is uncorrupted in his seed start all over...and it happens again...so which son of Noahs would be the son of seth and which the son of cain again? because if it happened again, then it stands to reason that somebody was good and somebody was evil...but I think we read that Noah comes off the ark and gets drunk and naked, doesn't he...? so HE must be the evil one, which would make ALL his children evil, going by this estimation of who the sons of God are?

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 03:42 PM
My appologies if I misjudged you sir. You were saying those who believe in the 'fallen angel' interpretation were guilty of vain imaginations. There are several in this thread who lean toward that undertanding, so naturally, it would seem that you were speaking to or about them. I'll take your word for it that it was not your intention.;)

This is fine, but, most of us in this thread do not require 'the simplist', and really DO want your exegesis on the topic. Thus the reason for my questions to you.
Without the exegesis, the scripture to back up your statements, you are doing nothing more than providing your opinion, and expecting us to simply take your word for it.
But we're not about to do that. We are all well studied here, and willing to spend some time digging into it. Also, most of us in here are open enough that were substantial evidence provided, we would look at it quite seriously.
So please, if you have such, then provide it.
This is not an 'us against them' kind of discussion. It is a serious discussion and serious examination of the scriptures.

I like keeping things simple, because most of the time, the more extraordinary explaination is in error.

Throughout the Word of God, we find this one thing to be without controversy. That it is God who opens and closes the womb of a woman.

If an angelic being could manifest itself in the flesh so that it could have intercourse. Intercourse in and of itself is no guarantee of pregnancy. That would totally be up to God himself to open or close the womb of a woman. Only God has this power to do so. This is why God is called the Father of "all", without exception. Even Lucifer is a son of God, but he is also a son of disobedience. Lucifer does not have the power to open and close the womb of a woman ! That is totally reserved unto God Almighty.

See ? Simple !

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 03:53 PM
I would like to take a shot at this, not by answering it, but by challenging it.:hmm:I'd rather have had an answer. Perhaps someone else can provide it.


Can you or anyone else show anywhere in Scripture that angels have male reproductive organs enabling them to mate with humans? I think we both know the answer to that.
But, here are a couple points. Angels in scripture, when they 'appear', always appear as male. There are no female or naked baby appearances.
Are angels spirit only, or do they have some sort of 'body'?:hmm:
As for creative powers, it does not take creative power to produce a child, only the fertilization of seed.
As for angels ability to mate, why must we assume they mated? Invitro fertilization does quite nicely and does not require creative acts.:)


And finally, can you show anywhere in Scriptures where God gave anyone permission to override his kind reproducing after his own kind?
No, but I can show you plenty of places where both men and angels violated God's law and will, without His permission.


As an example, while it may be possible for a cat and a dog to have sex with one another, is it even possible for them to procreate life because of that union?Not naturally, no. But then, pigs growing human hearts is not possible naturally either. But they are doing it today.;)

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 03:59 PM
Here's a thought that I'd like to throw out here if I may.

The idiom "sons of God" is found to be speaking specifically of angelic beings in Job 1:6, and 2:1. My question was, "why would this idiom mean angels in one book, and people in the other?"

The other thing that I started pondering was the nature of the "Nephilim" (pre-flood) and Anakim (post flood). Various Jewish writings (to include Josephus) seem to indicate that they had no problem with the idea of a union between angelic beings and human women...

But what would be the purpose of such a union?

Here's my idea...

One of the offices filled by Jesus Christ was the office of goel (kinsman redeemer) of mankind. In order to be our goel, Jesus had to be fully and perfectly human (as well as fully God) in His incarnation in order to fulfill the precept laid out in levitical law...I think that we can all agree on this point.

Now think about this for a second: If Satan wanted to orchestrate things so that Messiah could not be born...corruption of the human bloodline would be the way to do it...If people were not "fully human" as it were, then we would no longer be of "the bloodline" of Adam; and Messiah would not be able to redeem...

If then two Satanic irruptions occurred (one prior to and one after the flood)...then it would go a long way toward explaining why God told the Israelites to wipe out entire villages and people on occasion...men, women, children, even the livestock...they were Anakim...and God was preventing the possibility of the human bloodline (preserved in Noah and his family) from being corrupted again.

It would also go a long way toward explaining why God has certain angels who "left their first estate" held in chains until judgment day...

Just a couple of thoughts here.....



During the time that I somewhat adapted the angelic view, I pretty much reasoned similar to this. I don't find this that far fetched at all. It would certainly explain a lot of things. It would explain why God was literally having folks wiped out...because they were hybrids. I'm not saying I still believe it, but I'm also not saying I don't. I'm pretty much nuetral about it at the moment. I'm waiting for someone to prove with Scriptures that angels can indeed mate with humans and produce hybrids. Even tho Gen 6 seems to suggest this, I just don't find that it's enough Scriptural proof to prove this position.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:00 PM
I like keeping things simple, because most of the time, the more extraordinary explaination is in error.

Throughout the Word of God, we find this one thing to be without controversy. That it is God who opens and closes the womb of a woman.

If an angelic being could manifest itself in the flesh so that it could have intercourse. Intercourse in and of itself is no guarantee of pregnancy. That would totally be up to God himself to open or close the womb of a woman. Only God has this power to do so. This is why God is called the Father of "all", without exception. Even Lucifer is a son of God, but he is also a son of disobedience. Lucifer does not have the power to open and close the womb of a woman ! That is totally reserved unto God Almighty.

See ? Simple !


true enough. Simple though? no, absolutely not. God could open the wombs of the women to further HIS will, HIS plans...which is what happened because the Bible says so...:) ( the part about the angels having babies with human women...)

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 04:06 PM
true enough. Simple though? no, absolutely not. God could open the wombs of the women to further HIS will, HIS plans...which is what happened because the Bible says so...:) ( the part about the angels having babies with human women...)


You say God opened up the womb of the women so that angelic beings could have children, without any scriptural back up ? Or am I reading what you wrote in error on my part ?

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 04:10 PM
I noticed that you did not acknowledge that not all angelic beings are called sons or a son of God. Adam was called a son of God. Christians are called sons of God by faith. By faith men called upon the name of the Lord, and these were the sons of Seth. By faith , calling upon the name of the Lord makes them sons of God.

As far as the rest of what you said. It is in your court to bring forth accurately with biblical exergesis your beliefs about "Nephilim and Anakim", as being the offspring of fallen angels. This is your responsibility not mine.

"Nephilim" was translated three times the word "giants". Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 it was used twice. The word "nephilim" is translated - "fellers" - meaning - men.

One must also notice that these "giants" = "nephilim" were present "before" the sons of God took daughters of men as wives ! Genesis 6:4 tells us that these giants were present before . The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, became "renown", not giants ! They were might men, meaning strong <- Not giants ! These men of renown were looked up too for what they could do and perform. This was the beginning of every evil imagination of mankind before God brought on the flood.

A couple of things here...first of all, I merely posted some thoughts for consideration...food for thought...and was accused of eisegesis.

Now I've got no problem with that...doesn't insult me in the least. If I am wrong and can be shown wrong by the whole counsel of God...then I assure you that I will change my interpretations to fit the Word of God, and not vice-versa...

However, the ball's still in your court so-to-speak.

You have not (to my satisfaction) explained the change in Hebrew idiom from one meaning to the other...In all my studies, "sons of God" have been found to mean angels...

Secondly, textual context in no way dictates Nephilim as being "before".

Gen 6:4 simply reads:There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Now admittedly there are problems with the "unholy progeny" stand...and these I freely admit.

But from the entire Word of God from the page that says "genuine leather" to the "maps", what interpretation best fits the evidence given?

In fact if you will go back to my original post...you will see that I wrote "If" (underlined and bolded) this happened....

Shall we then lay aside the heat and discuss rather than argue?

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 04:17 PM
You have not (to my satisfaction) explained the change in Hebrew idiom from one meaning to the other...In all my studies, "sons of God" have been found to mean angels...

Secondly, textual context in no way dictates Nephilim as being "before".

Gen 6:4 simply reads:There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Now admittedly there are problems with the "unholy progeny" stand...and these I freely admit.

But from the entire Word of God from the page that says "genuine leather" to the "maps", what interpretation best fits the evidence given?

In fact if you will go back to my original post...you will see that I wrote "If" (underlined and bolded) this happened....

Shall we then lay aside the heat and discuss rather than argue?

The editor of Logos bible software is on a video explaining the Hebrew structure of Gen 6.

http://repent-believe.webs.com/biblicalinformation.htm

the video is at the bottom and the first ten mins should do to give a Scholary approach to the text from a Hebrew Scholar.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:17 PM
You say God opened up the womb of the women so that angelic beings could have children, without any scriptural back up ? Or am I reading what you wrote in error on my part ?

yes...and no...:lol:
I have plenty scriptural back up that fallen angels had babies with human women...hence the giants aforementioned...:lol: SOMEONE else said that only God can create, or open the womb. I agree with that...God gave all his earthly created creatures the ability to procreate, so I would say He opened their wombs.( Hey, with this line of reasoning, wouldn't it be just as logical to say that angels were created with the ability to procreate because all God's other created beings were? :pp only if it were that easy...:idea: :hmm:)
Now, lets get back to you...:lol:...you said that seth was the godly line and cain was the ungodly line and that's what Genesis 6 is talking about without any scriptural proof? Furthermore...seth's name isn't even mentioned in the whole context of the passages in question? or wait, maybe it was just MY Bible that was in error? Do I need to go look at a different translation to find seths name in there? :) :hug: My point is that we ALL deduce things, or speculate, at times. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and it's pretty apt to stay that way...it's just in this instance, there happens to be plenty of scriptural proof of angels and humans procreating, and pretty much none where the line of seth is concerned. Btw, has anyone looked to see what the early church believed? I know someone mentioned the book of Enoch, which talks about this subject...but how about the early church?

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:19 PM
Now admittedly there are problems with the "unholy progeny" stand...and these I freely admit.



what problems do you find? ( serious question, I just want to know...)

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 04:27 PM
I know someone mentioned the book of Enoch, which talks about this subject...but how about the early church?

Yeah the literal view of Gen 6 being angels and women was held by early judaisim as per the writtings of Enoch (wich i use for guidance not take as inspired scripture), Jude and Peter use it in the NT, also Josephus gives insight to this view.

and also the Early Church held this up to the time of Augustine 500 B.C

but now it seems to supernatural to accept ! and has to be explained away in human terms, lol.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 04:30 PM
A couple of things here...first of all, I merely posted some thoughts for consideration...food for thought...and was accused of eisegesis.

Now I've got no problem with that...doesn't insult me in the least. If I am wrong and can be shown wrong by the whole counsel of God...then I assure you that I will change my interpretations to fit the Word of God, and not vice-versa...

However, the ball's still in your court so-to-speak.

You have not (to my satisfaction) explained the change in Hebrew idiom from one meaning to the other...In all my studies, "sons of God" have been found to mean angels...

Secondly, textual context in no way dictates Nephilim as being "before".

Gen 6:4 simply reads:There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Now admittedly there are problems with the "unholy progeny" stand...and these I freely admit.

But from the entire Word of God from the page that says "genuine leather" to the "maps", what interpretation best fits the evidence given?

In fact if you will go back to my original post...you will see that I wrote "If" (underlined and bolded) this happened....

Shall we then lay aside the heat and discuss rather than argue?

The words "after that" in Genesis 6:4 means that "before" the sons of God and daughters of men came together , there were giants in the earth. It truly is very simple. Maybe your just not reading the words correctly to understand the actual thought that is being implied ?

The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, brought about what it tells us in the verse - "bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown". They 'became' mighty men. They were not born that way. Their "might" is parellel to them being called "renown". For instance, we have men who are capable of building space crafts that go into outer space and back again. These men are mighty and became mighty because of the desire of the US, and became "renown" because of their engineering educational ability. In my own eyes of understanding, this engineering ability is evil imaginations of mankind. No one has to agree with me, it is totally up to the individual.

However, we are going nowhere and coming from nowhere when we go into space and come back. We spend billions upon billions of dollars to go nowhere. Does the tower of babel ring a bell ?

Again, I only have to provide scriptural evidence for "what I believe", not for what I do not believe. Someone who believes differently needs to provide their own biblical exegesis.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:31 PM
Yeah the literal view of Gen 6 being angels and women was held by early judaisim as per the writtings of Enoch (wich i use for guidance not take as inspired scripture), Jude and Peter use it in the NT, also Josephus gives insight to this view.

and also the Early Church held this up to the time of Augustine 500 B.C

but now it seems to supernatural to accept ! and has to be explained away in human terms, lol.

Yeah, I understand how that works, but we have to be careful in condemning people for this kind of thing. I have been guilty of it myself. It's hard to go out on a limb with a different view than most when we have been taught something else our whole life. Yeah, I knew that Jude and Peter mention them, but that has been explained away as well...:lol:
so did Augustine change this view, or am I wrong in that assumption?

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:34 PM
The words "after that" in Genesis 6:4 means that "before" the sons of God and daughters of men came together , there were giants in the earth. It truly is very simple. Maybe your just not reading the words correctly to understand the actual thought that is being implied ?

The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, brought about what it tells us in the verse - "bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown". They 'became' mighty men. They were not born that way. Their "might" is parellel to them being called "renown". For instance, we have men who are capable of building space crafts that go into outer space and back again. These men are mighty and became mighty because of the desire of the US, and became "renown" because of their engineering educational ability. In my own eyes of understanding, this engineering ability is evil imaginations of mankind. No one has to agree with me, it is totally up to the individual.

However, we are going nowhere and coming from nowhere when we go into space and come back. We spend billions upon billions of dollars to go nowhere. Does the tower of babel ring a bell ?

Again, I only have to provide scriptural evidence for "what I believe", not for what I do not believe. Someone who believes differently needs to provide their own biblical exegesis.

so, in your belief then, where did the giants come from?

samphillipssr
Dec 18th 2008, 04:35 PM
Ken, thanks for bringing this up, it is very important.

satan used this sexual encounter between demonic angels and flesh and blood women for one main purpose only. That is...

The devil knew that in the future God had a plan to redeem man from sin and corruption caused by Adam and Eve. Therefore, he caused these demon angels to take on a fleshly body, come to earth, marry females so as to have offspring ( children ).

His plan was to mess up the bloodline which would come through David, whereas Jeus would be borned to a virgin girl called Mary. Therefore to keep the bloodline clean so Jesus could be borned exactly as foretold in HOLY SCRIPTURES...

God caused the flood to wipe out every solidary man, woman, boy, and girl except the 8 persons saved... Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives.

