Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 285

Thread: Nephilim

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,739
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    So you've asserted, but you haven't argued it.



    Jesus isn't an angel, so that's a strange example.

    Why would I say that angels can't appear and interact with the world? Obviously they can. That doesn't mean that they're therefore sexual beings. If they take on a 'body of flesh' it would be angelic, or the appearance there-of. They are not taking on human flesh.

    You keep asserting that I'm defending tradition (an odd accusation in itself), but your use of Scripture hasn't been exceptionally profound.
    Thank you for the exchange.

    Aristarkos

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,522

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Thank you for the exchange.

    Aristarkos
    When we have one it will be my pleasure.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,470

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    I'm about as likely to accept your alternative as you are at acknowledging biological reality.
    You mean the biological reality you have no scripture for? You've presented an argument you find compelling, which is not the same - necessarily - as showing that 'X' view has been defeated. It hasn't. Just sayin

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,470

    Re: Nephilim

    Hebrews 13:2 (NET) Do not neglect hospitality, because through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.

    Angels a different species?

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,522

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    You mean the biological reality you have no scripture for?
    And again, we know from Jesus that angels do not marry, and we know from Genesis 1/2 that marriage and sexuality are inextricably linked. We also know from experience that humans cannot procreate with animals. On these grounds we can reason that:

    1) Angels do not marry, therefore they have no need for sexual procreation
    2) Even if angels were sexual beings (who is to say their procreative process is the same as ours?), cross-species procreation is not possible with angels, just as it's not possible with animals

    Self-knowledge of our own species comes by way of special revelation (cf. Genesis 1 and 'kind' language with respect to creation and procreation), but also natural revelation.

    Which is more likely, that everything we know about reality is wrong, or there is a bad interpretation of Scripture floating out there, in the world, that's made it's way here?

    On the other hand, consider the following claims that are being made about Genesis 6:

    - The 'Sons of God' are angels, as we read in Job, a book which may or may not be actual history
    - Angels can take on some kind of flesh, ruling out other forms of interaction with the world (e.g., being perceived in a way other than what they actually are)
    - Angels can procreate with humans, despite being an entirely different species, who might have an entirely different proreative process (if they have one)
    - Angels are sexually interested in human women
    - Angelic sperm is genetically compatible with human female eggs, such that übermen are born to these women -- these mutations have no ill effects, even though said babies grew to 450+ feet tall according to 1 Enoch (how large on birth?)

    While you might want to balk at the idea of my appeal to biological reality, there is far more in support of the view I'm proposing - at least, that the 'sons of God' are not angels - than the alternative.

    What proof supports the alternative? One verse from Job, maybe a mention from Paul, and a quote from a pseudopigraphical work (which no more implies its canonicity than Paul's quoting of Greek philosophers implies theirs. Nevermind the rest of the book is ignored except for this one reference). It's not a good argument, especially when there's already a natural decline in human activity in the text. The sudden introduction of angels - demons - is out of place and unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    You've presented an argument you find compelling, which is not the same - necessarily - as showing that 'X' view has been defeated. It hasn't. Just sayin
    Cute, but I didn't claim the view was refuted. I'm well aware that some people find the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 to be compelling and sensible. They are, of course, wrong. But nothing is going to change their mind because we're talking about angels (and when it comes to angels, transgenderism is cool).

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,522

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Hebrews 13:2 (NET) Do not neglect hospitality, because through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.

    Angels a different species?
    Why would this suggest that angels aren't a different species?

