The Nephilim

[Gabriel Elijah]

No, I have not read it, except bits and pieces regarding this subject in Genesis 6. It did not influence me, except to influence me to think a lot of what is called the Book of Enoch is pretty wacky. I would say, though, that a person who has not read it could be influenced indirectly through those who have. It is not unusual to see the Book of Enoch referenced by those writing about Jude's letter and Genesis 6.

The Book of Enoch demonstrates that the angels' view existed by that time or was created by its author. Other sources, maybe only slightly later, refer to it as well -- for example, the Targum Jonathan and the Genesis Apocryphon.

On the other hand, there are other pre-New Testament era records that refer to these as men rather than angels, using terms such as sons of the mighty, sons of the rulers and sons of Judges -- e.g. Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti. [There is supposed to be a translation of Targum Neofiti HERE. Either Genesis 6 hasn't been added or I don't know how to navigate the site.] These expressions probably better support what might be called the Despotic or Divine Rulers view rather than the Sethite view.

None of this proves much, other than historically at least two views of Genesis Chapter Six pre-dated New Testament times.[/QUOT

Not any pre-NT evidence for any view other then angelic of Gen 6--the 1st historical recorded of anything other does not come until the late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. That being said--there is one version of Jasher that seems to suggest something else--but the modern translation we have of this copy is highly debated. And in all honesty although Josephus verifies the angelic view--I've always personally felt he paid a lot of attention to Seth in his rendition of events & if I was a Sethite supporter I'd try & look into that more--now as far as the dates of historical interpretation--these came from when I wrote my thesis on this topic in 2006--so maybe some other dates have come out since then--but they'd have to pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls--which are older then Targum copies we have--regardless interesting point

Not any pre-NT evidence for any view other then angelic of Gen 6--the 1st historical recorded of anything other does not come until the late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. That being said--there is one version of Jasher that seems to suggest something else--but the modern translation we have of this copy is highly debated. And in all honesty although Josephus verifies the angelic view--I've always personally felt he paid a lot of attention to Seth in his rendition of events & if I was a Sethite supporter I'd try & look into that more--now as far as the dates of historical interpretation--these came from when I wrote my thesis on this topic in 2006--so maybe some other dates have come out since then--but they'd have to pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls--which are older then Targum copies we have--regardless interesting point

 

[Yeshua1]

Not any pre-NT evidence for any view other then angelic of Gen 6--the 1st historical recorded of anything other does not come until the late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. That being said--there is one version of Jasher that seems to suggest something else--but the modern translation we have of this copy is highly debated. And in all honesty although Josephus verifies the angelic view--I've always personally felt he paid a lot of attention to Seth in his rendition of events & if I was a Sethite supporter I'd try & look into that more--now as far as the dates of historical interpretation--these came from when I wrote my thesis on this topic in 2006--so maybe some other dates have come out since then--but they'd have to pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls--which are older then Targum copies we have--regardless interesting point

It seems that the authors were aware of them being angels that fell, but many would not see them as being able to procreate as reason to reject...

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

No, I have not read it, except bits and pieces regarding this subject in Genesis 6. It did not influence me, except to influence me to think a lot of what is called the Book of Enoch is pretty wacky. I would say, though, that a person who has not read it could be influenced indirectly through those who have. It is not unusual to see the Book of Enoch referenced by those writing about Jude's letter and Genesis 6.

The Book of Enoch demonstrates that the angels' view existed by that time or was created by its author. Other sources, maybe only slightly later, refer to it as well -- for example, the Targum Jonathan and the Genesis Apocryphon.

On the other hand, there are other pre-New Testament era records that refer to these as men rather than angels, using terms such as sons of the mighty, sons of the rulers and sons of Judges -- e.g. Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti. [There is supposed to be a translation of Targum Neofiti HERE. Either Genesis 6 hasn't been added or I don't know how to navigate the site.] These expressions probably better support what might be called the Despotic or Divine Rulers view rather than the Sethite view.

None of this proves much, other than historically at least two views of Genesis Chapter Six pre-dated New Testament times.

just checked my thesis--the source I have footnoted there is --Philip Alexander, 'The Targumim & Early Exegesis of 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6," Journal of Jewish Studies 23, no. 1 (1972): 61--if that helps any

 

[Happy]

If our Savior were not human we are all lost.

This is how you know the Spirit of God:
Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God
But every spirit that does not confess is not from God.
This is the spirit of the antichrist; you have heard that he is coming, and he is already in the world now.
1 John 4:2-3
​

Rob

IF our Savior IS "human", a "thing" created from Dust, we are all lost.