After men began to populate the earth again, they started doing all kinds of evil again, led by satan and his demons. Worshipping other gods instead of God Almighty.

So now God raises up preachers to warn the people and continued doing this until Our Lord Jesus Christ was born who would die on the cross, be resurrected the 3rd day and come back to life, soon to go to the Father God and sit on His right hand interceeding for all menkind day and night.

Thank God, satan and his demons and their plans were all destroyed through Jesus.

God Bless you christians,

Sam

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 04:37 PM
Yeah, I understand how that works, but we have to be careful in condemning people for this kind of thing. I have been guilty of it myself. It's hard to go out on a limb with a different view than most when we have been taught something else our whole life. Yeah, I knew that Jude and Peter mention them, but that has been explained away as well...:lol:
so did Augustine change this view, or am I wrong in that assumption?

I'm not condeming anyone :o

From what i have learned it was Augustine that changed the view, i think as it was to far fetched for the general public to accept, perhaps he was doing it for good reasons to bridge the gap between non-believers and believers and to give some credibility ? or something along those lines.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 04:38 PM
yes...and no...:lol:
I have plenty scriptural back up that fallen angels had babies with human women...hence the giants aforementioned...:lol: SOMEONE else said that only God can create, or open the womb. I agree with that...God gave all his earthly created creatures the ability to procreate, so I would say He opened their wombs.( Hey, with this line of reasoning, wouldn't it be just as logical to say that angels were created with the ability to procreate because all God's other created beings were? :pp only if it were that easy...:idea: :hmm:)
Now, lets get back to you...:lol:...you said that seth was the godly line and cain was the ungodly line and that's what Genesis 6 is talking about without any scriptural proof? Furthermore...seth's name isn't even mentioned in the whole context of the passages in question? or wait, maybe it was just MY Bible that was in error? Do I need to go look at a different translation to find seths name in there? :) :hug: My point is that we ALL deduce things, or speculate, at times. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and it's pretty apt to stay that way...it's just in this instance, there happens to be plenty of scriptural proof of angels and humans procreating, and pretty much none where the line of seth is concerned. Btw, has anyone looked to see what the early church believed? I know someone mentioned the book of Enoch, which talks about this subject...but how about the early church?


There is no scriptural back up showing that angels had offspring with women ! Yet, you say you have plenty and do not bring this "plenteous" information of biblical exergesis to the table of discussion ? I find this to be odd indeed.

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 04:40 PM
The editor of Logos bible software is on a video explaining the Hebrew structure of Gen 6.

http://repent-believe.webs.com/biblicalinformation.htm

the video is at the bottom and the first ten mins should do to give a Scholary approach to the text from a Hebrew Scholar.

Thanks, but I'm on dial-up...can you give me a synopsis as to his conclusion of Hebrew idiom?

To wit: As I understand it...Hebrew idiom always follows a certain formula. The first word (i.e. "sons") always denotes membership within a class, and the second phrase (i.e. "of the prophets") always denotes the class itself.

In fact the phrases translated into English in Ps 29:1 (Give unto the LORD, O you mighty ones) and 89:6 (For who in the heavens can be compared to the LORD? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened to the LORD?) is in fact "sons of God" in Hebrew...

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:41 PM
There is no scriptural back up showing that angels had offspring with women ! Yet, you say you have plenty and do not bring this "plenteous" information of biblical exergesis to the table of discussion ? I find this to be odd indeed.


I do too!! :) I think it's on the second page of this thread....so you can go back and read it if your interested...:lol:

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 04:43 PM
You say God opened up the womb of the women so that angelic beings could have children, without any scriptural back up ? Or am I reading what you wrote in error on my part ?


That's exactly how that post came off to me also. Why would God do something against His own will? Why would God even desire this to happen in the first place?

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 04:43 PM
Again, I only have to provide scriptural evidence for "what I believe", not for what I do not believe.When will you do this?

Someone who believes differently needs to provide their own biblical exegesis.Go back at the beginning of this thread and read it all. You will find that this has already been done, except in your case.
Not trying to be harsh or judgmental here. Just trying to get something more than opinion from you.:)

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:44 PM
I'm not condeming anyone

From what i have learned it was Augustine that changed the view, i think as it was to far fetched for the general public to accept, perhaps he was doing it for good reasons to bridge the gap between non-believers and believers and to give some credibility ? or something along those lines.

I didn't mean literally....condemning...:)..I really meant like anger, irritation, aggravation, etc...:lol:
There is never a good reason to change scripture, even if he thought so...:o...but that sounds pretty right...I'll have to go study this question. ty.

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 04:44 PM
Thanks, but I'm on dial-up...can you give me a synopsis as to his conclusion of Hebrew idiom?

To wit: As I understand it...Hebrew idiom always follows a certain formula. The first word (i.e. "sons") always denotes membership within a class, and the second phrase (i.e. "of the prophets") always denotes the class itself.

In fact the phrases translated into English in Ps 29:1 (Give unto the LORD, O you mighty ones) and 89:6 (For who in the heavens can be compared to the LORD? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened to the LORD?) is in fact "sons of God" in Hebrew...

Yes you are correct there, sorry i missread your earlier post, i thouhght you denied that the Hebrew was stateing the "sons of God2 as devine beings.

i could send you pdf files if you are interested but you seems to know your stuff :)

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 04:45 PM
So here's a question no one has brought up yet.
In Genesis three, we read about the 'seed of the woman' and the 'seed of the serpent'. We understand what the seed of the woman is, but, what is the seed of the serpent? Any thoughts?

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:46 PM
That's exactly how that post came off to me also. Why would God do something against His own will? Why would God even desire this to happen in the first place?


no one said he desired it. He didn't desire that anyone sin, but it started with satan, then eve and adam and has never stopped...I am sure God did not desire to go through the pain and humilition of being crucified by the very humans He created, but He did...

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 04:47 PM
what problems do you find? ( serious question, I just want to know...)

Two come immediately to mind, for which there is no "good" answer, as there is a silence in Scripture.

First is the ability of angels to interbreed with mankind. Although we know that angels appear as men, that they can eat, drink, etc.; yet they are not in fact human.

The second of course, is the question as to why God would allow such a thing in the first place.

Neither is insurmountable, both are problematic in all honesty...

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:48 PM
So here's a question no one has brought up yet.
In Genesis three, we read about the 'seed of the woman' and the 'seed of the serpent'. We understand what the seed of the woman is, but, what is the seed of the serpent? Any thoughts?


I have always been taught that it is our spiritual fallen sin nature...but it's possible that it could be seed of satan...anytime seed is mentioned in the Bible, isn't it referring to procreation in one way or the other? As in Daniel 2:43?

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 04:49 PM
Here is an article where the author has taken the time to search the Scriptures for every usage of the phrase "sons of God". I have already quoted some of his findings, and since the article is somewhat lengthy I will post it in sections. Perhaps after reading his commentary on the subject others can show why they don't agree, or where he has taken a wrong turn in explaning the Scripture. I hope you find the commentary helpful. Blessings, RW

What were The Nephilims in
Relationship to the Sons of God?
-by Tony Warren

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/images/i.giff there is one idea in some Christian circles that has always puzzled me, it is the idea that when Genesis chapter 6 speaks about the sons of God taking wives of the daughters of men, it was somehow referring to angels, or heavenly beings mating with human women. It amazes me that not only is such an idea is unequivocally accepted by many in the Church, but that it is also put forth by some theologians. In this brief study, we will take a look at what God says, and the Biblical definition of these terms. Because rather than come up with our own private interpretations of scripture, it is incumbent upon all of us to study the scriptures circumspectly and let God's word itself tell us what is in view. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, God reveals the truth of the passages in question.

Genesis 6:1

"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."
The first question we need to tackle is, who are the sons of God spoken of here? And not who does this prominent theologian say the sons of God are, or who we might suppose they are, but what do we find out about the phrase when we search scripture. The only way to authoritatively find the answer to the question of "Who Are The Sons of God," is to let God tell us. And He does tell us very clearly!


John 1:12

"But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believeth on His name."
This gives us scriptural warrant to say the sons of God are believers. And indeed, the overwhelming majority of the uses of the phrase unquestionably refer to believers, or God's Covenant people. And those few passages in which it can be said to be questionable, when studied carefully, they are referring to the people of God also.

By contrast, there is no authoritative use of the phrase "sons of God" for Angels in the Bible. Why then should we listen to the suppositions of men, when we have the unadulterated word of God to exegete? All God's covenant people are spoken of as the sons, or the children of God. This is the phrase that God has signified to identify those who are of His family. Angels don't qualify. It is by the blood of Christ that true believers become sons of God.

Romans 8:14

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are Sons of God."
1st John 3:1

Behold, what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God:..."
All God's people are Sons of God. Looking all through the scriptures, we see over and over again, that those who are believers, God assigns the title, "sons of God." So there really is no mystery in Genesis chapter 6 except the one that some people seek to create for their own purposes. These sons of God were the children of God (believers) of that day. God is a Father to all His people. This is why He called the nation Israel His son. It was an outward representation (was a type of) the true body of Christ. And the Children/Sons of Israel represented Christ, His true Son Israel!


Exodus 4:22

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:"
Hosea 11:1

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
Matthew 2:15

"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son."
Christ was the true Son that the sons or children of Israel looked forward to. These are the Spiritual things of the Lord which many in the Church do not understand. All scripture is consistent with itself, and flows together like a gigantic spiritual picture puzzle, with every piece in place. We are true sons of God, children of Israel, only because of Christ. For He is the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth. In other words, His atoning efficacy reaches from Abel, to those who are saved today. Without Him, there is no true belief and no eternal Israel of God, there is only the superficial.


The fact is, at any time on this earth, there have been believers (sons of God) and the pagans or heathen who regarded not God. And these believers and unbelievers were inherently at enmity, and were not to come together in any kind of union of marriage. Those who are His people, God declares that He is their Father, and they are His Children. Just as When the nation Israel came along. They were corporately the sons of God.

Deuteronomy 14:1-2

"Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."
The Hebrew words translated "children of the Lord your God" are the very same words sons of God [ben elohiym], illustrating God's people have a covenant family relationship with him. i.e., they are sons of God, and were commanded to be a nation that remained "set apart" from the heathen nations, for the service of God. This principle for God's people is demonstrated for us in the New Testament in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 6.


2nd Corinthians 6:17

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be [B]My Sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
You see, there are two families in this world. The family of God, and the family of the Devil. And the two are to remain separate, so that the family of God is not polluted by the ideas of the Heathen/Godless peoples. Even from the beginning with Cain and Able, God has always separated his children from the unbelievers. Able was a child of God, Cain lived in unbelief. Cain slew Able, and he was "SEPARATED" from the family of God. He was cast out from among them. Why? Because God cursed him, not wanting him among His People. The same thing down through the ages as God told the nation of Israel not to not mix with the nations around them. Sadly, there are some misguided souls who think that this was all because of some racist idea. Not at all, it's because Israel was the Old Testament representation of the family of congregation of God. They were representatives of the children, or sons of God! And they were not to be unequally yoked or joined together with those in unbelief. The heathen nations around them were those in unbelief. It's not that God was any respector of persons, it was just that these were the children/sons of God, the representation of His family, and as such they were not to mix with the unbelieving, that they not be tempted by their idolatry.


Ezra 9:1

"..The priests and the Levites, have not Separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the canaanites, the hittites, the perizites, the Jebusites, the Amonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, the Amorites. For they have taken of their Daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the HOLY SEED have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.."
Note the error of what the children or sons of Israel (the Sons of God) had done here? They had done the exact same thing Genesis 6 speaks about. They had gone after the daughters of men (unbelievers), the heathen people around them, and this was the abomination to God. Look at the language there. God says they mingled the Holy seed. Believers (Sons of God) are not to be yoked with unbelievers. They are not to take of their daughters for wives or let their sons go after these daughters. God has decreed His congregation a SEPARATE nation or family set apart from the world. That they are not to intermarry with unbelievers. This is exact same principle we have today. Although it seems the Church today has chosen to abandon God's laws concerning this precept.


2nd Corinthians 6:14

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness."
God's law has not changed. This is the same principle that Israel was under, that was the reason Cain was cast out, and that God's children in Genesis chapter 6 erred in. What communion hath light with darkness? None! When we become the sons Of God, we are to be a light shinning in darkness. But you can't mix light with darkness. They have no communion together. Either the light will overcome the darkness, or there will be no light, and the darkness rules. But you can't have them both working together. They are two separate entities.


Philippians 2:15

"That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world."
That is the principle for all who are of God, and it was the principle in Genesis chapter 6. The sons of God were to shine as the light of the world, not mix with the darkness of those outside God's covenant family. They were not to marry the daughters of men, because they were of two totally different people. Yet we read that they did this anyway, and the results were devastating. by letting their flesh rule over them, seeing how the daughters of (unsaved) men were fair or beautiful, they disregarded these principles and took them to wife. This is much like the Church today. The result was that the world changed because of their evil unfaithfulness. For that is what happens when you mix believers with unbelievers. The continual or daily candle goes out and eventually you have darkness ruling in the family. Wickedness abounds because you can't have two rulers in one family. This is what the Sons of God did.

to be continued:

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 04:53 PM
continuation of commentary:


Genesis 6:2

"that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
They took wives of the un-saved daughters of the giants [nephil] of that time, and gave birth to unsaved children who became mighty champions, men of renown (famous). Probably much like what we think of as famous gladiators. An analogy today would probably be the man's heroes, like football players, or basketball players, or a movie star. Someone who is a hero, famous, renown, or a champion. People were looking up to them and all the laws of God were left behind (sound familiar). That's what happens when you have the children of God yoked with unbelievers. The seed is mingled with unbelief and falls away because one spouse being unsaved doesn't want to follow God's laws. And of course (not coincidentally) God says after this the world became evil continually (again, sound familiar), and because the wickedness of man was great, God destroyed the world with the flood. He saved none alive but Noah and his family. The sons of God by this unrighteousness had become virtually wiped out except the 8 in the Ark! Is it any wonder God uses both Noah and Lot as pictures or examples of the end of the world and the apostasy of man preceding it? It is a signification of how it will be in the world when Christ shall make His second appearing? but to think that these sons of God In Genesis were angels, or that the giants were super beings (as others surmise), is such a warped form of eisegesis, it is nothing short of ridiculous.


There are many things to be considered here. Number one, didn't Jesus Christ Himself tell us that when we get to heaven, we will be like the angels, who neither marry nor are given in marriage?