    We see clearly in Genesis that angels can appear in human form (that is, appear), and they interact with humans in this form, which means they're sentient, intelligent, etc. But that doesn't mean that they are human, or that humans have suddenly developed the ability to blind others, or slaughter hundreds of thousands single-handendly. It also doesn't mean that they're sexually compatible with humans. On the other hand, for all we know, whenever we interact with angels our perception is altered so that we aren't scared silly.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,470

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    And again, we know from Jesus that angels do not marry
    No, we know from Jesus that no one marries in heaven.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    and we know from Genesis 1/2 that marriage and sexuality are inextricably linked.
    Which is why it says they took wives.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    We also know from experience that humans cannot procreate with animals.
    Angels are not animals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    On the other hand, consider the following claims that are being made about Genesis 6:
    You are talking to me. I don't care what others have claimed and I haven't read the vast majority of what others have claimed, I am asking you to use scripture to prove your position and you cannot.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Cute, but I didn't claim the view was refuted.
    Cute but you know better than to not read my words. I didn't say you claimed such but games aside, that is what you are doing. You don't have to say the words. You can say, "I'm well aware that some people find the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 to be compelling and sensible. They are, of course, wrong."

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,470

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Why would this suggest that angels aren't a different species?
    What suggests they are?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    We see clearly in Genesis that angels can appear in human form (that is, appear),
    We do? Where might I read about that? How do you know they were not appearing in their natural created form?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    It also doesn't mean that they're sexually compatible with humans.
    No scripture implies they aren't, sorry. Many believe they have no need of food, nevertheless they can eat. Why can this not be true sexually? Nothing in scripture suggests it's not.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Central Iowa, USA
    Posts
    192

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    And again, we know from Jesus that angels do not marry, and we know from Genesis 1/2 that marriage and sexuality are inextricably linked. We also know from experience that humans cannot procreate with animals. On these grounds we can reason that:

    1) Angels do not marry, therefore they have no need for sexual procreation
    2) Even if angels were sexual beings (who is to say their procreative process is the same as ours?), cross-species procreation is not possible with angels, just as it's not possible with animals
    Wow, that is a lot of insight. And you are certain that a bunch of psychotic angels bent on screwing things up cannot intermingle genetics with human? Really? Ever heard of chimeras? Maybe they missed that part in whatever biology classes you might have taken. While inter species breeding is not a natural occurrence, that doesn't negate genetic intermingling to achieve same thing for nefarious purposes. You are imposing a lot of technical limitations on a group of beings that none of us have any real first hand experience in dealing with. No one actually knows what, if any, genitalia angels have, nor do we know their genetic makeup to make positive assertions regarding if they can breed with humans or not.

    And Yeshua said the angels in heaven do not marry. That is a far cry again from making the assertion that limitation is imposed on a batch of rebellious ones who really could give a rip what Yeshua thinks about what is done or not done. And the context of Yeshua's comment was in response to a question about a woman having 7 husbands, who's wife would she be in heaven. That was all designed to trip Yeshua up. The Sadducees did not believe in a literal resurrection. It was all a set up.

    One cannot honestly base a doctrine about fallen angels on that text. Just like one cannot honestly base a genetics issue on the limited understanding of man regarding biology. We are talking about beings that are several levels of dimension more than our experience is. We are pretty darn limited in what we know about the such things in the universe, though we like to flatter ourselves that we have a great understanding of physics and biology.

    Once those fallen angels disrobed of their angelic embodiment, as per Jude quoting Enoch, they could have very well been able to breed with human women. We just don't know. But I am also quite sure that they were not a bunch of creatures that didn't have any more scientific understanding that a nomad in the Negev. I would be willing to bet that our technology barely scratches the surface to what angelic creatures comprehend. And gene splicing would probably be child's play to them.

    Again, what Yeshua said about men having heart attacks when they see what is coming upon the earth is in play. None of use really have any idea the level of mischief that fallen angels are capable of. The little we do know is while the Holy Spirit has been restraining them. Once the HS steps out of the way, man, that is going to be a real bad time.
    Israel.... the Believer's insurance policy!

