The Nephilim

[Gabriel Elijah]

Jude, and the Holy Spirit, took a small part of that to be quoted as imspired history, correct?

correct

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I believe this is only true of the Codex Alexandrinus. Have you found it to be different? The print copy I have is, I believe, from Codex Vaticanus, with Lancelot Brenton's translation in English. It has υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Thanks, again.

And yes--only the codex Alexandrius has 'angels' most other LXX copies have 'hioi tou theou'='sons of God'

 

[Happy]

Due to angels not being flesh and blood and having sperm?

What says they do not have sperm?
What says they can not appear in the flesh?
Does a spirit need blood to exist?

 

[JonC]

What says they do not have sperm?
What says they can not appear in the flesh?
Does a spirit need blood to exist?

The reason many reject the idea that angels can father children with human women is that God said his created things reproduce after its own kind. If this is true, then angels can no more marry a woman and father a man than a man can marry a cat and father a kitten. Yes, there were angels who abandoned their "proper" place and rebelled against God. But no, they did not nullify God's words, nor trump His design. Like produces like. This is what Scripture says, anyway. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

BTW, if you want a word for what you believe it is gnosticism. The reason you stray from God's Word is that you lean on this "understanding of God" which ventures beyond Scripture and into divine special revelation.

 

[Happy]

[edited]

Tradition makes it's way into how we view Scripture.

Tradition? It may be your tradition to read and follow along after the book of Enoch...but not mine.

It is probably the reason you automatically assign to "sons of God" the meaning of angels (as by Genesis 6 the term has never been used to describe angels....and angels have not been described as capable of fathering children).

Your traditions, is probably the reason I believe what I do? LOL

And why again do you speak JUNK, I never said?

I absolutely said nothing about "automatically assigning" anything!
I was very clear how I arrive at what I believe.

While the "traditional view" of the passage is the line of Seth and Cain, the idea that these were angels predates this traditional view. The Jews had a very "rich" mythology about angels, and to be fair much of it was based on their history. But associated beliefs do make their way into our view of things (most Americans believe they have certain Constitutional rights, but many have probably never actually read the Constitution itself).

[Edited]

There is a reason you assign the Nelphilim as being fathered by angels

No kidding!

and it is not the two passages that speak of Nelphilim as Scripture does not offer such a definition.

No kidding....The WHOLE of Scripture gives knowledge.

We are to test doctrine by God's Word (not by special revelation others claim to have received apart from Scripture).

Perhaps these were angels (I do not see how they could be fallen angels as the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 do not appear to be evil and their children seem to be "men of renown"). I am all for holding to what we believe to be correct. It becomes heresy, in this case, when we do so because we believe to possess "the understanding of God" on such topics.

You have said WHO you say are the "sons of God" in Gen 6. Correct? You called them human men. Correct?

How did you determine the "sons of God" in Gen 6, are human men?

How about you NAME one of those "sons of God", Gen 6 whom you call human men?

 

[Happy]

The reason many reject the idea that angels can father children with human women is that God said his created things reproduce after its own kind.

Could you provide a scripture saying what you said. I looked, but could not find such.

If this is true,

If what you said is true, it has not yet been verified by Scripture.

BTW, if you want a word for what you believe it is gnosticism.

BTW, you are NOT qualified to label what I believe.

The reason you stray from God's Word

I don't. But only you know the reason why you give false testimony against me.
In the secular world, that is called lying. And people who lie are called liars.

[/QUOTE]is that you lean on this "understanding of God" which ventures beyond Scripture and into divine special revelation.[/QUOTE]

First I seek it, and when I receive it, absolutely, I trust it and I lean on it.

Of course it is Divine and beyond what is written in Scripture.
[Edited - personal insults removed]

 

[rsr]

I wonder how much the apocryphal book of Enoch has effected Christian thinking, past and present, on this passage?

A very good point. Identification of the Nephilim was angels was common in the Second Temple period, as represented in Enoch. It did not fall out of favor until after the destruction of the temple and the rise of rabbinic Judaism, whose teachers suppressed the interpretation. Thus many early Christians would have identified Nephilim as angels because of Jewish tradition.

 

[JonC]

Could you provide a scripture saying what you said. I looked, but could not find such.

Genesis 1:24 sets forth the principle that procreation is after one's kind. Werewolves and fish people are things of fiction.

If what you said is true, it has not yet been verified by Scripture.

Correction - it is verified by Scripture. You just have not found it yet (just as you have yet to discover the word for "logic" in Scripture....although it is also there).

BTW, you are NOT qualified to label what I believe.

I am not labeling what but how you believe. Other's also believe that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are angels, but they believe it as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Your type of belief exceeds this, by your own admission. You, ultimately, present yourself as your own source of authority. The belief type you hold - that this information has come to you by special divine revelation as you have received the "understanding of God" which others lack....but that they may also receive if they pray and study correctly...so that you can understand more than God has revealed in His Word IS GNOSTIC BY DEFINITION. Anyone with a dictionary is qualified to label you Gnostic.

I don't. But only you know the reason why you give false testimony against me.
In the secular world, that is called lying. And people who lie are called liars.

MY comment was that your view exceeded God's revealed Word (you go beyond Scripture in your view). And you call me a liar. BUT You did...again....in the very next sentence:

Of course it is Divine and beyond what is written in Scripture.

You have said WHO you say are the "sons of God" in Gen 6. Correct? You called them human men. Correct?

How did you determine the "sons of God" in Gen 6, are human men?

How about you NAME one of those "sons of God", Gen 6 whom you call human men?

Yes, I called them human men. The reason I determined the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 to be men (human men) are several.

First, chapter divisions are late additions to Scripture. If we read Genesis 1-7 without division then we come across one angel (Satan), and his interaction is nothing like these "sons of God" who marry "daughters of men". If "sons of God" means "angels" then this is a very odd way of introducing angels on the scene (and only for this one verse).

Second, what the author of Genesis has been discussing up to this point is two people groups. Then it is mentioned that one group of beings married the daughters of another group of beings. It seems logical that the author, given no change in topic, is dealing with the godly men as "sons of God" and the worldly women as "daughters of men". In other words, interpreting "sons of God" as human men continues the topic that had been discussed from Gen 4 to the point "sons of God" is introduced AND the topic that is discussed immediately after this point as God judges mankind (not angels).

Third, as mentioned, the Flood is God's judgment against man (not angels).

Fourth, the children of these "sons of God" are called "mighty men" or Nephilim or "giants". These are described as heroes, men of renown. There is nothing in the language that suggests these people were demonic. They were men of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw the wickedness of man.

Those are the primary reasons I interpret "sons of God" as the men of godly people who intermarried with the ungodly, ultimately contributing to the decline of mankind and God's judgment of a flood.

I've already covered why I reject the angelic interpretation.

 

[rsr]

Good try, Jon, but some folks have their minds made up, whether because of obstinacy or "a word from the Lord," and will not budge.

 

[Happy]

Genesis 1:24 sets forth the principle that procreation is after one's kind. Werewolves and fish people are things of fiction.
Correction - it is verified by Scripture.

You said;

JonC said: ↑
The reason many reject the idea that angels can father children with human women is that God said his created things reproduce after its own kind.

I asked :

Could you provide a scripture saying what you said. I looked, but could not find such.

JonC said: ↑
Genesis 1:24 sets forth the principle that procreation is after one's kind.
Correction - it is verified by Scripture.

Correction: What God SAID, in Gen 1:24, applies to what came OUT of the Earth.
Do you think "ANGELS" came out of the earth?

Gen 1
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Want to try again and actually provide a scripture that applies to ANGELS, which was the point?

 

[Happy]

I also have a relationship with God. And I can also say that God, through His Spirit, led me to my conclusion (that what has not been definitely revealed in Scripture is not going to be revealed to me or anyone else via special revelation as it is not the point of the revelation). The difference in our interpretations, however, is that my view is directly from Scripture where as yours introduces "angels" for the first and only time into a passage that does not deal with angels.

The belief type you hold - that this information has come to you by special divine revelation as you have received the "understanding of God" which others lack....but that they may also receive if they pray and study correctly...so that you can understand more than God has revealed in His Word IS GNOSTIC BY DEFINITION. Anyone with a dictionary is qualified to label you Gnostic.

So, when "I" said I have a relationship with the Divine Lord who gives me His understanding, and I trust what he teaches me............you are qualified to label me a Gnostic?

And, you say you have a relationship with God, through His Spirit, leads you to your conclusion.......then by your own thought process you must be a Gnostic....LOL

ANYONE with the very basic comprehension of Scripture would know, a relationship with the Lord IS SPIRITUAL, NOT MYSTIC!

Thus, as I said; you are not qualified to label me or my beliefs as Gnostic!

Nice try, but as I said, you would do well to not speak FOR ME, or imply things FOR ME, that I have not said of myself, BECAUSE your words, are NOT the TRUTH of what I believe.

 

[JonC]

You said;



I asked :

Could you provide a scripture saying what you said. I looked, but could not find such.



Correction: What God SAID, in Gen 1:24, applies to what came OUT of the Earth.
Do you think "ANGELS" came out of the earth?

Gen 1
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Want to try again and actually provide a scripture that applies to ANGELS, which was the point?

Scripture is talking of men, not angels. The flood was a judgment against men, not angels. Men marry and bear children, not angels. There are no passages describing the procreation of angels because such is of myth and not Scripture. Gods Word tells us angels are of the heavenly realm, even those who left their proper place belong to this category (e.g., the struggle with wickedness in the heavenly realm).

 

[JonC]

So, when "I" said I have a relationship with the Divine Lord who gives me His understanding, and I trust what he teaches me............you are qualified to label me a Gnostic?

Again, anyone with a dictionary is qualified to label you Gnostic. And I know this is true because I have a relationship with God and his Spirit lives in me and reveals to me truth in His Word. One of these truths that God has revealed is that His revelation is complete and the fullest revelation of God to man is in the form of His Son.

Another thing that God has revealed to me is that He does not teach what He has not revealed of Him self already in Scripture, and God has even gone so far as to instruct me to test anything others may say by this standard. Not only that, but I am to dismiss what does not pass this test as false doctrine. This is why I dismiss your method of gaining "the understanding of God" to know "Divine" knowledge that is "beyond what is written in Scripture" (your words describing your belief which I define as "Gnostic").

This is the difference between you and others who believe these "sons of God" are angels ... people like @Dr. Bob and @Gabriel Elijah. They arrive at their belief via Scripture. While I disagree with their interpretation and may argue against it (and they mine), they don't claim that God has granted them "the understanding of God" as "divine" revelation "beyond what is written in Scripture". Instead they have based their conclusions on Scripture itself, placing those who disagree as a disagreement of interpretation. You can't understand this (how there can be more than one meaning based on the text alone....although, of course, only one true meaning) because you base your belief on knowledge beyond the Word of God.

What God has unveiled to me is that people, like you, who seek "divine knowledge" beyond what God has revealed in His Word, and beyond what the Spirit unveils through Scripture are of the Gnostic type who do indeed receive doctrine but not the kind that is of God. Your argument here is with God, not me.

And I never claimed that my words were "truth of what you believe". I said that you hold what you believe falsely. I have no problem with people who believe that angels fathered children, although I disagree with that conclusion. I do take issue to Christians who arrive at their beliefs through extra-biblical "divine" special revelations from "God". The reason I take issue is that God has taught me through His Word that this is not how He operates,but is how the enemy works. God has taught me to test these spirits by Scripture and to reject the type of "understanding" you claim to hold. And again, your argument is with God and not me.

 

[Happy]

Continued

You should have learned;

"sons of God".... IS always and ONLY....a reference to that which IS HOLY.

Angels WHO keep their place, or otherwise KEEP their HOLINESS, are "sons of God".

Men WHO "become" submissive in faithfulness, "are called", "sons of God".

And it was NOT until Christ JESUS' arrival on earth, that such term "son of God", was revealed applicable unto MEN!

Gen 6... IS a reference to HOLY Angels WHO came TO earth.

Once ON EARTH....they SAW "daughters of men" (humans).

Scripture reveals, the HOLY ANGELS, were attracted to the beauty of the daughters of men.

Scripture reveals, they TOOK human women to be their wives.

THAT immediately SHOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR NOTICE....

THOSE Holy "sons of God", INSTANTLY, FELL AWAY from being HOLY!

God never sends His Holy angels to earth, to lust, to marry, or to reproduce with humans.

THOSE Holy "sons of God", were "not" booted out of heaven. They came to earth, as HOLY Angels, and committed their rejection of Gods Word, WHILE, they were on earth.

THEY became cast in to HELL. (someplace lower than the surface of the earth).

UNLIKE satan, who committed his rejection of Gods Word, IN Heaven, thus was cast one step down to earth (and later will be cast another step down to hell,) for his consequence of his behavior while on earth.

Angels HAVE POWER given them of God.
Their POWER is NOT removed, when they fall away from being Holy.
They still have the POWER to appear in the flesh, in the likeness as a man.

And Gen 6, reveals HUMAN women, saw them as men, and married them, and had a relation with them, and had children with them.

HOLY angels do not reproduce.....NOTHING says, unholy angels, can not reproduce! As a matter of fact....Gen 6 reveals the could and did!

And subsequent Scripture notifies you, The unholy angels, were REMOVED from the EARTH....and their "unholy" offspring were killed in the flood.

What you should have learned is ONLY 8 were SAVED from the flood waters. It never says 8 "sons of God" were saved from
from the flood waters.

Subsequent text reveals, AFTER the flood, there were also giants., which should have notified you,; someone of the 8 saved, would not CHOOSE to become Holy unto God, (by rejecting His Word).

You also should have learned, WHO in the OT, became Holy (by choosing to BE faithful to Gods Word) and WHO didn't.

And Again, THOSE men in the OT, who were faithful to Gods Word, NEVER had the KNOWLEDGE to call ANY man a "son of God".

It is subsequent knowledge, THAT THAT term is applied to the faithful to Gods Word.

Your attempt to subvert, Gen 6, by your subsequent knowledge, is FLAWED.....OUT OF CONTEXT of the author of Gen 6.