Matthew 22:30

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
So how can Christians then simply ignore this, and say these were angels marrying women of this earth in genesis chapter six? One popular way is to rationalize this away and claim that they're no longer angels. But how then are they called by God, sons of God (which they claim means angels)? It makes no sense. They just are not studying the scriptures carefully, or they are not taking everything into account and receiving what they are reading. They cannot be angels, and take women to wife. And if they are not angels, what else can they be? If we say they are anything else, where is the Biblical justification for saying it? We certainly can't just guess at it! We must use scripture to interpret scripture and say these are exactly what God says they are. i.e., Sons Of God! That may not be the most intriguing or sensationally interesting interpretation, but it will be the most faithful and biblical interpretation. Of course, faithfulness seems to be a novel approach to studying scripture these days.


Another point is that Genesis Chapter 4:26 leading up to this chapter says, "..then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord." In the literal, "..then a beginning to call after the name of Jehovah." This is when people were called after the name of the Lord, "Sons of God!" That those who knew the Lord, were sons of the father.

Also note "who" God is angry with in Genesis chapter 6, and who He brings this judgment upon. It is with men, and not with angels! Let us use simple logic here. If these were angels, God would be angry with angels for coming down and taking daughters of men to wife, not angry at men for what's taking place. Once we understand what is happening here, we see that these can only be sons Of God, (believers) who went after the daughters of men, (unbelievers) and their seed became unrighteous because of it. Thus the world became corrupted and wicked because of this violation of the law of separation of the family of God from unbelievers. This happened because of the error of the sons of God, which by the time of Noah, had dwindled down to just his family. And so God brought judgment upon the world for their unrighteousness.

Again, note also a most telling statement. When we read in verse 2 that the sons of God took the daughters of men to wife, what is God's response in the very next verse?

"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
Again, Sons of God take daughters of men, and God is angry with man, not angels and not angel children. Flesh and Blood human beings! His spirit will not always strive with man, not with angels. Man is but flesh, and his error is in the flesh. In other words, God is going to bring judgment upon him for his weakness of the flesh. The sons of God were sinning according to the flesh, by taking wives of the unsaved, simply because they were fair to look upon (beautiful in our vernacular). This is the reason for judgment upon the earth, it's always been! Not because Super angels copulated with humans, but because God's people went after strange flesh!


Let us touch briefly on a few other verses that are sometimes used to try and prove these were angels.

Job 1:6

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."
Job 2:1

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord."
Any Bible that you have that translates these words as angels is a mistranslation. The words sons of God in these verses are the exact same Hebrew as found throughout scripture for sons, and for God. The same in Genesis chapter 6. It's [ben 'elohiym] or [bane el-o-heem] which is literally children or Sons/God. The exact same words in all the verses. Not the Hebrew word "angels" [mal'ak] or Messenger, but Sons of God. Any Bible that translates this angel is making a "commentary" and not a translation of the Hebrew. And there is a difference! I don't mind people making commentaries, but when they find themselves on the pages of scripture "as Scripture" that's when I draw the line. It is an unrighteous thing for anyone to translate [ben 'elohiym] as angels when it is the Hebrew "Sons of God." If God had wanted to say angels, He very well could have had the Holy men of old use that Hebrew word He has prescribed and uses for angel throughout scripture. He did not. Case Closed!


Some people have been confused by the language "they came to present [yatsab] (meaning, to "station" or position) themselves before the Lord." Some think that this means that they went into heaven. That's not the case. We have to keep in mind the times that we are reading about. These were the early years of the world. The language of "presenting themselves before God", is common in Biblical History, and doesn't denote an appearance in Heaven. It is simply language denoting coming to the place or presence of God to inquire of Him. Today, we'd go to a Church and pray. That would be our coming to inquire of God. In those days, they would have their own designated Holy place, and often God would speak to them directly. For example in,

Deuteronomy 31:14-15

"...call Joshua, and Present Yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went, and Presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation.
and the Lord Appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud:...."
God told Moses to Present [yatsab] (same word) himself and Joshua before Him in the tabernacle, and "God" spoke to them. And note, they did not appear in Heaven. Comparing scripture with scripture we see this language of presenting oneself before the Lord doesn't denote an appearance in heaven. Here they presented themselves before God, but it was in the tabernacle. It's the exact same thing as the sons of God presenting themselves. In these early days, God spoke to His servants the Prophets in a special way. And often times that meant an appearance or His presence in a special way. Again, don't take my word for it. Compare scripture with scripture.


1st Samuel 10:19

..Now therefore Present Yourselves before the Lord by your tribes, and by your thousands."
Present (same Hebrew word) themselves before the Lord, and they'd inquire of God. Did that mean the tribes of Israel went into Heaven to present themselves before the Lord? Certainly not, but this is the language God uses to describe the gathering together to inquire of God. Another verse is, Numbers 11:16 where the Lord tells Moses to gather 70 into the tabernacle to STAND (same Hebrew word PRESENT) themselves with Moses, and "GOD" would come down and talk with Him there. You see, this was simply the language in the old days of when the believers, the sons of God, (whatever you want to call them), would come to inquire of the Lord. They would present themselves before the Lord to inquire and for instruction. So it's really no different from saying, "the sons of God came to present themselves before the lord," and of saying "the believers came to present themselves before the Lord." It's human beings in view here, not angels, and not in heaven.


Literally, Job 1:6 says "..and there doth come Satan in their midst." So the sons of God came to present themselves before God, and Satan came in the midst of them. It's no mystery! It's not unlike the 12 Disciples with Christ in Jerusalem, and Satan indwelling Judas to be in the midst of them. There we have an example of Satan coming in the midst of the sons of God. Where is the mystery? There is none! Satan makes his appearance on earth, through men.
to be continued:

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 04:55 PM
Two come immediately to mind, for which there is no "good" answer, as there is a silence in Scripture.

First is the ability of angels to interbreed with mankind. Although we know that angels appear as men, that they can eat, drink, etc.; yet they are not in fact human.

The second of course, is the question as to why God would allow such a thing in the first place.

Neither is insurmountable, both are problematic in all honesty...


I would agree. By human standards, anyway. Just as I was accused a bit ago of implying that the fallen angels did something against God's will, we don't always know God's will, or even if we know it, we don't understand it...our minds do not work like His. But as with the crucifixion, people at the time did not understand it, some still don't, but We now do. If He hadn't been crucified, we could not be saved. God has His reasons for doing what He does. We may never know the why of it. But the overwhelming evidence is plenty to convince me that angels did indeed procreate with human women. ( btw, Jesus said that angels in heaven did not marry, or give in marriage. he did NOT say anything about their ability or lack thereof to engage in sexual intercourse. He just said they don't marry, etc...He was also speaking specifically of angels in heaven, or God's angels. When satan was thrown out of heaven, he took a third of the angels with him, so they became fallen angels, or satan's angels, no longer God's. They( angels ) have not been, nor will be offered redemption, as humans have...)

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 04:56 PM
Another passage people bring up is Job 38.


Job 38:7

"When the morning star sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for Joy."
The passage in Job 38:7 may be a little more difficult to understand, but the chapter becomes clear once we compare scripture with scripture. The entire chapter is speaking in symbolical terms. God talks about where the foundations of the earth are fastened together (or sockets been sunk). The Earth isn't sunk by sockets. It says who laid the corner stone. The earth wasn't laid on corner stones. It says the sea is shut with doors. The sea doesn't have any doors on it. It says the sea bursts forth as a womb. The sea is not a womb. It talks of the clouds as a swaddling bands, and bars being set, God talking and commanding the morning, taking hold of the wings or ends of the earth, it being as a clothes or a garment, a broken arm, etc., etc., etc. The point I'm making is, all these things symbolize something. It's not a literal broken arm in view here, or literal bars and doors or literal stars bursting forth singing. So why should we take this alone to be literally angels, when everything else in the chapter speaks symbolically? This all has a Spiritual significance no doubt, which is beyond the scope of this study. But God is talking about His Creation process and using spiritual language of creation, stars and sons to signify Christ and His kingdom. Stars don't literally sing, nor the world literally sat on stones. God says these things to paint a spiritual picture puzzle which we must discern by rightly dividing the word. God has always used the stars as tokens for believers, just as He uses the Sun to signify Christ. These significations or symbolic terms started from the very beginning in Genesis. The stars are part of the lights of the world created from the Beginning, and all are symbolic of the light of the lord! Likewise, those in Christ are called by these things. lamps, candles, stars, etc., because we are reflections or vessels of Christ. The House or Temple of the lord. It's these "Spiritual Things" which so many Theologians don't really comprehend. But this is the House of God, the sons of God, the foundation laid. Consider Chapters like Ezra and compare scripture with scripture knowing that the Lord does nothing by accident.


Ezra 3:10-12

"And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the LORD, after the ordinance of David king of Israel.
And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid.
But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy:
The same Picture of the stars singing and shouting for Joy and the foundation laid, which God's original creation mirrors. Because it's "meant" to show a spiritual truth which has nothing to do with literal stars or angels! But as I said, that's a whole other Study in itself, and beyond the scope of this one.


Mark 12:25 makes it perfectly clear angels could not have been in view in Genesis chapter 6, taking the daughters of Men to wife. it should settle the whole issue right there, but it won't. Because some people make up their minds, and they just refuse to be confused with triviality like, the Biblical facts. I've found that many people will believe whatever they are taught no matter what evidence you bring to the table. But this article is for those who have spiritual ears and keep God's word, and know the righteousness of comparing scripture with scripture, Spiritual things with spiritual things (1st Cor. 2:13), to come to the Truth of it.

One other thing that some people seem to get hung up on is the word translated Giants (KJV) in verse 4 of Genesis chapter 6. In the Hebrew [nephel]. They like to throw the word Nefeel, Nephel or Nephelims around like it's a name for a alien race. The fact is, it's not a name for an alien race of people, it's a description of a type of people. Nephel in the original means "FELL'er". i.e., one who would make you fall, or one who you would fall at the sight of. Like as a "BIG" or "GIANT" person. Thus, it is correctly translated Giants here. But there is no mystery. We can prove that very easily. Because The Giants [nephel] is spoken of in Genesis before the Flood, and again after the flood. Now since we (Bible Believers) know that everyone on earth was destroyed by the flood of Noah's day, and only Noah and His own survived, and they weren't NEPHEL (if nephel means this alien race) then we know by simple common sense and logic that this "so called" race of Nephel could not have survived. It makes absolutely no sense unless we are unreasonable and refuse to listen to the facts.


A Reasonable man adapts himself to the
facts of scripture which He reads.
An unreasonable man seeks to have the facts
of scripture adapt to his teachings"
-WiseManSay
Nephel is simply a old word used in description of "Big" People. Could be literally big in stature, or big in position, as in famous or a champion. In other words, it's a word meaning big, not a name of a tribe or a race. We have a tribe of people in Africa today who are very, very tall. There is also a tribe that is very very small, or short. When talking about them, we can say they're big, or giants, or they're small, or little. If we were of the old way of naming things, we would say they were Nephel (Giants). But we don't ascribe them to being "angels" just because their size is unusual. And we shouldn't do it with the scriptures either. They're Big. They're Fellers, they're Giants. But they are not the product of angels mating. The whole idea is preposterous! It means Giants, nothing more. And that's how the word Nephel is used in the scriptures. As there are today, there were some tribes or families of people that were very big, or giants in those days. Goliath was one of these, and the sons of Anak also. The word Giants, just means they were big, or of great stature. It didn't identify a alien race or angels. In fact, we can see that clearly as we read,

Numbers 13:33

"And there we saw the giants [nephel] the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [gibbowr], and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
You see, here we have that word again. Nephel, the sons of Anak. That's proof again that the word nephel is not describing a new race, but a attribute. Because they were the sons of the anakims, who Joshua destroyed in canaan. These could hardly be the same race of nephilims that were "before" the flood. The whole idea is ludicrous! Or did angels drop by again after the flood also to mate with Human women? No, the whole idea is silly. Notice that second word translated Giants [gibbowr]. It means warriors or strong Champions. And note the fear of these men because they were what? ..BIG! That's why they were called nephel (Giants). They were BIG, not angels! Verse 32 says "of great stature". They were afraid of them because they were unusually large people. But it has nothing to do with angels mating, anymore than the tall people in Africa today have anything to do with mating with angels. They were simply a tribe of Big people who would frighten you if you had to battle them. Would you rather to go to battle against a army of people the size of Wilt Chamberlain, or an army standing 5 feet 9 inches. The answer is obvious. So that's what that verse above illustrates. They were afraid because these were an army of big People. Nephels. Giants! Champions! Nothing more. The natural man delights in creating a mystery where there is none because the truth doesn't seem exotic enough for them. They want something more. But the truth is that these were Giants in the land. Nothing more.


The synopsis of Genesis chapter 6, is that the sons of God took the daughters of men to wife. They were believers who disobeyed God and went after the unsaved women who looked good, and in turn they brought forth unsaved seed who corrupted the earth so that there was nothing but evil continually. And God saw what they had done and sent the flood to wipe out the wickedness. And all perished except Noah and His own family.

let that be a lesson to all of us. We must not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever, for that will cause terrible repercussions down the road. Unfortunately, this is "Exactly" what is happening today. Not only with believers going after, and marrying unbelievers literally, but also spiritually as the church is unequally yoking themselves with unbelievers. They are making all kinds of excuses for their actions, and they just don't realize what this error will bring upon the Church. Just as it did when Israel went after the women and men of the heathen nations around her. These turned them to false Gods and abominations. Slowly but surely (like a creeping vine or spreading cancer) it became their destruction. I speak out about this, but somehow, this just doesn't seem important to the Church today. I sadly say, "we learn from history, ..that we do not learn from History." I know this is as it must be, but my earnest Prayer is that some (though few that must be), will by Grace of God begin to learn from History. ..Bible History. Peace,
Copyright ©1992 Tony Warren
Okay, lets tear apart the commentary. Where do you agree/disagree?

Many Blessings,
RW

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 04:57 PM
So here's a question no one has brought up yet.
In Genesis three, we read about the 'seed of the woman' and the 'seed of the serpent'. We understand what the seed of the woman is, but, what is the seed of the serpent? Any thoughts?

People or angels or pricipalities or powers that are opposed to the will of God in any form, this does not denote a genetic liniage imo from what i've read.