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,522

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    No, we know from Jesus that no one marries in heaven.
    Did I say otherwise? This is you arguing a non-issue simply for the sake of arguing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Which is why it says they took wives.
    Which makes more sense: human men sinned and took ungodly wives, or angels took wives? Angels, who are (1) spiritual beings, (2) do not marry, (3) are not described in Scripture as reproductive, (4) are a different species entirely, and (5) are presumably not genetically compatible with humans?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Angels are not animals.
    My point exactly. Human / animal procreation is impossible, and we share genetic similarities with animals species on earth. We share no such similarities with angels, who are not native to earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    I am asking you to use scripture to prove your position and you cannot.
    In the course of this discussion I've explicitly made reference to:

    - Genesis 1
    - Genesis 2
    - Matthew 22

    I've also discussed:

    - Job 1
    - Job 2
    - Job 38
    - 1 Corinthians 11
    - Jude 6
    - 1 Enoch 7
    - Hebrews 13

    You may claim that I'm not using Scripture, but I have. Then again, it's not as if you're mounting a significant, Scripturally-based case for your view (given the assertions below).

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    What suggests they are?
    They're called 'angels' and not 'human'. Descriptions of some classes of angels, like Cheribum, are noticeably other-than-human. They have abilities that humans don't have, like the ability to blind a crowd, or single-handendly slaughter armies (185,000 Assyrian soldiers, for instance).

    Speaking of an argument without Scripture backing, this is yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    We do? Where might I read about that? How do you know they were not appearing in their natural created form?
    I haven't claimed to know their form, but we do know that they aren't human, so they are either (1) appearing as human, or (2) our perception is altered to perceive them as human. I suppose it's possible that God, in His creative genius, created two different species that looked exactly the same and were genetically compatible, but I see no reason to think that given descriptions of angels in Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    No scripture implies they aren't, sorry. Many believe they have no need of food, nevertheless they can eat. Why can this not be true sexually? Nothing in scripture suggests it's not.
    They can eat, therefore they can procreate cross-species? Is that true of humans and animals as well, who are also both capable of eating?

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,522

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    Wow, that is a lot of insight. And you are certain that a bunch of psychotic angels bent on screwing things up cannot intermingle genetics with human? Really? Ever heard of chimeras? Maybe they missed that part in whatever biology classes you might have taken. While inter species breeding is not a natural occurrence, that doesn't negate genetic intermingling to achieve same thing for nefarious purposes. You are imposing a lot of technical limitations on a group of beings that none of us have any real first hand experience in dealing with. No one actually knows what, if any, genitalia angels have, nor do we know their genetic makeup to make positive assertions regarding if they can breed with humans or not.
    Plenty of people in Scripture have had interactions with angels, and they're never described to be sexual creatures (quite the opposite by Jesus, in fact).
    Plenty of people in Scripture have had interactions with fallen angels, and they're also never described as sexual creatures, or interested in genetic corruption.

    Anecdotally:

    I've had a run-in or two with fallen angels, and was never propositioned, and no one else I've known to have experienced the same was.
    I'm also 99% certain that I've 'entertained an angel without knowing' and we didn't get around to chatting about women.

    But back to Scripture:

    If we accept your genetic-corruption view, we have to ask:

    - Why did they take wives?
    - Why does Scripture make no reference of this scheme of genetic manipulation?

    Let's say that this latter view is supported in 1 Enoch. If so, then we must ask ourselves:

    - Does it make sense that the Nephilim were 450+ feet tall (chapter 7)?
    - Does it make sense that Azazel, aka. Satan, spent considerable time on earth teaching men and about war and beauty (chapter 8)?

    It doesn't to me, so if we reject both of the above, then on what grounds do we accept the genetic-manipulation view, if said view is not supported in the canonical Scriptures? We don't have any grounds to accept the view.

    But then in addition to that, we're asked to accept that angels are master geneticists? Who, even though they're described as spirit in Scripture, are somehow also genetically compatible with humanity? That is an argument from silence if ever there was one. Why am I imposing a limitation? I'm not imposing anything. Humans can't procreate with animals, and they definitely can't procreate with angels. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that this is the case outside of this one view of Genesis 6, and a pseudopigraphical book that has Satan teaching men-on-earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    And Yeshua said the angels in heaven do not marry. That is a far cry again from making the assertion that limitation is imposed on a batch of rebellious ones who really could give a rip what Yeshua thinks about what is done or not done. And the context of Yeshua's comment was in response to a question about a woman having 7 husbands, who's wife would she be in heaven. That was all designed to trip Yeshua up. The Sadducees did not believe in a literal resurrection. It was all a set up.
    My argument is that angels do not marry, therefore they have no need for sexuality, therefore they aren't sexual beings. They can descend from heaven all they want, but (1) they're spiritual beings, and (2) if they have no need for sexuality, then they aren't procreating with anyone.