Scripture notifies us;
the BODY, the FLESH of a Human is CREATED from Dust, and comes FROM the created EARTH and Returns to DUST of the Earth.

Scripture notifies us;
the BODY, the FLESH of Jesus was PREPARED, was something Jesus TOOK UPON HIMSELF, came FROM Heaven, and RETURNED to Heaven.

If you take a COAT upon your self, are YOU A COAT?
Do you not consider what you are IS BENEATH the COAT?

Are you unaware, MEN can not SEE God? Or why?
Are you unaware, God has communicated with mankind "face to face", with a COVER, keeping mankind from SEEING Him?

IF, it was Gods plan for mankind to see Him "AS HE IS", from the beginning, TO THIS Day.....why do you think, Scripture teaches, mankind is being PREPARED, and in waiting to SEE Him "AS HE IS"?

What do you think that means? Mankind is waiting to SEE Him, the same as men saw Him in the past, with COVER, that he can not be seen, AS He is?

Jesus took the prepared BODY of Flesh, upon Himself.....Don't you comprehend there IS a "Himself", "without a Flesh" body.

Heb.10

1. [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Again, what about when he was not in this world?

What world was he in? And WHY did he not require a BODY of FLESH then?

John.18
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:

My Lord and Savior is NOT a human.
My Lord and Savior is Spirit, is Life, is Truth, is Power.

 

[rlvaughn]

Not any pre-NT evidence for any view other then angelic of Gen 6--the 1st historical recorded of anything other does not come until the late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation.

Wasn't thinking so much of an interpretation as just the words written (iow, choice that would seem to reference men rather than angels) and McNamara posited a 3rd or 4th century date for Targum Neofiti (no doubt that is a controversial opinion).

That being said--there is one version of Jasher that seems to suggest something else--but the modern translation we have of this copy is highly debated.

This translation by J. H. Parry Company?

And in all honesty although Josephus verifies the angelic view--I've always personally felt he paid a lot of attention to Seth in his rendition of events & if I was a Sethite supporter I'd try & look into that more

Interesting, 1:73 is clear for angels. What parts are you referring to?

 

[Yeshua1]

IF our Savior IS "human", a "thing" created from Dust, we are all lost.

Scripture notifies us;
the BODY, the FLESH of a Human is CREATED from Dust, and comes FROM the created EARTH and Returns to DUST of the Earth.

Scripture notifies us;
the BODY, the FLESH of Jesus was PREPARED, was something Jesus TOOK UPON HIMSELF, came FROM Heaven, and RETURNED to Heaven.

If you take a COAT upon your self, are YOU A COAT?
Do you not consider what you are IS BENEATH the COAT?

Are you unaware, MEN can not SEE God? Or why?
Are you unaware, God has communicated with mankind "face to face", with a COVER, keeping mankind from SEEING Him?

IF, it was Gods plan for mankind to see Him "AS HE IS", from the beginning, TO THIS Day.....why do you think, Scripture teaches, mankind is being PREPARED, and in waiting to SEE Him "AS HE IS"?

What do you think that means? Mankind is waiting to SEE Him, the same as men saw Him in the past, with COVER, that he can not be seen, AS He is?

Jesus took the prepared BODY of Flesh, upon Himself.....Don't you comprehend there IS a "Himself", "without a Flesh" body.

Heb.10

1. [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Again, what about when he was not in this world?

What world was he in? And WHY did he not require a BODY of FLESH then?

John.18
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:

My Lord and Savior is NOT a human.
My Lord and Savior is Spirit, is Life, is Truth, is Power.

Jesus HAD to be human in order to qualify as the messiah!

 

[Happy]

It seems that the authors were aware of them being angels that fell, but many would not see them as being able to procreate as reason to reject...

but many would not see them as being able to procreate

And WHY would anyone come to that conclusion?

 

[Yeshua1]

And WHY would anyone come to that conclusion?

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

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Wasn't thinking so much of an interpretation as just the words written (iow, choice that would seem to reference men rather than angels) and McNamara posited a 3rd or 4th century date for Targum Neofiti (no doubt that is a controversial opinion). This translation by J. H. Parry Company? Interesting, 1:73 is clear for angels. What parts are you referring to?

before I say anything else--remember I am all in on the angelic interpretation of Gen 6--& it pains me to even give help to a theory I wholeheartedly disagree with--& Josephus clearly affirms the early understanding of the angelic view--but in Antiq of Jews chpt 2:3--after he summarizes Adam, Abel, Cain--he stops & pays a lot of attention to Seth calling him 'virtuous' & 'excellent character'--then says 'so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. All these proved to be of good dispositions...' --now remember in no way do i support the Sethite view--but my 1st agenda is proper understanding of Scripture--& this statement made me actually stop & reevaluate the possible evidence for a Sethite understanding--although it did not change my mind--if I was a Sethite guy--I'd look closer at this idea

 

[JonC]

Correct!



Because you say so?

[edited - insults removed]

Rom 1
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

2Tim.2

1. 
   
   
   • [7] Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

God has revealed to me several truths through His Word (truths that you reject). These include that angels do not father children, that the Flood was not a judgment upon the children of angels and human women but on human beings, that this judgment was not because of angelic sin but because of the sin of mankind, and many more things that may or may not be beyond your grasp.

Yet you suggest that I abandon what God has taught me to accept what you believe is true? Do you think yourself greater than God?

Scripture, not "Happy" is our authority because it is God's revelation of Himself to mankind. You would do well to learn that. Every time it comes down to believing your opinion over God's revelation I will choose God's Word. By comparison your ideas are just not that important to me.

 

[JonC]

Seems that would be dependent upon who has read the book of Enoch.

Have you read it?
Did it influence you?

I can't speak to that, since I have not read it.

No, actually it does not. Tradition makes it's way into how we view Scripture. 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).

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).

There is a reason you assign the Nelphilim as being fathered by angels and it is not the two passages that speak of Nelphilim as Scripture does not offer such a definition. This alone tells us that God has not revealed to man all of the things that we may want to know. 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.

 

[Happy]

He seems to hold to having special revelation right from God,

Correct.

as he denies the trinity,

False.

and denies that Jesus was even human!

Correct.

 

[Happy]

Jesus HAD to be human in order to qualify as the messiah!

No. Jesus HAD to fulfill the LAW, in order to qualify as the Messiah.

 

[rlvaughn]

just checked my thesis--the source I have footnoted there is --Philip Alexander, 'The Targumim & Early Exegesis of 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6," Journal of Jewish Studies 23, no. 1 (1972): 61--if that helps any

Yes, it does. Found it is available at Journal of Jewish Studies Archives, for free institutional use or purchase of pdf. Searching for that I also ran up on Alexander’s “From the Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch.”

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Yes, it does. Found it is available at Journal of Jewish Studies Archives, for free institutional use or purchase of pdf. Searching for that I also ran up on Alexander’s “From the Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch.”

if you can find anything by George W E Nickelsburg on 1 Enoch--it will be very helpful for the development of 1 enoch--he has a few articles & 1 big commentary on the text

 

[Happy]

No, I have not read it, except bits and pieces regarding this subject in Genesis 6. It did not influence me, except to influence me to think a lot of what is called the Book of Enoch is pretty wacky. I would say, though, that a person who has not read it could be influenced indirectly through those who have. It is not unusual to see the Book of Enoch referenced by those writing about Jude's letter and Genesis 6.

Thanks for your response.
As stated, I have not read it, nor had anyone teaching me from from the book of Enoch.

On the other hand, there are other pre-New Testament era records that refer to these as men rather than angels, using terms such as sons of the mighty, sons of the rulers and sons of Judges -- e.g. Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti. [There is supposed to be a translation of Targum Neofiti HERE. Either Genesis 6 hasn't been added or I don't know how to navigate the site.] These expressions probably better support what might be called the Despotic or Divine Rulers view rather than the Sethite view.

sons of God was the point. What else "things" may be called, was not the point.

[/QUOTE]None of this proves much, other than historically at least two views of Genesis Chapter Six pre-dated New Testament times.[/QUOTE]

It is not much of a mystery, when one knows, who, what, when and why the title "son of God" is applicable.

just sayin...

 

[Yeshua1]

Correct.



False.



Correct.

If one denies the humanity of Jesus, denies the trinity, so holds to heresy!

 

[Yeshua1]

if you can find anything by George W E Nickelsburg on 1 Enoch--it will be very helpful for the development of 1 enoch--he has a few articles & 1 big commentary on the text

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

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Jesus HAD to fulfill the LAW, in order to qualify as the Messiah.

ONLY a man could die, and since he was also God, His death was all sufficient!

 

[rlvaughn]

In addition, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) actually translates Gen 6 as angels, although some scholars question if this is original.

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.

if you can find anything by George W E Nickelsburg on 1 Enoch--it will be very helpful for the development of 1 enoch--he has a few articles & 1 big commentary on the text

Thanks, again.