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 05:02 PM
I have always been taught that it is our spiritual fallen sin nature...but it's possible that it could be seed of satan...anytime seed is mentioned in the Bible, isn't it referring to procreation in one way or the other? As in Daniel 2:43?
Well, here's a starting point:
From Strong's
H2233 זרע zera‛ zeh'-rah From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.
From Ancient Hebrew Lexicon
Nm) Orz% (Orz% Z-RAh) - Seed: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 230] |kjv: seed, child, carnally, fruitful, seedtime, sowing| {str: 2233, 2234}
The same word is used for the woman's and the serpent's seed.
In context, it is speaking of offspring.
We understand the serpent to be Satan:
Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Most of us understand Satan to be a fallen angel.
We understand the Gen 3 passage to be prophetic, of the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ, Who was fully human, fully God.
Now, where does that leave us with the serpent's seed?

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 05:05 PM
The words "after that" in Genesis 6:4 means that "before" the sons of God and daughters of men came together , there were giants in the earth. It truly is very simple. Maybe your just not reading the words correctly to understand the actual thought that is being implied ?

I'm sorry sir, but I must respectfully disagree with you here. "After that" in Elizabethan English simply means "when". Otherwise we have a big problem with Acts 1:8

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


The offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, brought about what it tells us in the verse - "bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown". They 'became' mighty men. They were not born that way. Their "might" is parellel to them being called "renown". For instance, we have men who are capable of building space crafts that go into outer space and back again. These men are mighty and became mighty because of the desire of the US, and became "renown" because of their engineering educational ability. In my own eyes of understanding, this engineering ability is evil imaginations of mankind. No one has to agree with me, it is totally up to the individual.

I would submit that they became renowned for their wickedness. This would certainly tie in with the rest of the chapter...I might point out that "renown(ed)" is not always in a positive context: Certainly Hitler, Stalin, and the like were men of renown...we remember their (evil) deeds to this day.


Again, I only have to provide scriptural evidence for "what I believe", not for what I do not believe. Someone who believes differently needs to provide their own biblical exegesis.

Agreed.

But yet textually and contextually I'm not convinced that your interpretation is necessarily correct, nor (with all due respect for your opinions) have you been able to explain sufficiently from the scripture why you have formed your opinions.

That is why I asked you to address those issues...To show me.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:06 PM
Well, here's a starting point:
From Strong's
H2233 זרע zera‛ zeh'-rah From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.
From Ancient Hebrew Lexicon
Nm) Orz% (Orz% Z-RAh) - Seed: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 230] |kjv: seed, child, carnally, fruitful, seedtime, sowing| {str: 2233, 2234}
The same word is used for the woman's and the serpent's seed.
In context, it is speaking of offspring.
We understand the serpent to be Satan:
Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Most of us understand Satan to be a fallen angel.
We understand the Gen 3 passage to be prophetic, of the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ, Who was fully human, fully God.
Now, where does that leave us with the serpent's seed?



The antiChrist.

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 05:10 PM
Well, here's a starting point:
From Strong's
H2233 זרע zera‛ zeh'-rah From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.
From Ancient Hebrew Lexicon
Nm) Orz% (Orz% Z-RAh) - Seed: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 230] |kjv: seed, child, carnally, fruitful, seedtime, sowing| {str: 2233, 2234}
The same word is used for the woman's and the serpent's seed.
In context, it is speaking of offspring.
We understand the serpent to be Satan:
Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Most of us understand Satan to be a fallen angel.
We understand the Gen 3 passage to be prophetic, of the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ, Who was fully human, fully God.
Now, where does that leave us with the serpent's seed?


I take seed in this context to be a group of people that are devoted to the serpants purposes.
Seed does not always mean physical offspring i.e Isaiah 53:10

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

this seed is believers devoted to Gods purposes as opposed to physical seed, just as i see the seed of the serpant.

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 05:12 PM
The antiChrist.:D Yes, undoubtedly. So what is the anti Christ? A Nephalim, just a man, Satan in human form?

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 05:17 PM
I take seed in this context to be a group of people that are devoted to the serpants purposes.
Seed does not always mean physical offspring i.e Isaiah 53:10

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

this seed is believers devoted to Gods purposes as opposed to physical seed, just as i see the seed of the serpant.I generally agree with this. The question comes to mind, tho, that if we apply that understanding to the seed of the serpent, do we not also have to apply it to the woman's seed? Same verse, same context, etc.







\
I'll be back. Gotta leave for a bit. Not ignoring anyone..............

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 05:18 PM
so, in your belief then, where did the giants come from?


Simple: They are "fellers" = mankind

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:18 PM
:D Yes, undoubtedly. So what is the anti Christ? A Nephalim, just a man, Satan in human form?


all of the above? :lol: part human, part fallen angel, indwelt with satan...a very nasty character...and....false Father, false Son, false Holy Spirit...or you know, he could really just be a clone....lol, that's for another thread, though.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:19 PM
Simple: They are "fellers" = mankind

It isn't that simple. Where did they get their stature? Their 6 fingers and 6 toes, etc...?

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 05:24 PM
I generally agree with this. The question comes to mind, tho, that if we apply that understanding to the seed of the serpent, do we not also have to apply it to the woman's seed? Same verse, same context, etc.







\
I'll be back. Gotta leave for a bit. Not ignoring anyone..............

Thats true !

but there is a specific pinpoint reference in the passage to a particular seed wich is the "He" and this is the seed of the woman not man denoting the virgin birth.

Although you can take it as the antichrist wich is fine and still fits into the catogory but there are others opposed to the will of God around now and in the past.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 05:24 PM
Well, here's a starting point:
From Strong's
H2233 זרע zera‛ zeh'-rah From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.
From Ancient Hebrew Lexicon
Nm) Orz% (Orz% Z-RAh) - Seed: [Hebrew and Aramaic] [freq. 230] |kjv: seed, child, carnally, fruitful, seedtime, sowing| {str: 2233, 2234}
The same word is used for the woman's and the serpent's seed.
In context, it is speaking of offspring.
We understand the serpent to be Satan:
Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Most of us understand Satan to be a fallen angel.
We understand the Gen 3 passage to be prophetic, of the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ, Who was fully human, fully God.
Now, where does that leave us with the serpent's seed?


God made everything after its own "kind". The seed of a dog, brings forth a dog. The seed of a cat brings forth the seed of a cat. The seed of a fish brings forth a fish.

Simple:

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 05:24 PM
no one said he desired it. He didn't desire that anyone sin, but it started with satan, then eve and adam and has never stopped...I am sure God did not desire to go through the pain and humilition of being crucified by the very humans He created, but He did...



I agree with your conclusions here, but I thought this was in regards to God opening and closing wombs. Your post seem to indicate that God allowed the wombs to be open in order for the angels to procreate with this humans. This just seems like this would be God going against His own will, and why would He even desire to do this? Anyway, that's what I was responding to. It's probably just a misunderstanding on my part. Trust me, I know what's it's like to be misunderstood. It happens to me all the time. For what it's worth, I meant nothing malicious by my post, nor am I accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply expressing how I interpreted your post.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:29 PM
Thats true !

but there is a specific pinpoint reference in the passage to a particular seed wich is the "He" and this is the seed of the woman not man denoting the virgin birth.

Although you can take it as the antichrist wich is fine and still fits into the catogory but there are others opposed to the will of God around now and in the past.


confused here...?

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 05:29 PM
It isn't that simple. Where did they get their stature? Their 6 fingers and 6 toes, etc...?

Where does it say in Genesis chapter 6 that they had 6 fingers and 6 toes ?

You are quoting another passage in the Word, which is not directly related to Gen. chapter 6.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:33 PM
I agree with your conclusions here, but I thought this was in regards to God opening and closing wombs. Your post seem to indicate that God allowed the wombs to be open in order for the angels to procreate with this humans. This just seems like this would be God going against His own will, and why would He even desire to do this? Anyway, that's what I was responding to. It's probably just a misunderstanding on my part. Trust me, I know what's it's like to be misunderstood. It happens to me all the time. For what it's worth, I meant nothing malicious by my post, nor am I accusing anyone of anything. I'm simply expressing how I interpreted your post.


yeah, It was my bad. No worries. I worded it badly. I saw that after I wrote it, but honestly, I didn't change it because it would've been jumped on by some anyway...:lol:
I don't know why God does what He does. Just because He does something, does that mean He has to desire it? It may just be because He is holy, and we don't understand. He put king neb where he was and gave the whole known world into his hand to further His ( God's ) plans...so I am saying that He ( God ) did the fallen angel thing for the same reason...no wait...He did not DO it, He allowed it, just like He allowed satan to fall and allowed eve and adam to sin, do you see what I am saying now?

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 05:34 PM
Reading along I have a question toward the "the enemy did this to try and stop Jesus by messing up the blood" thought. I think I see it in both the "Cain's blood" and "hybrid angels" explanations. There seems to be this "enemy wanting to mess the future up" reasoning.

Why would the enemy know the future? Scripture to back up he knows/knew the plan or the future?

To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into. (1Pe 1:12 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 05:35 PM
confused here...?

seed does not always refere to children.

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

the Messiah did not have any Children but from Isaiah 53:10 we see he has seed (followers devoted to him or in other words his people)

is that what you confused about ???

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 05:43 PM
Reading along I have a question toward the "the enemy did this to try and stop Jesus by messing up the blood" thought. I think I see it in both the "Cain's blood" and "hybrid angels" explanations. There seems to be this "enemy wanting to mess the future up" reasoning.

Why would the enemy know the future? Scripture to back up he knows/knew the plan or the future?

To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into. (1Pe 1:12 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe



The enemy does not know the future it just so happened that the sins commited had this consequense.

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:47 PM
Where does it say in Genesis chapter 6 that they had 6 fingers and 6 toes ?

You are quoting another passage in the Word, which is not directly related to Gen. chapter 6.


no sir, you are mistaken. I am quoting another passage that is talking about giants...not the same thing at all.

2 Samuel 21:18-22

18And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant.

19And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. 20And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
21And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.
22These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

genesis 6:1-5

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And 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.
4There 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. 5And 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.



1 Chronicles 20:4-8




4And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.

5And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.
6And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot and he also was the son of the giant.
7But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him. 8These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 05:48 PM
It isn't that simple. Where did they get their stature? Their 6 fingers and 6 toes, etc...?

Greetings,

I think we can nix these two references found in:

2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

1Ch 20:6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant.

This speaks of ONE man, not a whole race or hybrid race.

Many Blessings,
RW

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:49 PM
seed does not always refere to children.

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

the Messiah did not have any Children but from Isaiah 53:10 we see he has seed (followers devoted to him or in other words his people)

is that what you confused about ???


nah, I got it now. Just wasn't reading it right. It meant spiritual seed, so it was actually still created by God. It is still children. Aren't we called the children of God? :)

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 05:51 PM
Greetings,

I think we can nix these two references found in:

2Sa 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

1Ch 20:6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant.

This speaks of ONE man, not a whole race or hybrid race.

Many Blessings,
RW


do what? You want to nix them because? You can't just throw scripture out of the Bible because you don't like what it implies...:lol: There are other scripture to prove they had whole tribes. Go back and look at my initial set of scriptures for this proof. try Genesis 6 also...where it says giants specifically...as in plural...

mcgyver
Dec 18th 2008, 05:53 PM
Reading along I have a question toward the "the enemy did this to try and stop Jesus by messing up the blood" thought. I think I see it in both the "Cain's blood" and "hybrid angels" explanations. There seems to be this "enemy wanting to mess the future up" reasoning.

Why would the enemy know the future? Scripture to back up he knows/knew the plan or the future?

To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into. (1Pe 1:12 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe



Good question, Joe!

Certainly, Satan does not know the future in the manner of God...he is not omniscient.

Yet, the enemy certainly knows the scriptures...and when one considers that the first (generally accepted as) Messianic prophecy was given face-to-face in Gen. 3, a being of his intelligence would certainly IMO be able to extrapolate that the Messiah would be born of a human woman.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 06:00 PM
do what? You want to nix them because? You can't just throw scripture out of the Bible because you don't like what it implies...:lol: There are other scripture to prove they had whole tribes. Go back and look at my initial set of scriptures for this proof. try Genesis 6 also...where it says giants specifically...as in plural...

That there are giants is not in dispute. But that these giants are a hybrid race of fallen angels you have yet to biblically prove. Have you any comments regarding the commentary I posted? I ask because the article biblically refutes the arguments you have presented that these are fallen angels mating with human, and creating a hybrid race of part fallen angel and part human beings.

Many Blessings,
RW

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 06:05 PM
That there are giants is not in dispute. But that these giants are a hybrid race of fallen angels you have yet to biblically prove. Have you any comments regarding the commentary I posted? I ask because the article biblically refutes the arguments you have presented that these are fallen angels mating with human, and creating a hybrid race of part fallen angel and part human beings.

Many Blessings,
RW


no, I didn't read your commentary. I chose to take the word of the Bible over the word of man, but thanks for taking the time to post it. I know that you care what others believe, and that's a good thing. I believe there is too much proof to believe in the seth line thing, so I don't believe it. :)
And I have to disagree with you about there being giants being in dispute. Some do dispute it...go back and read the last two pages of posts...:)
I also have to say that when it comes to disagreements such as this one, when two people disagree, they need to agree to disagree and go on after a certain point because it serves no purpose. I have given much scripture to prove what I believe. Those opposed to what I believe haven't, imo. See the dilemma?:) God Bless.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 06:07 PM
Reading along I have a question toward the "the enemy did this to try and stop Jesus by messing up the blood" thought. I think I see it in both the "Cain's blood" and "hybrid angels" explanations. There seems to be this "enemy wanting to mess the future up" reasoning.

Why would the enemy know the future? Scripture to back up he knows/knew the plan or the future?

To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into. (1Pe 1:12 NKJV)

Peace,
Joe



Greetings Joe,

God told the serpent that Christ would be born to bruise (break, overwhelm) his head, so he does know the future. Also he knows that his time to deceive is short, and why he has great wrath.

Ge 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Re 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Many Blessings,
RW

mizzdy
Dec 18th 2008, 06:08 PM
Here is an article where the author has taken the time to search the Scriptures for every usage of the phrase "sons of God".

Looking at Psalms 82 we see the sons of God. We also see God standing in in the congregation of the mighty (kjv) the Tanakh calls them the divine assembly, amoung the divine beings, where he pronounces judgement on them. God is calling them sons of the Most High and tells them they will die as men. My first impression was why tell them they are going to die as men if they are really men. When did God have a council of "people or men" rule over the earth? Thats what the whole chapter is about, the divine beings the sons of God who were ruling and judging those on earth wickedly. When the Septuagint was translated into english Due. 32 tells of the angels of God. the book of Jasher while not part of the cannon refers to the seventy angels. 2 Chroniciles 18:18 talks about the host of heaven and the lying spirit. Nehemiah 9:5 says 'the heaven of heavens with all their hosts. Jeremiah 19:13 says the houses of Jerusalem and Judah burned incense to the host of heaven and poured out drink offerings to the other gods. Are all those men? In Job the sons of God shouted for joy, this was before man was created how can those be men? Also in Job 1:6 and 2:1 those very sons of God came to the Lord and satan came also amoung them. Does this mean satan brought men there or are they all sons of God His divine beings. I see from all this a heirarchy sort of like a political system, God the supreme, the sons of God charged to watch over the earth and the people. From what I can see these sons of God cannot be the line of seth, those men didn't occupy the heavens at any time. Only God and his host, sons of God, angels can be in heaven or the heavenlies. When the angels decided to leave their first estate to me it means they left heaven, the spirit realm which they lived to become like men. Perhaps it was all about jealousy or ego or whatever that caused some of these beings to mate with woman, or it could have been the plan to corrupt the seed of the Messiah. We are told in Eph. 6 that this earth is ruled by the spiritual realm, against spiritual wickedness in high places, that tell me those sons of God, satan and his brood, are in charge till Christ comes back to establish God's Kingdom. It is also true that it wasn't until sometime in the 5th century with men such as Augustine that the sethite view came into being. The ancient Israelites and ancient rabbinical sources up until around the 3rd centruy seemed to have a good understanding that the scriptures were speaking of divine beings and not men. And then for me the final scripture that showed me these beings in Gen. 6 was Jude where he tells us that God didn't withhold punishment to the angels who kept not their first estate.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 06:10 PM
no sir, you are mistaken. I am quoting another passage that is talking about giants...not the same thing at all.

2 Samuel 21:18-22

18And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant.

19And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. 20And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
21And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him.
22These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

genesis 6:1-5

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And 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.
4There 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. 5And 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.



1 Chronicles 20:4-8




4And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.

5And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.
6And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot and he also was the son of the giant.
7But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him. 8These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

Sorry, but your not making any sense .

I don't see the giants in Genesis 6 having six toes and six fingers !

A "giant" in our modern day terms, means large or tall or both. But even though a large tall person did exist and they were called "giants", does not mean that the word "giant" means that all have six toes and six fingers !

In Genesis chapter 6 there "were" giants" prior to sons of God taking daughters of men as wives. It tells us plainly that there were "giants" in those days - Gen. 6:4. Men of large stature. Now don't ask where they came from ! They were there and that is all that counts ! No explanation is needed or should be given.

Genesis 6:4 also tells us that "when" the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, they bare children. And these children became mighty and men of renown. It does "not say" that they became giants !

By the way, I could not find any of your posts giving any biblical exergesis of angels having human offspring from a relationship with a woman. So I guess you will have to provide it once again, or you yourself can go back and find such post, then tell me which # post it is.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 06:16 PM
no, I didn't read your commentary. I chose to take the word of the Bible over the word of man, but thanks for taking the time to post it. I know that you care what others believe, and that's a good thing. I believe there is too much proof to believe in the seth line thing, so I don't believe it. :)
And I have to disagree with you about there being giants being in dispute. Some do dispute it...go back and read the last two pages of posts...:)
I also have to say that when it comes to disagreements such as this one, when two people disagree, they need to agree to disagree and go on after a certain point because it serves no purpose. I have given much scripture to prove what I believe. Those opposed to what I believe haven't, imo. See the dilemma?:) God Bless.

It's too bad you feel the commentary is a waste of your time, because the author has taken great pains searching the Scripture, and proving through the abundance of Scripture how unbiblical the opinion you promote is.

As for agreeing to disagree...well what this usually implies is that I am happy with my understanding and am not interested in hearing any view that will not support what I believe.

Many Blessings,
RW

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 06:18 PM
Sorry, but your not making any sense .

I don't see the giants in Genesis 6 having six toes and six fingers !

A "giant" in our modern day terms, means large or tall or both. But even though a large tall person did exist and they were called "giants", does not mean that the word "giant" means that all have six toes and six fingers !

In Genesis chapter 6 there "were" giants" prior to sons of God taking daughters of men as wives. It tells us plainly that there were "giants" in those days - Gen. 6:4. Men of large stature. Now don't ask where they came from ! They were there and that is all that counts ! No explanation is needed or should be given.

Genesis 6:4 also tells us that "when" the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, they bare children. And these children became mighty and men of renown. It does "not say" that they became giants !

By the way, I could not find any of your posts giving any biblical exergesis of angels having human offspring from a relationship with a woman. So I guess you will have to provide it once again, or you yourself can go back and find such post, then tell me which # post it is.


hahaha...funny you are. The whole point was the proof of the giants. I also did not say they ALL had 6 fingers and toes, I said that was a characteristic. If that is what you thought, you were mistaken...:)
I do not see anywhere in the Bible where it says there were giants prior
to the fallen angels, I didn't agree with your proof as it wasn't really proof.
really? We don't need any explanation as to why there were giants? why a mixing of seth and cain's lines caused them? Well, hey, we don't need any proof that there were nephilim then, either do we...:pp cause that's just how it works. I also gave plenty of scripture. Just because you don't see what I am saying doesn't mean a thing. I told you which page to look on. You obviously saw it so lets not try being coy, it gets you nowhere :)...God Bless and have a great day!!

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 06:22 PM
It's too bad you feel the commentary is a waste of your time, because the author has taken great pains searching the Scripture, and proving through the abundance of Scripture how unbiblical the opinion you promote is.

As for agreeing to disagree...well what this usually implies is that I am happy with my understanding and am not interested in hearing any view that will not support what I believe.

Many Blessings,
RW


I certainly hope you don't interpret the Bible the way you interpret my posts...:( I didn't say they were a waste of my time. I said I chose The Bible over the commentary. What that means, is that I have read many many commentary's over the years and have studied this extensively. :)
You can call my view unbiblical all you want. It is right out of the Bible and the line of seth view is not. I am sorry you feel you have to be harsh at the thought someone will not bend to your way of thinking, but that's how it is...If I wasn't interested in what others thought, I wouldn't be on this board. just because I don't agree with everybody doesn't make me wrong. :) :hug: God Bless.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 06:33 PM
hahaha...funny you are. The whole point was the proof of the giants. I also did not say they ALL had 6 fingers and toes, I said that was a characteristic. If that is what you thought, you were mistaken...:)
I do not see anywhere in the Bible where it says there were giants prior
to the fallen angels, I didn't agree with your proof as it wasn't really proof.
really? We don't need any explanation as to why there were giants? why a mixing of seth and cain's lines caused them? Well, hey, we don't need any proof that there were nephilim then, either do we...:pp cause that's just how it works. I also gave plenty of scripture. Just because you don't see what I am saying doesn't mean a thing. I told you which page to look on. You obviously saw it so lets not try being coy, it gets you nowhere :)...God Bless and have a great day!!

No I could not find anywhere your biblical proof ! So you will have to privide it once again, or point me to the # post which you claim you have provided biblical exergesis of this proof.

No, we do not need to know why there were men of great stature came from , they just were, men of great stature. The Word tells us that there were men of great stature and this information is not relavant to anything other than there were men of great stature.

I did provide proof in Genesis 6:4 which "clearly" tells us that these men of great stature were here already "before" the sons of God and the daughters of men came unto one antoher. It is as plain as the nose on your face !

Here let me quote it for you >

Genesis 6:4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days"

Then comes the words - "after that", which a 5 year old can understand. "After that" means just that, something comes "after" the fact. Then the rest of verse 4 tells us of the offspring and what they became -- "mighty" and "renown". < - No mention of their offspring being giants !

Simple !

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 06:48 PM
Here let me quote it for you >

Genesis 6:4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days"

Then comes the words - "after that", which a 5 year old can understand. "After that" means just that, something comes "after" the fact. Then the rest of verse 4 tells us of the offspring and what they became -- "mighty" and "renown". < - No mention of their offspring being giants !

Simple !

It actually says " The Nephilim (Giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

a plain reading of the text states that the giants were produced " when the the son's of God came into the daughters of men and bore children to them" Gen 6:4

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 06:58 PM
It actually says " The Nephilim (Giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

a plain reading of the text states that the giants were produced " when the the son's of God came into the daughters of men and bore children to them" Gen 6:4

My, my.

So you read scripture backwards ? That is how you are describing this to me !

The verse tells us what was produced -the offspring were > "mighty men and renown" < - Not giants !

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 07:12 PM
My, my.

So you read scripture backwards ? That is how you are describing this to me !

The verse tells us what was produced -the offspring were > "mighty men and renown" < - Not giants !

No it's the conclusion of the verse.

Gen 6

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, [B]when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

The key word in the verse is " when "

When were the Nephilim on the earth ???

answer : when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

the verse tells you " These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
" they are one and the same !

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 07:19 PM
It isn't that simple. Where did they get their stature? Their 6 fingers and 6 toes, etc...?

Inbreding for size. I think quite possible.

Peace,
Joe

Walstib
Dec 18th 2008, 07:36 PM
Certainly, Satan does not know the future in the manner of God...he is not omniscient.

Yet, the enemy certainly knows the scriptures...and when one considers that the first (generally accepted as) Messianic prophecy was given face-to-face in Gen. 3, a being of his intelligence would certainly IMO be able to extrapolate that the Messiah would be born of a human woman.

Ok, good point as well as Roger's stuff. Only so many scriptures were written if any back then. Just a sort of silly point I know, just finicky about words is all.

And angels are beings of intelligence too. The scripture I posted seems to suggest they don't know even now what we know. Not just future knowledge but now and written down knowledge. So God keeping things hidden from the enemy is not a stretch for me with that reasoning. EDIT: I do see the face to face point.

I guess I am still left with the question. Why would, I guess it's Mary's blood, need to be unpolluted. And really from what? 6 toes? Do we have proof it was Mary's egg or was she just a surrogate?

And what does it mean to me if I have fallen angel blood or Cain blood in me? Can I still be saved or is it all lost? I'm almost 6 feet tall, should I be worried?

Trying to have fun with my serious questions,
Peace,
Joe

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 07:36 PM
No it's the conclusion of the verse.

Gen 6

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, [B]when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

The key word in the verse is " when "

When were the Nephilim on the earth ???

answer : when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

the verse tells you " These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
" they are one and the same !



So, what do you do with 'and also afterward'?

'When' doesn't describe when the Nephilim were are the earth, it describes what happened when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. The same(the children from the union) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

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.


I think the verse makes more sense like this. I still believe that the Hebrew Interlinear renders giants correctly. And that would be 'the distinguished ones'. How did the children of this union became mighty men which were of old, men of renown? More than likely from the influence the giants had in the earth. Just speculation tho.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 07:39 PM
No it's the conclusion of the verse.

Gen 6

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

The key word in the verse is " when "

The Nephilim were on the earth when ?

answer : when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

The key word is "afterwards" - my KJV says - "after that"

The last I checked , the word - "after" means -- "after" !

Your still reading the verse backwards !

The verse is very "clear" - the offspring were "mighty men and renown" < NOT - giants !

Your suggesting that the giants were the offspring. Yet, the verse is so clear and simple. The offspring were mighy and renown. The word "mighty" is the Hebrew word - "gibbor". This word is used in reference to "mighty" men of valour. Which means brave, or one who is not easily swayed . One who stands their ground on a certain principle or sense of need to accomplish.

The verse "does not state" - There were giants in those days "when" the sons of God went unto the daughters of men. < That means that you would have to throw out the words "and afterwards" or "after that".

The verse clearly states that there were giants, or men of great stature in those day < end quote ! And "after that" ---- afterwards --- the sons of God went unto the daughters of men, , and they bare children. Leave out the Italics and it reads this way at the end of the verse -- "the same mighty men which of old, men of renown"

God didn't destroy the earth because of there being giants in the earth. He destroyed the earth because of what it states in verse 5.

Then comes verse 7 which also clearly states, that the man God created he will destroy off of the face of the earth, because of what was in the imagination of the man to continually do evil.

God takes responsibility for the man that he created. God corrects the evil that was done continually, because the evil imaginations of mankind is the perpetual motion of destruction of the purpose of why God created man in the first place.

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 07:50 PM
The key word is "afterwards" - my KJV says - "after that"

The last I checked , the word - "after" means -- "after" !

Your still reading the verse backwards !

The verse is very "clear" - the offspring were "mighty men and renown" < NOT - giants !

Your suggesting that the giants were the offspring. Yet, the verse is so clear and simple. The offspring were mighy and renown. The word "mighty" is the Hebrew word - "gibbor". This word is used in reference to "mighty" men of valour. Which means brave, or one who is not easily swayed . One who stands their ground on a certain principle or sense of need to accomplish.

The verse "does not state" - There were giants in those days "when" the sons of God went unto the daughters of men. < That means that you would have to throw out the words "and afterwards" or "after that".

The verse clearly states that there were giants, or men of great stature in those day < end quote ! And "after that" ---- afterwards --- the sons of God went unto the daughters of men, , and they bare children. Leave out the Italics and it reads this way at the end of the verse -- "the same mighty men which of old, men of renown"

God didn't destroy the earth because of there being giants in the earth. He destroyed the earth because of what it states in verse 5.

Then comes verse 7 which also clearly states, that the man God created he will destroy off of the face of the earth, because of what was in the imagination of the man to continually do evil.

God takes responsibility for the man that he created. God corrects the evil that was done continually, because the evil imaginations of mankind is the perpetual motion of destruction of the purpose of why God created man in the first place.

I havn't thrown anything out, the giants were produced whenever the sons of God went into the daughters of men. I never said God destroyed
the earth for any other reason than given in the bible.

what about " after that " whats your point

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 07:53 PM
God made everything after its own "kind". The seed of a dog, brings forth a dog. The seed of a cat brings forth the seed of a cat. The seed of a fish brings forth a fish.

Simple:So the seed of Satan would bring forth another satan?

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 08:12 PM
Looking at Psalms 82 we see the sons of God. We also see God standing in in the congregation of the mighty (kjv) the Tanakh calls them the divine assembly, amoung the divine beings, where he pronounces judgement on them.

Ps 82:1
A psalm in which unjust rulers and judges are rebuked, and their duties set forth.

The gods; rulers; called gods on account of their having received from God authority to act as his representatives and in his behalf.

Ex 22:28
gods--a word which is several times in this chapter rendered "judges" or magistrates.

The gods - Judges and magistrates are called gods, because they have their commission from God, and act as his deputies.

The ruler of thy people--and the chief magistrate who was also the high priest, at least in the time of Paul (Ac 23:5).

Ex 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

The gods can be angels (Ps 8:5), princes (Ex 21:6; Ps 82:6) or idols (Ps 97:7).

David is eager to worship the true God alone, and a contempt of all other objects of worship. In the presence of the angels and of them who have authority among men.

Ps 138:1 A Psalm of David. I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?



God is calling them sons of the Most High and tells them they will die as men. My first impression was why tell them they are going to die as men if they are really men.

In other words their title as judges and magistrates, rulers over God's people will not prevent their death. They will die and be cut off, like all unsaved men they must die and give an account of their stewardship.

Ps 20:8 They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright.



When did God have a council of "people or men" rule over the earth? Thats what the whole chapter is about, the divine beings the sons of God who were ruling and judging those on earth wickedly.

These were not called to rule over the earth. They are called to rule of the children/sons of God, His chosen nation.



2 Chroniciles 18:18 talks about the host of heaven and the lying spirit.

This passage is the prophecy spoken by God's prophet, Micaiah. Micaiah was the only prophet who spoke truth. The other prophets spoke the words the king wanted to hear. The king of Israel did not like what Micaiah spoke and accused him of speaking evil to Jehoshaphat. But Micaiah continues to speak the word of the LORD. Micaiah alone hears and sees the LORD sitting upon His throne with the host of heaven, and the LORD says to Micaiah, "who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?" Then Micaiah tells them, "the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee."

2Ch 18:17 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good unto me, but evil?
2Ch 18:18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.
2Ch 18:19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
2Ch 18:20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
2Ch 18:21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.
2Ch 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

Satan is the father of lies, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all false teachers, and deceive those who follow them to their destruction.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.



Nehemiah 9:5 says 'the heaven of heavens with all their hosts. Jeremiah 19:13 says the houses of Jerusalem and Judah burned incense to the host of heaven and poured out drink offerings to the other gods. Are all those men?

I don't doubt heavenly hosts (spirit messengers/angels), and these are not men. What do these hosts of heaven have to do with "sons of God?" Again Jeremiah is bringing prophecy against these people and tells them,

Jer 19:14 Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the LORD had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the LORD'S house; and said to all the people,
Jer 19:15 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.



In Job the sons of God shouted for joy, this was before man was created how can those be men?

If you are going to make part of the passage literal, then wouldn't you also have to make the entire passage literal? But you cannot because a literal reading of this passage makes no sense.



Also in Job 1:6 and 2:1 those very sons of God came to the Lord and satan came also amoung them. Does this mean satan brought men there or are they all sons of God His divine beings.

Satan is manifested in humans, but there is no evidence that he becomes a human. When he comes with the sons of God or believers to present themselves before the LORD, he does so in the same manner that he did using Judas Iscariot. Judas was always the son of perdition or of his father the devil, but we didn't see the devil by looking at Judas. Judas was indwelt or possessed by the devil, but the devil did not become Judas.



I see from all this a heirarchy sort of like a political system, God the supreme, the sons of God charged to watch over the earth and the people.

I would say to watch over the sons of God, and to teach them the ways of God.



From what I can see these sons of God cannot be the line of seth, those men didn't occupy the heavens at any time. Only God and his host, sons of God, angels can be in heaven or the heavenlies.

Why would it be necessary to be an occupant of heaven to watch over the people of God?



When the angels decided to leave their first estate to me it means they left heaven, the spirit realm which they lived to become like men.

I believe you are reading angels in Jude 1:6 and 2Pe 2:4 and assume these are spirit beings. The context shows us these are not spirit messengers, but rather human messengers.

Jude 1:6 And the messengers 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.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the messengers that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

It is not angels that are reserved in everlasting chains, reserved unto judgment. It is those sons of God, living in the days of Noah, who sinned by taking as wives the ungodly daugters of men (unbelievers), thereby corrupting the Holy seed. These are compared to "Sodom and Gomorrha, 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." Their sin, like that of Sodom and Gomorrha was going after strange flesh. What is this strange flesh? It was through lust and uncleanness that they defiled the flesh, and spoke evil of those set over them.

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Jude 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.



Perhaps it was all about jealousy or ego or whatever that caused some of these beings to mate with woman, or it could have been the plan to corrupt the seed of the Messiah. We are told in Eph. 6 that this earth is ruled by the spiritual realm, against spiritual wickedness in high places, that tell me those sons of God, satan and his brood, are in charge till Christ comes back to establish God's Kingdom.

Perhaps is speculating, and this speculation is not confirmed through Scripture.

Satan is the prince or God of this world, but he was also bound by Christ at the cross. He no longer has power over the sons of God (believers) to keep them from entering the Kingdom of God. We do wage a spiritual battle against the ruler of darkness, but He Who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.

Many Blessings,
RW

jesuslover1968
Dec 18th 2008, 08:13 PM
Inbreding for size. I think quite possible.

Peace,
Joe


perhaps, but no biblical proof of this...

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 08:20 PM
I havn't thrown anything out, the giants were produced whenever the sons of God went into the daughters of men. I never said God destroyed
the earth for any other reason than given in the bible.

what about " after that " whats your point

You shouldn't be asking me, what my point is. The point is, is that the words are there, and you have not included them within the verse. You suggested that the word "when" was the key word, thus rendering the word or words - "afterwards" or "after that" as being absent from the scripture. I suggested that the "key word" was the word - "afterwards" or "after that". After means - "after". The giants were there already , before the sons of God and daughters of men came unto one another.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 08:25 PM
So the seed of Satan would bring forth another satan?

No, of course not. But I do believe that this would make for an interesting thread for discussion.

My comment was in line with each kind brings forth of its own kind. Thus an angel can not bring forth a human being , because it is angelic, not human.

Rullion Green
Dec 18th 2008, 08:37 PM
You shouldn't be asking me, what my point is. The point is, is that the words are there, and you have not included them within the verse. You suggested that the word "when" was the key word, thus rendering the word or words - "afterwards" or "after that" as being absent from the scripture. I suggested that the "key word" was the word - "afterwards" or "after that". After means - "after". The giants were there already , before the sons of God and daughters of men came unto one another.


If you look back at post 151 you will see i did include the words, there is nothing taken out at all.

If you dont see the connection with the sons of God and giants and in the context of the verse, we will have draw a line under it.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 08:55 PM
So the seed of Satan would bring forth another satan?

Greetings Kahtar,

Not another Satan, but certainly offspring.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

To the serpent:

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Mt 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mt 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Ac 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Many Blessings,
RW

divaD
Dec 18th 2008, 09:22 PM
Greetings Kahtar,

Not another Satan, but certainly offspring.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

To the serpent:

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Mt 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mt 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Ac 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Many Blessings,
RW



Roger, you do interpret all of that spiritually, correct? The offspring are literal, but the connection to satan as their father is spiritual. In the same way that God is our Father. Not literally but spiritually. By literally I mean as in natuaral, such as thru procreation.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 09:57 PM
That's exactly how that post came off to me also. Why would God do something against His own will? Why would God even desire this to happen in the first place?

True, and I would ask the same question again to see if you get anyone to answer this question. Why would God open the womb of a woman from which a fallen agelic spirit had intercourse with ?

Just does not make any sense whatsoever ! And if it was the will of God , how could anyone give a biblical answer to justify such a thing done by God. Beyond my comprehension.

Kahtar
Dec 18th 2008, 10:38 PM
Greetings Kahtar,

Not another Satan, but certainly offspring.
:thumbsup: Excellent point, Roger. From a purely spiritual perspective of course.

ross3421
Dec 18th 2008, 11:15 PM
I thought the Genesis verses were pretty clear. If there are verses that said the fallen ones dwelled IN humans before "taking the woman as wives," please share it. I am unfamiliar with it. (Thanks)

There are many scriptures of people indwelled by a demonic spirit. I doubt "spirits" had intercourse with women rather the spirits took residence inside flesh. I mean what does a spirit look like? This indwelling is seen in the 5th trumpet.

In this trumpet locusts (spirits) come up from beneth the earth to torment men. The key is to understand that they are unable to kill themselves once they have been struck as they do not have control of their own body as does the spirit. Again we see this uncontrollable behavior in scriptures with those that have been indwelt by a demonic spirit.

Re 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Re 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Re 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

Re 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.


As for Messiah's return...Paul said, "at the last trumpet." Most versions use the word "trump" and I don't know why. The word is the same translated as "trumpet" throughout the NT. The return is at the END of the tribulation as seen in Matt 24. Also....you might want to consider this Mark....Noah got in the Ark and the wrath was poured out. Noah wasn't removed from the earth...just protected. Lot was removed from the eath...just from that city...and "the day" he came out of Sodom, the wrath fell. Both examples are used concerning his return.

I am not sure what is your point from above, however 144,000 are protected from this wrath as they have the seal of God in their foreheads.


Mark

ross3421
Dec 18th 2008, 11:24 PM
Angels are merely spirit beings which do indwell flesh.

Mysteryman
Dec 18th 2008, 11:58 PM
It actually says " The Nephilim (Giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

a plain reading of the text states that the giants were produced " when the the son's of God came into the daughters of men and bore children to them" Gen 6:4

OK, let deal with this again shall we ?

Notice your words do not line up with scripture ? You said - a plain reading of the text states, - then you state your view. This verse although does not say what your view states. Plus you cut the verse after the word "them", which is faulty quoting of a verse.

The verse tells us what the offspring were, and it does not say that giants were produced ! It states clearly that the offspring were men, and that they were mighty men of old and renown. I tried to point this out , that this verse should not be altered to say what you want it to say. Let the verse tell us what it actually does say.

jesuslover1968
Dec 19th 2008, 03:42 AM
True, and I would ask the same question again to see if you get anyone to answer this question. Why would God open the womb of a woman from which a fallen agelic spirit had intercourse with ?

Just does not make any sense whatsoever ! And if it was the will of God , how could anyone give a biblical answer to justify such a thing done by God. Beyond my comprehension.


I answered this question earlier, you just didn't like the answer. God's ways are not our ways and we don't know the mind of God.
to the second question, how about we don't have to justify anything. If it is in the Bible, it's already justified. If we give you an answer that is in the Bible, that is a biblical answer...
there are many things in the Bible that are not comprehensible. I don't understand everything that God does, that doesn't mean I reject it...if the Bible says it, it's true. It's that simple. :)

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 11:54 AM
I answered this question earlier, you just didn't like the answer. God's ways are not our ways and we don't know the mind of God.
to the second question, how about we don't have to justify anything. If it is in the Bible, it's already justified. If we give you an answer that is in the Bible, that is a biblical answer...
there are many things in the Bible that are not comprehensible. I don't understand everything that God does, that doesn't mean I reject it...if the Bible says it, it's true. It's that simple. :)

There is a difference between something being in the bible and an assumption.

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 12:05 PM
Before any children were born of Eve.

After the sin of Adam, and after the deception of the woman. God put a curse upon the serpent and upon the woman and upon the man Adam.

The curse upon the woman was that God put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The word "enmity" means -- "hatred"

So if the serpent had intercourse with the woman, it would have had to be rape. Consentual is out of the question !

Now that is not the only word to address. Also, God told the woman, that her "desire" would be unto her husband. God put her desire for her husband, means that she desires her husband only. And , God told the woman that her husband shall rule over her.

Enmity = hatred
Desire = only unto her husband
Rule = for her to obey him only

So you can see, that she would not desire anyone else but her husband. She would have hatred for the serpent, and her husband would rule over her.

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 12:29 PM
OK, let deal with this again shall we ?

Notice your words do not line up with scripture ? You said - a plain reading of the text states, - then you state your view. This verse although does not say what your view states. Plus you cut the verse after the word "them", which is faulty quoting of a verse.

The verse tells us what the offspring were, and it does not say that giants were produced ! It states clearly that the offspring were men, and that they were mighty men of old and renown. I tried to point this out , that this verse should not be altered to say what you want it to say. Let the verse tell us what it actually does say.

The text was taken from biblegateway so i have no idea what your talking about, i gave the KJV also.

I didn't state my view i quoted scripture.

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 01:12 PM
The text was taken from biblegateway so i have no idea what your talking about, i gave the KJV also.

I didn't state my view i quoted scripture.

Hello

I cut and pasted your comments from post # 149 >

"It actually says " The Nephilim (Giants) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.

a plain reading of the text states that the giants were produced " when the the son's of God came into the daughters of men and bore children to them" Gen 6:4"

This last paragraph is your view and not a quote of scripture ! The scripture does not say what your "comments" = view, claims to say !

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 01:35 PM
The scripture does not say what your "comments" = view, claims to say !

Are you for real ?

that text is taken from Gen 6:4 as stated in the post the link is below.

why dont you read the Bible before acusing me of changing scripture.

Read the bible link and then tell me what i changed ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%206&version=31

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 01:50 PM
Are you for real ?

that text is taken from Gen 6:4 as stated in the post the link is below.

why dont you read the Bible before acusing me of changing scripture.

Read the bible link and then tell me what i changed ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%206&version=31


Unreal ! I didn't say you changed scripture ! I said that "your comments in bold and underlined, were your own comments, and not scripture !

The comment was "not" scripture !

Your comment, was your view !

And here is "your" comment one more time >

a plain reading of the text states that the giants were produced "

The scripture does not say that giants were produced ! These are "your" beliefs and "your" comments ! If this is what you want to believe fine. But we must be careful not to "change" what actually is being said within scripture ! The verse clearly tells us - "they bare children to them , the same mighty men which of old, men of renown"

The daughters of men bare children to the sons of God. The children which they bare were "mighty men of old" and men of renown".

No giants were produced as you suggest !

Your comment was private interpretation !

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 01:51 PM
care to back your claim up of me changing scripture ?

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 01:57 PM
Unreal ! I didn't say you changed scripture ! I said that "your comments in bold and underlined, were your own comments, and not scripture !

The comment was "not" scripture !

Your comment, was your view !

And here is "your" comment one more time >

a plain reading of the text states that the giants were produced "

The scripture does not say that giants were produced ! These are "your" beliefs and "your" comments ! If this is what you want to believe fine. But we must be careful not to "change" what actually is being said within scripture ! The verse clearly tells us - "they bare children to them , the same mighty men which of old, men of renown"

The daughters of men bare children to the sons of God. The children which they bare were "mighty men of old" and men of renown".

No giants were produced as you suggest !

Your comment was private interpretation !

Private interpretation ! i think you will find it is what the early Church believed, but whatever i'm not getting dragged into a argument. What are the Nephilim ? they are the giants are we to ignore the first part of the verse.

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 02:06 PM
Are you for real ?

that text is taken from Gen 6:4 as stated in the post the link is below.

why dont you read the Bible before acusing me of changing scripture.

Read the bible link and then tell me what i changed ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%206&version=31

I don't particularly like this version, but I think it most clearly states this verse based on the Hebrew text.

The Message
This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

The word translated as Giants is nĕphiyl. It has been translated in most versions as giants or Nephilim. The root of the word nĕphiyl is naphal, and means to fall. Hence the term "fallen ones."

What do we know from scripture about the giants? We know, well, they were big. Og slept in a bed that was 9 cubits, a cubit being the distance from the elbow to the finger tips. While this varies from person to person, it is safe to say a cubit is at least 16" or 1.33 feet. Rounding off, Og's bed was at least 12' long. His bed was also 5 1/3' wide. It has to be safe to say that Og was at least 10 feet tall and wide enough to earn him a bed over 5 feet wide.

Adam was not a giant, Eve was not. None of their geneology is traced to the giants. They are an enigma, that appear from nowhere in scripture....unless, the version I quoted above, and the 4 I pasted a few days ago, have the sentence structure correct. In that case, we know exactly where these Mighty Men of Reknown came from...the union of fallen ones and earthly woman. Are these the mythological gods? Zeus, Neptune, Apollo? Are larger than life, men of reknown, said to have power that man did not have.

Enoch paints a decent picture of this, other sources too, including Enoch if I remember correctly, have the fallen ones refering to mankind as "those with souls." This, apparently, something they lacked and MAYBE something they were trying to obtain through cross breeding.

Just some thoughts.

Peace.
Ken

jesuslover1968
Dec 19th 2008, 02:39 PM
There is a difference between something being in the bible and an assumption.


yes. Of course. I know this....do you? I didn't assume much at all, while your whole belief is based on assumptions. I gave scripture talking about the nephilim, the giants, etc. You gave none showing me that it was talking about the lines of seth and cain. If we are going to throw shoes, at least throw the right ones...:lol: :)

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 02:44 PM
I don't particularly like this version, but I think it most clearly states this verse based on the Hebrew text.

The Message
This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

The word translated as Giants is nĕphiyl. It has been translated in most versions as giants or Nephilim. The root of the word nĕphiyl is naphal, and means to fall. Hence the term "fallen ones."

What do we know from scripture about the giants? We know, well, they were big. Og slept in a bed that was 9 cubits, a cubit being the distance from the elbow to the finger tips. While this varies from person to person, it is safe to say a cubit is at least 16" or 1.33 feet. Rounding off, Og's bed was at least 12' long. His bed was also 5 1/3' wide. It has to be safe to say that Og was at least 10 feet tall and wide enough to earn him a bed over 5 feet wide.

Adam was not a giant, Eve was not. None of their geneology is traced to the giants. They are an enigma, that appear from nowhere in scripture....unless, the version I quoted above, and the 4 I pasted a few days ago, have the sentence structure correct. In that case, we know exactly where these Mighty Men of Reknown came from...the union of fallen ones and earthly woman. Are these the mythological gods? Zeus, Neptune, Apollo? Are larger than life, men of reknown, said to have power that man did not have.

Enoch paints a decent picture of this, other sources too, including Enoch if I remember correctly, have the fallen ones refering to mankind as "those with souls." This, apparently, something they lacked and MAYBE something they were trying to obtain through cross breeding.

Just some thoughts.

Peace.
Ken


I'd rather stick with scripture that comes from the Masoretic text, or the LXX

"The message" is a para phrase Bible and i dont hold it up as scripture, not to say that it isn't helpfull for other folk in addition to a transliterated Bible. :)

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 03:00 PM
I'd rather stick with scripture that comes from the Masoretic text, or the LXX

"The message" is a para phrase Bible and i dont hold it up as scripture, not to say that it isn't helpfull for other folk in addition to a transliterated Bible. :)

I was clear Nob, I don't like that translation any more than I like anything not based on the Massoretic texts for the Tanach or the Received Texts for the New. But, the way in which the KJV is written as compared to the Hebrew is a little misleading. I think if you go look in an interlinear (or follow along in a Strong's) you'll see that the giants came from the union of the sons of god and the daughters of men. If I am wrong, point them out in the geneologies. I have nevber seen them anywhere, have you?

I believe it was a fruitless attempt by those without souls, the fallen ones, to gain souls for their offspring. It was tried before the flood, and then again after as we see Og and others around after the flood. Eventually, when they began to die away, the attempt was proved fruitless and it ceased. This is my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours.

Peace to you.
Ken

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 03:15 PM
Private interpretation ! i think you will find it is what the early Church believed, but whatever i'm not getting dragged into a argument. What are the Nephilim ? they are the giants are we to ignore the first part of the verse.


Any personnal comment is a private interpretation. Unless, that personnal comment is a "direct" comment from the scriptures. Your comment was not a direct comment from the scriptures ! It was an assmption, or more commonly known as -- private interpretation. Your suggesting something that is not true "according" to "what is written". The scriptures "do not" say that the offspring produced were giants ! It states clearly and plainly, that the offspring were mighty men and men renown.

Genesis 6:4 states plainly and clearly, that there were giants in the earth in those days. Why change the "fact" that there -- "were" -- < Past tense - "WERE" giants in the earth in those days ?

Like I said - you can have your beliefs and believe whatever you wish. All I am trying to discuss with you, is "how" the verse is written.

Peace

awestruckchild
Dec 19th 2008, 03:25 PM
I was clear Nob, I don't like that translation any more than I like anything not based on the Massoretic texts for the Tanach or the Received Texts for the New. But, the way in which the KJV is written as compared to the Hebrew is a little misleading. I think if you go look in an interlinear (or follow along in a Strong's) you'll see that the giants came from the union of the sons of god and the daughters of men. If I am wrong, point them out in the geneologies. I have nevber seen them anywhere, have you?

I believe it was a fruitless attempt by those without souls, the fallen ones, to gain souls for their offspring. It was tried before the flood, and then again after as we see Og and others around after the flood. Eventually, when they began to die away, the attempt was proved fruitless and it ceased. This is my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours.

Peace to you.
Ken

This has been an interesting thread Ken.
What comes to my mind is how when Jesus was going to cast the demons out of the Gadarene man, they begged to be sent into the pigs. It is like they feared being send out of a human body and were so terrified at being without one that even a pig was preferable to searching through waterless places.
Interesting thread.

Kahtar
Dec 19th 2008, 03:32 PM
Matthew 12:43-45
43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth [it] empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last [state] of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

awestruckchild
Dec 19th 2008, 03:38 PM
Thanks, Kahtar!
I never remember where the verses are that He has taught me about, I just remember the teaching!

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 04:26 PM
Any personnal comment is a private interpretation. Unless, that personnal comment is a "direct" comment from the scriptures. Your comment was not a direct comment from the scriptures ! It was an assmption, or more commonly known as -- private interpretation. Your suggesting something that is not true "according" to "what is written". The scriptures "do not" say that the offspring produced were giants ! It states clearly and plainly, that the offspring were mighty men and men renown.

Genesis 6:4 states plainly and clearly, that there were giants in the earth in those days. Why change the "fact" that there -- "were" -- < Past tense - "WERE" giants in the earth in those days ?

Like I said - you can have your beliefs and believe whatever you wish. All I am trying to discuss with you, is "how" the verse is written.

Peace

I can read how the verse is written, but thanks for your insight.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

do you not see the connection here ? why is Nephilim mentioned ?

I think it's pretty clear to any reader that the Nephilim were the result of the union of the Sons of God and the daughters of men, but if you see it diffrently thats your private interpretation too.

What backs this theory up is the early jewish writtings of the time, Enoch jubilees, Josephus. It was also the view of the early Church untill the time of Augustine.

If that argument is not good enough for you that is fine by me.

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 04:28 PM
I was clear Nob, I don't like that translation any more than I like anything not based on the Massoretic texts for the Tanach or the Received Texts for the New. But, the way in which the KJV is written as compared to the Hebrew is a little misleading. I think if you go look in an interlinear (or follow along in a Strong's) you'll see that the giants came from the union of the sons of god and the daughters of men. If I am wrong, point them out in the geneologies. I have nevber seen them anywhere, have you?

I believe it was a fruitless attempt by those without souls, the fallen ones, to gain souls for their offspring. It was tried before the flood, and then again after as we see Og and others around after the flood. Eventually, when they began to die away, the attempt was proved fruitless and it ceased. This is my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours.

Peace to you.
Ken

Was not dissagreeing with your views just your choice to use "the message" as your source of scripture, why is everyone so sensitive on this thread.

divaD
Dec 19th 2008, 04:56 PM
I can read how the verse is written, but thanks for your insight.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

do you not see the connection here ? why is Nephilim mentioned ?

I think it's pretty clear to any reader that the Nephilim were the result of the union of the Sons of God and the daughters of men, but if you see it diffrently thats your private interpretation too.

What backs this theory up is the early jewish writtings of the time, Enoch jubilees, Josephus. It was also the view of the early Church untill the time of Augustine.

If that argument is not good enough for you that is fine by me.



The problem with this interpretation is this. If the giants were already on the earth in those days, and if after that, because of the union, these were the giants that were already here, then how could the giants have already been here if they weren't here until this union occured? You can't have it both ways. It's one way or the other. Either these giants were already here, and that this union didn't produce the giants, or the giants weren't already here, and this union did produce these giants. My guess would be, the former fits the text.


The text clearly states 'and also after that'. It has to be also after something, otherwise we may as way take it out of Scriptures.

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 05:08 PM
The problem with this interpretation is this. If the giants were already on the earth in those days, and if after that, because of the union, these were the giants that were already here, then how could the giants have already been here if they weren't here until this union occured? You can't have it both ways. It's one way or the other. Either these giants were already here, and that this union didn't produce the giants, or the giants weren't already here, and this union did produce these giants. My guess would be, the former fits the text.


The text clearly states 'and also after that'. It has to be also after something, otherwise we may as way take it out of Scriptures.

lol going round in circles here, time to get iff this ride

one last time ....The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

the giants were produced when the sons of God went to hte daughters of men and had Children by them, the fact it happened afterward, suggests that this happened again after the flood.

the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. Jude 1:5

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people. " Peter 2:4

That is me finished now, nothing personal just getting tired :)

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 05:15 PM
I can read how the verse is written, but thanks for your insight.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

do you not see the connection here ? why is Nephilim mentioned ?

I think it's pretty clear to any reader that the Nephilim were the result of the union of the Sons of God and the daughters of men, but if you see it diffrently thats your private interpretation too.

What backs this theory up is the early jewish writtings of the time, Enoch jubilees, Josephus. It was also the view of the early Church untill the time of Augustine.

If that argument is not good enough for you that is fine by me.


I cut and paste the statement you made and this is what I would like to discuss with you. >


The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

Look closely at this bold cut and paste from your post.

Look at what it says - "The "nephilim were on the earth in those days"

Your claiming that the sons of God were the Nephilim. By what can you make such a claim ?

This verse clearly states that the daughters of men had offspring by the sons of God. This verse also clearly states that their offspring are mighty men of old and men of renown - KJV.

What we need to determind, is "who" are the "sons of God" ! Being a giant does not make one a son of God. Nor can we assume that these giants were the "sons of God". To do so would not be biblical exergesis.

So my question to you is, what biblical evidence do you have of these giants being the "sons of God" ?

divaD
Dec 19th 2008, 05:36 PM
Your claiming that the sons of God were the Nephilim. By what can you make such a claim ?


You lost me on this one. How do you come to this conclusion from Nobunaga's post? Unless I'm missing something here, didn't Nobunaga specifically express that the Nephilim were the result of the union between the Sons of God and the daughters of men? How would that be claiming that the Nephilim are the sons of God? I'm confused.

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 05:44 PM
You lost me on this one. How do you come to this conclusion from Nobunaga's post? Unless I'm missing something here, didn't Nobunaga specifically express that the Nephilim were the result of the union between the Sons of God and the daughters of men? How would that be claiming that the Nephilim are the sons of God? I'm confused.


Actually David, I am as confused as you are. I am trying to pin this down. My point was, that if this is what Nobunaga was saying, we would then have to conclude who the "sons of God" were. Being giants does not make them the sons of God. And producing giants does not make the sons of God fallen angels either.

Adam was a son of God and he is not a fallen angel. But we do know that angels are mentioned as being sons of God. So what I am trying to bring to the top of the discussion, is , as to "whom" are the sons of God mentioned in Gen. 6:4. And by what conclusion does one make these "sons of God" the Nephilim (giants). ? Or, by what conclusion does one make the fallen angels, the sons of God, that produced giants. Trust me, I am confused as well.

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 06:08 PM
This has been an interesting thread Ken.
What comes to my mind is how when Jesus was going to cast the demons out of the Gadarene man, they begged to be sent into the pigs. It is like they feared being send out of a human body and were so terrified at being without one that even a pig was preferable to searching through waterless places.
Interesting thread.

You know what, I too have thought about that story. Pigs...of all things. And then the darn little things all jump off a cliff.

Peace and blessings.
Ken

Rookie78
Dec 19th 2008, 06:09 PM
I've looked into this a little bit more.
I still think that "sons of God" still only refers to beings created directly by God Himself. All the angels were sons of God, Adam was a son of God, the first created male turtle was a son of God, j/k.

All other men/women are sons/daughters of men. If you look at "daughters of men" as being unlawful women, then doesn't it also follow that the term "son of man" is an unlawful person/person's as well? Ezekiel was referred to by God as a son of man several times and also another well know person you may have heard of, were they unlawful?

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 06:09 PM
Matthew 12:43-45
43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth [it] empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last [state] of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.


Well, that was kinda a downer! ;)

peace.
ken

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 06:09 PM
I have no idea were you got the idea that i said the "sons of God" are the Nephilim ??? there is nowhere in any post that i said that !

The Nephilim are the result of the union between the sons of God (devine beings or angels if you like) and women

once again i'll try to explain my view.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

the Nephilim were on the Earth " WHEN" the sons of God went to the daughters of men.

in other word Giants were produced when the angels went to the daughters of men (paraphrase)

I cant break that down any more, if you dont see it then you dont see it.

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 06:12 PM
Was not dissagreeing with your views just your choice to use "the message" as your source of scripture, why is everyone so sensitive on this thread.

I am not sensitive Nob....it was just the way ot was worded. Not a problem! Message boards and e-mail don't always allow a person's tone...you have to make sure to capture it...I am not always successful either.

I used it simply because of the order in which the verse was presented. I believe it stated the order true to the Hebrew...but you are welcome to go behind me and double check. I have no pride in this...just a sincere desire for truth my friend, as I am sure it is with you.

