Greek mythology?

Oh, no, the spectre of Gen 6 looms over us once again!

Ha, just kidding, Lorrie. I hear so many half-baked ideas all based on the supposed teaching in Gen 6, which actually is a very unclear passage. I personally think that the nephilim were just unusually tall people. I do not think angels can breed with human women -- Jesus said that angels "do not marry nor are given in marriage" which strongly indicates they cannot have intimate relations or reproduce.

Are you saying did figures from Greek mythology stem from actual weird creatures wandering the earth who resulted from the union of fallen angels and human women? If so, I would have to say no.

 

Lorrie, in the mid 1800's a fantastic bit of lingustic research and research into the history of mythologies was done by a man named Hislop. His eventual book "Two Babylons" traces most of the mythologies we are aware of back to the time of Nimrod. Take the time to read the introduction and the first couple of chapters and you will see where the idea of the half-man half-horse came from, as well as many of the other symbols whose roots are largely forgotten today. It is fascinating reading. It is on line here:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/The%20Two%20Babylons/two_babylons_contents.htm

 

I believe Jesus said "the angels in HEAVEN do not marry."
The angels in Heaven refrain from many things that the fallen angels {demons} on the earth undertake.

Whether the passage in Genesis refers to angels or not is unclear, but I, being half-baked do not mock the possibility. As I read and ponder it, as we are told to do by the Lord, it seems that the "sons of God" and "men" are not the same thing.

It also says absolutely nothing about weird creatures, Marcia, resulting from these unions of nephilim and women. It clearly says children, nothing more. Except that these children were exceptional men. Nothing about tall, though.

If these were angels, this may have been the sin for which they are imprisoned in Hell, see 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude, while other fallen angels are still allowed their freedom.

I try to keep an open mind about things which God has not fully explained.

Marcia may be correct.

MR.

 

There would be a definite DNA problem between angels, if they have any, and humans! The Bible defines 'sons of God' as believers several times. One of the consistent themes in the Bible is that believers need to separated from unbelievers. This was a national, physical separation in the Israeli theocratic law. But it was evidently known before that as Abraham not only married his half-sister, but insisted his son have a wife from the family unit as well. In the New Testament, believers are not to be in partnership with unbelievers. There is no reason to suspect this constraint was not also evident in the antediluvian times.

In addition, I think if you read Genesis 6 carefully, you will find simply that the nephilim were contemporaneous (lived at the same time) with the marriages of the sons of God and the daughters of men (unbelievers). We see the results of this type of union several times in the Bible -- think of Samson and Delilah, for example. But I don't think you will find any indication that the nephilim were either the results of the ungodly unions or partners in them.

 

Lorrie, before you get into the Two Babylons book, please be aware that much of it has been discredited and/or refuted. This book has zero credibility for anyone who knows the problems with it. Please, please read this:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/hislop01.html

An author who wrote a book based on the Two Babylons book later recanted after having discovered how much false info was in the book. I can't find the essay he wrote but I have it somewhere. I'm on an apologetics list, and this book came up recently.

 

Here's more on Hislop's book:
http://www.equip.org/free/DC187.htm

The author who did a re-working of Hislop's book and was a total believer in it, Ralph Woodrow, later retracted his support of this book:

 

Here's an excerpt from Woodrow's statement:

 

Lorrie, it is my belief that the account we have in Genesis 6 and the Greek Mythologies probably stem from a common source. One like myself might see that the stories of the Greek heroes are veiled with as much mystery and wonder as is the stories of the Nephilim, the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men. I am not suggesting that Genesis is merely telling fantasy fables. I am suggesting that the record of what was in the human collective memory when Genesis was compiled was probably thinking upon a time from which the Greek poets were also thinking about. That none of them knew all the details is of no surprise, nor does it mean that what they recorded was false (in the case of the Genesis record). Let us remember, Genesis, indeed the whole Holy Bible, is not intended to be a history book. The Holy Bible, including Genesis, is an inspirational book, or rather collection of books, intended to relate the story of how God relates to us.

 

Well, this is not the first time I find myself in strong disagreement with Marcia. I have checked some of the references used in Two Babylons, in particular some of the linguistic references, and find them accurately used. With the understanding that he may have gone a little far with some of his conclusions (and even that is debatable!), what he found linguistically was entirely accurate from what I can find.

And that, actually, is what this thread was referring to from the start.

Here is some information from a couple of the footnotes in Two Babylons which have to do with the original questions asked:

The name for bull or ruler is, in Hebrew without points, Shur, which in Chaldee becomes Tur. From Tur, in the sense of a bull, comes the Latin Taurus; and from the same word, in the sense of a ruler Turannus, which originally had no evil meaning. thus, in these well-known classical words, we have evidence of the operation of the very principle which caused the defied Assyrian kings to be represented under the form of the man-bull.

Unless I am wrong, the word 'tyrant' also relates back to that original word.

From the text itself comes another explanation, and this from the chapter "The Child in Assyria":
There was another way in which Nimrod's power was symbolised besides by the "horn." A synonym for Gheber, "The mighty one," was "Abir," while "Aber" also signified a "wing." Nimrod, as Head and Captain of those men of war, by whom he surrounded himself, and who were the instruments of establishing his power, was "Baal-aberin," "Lord of the mighty ones." But "Baal -abirin" (pronounced in nearly the same way) signified "The winged one," and therefore in symbol he was represented, notonly as a horned bull, but as at once a horned and winged bull -- as showing not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones under his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, and to put down all opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the vast extent of his might, he was represented with treat and wide-expanding wings.

Hislop goes on to show how this symbolism was known to the Hebrews and, indeed, shows up in their Scriptures:

To this mode of representing the mighty kinds of Babylong and Assyria, who imitated Nimrod and his successors, there is manifest allusion in Isaiah viii. 6-8: "For as much as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong andmighty, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he shall reach even unto the neck; and the STRETCHING OUT OF HIS WINGS SHALL FILL the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel."

Minus all paranoia about the book, I hope that helps with some of your original question, Lorrie.

And yes, mythology DOES stem from what happened in Genesis. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that. They legends and mythologies of all cultures relate back to the true and original history which we have in Genesis. This has been a field of study of mine for years and I have absolutely NO doubt about the veracity of that statement. However it is not from Genesis 6 that our mythologies arise, but from the generations immediately after the Flood.

Out of my own curiosity, I did a quick check on one of Marcia's quoted references -- that of something round being associated with manna in Exodus 16:14. The word which the King James translates as 'round thing' is 'chacpac.' It is used once and only that time in the entire Bible. It is from an unused root meaning 'to peel'. This does NOT necessarily mean 'round'! The NIV translates the word, and more correctly, I think, as 'flakes'. There is no sense, except in the translators' minds, in which this manna is round.

However, if we remember that the King James was translated under the auspices of a King who was head of the Church of England, which is not so very far removed from the Roman Catholic church, I think we can see why the 'round' was a preferred word -- it supported their use of the round wafer in the Eucharist (and not the other way around).

So I definitely stand by the research in Two Babylons.