    Jesus' answer wasn't a trick: it might have been a setup, but we have no reason to believe that the answer is anything but accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    One cannot honestly base a doctrine about fallen angels on that text. Just like one cannot honestly base a genetics issue on the limited understanding of man regarding biology. We are talking about beings that are several levels of dimension more than our experience is. We are pretty darn limited in what we know about the such things in the universe, though we like to flatter ourselves that we have a great understanding of physics and biology.
    It's been suggested that my argument is defending tradition, not Scripture, but what do you call this? You're not appealing to Scripture, or tradition, but to speculation about dimensionality.

    Beyond that, no amount of additional dimensions suddenly reveal something new about human procreation that we didn't know before. Is this not why angels descended from heaven in your view, to interact with our dimensional planes? Where's the Scripture that angels are extra-dimensional beings?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    Once those fallen angels disrobed of their angelic embodiment, as per Jude quoting Enoch, they could have very well been able to breed with human women. We just don't know. But I am also quite sure that they were not a bunch of creatures that didn't have any more scientific understanding that a nomad in the Negev. I would be willing to bet that our technology barely scratches the surface to what angelic creatures comprehend. And gene splicing would probably be child's play to them.
    Jude you misunderstand, and Enoch you don't actually believe, unless you ascribe to its other insane views as well (the size of the giants, and Satan's actions on earth).

    We have no reason to believe that angels can 'disrob their angelic embodiment', or that by doing so they become human-compatible (Gnostic, much?). We have no reason to believe that they're a technological society either. This is all speculation without any Scripture attestation.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,739
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Did I say otherwise? This is you arguing a non-issue simply for the sake of arguing.

    Which makes more sense: human men sinned and took ungodly wives, or angels took wives? Angels, who are
    (1) spiritual beings,
    But appear in bodies of flesh, eat, drink...

    (2) do not marry,
    It doesn't say the sons of God did in Genesis, it says they took women from Adams daughters.

    (3) are not described in Scripture as reproductive,
    It actually does in Genesis where they took daughters of Adam and impregnate them.

    (4) are a different species entirely, and
    You base this on what? According to Scripture man is a little lower than angels (Psa. 8:5 and Heb. 2:7) that doesn't sound like a « different species entirely ».

    (5) are presumably not genetically compatible with humans?
    Human thoughts, not according to Scripture. Not a single soul on this earth now and in the past has checked human DNA against that of an angel, so this is indeed just a presumption.

    They can eat, therefore they can procreate cross-species? Is that true of humans and animals as well, who are also both capable of eating?
    Animals never are presented nor pictured as men, angels are, so what makes you decide that a mixture of man and angel is « procreating cross-species »?

    Aristarkos

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,739
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Plenty of people in Scripture have had interactions with angels, and they're never described to be sexual creatures (quite the opposite by Jesus, in fact).
    Plenty of people in Scripture have had interactions with fallen angels, and they're also never described as sexual creatures, or interested in genetic corruption.
    But they did, you must know this Scripture for sure:

    Gen. 19:1 « And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground »

    We know the wickedness of Sodom, what do the men of Sodom want to do with the angels?

    Gen 19:4 « But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: »

    Because they knew they couldn't do anything with them?

    Gen 19:5 « And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them »

    You know what is meant by « know them », do you?

    Lot even want's to give his daughters if they would leave the men alone, v. 8. Then what do these angels do?

    Gen 19:11 « And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door ».