Peace.
Ken

divaD
Dec 19th 2008, 06:16 PM
lol going round in circles here, time to get iff this ride

one last time ....The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

the giants were produced when the sons of God went to hte daughters of men and had Children by them, the fact it happened afterward, suggests that this happened again after the flood.

the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. Jude 1:5

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people. " Peter 2:4

That is me finished now, nothing personal just getting tired :)



For what it's worth, I wasn't challenging who the sons of God were. I was challenging who the giants were, and if the text actually supports that they were the result of this union. Like I told another poster earlier in this thread, if this union did indeed produce the giants, I fail to see this in the text.

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 06:22 PM
I am not sensitive Nob....it was just the way ot was worded. Not a problem! Message boards and e-mail don't always allow a person's tone...you have to make sure to capture it...I am not always successful either.


Peace.
Ken

I agree totally :)

i get the wrong end of the stick most of the time.

kenrank
Dec 19th 2008, 06:22 PM
I cut and paste the statement you made and this is what I would like to discuss with you. >


The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

Look closely at this bold cut and paste from your post.

Look at what it says - "The "nephilim were on the earth in those days"

Your claiming that the sons of God were the Nephilim. By what can you make such a claim ?

This verse clearly states that the daughters of men had offspring by the sons of God. This verse also clearly states that their offspring are mighty men of old and men of renown - KJV.

What we need to determind, is "who" are the "sons of God" ! Being a giant does not make one a son of God. Nor can we assume that these giants were the "sons of God". To do so would not be biblical exergesis.

So my question to you is, what biblical evidence do you have of these giants being the "sons of God" ?

The order of the verse according to the Hebrew the KJV is based on. The giants, the nephalim, are the offspring of the "sons of god" and the daughters of men.

From the KJV....

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

And also....

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

I would think this settles the issue, that man, as well as the fallen ones (satan included) can be refered to as a "son of God." In the above verses, we see satan and the sons of God, of which he is one, going to and from from the earth.

Peace.
Ken

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 06:26 PM
For what it's worth, I wasn't challenging who the sons of God were. I was challenging who the giants were, and if the text actually supports that they were the result of this union. Like I told another poster earlier in this thread, if this union did indeed produce the giants, I fail to see this in the text.

thats fair enough the giants are the Nephilim i'll try a few translation see if it becomes any clearer.

Genesis 6:4 (Contemporary English Version)

4The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later.

Genesis 6:4 (New Living Translation)


4 In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

Genesis 6:4 (New King James Version)

4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.


these were taken from biblegateway.

RogerW
Dec 19th 2008, 06:42 PM
Greetings,

What/who are the giants?

5303 n@phiyl - or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

5307 naphal - a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):--be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

The giants are men (a feller) who are bullies and tryants, not angels and not the sons of God. These are further defined by the primitive root word naphal telling us a great deal about them, but never speaking of them as angels, or sons of God. Notice especially the word in red "fugitive" because this is what God tells Cain will become of him when he is cast away from the face of the LORD (Ge 4:12,14).

There are only two families in the ages before the flood, the sons of God and the daughters of men (Ge 6:1-8). The descendants of Seth were the sons of God (Ge 4:25; 5:3-32). There was only one other family (Ge 4:9-23). Therefore, the daughters of men were descendants of Cain.

Ge 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Ge 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Ge 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Ge 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Following vs 7-32 lists the descendents of Seth.

Ge 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

Ge 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Following vs 18-23 lists the descendents of Cain.

From these two lines come all the peoples of the earth. The descendants of Seth were called by the name of the Lord. This is not true in reference to the descendants of Cain. The character of Cain's descendants proves that they were not the sons of God, for Cain himself was a murderer, a fugitive, and vagabond (Ge 4:8-14), and his descendants were polygamists and murderers (Ge 4:17-23). The servants of God in all ages have been called the sons of God (Job 1:6; Ro 8:14; 1Jo 3:2).

From this we know the sons of Seth (Godly line) married the daughters of Cain (ungodly line) and their offspring became mighty men of old, men of renown, not the giants, who were the bullies and tryants. Mighty men of renown are famous men, usually of honor, authority, character, but also sometime famous for doing evil (Ge 11:4; Nu 16:2).

One last thought. Since the giants are the sons of Anak how can they be the offspring fallen angels? Anak is a Canaanite, a human being. Is there any evidence to prove Anak was the offspring of a fallen angel? According to Jos 15:13 Arba was the father of Anak. Is Arba an offspring of a fallen angel?

Many Blessings,
RW

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 06:50 PM
One last thought. Since the giants are the sons of Anak how can they be fallen angels? Anak is a Canaanite, a human being. Is there any evidence to prove Anak was a fallen angel? According to Jos 15:13 Arba was the father of Anak. Is Arba a fallen angel?

Many Blessings,
RW

נפל נפיל
nephîyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

I dont know who would say that Anak was a fallen angel ? not what i would say at all.

i would go along with this description from the Jewish encyclopedia.

ANAKIM.

A pre-Canaanite tribe, dwelling (according to Josh. xi. 21, 22, and Judges i. 10, 20) in the hill country of Judah and in the Philistine plain (Hebron, Debir, Anab, Gaza, Gath, Ashdod). Three clans are mentioned: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Judges, i. 10; Num. xiii. 22). These names seem, from their form, to be Aramaic; but what this fact signifies is not clear. The Anakim are said to have been conquered by Caleb (Josh. xv. 14; Judges, i. 20), who received their territory. In Deut. ii. 11, the Anakim are called a branch of the Rephaim, which is perhaps a generic term. The Hebrew of Num. xiii. 33classes them also with the Nefilim; but the clause is not in the Greek, and is probably a late gloss. In Judges, i. 10, the conquest is ascribed to Judah. How far the Anakim had been absorbed by Canaanites and Philistines is uncertain. On the genealogy in Josh. xiv. 12-15 and xv.

RogerW
Dec 19th 2008, 06:55 PM
נפל נפיל
nephîyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

I dont know who would say that Anak was a fallen angel ? not what i would say at all.

i would go along with this description from the Jewish encyclopedia.

ANAKIM.

A pre-Canaanite tribe, dwelling (according to Josh. xi. 21, 22, and Judges i. 10, 20) in the hill country of Judah and in the Philistine plain (Hebron, Debir, Anab, Gaza, Gath, Ashdod). Three clans are mentioned: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Judges, i. 10; Num. xiii. 22). These names seem, from their form, to be Aramaic; but what this fact signifies is not clear. The Anakim are said to have been conquered by Caleb (Josh. xv. 14; Judges, i. 20), who received their territory. In Deut. ii. 11, the Anakim are called a branch of the Rephaim, which is perhaps a generic term. The Hebrew of Num. xiii. 33classes them also with the Nefilim; but the clause is not in the Greek, and is probably a late gloss. In Judges, i. 10, the conquest is ascribed to Judah. How far the Anakim had been absorbed by Canaanites and Philistines is uncertain. On the genealogy in Josh. xiv. 12-15 and xv.

Greetings Nob,

I must apologize for the wording of my last post. I have gone back to correct it. I meant to say, "One last thought. Since the giants are the sons of Anak how can they be the offspring fallen angels? Anak is a Canaanite, a human being. Is there any evidence to prove Anak was the offspring of a fallen angel? According to Jos 15:13 Arba was the father of Anak. Is Arba an offspring of a fallen angel?"

Sorry about the confusion, hope this sets things aright.

Many Blessings,
RW

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 07:02 PM
:spin:
The order of the verse according to the Hebrew the KJV is based on. The giants, the nephalim, are the offspring of the "sons of god" and the daughters of men.

From the KJV....

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

And also....

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

I would think this settles the issue, that man, as well as the fallen ones (satan included) can be refered to as a "son of God." In the above verses, we see satan and the sons of God, of which he is one, going to and from from the earth.

Peace.
Ken


Hi Ken

Actually, I don't see this explanation as setteling the issue. How do you link the book of Job to Gen. chapter 6 and verse 4 ? How do you make the connection ?

The sons of God refered to in the book of Job were the sons of Job. Satan just followed along. So how do you conclude who the sons of God were in Gen. 6:4 as being fallen agels ?

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 07:18 PM
Greetings Nob,

I must apologize for the wording of my last post. I have gone back to correct it. I meant to say, "One last thought. Since the giants are the sons of Anak how can they be the offspring fallen angels? Anak is a Canaanite, a human being. Is there any evidence to prove Anak was the offspring of a fallen angel? According to Jos 15:13 Arba was the father of Anak. Is Arba an offspring of a fallen angel?"

Sorry about the confusion, hope this sets things aright.

Many Blessings,
RW

Hello Roger Hows things :)

I do not belive Anak was a direct descendant due to the time lapse, but yes the offspring of the offspring, and i see that is why God had such a very harsh line with them and other when Israel are commanded not to let any one of them live weather it be woman or child or even the animals.

I'm no authority on the subject but it's interesting to me, but i dont have all the answers.

from the encyclopedia

The origin of the Anakim is unknown, and they have left no trace in history. On possible (but uncertain) remains of them, compare Nowack, "Hebr. Arch." § 16. The name "Anak" (so the Greek), or "the Anak" (Hebrew), is an etymological puzzle. The meaning of "bene ha-Anak" is uncertain. It is interpreted by some as "the long-necked"; by others, as "the necklace-wearers." It is perhaps non-Semitic.

Josephus ("Ant." iii. 14) relates that the spies found at Hebron the posterity of the giants; and this tallies with Josh. xiv. 15, according to which Hebron was the city of Arba, "the greatest man among the Anakim" ("the father of Anak," Josh. xxi. 11; the Septuagint has the "brother" of Anak). See Moore, "Judges," pp. 24 et seq. and Driver, "Commentary on Deuteronomy," pp. 23, 40 (note); the letter refers also to Goliath as one of the sons of Rafa, the giant of Gath.

Some things are uncertain, all i can do is give my opinion please dont be offended if its not the same as yours. :)

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 07:21 PM
:spin:


The sons of God refered to in the book of Job were the sons of Job. Satan just followed along. So how do you conclude who the sons of God were in Gen. 6:4 as being fallen agels ?

:lol: your taking the micky !

The sons of Job...thats a good one :lol:

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 07:28 PM
This thread has about run it's course. Would you folks care to make a summation before the thread is closed?

divaD
Dec 19th 2008, 07:29 PM
From the KJV....

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

And also....

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to
present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the
earth, and from walking up and down in it.

I would think this settles the issue, that man, as well as the fallen ones (satan included) can be refered to as a "son of God." In the above
verses, we see satan and the sons of God, of which he is one, going to and from from the earth.


We can't conclude that from these verses. Nowhere in these verses is satan indentified as a son of God. Just because the Sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them, this doesn't identify satan as a son of God.

There was a day went the firemen of NYC presented themselves before the US President, and the mayor of NYC came also among them. Does this then mean that the mayor has to also be a fireman, since he is there among them?

BroRog
Dec 19th 2008, 07:35 PM
The phrase "sons of God" merely refers to royalty. It might be human royalty or it might be angelic royalty. Either way, the term refers to those who stand in places of power, privilege, and right.

When the Bible says that the sons of God took the daughters of men as wives, it refers to the fact that powerful kings took common women as wives. But this is not what displeased God. He was angry, not because men of royalty took commoner women as wives, or even that angelic beings took human women as wives (which they didn't), but because these men TOOK these women as wives against their will.

Notice,

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

If we place the emphasis where the text is bold, we see the actual reason why God was angry. These men made outward appearance, i.e beauty, the sole basis for choosing a wife, AND they took whomever they wanted. The clear implication is that these men even took women who were already married to another man.

The significance of the fact that these men were "sons of God" was the fact that as royalty, they had the power to command armies and thus, if a royal prince wanted my wife, I had no choice but to let her go with him since I am powerless to stop him. These royal kings and princes kidnapped all the beautiful women they wanted, even if the women were already married to a commoner.

The author of Genesis placed this in the Bible, just before the flood event, to illustrate how bad things had become and to justify the need for a judgment. The fact that royal men kidnapped common women simply because they were beautiful is merely an example of the depth of wickedness to which mankind had fallen.

The flood was not punishment against evil women or evil angels. The flood was God's wish to start over, to let mankind see how far they are willing to debase themselves in order to satisfy their lusts.

It was the wickedness of man that God regreted, and the flood was against the human realm, not the angelic realm.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 07:38 PM
Greetings,

What/who are the giants?

5303 n@phiyl - or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

5307 naphal - a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):--be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 6419), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

The giants are men (a feller) who are bullies and tryants, not angels and not the sons of God. These are further defined by the primitive root word naphal telling us a great deal about them, but never speaking of them as angels, or sons of God. Notice especially the word in red "fugitive" because this is what God tells Cain will become of him when he is cast away from the face of the LORD (Ge 4:12,14).

There are only two families in the ages before the flood, the sons of God and the daughters of men (Ge 6:1-8). The descendants of Seth were the sons of God (Ge 4:25; 5:3-32). There was only one other family (Ge 4:9-23). Therefore, the daughters of men were descendants of Cain.

Ge 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Ge 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Ge 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Ge 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Following vs 7-32 lists the descendents of Seth.

Ge 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

Ge 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Following vs 18-23 lists the descendents of Cain.

From these two lines come all the peoples of the earth. The descendants of Seth were called by the name of the Lord. This is not true in reference to the descendants of Cain. The character of Cain's descendants proves that they were not the sons of God, for Cain himself was a murderer, a fugitive, and vagabond (Ge 4:8-14), and his descendants were polygamists and murderers (Ge 4:17-23). The servants of God in all ages have been called the sons of God (Job 1:6; Ro 8:14; 1Jo 3:2).

From this we know the sons of Seth (Godly line) married the daughters of Cain (ungodly line) and their offspring became mighty men of old, men of renown, not the giants, who were the bullies and tryants. Mighty men of renown are famous men, usually of honor, authority, character, but also sometime famous for doing evil (Ge 11:4; Nu 16:2).

One last thought. Since the giants are the sons of Anak how can they be the offspring fallen angels? Anak is a Canaanite, a human being. Is there any evidence to prove Anak was the offspring of a fallen angel? According to Jos 15:13 Arba was the father of Anak. Is Arba an offspring of a fallen angel?

Many Blessings,
RW

I totally agree with what you have explained here in your post !

Bless you

Mysteryman
Dec 19th 2008, 07:48 PM
:lol: your taking the micky !

The sons of Job...thats a good one :lol:

I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. But I first would need a question.

Rullion Green
Dec 19th 2008, 07:52 PM
I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. But I first would need a question.

No i have nothing more :)

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 08:32 PM
OK then folks. This one is closed.