Your subsequent knowledge is irrelevant. You did not write the text in Gen 6.

TO properly comprehend what the author of Gen 6 is revealing, is according to HIS KNOWLEDGE, not yours.

And your babbling on and on about HOW I come to understanding Scripture, is ALSO FLAWED.

Your accusations, saying, I don't consider Scripture is false.
Your accusations, saying, I rely on mysticism is false.

I fully study Scripture, and I ask the Lord for His understanding to that which I diligently study in Scripture.

I stated I have a relationship with the Lord, and trust what He reveals to me.

ANYONE with any basic comprehension of Scripture, would know, a relationship with the Lord IS Spiritual, not mysticism as you falsely testified against me.

You stated your claim, you believe the "sons of God" in Gen 6 were humans.

I do not agree with you. Scripture does not agree with you.

And the really comical thing is;
Nothing I have said to you is false. And repeatedly you have conjured up your own words and IMPLIED they were my words, when they were not. Repeatedly you have made FALSE claims against me. (such as... I did not call you a liar...and I do not believe in mysticism as you called my beliefs Gnostic) and .... it is my posts that have been edited, not yours!

WHY? Because YOU say, you are immune to what I say to you, LOL. If that were true, there was no reason for my posts to be edited.

And WHY are none of your posts to me edited? Because I say, there is nothing you can say that affects me negatively. I don't tap that little "report" button, mor am I an "administrator" who can edit posts.....I simply meant what I said.

And BTW, while you keep mocking, me having a relationship with the Lord, and He revealing His understanding to me.....because I say it IS beyond what is written in Scripture.....IS Scriptural....that ONLY God gives His understanding to individuals....BECAUSE it is NOT written in ink on paper (which you would KNOW, IF you studied Scripture)...

and then after MOCKING ME.....you claim, the Lord gives you some incite to Scripture!

LOL.... WELL ain't that special! If I claim that....it is something you MOCK. If you claim that....WHAT? You are not into mocking yourself? LOL

[Name calling edited]

 

[Revmitchell]

Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

 

[Happy]

Again, anyone with a dictionary is qualified to label you Gnostic.

Based on what? Gnostic belief is based on mysticism. WHEN DID I SAY my faith is based on mysticism?

Oh, That's RIGHT, I didn't. What I did say, is I have a relationship with the Lord. And somehow that means to you, a belief based in mysticism?

What a load of nonsense, and your twisted implications and false testimony against me.

And I know this is true because I have a relationship with God

Thus you must be a Gnostic.

 

[Revmitchell]

Question: "What is Christian Gnosticism?"

Answer: There is actually no such thing as Christian Gnosticism, because true Christianity and Gnosticism are mutually exclusive systems of belief. The principles of Gnosticism contradict what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, while some forms of Gnosticism may claim to be Christian, they are in fact decidedly non-Christian.

Gnosticism was perhaps the most dangerous heresy that threatened the early church during the first three centuries. Influenced by such philosophers as Plato, Gnosticism is based on two false premises. First, it espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body, even the grossest sin, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.

Second, Gnostics claim to possess an elevated knowledge, a “higher truth” known only to a certain few. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know.” Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plane of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God.

What is Christian Gnosticism?

 

[Happy]

Deu 32:8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

When you use a modern Bible, that takes out of context what OT men knew, you preach out of context.

It was not revealed men could be "called" sons of God, BEFORE the NEW TESTAMENT.

Deut 32
[8] When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

John 1
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

[Happy]

Question: "What is Christian Gnosticism?"

Answer: There is actually no such thing as Christian Gnosticism, because true Christianity and Gnosticism are mutually exclusive systems of belief. The principles of Gnosticism contradict what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, while some forms of Gnosticism may claim to be Christian, they are in fact decidedly non-Christian.

Gnosticism was perhaps the most dangerous heresy that threatened the early church during the first three centuries. Influenced by such philosophers as Plato, Gnosticism is based on two false premises. First, it espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good. As a result of this presupposition, Gnostics believe anything done in the body, even the grossest sin, has no meaning because real life exists in the spirit realm only.

Second, Gnostics claim to possess an elevated knowledge, a “higher truth” known only to a certain few. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know.” Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plane of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God.

What is Christian Gnosticism?

The topic of this thread is not Gnosticism or if there is such a thing as Christian Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was introduced to this thread by Jon, in one of his deflections from the topic, when he falsely, called my beliefs Gnostic.

 

[Revmitchell]

The topic of this thread is not Gnosticism or if there is such a thing as Christian Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was introduced to this thread by Jon, in one of his deflections from the topic, when he falsely, called my beliefs Gnostic.

Whether or not Jon is wrong about you is one thing, and his posts are anything but a deflection. He is well read, and very thoughtful on things he chooses to speak about. He has no need to "deflect".