    It is quite obvious sex between angels and man is possible as various Scripture say and you deny. When one asks the question: do you know what sodomy is, many think they know, but what is the Biblical meaning of it? This is explained in Jude :7 « Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh ». The word « strange » is in Greek « heteros » which means « another of different kind. So no human flesh that would have been « allos » another of the same kind.

    Paul says « There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another (heteros) » 1 Cor. 15:40.

    So it's quite clear angels can and do take on a body of flesh, it is heteros flesh, but flesh nevertheless, and that is what the men in Sodom were after, heteros flesh.

    Aristarkos

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,470

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Did I say otherwise? This is you arguing a non-issue simply for the sake of arguing.
    Don't be silly, it's me stating exactly what Jesus said in context and you saying Jesus said what he did not. Nice try though


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Which makes more sense: human men sinned and took ungodly wives, or angels took wives?
    Since men were not called sons of God that's a no-brainer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Angels, who are (1) spiritual beings
    So was/is Jesus, what's your point?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    (2) do not marry
    We do not gain the ability to procreate when we get married, what's your point?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    (3) are not described in Scripture as reproductive
    Sure they are. It says they had children with the daughters of men.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    (4) are a different species entirely
    Where is this in scripture?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    (5) are presumably not genetically compatible with humans
    Where's this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    My point exactly.
    No it was not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Human / animal procreation is impossible, and we share genetic similarities with animals species on earth. We share no such similarities with angels, who are not native to earth.
    Not native? How do you know? Which came first the chicken or the egg? God could have created man first then the earth and put man on it. You do not know that angels are "not native".


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    In the course of this discussion I've explicitly made reference to:

    - Genesis 1
    - Genesis 2
    - Matthew 22

    I've also discussed:

    - Job 1
    - Job 2
    - Job 38
    - 1 Corinthians 11
    - Jude 6
    - 1 Enoch 7
    - Hebrews 13

    You may claim that I'm not using Scripture, but I have.
    Example: Jesus says no one marries in heaven and you say Jesus says no one has the ability to procreate in heaven. You are not using scripture. Your view is not found in scripture, only in your own mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Then again, it's not as if you're mounting a significant, Scripturally-based case for your view (given the assertions below).
    You know the arguments and verses. I do not need to repeat them yet again. What a lame attempt at posturing. From the beginning I have only asked you to defend your position. Mine is not in question here. Only yours is, but you cannot produce any scripture for your claim that angels are so different. Not one verse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    They're called 'angels' and not 'human'. Descriptions of some classes of angels, like Cheribum, are noticeably other-than-human.
    Cherub are not angels.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    They have abilities that humans don't have, like the ability to blind a crowd, or single-handendly slaughter armies (185,000 Assyrian soldiers, for instance).
    So?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    Speaking of an argument without Scripture backing, this is yours.
    I didn't make a claim I asked you a question. Lame posturing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    I haven't claimed to know their form, but we do know that they aren't human
    What does that even mean? From scripture? They are spiritural we are natural. Spiritual does not mean they cannot do what we do, in fact scripture reveals they can do what we do. This is what we know from scripture.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    so they are either (1) appearing as human, or (2) our perception is altered to perceive them as human.
    Pure assumption. Was Jesus appearing as human?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    I suppose it's possible that God, in His creative genius, created two different species that looked exactly the same and were genetically compatible
    There ya have it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    but I see no reason to think that given descriptions of angels in Scripture.
    What descriptions? From the beginning this is all I have asked for, and you have not produced any that show it is not "possible that God, in His creative genius, created two different species that looked exactly the same and were genetically compatible". You now admit it is possible. Why? You don't have any scripture to cause you to believe it is not. Thank you. Finally!

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,470

    Re: Nephilim

    Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius View Post
    My argument is that angels do not marry, therefore they have no need for sexuality, therefore they aren't sexual beings.
    Where does scripture say we will lose the ability? It doesn't. You argue from silence, which is a waste of time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Nephilim and the Flood
    By Ta-An in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: Dec 22nd 2013, 08:49 PM
  2. Who are the Nephilim or what are they?
    By A820djd in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jul 2nd 2012, 12:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •